4 ms·

NASA’s Journey into the Red Planet’s Deepest Mysteries

37 points by dnetesn 9y ago

mturmon 9y ago
“Launch is scheduled at 4:05 a.m. local time on May 5, and the southward trajectory could offer a predawn light show for early risers in Los Angeles and San Diego.” If you are not blocked by clouds, you should be able to see it looking westward over the LA basin - it passes over the Channel Islands, roughly headed south. It may not even be visible around the Vandenberg launch pad due to persistent low clouds at that time of day. More: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7095 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7095
seiferteric 9y ago
> A cubic foot of Mars weighs, on average, 245 pounds, making it almost 30 percent less dense than Earth. I'm not usually a stickler for units, but in this context I feel they should use better ones since it's very confusing to me. "weighs" 245 pounds... on mars? earth? then talking about density... clearly they should have used mass/volume (kg/m^3)
- greglindahl 9y ago
  "30% less dense" doesn't have units, so you shouldn't have been confused about that part.
  - seiferteric 9y ago
    True, but talking about weight when other planets are involved without being specified is rather confusing.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      In an article for the general public? I'm glad I'm not a science writer, I'd hate to have to deal with criticism like this.
    - ebullientocelot 9y ago
      Agreed! Though I'm sympathetic to the writer trying to convey the point to a general audience, I don't think we (the generic HN person) are typical NYT readers.
- mirimir 9y ago
  It's an odd comment, indeed. But it'd make no sense unless they mean weight on Earth. So yes, 3924.5 kg/m^3. And fundamentally, it's an average for the entire planet. So it's odd to say "cubic foot of Mars weighs, on average". Because there is no such average cubic foot. But I guess that "mean density is 3924.5 kg/m^3" (or even "245 pounds per cubic foot") would be too confusing for many readers.

4 ms·

NASA’s Journey into the Red Planet’s Deepest Mysteries

37 points by dnetesn 9y ago

mturmon 9y ago
“Launch is scheduled at 4:05 a.m. local time on May 5, and the southward trajectory could offer a predawn light show for early risers in Los Angeles and San Diego.” If you are not blocked by clouds, you should be able to see it looking westward over the LA basin - it passes over the Channel Islands, roughly headed south. It may not even be visible around the Vandenberg launch pad due to persistent low clouds at that time of day. More: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7095 https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7095
seiferteric 9y ago
> A cubic foot of Mars weighs, on average, 245 pounds, making it almost 30 percent less dense than Earth. I'm not usually a stickler for units, but in this context I feel they should use better ones since it's very confusing to me. "weighs" 245 pounds... on mars? earth? then talking about density... clearly they should have used mass/volume (kg/m^3)
- greglindahl 9y ago
  "30% less dense" doesn't have units, so you shouldn't have been confused about that part.
  - seiferteric 9y ago
    True, but talking about weight when other planets are involved without being specified is rather confusing.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      In an article for the general public? I'm glad I'm not a science writer, I'd hate to have to deal with criticism like this.
    - ebullientocelot 9y ago
      Agreed! Though I'm sympathetic to the writer trying to convey the point to a general audience, I don't think we (the generic HN person) are typical NYT readers.
- mirimir 9y ago
  It's an odd comment, indeed. But it'd make no sense unless they mean weight on Earth. So yes, 3924.5 kg/m^3. And fundamentally, it's an average for the entire planet. So it's odd to say "cubic foot of Mars weighs, on average". Because there is no such average cubic foot. But I guess that "mean density is 3924.5 kg/m^3" (or even "245 pounds per cubic foot") would be too confusing for many readers.