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

Private company landing on the moon today

intuitivemachines.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 286 posts

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#261

Post by austinjp »

ewjt wrote: post #201
austinjp wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's an extreme position to take that rests on the claim that sponsorship/advertising is objectively bad. Media & journalism have been underpinned by advertising for over a century. Tons of educational and informative services are available to the public for free because of advertising. Sponsorship has built art galleries, hospital wings, research centers, etc. In this case, there's a relatively innocuous logo on a…

Whether advertising is objectively bad isn't necessarily the debate, but at some point it can cross a line. That line might be different for everyone, but most people will have it. You yourself give an example of something you suggest might be unaccaptable to some:

> billboard in a nature preserve

Where's the line? Why shouldn't we put billboards in nature preserves?

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#262

Post by adriand »

godelski wrote: post #225
rkagerer wrote: post #207

Ridiculous this isn't more prominent in mainstream news. Eg. I open Google News to stories of killers and a new real estate tax and some sort of scandal by an actor. This is why I come to HN instead.

Edit: Front page of a few sites Reuters: See the right part of the image https://imgur.com/VpGAIBl CNN: https://imgur.com/TzRtit8 AP News: https://imgur.com/OgrtzrC NBC: Not so apparent but there https://imgur.com/7itvGeh NYT: Also not obvious https://imgur.com/4DMDqr0 NPR: Gotta scroll: https://imgur.com/dp5UDCq I found it on Fox News by search and it's a fair scroll down. I also found in MSNBC by search, but actual…

It's been the #1 headline story on the NYT for a couple of hours at least now. They had the live feed on the homepage too.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#264

Post by fastneutron »

op00to wrote: post #247
adastra22 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

400 watts would cause RF burns at 2.4 ghz.

And most people have a 1200 watt version in their kitchen for that exact purpose!

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#265

Post by iisan7 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #232

Update: communications have been a bit glitchy but the craft has made a safe landing and is transmitting data. Was watching NASA administrator Bill Nelson's congratulatory message; can't help wondering if he also recorded a commiseration one looking to the future in case it didn't work...

As I was watching it, I was thinking that if I were responsible for planning the scripts, I would have been kicking myself for not recording one for an ambiguous circumstance, or incomplete success. As it was it was a little disjointed.

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#266

Post by hughesjj »

dspillett wrote: post #109
pavel_lishin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assumed that space was noisy enough that things like wifi wouldn't work on the lunar surface.

If basic radio worked for talking between suits and the landing craft in '69, it surely shouldn't be a surprise that modern frequency-hopping, error corrected, wireless comms, with much more sensitive equipment would work well?

And all of that without an appreciable atmosphere to get in the way

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#269

Post by danlugo92 »

adityaathalye wrote: post #2

The private lander's mission control looks like the proverbial two-pizza team. Would it that the silent revolution in spaceflight, hidden under the glamour of reusable rockets, is incredibly sophisticated telemetry, communication, on-board automation? A computing stack that's making the 1x mission control a 10x mission control? I understand there will be other teams elsewhere (delivery vehicle, remote sensing etc. et…

> A computing stack that's making the 1x mission control a 10x mission control

Isn't this obvious...? Given SpaceX's auto-pilot mission to the moon and all of these latest missions to asteroids and such...?

BTW They land on asteroids because they already have enough rock moons, asteroids are more varied than different surfaces of the moon, no conspiracy here.

(I upvoted you BTW)

Re: Private company landing on the moon today

#270

Post by CatWChainsaw »

sergent_moon wrote: post #75
Communitivity wrote: post #8

[flagged]

I'm glad you said what you said. I am dismayed by the sheer number of transparently bad faith "just asking questions" happening in the comments here.

Techbros would sterotypically enjoy negging and policing female existence, so it's dismaying but not surprising.
Post reply on HN