@RhysW Not necessarily off-topic, we do have similar questions, but possibly "too broad" or "primarily opinion based", because there isn't any international law prohibiting it, and the rest then depends on the laws of the individual launching nations themselves, and you can bet most of it is classified too. For orbital missions, I don't see why they'd need them - fire a gun and you've probably killed all on board, which can be achieved in millions of ways really.
It might fall into the "potentially harmful interference with activities of other States Parties in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space" in the Article IX of the outer space treaty... but there's always ways around treaties, no? LOL
Disclaimer: IANASL - I Am Not A Space Lawyer :)
This would greatly depend on individual nations carrying out space missions and their national space laws, which would be by an order of magnitude too broad to be reasonably covered within this Q&A, but I presume you're limiting your question to in...
I forgot to mention durian... that stuff reeks so vile you can make the crew eat their suicide pills just by cutting it open :))
So... I flagged one answer as "not an answer" and it was declined:
> I see no cause to mark this 'protected'. It prevents answers by anonymous and very new users. Questions should be protected when new users are adding a lot of "me too!" and "thanks!"
How does my flag have anything to do with the comment why it was declined? I'm flagging that answer as "low quality" then
And the great answer that someone felt it was worth keeping is... tadaaaa:
I'm not that clued up on this matter ha ha but to my understanding plutonium is at a critical state with or without its extra isotopes.In it's relation towards harmful effects confidence often comes with a sister component (see below).
What the hell does the last sentence even mean? And see below... what? C'mon, this "answer" is worth keeping? What in heaven's name for? So we're reminded how clueless some are, admit that, and it still won't stop them from trolling?
@ManishEarth Yeah, I'm not upset for my stats, that's irrelevant, but the answer is rather crap and I believe it has no business being here. It's a hit and run answer. ;)
@ManishEarth Gilles to the rescue LOL
@ManishEarth The answer is actually because the LM flew more or less horizontally for quite some time before landing for those last few 10 meters, so it didn't really rise that much dust at all... and it landed with a bit of a bump, meaning the burner was cut off slightly before touchdown, further limiting the rising of the dust. But neah, the question is crap - another conpiracy theory nutter that can't google, I think it should just stay closed as off topic on Physics
or is that "raise"? LOL
Oh, and the dust on the Moon would be really fine, but also fairly "sticky" because of the charge from solar radiation and winds... due to zero atmosphere ;)
they had quite some problems getting it off from space suits
want me to post an answer there, or will you do the honours?
Two main reasons really:
The dust on the Moon, while it would be extremely fine-grain, is also highly charged due to Sun's radiation and solar winds, so it would stick quite good to the surface, grain to grain, but also cling to astronauts' space suits, something that was made quite obvious whe...
@tildal I posted it here for two reasons; to see if the community wanted it and also to get it answered. So yeah, my intention was for you guys to answer, not me :p
@TildalWave just because its about a popular topic doesnt mean his interest in it is due to a conspiricy theory, he looks genuinley interested in knowing why it wouldnt have caused billowing of dust, i mean not even a single accusation of the governments in there! :P
We have been sending signals, TV & radio, indicating our presence for many decades now. So with light speed they have reached that amount of light years into space. Is there a limit to how far these signals will reach, or will they continue infinitely?
It's a crap question, I know... but just curious, if English makes the same distinction between the two words that my language does. Infinitely = without end (not necessarily true in all directions, they might bounce off obstacles), Indefinitely = for indeterminate amount of time
@JohnB I won't edit, because it's a tell-tale of OP's miscomprehension and should remain, if some answerer wants to touch that point IMO, but I'm just curious... maybe I should ask a new question on English Language & Usage?
@JohnB I think I'll just stick with your distinction, it's aligned with my own views just fine :))
OT... are Sundays the troll days on SE? Or is it just a coincidence we had so many "far out" questions today? (I could think of other words to describe them, but let's remain polite, it's the #1 SE rule LOL)
@Hash Hey @Hash ;) By the way, for what it's worth, I wasn't talking about your questions in my previous lines posts here :) This is a general discussion chat room for Space Exploration, so a bit about moderating the site, a bit on topics discussed there, and mostlz just killing time and being otherwise obnoxious to the rest of the community (well, that's me at least LOL)
@Hash I don't see why not, given sufficient initial velocity that needs to be achieved by other means first and surrounding density... post a question, but make note of an already existing similar one: Minimum velocity to achieve fusion with Bussard ramjet
The correct term for this type of orbit is retrograde. Here's a shiny animated thing showing the orbit:
Due to the difficulty to achieve such an orbit, it is rarely used. Most commonly, artificial satellites using this orbit are commercial earth-observing satellites.
Some satellites which use...
I'm not that clued up on this matter ha ha but to my understanding plutonium is at a critical state with or without its extra isotopes.In it's relation towards harmful effects confidence often comes with a sister component (see below).
In this picture, we can see the footprints near the Apollo 11.
Shouldn't the dust have been blown away when Apollo 11 landed?
We have been sending signals, TV & radio, indicating our presence for many decades now. So with light speed they have reached that amount of light years into space. Is there a limit to how far these signals will reach, or will they continue infinitely?
What is the difference between indefinite and indecisive, and when do you use each one of them?
The correct term for this type of orbit is retrograde. Here's a shiny animated thing showing the orbit:
Due to the difficulty to achieve such an orbit, it is rarely used. Most commonly, artificial satellites using this orbit are commercial earth-observing satellites.
Some satellites which use...
