America flew nine manned lunar orbit missions in the 60’s and 70’s. Apollo 8 didn’t carry a Lunar Module, CM only. 10 did a low pass in their lunar module, 11 and 12 landed, 13 had to abort, 14-17 landed. We gave the rest of the world a 50 year chance to come in tenth and nobody did so here we go again.

Canada gets to umm actually for the rest of time because there was a Canuck on Artemis 2, the rest of you are now jockeying for 11th place.

Rarely. And I’m a ham.

Also: The same party has both houses of Congress who pretty much abdicated their power to the Executive branch.

Humans have flown a total of ten manned missions that involved a Hohmann transfer: Apollo 8, Apollo 10-17, and Artemis 2. All ten flew to the Moon. On a typical Apollo mission, the outward bound coast leg is about 72 hours, between TLI and LOI, during which time they had to do the release-turn around-dock-extract maneuver with the lunar module and do at least one course correction.

We’ve been wasting tax payer dollars for more than half a century now designing and redesigning manned Mars missions that aren’t ever going to fly. Some of the various “artist’s conceptions” over the decades have included various centrifugal gravity solutions, be it the wagon wheel type or the bolas type or whatever. I don’t believe any actual hardware has even begun construction. Before you start worrying about that, you’ve got to 1. have a society healthy enough to fly manned deep space missions, and 2. figure out how to shield the crew from radiation first. Neither of which we have figured out at the moment.

Because the constant rotation complicates things a lot.

Specifically talking about the International Space Station, its main mission is a microgravity laboratory. We put it up there so we can learn about microgravity. Why go through all the expense of putting it up there and then spinning it to make gravity when we get it for free down here on the surface?

As for other craft? We have yet to develop manned spacecraft that can do the duration where it would be worth doing. Even the longer Apollo missions were in space for a whopping two weeks and 2/3 of the crew still landed, got out and stretched their legs. It hasn’t been worth the engineering hassle to do it.

And it is an engineering hassle, because…

1. The ship has to be designed to handle it. It’s under additional stresses, so it’s got to be built tougher to handle it. That’s added weight, and just typing that sentence made at least three rocket scientists cringe to death.

2. Humans actually aren’t great at living in a spin gravity environment. The smaller the radius of the spin, the worse it gets. For one thing, in a centrifuge, there’s a pretty steep gradient in centrifugal/centripetal/pedantic force, the farther toward the rim you are the greater the gravity. For very small distances that can be significant enough to cause problems on its own. But also, spinning humans isn’t good for their vestibular systems. Each of your inner ears has three semi-circular canals filled with fluid, and little hairs that can detect the movement of that fluid. This allows you to sense rotation around three axes, kind of like a gyroscope sensor. This evolved in an environment that rotates a 1 rotation per day, functionally stationary. Spin a human at several RPM and that constant rotation is enough to start throwing off balance, causing nausea etc. So the bigger the radius of the spin, and the slower, the better. That takes more weight, and there go three more rocket scientists.

3. It makes the spacecraft a pain to handle. You need to be able to orient spacecraft in space to point engines, windows, instruments, docking adapters etc. in various stable directions. A constant roll complicates that. “point in this direction and fire the engines” becomes a pain because, say you’re constantly rolling, and you need to change the direction your long axis points. What thrusters do you fire in what combination to steer the ship? Or do you stop the roll, maneuver/use your telescope/dock/whatever, then start rolling again? So now you’ve got to deal with gravity starting and stopping variously throughout the journey. Or, do you design the ship to have sections that do roll and sections that don’t? First, look up “gyroscopic precession” on Wikipedia. Second, wiring, plumbing etc. is a pain in the ass to handle via slip ring, let alone crew access. Third, that adds weight, which…I should probably stop saying that, rocket scientists aren’t cheap to train and that’s nine we’ve killed just in this list.

In conclusion, look what you made me do.

Could the same thing be said about the Apollo program in the 60’s?

Huh, sure enough. Isn’t that amazing.

Yes, because of some shit the company pulled I’m no longer interested in games made in Unity.

Oh we can rule out actual discourse on Lemmy, this platform’s already dead in the water. There’s too many ass burgers on here who will take an extremely literal and narrow interpretation of the series of words you typed ignoring any nuance or implication and assuming the examples you chose to cite are the only that exist. At least a few of them are probably employees of the Russian, North Korean or Chinese governments instructed to add truckloads of bad faith to every corner of the English speaking internet.

By what mechanism does the far side get more sunlight? Because it’s never sees…what would we call them from the Moon’s perspective? Solar eclipses? Terran eclipses? Every single New Moon the far side is fully sunlit, but on occasion on Full Moons the Moon flies through Earth’s shadow?

The far side can get darker than the near side. During the lunar night, the near side experiences earthshine, which is significantly brighter than the moonshine we get here on Earth (Earth is larger in the sky and has a higher albedo; bigger and shinier reflector than the Moon)

I propose we call the near side the dark side, because it has almost all of the maria - the dark basaltic lowlands. The far side of the moon is mostly relatively lighter grey highlands and so appears lighter than the near side.

Venus is difficult to photograph for the same reason as Titan, thick opaque atmosphere. We’ve got radar imagery of Venus, plus the Soviets landed some probes and took a few pictures of the actual hell that surface level Venus is.

We can actually get a pretty good look at Mars from here; This is a picture of Mars taken with Hubble. We have active missions in orbit and on the surface of Mars as well so we can look at it as close as we want.

Meanwhile, this is the best Hubble could do with Pluto. And that’s still inside our own solar system, we’re not getting any photos of the surface of Earth mass planets around other stars.

You’ve only ever seen photographs of one planet with oceans and landmasses, and that’s Earth. The only other celestial body that has a solid surface with liquid on it that we’ve taken pictures of is Saturn’s moon Titan. Titan has a thick opaque atmosphere so we don’t have true-to-life pictures of the surface from space. We’ve got images constructed from radar scans, and this amazing image taken from the surface by the Huygens probe that hitched a ride with Cassini. The hydrocarbon lakes of Titan look like…blobs on a circle.

Every other planetary surface you’ve seen is rocky dirt, icy dirt, straight-up ice, cratery dirt, or opaque gas clouds. Any “earth-like” planet you’ve ever seen is a fictional artist’s conception. And ain’t no human artist who knows shit about plate tectonics compared to the Earth herself, so they draw weird shit that ain’t quite right somehow.

What is visible isn’t actually the far side, they’re less than 90 degrees around to the “left.”

This feature circled in red is called Grimaldi crater:

It is visible from the Earth; here is the view of the Moon you’re probably used to seeing with Grimaldi again circled in red:

You’re an ill-informed English major. You instructed me to call you that, so I did.

The light source for this image is the Sun.

“The dark side of the moon” is a phrase that seems to have a strange effect on people; they seem to use that phrase to incorrectly mean the far side of the moon, and then that puts the idea in their heads that the far side is always dark. It isn’t; the far side is fixed, the dark side is constantly changing.

The Moon is tidally locked to Earth, this means the moon’s rotational speed and its orbital period are the same, the moon rotates once on its axis for every one orbit of the Earth it performs, meaning it doesn’t (significantly) rotate when seen from Earth. No human saw the far side of the moon until the Soviets flew a satellite around it, and only 27 men and 1 woman have ever seen it with their own eyes. Until this week, those numbers were 24 and 0.

It is hidden from us but not from the Sun; we observe the Earth waxing and waning, being full and then half a month later being new. When the moon is new, the near side is in darkness and the far side is in light. On the Lunar surface, a day and night takes an entire month, while the continents and oceans of the Earth hanging still in space overhead whirl past nearly 30 times.

Finally…the image above isn’t the whole far side. About half of the near side is visible; the big dark patch to the right is the Ocean of Storms, most of the Sea of Rain is visible as well. Kepler and Copernicus crater are visible, Tycho is just out of shot, if you look closely you can just barely see one of Tycho’s rays across the Sea of Clouds. That one very dark patch just right of center is Grimaldi crater. All those features are visible from the Earth, in fact two of the Apollo landing sites are visible here, 12 and 14. The very large carter, the dark patch to the left of center of the image is Mare Orientale, which is just barely visible on the edge of the Moon from Earth, from our point of view it’s on the “side”. It’s eastern ridge is visible from Earth but we don’t really see the dark mare itself.

That’s not what “lame duck” means.

A lame duck is a politician who is currently in office but is not eligible for re-election due to term limits. A second-term president is the classic example. Being in power and yet guaranteed to soon not be alters the power dynamic and priorities of said politician.

Donald Trump is a lame duck; in his second of two terms.

Login and startx?

It ain’t free. They’re on the clock, they’re being paid.

Pilot here. I’m afraid of running rotors and propellers because they can fucking mince you. I worked on Rotax 912-powered aircraft for awhile, they have twin carburetors that have to be balanced, ie the throttle valves have to open the same amount or one side of the engine is trying to run harder than the other. This has to be done with the engine running. If I had to get from one side of the engine compartment to the other, I’d walk around the tail.

Because that kit would cost around what a new Civic would cost, and you’re going to get a 16 year old car made worse.

EV components don’t really swap into the spots that ICE components do. An engine is relatively large, a motor is relatively small. A gas tank is relatively small, a battery is relatively large. Most ICEs designed from the ground up use a “skateboard”-like chassis with the battery taking up basically all the volume below the floor. The motor can be tucked away somewhere, and then the body built on top. You don’t need the volume in the nose for the engine so you get a frunk. a 15 year old ICE car didn’t portion out the room for the batteries, so you’ve got some of the area under the trunk occupied by the gas tank. That’s about the volume that the batteries in a golf cart take up.

Anyone who’s capable of designing and manufacturing that kit might as well go into production of new cars.

Saturation divers. Something I didn’t realize, they haul the pressure vessel to the surface at the end of every shift, they don’t live at the bottom, but they’re under pressure.