I mean, if I was going to go out, then getting my shit mixed by a meteor is pretty awesome. I’m sure I’ll make it on to a few Buzzfeed articles over the next ten or twenty years.
All things considered though, it would indeed be nice if it landed somewhere inconsequential like the ocean; the desert; or Florida.
You jest, but the Kennedy Space Center is in Florida. Putting the world’s busiest spaceport out of commission might put a damper on future asteroid deflection missions…
Hell yeah this would be my choice too on preferred way to die. There’s something beautifully deterministic about it, a random space rock flying around for millions of years and all my lifes choices and circumstances ending up in standing on the exact spot the meteorite ends its journey. Right in my head. Lovely.
I just read the ipcc reports and if you read those and don’t start a bucket list for the time we have left. I don’t know what to tell you. Trust me I don’t want to be this way I will fight where I can but I’m going to live my life the same time way a terminal patient lives. Cherish the days we got and if I’m wrong I will eat crow happily with a big smile on my face.
Honestly, at this point, there might be enough of us volunteering to bounce that fucker back to Jupiter. A lot of us will be turned into jam but I think it’s worth the sacrifice.
Obviously this is a problem for radio astronomers. I keep hoping we’ll build the proposed Lunar Crater Telescope so we can have a truly silent view of the universe.
For multi-mode (full duplex) you would still need a power amp repeater every 500 meters, which requires a lot of power and create noise. You can’t be quiet with noise.
Yes, because there’s no way to transmit power or data anywhere without being loud af in any signal spectrum. It’s physically impossible.
Even with fiber, you need a laser to beam the signal, and a powerful amp on the moon to recieve the signal and boost it with fuck ton of high power repeaters to the other side of the moon which is also loud af
Be that as it may, it’d be minimal compared to the interference that terrestrial radio observatories have to deal with.
I guess I’m just saying that I don’t understand why you’re being so negative about the concept when it’s clearly going to be orders of magnitude better than existing antennae.
If your instance is any indication of location: there’s an eclipse visible in most Oceania and SE Asian islands in 2028. For a good chunk of Australia and NZ, it’ll be a total eclipse. For further info, check it here.
For me (South America) there’s one already in October, but it’ll suck from my region (14% coverage). And another in 2027 (~75% coverage).
The big difference is how close the sun is to solar maximum this year! The sun is at a point of peak electromagnetic activity, something that happens every 10 to 13 years, which is reflected in more chance of witnessing bursts of energy (flares and ejections) during the eclipse.
Me too, the clouds overhead parted just before totality and the corona was so dazzling and magnificent. I really hope there aren’t clouds in the way during this one.
Efficiency is when the government abandons all its investments, lets everything fall apart, and drives all scientists to take jobs abroad before the next uncontrolled pandemic paralyzes the country.
It’ll most likely be avian flu, which is pretty bad. The Trump people are trying to ban MRNA vaccines and cut the vaccine research that might have helped with it.
his stupid fucking internet satellites make planning getting things into orbit real hard. also it’s not even his tesla in space. he stole it from mark eberhart
And his 6,000+ starlink pieces of trash in orbit have made earth based telescopes worse. They get in the way of the shot, and the emissions are something like 10x worse than promised.
Him and that tetraethyl lead guy. Just absolute stains.
SpaceX rockets don’t add Methane to the atmosphere. When you burn something, you’re not adding that thing to the atmosphere, you’re adding byproducts from the combustion, and Methane isn’t one of the byproducts of any rocket fuel.
Starship uses methane as a fuel, but that’s not at all the same thing. Methalox engines are one of the cleanest burning rocket fuels after Hydrolox. When burnt, methane just becomes CO2 and water vapor along with a bit of NOx (Nitrous Oxide, aka laughing gas, aka that boost you see in Fast and the Furious) as well.
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are Kerolox (Kerosene, RP-1) engines. RP-1 is basically just a highly refined kerosene. When burnt, it will produce CO2, water vapor, NOx, carbon soot, carbon monoxide (which again mostly becomes CO2) and a little bit of sulfur compounds. The exhaust is nasty but it is not that different from what a normal internal combustion car produces. And even with the large amounts, it is still lower than what cars/trucks/SUVs output to get everyone in your city back and forth to work, the grocery store, and home on a daily basis.
Rocket engines don’t just immediately start, propellant has to be flowing through the turbo pumps before the flames start. Same at shut down. On the video you can see vapour coming out. That’s either methane or oxygen. How much of either? We can’t say because spacex doesn’t talk much about it. Same with ‘venting’ which happens quite a lot as shown on the videos as well. Whether it’s a little or a lot, it’s definitely more than was there before launch.
And that’s on a successful launch. Scott Manly talks about the last launch and shows how the methane levels were draining on the ship way faster than the oxygen levels, pointing to at least incomplete combination and probably methane puking out the back. Methane may be ‘clean’ when it’s burnt under optimal conditions, when it’s conflagrated in a RUD it’s less so.
Yes, yes, “it’s a drop in the bucket, it’s a tiny percentage of blah blah blah” which works fine until they start launching 3 per day. Then the question of what methane (a highly potent greenhouse gas) does when it’s directly added into the upper atmosphere gets answered.
NOx is not Nitrous Oxide and is not short for Nitrous Oxide. Nitrous Oxide is specifically N2O. NOx refers to both Nitric Oxide (NO) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), both of which are far, far more damaging to health and atmosphere than N2O. NOx emissions are the reason diesel is generally nonexistent in US passenger vehicles - not even great mpg numbers have sufficiently-low NOx emissions.
Even if it included N2O, using nomenclature with a variable like “NOx” and grouping it all together as one inert byproduct vastly underrepresents harm. Imagine if you referred to another group as “COx” but saying it’s relatively inert and easily detected by way of a burning lung sensation but feeds plants so it’s not all bad because Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has that effect. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is completely left out of that description and will silently kill you.
The part you’re not talking about is that there’s no catalytic converters on rockets tough, so it’s more like running a carbureted car than a modern car.
that he keeps metering access to because he has a clear favorite in that war and it ain’t Ukraine. have you talked to any Ukrainians how they feel about the world’s richest nazi? because the Ukrainians i’m in community with fucking hate that guy and actively seek technological edges to treat starlink as actively hostile to their usage.
Not really here, this would have been a dummy weight either way since it was the test payload for Falcon Heavy. So *something *was going to be sent up. The Tesla specifically was a publicity stunt, but a similar weight was going into a similar orbit.
The bigger question is why they lost tracking on it in the first place to where they weren’t sure what it was. This wasn’t from any sort of failure, this was a planned and fully successful launch payload into a planned orbit.
Tracking doesn’t necessarily have to be lost for this kind of thing to happen. The Rosetta spacecraft was accidentally given a provisional asteroid designation in 2007.
I would love it if publications could just limit their headlines to one misleading term per story. The rocks are a ‘city’? Sure. The geysers looks like ‘spiders’? I guess. But when you start putting them together in the same headline it feels like your breaking the fourth wall or something
Yeah its hard to read as quote spiders unquote quote inca city unquote. New articles should not be doing this. geez at least put so called or something.
“Tired light” has been theorized before, and it just doesn’t hold up to most of the evidence gathered.
It’s entirely possible that there’s something there, but most data currently backs up the Lambda-CDM model of the universe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Only time will tell if this theory pans out, but I wouldn’t put much money on it.
Discreetly insulting both Australia and Pluto in one sentence! Absolutely love this; will share it with all my Australia and Plutonian friends! If Earth gets attacked, it’s not my fault, but yours :'P
As with nearly everything in astronomic optics, it’s named after people associated with its creation. Robert Jones and Thomas Bird are the two in this case. Here’s a thread on Cloudy nights with good info.
my fav from that thread (and i propose to make this a copy pasta):
My entire gripe around these scopes is the instruments being offered today, the sub-aperture lens arrangement is not doing any corrections. The lens is a straight up Barlow, nothing more.
If you look at the Bird-Jones design, the design is very specific in the design of both the primary & correcting lens. This means that both elements need to be not only matched but also well manufactured in order to work as designed. When you then look at the few true Bird-Jones instruments that were manufactured, such as the Tasco 8V (which was manufactured by Vixen), the Celestron G8-N and one other (escapes my mind right now but I’ll add it when I remember), these scopes were not cheap but pushing flagship status for these brands & supplied with swish mounts. And none of these scopes can be readily collimated by the end user as the alignment of the optics is so precise it is done in-factory. The 8V alone still maintains almost cult status.
The Bird-Jones design is not without its own shortcomings. It is not perfect without aberration. It is important to remember the ideas behind its design, to provide a short tube OTA option with what was able to be readily manufactured at the time, that being good spherical mirrors.
What is made today is a far cry from what a Bird-Jones offers performance wise. Made cheap with a poor spherical primary & that they are totally collimateable by the end user shows these are not a precision scope. Add to this that not a single Bird-Jones instrument is to be found anywhere else besides these cheap things. Doesn’t this say something?
These cheap instruments, really all cheap instruments are a double edge sword. They make astro more accessible, yes, but their poor quality ends up killing off more people’s enthusiasm for astro than firing it up. Add to this that for many novices if the mount is not a complicated equatorial one then it isn’t an astronomical instrument, & the difficult manner of using a wobble-tron mount & tripod with the mental gymnastics required just too much for most people who buy these and just give up way too soon.
Yes, there will be a few people who will be able to make these scopes work, being all they can afford, and all power to them. I will support such persons. But these are very few compared to the overwhelming number of people who just give up after the poor experience they get from these instruments. Too them astro is just all too hard, and mainly because of a poor instrument.
Call these cheap instruments what they are, a barlowed Newtonian.
This entire thread is filled with people that know absolutely nothing about Space but the basics modern “media” poorly conveys, but feel the need to comment and display their ignorance proudly just because they hate Musk. It’s quite sad actually for an actual Astronomy community, there’s worse discussion in here than reddit.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.