• 0 Posts
  • 104 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle

  • Sure, that’s an option. It doesn’t really change my overall point though that anything beyond galactic colonization is unrealistic on any time scale. Our next nearest neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy, is over 2.5 MILLION light years away, over 10 times farther than my “crossing the milky way” example, with nothing in-between to make a pit stop if needed, you have to cross the true void of space to get there.

    And that’s just to get the next nearest galaxy. Current estimates suggest the observable universe contains 2 TRILLION galaxies.


  • There doesn’t need to be more to it than that. The observable universe is over 93 billion light years in diameter. That means even at the speed of light, it would take over 6.5x longer than the universe has even existed for anything to cross that distance… except the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so actually you need to go significantly faster than light to make it across. FTL is, sadly, still firmly in the realm of science fiction, so to the best of our current knowledge most of the universe is permanently inaccessible.


  • Not really, no. Generational ships might make colonizing the nearest star systems possible, but even colonizing our own galaxy would require some kind of suspended animation. The milky way is between 100,000-200,000 light years in diameter so even at the speed of light, you’re looking at a travel time that is ~33-66% of the time that humanity has even existed(homo sapiens are currently estimated to have become a distinct species 200,000-300,000 years ago)… just to go to ONE star system out of the hundreds of BILLIONS that exist in our galaxy. You’re gonna need generational ships so self-sustaining and capable that the generation that actually arrives at the destination will have long forgotten the point of the trip and might not want to leave the comfort of the ship.

    Still, colonizing our own galaxy is at least theoretically possible, given enough time. The real filter is just how unimaginably large the universe is. The vast, VAST majority of the observable universe is FOREVER out of our reach, as it is expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Then there’s the unobservable universe, which could literally be infinitely bigger than the observable universe for all we actually know.









  • To anyone that doesn’t believe in ghosts, which I assume is most people, it’s not really relevant? Like, obviously if there’s any “questionable” stains on the wall or something still I wouldn’t be on board, but as long as the house was properly renovated afterwards I don’t see an issue.








  • But when was the last time they landed on the Moon?

    1972, which was the last time NASA even bothered attempting to land on the moon at all(well, soft land. They’ve sent up an impactor since then). It’s not like they kept trying and suddenly started failing, they just never planned another landing mission until Artemis 2 and 3.

    Tell me though, what did Apollo 17 have that every moon mission since has not had? Oh yeah, people, and not even for the first time ever, no. That was the 6th time in a roughly 3 year timeframe that NASA put people on the moon. Oh yeah, and on all 6 of those occasions, and even the disastrous Apollo 13, all the astronauts made it home safe.

    So the last time NASA even tried to land on the moon, they 100% successfully did so, while doing something for the 6th time that no other space agency to this day has done before or since.

    Let me know when JAXA puts people on the moon, and then we can talk about them being more capable than NASA.

    NASA tells us they’ll have Artemis ready by, what, next year?

    Yawn, I’m so tired of this argument. Literally all you guys ever say nowadays when trying to denigrate NASA is “You really think Artemis will launch on time? lol”. I’ve been hearing the same low effort argument since well before Artemis 1 launched. How about expounding on it for once and actually explain why you think Artemis will fail, as you clearly think it will? Not be delayed, fail. Everyone paying attention(clearly you weren’t, or you would have already known and not needed to edit your post) knew for over a year prior to the official delay announcement that A2 and A3 would be delayed, that does not mean anything as far as the success of the actual mission goes.

    Sure, congress could slash their budget, as they’re often prone to doing, which could possibly kill the program, but that still says nothing about NASA’s technical capabilities.


  • Perfide@reddthat.comtoFirefox@lemmy.mlHow about no?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    It was for a family friend who is disabled and unable to work a normal job, so me and my brother(also a dev on this) agreed to be paid on project completion. Long story short, she wasn’t able to pay so the final bug fixes were never done, and the code has been left to rot. Under different circumstances I’d be putting pressure to get at least some payment, but it’s pointless imo.

    Lesson learned though, not doing that again.