Interestingly, the exploration and strategic planning you use in stargazing is a lot like what you need in the B9 Game scanning the skies or game map, locking on to targets, and discovering new challenges. Whether you're navigating constellations or game levels, it's all about observation and timing.
Jasmine’s subtle beauty lies in its ability to arugula plant spacing bloom repeatedly with little fuss. It can handle summer heat gracefully and brings natural softness to rock gardens, pathways, or balconies.
good lord, Antares and Vega are offensively bright once you adjust to the dark.
M4!! HOLY GUACAMOLE WOW! M4 by itself made being out tonight worth it!
M80: cool, felt cool to find it, but it looks like any of the other tighter globs and I didn't want to mess with switching to one of my narrow AFOV higher power eyepieces on my manual dob. May revisit once I invest in a higher power eyepiece with a decent AFOV.
Epsilon Lyrae: hmm, am I maybe just not using enough mag? looks like a regular double star to me.
Took the telescope for a slew through Sagittarius, for a laugh, was not disappointed. Breathtaking amount of stars there.
Was all aboard the strugglebus making sense of Hercules's constellation. Didn't help that he was at the zenith, which made using the dob weird when looking for M13 and made looking at the constellation annoying after staring straight up like a turkey for minutes.
Took some time to re-acquaint myself with Draco, Cygnus, and Aquila.
Didn't pick out any more DSOs, in part because I got annoyed with blowing out my night vision, even with the red light, on my charts.
I've been fairly serious about the hobby for about 9 months now, and it seems like I saw way more satellites out tonight than I did when I stopped back in May. Bruh, the little bastards were everywhere.
The paper doesn’t calculate the radius of the star’s Roche limit, instead opting to calculate the orbital period of the Roche limit. I’ve never done a Roche limit calculation for stars, but I have for planets/moons, and I’m not seeing anything that suggests it’s different than for planets. So, I think I did this correctly (excepting typos):
The star’s Roche limit is about 1.5 million km from its centre (~1 million km above its surface), and the planet’s orbit is about 2 million km from the star’s centre. Assuming a circular orbit, which should be the case at these distances, the orbit has a circumference of about 12.7 million km, and the planet is whipping around at a speed of about 2.3 million km/h, or 0.2% the speed of light.
So much math here that my head is already overheating. I need to find the time to learn all this math. Kudos to you internet stranger on your examplary calculations.
The numbers are big, so it can be intimidating, but the math isn’t too bad. It’s a little bit of multiplication and division. The most daunting bit is a cube-root, which you can find on most scientific calculators these days.
It’s hunting down the numbers you need to use that’s the trick, and making sure they’re all in the right units.
The equation for the Roche limit is the most complex math, but that’s just something you look up:
Roche Limit = 2.44 x {the radius of the star} x cube-root(( {the mass of the planet} / {the radius of the planet}^3 ) / ( {the mass of the star} / {the radius of the star}^3 ))
All of the things in the braces are also just values you look up.
The article mentions the star being a dwarf. Are dwarf stars older and in a degrading state. Would the star have had less gravitational force when younger.
How would a plant form that close if the gravitational pull from the star was this strong.
Dwarf stars are technically any star that is in its core phase of life. They are dwarves in comparison to giant stars. The sun is a G-type dwarf star, for instance.
The star is a K-type dwarf, which means it is cooler and smaller than the sun (stars are labelled froom hottest/most massive coolest least hot/least massive: O, B, A, F, G, K, and M for historical reasons).
Planet formation is a complicated and still somewhat young field of study. Planets being close to their stars was a real shock 20 years ago when we stared finding them. The best models we have for this is planetary migration, where the planets form farther aewy from the star, but friction/drag forces from the nebula from which they formed causes them to slow down and fall into smaller orbits.
This planet continues to see its orbit degrade for even more complex reasons, related to both drag – it is interacting with the star’s atmosphere, which is causing it to slow – and tidal effects. When you’re close enough to a massive, rotating body that the differences in gravitational pull strength due to things like variations in density become significant, the rotating body will force you into an orbit that matches its rotation length. If you’re already orbiting faster than it is spinning, that means it will slow you down. But slowing down will cause your orbit to shrink, which shortens the time it takes you to complete an orbit, which will make the central body slow you down more, which will shrink your orbit, which…
Not in the same way, no. None of our planets are touching the Sun’s atmosphere in the same way this planet is, and none of them are orbiting at rates that are faster than the Sun’s rotation. If anything, tidal interactions would want to speed up the planet’s orbits, and push them into higher orbits.
But eventually the Sun will become a red giant star, which will change some of these relationships. We will see competing effects then: The Sun will begin shedding its outer layers, which will create a higher drag environment for the planets (that were not swallowed during the Sun’s expansion) which would tend towards inward migration, but this will also lower the Sun’s mass, which will lend itself toward an outward migration.
Jupiter is not currently migrating inward, nor are any of the other planets. If inward migration happens after the Sun becomes a red giant, those other outer planets will not get anywhere close to it. As a red giant, the Sun will approximately fill Earth’s orbit. Jupiter’s orbit is 5x larger than this; Saturn’s is 10x larger, and by the time the Sun actually grows this large, all of the planets’ orbits will be even larger than they are today, thanks to gradual mass loss.
None of the outer planets are expected to fall into the Sun at any point in time.
fosstodon.org/ - this scientist reckons 0.2AU to Mars. Still 30m km. And thus about 100x further than the moon. But it only took Armstrong three days to do that distance!
Could we slingshot between the earth and the moon a probe to reach it’s relative solar velocity and chase it down? Does anyone know the bounds of that?
I still think they should build out a lunar crater radio telescope out there on the dark side of the moon. The radio silence and scale would be impossible to get any other way.
That’s an interesting thought I hadn’t considered. The Webb is about as quiet as we’re going to get anywhere near our orbit, but a lunar compound could very easily be much larger, and would be a great deal easier to service/upgrade.
astronomy
Najnowsze
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.