this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
539 points (97.4% liked)

World News

39004 readers
3860 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

NASA’s Voyager 2 has lost communication with Earth due to an unintentional shift in its antenna direction. The next programmed orientation adjustment on October 15 is expected to restore communication, while Voyager 1 continues to operate as usual.

A series of scheduled commands directed at NASA’s Voyager 2 spacecraft on July 21 led to an unintentional change in antenna direction. Consequently, the antenna moved 2 degrees off course from Earth, causing the spacecraft to lose its ability to receive commands or transmit data back to our planet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (16 children)

This assumes their understanding of what caused the problem is accurate.

Should it be ever so slightly imprecise, it could mean we lose contact forever.

[–] zalack@kbin.social 81 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (13 children)

This is one of those things that sounds meaningful, but can be said about literally any problem in any system. Not all knowledge requires the same level of precision for confidence.

If the engineers at NASA who are familiar with the system say this is a known error state that will be fixed the next time the system designed to correct it fires on its set schedule, there's not a whole lot added by saying sure, but what if they're wrong?

It's just restating the table stakes of existence.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago (7 children)

But what if I, armchair scientist on Lemmy, sees a flaw in the plan of some of the greatest engineers in the world? Doesn't the world deserve to know what I think about the communications system I just became aware of today?

[–] zalack@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Lol. The knee-jerk contrarianism online really gets under my skin, especially when it's towards experts.

Like yeah, sometimes experts are wrong or systems don't behave as expected. But framing that as some sort of erudite insight really bugs me.

"I hope the recovery system works!" doesn't need to be rewritten as "Mmm yes. But what these engineers haven't considered is the possibility that they are wrong".

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had a laugh at this line:

It's just restating the table stakes of existence.

Brilliantly put. It's like saying to a stranger on an airplane, "If these pilots don't know how to fly, we are gonna die!"

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Plot twist... he is the lead engineer on the team.

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

No but the experts could be right or wrong. Two possibilities so that means there's a 50/50 chance.

/s

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)