Astronomy & Space Exploration

[Ian Reus]

A bit closer to earth. What are Hamas' missile range?
ISRAEL SPACECRAFT CRASHES DURING HISTORIC MOON LANDING ATTEMPT, SPACEIL SUPPORT TEAM SAYS
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-status-fail-a8866086.html#Echobox=1555011766

 

[Invictus]

 

[nimic]

We've made it this far, so we're probably fine. Fingers crossed.

 

[predator]

Not sure where to put this so I think this thread is most suitable.

I've always been fascinated by theoretical astronomy and the deeper universe but in all honesty the whole space programs and humans efforts in space haven't got my attention that much, until recently. I've been working alot lately so I'm staying in and watching alot of stuff on tv/internet etc.

I've been researching about the moon landing and the internet is telling me it was fake. To me it is absolutely disgusting if it was a big ploy by nasa to get one over on the Russians.

But how can an institution (nasa) continue to exist if they doctored such a monumental event?

I want to believe it was real. The story of Apollo, Neil Armstrong and the space race is just incredible and the older i get the more it amazes me.

What do you lot reckon? I ask on here because you lot make numerous great debates on these sorts of topics.

 

[nimic]

You can rest easy, the Moon landing really happened. There are many, many ways to know that it really happened, but my favourite one is the fact that while we did have the technology to shoot a rocket into space, we didn't have the technology to actually fake landing on the Moon.

However, the simplest way of knowing that it really happened is already in your answer.

To me it is absolutely disgusting if it was a big ploy by nasa to get one over on the Russians.

If the Americans faked the Moon landing, don't you think the Russians would make sure everyone knew perfectly well that it never actually happened? And it would be impossible to hide it from the Russians, so at the very least you'd actually have to send a spaceship into orbit around the Moon, and then send a lander down to the Moon. But at that point you've basically done the hard part already, so you might as well actually land a person on the Moon instead of faking it.

 

[17 Van der Gouw]

What do you lot reckon? I ask on here because you lot make numerous great debates on these sorts of topics.

There are a number of factors that put the authenticity of the moon landings beyond all doubt.

- Several of the Apollo missions were tracked by amateur radio and telescope enthusiasts.

- Images of the moon taken by countries other than America show the landing sites and associated surface disturbances.

- Tens of thousands of people were involved with the project from planning and research to technical execution. It'd be impossible to keep it a secret were it fake.

- As mentioned above. The Soviets conceded NASA landed on the moon.

Most of the conspiracy theories are grounded in pseudo science and are usually self contradicting. The favourites being the Van Allen belt and the moving flags. All debunked easily with just a small amount of research.

 

[Tarrou]

Not sure where to put this so I think this thread is most suitable.

I've always been fascinated by theoretical astronomy and the deeper universe but in all honesty the whole space programs and humans efforts in space haven't got my attention that much, until recently. I've been working alot lately so I'm staying in and watching alot of stuff on tv/internet etc.

I've been researching about the moon landing and the internet is telling me it was fake. To me it is absolutely disgusting if it was a big ploy by nasa to get one over on the Russians.

But how can an institution (nasa) continue to exist if they doctored such a monumental event?

I want to believe it was real. The story of Apollo, Neil Armstrong and the space race is just incredible and the older i get the more it amazes me.

What do you lot reckon? I ask on here because you lot make numerous great debates on these sorts of topics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Retroreflectors on their own is proof enough, surely?

 

[Invictus]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nimic]

To be clear, that's the Southern Crab Nebula. The Crab Nebula is also pretty cool.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Crabs.

 

[Invictus]

To be clear, that's the Southern Crab Nebula. The Crab Nebula is also pretty cool.

Good spot, didn't catch that typo in the tweet. On a somewhat related note, I'm fascinated by Barnard 33...mostly because it looks like a quintessential Lovecraftian elder god from afar!

 

[nimic]

Good spot, didn't catch that typo in the tweet. On a somewhat related note, I'm fascinated by Barnard 33...mostly because it looks like a quintessential Lovecraftian elder god from afar!

Oh yeah, that's a good one. My favourite was always The Pillars of Creation.

 

[Buster15]

There are a number of factors that put the authenticity of the moon landings beyond all doubt.

- Several of the Apollo missions were tracked by amateur radio and telescope enthusiasts.

- Images of the moon taken by countries other than America show the landing sites and associated surface disturbances.

- Tens of thousands of people were involved with the project from planning and research to technical execution. It'd be impossible to keep it a secret were it fake.

- As mentioned above. The Soviets conceded NASA landed on the moon.

Most of the conspiracy theories are grounded in pseudo science and are usually self contradicting. The favourites being the Van Allen belt and the moving flags. All debunked easily with just a small amount of research.

Added to that are the Lazer reflectors put at various locations on the Moon which show that it's rotational speed is slowing and it is moving further away from Earth. Both changes being very gradual.

 

[Charles Miller]

Maybe i could post it here. Its David Butler. Underrated channel with excellent content.

 

[Buster15]

Not sure where to put this so I think this thread is most suitable.

I've always been fascinated by theoretical astronomy and the deeper universe but in all honesty the whole space programs and humans efforts in space haven't got my attention that much, until recently. I've been working alot lately so I'm staying in and watching alot of stuff on tv/internet etc.

I've been researching about the moon landing and the internet is telling me it was fake. To me it is absolutely disgusting if it was a big ploy by nasa to get one over on the Russians.

But how can an institution (nasa) continue to exist if they doctored such a monumental event?

I want to believe it was real. The story of Apollo, Neil Armstrong and the space race is just incredible and the older i get the more it amazes me.

What do you lot reckon? I ask on here because you lot make numerous great debates on these sorts of topics.

If the internet is saying it was a fake then what evidence is that assumption based upon.
Let's face it there are conspiracy theories for pretty much everything if you choose to look.
As many will point out, the Apollo missions were independently tracked.
Anyway. What would be the benefit in NASA actually faking the moon landings.
You must take much of what you read with an extremely large pinch of salt and make up your own mind. You should like a fairly sensible person so trust in your instincts.

 

[predator]

If the internet is saying it was a fake then what evidence is that assumption based upon.
Let's face it there are conspiracy theories for pretty much everything if you choose to look.
As many will point out, the Apollo missions were independently tracked.
Anyway. What would be the benefit in NASA actually faking the moon landings.
You must take much of what you read with an extremely large pinch of salt and make up your own mind. You should like a fairly sensible person so trust in your instincts.

I'm currently on the 'it did happen' side of the fence. The third party evidence is quite telling.
I'd love to see the Apollo programme revived or even better adapted with Mars in mind.

 

[Buster15]

I'm currently on the 'it did happen' side of the fence. The third party evidence is quite telling.
I'd love to see the Apollo programme revived or even better adapted with Mars in mind.

Is there a key bit of evidence that is putting you in that position.
Regarding further manned space travel, it is looking increasingly likely that will happen. First back to the Moon which I hope you will believe this time then onto Mars.
The reason why is that I cannot see the USA allowing another nation to get there first.

The primary problem is both cost and technology. I listened to a programme recently that said that NASA is not quite ready to go back to the Moon.
The cost of the Apollo programme was incredible consuming over 4% of US GDP. It needs a leader with great vision to be able to pull that sort of funding again.

 

[Robbo's Shoulder]

My daughter has bought us tickets for Brian Cox Universal Adventures in Space and Time at the Manchester Arena in September for a birthday gift. Honestly can't wait.
Anyone else got tickets for the tour?

 

[nickm]

Not sure where to put this so I think this thread is most suitable.

I've always been fascinated by theoretical astronomy and the deeper universe but in all honesty the whole space programs and humans efforts in space haven't got my attention that much, until recently. I've been working alot lately so I'm staying in and watching alot of stuff on tv/internet etc.

I've been researching about the moon landing and the internet is telling me it was fake. To me it is absolutely disgusting if it was a big ploy by nasa to get one over on the Russians.

But how can an institution (nasa) continue to exist if they doctored such a monumental event?

I want to believe it was real. The story of Apollo, Neil Armstrong and the space race is just incredible and the older i get the more it amazes me.

What do you lot reckon? I ask on here because you lot make numerous great debates on these sorts of topics.

Read A Man on the Moon by Andrew Chaikin or the original Apollo 13 book by Jim Lovell. Both books are filled with the sort of incidental, surprising detail that you only get when people are describing something that is genuinely real.

 

[nickm]

Is there a key bit of evidence that is putting you in that position.
Regarding further manned space travel, it is looking increasingly likely that will happen. First back to the Moon which I hope you will believe this time then onto Mars.
The reason why is that I cannot see the USA allowing another nation to get there first.

The primary problem is both cost and technology. I listened to a programme recently that said that NASA is not quite ready to go back to the Moon.
The cost of the Apollo programme was incredible consuming over 4% of US GDP. It needs a leader with great vision to be able to pull that sort of funding again.

Won’t be NASA that opens up space. It’ll be the private sector. SpaceX and Blue Origin are the future. They’ll do it for profit and that’s what’s needed.

 

[nickm]

Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

 

[Invictus]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[rcoobc]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

So it's a tree

 

[Invictus]

So it's a tree

Sort of, yeah. Though technically, algae are categorized as neither plants nor animals — and are supposed to be very efficient and low-maintenance (ostensibly why they're preferred in this research). From a related ISS Photobioreactor article:

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/content/-/article/iss-pbr

 

[bleedred]

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48222568

Jeff Bezos unveils Moon lander concept

To illustrate this, he showed pictures of self-sustaining space colonies that could support people, animals and greenery - somewhat similar to the concepts developed by Princeton physicist Gerard O'Neill.

 

[Buster15]

I read that the BBC is to mark the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing called 13 minutes on the moon.
From the speech by President Kennedy to the actual moon landing was undoubtedly the most brilliant achievement of humans.
There is no way that that programme could be repeated.

 

[Invictus]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[ArmandTamzarian]

There's a "dark impactor" blasting holes in our galaxy. We can't see it. It might not be made of normal matter. Our telescopes haven't directly detected it. But it sure seems like it's out there.

"It's a dense bullet of something," said Ana Bonaca, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who discovered evidence for the impactor.

Bonaca's evidence for the dark impactor, which she presented April 15 at the conference of the American Physical Society in Denver, is a series of holes in our galaxy's longest stellar stream, GD-1. Stellar streams are lines of stars moving together across galaxies, often originating in smaller blobs of stars that collided with the galaxy in question. The stars in GD-1, remnants of a "globular cluster" that plunged into the Milky Way a long time ago, are stretched out in a long line across our sky.

Under normal conditions, the stream should be more or less a single line, stretched out by our galaxy's gravity, she said in her presentation. Astronomers would expect a single gap in the stream, at the point where the original globular cluster was before its stars drifted away in two directions. But Bonaca showed that GD-1 has a second gap. And that gap has a ragged edge — a region Bonaca called GD-1's "spur" — as if something huge plunged through the stream not long ago, dragging stars in its wake with its enormous gravity. GD-1, it seems, was hit with that unseen bullet.

"We can't map [the impactor] to any luminous object that we have observed," Bonaca told Live Science. "It's much more massive than a star… Something like a million times the mass of the sun. So there are just no stars of that mass. We can rule that out. And if it were a black hole, it would be a supermassive black hole of the kind we find at the center of our own galaxy."

More at the link:
https://www.livescience.com/65483-dark-impactor-could-be-dark-matter.html

Spoiler

 

[Invictus]

bkwkp yeasu psqvz nehtl pvziv dhuua yocpk zfmqb sqyjf

 

[hungrywing]

bkwkp yeasu psqvz nehtl pvziv dhuua yocpk zfmqb sqyjf

It's a Nazi, get him!

 

[Loublaze]

https://www.foxnews.com/science/secret-nasa-plans-for-moon-base-and-37-rocket-launches-revealed

NASA's official plans to build a permanent base on the Moon have leaked online, revealing how and when astronauts will return to the rocky world for the first time in 50 years.

Internal documents show how Nasa wants to launch 37 rockets to the Moon within the next decade, with at least five of these carrying astronauts.

Starting with an unmanned rover in 2023, the space agency is expected to land people on the Moon in 2024.

NASA will then fire manned missions to Earth's neighbor every year between 2024 and 2028, according to the documents, which were obtained by Arstechnica.

Speaking to The Sun, a NASA spokeswoman confirmed the documents are real and revealed the plans were briefed today during a public session of the Science Committee to the Nasa Advisory Council (NAC).

They show a decade-long program that culminates with a permanent lunar base, which NASA will begin building in 2028.

They are in part a response to recent calls from U.S. Vice President Mike Pence to take astronauts back to the Moon.

"In the nearly two months since Pence directed Nasa to return to the Moon by 2024, space agency engineers have been working to put together a plan that leverages existing technology, large projects nearing completion, and commercial rockets to bring this about," Arstechnica's Eric Berger wrote.

"Last week, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a Moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency."

Berger did not say how he obtained the plans, which have not yet been made public.

They do appear to line up with previous statements from NASA about its lunar program, codenamed Artemis.

As with any space exploration project, the main obstacle is cash.

NASA reckons it will need $4.7 billion to $8.2 billion per year on top of NASA's existing budget of about $20 billion.

Boss Jim Bridenstine recently asked for an extra $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 to start developing a lunar lander.

The plan also relies heavily on contractors delivering ambitious hardware on time, which has hindered Nasa in the past.

Boeing has been developing the core stage of the agency's next-gen rocket, the Space Launch System, for eight years – but has yet to come up with the goods.

Boeing's handling of the multi-billion-pound contract, which is now twice over budget, has been blasted by NASA's Inspector General.

NASA was not immediately available for comment.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

That moon base is gonna need a space force.

 

[rcoobc]

Internal documents show how Nasa wants to launch 37 rockets to the Moon within the next decade, with at least five of these carrying astronauts.

Surely they should just scrap the SLS then? There is no way there will be launching that 37 times within the next 11 years. It may not even launch once.

Falcon Heavy, Delta 4 Heavy, Atlas V, Ariane will do the job

 

[swooshboy]

Is there a key bit of evidence that is putting you in that position.
Regarding further manned space travel, it is looking increasingly likely that will happen. First back to the Moon which I hope you will believe this time then onto Mars.
The reason why is that I cannot see the USA allowing another nation to get there first.

The primary problem is both cost and technology. I listened to a programme recently that said that NASA is not quite ready to go back to the Moon.
The cost of the Apollo programme was incredible consuming over 4% of US GDP. It needs a leader with great vision to be able to pull that sort of funding again.

Was reading an article this morning that had the following two tidbits:

In 1961, the year Kennedy formally announced Apollo, NASA spent $1 million on the program for the year. Five years later NASA was spending about $1 million every three hours on Apollo, 24 hours a day.

Which is absolutely mind-blowing...but then it also says this:

That year, 1968, the war in Vietnam had cost $19.3 billion, more than the total cost of Apollo to that point.

 

[Buster15]

Was reading an article this morning that had the following two tidbits:



Which is absolutely mind-blowing...but then it also says this:

The US space programme was probably the most significant thing that humans have achieved and of course in the 1960'same the Cold War was at its highest and Kennedy was not going to let the Soviet Union win the space war.
Now it is more likely that it would be a combination of NASA and a commercial organisation.
Again I would be surprised if the US let another country be the first to go back to the Moon or to Mars.
However, I have to admit that given the choice between space exploration or funding climate change initiatives I would certainly opt for the latter.
Going back to the Moon or to Mars can wait.

 

[Invictus]

ABYSS
2019-05-31
Credit : NASA / JPL / SwRI / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt
Submitted By : Maquet-80
Mission Phase : PERIJOVE 20
Source Image(s) : JNCE_2019149_20C00026_V01

https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=6914

 

[Hammerfell]

https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=6914

Beautiful.

 

[Loublaze]

This is one of my favorite images from Hubble, the deep field pointed at 'black space' in a 'small field' in the direction of Ursa major. These Galaxies have trillions of planets with them, an absolutely amazing image of what most of them looked like half a billion of years after the big bang going by how long their light has taken to reach us. Ghosts really.

What's even more amazing for me is the collision of Galaxies

 

[Buster15]

This is one of my favorite images from Hubble, the deep field pointed at 'black space' in a 'small field' in the direction of Ursa major. These Galaxies have trillions of planets with them, an absolutely amazing image of what most of them looked like half a billion of years after the big bang going by how long their light has taken to reach us. Ghosts really.

What's even more amazing for me is the collision of Galaxies

Did you mean trillions of planets. You mean stars as we have no idea how many planets there might be.

 

[nimic]

This is one of my favorite images from Hubble, the deep field pointed at 'black space' in a 'small field' in the direction of Ursa major. These Galaxies have trillions of planets with them, an absolutely amazing image of what most of them looked like half a billion of years after the big bang going by how long their light has taken to reach us. Ghosts really.

That's actually the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field, which is not the same patch of sky. Here's a higher resolution picture:

Spoiler: Big

Here is the original Hubble Deep Field:

Spoiler: Also big

Here's the even newer Hubble eXtreme Deep Field, which is supposed to be a more sensitive look at the Ultra-Deep view, yet seems to be lower resolution:

Spoiler: Big-ish

For good measure, here's the even newer newer Hubble Deep Ultra-Violet Legacy Survey (or something):

Spoiler: Kinda big