• ilinamorato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    17 hours ago

    If you went through a Taco Bell drive through, you’d still be “driving to Taco Bell” even though you just drove around the building and never went inside.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    It’s Apollo 8, but with 60 more years of experience, more computer power than the entire world had at the time, and 10,000x the budget.

    They are only going back to what they should have been doing in the 70s. I’m happy they are finally doing it, but I never understood why they abandoned it in the first place.

  • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s how language works.

    We are flying to the moon, not to land on it, but to orbit it. That’s still to the moon. We’re not flying to the sun, or flying to mars. We’re flying to the moon.

    • starlinguk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      5000 miles away from the moon isn’t “to the moon” the same way as me living in Paris isn’t living in Minnesota.

      • zoloftt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Do you understand how far orbits are in general? We have satellites in orbit around earth at varying distances based on what service those satellites provide. Some of those orbits are 22,000 mi above earth, which is a super popular orbit distance.

        I would still consider these things as part of earth because it’s a physical feature of earth. Same with the moon. In astronomical terms, getting within several thousand miles of a thing, is entering the physical space of that thing.

        I’d compare it more to going to the 820 loop around Fort Worth. You’re not in Fort Worth, but if you lived in New Mexico and we’re going to a small town outside Fort Worth, you might still tell people that you’re headed to Fort Worth.

  • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Because we’re flying to the moon.

    Plus from a news standpoint it sells better than to say “around”.

    Don’t get hungup on this, it’s just part of the process of eventually landing.

    Would you say Voyager didn’t go to Jupiter because it didn’t land?

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, technically speaking, if you didn’t go to the place, you didn’t visit the place.

      That would be like a 6th grade boy saying that he totally got laid because he sat together with Jessica at McDonald’s for dinner. Like, just because you got closer than anyone else doesn’t mean you went all the way.

  • 𞋴𝛂𝛋𝛆@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Am I visiting (going to) Yosemite, or driving around it?

    Did you visit the grand canyon if you did not go to the bottom but only stood on the rim?

    • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Did you visit the grand canyon if you did not go to the bottom but only stood on the rim?

      Yes. Did you visit it if you flew over it on a commercial flight?

          • Dave@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I guess that depends on how much bigger the moon is than the Grand Canyon.

            • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Well great now my brain is going to waste the next 30 minutes unsuccessfully trying to conceive a joke about mooning, the size of the Grand Canyon, and the size of Uranus.

    • CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Am I visiting (going to) Yosemite, or driving around it?

      Well that depends, did you visit it or drive around it? These are fundamentally different things. Did you go there, enter the park, stay inside the park for a time and leave? Then you went there. Did you never enter the park and literally drove around its perimeter and went back to your starting location? Because that’s driving around it.

      We are not going to the moon with Artemis II, we just aren’t.

  • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    When I say I’m going to a football game, I’ll sit at some distance and watch it, not walk on the pitch.
    Same thing here.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        like going to the cinema

        You just used “to” in the same way the media did in the process of trying to argue against it.

  • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    The moon is far away. Like really far away. They ISS is hard to get to, and the moon is 1000x farther away. So, just getting far enough to swoop around and come back is an achievement in its own right.

    Also, it is part of a series of missions that will culminate in humans walking on the surface of the moon once again.

  • theneverfox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    We are going to the moon. Artemis II is going to bring humans further from earth than any human has ever been, and doing a drive by like this is part of the process of landing on the moon

      • theneverfox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        They’re going higher around the far side of the moon than previous missions, so further from earth

      • Pommes_für_dein_Balg@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Artemis II won’t fully orbit it, it slingshots around it.
        Which means it will fly higher over the lunar service, and while it’s on the far side will be further away from earth than previous missions.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Like Operation Epstein Fubar, it’s all distraction-theatre.

    “See how GREAT we are??” “accomplishment”, while gutting the government & bombing hospitals & universities, for sake of getting the Epstein files off of the criminals named in them.

    ( & getting the heat off of the “DOJ” which admitted to shredding some of them, holding-back 47k of them, etc )

    ( & getting the heat off the ICE quota-based-deportations regime )

    etc.

    Artemis is an immense waste of money.

    Worse, it’s got a fundamental design-flaw which means if any of its 4 main-engines “anomaly” during takeoff, then the mission’s at-least destroyed, possibly killed.

    Notice that with SpaceX’s rockets, you can have an engine-anomaly & it’ll just make the launch more-difficult?

    There are sooo many engines, that each-engine’s % of the work is small-enough, that the rest can carry it, if 1 fails.

    With Artemis?

    ANY engine which fails, & the mission’s DEAD.

    They engineered it to be incapable of dealing-with such statistically-inevitable failures.

    That’s irresponsible, in my eyes.

    Falcon9 & Starship both have loads of engines, & can deal with 1-failure, properly.

    Why go against sane engineering-principles?

    Because the point of the thing is institutional validation, not optimal use-of-resources.

    As Feynman grated against, last century, it’s simply the wrong culture that’s running the show.

    Business-culture instead of engineering-culture, was what killed people in the shuttlecraft…

    Artemis is produced by institutionality-instead-of-right-engineering, from what I can see… & NASA’s having about 1/4 of its budget gutted immediately, so … Artemis gets funded, but NASA’s real missions get discarded?

    Theatre, not NASA work.

    < shrug >

    _ /\ _

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Plus there’s the issue that they’ve been struggling to launch more frequently than every two years. If something happens, everyone is stranded where they are, and it’s not like anyone on the moon could survive there an extra two years.

      While I see the reasoning for Artemis in the beginning, it’s been clear for years that it’s a poor choice