• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

T-5 minutes until Nasa crash a Ford Transit into the moon...

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Also have a look at where they crash it. The biggest shadowed area on the face of the dam moon. WTF!! Couldn't they have gone a few 100 meters north so they could actually see the crator or what might have gone wrong?
    The purpose was to hit a deep, dark crater. There was a chance the top of the plume might have gone high enough to be illuminated by sunlight but it was not guaranteed.

    The analysis is of the material detected in the plume by the probe, not a visible analysis.
    Drivelling in TPD is not a mental health issue. We're just community blogging, that's all.

    Xenophon said: "CUK Geek of the Week". A gingerjedi certified "Elitist Tw@t". Posting rated @ 5 lard points

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
      Your baiting me to make a woman joke arn't you!! lol..

      Anyway, for fear of being incredibly boring and actually bringing this conversation back around to the actual topic. Did anyone see the report on this dismal failure?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299118.stm

      No plume, no results = failure. Why do the mission controllers at the end stand up clapping. Was it hard to smash a probe in to the moon??

      Also have a look at where they crash it. The biggest shadowed area on the face of the dam moon. WTF!! Couldn't they have gone a few 100 meters north so they could actually see the crator or what might have gone wrong?

      Maybe I am not intellectual enough to understand this level of thinking but this looks like one might cock up to me.
      Has this mission failed then?

      I thought it had worked OK.
      And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

      Comment


        #13
        They went for a shadowed crater as it would not have seen sunlight for a few billion years, therefore increasing the chance of finding frozen water.

        HTH.
        Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson

        Comment


          #14
          Anyone remember how the moon got knocked out of orbit in Space 1999?

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by Churchill View Post
            Anyone remember how the moon got knocked out of orbit in Space 1999?
            Wasn't it a nuclear war on Earth?

            Edit: no it wasn't:

            In the pilot, nuclear waste from Earth stored on the moon explodes in a catastrophic accident on 13 September 1999, knocking the moon out of its orbit and sending it and the 311 inhabitants of Moonbase Alpha hurtling uncontrollably into outer space.
            Drivelling in TPD is not a mental health issue. We're just community blogging, that's all.

            Xenophon said: "CUK Geek of the Week". A gingerjedi certified "Elitist Tw@t". Posting rated @ 5 lard points

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by Zippy View Post
              Never let a woman drive a spacecraft ...
              Last words on space shuttle Columbia - "Here Laurel, you dri..."

              Comment


                #17
                Has this mission failed then?

                I thought it had worked OK.
                Well it said there wasn't the plume of matter they were expecting so nothing for the following craft to fly through and gather so don't sound too promising.
                'CUK forum personality of 2011 - Winner - Yes really!!!!

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                  Well it said there wasn't the plume of matter they were expecting so nothing for the following craft to fly through and gather so don't sound too promising.
                  The second craft didn't have to fly through the plume, merely observe it.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
                    Well it said there wasn't the plume of matter they were expecting so nothing for the following craft to fly through and gather so don't sound too promising.
                    The plume wasn't visible from earth; that doesn't mean it wasn't there.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Who cares.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X