Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

𒁹𒍣𒊬 has provided feedback #2887

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 8, 2021

Conversation

eggrobin
Copy link
Member

@eggrobin eggrobin commented Feb 8, 2021

@Zaikarion (aka Zethar) had this to say about the phrase 相邻地面轨迹在经度上的间隔, from the sentence

对于轨道周期为 112 min 的 T/P 轨道, 相邻地面轨迹在经度上的间隔为 28°;

in [XZL09]:

I don't like their sentence
It's too sentency and less of a description which you need in a box
在 in this case is like a focus effect in thier sentence
So like "[its] adjacent ground tracks, for the longitudinal gaps, it is 28°"

Zethar suggested:

Probably should be 相邻地面轨迹间隔经度差 since the gap is in the loci and the number you're reporting is a difference in longitude (差 is difference)

However, while looking for phrases describing the equatorial shift as a difference, I came across [WYZ15]:

卫星连续两次在上升段(或下降段)经过赤道面时,相邻的轨迹在赤道上的经度差ΔλAN可表示为
ΔλAN =TΩE -Ω′) (1)
式中,ωE为地球自转角速度;Ω′为轨道升交点的长期变化率;TΩ为轨道交点周期。

Zethar has this to say about the phrase 相邻的轨迹在赤道上的经度差:

That is less sentency than the other one I feel
I think it's because "equator" is very strongly a noun so trying to smash it together with other things require more sentence structure so anyway

This phrase has the advantage that it contains the word “equator”, and that, in the source, it is used to formally define the equatorial shift, rather than while mentioning it in passing as in [XZL09], so it seems like a good translation of “equatorial shift”.

@pleroy pleroy added the LGTM label Feb 8, 2021
@eggrobin eggrobin merged commit aa9b461 into mockingbirdnest:master Feb 8, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants