181–190 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scott Manley has a great video explaining what he thinks happened. https://youtu.be/ISZTTEtHcTg?si=0LZFyiCysBiFZrMz
Does anyone know an extension that strips this tracking information and normalizes YouTube URLs?
Why people make temperature in space a big deal? It's mostly vacuum and has no heat capacity. Sun radiation is the real threat, but the concept of temperature can't even be applied to vacuum.
Kinda explain why Neil Armstrong burned up all their fuel except for a few seconds scoping out the landing site in paranoia. Instead of building all these expensive to launch big landers, why not get some pizza-box sized probes into earth orbit AND THEN do like a slo-mo golf shot arcing to where the moon will be for a super slow/soft landing? Some will fail but if you launch 100 and get 20-30 working, there you go. A…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely possible to target a certain surface location on the moon from low Earth orbit and set off on a trajectory to get there with a single burn. However, as the craft(s) approach the moon and enter its sphere of influence, gravity will kick in and increase their relative velocity to the surface. Another burn (suicide burn if you're feeling lucky) would be needed for the soft touchdown. The moon is also gra…
First time encountering the phrase “gravitationally lumpy”. I can imagine what that is. But why? I suppose it would naturally occur if the moon were not more or less consistent density. But how would that be possible given the moon’s age and shape. (Roughly spherical I am assuming)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scott Manley has a great video explaining what he thinks happened. https://youtu.be/ISZTTEtHcTg?si=0LZFyiCysBiFZrMz
Does anyone know an extension that strips this tracking information and normalizes YouTube URLs?
For example, I remove &t= from urls that youtube added recently in addition to regular watch position restoration. This broke it for me and they don’t seem to plan a revert.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems rather uncharitable. I looked through the comments as soon as I saw there wasn't a Celsius figure in the headline or first paragraph. One conversion comment is on-topic, even though any replies to it are most likely to be off-topic.
I hear you, but it's a classic generic tangent—in fact a classic generic flamewar tangent. HN commenters are asked to resist those - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - even though it borders on irresistible. Edit: but I've put the Celsius number in the title now as well...hopefully that will reduce the swelling.
Considering the conversion between the 2 temperature scales can flip the sign (e.g. -10C is 14F), "-280F/-173C" would've been a lot clearer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space surrounding you may not have a temperature but your spacecraft does, and it will lose heat via radiation, batteries and electronics will stop working after your temperature reaches a certain low.
Any moderately active satellite has far more issues with excess heat
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space surrounding you may not have a temperature but your spacecraft does, and it will lose heat via radiation, batteries and electronics will stop working after your temperature reaches a certain low.
>The space surrounding you may not have a temperature Just to be pedantic, it actually does, which is the microwave background radiation. But that doesn't detract anything from your point.