I’ve been studying the range of neutron stars for some time and I feel confident it won’t be too long until much of our evidence and observations will show that black holes, quasars, super massive black holes and the range of other black holes are very likely, more extreme neutron stars - if not quark-like stars or stellar quantum-like objects. For fun, I’ve been also been focusing on colloids, extreme condensates and their quantum/relativistic phases/states; very revealing interactions and emergent properties. Now if we could just better observe zero-point energy…
Farming out to the lowest bidder works well when the guidelines are strict and the client (gvmnt) does good QA.
Lots of stuff was farmed out in the apollo mission and it was still ok. Strict QA was noted as a very important factor in why that mission was a success.
You can read the case study by NASA about this, and you’ll see that they have 1 article just about QA and how they did testing, and another one about testing and deadlines
Who wrote this shit? You can’t make an article that’s half about wanting a new name for your field and end it with “there’s a lot of ideas” without giving a single one. Garbage.
I mean, I’m pretty sure you’d be able to see it from everywhere in Australia, so I bet many of them would be like “WTF?” But they’ll be dead soon. Fuckin’ kangaroos.
Intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) are a long-sought ‘missing link’ in black hole evolution. Only a few other IMBH candidates have been found to date. Most known black holes are either extremely massive, like the supermassive black holes that lie at the cores of large galaxies, or relatively lightweight, with a mass less than 100 times that of the Sun. Black holes are one of the most extreme environments humans are aware of, and so they are a testing ground for the laws of physics and our understanding of how the Universe works. If IMBHs exist, how common are they? Does a supermassive black hole grow from an IMBH? How do IMBHs themselves form? Are dense star clusters their favoured home?
If the distribution of those nine satellite galaxies across the entire Milky Way is similar to what was found in the footprint captured by the HSC-SSP, the research team calculates that there actually may be closer to 500 satellite galaxies
WTF? I was thinking there were around a dozen or so.
Higher speed impacts penetrate deep, but also cause the rock to melt. This fills in deeper craters, limiting the max depth a crater can be. There are still very deep huge craters, but these look more like big depressions than craters, because of how big they are. They are also themselves covered with craters usually, making their size and shape harder to see.
Because the diameter of the moon is 3474km, a difference of several kilometers would only amount to a fraction of a percent. So even though one crater is for example 10km deeper than another, relative to the size of the moon this is practically nothing. When viewing pics like these where the whole moon is visible, this matters.
The moon is a very uniform gray color and lacks the indicators our brain use to gauge depth. This makes it very hard to guess how deep the different craters are. You can see some craters have more shadows where others don’t, but they are also different shapes and sizes and the lighting is different so it’s hard to see.
There is also probably some part of the speeds of incoming stuff being within a certain range and the moonrocks being relatively uniform in materials, so the range of craters than can exists is probably limited. But I’m not certain how big of an factor this is and what the range is.
There are plenty of missions right now. China has landed a rover on the moon this month. And multiple countries have satellites in orbit around the moon. Nasa has their Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter which takes very high resolution images of the moon all the time and these are publiced on their website.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.