On one hand, the private competition to match mature, 60 year old technology makes sense. NASA should be focused well out past the bleeding edge.
But being private companies, do they publish their science and research like NASA does? Is development of space tech moving forward in proprietary silos?
Maybe part of goverment funding, which many or all of these projects have, should be publishing the science (if they don't publish it already).
Then you'd have a lot more cars stopping in front of you. Next time you pass a bus, look at all the people inside, and then imagine each of them, on the same block, in their private cars.
And even without that effect, okay you remove 2% of traffic, the driving experience is pretty much the same even without anyone being directly behind a bus.
Based on the fact that cars are not linked together like a train. Cars can go different routes from one another and can go to different destinations. This spreads them out more over them all being in the same place.
So some people on the bus in front of you would drive cars on other streets, and some people on buses on other streets will drive cars on your street; there's no reason your street will have a net benefit.
That's especially true because there will be far more cars on the road.
funny how the moon is almost exactly 400x smaller and 400x closer then the sun, perfectly sized for solar eclipess – makes you wonder how lucky we are to study coronal ejections and anomalies like that.
like im sure that not common right? maybe it is i dunno
The thing about sentient life is we are always finding it odd that everything seems just right for our evolution when that's why it happened in the first place.
Temperatures, resources, distances, orbits, etc.
If there's a world out there without a moon and could not really see other plants and stars, would they have developed the math and science that we have without such motivation? Maybe but slower?
But without our extra large moon, at the right mass and distance, helping tides and lighting the night for hunting, would life even exist? Maybe but not as advanced or a lot slower evolution?
(it's kinda like that Star Trek Voyager episode where they inspire a planet to industrialize after being trapped in their orbit in a dramatic time dilation)
> If there's a world out there without a moon and could not really see other plants and stars, would they have developed the math and science that we have without such motivation? Maybe but slower?
They would have other advantages and disadvantages, and develop math for different reasons. Then they'd look at our planet and say, 'lacking our conditions, how could they develop mathematics?'
Yes but that’s an argument for why life bearing planets might have larger moons relative to the planet’s size, how would the moon’s apparent size relative to the sun influence evolution?
It's somewhat of a demonstration/argument of the anthropic principle
Because we're here and that appears to be a "special case" and rare and no other life spotted (yet) elsewhere, it might very well be the reason we are here at all (that we haven't figured out yet)
It certainly enabled math and science to progress because it was accidentally possible to calculate distances because of that size/distance particularity even before telescopes and computers, though I realize that's not biological evolution
fascinating, you made me dig further. Apparently the existence of the moon allowed:
Ancient Past, Navigation, Tidal patterns enabled early coastal navigation and fishing patterns, critical for survival; Prehistory, Evolution of Life, Stabilization of Earth's axial tilt led to climate stability, promoting diverse ecosystems; Early Civilization, Timekeeping, Regular lunar cycles allowed ancient societies to develop lunar calendars and plan agriculture; Ancient Astronomy, Observing Celestial Events, Solar eclipses (due to perfect alignment) inspired early understanding of the cosmos; Future, Gravitational Lensing Studies, Its size and distance offer a natural model to study lensing phenomena and gravitational effects; Far Future, Space Colonization, Potential base for observing the universe free from Earth's atmospheric interference.
Couldn't you study coronal ejections just as well if the moon were bigger? You wouldn't see them on all sides of the moon at once, but in return you'd have more total solar eclipses.
From an aesthetic point of view, we're uniquely lucky to have the moon just the right size for beautiful eclipse phenomena like the diamond ring, but for science I don't think it makes a big difference.
Apparently if being the perfect size allows for this: Gravitational lensing verification during a solar eclipse relies on the Sun being just barely covered to observe the bending of starlight near its edge.
If the Moon were significantly larger than the Sun:
The Moon would block not just the Sun but also the surrounding starlight, making it impossible to observe the light bending around the Sun’s edge.
As a result, Einstein’s prediction of light bending around the Sun, famously confirmed during the 1919 eclipse, would not have been observable.
I used chatgpt i ahve no idea wat it means
EDIT> previous comment i made was unhelpful because i forgot how to read
This is nonsense. You don't need to observe the entire edge of the sun's disk to observe gravitational lensing. A partial view would work just as well.
> I used chatgpt i ahve no idea wat it means
Please don't do that. You're just filling the comment section with misleading noise.
You are right in that I should not have been light hearted about using chatgpt, but it isn't noise , it is a rebuttal to your point that the size of the moon can be larger without it affecting the number of mass coronal ejections which can be studied, which is wrong.
You then changed your assertion for some odd reason (Ignoratio elenchi) have half through the discussion.
Weirdest thing is, I only typed out my comments to try and help you learn something new which is pretty ungrateful on your side, You also seemingly downvoted me too. A simple thanks man I didnt know that would of sufficed.
It's extremely rare. It occurs nowhere else in the solar system, and isn't even true for the vast majority of Earth's history and future. We could survey a million exoplanets and likely not find even one single other example.
Imagine an all-blonde beach party in Siciliy. Pretty rare right?
So is a beach party where everyone is tall, or short, or has the same name, or a beach party during which there's an earthquake, a meteor etc etc.
All would be rare events, but there are so many rare events that could possibly happen that is is not that rare to witness something rare, especially if we are looking for that.
Therefore witnessing a rare event may not mean much.
I do worry the incentives for this will always be at the whim of state support for exploration, unfortunately there's no natural incentive to really kick private spaceflight off in a major way
I cannot believe the old Apple naming scheme is still hanging around, I get that I'm irrationally hating this style of name but I just don't understand, why do I see it as peak lack of creativity?
It's like whenever you can't think of a name for something just go with e-thing or i-thing
Up there is also “Spacr” or “Spacely”. Then next is naming your company after some famous scientist or engineer. Then adding X to it. Then naming it a division of an existing company. Then naming it after a living person. Then naming it something new.
I think the most creative name would likely just be a UUID.
Seriously, I wish each company would use a UUID as an alternate name. Same for each programming language, software project, and so on. The UUID should be on all their web pages.
People who write articles or blogs about them should use the normal name but somewhere should have a table giving the UUIDs of the things they mention.
Then when people are trying to find pages about things with names that are terrible for searching like X or Go they could use the UUID.
Didn’t IBM and others use it before Apple? IBM iSeries came out before the iMac. I think a few companies were using small e and i at the time for the “cool” factor. Intel jumped on the bandwagon after the iMac, IIRC.
It's not really better with the startup scene everyone here knows and loves. The hard -r apps that just won't go away (from Flickr to Grindr), endless Libyan domains that slowly gave way to -ify and other fads.
It seems to be a matter of timing. The "r" fad happened when some important niches were being opened. The ly and ify fads just don't seem to have coincided with anything anyone needed or wanted.
I'm sure there's some new fad waiting around the corner in both TLDs and application domains. We'll have to see if any of the apps turn out to be useful and sticks around. The TLD fad will surely explode and then disappear.
Lunar orbiters spend half their time on the far side of the moon, where they can't access earth. You'd need a constellation to provide any kind of emergency system.
There must exist a lunasynchronous orbit that would remain over the earth side of the moon, though I'm not sure if its close enough to the moon to avoid being perturbed by the earth and kicked out.
>There must exist a lunasynchronous orbit that would remain over the earth side of the moon, though I'm not sure if its close enough to the moon to avoid being perturbed by the earth and kicked out.
Selenostationary orbits (The astrodynamics terms generally take the Greek name) are indeed unstable and vulnerable to perturbation. Instead, you can have a trajectory around one of the Earth-Moon LaGrange points (points where the gravitational pull from each body is equal)
A lot of Japanese space companies have come under scrutiny for discrimination against non-Japanese, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination, often by the ex-NASA employees they hired.
The megalomaniac actually did the launch. Other lunar satellites have attracted a bit more attention than this, though, so I'm not sure why this is the first I've heard of it.
Under the news radar is that China has a space station with a recent set of astronauts replacing the old crew, or that Chang’e landed on the moon last year.
On one hand, the private competition to match mature, 60 year old technology makes sense. NASA should be focused well out past the bleeding edge.
But being private companies, do they publish their science and research like NASA does? Is development of space tech moving forward in proprietary silos?
Maybe part of goverment funding, which many or all of these projects have, should be publishing the science (if they don't publish it already).
Like the quip about public transport, particularly busses. Decades go by without a lander, then a lot of them turn up at once.
It's because a bus is allowed to be late but never early.
It's easy to get buses to arrive on time: just get rid of all the cars that get in the way.
It’s easy to drive in the city, just get rid of all the buses that are constantly stopping in front of you.
Then you'd have a lot more cars stopping in front of you. Next time you pass a bus, look at all the people inside, and then imagine each of them, on the same block, in their private cars.
And even without that effect, okay you remove 2% of traffic, the driving experience is pretty much the same even without anyone being directly behind a bus.
>on the same block
Except in reality this wouldn't be the case if people didn't use the bus.
No? What would be the case? Based on what?
One explicit, primary goal of public transit is to move lots of people around in the limited space on a city street.
Based on the fact that cars are not linked together like a train. Cars can go different routes from one another and can go to different destinations. This spreads them out more over them all being in the same place.
So some people on the bus in front of you would drive cars on other streets, and some people on buses on other streets will drive cars on your street; there's no reason your street will have a net benefit.
That's especially true because there will be far more cars on the road.
Hopefully they fixed their toxic culture that caused their previous crash.
https://www.ft.com/content/a891387a-278f-434b-9ff8-791495aaa...
https://archive.is/UiNWf
funny how the moon is almost exactly 400x smaller and 400x closer then the sun, perfectly sized for solar eclipess – makes you wonder how lucky we are to study coronal ejections and anomalies like that.
like im sure that not common right? maybe it is i dunno
The thing about sentient life is we are always finding it odd that everything seems just right for our evolution when that's why it happened in the first place.
Temperatures, resources, distances, orbits, etc.
If there's a world out there without a moon and could not really see other plants and stars, would they have developed the math and science that we have without such motivation? Maybe but slower?
But without our extra large moon, at the right mass and distance, helping tides and lighting the night for hunting, would life even exist? Maybe but not as advanced or a lot slower evolution?
(it's kinda like that Star Trek Voyager episode where they inspire a planet to industrialize after being trapped in their orbit in a dramatic time dilation)
S6E12, "Blink of an Eye": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_of_an_Eye_(Star_Trek:_Vo...
> If there's a world out there without a moon and could not really see other plants and stars, would they have developed the math and science that we have without such motivation? Maybe but slower?
They would have other advantages and disadvantages, and develop math for different reasons. Then they'd look at our planet and say, 'lacking our conditions, how could they develop mathematics?'
Yes but that’s an argument for why life bearing planets might have larger moons relative to the planet’s size, how would the moon’s apparent size relative to the sun influence evolution?
It's somewhat of a demonstration/argument of the anthropic principle
Because we're here and that appears to be a "special case" and rare and no other life spotted (yet) elsewhere, it might very well be the reason we are here at all (that we haven't figured out yet)
It certainly enabled math and science to progress because it was accidentally possible to calculate distances because of that size/distance particularity even before telescopes and computers, though I realize that's not biological evolution
fascinating, you made me dig further. Apparently the existence of the moon allowed:
Ancient Past, Navigation, Tidal patterns enabled early coastal navigation and fishing patterns, critical for survival; Prehistory, Evolution of Life, Stabilization of Earth's axial tilt led to climate stability, promoting diverse ecosystems; Early Civilization, Timekeeping, Regular lunar cycles allowed ancient societies to develop lunar calendars and plan agriculture; Ancient Astronomy, Observing Celestial Events, Solar eclipses (due to perfect alignment) inspired early understanding of the cosmos; Future, Gravitational Lensing Studies, Its size and distance offer a natural model to study lensing phenomena and gravitational effects; Far Future, Space Colonization, Potential base for observing the universe free from Earth's atmospheric interference.
It’s one of many lunar anomalies, read “Who Built the Moon?” by Alan Butler if you’re curious.
For ref: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Who_Built_the_Moon%3F
thx man right up my alley for a read between coding sprints, r u on twitter? we seem to share lunar fascination
Couldn't you study coronal ejections just as well if the moon were bigger? You wouldn't see them on all sides of the moon at once, but in return you'd have more total solar eclipses.
From an aesthetic point of view, we're uniquely lucky to have the moon just the right size for beautiful eclipse phenomena like the diamond ring, but for science I don't think it makes a big difference.
Apparently if being the perfect size allows for this: Gravitational lensing verification during a solar eclipse relies on the Sun being just barely covered to observe the bending of starlight near its edge.
If the Moon were significantly larger than the Sun:
The Moon would block not just the Sun but also the surrounding starlight, making it impossible to observe the light bending around the Sun’s edge.
As a result, Einstein’s prediction of light bending around the Sun, famously confirmed during the 1919 eclipse, would not have been observable.
I used chatgpt i ahve no idea wat it means
EDIT> previous comment i made was unhelpful because i forgot how to read
This is nonsense. You don't need to observe the entire edge of the sun's disk to observe gravitational lensing. A partial view would work just as well.
> I used chatgpt i ahve no idea wat it means
Please don't do that. You're just filling the comment section with misleading noise.
You are right in that I should not have been light hearted about using chatgpt, but it isn't noise , it is a rebuttal to your point that the size of the moon can be larger without it affecting the number of mass coronal ejections which can be studied, which is wrong.
You then changed your assertion for some odd reason (Ignoratio elenchi) have half through the discussion.
Weirdest thing is, I only typed out my comments to try and help you learn something new which is pretty ungrateful on your side, You also seemingly downvoted me too. A simple thanks man I didnt know that would of sufficed.
Quick go make another new throwaway account.
> almost exactly 400x smaller and 400x closer then the sun, perfectly sized for solar eclipess
for now.
this is purely coincidence that you are observing at this point in time, its getting further away
It's extremely rare. It occurs nowhere else in the solar system, and isn't even true for the vast majority of Earth's history and future. We could survey a million exoplanets and likely not find even one single other example.
Neat, though.
There are so many rare things that it is not rare to witness a rare thing.
Like someone's exactly 2.000 meters tall. How rare is that ? Well, just as rare as someone being exactly 1.999 meters talls eh.
It is in context of things which are not rare. For example the number of blondes at a beach party in Italy, which has a large brunette poopulation.
Imagine an all-blonde beach party in Siciliy. Pretty rare right?
So is a beach party where everyone is tall, or short, or has the same name, or a beach party during which there's an earthquake, a meteor etc etc.
All would be rare events, but there are so many rare events that could possibly happen that is is not that rare to witness something rare, especially if we are looking for that.
Therefore witnessing a rare event may not mean much.
This is related to p-hacking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging
It's also a temporary anomaly as the moon has been moving and continues to move further away from the earth. See Lunar Recession.
Temporary on the scale of 600 million years or more
https://archive.is/2024.04.12-145123/https://www.nytimes.com...
Nope, a coincidence. We are extremely lucky
Luck is a funny thing isnt it. My favorite quote is "When skill meets ignorance, we call it luck."
Resilience is such a boring name for a lunar lander given all of the Japanese mythology about the moon. I hope someday there'll be a Kaguya-hime[0].
0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_the_Bamboo_Cutte...
I do worry the incentives for this will always be at the whim of state support for exploration, unfortunately there's no natural incentive to really kick private spaceflight off in a major way
> Tokyo-based ispace
I cannot believe the old Apple naming scheme is still hanging around, I get that I'm irrationally hating this style of name but I just don't understand, why do I see it as peak lack of creativity?
It's like whenever you can't think of a name for something just go with e-thing or i-thing
Up there is also “Spacr” or “Spacely”. Then next is naming your company after some famous scientist or engineer. Then adding X to it. Then naming it a division of an existing company. Then naming it after a living person. Then naming it something new.
I think the most creative name would likely just be a UUID.
Astro/astral/astra seems to be the most overused prefix in the space industry, to the point you really struggle to distinguish between entities
Cf the propulsion startup ThrustMe
Seriously, I wish each company would use a UUID as an alternate name. Same for each programming language, software project, and so on. The UUID should be on all their web pages.
People who write articles or blogs about them should use the normal name but somewhere should have a table giving the UUIDs of the things they mention.
Then when people are trying to find pages about things with names that are terrible for searching like X or Go they could use the UUID.
This is approximately a description of the GNS pet name system. Also DOIs for scientific articles.
A UUID wouldn't be creative, well, except for the very first time.
Sure, they are all unique. But also very high entropy.
Don't forget Spacey McSpaceface.
Didn’t IBM and others use it before Apple? IBM iSeries came out before the iMac. I think a few companies were using small e and i at the time for the “cool” factor. Intel jumped on the bandwagon after the iMac, IIRC.
IBM rebranded AS/400 to iSeries in 2000, which is after the iMac came out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_eServer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac
Cisco had an ios and iphone before apple. though Im not sure the cisco iphone was actually ever released
But AFAIK, Cisco IOS is all caps, not the cool lowercase i and big second letter.
It's not really better with the startup scene everyone here knows and loves. The hard -r apps that just won't go away (from Flickr to Grindr), endless Libyan domains that slowly gave way to -ify and other fads.
It seems to be a matter of timing. The "r" fad happened when some important niches were being opened. The ly and ify fads just don't seem to have coincided with anything anyone needed or wanted.
I'm sure there's some new fad waiting around the corner in both TLDs and application domains. We'll have to see if any of the apps turn out to be useful and sticks around. The TLD fad will surely explode and then disappear.
Maybe it means something different in Japan, where the primary language and cultural impact of Apple is different.
The company started in 2010
I kinda like it in a.. almost retro style.
I would like the lunar satellite to have the ability to broadcast messages to earth. Such an emergency communication, even one way like othernet.is
Lunar orbiters spend half their time on the far side of the moon, where they can't access earth. You'd need a constellation to provide any kind of emergency system.
There must exist a lunasynchronous orbit that would remain over the earth side of the moon, though I'm not sure if its close enough to the moon to avoid being perturbed by the earth and kicked out.
>There must exist a lunasynchronous orbit that would remain over the earth side of the moon, though I'm not sure if its close enough to the moon to avoid being perturbed by the earth and kicked out.
Selenostationary orbits (The astrodynamics terms generally take the Greek name) are indeed unstable and vulnerable to perturbation. Instead, you can have a trajectory around one of the Earth-Moon LaGrange points (points where the gravitational pull from each body is equal)
Is othernet easy to access? The receiver they sell on that website is sold out.
Is there a list of programs available?
I believe the signal was shut down at the end of last year.
It was a long experiment, but just an experiment, since it never found a way to sustain itself economically.
More's the pity; it was really fascinating.
[flagged]
Their CEO is being sued for discrimination by their ex-NASA employees that helped them get off the ground:
https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/japanese-moon-startup...
A lot of Japanese space companies have come under scrutiny for discrimination against non-Japanese, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination, often by the ex-NASA employees they hired.
The megalomaniac actually did the launch. Other lunar satellites have attracted a bit more attention than this, though, so I'm not sure why this is the first I've heard of it.
No, he did not. Multiple teams of very capable people did the launch.
Under the news radar is that China has a space station with a recent set of astronauts replacing the old crew, or that Chang’e landed on the moon last year.
SpaceX did the launch.
No they did not, Firefly did.
UPDATE, my bad did not read properly.
This is actually above the radar.