Timeline for Is there a canonical reason the Ares 4 landing site is so close to the Ares 3?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2018 at 15:56 | vote | accept | ThePopMachine | ||
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 15, 2016 at 2:45 | answer | added | Kaine | timeline score: 8 | |
| Oct 16, 2015 at 14:12 | comment | added | ThePopMachine | @MichaelBorgwardt: To address the expression "so close": we use shorthands in question titles as a hook and for economy. The title is never going to be as detailed at the question text. That's what that's for. | |
| Oct 16, 2015 at 14:10 | comment | added | ThePopMachine | @MichaelBorgwardt: I totally agree it is "within the realm of plausible good luck". The question is asking whether it actually is just luck, or there is a reason given. I still don't see why people are having a problem with this question. Does everyone need to prove a point and jump on the premise: 'it could just be luck' therefore the premise is broken? That is right there in the question from the start. | |
| Oct 16, 2015 at 10:22 | comment | added | Michael Borgwardt | The difference being only 60% of its expected random value is well within the realm of plausible good luck and most definitely does not warrant the expression "so close". | |
| Oct 16, 2015 at 1:16 | comment | added | ThePopMachine | @Keen... and if they have a reason you can name, that's the answer to the question. What am I missing? You seem to want to point out a flaw in the premise. There isn't. The only premise is, these two points happen to be closer than random. That is true. The premise is not that NASA would have picked at random. The question is why. You started answering that in your comment, so instead of wrongly attacking a supposed premise, you should be posting an answer. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 23:08 | comment | added | user1027 | It points out a flaw in your premise. NASA wouldn't pick the two landing locations randomly, ergo how that compares to the average distance between any two points is not a meaningful comparison. NASA isn't picking from any two points, they're picking from meaningful points for scientific exploration, with some other logic applied like them probably not putting two landers right next to each other, barring something odd like an astronaut being stranded and needing a ride. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 22:54 | comment | added | ThePopMachine | @Keen, so? That doesn't explain why these two points are "close" and that's the question. | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 21:24 | answer | added | Valorum | timeline score: 11 | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 21:24 | comment | added | user1027 | Because not all points on Mars' surface are equally useful to NASA? | |
| Oct 15, 2015 at 21:01 | history | asked | ThePopMachine | CC BY-SA 3.0 |