That works in a lot of other businesses, but Elon's companies don't play by the usual rules of just trying to be slightly better than the competition.

There is no sane business reason to build Starship. Yet they're going all in on it.

[removed]

>I mean, aren't gas giants just "failed" stars that never got big enough?

No one knows.

See, the article talks about how previous theories are no longer necessarily applicable - which means everything we've been assuming about this stuff now gets rechecked, because right there in front of us is proof that what we believed before... ain't so.

It disrupts the presumed accuracy of every model that has relied on the previous interpretation. All speculation that relied on the previous theories for validity is now suspect, and how much of a rewrite will need to happen is yet to be determined.

Which is a constant in all facets of science, just btw. Every discovery, from the coronal loop optical illusion theory to the actual diameter of Terra's atmosphere, to the true electromagnetic strength of Sol, even the existence of tectonic plates... are updates to what humans believed was completely true.

"Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow." - K, MIB

Some minds refuse to accept new data if it contradicts what they believed before. Other minds are eager to accept and integrate new concepts. Reckon we're all finding the happy balance between both guidances?

Unsolicited Advice: Don't worry about the emotional stability of internet randos - if they're adults, they know it's their job to regulate their own feelings. If they're children, they'll blame you whenever they're unhappy anyway.

Your zen should be far more precious than internet rando opinions. 🖖

[removed]

[removed]

It would be cool to have a non euclidean space telescope though

[removed]

Anyone have a brief synopsis of what's on the docket?

I think the entire premise of the current mission design shows that Starship will pick up the ball if SLS drops anything and when SLS is inevitably retired. There will be no landing on the moon without Starship and that fact they plan on Starship getting itself to lunar orbit, it seems NASA is pretty convinced it can do the entire thing itself, you just need to increase stores aboard for a longer period of crew residence.

[removed]

The visual of the protomolecule falling into Venus from the show is still so hauntingly beautiful

Any pretense you read the article? 🤔

This.

The idea that human theories of the universe have any inherent credibility is patently absurd - like an infant in the womb asserting how things work on other continents, based solely on their limited experiences under vastly different circumstances.

Everything humans "know" is a guess that might be wrong.

Every mistake we discover is an opportunity to celebrate how many more options there truly are in the universe.

[removed]

Yeah, that's essentially it. Here's an ESA presentation that goes into a little more detail, since as you've guessed it's slightly more complicated: https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Operations/Libration_point_orbits

I was a kid during the Apollo missions, my grandfather used to bring me stuff from the rocket Center in Houston. I never understood why they never carried forward with the plans to build a permanent base, of course there were some other things they didn't do as well including a orbiting space station. I'd like to believe the government would get this done but I'm starting to think we're going to need these billionaires to do the right thing instead. The second anyone starts making money off of mining in space it'll blow up

The Artemis 1 launch was amazing. I've always been sad that it's been so long since the last time humans went to the Moon. Over 50 years since the last landing, long before I was born. I can't wait for the Artemis 2 flyby and the Artemis 3 landing this decade. I really hope Buzz and the other surviving Apollo astronauts live to see it.

Even though I have been somewhat critical of the SLS rocket because of its high cost & delayed development & lack of innovation I hope it happens & doesn't end up like yet another Constellation program. I'd like to see humans on the moon within my lifetime.

So If I understand you right, the satellites dont sit stationary on the exact point.

Instead they orbit around the point, and thats possible because there is a circle (ellipse?) you can draw around the Earth-Sun L2 point that is equipotential, due to the radially symmetric pull of the Earth-Sun (if radius is defined as a perpendicular to an axis straight through the Earth and Sun)

> "By subtracting the visible matter, we can calculate the presence of the dark matter which is in between," [Euclid project manager] Racca said.

This reminds me of this great nugget brought to us by the department of redundancy department:

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.

Euclid sounds so cool, it's a nice name for it.

Hope it does not actually find some non-euclidean geometric spaces in space, tho. That would be frightening.

I can see them really clear where I am east coast us when it gets dark it’s amazing

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]