Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

projectpluto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#31

Post by jonathanlydall »

sheept wrote: post #3
ilamont wrote: post #2

I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

I used reading mode on Safari and it was perfect for reading.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#32

Post by ggreer »

ck2 wrote: post #19

someone send them a littering bill sadly one day hundreds of years from now parts of the moon will look like all the garbage left on Everest (and maybe even the dead frozen bodies too, moon dust is sticky and very sharp apparently)

The moon is a lifeless rock with nobody on it. That seems like a better place for garbage to go than the earth. And since it's going to impact the moon at 2.43km/sec, I don't think there will be much visible stuff remaining, just a crater and some bits of aluminum.

Also what's the alternative? Moon missions don't have enough extra propellant to go back to earth and deorbit. They might have enough to move to a relatively stable orbit, but then it's just long-lived orbital debris.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#33

Post by jdironman »

sheept wrote: post #3
ilamont wrote: post #2

I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

In this pages case, I disagree. I feel like when pages try to force their 'aspect ratio / styling' to fit the view port I have to fight more with it. at least as it stands I can zoom as needed on this page, I can appreciate the web devs 'vision' as in how it probably appeared on their machine. I honestly hate mobile sites unless they are done just super super well which is harder than expected. https://rockauto.com is one such site that I think works really well on mobile.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#34

Post by recursive »

childofhedgehog wrote: post #24
sheept wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

What part of this is actually not mobile friendly? I’d argue this is laid out pretty well compared to some websites that are “mobile friendly” but load poorly or make it impossible to scroll.

If you need to scroll the viewport left and right to read a line of text, that seems kind of unfriendly.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#35

Post by RandallBrown »

sheept wrote: post #3
ilamont wrote: post #2

I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

I kinda think it's more mobile friendly than desktop friendly (although it isn't great on either.)

It's sorta hard to read text that spans the whole screen and at least on mobile, that's not nearly as wide.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#36

Post by bartread »

sheept wrote: post #3
ilamont wrote: post #2

I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

> not mobile friendly.

It’s not what I’d call mobile unfriendly either.

I had to zoom in slightly but then it’s perfectly readable in landscape.

Some very basic inline responsive CSS would make it work great in portrait too.

But the thing is, with no ads, complex layout, or other bullshit, it’s perfectly usable on mobile as is.

I’d certainly take this over any website from any major media outlet, other than those that are publicly funded like the BBC (and, even then, only in the UK because they show ads everywhere else).

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#37

Post by ggreer »

clort wrote: post #8

something they didn't mention, what is in this upper stage? I'm presuming a rocket motor and some fuel is that right..? They do a calculation of energy release on impact, but I'm wondering if there is any fuel left and whether that would affect their equation?

Like most upper stages, Falcon 9 makes itself inert after a mission by venting any remaining propellant. Otherwise there's a risk that propellant could boil off, increasing pressure until the tank explodes, creating a debris cloud. Since pretty much any collision in space is catastrophic, it's easier to track and avoid one large piece of debris rather than a bunch of small ones.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#39

Post by ErroneousBosh »

sheept wrote: post #3
ilamont wrote: post #2

I love this page. Text, photos, links. Straight up HTML 4, maybe even using a template in a text editor and FTPed to go live. I didn't see any inline or referenced CSS. No scripts. No ads. No social junk. The home page even has a just like it's 1994. What are the drawbacks to reverting to this type web publishing? That's how I used to do things before publishing tools and CMS and platforms took over, but I know the s…

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

> The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly.

Then fix mobile browsers to display it correctly.

Re: Upper stage impacting the moon on 2026 August 5

#40

Post by somat »

jdironman wrote: post #33
sheept wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main drawback with the page's unstyled design is that the page is not mobile friendly. Publishing web pages by manually editing HTML files is still very common today; any GitHub Pages blog does this.

In this pages case, I disagree. I feel like when pages try to force their 'aspect ratio / styling' to fit the view port I have to fight more with it. at least as it stands I can zoom as needed on this page, I can appreciate the web devs 'vision' as in how it probably appeared on their machine. I honestly hate mobile sites unless they are done just super super well which is harder than expected. https://rockauto.com i…

A page like this, with minimal styling, the whole point is the author does not care, the author expects the user's agent to style the document optimally for it's dimensions., the optimal in responsive design. this was the original vision for the web, the agent supplies most of the style.

Except it does not, for some weird reason unstyled pages like this which should look great on mobile look like ass. Why are mobile browsers defaults so wrong?

This hits hard because this is how I build my pages (you can probably tell I am not a front end designer) I just want to put well structured content out and let the users agent display it in the manner that suits the user best. And it mostly works, it will not win any awards but it looks fine. Until someone asks why it looks like the dog's breakfast on mobile.

Post reply on HN