• Bahnd Rollard
    link
    fedilink
    English
    205 months ago

    And a statistically large number of those people that we sent up there were from Ohio, one can assume because they were trying to get as far away from Ohio as possible.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      135 months ago

      Soviets had no interest in going to the moon (yet) and were more focused on living in space before going outside earth’s orbit. The US was waving it in public on its own

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          65 months ago

          Not seeing how building a rocket to compete with Saturn V means they were also racing to the moon

          From the references of the wiki article on the N1 rocket

          https://web.archive.org/web/20161031200800/http://www.starbase1.co.uk/pages/n1-project-history.html

          Salyut and Mir prove the Soviet’s focus was on manned missions in low earth orbit and not the moon, and considering nobody has gone back to the moon since they’ve made the right call

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            265 months ago

            You don’t need anything that powerful for earth orbit. Salut and Mir launched on much less ambitious rockets. They became the focus after the moon race was decided.

            Wikipedia

            The N1-L3 version was designed to compete with the United States Apollo program to land a person on the Moon, using a similar lunar orbit rendezvous method. The basic N1 launch vehicle had three stages, which were to carry the L3 lunar payload into low Earth orbit with two cosmonauts. The L3 contained one stage for trans-lunar injection; another stage used for mid-course corrections, lunar orbit insertion, and the first part of the descent to the lunar surface; a single-pilot LK Lander spacecraft; and a two-pilot Soyuz 7K-LOK lunar orbital spacecraft for return to Earth.

            You build an N1 or Saturn V to go to the moon.

            Had the N1 launched without incident, the Soviets were on target to get a man on the moon first. When the Soviet Union fell all the details of the program became available.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              25 months ago

              So if they were racing the US to the moon why didn’t they also publicly proclaim their intent to go to the moon? They rejected the race, tried to make a Saturn V, didn’t work, moved on. Hardly seems like a race to me

              From the references in that same wikipedia article you’re referencing, the one I linked in my comment:

              "On June 23, 1960 the USSR gave the go ahead to the N-1 project via a decree: "On the Development of Powerful Launch vehicles, Satellites, Spacecraft, and Space Exploration 1960-1967". This was Sergei Korolev’s design for a family of launchers, the key one being the largest, the N-1.

              This initial design while a powerful heavy lift rocket, had a planned payload capacity of 75 tonnes - a lot less than that for a lunar landing mission. Korolev was thinking flyby missions of Mars, which require a much lighter payload."

              Why is it so hard to accept the moon landing was just pompous Americanism?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                155 months ago

                The whole thing was about national pride on both sides. The soviets didn’t admit they were striving for the same thing because they never wanted to be seen to lose. Their pattern was always the same:

                • They didn’t say they were working towards having the first satellite. They just announced it when they were successfully.
                • They didn’t say they were working towards having the first living animal in space. They just announced it when they were successfully.
                • They didn’t say they were working towards having the first man in space. They just announced it when they were successfully.
                • They didn’t say they were working towards having the first man on the moon. They just denied it when they were unsuccessful.

                However, the Soviet lunar program was confirmed many years after the fact under Gorbachev’s policy of Glastnost when the Soviet Union fell. The Soviet Lunar program is fact. Their lunar landers were built just months after the US. Some still exist. There’s one on loan for display at Disneyland in Paris. I’ve seen another at the London Science Museum. Russia loans them out to show how advanced they were at the time. To take pride in what they accomplished, and rightly so.

                This is all very public, yet you’re trying to convince me that 50yo face saving propaganda is the truth?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        The US wanted to beat the Soviets at space, and the reality was when it came heavy lifting rockets the soviets were way, way ahead. The moonshot was a different problem that would require a different solution than simply “bigger rocket,” so the US made that the goal. They weren’t sure they could beat the Russians to the moon, but they knew they couldn’t beat them in a lifting contest for something like a space station.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    125 months ago

    With a spaceship which reach a huge percent of lightspeed, the occupants can reach in short time many of the exoplanets in the Milky Way, only for the observer on Earth it last thousends of years. But this isn’t important, after the rich people in the Spaceship had destroyed the Earth.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    35 months ago

    So this isn’t a joke? Wouldn’t that make the universe 46.5B years old? Very big bang.

    • Another Catgirl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25 months ago

      The observed objects 46.5 giga ly away are about the same age as the age of the universe, but they have gotten further away from us in the time since they emitted the photons we’re now observing.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    45 months ago

    Probably a little heavy for a meme community, but why do images rendered of the observable universe appear symmetrical?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      75 months ago

      Not an expert, but an enthusiast. The universe can typically be considered homogeneous and isotropic on a large scale (it looks the same in all areas, and also looks similar no matter which direction you happen to be looking) for the sake of understanding and performing physical calculations. The beach may also be considered homogeneous and isototropic, but we know that if we dig down, we’ll find interesting materials, organisms, and even various grades of sand (for context).

      The universe is roughly symmetrical even though there are structures and features of great complexity when you look close enough (such as atoms, you, me, horses, and icebergs). This is probably because the universe originated from a single infinitely dense point where there wasn’t room for much diversity or clumping of matter. As the universe expanded, random quantum fluctuations and coalescence, perhaps due to gravity and the various electrical and atomic forces, is to thank for the formation of elements, stars, and galaxies, over the last 14 billion years (or however old the Universe is supposed to be).

      Anyways. It’s represented as symmetrical because it’s convenient and true on a large scale, but its always more complicated the deeper you look.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        The symmetry is the interesting part. It’s Earth-centric symmetry. I don’t know if it’s a failure on the artist’s part, but the age appears to increase equally in all directions from the center point of the field. That’s why the question. One would think that it would be uneven, no “center”.

  • Lovable Sidekick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Unless you believe UFO stories where humans are working with aliens on a Mars base, or where they take humans back to their planet to study. Not that I do, but I want to cuz it would be cool.

  • Draconic NEO
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    What are you talking about, we all know the lunar landings were faked to bankrupt the soviets /j

    Seriously though, best bet for long distance space exploration just like they said in that movie is to find a wormhole. It’s probably the only real way to travel across the universe in any reasonable amount of time.

    Edit: Do people not get the movie reference to Interstellar?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Why would it bankrupt the them when the Soviets were never going to the moon?

      At least, that’s what some people seem to believe.

      • Draconic NEO
        link
        fedilink
        English
        15 months ago

        Not sure, I guess the idea is that in the film they were saying they faked the space race to get the Soviets to work harder and waste money, but it doesn’t really make sense and I think that’s the whole point. It’s meant to be absurd propaganda.

        spoiler

        Which is why in the movie, cooper isn’t at all mad that his daughter got into a fist fight with some kids over them believing and denying the original real textbooks which explain how man did actually land on the moon.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        55 months ago

        If Musk guts NASA, then surely it would be in an attempt to benefit SpaceX and himself, e.g. by removing regulations or funneling more money to SpaceX, and with that accelerating his Moon landing program, not pushing it back.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          75 months ago

          You assume his goal is actually to get to Mars, not just dangle that as a dream in front of people while siphoning off billions of tax dollars.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I didn’t say anything about Mars, I only meant the Moon mission, which I assume would slightly push the record further just because the longer duration would give more opportunity for the wobble of the Moon’s orbit to get the astronauts further than before.

            Granted, SpaceX could also just fail to get to the Moon.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          Considering his successes with Tesla I doubt it would get the desired results. But spacex does have some very smart cookies, so you might be on to something.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    565 months ago

    Considering the relative speed of literally everything we can experience as humans, and that light ranks at the tippy top of every single one of them as INSTANT in pretty much any context other than math homework, it’s honestly pretty fucking wild that we not only got humans 1.3 light-seconds away from Earth, but got them back alive to tell about it.

    That is straight up amazing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      135 months ago

      Yes and no. I get the point and do actually agree whole heartedly but I think it obscures the reality that we’ve been observing solar systems as they existed millions of years ago.