• Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days 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
      3
      ·
      2 days 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
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days 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
          2 days 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?

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I don’t think it’d matter much. On earth the poles get less light, even in summer, because the angle of the sun is low so it has to pass through more atmosphere. This isn’t true on the moon, obviously. The angle will be really low on the south pole, but as long as it’s in sunlight it doesn’t matter where it is. There are locations on the poles of the moon that never get sunlight, but I suspect it wasn’t going there.

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

          Also, our next lunar eclipse occurs in the next 6 days, how the fuck they expect that to work on solar power in the first place even if it did land correctly?

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

          It landed sideways like 250 meters away from the intended landing zone. Did you know the moon has way more craters than Earth?

          Craters = Shadows

          The thing ain’t got no sunlight yo, and its laying sideways in the shade, so no power…