MrPythagoras

@that_y2k_kid @AJamesMcCarthy It looks fine to me. There is a lot of diffused light and multiple light sources inside Integrity. This causes a lot more complex shadow interactions. You can see that the shadow of her hands and arms become increasingly soft as they approach the plushie.

@AJamesMcCarthy I admire your mastery and dedication. Your work is always beautiful. I’m a photographer too, maybe not on your level of talent, but enough to have learned to see light and shadow in a very technical way. So we both have to know that this isn’t how shadows work, right?

I'm so proud of everyone involved with the Artemis program. You set a high bar for humanity and show us what's possible when we work together.

@MattBraynard Language is not a static construct and its primary purpose is communication. If no one uses the historical definition, then using it in that way won't communicate much. decimate (verb): 1. kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage 2. (historical) kill one in every ten of

Pet peeve: to "decimate" means to reduce by 10%, so stop using it like it's a synonym for "destroy." Just say "destroy." You don't sound smarter, you sound stupid.

@AuggieBeee @snoproscott I personally would not do that. A sidewall repair might get you to a shop. It might fail catastrophically. Structural damage to the sidewall is not always externally visible. Replacing a wheel can cost more than after hours mobile tire repair for many cars.

@AstroPythagoras @snoproscott If you’ve got a spare by all means use that. Undersized donut as well, sure, but you’re really not risking anything sticking a string plug in there and moseying down the road at 25mph. It really is a matter of tire shops not being able to guarantee the repair for highway speeds

My toxic traits say it looks easy and I can do it myself

@ManicZebra @emrelectrical @gustav0cardenas The space shuttle certainly didn't meet its intended goals of reducing costs and turnaround times. However, it was an exceptional platform for deploying, assembling and repairing satellites in low Earth orbit.

@AstroPythagoras @emrelectrical @gustav0cardenas Even then, they had to rely on military buy-in to provide enough money to actually get the thing built. So, you ended up with a vehicle meant to do five things, but not doing any of them particularly well.

📍Esta es una foto que muchos prefieren no mencionar: Valentina Tereshkova (la primera mujer en el espacio y heroína del programa soviético) condecorando a Neil Armstrong en Moscú. Sí: la URSS reconoció públicamente el alunizaje. No hubo “dudas”, ni “montajes”, ni teorías conspirativas dentro del propio Estado que compitió contra Estados Unidos en la carrera espacial. Al contrario: celebraron el logro, lo validaron y lo integraron en su narrativa científica. La foto es de 1970, cuando Armstrong visitó la Unión Soviética en una gira diplomática y científica. Lo recibieron con honores, lo llevaron a centros de investigación y lo trataron como el primer ser humano que pisó otro mundo. Cada vez que alguien intenta revivir el mito del “alunizaje falso”, basta recordar esta imagen: si ni la URSS lo negó, ¿por qué todavía hay quien sigue negándolo?

@fomo6to12 @ABmrJutt Something dropped from an airplane will never reach anything close to the speed observed with the Integrity capsule during re-entry. Atmospheric drag will prevent acceleration past about 500 or 600 mph. Integrity entered the atmosphere at about 24,000 mph.

@ABmrJutt You’re correct, it is the same pod parachute drop from an airplane.

Nothing changed in 53 years - still the same splash

@BLackgold_5 It depends on the mission objective.

Aircraft carrier Vs Battleship If you were in command, which would you choose carrier or battleship?

@emrelectrical @gustav0cardenas The Shuttle was designed for low Earth orbit. A rocket comparable to Saturn V is required to reach the moon. Lunar exploration was expensive and NASA's budget was slashed after Apollo 17. They could do a lot more science with less money by not sending humans to the moon again.

@gustav0cardenas Yo creo que la duda que hay con el alunizaje es que USA no ha vuelto a la luna, aun con todos los avances científicos y tecnológicos que existe. No usaron los transbordadores para alunizar y llevan mas de 50 años que no han "vuelto" a pisar la luna. Algo no cuadra

@yvan_theriault These don't eliminate it at the source. The source is up stream a bit further.

En Australie, une idée simple permet de lutter contre la pollution. Dans certaines villes, des filets sont installés à la sortie des drains pour bloquer les déchets avant qu’ils n’atteignent les rivières et les océans. Ils agissent comme des filtres et récupèrent plastiques et détritus emportés par la pluie, parfois en grande quantité. Faciles à installer et peu coûteux, ces dispositifs limitent la pollution directement à la source. La preuve qu’une solution simple peut vraiment faire la différence pour l’environnement. 🌿✨

@VinciRSS That right there is the ideal Windows color scheme for just about every person who never uses Windows. 😂

I completely forgot Windows used to allow you to change color of every single UI element to some random bullshit

@justbrad201 @engineers_feed This is referred to as Kessler Syndrome. Kessler has written that we may have reached sufficient debris density in low-Earth orbit that collisions could generate debris faster than it is naturally removed. The ultimate fear is a resulting cascade of collisions.

@engineers_feed While this isn't to scale, it's disturbing. How much more crap can we put into orbit before it becomes a huge problem?

This is what near-Earth orbit looks like now. (Visualization: LeoLabs)

@Matt_Pinner First question, where is the steam coming from? Second question, why is is coming from there?

Let me know when you see it

@MagneticNorse Hope he doesn't have a cold.

The last fuelbender Bet his bathroom is spotless

@AcquavivaJean @Rainmaker1973 Polaris is contained in Ursa Minor, but the pointer stars of the Big Dipper in Ursa Major are often used to locate it. These stars are much brighter and the Little Dipper is too dim to see near urban areas.

@Rainmaker1973 L'étoile polaire c'est la petite ourse et non pas la grande , parole de berger .

The Big Dipper is a circumpolar bright asterism in the constellation Ursa Major. This is where you find it around the North Star at the same time in different seasons.

@AcquavivaJean @OluwayomiEbuno2 @Rainmaker1973 It is common to use the pointer stars in the Big Dipper to identify Polaris since its stars are so much brighter than those in the Little Dipper...particularly near city lights.

@OluwayomiEbuno2 @Rainmaker1973 C'est la petite Ourse tournant autour de l'étoile polaire qui indique le nord et non pas la grande Ourse

@JCWinsford @LucasGageX To replicate the sharp shadows seen in Apollo video would require an extremely small or very distant single light source. This would be far beyond a studio lighting scenario, especially given the extreme contrast produced by the direct sunlight on the moon.

@LucasGageX If you have an object, and you flash four lights each from a different angle (imagine a square) then you have no shadows. You are trolling right?

What Apollo deniers don't realize is that this video they use to try to disprove that we went to the moon actually proves it. Why? Because it's impossible to replicate the lighting, low gravity, and dust ballistics on Earth. Disagree? Then get Mr. Beast to replicate this.

@JCWinsford @LucasGageX The vertical height, horizontal velocity and total distance traveled by dust is determined by gravity and atmospheric density. Slowing down a camera on the Earth does not produce the same dust behavior since its gravity and atmospheric density are significantly different.

@LucasGageX Poor take. You can replicate low gravity and dust ballistics by shooting through a high fps camera and then slowing down the footage, like they do in the movies. Lighting is even easier, any high end camera with the right filters can do this. Add a bit of editing and it's done.

@canalCCore2 Raptor 3 will undoubtedly exceed the F1 in many metrics. However, its real world success remains theoretical until it establishes a comparable track record, though I have little doubt that it will.

A escolha do metano no Raptor 3 em vez do querosene do F-1 é o que torna a vida multiplanetária viável, permitindo que a SpaceX fabrique combustível em Marte através da Reação de Sabatier, usando o CO2 da atmosfera e o gelo do solo. Além dessa vantagem logística, o metano queima de forma extremamente limpa, sem deixar os resíduos de fuligem que entupiam motores como o F-1, o que é fundamental para que o Raptor seja reutilizado centenas de vezes sem manutenção pesada. Essa eficiência química é potencializada por uma engenharia física impressionante: o Raptor 3 é extraordinariamente menor que o F-1, mas opera com uma pressão interna quase cinco vezes superior, permitindo agrupar 33 motores na base do booster Super Heavy para gerar uma densidade de potência sem precedentes. Diferente do F-1, que era um gigante de ciclo aberto que desperdiçava gases, o Raptor utiliza o ciclo de fluxo total (Full-Flow Staged Combustion), o sistema mais eficiente que existe, extraindo o máximo de "quilometragem" de cada quilo de propelente. O resultado é um motor compacto, leve e de alto desempenho, capaz de transformar uma viagem de ida e descarte em uma ponte aérea sustentável entre planetas. Então você ta falando besteira

O Raptor 3 não é uma evolução, é uma humilhação para a engenharia tradicional. A SpaceX conseguiu remover quase toda a tubulação externa e o escudo térmico, criando um motor que pesa só 1525 kg e gera 280 toneladas de empuxo. É a eficiência máxima da física aplicada em escala.

@WorldBollard @dumpert Based on the color and pattern of the bricks, it looks like the bollard is doing exactly what it is supposed to do...keep motor vehicles out of an area where they put bikes and pedestrians at risk.

We are on FIRE!!! #WorldBollardAssociation🔥 📹@dumpert

@evagrin_ @surajit_ghosh2 After going to the moon 6 times, the focus shifted when NASA funding was significantly reduced. NASA could do a lot more science with reduced funds by not targeting the moon (e.g. Space Lab, Space Shuttle, ISS, Hubble, Mars rovers).

@surajit_ghosh2 i have questions. what is the real purpose of going to the moon? and why did it take 55 years between apollo and artemis???? don’t air me please 🙏🏾

Artemis II vs Apollo 11 55 years apart same destination, completely different power