Comments
Lowflyin t1_jea5e05 wrote
I got to tour it a few years back , insane!
Select-Owl-8322 t1_jeano1e wrote
> The rover will fly on a private rocket carrying 14 payloads to the moon, which includes Iris, projects for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well as some humans.
Are they saying that they will send "some humans" to the moon on a private rocket?
robertmdh t1_jeap94v wrote
NASA is sending people to the moon with the Artemis project but will not land until a further date.
passengerpigeon20 t1_jeazf24 wrote
Why bother? They can actually render the fake footage in a very reasonable time with post-1969 CGI! /s
link2edition t1_jebqa5d wrote
They don't want to hire Kubrick again. He only films on location and is a perfectionist. Apollo 11 landed on the moon 157 times before he was happy with it.
also /s
passengerpigeon20 t1_jebr6dr wrote
"If we'll need to actually build the rocket to stop people from asking questions, maybe we could just... pop to the moon and fake the footage over there."
amitym t1_jecsycx wrote
But... what if people found out??
Available-Camera8691 t1_jedacyb wrote
Kubrick died, and it is the only reason they wouldn't hire him again.
I know he is dead. I was at his funeral, where Belgian techno anthem Pump Up the Jam was played five times, back to back.
link2edition t1_jeetl9l wrote
Kubrik faked his death on a sound stage
/s
SnooWords6686 t1_jedrunk wrote
What is the problem to land in moon? Dust ?
ChefExellence t1_jee3mjs wrote
The new moon landing program, (called Artemis) currently has a working space capsule (called Orion) and a rocket that can launch it to lunar orbit (called SLS), so can send humans to lunar orbit on Artemis II.
The lander (called Starship HLS) and suits (called AxEMU) are not scheduled to be ready until Artemis III because they did not receive contracts and funding until very recently.
robertmdh t1_jedtb1p wrote
Gotta work your way up 🤷♂️
BlueLaceSensor128 t1_jeaq6yo wrote
We can’t afford to send everyone yet. There aren’t even enough chairs.
mfb- t1_jee35a1 wrote
In May!
The only Moon-related launch scheduled for May (sort of) is Vulcan's maiden flight with the Peregrine lander (and two Earth orbit satellites for Amazon) as main payload.
No humans on board obviously. Vulcan is never expected to fly people to the Moon.
Prostheta t1_jeah44r wrote
Hopefully these guys don't get blasted and screw up like I did at Uni, otherwise there'll be a rover-sized shoebox on the moon.
thatRoland t1_jeangky wrote
I mean, how many people can say they have a rover-sized shoebox? On the Moon of all places!?
seanflyon t1_jeapo6b wrote
I have a rover-sized shoebox. It is about the same size as the rover CMU is making. It isn't on the moon though.
MyNameIsIgglePiggle t1_jeayzg1 wrote
Why would anyone need such a large shoebox? People's feet are only so big
Prostheta t1_jeb15ke wrote
Reddit has many suggestions on how to fill shoeboxes.
amitym t1_ject0vm wrote
Or a moon-sized shoebox roving around.
Adept_Cranberry_4550 t1_je9xhq1 wrote
They're not launching it. It is tagging along. Still neat.
DanTrachrt t1_jeafziq wrote
That’s still “sending” it to the moon, no?
IPDDoE t1_jeavn7a wrote
Agreed, but when I first read the title, my immediate thought was about how they would be able to launch something so small. The headline isn't misleading, but could be worded better imo
Tempest1677 t1_jeazcah wrote
Familiarity with space and payloads of that size implies it is ridesharing.
IPDDoE t1_jeb0j52 wrote
Well we all know how space enthusiasts are well known for reading Fortune.
poop_to_live t1_jeb4chi wrote
Laughed out loud at this one
IPDDoE t1_jec0f3e wrote
I appreciate that, nice to know I've brightened someone's day
catdogs_boner t1_jecpwbv wrote
They're one of the commercial payloads aboard Astrobotic's Peregrine Lander.
vipEmpire t1_jeavm7d wrote
Probably better to word it like "are having it sent" rather than "sending" which have different implications
dern_the_hermit t1_jebdqq0 wrote
The wording's fine, guys. Just because someone is capable of misreading or reading too much into a headline that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the headline. That's just language, and how people can sometimes parse the wrong thing from it. Communication isn't some contest to see who can have the least ambiguity.
globular_fluster t1_jeb9s0b wrote
No. If you send something through the mail you didn't send it unless you drive the mail truck from your address to the recipient's.
Duh!
mwthecool t1_jebdp3p wrote
The portion of the article including this tidbit was paywalled. What are they sending it with? I’m curious about FAA licensing for this thing.
focus503 t1_jeb9emg wrote
I was surprised to see how big the mars rovers were, seriously thought they were like the size of an average office printer.
sifuyee t1_jebrmxy wrote
The first ones were. There are a number of scientists that argue more cheap small rovers would yield more science than large expensive singular rovers, but so far they're not winning the NASA awards for contracts. I think we'll start to see more diversity of size in the future awards, given how successful small satellites are becoming.
[deleted] t1_jee3s0k wrote
[removed]
otterappreciator t1_jebhmyn wrote
Anyone want to paste it because fuck paywalls?
justreadingreddit22 t1_jeavwqv wrote
Grammar Check - A group is; some students are . . .
Decronym t1_jee4kbe wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |CST|(Boeing) Crew Space Transportation capsules| | |Central Standard Time (UTC-6)| |FAA|Federal Aviation Administration| |HLS|Human Landing System (Artemis)| |SLS|Space Launch System heavy-lift|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starliner|Boeing commercial crew capsule CST-100|
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 22 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8742 for this sub, first seen 31st Mar 2023, 10:55])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
[deleted] t1_jeabmsa wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jeahm3s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jebuff8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jebvo6s wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jec1sdi wrote
[removed]
TrIpmasterforce t1_jeckl8m wrote
Wait so they're sending humans to the moon again too??
mfb- t1_jee3ou8 wrote
Not on that rocket, and not in May (and not in 2023). Not sure what the author got mixed up there.
Artemis II is planned to send humans around the Moon and Artemis III is a planned Moon landing.
[deleted] t1_jed4669 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jedvws2 wrote
[removed]
sugabeetus t1_jed1vnb wrote
Wake me up when they start having robot fights on the moon.
JustAPerspective t1_jebgys3 wrote
The Human Legacy: flinging trash everywhere with no thought to clean-up.
Evolutionarily equal to shit-flinging simians, except humans use middlemen.
[deleted] t1_jec2zh6 wrote
[removed]
SpankYouScientist t1_jea13x3 wrote
CMU has some seriously good robotics students. The NREC and Planetary Robotics labs are wild.