kraetzin

In my area of semiconductor engineering/ detectors, we generally have to pay to publish. Journals do seem to be slowly moving away from this for just the publication, however as you say for open access you still need to pay. Depending on the funding provider for the research, it can be compulsory for the papers to be open access, so we would end up paying anyway.

This is normal practice. To publish in a respectable journal you are charged £1000+. To publish your paper as open access, you can be charged another ~£1000 for the privledge (IEEE).

Those are some good reads, and have absolutely been my experience. It's depressing how many publications that I've come across don't provide the whole story, and are probably false.

I've found that looking at what a paper doesn't report can be far more important that what they claim.

Half of my PhD thesis is considered "unpublishable" because, after doing the work, my supervisors felt it's actually "unsurprising" that it didn't work out. We took methods that had been exploited to improve on previous results for over a decade to their logical extreme, and found that this method no longer leads to improvements. After doing the work it seems obvious. A paper on the subject would almost be considered uninteresting, and a high ranking journal would ignore it (which is why it's considered "unpublishable"). However, nobody has published this information, and it would help others to not make the same mistake.

I wonder how many times similar "mistakes" have been made by PhD students across disciplines.

As far as I can tell, the lunar orbiter itself is in a polar orbit, so it would make sense that it entered orbit as such. In terms of complexity the main part of the journey to the moon is the midcourse correction and ensuring that the engines fire at the correct time, in the correct direction, and for a certain duration. Depending on the engines used - ie. engines that can be used mutliple times - more than one midcourse adjustement may have been possible. It seems that all of these things worked out fine, since the Chandrayaan-2 orbiter has been there in a polar orbit since 20th of August [0]. The lander seperated since then, and the loss of contact a few seconds before the expected landing time implies that the lander reached the surface with a velocity higher than expected.

[0]https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangaluru/ISRO-chie...

In terms of orbital mechanics the polar orbit around the moon isn't significantly more complicated than an equatorial one. A small midcourse correction after entering a flight path towards the moon is all that's needed to ensure capture into orbit around the poles (and a capture burn), without the need for a plane change (note that this is also based on experience from KSP).

I concur. It's important to be engaged with what's going on locally and things that will directly impact you and people around you. If everybody ignored these things and just kept their heads down then I'd argue we'd all be worse off. Your own mental state could be improved by ignoring them, but I do believe that we all have some responsibility to try and improve the society around us.

I've found that keeping exposure to media down to every week or two and mostly reading summaries of events after the fact has helped immensely. It filters out all of the noise you get from live reporting. This helps get down to the facts of what's happened, and allows one to keep a certain emotional detachment from the events and focus on the important things.

It's relatively common for people during important world sporting events to fly the English flag, so it might be for the Women's World Cup which England are tipped to do well in. Of course, outside of important world sporting events the flag is generally seen flown by English nationalists and white supremisists, at least that's what I've generally seen.