• Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think the only one that can solve all of their problems is elon. He would fix it in few weeks. Include him in next launch, he will troubleshoot directly on the Moon. Please, someone, send that asshole to space.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Eh… I think they should stick to solar power. Given how much trouble they’ve been having, let’s not give them any weapons grade isotopes…

      For what it’s worth, just last week, Firefly stuck the landIng on their first attempt. They’re seriously killing it these days, I’m happy for them.

      • over_clox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Solar power? On the south pole of the moon?

        That would just barely work on its own, even if the thing didn’t topple over.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          Would it barely work, or would it always work?

          If you plan to land on the pole, at a high altitude, you could potentially have direct line of sight to the sun 24/7 all year round. From the ground, the sun would appear to travel left to right along the horizon, making a full circle over the course of a month. You just need your solar panels pointed to the sides, not up.

          However, if they aren’t directly on the pole, they could still plan their landing to be in a location that gets sunlight for 15 earth days straight, with 0 interruption. As that might be more than the necessary time period for their experiments, that’s probably perfect. And that doesn’t even require being at a high elevation.

          Also, being on the pole doesn’t result in dimmer sunlight than on the equator like it would on earth. No atmosphere means the poles get the same completely unfiltered sunlight.

          Look, the vast majority of lunar landers (and there have been quite a few) have used solar power, it’s the obvious choice in space.

          • over_clox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            Nah, solar is the obvious choice in space near the sun, and by not borking it up by landing sideways in a crater on the south pole of the moon.

            Very limited scope for solar power, it don’t work after landing sideways in a crater on the south pole.

            Edit: By the way, our next lunar eclipse is in 6 days, do you really think that thing would go uninterrupted, even if it did land correctly?

            • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 hours ago

              We are in space near the sun… And we have successfully used solar as far out as Jupiter.

              Haha, no I didn’t account for lunar eclipses, but that lasts what, 2 hours?

              But yeah, not falling over definitely improves the whole mission. No argument there.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      I really don’t understand the tall moon lander strategy… I mean, if you’re going to design it with a high center of gravity, then design it to fall over… Just use two landing legs instead of four, to ensure it falls over the right way. Then you put the solar panels on the side, so that when it topples over they’re facing up.

      I’ve literally done this in Kerbal space program, it’s a pretty reliable landing system if your probe is tall.