• Canis_76@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

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

    • Another Catgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 hours 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.

    • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      3 days 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

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days 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.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Impressive rewriting of history.

        I guess the N1 was never built, right?

        • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          3 days 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

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            3 days 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.

            • passiveaggressivesonar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              20
              ·
              2 days 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?

              • wewbull@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                2 days 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?

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days 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.

  • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days 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.

      • dev_null@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days 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.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 days 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.

          • dev_null@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days 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.

        • KomfortablesKissen@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days 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.

  • Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    You’re right, let’s send 1 person into the fuck of space just to say we did it.

    I’m not being sarcastic.

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Let’s invent teleportation, then use the teleporter to merge them into a homunculus flesh beast, and then launch that thing into the sun.

        Unrelated, but I thought it would be a good idea.

        • ebolapie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          What if the homunculus argues that it, as a new and distinct being, has committed no crimes, and deserves to live? What if it begs for its life as you load it into the teleporter to split it back up into your science officer and annoying morale officer shoot it into the sun?

        • P00ptart@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Homunculus is a little person that is proportional. You cant merge two tall, fat fucks and get one little person. 4 or 5 homunculi, maybe. But not one.

    • SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Like build one really really big space trabuchet, loaded with a space hotel with all the amenities possible for basically a one way generational ship. Then blast those fuckers towards alpha centari and call it a decade.

      Oh, and just for fun, give them one life pod but it only holds 20 people.

      But the real kicker? …they never left the ground And it’s all televised.

      The launch sequence? Really fast merry go round.

      The “artificial gravity”? Lol

      The infinite food sources vending machines? Catering.

    • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Sure but even if we had stuck someone on voyager 1, it’s only 23 light hours away and has been going almost 50 years.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 days ago

      They are not moving faster than light.

      The distance between us and them is increasing at a rate than means light leaving earth now could not ever reach them. Such is the impact of an expanding universe.

  • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days 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.

  • zante@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    No problem once we build the improbability drive engine.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

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

    • FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days 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.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days 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”.