And the answer to that question concerns me slightly as I understand the 3rd burn took the Roadster out into a bigger Lunar orbit than 'planned' and that may take it though an asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter?
So, *if* it hits (or is hit) by an asteroid, who is to say it (or the asteroid) don't go off track and then who knows were it / they will go?
Maybe we will find out when the Roadster comes back and it's not the ~40M km away from us as originally planned? ;-(
Cheers, T i m
But the end result is bloody good.
We're still using rockets?!
He's not so much exported the car as put it into a parking orbit.
"Excuse me, Sir, where do you say this collision occurred? I can't find that on my AA atlas."
Quite. I'm 'hoping' the Roadster would burn up in our atmosphere if it came back fast enough but what of the 5 km diameter asteroid it knocks off course ... ?
Cheers, T i m
*laugh*
ITYM Statutory Off Rocket Notice.
Looks to me like JbG contributed to the "OT: Falcon heavy rocket launch" thread but renamed his post omitting the "OT:"
Different clients react differently, but for mine at least the lack of a "References" header may be more important.
For me, many of Brian Gaff's replies start a new thread (Forte Agent)?
His first to Tim+ started a new thread prefixed 'Re: but when he replied to himself in the (my) second thread he didn't.
Cheers, T i m
I think Brian strips off "re:", "ot:" and other prefixes, can't remember the reason he does that now, but any client that threads based on subject, rather than references will see that as a different thread.
Cheers, T i m
Are they? They seem to slot in underneath the followed up post ok. I'm using Pan 0.139 in Linux Mint 17.1. I know there has suddenly been a spate of later versions during the last year or so but I haven't seen any in the Linux Mint repositories which is why I'm sticking with the 'Devil I Know' for the time being.
The Subject is correctly named after the other follow ups unlike Brian Gaff's newsreader client which would get tripped up by over-writing the "OT: " prefix with "Re: ". Incidentally, I've just spotted another two examples of this with Davey's and Martin's retitled follow up posts upthread. I think this is a question better directed at Martin seeing as how he started the 2nd sub-thread chain that I've replied to. :-)
It wasn't my news client that renamed the subject incorrectly, it was Martin's news client that replaced the "OT: " prefix with the "Re: " rather than prefixing his follow up with "Re: ".
My news client, as the subsequent 8 follow ups before, all correctly repeated the subject line which was already possessed of a "Re: " prefix (but now sans the "OT: " prefix which Martin's follow up had stripped out of the OP Subject line).
*NEXT!*
See my previous *follow up* to Graham's follow up...
*NEXT!*...
Not quite so fast ...
Subject lines aren't the mechanism proper for grouping messages into threads in a decent client, and yours seems to have stripped the references header in two of your replies yesterday (to Adrian Brentnall @ 19:02 and Martin Brown at 13:59) hence creating two new threads as far as most here are concerned.
FYI, I'm using Pan 0.141 and no one has mentioned any threading problems.
(I've been using it for about 9 months, I think)
Interestingly, my client shows a break in threading due to lack of reference headers, but links the subject line (despite the lack of [OT]) and connects the offending subthreads at the right chronological places in the main thread. I'm quite impressed.
Inter-planetary orbit.
The asteroid belt is, for this purpose, essentially empty. All of the probes that go to Jupiter and beyond have done so with no problems whatever.
If you can be arsed, look up this;
and read the section on Exploration.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required