3 ms·
Not to pour water on your statement, I'd say that the rate of change counts more. Nailing your first landing attempt on a powered descent (rocket-crate equivale
by M_bara 5y ago
Not to pour water on your statement, I'd say that the rate of change counts more. Nailing your first landing attempt on a powered descent (rocket-crate equivalent) is no mean feat. I'm actually pleasantly surprised given the high failure rate of Mars missions.
- idiotsecant 5y agoI'd agree rate of change counts more if both parties were at comparable technology levels. When you're still playing catchup there's a lot of opportunities to take certain engineering shortcuts.
- cdmckay 5y ago100% agree, like hiring Nazi scientists to kickstart your space program. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
- aardvarkr 5y agoI went from earning $10K/yr as a student to a $120K income full time over the course of a month, why aren't you worshipping me and writing news articles about my accomplishment? Is it because rate of change doesn't count as much as you think it does?
- a_t48 5y agoHey man, congrats on the new job.
- hungryhobo 5y agoi think the difference is that only 2 countries have successfully landed on Mars while the amount of people earning 120k is quite high
- aardvarkr 5y agoFour governmental organizations have landed on Mars. Can’t forget the Russians and Europeans did it first. But that’s besides the point because I provided a hyperbole where my rate of change was significant but not newsworthy. We aren’t celebrating them because they went from there the fastest but because they went there at all. How fast isn’t noteworthy because they’re standing on the shoulders of giants. They literally copied the design of our rover from 20 years ago and I wouldn’t be surprised if they had stolen a lot of those tech specs from nasa long ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]