Thatâs quite interesting thanks for that m8
Comment on Neil Armstrong spaceboot đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đ¤đĄđĄđĄđĄđĄđĄ
Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
ShitOnABrick@lemmy.world â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Neat, always wondered what the reason for this was
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Why does they had their names on the clothes? Were they kindergarteners?
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Itâs a ~$700,000 space suit custom tailored for a single astronaut on a single mission. Why wouldnât it have the astronautâs name stitched into it?
Also, have you never seen a NASA/Air Force/Military uniform in general? They all wear their names somewhere.
simplejack@lemmy.world â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Also, so you can quickly put on the correct suit, quickly, in pretty disorienting conditions.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Itâs a 700k suit to make in todayâs money.
That doesnât include R&D, and very notably doesnât include things the life support backpack or helmet either. If you add those, you come to something like nearly 2 million in 1967 money, or nearly 19 million in modern money.
todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
$700k was calculated assuming T&D and 2024 dollars, so youâre doubling down on math I already did.
The total budget for the suits in 1967 dollars was $100K/suit.
simplejack@lemmy.world â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Custom tailored suits that have to fit you perfectly so you donât die. And might have to put them on very fast in an emergency, in low or zero g, with potential limited light. Big, high contrast, labels are probably helpful.
Also, these things were tested and iterated on repeatedly. If something is on that suit, itâs often because itâs solving a problem that was identified in a past test.
GutixFeddit@feddit.cl â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
what a good suit
xia@lemmy.sdf.org â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
This is how conspiracy theories ought to work. Perfectly fine to raise a question, and dismissed when you get the answer. Absent is the rampant speculation and unfounded claims.
MediumGray@lemmy.ca â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
I mean, I think thatâs just called science
Smallwater@lemmy.world â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
Itâs because they find evidence to support their truth, instead of formulating a theory based in the evidence. Iâve heard it described with the circle analogy.
Imagine the absolute truth is a circle, but we donât know what the shape is. By doing research, we find out certain facts as points on that circle. We can then draw straight lines between those points, and draw a shape thatâs as close to the absolute truth as we can get, with the data we have. Further research and discoveries place more dots, sometimes falling outside of the lines weâve drawn. So we redraw the shape more and more, always increasing towards that circle. Thatâs how science works.
Conspiracy theorist do the opposite. They draw a random shape (thatâs nowhere near a circle, like a star), and then go out to find proof that fits on that shape. Some proof is correct - it just happens to fall on the same lines as the circle. Others are completely out there, aligning with their shape, but not with the circle (because itâs not relevant to the truth). And if they do find proof that fits on the circle, but not on their star, itâs ignored.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world â¨6⊠â¨months⊠ago
I like debates but most conspiracy debates are absolutely insufferable because of this. No matter how many points get completely debunked, they move on to the next one, and even worse, continue spreading the debunked points afterwards. They donât give a shit about science or the truth.