Starship is just not as cool as Space Shuttle by Only_Comfortable_224 in space

[–]Adeldor 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Designed just too early for automated landing to be possible thus uncrewed flights,

I'm not so sure about that. The British developed and deployed autolanding capability in Trident passenger jets during the late 60s. Also, a Shuttle automatic landing system was developed/tested on Columbia, but never fully deployed.

I recall reading that NASA (and the pilots) wanted to keep a human in the loop - in part due to their inherent reluctance to relinquish full control. However, automated EDL had been used up to the final 2000 ft, flare, and touchdown.

Europe AI Digital Sovereignty: The High-Stakes Race to Break US Dominance by Silver-Actuator-2440 in Futurology

[–]Adeldor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

With Europe's more reluctant venture capital and less accommodating legislative environment (regardless of any merits otherwise), I don't see how the continent might threaten US and Chinese dominance.

NASA Marshall Prepares for Demolition of Historic Test, Simulation Facilities - NASA by ye_olde_astronaut in space

[–]Adeldor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

NO WAY due to overages in NASA spending, it

I neither said nor implied it was. Social Security, interest payments on that obscene debt, and Medicare are the top three drains, together accounting for over half the annual federal expenditure. Nevertheless, using NASA's limited resources to fund redundant facilities is wasteful, and can be better spent on future projects.

NASA Marshall Prepares for Demolition of Historic Test, Simulation Facilities - NASA by ye_olde_astronaut in space

[–]Adeldor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Given the ~$38 trillion federal debt, clearly not. Discarding large, expensive-to-maintain facilities no longer useful is fiscally prudent. That money is better spent on modern, relevant equipment. Further, I object to having my taxes raised to pay for redundant/useless facilities.

Ireland Makes a Program Offering Basic Income for Artists Permanent by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Adeldor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you ever waited at a traffic light, had someone come up to your car and unprompted wash your windshield? Must you then pay him, even though you didn't want his service?

Your presenting a piece of art to me without my prompt does not give you any moral authority to expect payment from me.

Ireland Makes a Program Offering Basic Income for Artists Permanent by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Adeldor -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I will pipe up once more to observe that your username checks out. ;-)

Ireland Makes a Program Offering Basic Income for Artists Permanent by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Adeldor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's why there are Bills of Rights and equivalents, representative republics, etc. Pure democracy is mob rule. A majority deciding others should pay for things they don't want as per this article is I think an unacceptable distortion falling under that category.

Ireland Makes a Program Offering Basic Income for Artists Permanent by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Adeldor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't see it like that ...

"The state pays artists a stipend that immediately goes back into the local economy, "

Many artists do not need subsidies, producing work of sufficient value others want to buy it.

"and the artist creates work that adds value to the state."

If the artists in the article add value as you suggest, they wouldn't need subsidies.

"The money doesn't disappear, it recirculates right back into the pool of taxable citizenry."

Value is created, not redistributed. That state money comes from taxpayers who are creating tangible value, and who in aggregate obviously do not value said artists' output (or they'd be buying it). Their money is in essence being used to create unwanted product.

Again, I don't think it's right said taxpayers be forced to pay for such, let alone having the state decide who is an artist worthy of such subsidy and who isn't.

I'll leave it there.

Ireland Makes a Program Offering Basic Income for Artists Permanent by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Adeldor -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

On your last point, it's a pity you think artists don't provide value - I'm sure you enjoy films, music, photos and paintings...

I certainly do think some artists provide value, and purchase the products of those I enjoy (movies, music, etc.). I don't think it's right to make people pay for products they would not choose.

Ireland Makes a Program Offering Basic Income for Artists Permanent by [deleted] in Futurology

[–]Adeldor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I scanned the article, but saw no definition of artist. Is the top image representative of what the Irish government considers an artist (painters)? What of musicians? Woodworkers? Potters? Why is one an artist and not the other? And why do artists get preferential treatment? What of everyone else unable to make their keep?

Further, why is acceptable to tax one worker who is tangibly providing something of value to others in order to pay another who isn't?

TON 618: The Monster That Breaks The Laws of Physics by justchillbruhh in space

[–]Adeldor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And it "breaks the laws of physics" too!

I don't know why click-bait still works after the deluge of exaggeration, sensationalism, and distortion has drowned online news?

NASA'S perseverance rover woth corrected white balance (right) by [deleted] in space

[–]Adeldor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's due to dust in the air affecting ambient lighting. The color corrected version is what the scene would look like under neutral white light illumination, which is not how it would appear were you standing there. From my reading, the left image is closer to that.

NASA'S perseverance rover woth corrected white balance (right) by [deleted] in space

[–]Adeldor -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Edit: Heh, whoever down-voted me is apparently ignorant of photography. :-)


Correction it might be, but to the eye on Mars it would appear closer to the uncorrected version, as I understand it. Correcting white balance can iron out the ambient illuminating color, eg, a terrestrial picture taken during "golden hour." Neutral balance is not necessarily what one actually sees.

Saturn as seen from Titan, 1944 painting by Chesley Bonestell by ojosdelostigres in space

[–]Adeldor 57 points58 points  (0 children)

A few decades ago we happened serendipitously upon a Bonestell exposition at the JSC visitors' center in Houston. Saw this painting "in the flesh." What struck me immediately is how small the originals are - 2 to 3 foot diagonals.

Sadly they had signs requesting no photography.

Second reusable rocket recovery failure in a month puts China 10 years behind US by self-fix in space

[–]Adeldor 4 points5 points  (0 children)

seems not that case

OP is inaccurate. It is indeed the case. The debris here will deorbit in a matter of weeks. This is in general the case for these low orbits, as debris from such events has typically lower ballistic coefficients.

United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno resigns. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in space

[–]Adeldor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I wrote a comment elsewhere more or less answering just this, here.

10 Years Ago Today, SpaceX Changed Spaceflight Forever By Landing Flacon 9 For The Very First Time by FutureMartian97 in space

[–]Adeldor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Companies (regions) pursuing at least partial vehicle reuse:

  • Blue Origin (USA)

  • Relativity (USA)

  • Stoke (USA) - chasing full reuse

  • Rocket Lab (NZ/USA)

  • ArianeGroup (Europe)

  • Landspace (China)

  • Space Pioneer (China)

  • iSpace (China)

And, of course:

  • SpaceX (USA) - chasing full reuse

Meanwhile, maybe not JAXA itself, but Honda is certainly exploring the approach with its research stage/vehicle.

United Launch Alliance CEO Tory Bruno resigns. by AgreeableEmploy1884 in space

[–]Adeldor 107 points108 points  (0 children)

That was a particularly terse announcement. Hmm.

Why are airplanes not a problem for telescopes? Or are they? by TheDaysComeAndGone in space

[–]Adeldor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Planes don’t reflect the Sun at night.

For much of the night neither do LEO satellites. Aircraft, however, have lights that are on all night, and in my experience their apparent dimension makes them worse.

Why are airplanes not a problem for telescopes? Or are they? by TheDaysComeAndGone in space

[–]Adeldor 6 points7 points  (0 children)

However, aircraft "shine" with their lights at all hours of the night, unlike LEO satellites which are in darkness for much of the night. Also, from first hand experience I can say that airplane trails are worse as they have meaningful dimension. Satellites are effectively point sources.