Headline: “the astronaut landing on the moon won’t be an American”
Article: “some non-Americans will be accompanying Americans on an American mission to the moon”
Those claims are not the same.
The first non-American will step foot on the moon. How is that not what the headline says?
The headline implies that only non-Americans will be landing on the moon.
It doesn’t.
It says “an astronaut is landing on the moon” implying there is only one on this mission.
Furthermore, is implies it’s imminent. Which is also not true.
It doesn’t. Present Continuous is used for future plans.
If I say “my brother is traveling to France,” that doesn’t mean “at some point in the future, my brother will travel to France.”
At least I’ve never heard anyone use “is” followed by an action that way.
It doesn’t, it refers to one but can be of many. A person is attending a football match for the first time today. It doesn’t mean no one else is.
No. The sentence you posted implies a football match was never before attended by any person.
If you want to say one of many, you should say Some person/someone.
Or you can qualify the person. E.g. A non-american astronaut will be landing on the moon for the first time.
Nope, because you know football matches have been attended by people. Ignoring basic facts doesn’t make your understand correct, it’s silly.
Then it’s odd that so many people, myself included, interpreted it that way.
It doesn’t mean it’s true.
Yeah, you’re correct. It’s not vague at all. One astronaut is not American and that’s what he headline says.
I’m pretty sure what something implies is dependent upon the reader’s interpretation. And it looks like many readers think it implies that a non-American is about to land on the moon even if you didn’t think so.
The writers intention. You can read there being an implication, but it doesn’t mean it is implied.
Imagine Kennedy gave an amazing speech about “landing an American on the moon” and then sent him up aboard a Russian rocket. I’m guessing most people wouldn’t have been like “Well, technically that’s accurate. Well done Mr. President.”
This isn’t about the rocket, it’s about the national origin and the space agency that sent the person
How did they solve the static dust problem?
The USA is in the lead we allredy have the tools and know how to make the trip and back and its being improved upon by elon musk and space x who is allredy setting up the trip getting things ready for frequent trips carrying cargo and such
SpaceX leadership has entire positions dedicated to keeping Musk away from their projects so that he doesn’t screw up all of their actual work lmao
💀
You’re either a bot or completely clueless. Which is it?
Could be both
To be fair: spacex is doing amazing things and Elon is just the face of things.
Fuck Elon.
Agreed.
SpaceX is doing cool shit though.
I’m a bit skeptical though. Forget the fact that the crew will still be carried by the Orion (equivalent to Apollo’s CM) and only the landing part is provided by Starship. Two small unmanned lunar landers already toppled on their sides because they couldn’t get a proper footing on the uneven and loose lunar regolith. The Apollo LM had a very low C.G. Starship on the other hand, is a full long rocket stage with enough thrust to dig a hole at the landing site. How confident are we of a proper vertical landing? A topple would be a death sentence for its crew.
Another big problem is their choice of propellant. Boil off is a well known issue with cryo propellants like LOX and liquid methane. So far, no rocket has used cryo propellants for any stage that doesn’t use it soon after filling. The longest wait after filling is done for stages that coast for a few hours. SpaceX plans to have a fuel depot in space that’s filled by multiple (12?) other starships. Even if we assume that SpaceX eventually gains the ability to rapidly reuse Starships, there is going to be practical limitations on how fast the orbital fuel depot can dock with refuellers. Considering that the refuellers themselves need part of the propellant to reach space, and that the fuel depot is going to have boil offs, how many actual flights and time will it take to refuel the depot to full? And remember that after all that, they need 2-3 days to reach the moon before executing the orbit insertion, deorbit and landing burns. Further, the lander will need to spend some time on moon (which depends on their mission and presence of a moon base). What about the boil off during all that time?
What about the engine relight? They were supposed to demonstrate engine relight during the last mission. But they abandoned it because the propellants were nearly fully consumed and they were tumbling out of control (which is weird because I couldn’t see anything like an RCS that could arrest the rotation). Let’s assume they would eventually demonstrate a raptor relight in space. That still doesn’t solve the full problem. Cryo engines need to be chilled and purged prior to any relights. For in-space relights, part of that is usually done on the ground. But that won’t help if you need to relight after several hours or even days. Where do you get the propellants for all that?
Flaming hatered much
Yeah, I have a flaming hatred for those that cheer on fascism. You probably should too.
I do generally dislike people who think I’m “pushing hatred against whites,” yes.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-antisemitic-comments-x-post-actual-truth/
Fuck Elon Musk.
The title is needlessly irritating.
