It's an airplane. It is as susceptible to doors not being bolted on as much as a civilian flight. Maybe actually a higher chance of some benign mechanical issue as it is well known that air crews are often overworked with little to no sleep with the high tempo of sorties in these types of missions. Lots of historical examples of US military aircraft crashing from mechanical issues and not being shot down

Like my math teacher was oft heard saying, "approaches zero".

"Vanishingly small" is a polite way of saying it.

The math teacher was more along the lines of as x approaches zero or was it f(x). It was a really really long time ago since I've had a math teacher, but the approaches zero was something said frequently

>>How many people outside of the admin and the dwindling hardcore trump base actually thought this was a good idea?

> Apparently 37.7% of Americans,

These are the same thing. The MAGA base is fracturing and the polls are showing that with the very number you are using as a retort.

ahem, Kubrik

Kubrick, even.

Why would you think they are not stars? Not really sure the confusion on the matter. Are we leaning towards this being shot from a soundstage?

Who said you can't capture stars in space? What do you think the purpose of Hubble, JWST, etc are? There's also plenty of imagery taken from ISS that clearly show stars. I've definitely seen Orion in some of that imagery and it put a different perspective on the size of the constellations when seen from that angle.

I referred to the common question (or accusation) of why there are no stars in, say, the Apollo photos taken on the moon. The answer is, of course, that you can't see stars if you're exposing for something bright and sunlit, like the day side of Earth, or the lunar surface.

Of course. But they are not visible in the Chang’e photos on the dark side either. I think in the interview of the astronauts following the first Apollo Mission, a reporter asked for a confirmation that the stars were not visible because of “the glare” (an interesting question in itself). The explanation given was that the stars were not visible with the eye, but were visible with “the optics“.

Photos from the moon landings don't have stars in them, because they are exposed for full daylight on the moon.

I've done several shoots lit only by the full moon. Doing long exposure, the images are as you stated not much different than an image taken during the day, except for looking at the sky and seeing stars.

I've also done video shoots with the newer mirrorless cameras and fast lenses shooting wide open again lit with nothing but the full moon. It again looks daylight on the image. As a bit of BTS, I recorded a video of the screen on the camera showing what it was seeing, and then pulled away and reframed to show essentially the same shot as the camera but it's just solid black. One of those videos was fun as we caught a bit of lens flaring from the moon, and you can actually see the details of the surface of the moon in the reflection. It was one of those things I just never considered before as flares coming from lights or the sun are just void of detail.

I would like to compliment the video for being useful to purpose, simple, no annoying TikTok voice over, no voice over at all as it's not necessary, no unnecessary text. It's just a simple here's the thing, here's it working, here's why it works, and here's some detail on how it was built.

Yes and I would have even seen the video, if a newsletter popup hadn't obscured the entire screen.

The channel owner seem to be a non-speaking person so that explains it.

Obviously, money is a factor. But you cannot discount political resistance. If a government in charge is dead set in promoting fossil fuels over renewables, it will never happen. Even if you get a government led by the most gungho green friendly administration, in a democratic government, those opposing can stall any plans to go green. If you live in a less democratic government where leadership decides it's going green, you're going green.

> (On a side note its been yeara since floppy drives were the A: drive... and yet we are still stuck with the primary disc being called C:)

The logic behind that is pretty obvious isn't it?

If you plug a USB floppy drive in, and put a diskette in it, it's still A:.

Unless you mean retrocompatibility, no it's not that obvious to me.

yes. obviously, if your whole entire being and everything known about your os is that the main drive where the os is installed is c:\, then suddenly changing that to a:\ because floppy drives fell out of fashion would being nothing short of absolute chaos. you'd be amazed at the number of times c:\ is hard coded into things. It would be like swapping the brake and accelerator pedals. It would be like switching the sky to green and grass to blue. It would be total anarchy. Okay, maybe it wouldn't be that bad, but it wouldn't be good. At least for the dolt that called their system drive a:\

I think it's clearly back compatability.