Fine article but
A shame to see a fine article like this under such a wierdly terrible headline.
China’s Chang’e 4 lander and rover combo have awoken from their lunar slumbers after a chilly first night on the far side of the Moon. The rover, Yutu 2, booted back up at 20:00 CST on 29 January (12:00 UTC). Change’4 followed a day later on 20:39 CST (12:39 UTC). The reason given for the early wake-up of Yutu 2 was to crack …
"such a wierdly terrible headline"
I was about to say welcome to the site, this is how we roll around here, a lot of it is tongue-in-cheek, unapologetically punny, etc etc... but you've posted more than 2,000 comments on our stories, so, er, what, this is the *first* Reg headline you've actually read in that time? ;-)
I just miss the old Register, when headlines were snappy, accurate and often funny without straining to be so. I guess it was the era of Lester Haines (RIP) and his contemporaries. The Register, it seemed to me, was popping out top quality stuff. And the waybackmachine seems to agree, broadly speaking.
Times change, and the wacky humour has petered out somewhat. No problem with that. And I know I am in no position to lecture professional writers, especially when the stuff is free. And in any case the articles themselves are fine. But these headlines are... well, embarrassing. Sorry to critisize an old friend but in my view, they simply make your front page an unintelligible mess, give it an air of desperation and discourage further reading. Dear headline writer: (a) remember that brevity is the soul of wit, (b) no more multi-sentence headlines and (c) go easy on the patois.
On the other hand, if the Reg readership is sky rocketing, then shut ma' mouth.
The article mentions seasons for Mars, not the moon. As the moon's axial tilt is only 1.5° seasonal effects are small but two weeks of sunshine followed by two weeks of darkness make the lunar day cycle so extreme that they need nuclear power to scrape the frost off the windscreen.
Of course not! Somebody would have noticed differences between the NASA Moon surface and theirs. No, they're all in this together I tell you; they used the same studio.
As for: 'if the Moon is flat too?'. Bloody ridiculous! Whoever heard of flat cheese?
After doing a little maths I think the 39m ELT optical telescope being built is not quite capable of resolving the Apollo LEM descent stages left on the surface. I get 9.3m optical resolution on the moons surface for the telescope and the LEM base is a little over 4m across (9m including legs)
I think well have to keep putting up with the Apollo conspiracy nuts until someone builds a telescope with much much better resolution.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019