So...how can we see Galaxies so far away not we can't see Planet Nine ?
Astronomy & Space Exploration
- Thread starter MrMarcello
- Start date
Too small and not too bright would be my guess.
Think as it's so (relatively) small, so far away from the Sun that it reflects minimal light, and creates very little heat of its own, you just have to be looking at precisely the right unthinkably small part of the sky to catch a glimpse. Must also be moving incredibly slowly in relation to the background stars as well, so harder to recognise straight away as a planet. Logic for it being there seems pretty solid though, and apparently there's by happy coincidence an unrelated survey going on pointed straight at the part of the sky it's predicted to be in, so could know one way or the other pretty soon. Shame we may never get to see it close up in our lifetimes.
This is brilliant engineering from SpaceX.
Yup, I've been skeptical about them in the past but they're doing some amazing stuff. Blue Origin aiming to do the same with an orbital rocket before the decade's out, could result in a step-change in access to space.
I'm not a fan of SpaceX's workplace policies, a lot of engineers there feel overworked and underpaid. Not good when you need to build and retain domain experts in rocket engineering for future projects. But overall they've done very well.
They can try to get a job at blue origin
Why does there seem to be a new story about this subject coming out every day without fail recently? Bite mark on Pluto, New super black hole found, comet hitting Jupiter, Kepler spacecraft in trouble 75 million miles away from earth etc it goes on and on. Why are they releasing so much propaganda? what are they trying to turn our attention away from?
Propaganda? WTF are you on about? Since when are stories about observations/discoveries in space propaganda?
Are people's attention really being turned away from other issues (I mean look at the number of posts in the US election thread vs. this one), I don't see it.
Really hoping this is a troll attempt.
Blue Origin's rockets are more phallic than most.
NASA starting all sorts of new programs.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...onal-spacecraft-reprogrammable-microorganisms
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...onal-spacecraft-reprogrammable-microorganisms
I read somewhere black holes won't exist and then they say they found a super black hole, interesting.
It's almost as if there is a lot of events occurring outside our planet.
Non-peer-reviewed researcher demonstrates that her assumptions are probably wrong even if her maths isn't. This sounds just like all the mathematicians who've supposedly solved the Navier-Stokes equations.
The only way to know for sure is sending a probe to a black hole, which would take a few million of years with our current technology.
Indeed, seeding the future of commercial space travel!
What are they hiding?
We've got observational evidence of black holes, both indirect and direct (from the recent gravitational waves discovery).
Is it though? We've never sent a probe to another galaxy, yet we still can be relatively sure they exist. There are ways we already have to observe what appear to be black holes, and there are probably many new ways to observe them that we'll find in the coming years.
She may even have proven that black holes don't quite form in the way we all assumed, but she definitely hasn't even come close to proving they don't exist.
If black holes sucks everything around them including light how can we detect gravitational waves?
That's a couple of years old. There's a Quora page somewhere with people poking holes into her research.
A paper submitted only to arXiv in most cases means that it wasn't a strong enough paper to be submitted to important journals/conferences and so its value is a bit questionable.
...Because gravitational waves aren't light? They're ripples in spacetime caused by absurdly high energies, in that case two colliding black holes.
Found the link on BBC and I didn't see the date.
I always though if 2 black holes collide then they would change to a super black hole, the reason I questioning all of the black holes discoveries because the next discovery will change what they "discovered" previously, not saying they are wrong and I do believe if mass of a star is so huge then eventually would collapse and suck gases and planets around creating a tremendous gravitational force sucking everything around.
edit:"Contrary to popular belief, a black hole does not just "suck up" everything around it in an uncontrolled orgy of destruction: it actually exerts no more gravitational pull on the objects around it than the original star from which it was formed, and any objects orbiting the original star (and which survived thesupernova blast) would now orbit a black hole instead (an object would need to approach quite close to a black holebefore being sucked in)."
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_blackholes.html
Ok I was wrong again
Last edited:
They do, but before that they're essentially orbiting one another at ever increasing velocities as they near, stretching and squeezing space as they do, resulting eventually in a massive burst of energy for a brief moment. There's a good visualisation of it on a video from back when they were announced (skip ahead to five minutes):
Good explanation on that video.
That's what they tell you and you all blindly believe it.
Man you should change your name to "the conspirator".
Those feckers. We all know that Earth is flat and the 'stars' are just lights created by the almighty God.
You mean pin-holes in the firmament which let's God's light shine through.
Those feckers. We all know that Earth is flat and the 'stars' are just lights created by the almighty God.
Yes i saw that story, it sounded pretty exciting. It's great that some in the sector are even contemplating something so ambitious.
And just because i like stories about Cassini and Saturn:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Crater 2 Galaxy discovered orbiting the Milky Way....
http://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-just-discovered-a-huge-galaxy-orbiting-our-own
http://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-just-discovered-a-huge-galaxy-orbiting-our-own
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
God damn NASA, get some high resolution cameras.
Space X are insane.
Just landed their third Falcon 9, this time from GTO (highest horizontal velocity so far).
http://tinyurl.com/jhh7lby (at correct time, 37m 40s)
Just landed their third Falcon 9, this time from GTO (highest horizontal velocity so far).
http://tinyurl.com/jhh7lby (at correct time, 37m 40s)
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Last edited:
- 8 Years ago SpaceX where on the verge of going out of business before they even began. (2)
- 6 Months ago they landed the Falcon 9 First Stage back on Earth for the first time.
- 2 Months ago the landed on a Barge for the First Time.
- The Falcon 9 Heavy is meant to be launching late this year. They will try to land all 3 boosters back on earth.
- Next Year SpaceX could be starting manned launches.
And SpaceX are looking to do a Mars Mission in that 2018 window.
2020 might be a bit soon for a Manned Mars mission - you need all the infrastructure in place long before you arrive (see The Martian, or Stan Love explaining, or another youtube video which I can't find but will copy in when I do).
But for the first time... It actually seems like we might be going to Mars, not in ~20 years or ~30 years.... but 10 years. 8 years. 6 years.
Come on you beautiful Falcon Heavy
Last edited:
I've been a major SpaceX fan a few years now, but this is morning was fecking crazy. Landing like that can no longer be considered a fluke. It's unbelieable how accurate they can get it, especially from a GTO mission.
For those who wanna know: GOT a very high-velocity, elliptical orbit used to deliver satellites to geosynchronous orbit. Launches of this type have lower fuel margins and higher incoming velocity for the first stage landings.
Lower orbit missions(LEO) don't need to go as fast so they have more fuel left over. A "boostback" return landing back to Cape Caneveral could be attempted(by turning the rocket 180), but it doesn't improve their accuracy.
https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png
That 3 engine burn is amazing though. The Merlin engines are an octoweb(8 in a circle with one the middle). For GTO missions, they use 3 engines over 15 seconds, which is more difficult than their usual 1 engine for 30 seconds.
God I'm so excited about the Heavy. ...
Also half the reason I'm not here as often is that I'm over on the spacex subreddit.
For those who wanna know: GOT a very high-velocity, elliptical orbit used to deliver satellites to geosynchronous orbit. Launches of this type have lower fuel margins and higher incoming velocity for the first stage landings.
Lower orbit missions(LEO) don't need to go as fast so they have more fuel left over. A "boostback" return landing back to Cape Caneveral could be attempted(by turning the rocket 180), but it doesn't improve their accuracy.
https://i.imgur.com/D9BdO86.png
That 3 engine burn is amazing though. The Merlin engines are an octoweb(8 in a circle with one the middle). For GTO missions, they use 3 engines over 15 seconds, which is more difficult than their usual 1 engine for 30 seconds.
God I'm so excited about the Heavy. ...
Also half the reason I'm not here as often is that I'm over on the spacex subreddit.