[deleted]
Private company landing on the moon today
211–220 of 286 posts
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
How dare they attempt to defray their costs.
How dare they put an ad on the moon. We are truly spreading the worst of humanity into the cosmos. Good job it's only us that appear able to witness it. Defraying costs by using ads is a strawman. If you can't afford to do something, maybe don't do it. If you really, really want to do it, maybe ask yourself if the world genuinely needs what you're doing. If it does, find a way. If the only way you can do it is by sel…
It's almost as bad as when they put the Castile flag on the Santa Maria!
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#213Now to the problem with YouTube, and I'm sick and tired of reporting this, because by now they should have an automated solution for this, look at this link:
https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/im1
Channels named "SpaceX [LIVE]" [0], "SpaceX" (which is actually @uyenmusic with 148.000 subscribers), and so on.
Most of these channels have no videos except for that single live stream, occasionally inserting QR-codes with crypto-scams. Like the first one I mentioned.
> Huge crypto-giveaway during to the launch!
> During this unique event, you have the opportunity to take a share of 1.000 BTC & 10.000 ETH & 100.000.000 DOGE & 10.000.000 USDT. Have a look at the rules and don't miss out on this. You can only participate once!
And the most interesting thing about this video is that they are using AI to make Elon Musk say that you should scan the QR-code and that you will get the crypto. 100% sounds like him.
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because of different frequencies and power caps that are enforced by the FCC. If your WiFi broadcast with the same power, the frequency space would be unusable by your neighbors for their WiFi. The range of WiFi is very purposefully sabotaged to make it useful for more than just you.
Assuming you are talking about FCC Part 15 regulations for 2.4 GHz, you couldn't be more wrong. There is no 'sabotage' The EIRP is 4 watts in 2.4 GHz band. More than enough to wipe out your neighbors. Also more than enough to get absolutely tremendous range in line of sight conditions. I can purchase and install an unlimited number of 2.4 GHz Part 15 devices, rendering the band useless to anyone so long as I am attem…
Why isn’t the limit 40 watts? Or 400? Why is there a limit at all?
You can pedantically criticize the use of the word “sabotage”, but then you’d be entirely missing the point.
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
But observations need powerful domestic telescopes. If you're NASA, you own and have access to them.
No, as an American, you own them. NASA just administrates them for you. If you're a space faring private company, you contract out the various parts of the mission. You didn't build a rocket, you hired SpaceX. You didn't build the relay network, you licensed access time. You don't build a space observation platform, you license time to use them.
> as an American, you own them. NASA just administrates them for you
Across public and private spheres, the word “ownership” loses meaning. (Nobody “owns” NASA or the U.S. government, though they do “belong”to we the people.) That’s why, in ownership disputes between nations and under the law, the operant term is “control.”
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, For All Mankind is a great show for people who are excited about this kind of stuff. It's an alternative-history fictional drama exploring "What if" the space race never ended.
Yep. Highly enjoyed its Season 1, but I wished I never watched any further - it feels complete at this point and the later seasons destroy the impression. Kind of like with The Matrix. Note: some people have an opposite opinion, that the interesting stuff starts at Season 3.
Agreed, Season 1 was by far the best. I'm re-watching the whole thing with my spouse and in some ways it's more fun the second time around (surely biased because of the shared experience).
Some shows are like that - I didn't think Star Trek Deep Space Nine was all that hot first time around, appreciated it much more years later on a rewatch (the supporting characters are awesome). Maybe in part it's adjusted expectations ;-).
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have two. One on each side. Doesn't matter if one ends up in the regolith.
Have three, 120 degrees apart. They'll double as backup landing legs.
Wouldn’t be any better. You’d need 4 to be able to reliably land with one pointed out of the regolith. That’s probably pushing it in terms of mass. 3 wouldn’t be any better than 2 though.
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#218Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#219Now to the problem with YouTube, and I'm sick and tired of reporting this, because by now they should have an automated solution for this, look at this link: https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/im1 Channels named "SpaceX [LIVE]" [0], "SpaceX" (which is actually @uyenmusic with 148.000 subscribers), and so on. Most of these channels have no videos except for that single live stream, occasionally inserting QR-codes with cr…
That livestream [0] looks like a pretty convincing scam to me, with 22k people viewing at the moment. And it indeed sounds like him. The real username is hidden behind the visible SpaceX[Live] name.
Re: Private company landing on the moon today
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you'd wanted to make the stronger case, you could have used those numbers the first time. ;)
I fail to see how you made a valid counter argument though.
There isn't one. You're right. You were just using shock numbers to argue it, when the fair numbers did so better.