Re:Apollo 10 Stopped Just 47k Feet from the Moon
by butterpeanut on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @04:34AM
(#19907762)
Thanks, I initially saw the article title as 'Apollo 10 Stopped just 47 feet from the Moon' and I thought, gee that's rather strange, why would you do that. Also, how would you do that. Thanks for saving me from embarrassment. [edit] I always read the comments before the article.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apollo 10 Stopped Just 47k Feet from the Moon
by isostatic on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @06:55AM
(#19908387)
No atmosphere on the moon, technically you could orbit it at 47 feet. Just hope you miss any mountains and large boulders.
Re:Apollo 10 Stopped Just 47k Feet from the Moon
by AQuantized on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @07:19AM
(#19908495)
Even assuming no obstacles, gravitational perturbations due to irregularities in the distribution of the moon's mass would upset the orbit and cause a crash.
Re:Apollo 10 Stopped Just 47k Feet from the Moon
by ableal on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @08:00AM
(#19908690)
Nevertheless, there's a short story from the SF golden age exactly featuring a satellite orbiting a few feet off the ground. Including perfectly drilled tunnels in the elevations ...
Ah, here we go - "The Holes Around Mars" by Jerome Bixby: https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/143541/short-story...
Re:Apollo 10 Stopped Just 47k Feet from the Moon
by dmurray on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @07:45AM
(#19908611)
You couldn't get into a circular orbit that was always 47 feet from the surface. That's impossible anyway, because a great circle route across the moon's surface is not a perfect circle, it dips down into craters and up over mountains. But could you achieve a stable elliptical orbit whose lowest approach to the surface was 47 feet? It sounds plausible to me, if not particularly safe.
Re:Apollo 10 Stopped Just 47k Feet from the Moon
by Faark on Tuesday May 14, 2019 @09:15AM
(#19909129)
Actually it's hard to get a stable orbit around the moon at all. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit#Perturbation_effec...