Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

projectpluto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#21

Post by mannykannot »

petee wrote: post #9
kortilla wrote: post #2

It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.

"In a sense, this remains "circumstantial" evidence. But I would regard it as fairly convincing evidence." "It's unclear when the Chang'e 5-T1 booster would have gone by the moon," Sure sounds definitive now... /s

Given what follows the second quote, it appears to be a simple typo: "It was unclear..." would better fit. Also given what follows, the author seems justified in writing that first quote, which follows the presentation of the reasoning suggesting that it is the Chang'e 5-T1 mission's booster.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#22

Post by raverbashing »

petee wrote: post #9
kortilla wrote: post #2

It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.

"In a sense, this remains "circumstantial" evidence. But I would regard it as fairly convincing evidence." "It's unclear when the Chang'e 5-T1 booster would have gone by the moon," Sure sounds definitive now... /s

Yeah I would try to locate the SpaceX suspected object just in case, and to establish how close it will pass by the moon.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#23

Post by cmeacham98 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #15
cmeacham98 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't participate in any outrage (actually, I'm behind here, this post was the first I'd heard of this story), but this seems like a particularly uncharitable take. The story came from an otherwise-reputable source that made a mistake. Your average person (including even most space enthusiasts) doesn't have the knowledge and expertise to check it themselves other than seeing what other astronomers have to say, and…

No, but you can wait a few days and reserve judgement until it's confirmed by several sources. It's not like it something you need or could act on. Today, the news arrive fast, and the reaction to the news is instant. On the other hand, after several years of covid crisis, my opinion on the whole thing is very much in flux, and when I discuss it with people, I don't give definitive statements, nor raise an outrage. S…

Where's the sources confirming this post? Shouldn't you wait a few days and reserve judgement? I (and I assume you) still don't have any astronomer credentials, for all we know this post is a load of bullshit and the anti-Elon posters were right!

Of course, these questions are rhetorical and to make a point. But I really dislike how when a mistake like this happens people roll out the "oh you should have just waited for fact checking" when it takes me 30 seconds to click their profile and see them commenting on news articles with no sources hours after release.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#24

Post by dr_dshiv »

taneq wrote: post #12
bruce343434 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a relevant Dutch saying here, "high trees catch a lot of wind"

If you're not making anyone mad, you're probably not doing anything important.

That is not a Dutch saying. In the Netherlands, there are literally rap songs extolling the virtues of Normal.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#25

Post by BiteCode_dev »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #23
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but you can wait a few days and reserve judgement until it's confirmed by several sources. It's not like it something you need or could act on. Today, the news arrive fast, and the reaction to the news is instant. On the other hand, after several years of covid crisis, my opinion on the whole thing is very much in flux, and when I discuss it with people, I don't give definitive statements, nor raise an outrage. S…

Where's the sources confirming this post? Shouldn't you wait a few days and reserve judgement? I (and I assume you) still don't have any astronomer credentials, for all we know this post is a load of bullshit and the anti-Elon posters were right! Of course, these questions are rhetorical and to make a point. But I really dislike how when a mistake like this happens people roll out the "oh you should have just waited…

Hence the "if confirmed :)".

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#26

Post by XorNot »

itsoktocry wrote: post #18
kortilla wrote: post #2

It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.

> standard anti-Elon driven outrage. Elon Musk might be the most lionized individual on planet earth. It's hilarious people think the love/hate for him is unbalanced, or that he's "picked on".

There's plenty to hate on Elon for but it's possibly clear that a lot of people are looking for a news article to bandwagon onto rather then having a specific issue or issues they care about.

There were definitely a bunch of people trying to cast around for some reason a booster hitting the moon was just clear disaster (it wasn't and would never be).

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#27

Post by mannykannot »

raverbashing wrote: post #22
petee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In a sense, this remains "circumstantial" evidence. But I would regard it as fairly convincing evidence." "It's unclear when the Chang'e 5-T1 booster would have gone by the moon," Sure sounds definitive now... /s

Yeah I would try to locate the SpaceX suspected object just in case, and to establish how close it will pass by the moon.

The article gives reasons why a definitive answer cannot be given for either object, and also for why the SpaceX booster is a plausible but not-very-likely candidate.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#28

Post by FeepingCreature »

itsoktocry wrote: post #18
kortilla wrote: post #2

It’s quite surprising how little verification went into the original claim that it was a falcon 9 before the outpouring of standard anti-Elon driven outrage.

> standard anti-Elon driven outrage. Elon Musk might be the most lionized individual on planet earth. It's hilarious people think the love/hate for him is unbalanced, or that he's "picked on".

This always depends on where you look.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#29

Post by cmeacham98 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #25
cmeacham98 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the sources confirming this post? Shouldn't you wait a few days and reserve judgement? I (and I assume you) still don't have any astronomer credentials, for all we know this post is a load of bullshit and the anti-Elon posters were right! Of course, these questions are rhetorical and to make a point. But I really dislike how when a mistake like this happens people roll out the "oh you should have just waited…

Hence the "if confirmed :)".

Yeah, I saw that, it was a funny joke. But I hope you aren't seriously implying suffixing your comment with a joke about confirmation changes the fact that you're doing the exact same thing as the anti-Elon comments you're complaining about - attacking someone based on news with little/no additional evidence.

Re: Corrected identification of object about to hit the moon

#30

Post by petee »

mannykannot wrote: post #21
petee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In a sense, this remains "circumstantial" evidence. But I would regard it as fairly convincing evidence." "It's unclear when the Chang'e 5-T1 booster would have gone by the moon," Sure sounds definitive now... /s

Given what follows the second quote, it appears to be a simple typo: "It was unclear..." would better fit. Also given what follows, the author seems justified in writing that first quote, which follows the presentation of the reasoning suggesting that it is the Chang'e 5-T1 mission's booster.

edited: I should have included more context to the second quote. My point being, the one who misidentified it on the first first round due to circumstantial evidence, still is not sure and is basing this new claim on also circumstantial evidence. After that last quote, they go on to say, "If we assume", which is just a sign they are searching for a fit.
Post reply on HN