420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
That FTL means time travel meme by Pierre-Simon Laplace - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 22:22:45 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57130 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513480965587.gif -(117244B / 114.50KB, 323x402) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117244
I have a question regarding this:
If you look at this gif it shows you "backwards" travel:
The first "jump" after the first acceleration points into the direction that corresponds to the lower left quadrant of the previous reference frame leading to backwards time travel.
However: Drawing it into the upper right quadrant should be equally legal which would imply forward time travel. This would imply that direction you are moving in space would dictate the direction of the "time travel" which seems entirely non-sensical to me.
I guess this is also the point but I still get the feeling I'm missing something here.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:01:33 EST ID:o31eHyLZ No.57274 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57242
>>
James Elliott - Wed, 16 May 2018 13:48:13 EST ID:+G8ef2Iy No.57279 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57271
you're pretty much correct in your basic understanding of how the speed of light works, but where things are confusing you is that what you've stated only applies to things that aren't capable of reaching and traveling the speed of light. once you move faster than light, causality is necessarily reversed by our understanding of the laws of relativity.

you see, the speed of light has fundamentally less to do with light than it does causality. the speed of light is more accurately the speed of causality, and photons just happen to have their velocity restricted by that boundary. so while light travels that speed, it's light itself is secondary to the more essential nature underlying reality that is causality.

knowing this, to travel faster than light means to travel faster than causality. to move faster than that any slower than light observer that could measure the properties of your spaceship or whatever would witness your actions occurring in reverse and vice versa.

interestingly enough, all that matters when it comes to the speed of light/causality is reaching it and breaking through it... that is to say, to do so isn't possible. if something were to simply exist moving faster than the speed of light or FTL travel becomes available somehow, moving faster than it doesn't negate the particles moving faster than it from experiencing relativistic effects of their own with regards to the speed of light, they just simply travel through time in reverse with respect to everybody/everything traveling below the speed of light.
>>
James Elliott - Wed, 16 May 2018 14:00:10 EST ID:+G8ef2Iy No.57280 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1526493610393.jpg -(69378B / 67.75KB, 877x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57279
this graph of a function where you try dividing by zero is a good, visually intuitive way of understanding the concept. the asymptote represents the speed of light and causality, and the curves on either side represent the velocity of any given particles traveling along on either side of that barrier. they are never capable of reaching the asymptote and, as my pic states, the curves will continue without bounds out towards infinity.

velocities traveled faster than the speed of light presumably behave symmetrically in terms of relativistic effects with velocities traveled slower than the speed of ligh, only with the direction/flow of time being reversed.
>>
James Elliott - Wed, 16 May 2018 14:01:43 EST ID:+G8ef2Iy No.57281 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57280
behave symmetrically in terms of relativistic effects with respect to velocities traveled slower than the speed of light***
>>
Arno Penzias - Mon, 21 May 2018 13:08:09 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57282 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57280
WADR, the mathematical consequences of attempting to reach the speed of light is because we define the speed of light as the maximum speed. The function of the relation between the speed of a photon and a tachyonic neutrino wouldn't be asymptotic but would simply be a ratio.

So I think it's misleading to say that the speed of light is the "speed" of causality. Tachyons would still obey causality in respect to other tachyons, just in a flow that is apparently opposite to events as ordered from our perspective. A hyper tachyon that traveled twice the rate of a normal tachyon would travel further into the past than it from our perspective, but from the perspective of the tachyon it is merely going further faster in the same direction as the slow tachyon, so they would experience retrocausality rather than acausality. So it makes more sense to me to think of the speed of light as a 180-degree 'fold' in causality, rather than a limit beyond which causality doesn't extend.


Fermi Paradox... why? by Henrietta Levitt - Thu, 22 May 2014 00:54:34 EST ID:ILYTISHs No.53812 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1400734474447.png -(111524B / 108.91KB, 400x325) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 111524
Another thread made me start thinking about this. The Fermi Paradox states (thanks, Wikipedia):

>The Sun is a young star. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older;
>Some of these stars probably have Earth-like planets which, if the Earth is typical, may develop intelligent life;
>Presumably, some of these civilizations will develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now, such as that used in the proposed 100 Year Starship;
>At any practical pace of interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

If that's the case, why haven't we been colonized already, or at least seen evidence of intelligent life somewhere in our galaxy?

My take: either A) Life takes a long time to develop, and somehow, improbably, we're the first planet to develop an intelligent civilization in our galaxy, or at least one of the first. We don't see anyone else because there isn't anyone else to see... yet, or we're all still too far apart.

Or b) Given the size and composition constraints of a planet able to foster and sustain life (as far as we know, "habitable zone," big enough to have an atmosphere, small enough to still be rocky, etc.) and continue long enough for said life to begin to explore the galaxy, the home planet simply runs out of resources before meaningful headway can be made. I think this is more of a slow-death kind of thing where maybe we get to do some exploration within the solar system and maybe a bit beyond for a while, but overpopulation, war, disease, famine, and whatever else causes us to realign our priorities from space exploration to merely sustaining life on our own planet. A civilization that had the foresight to know something like that was happening could theoretically, if they had the goal of galactic expansion from the start, avoid this situation, but the problem is that NO civilization has that kind of 10,000 year plan from the get-go, and they all sputter out right before they could have pulled it off. There's not a textbook on "how to succeed as a species" that gets handed out to a life form when it develops self-awareness,…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
307 posts and 73 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Edward Pickering - Thu, 23 Nov 2017 19:44:22 EST ID:+kYrHA6N No.57101 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57086

what if biodiverse planets with unique life structures are the purpose of the universe and humanity's effort to mechanize and automate and digitize the universe is cancerous and bad from a higher/wiser perspective? maybe humanity spreading throughout the universe is a negative?
>>
Caroline Herschel - Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:19:07 EST ID:unNII3om No.57102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57101

Well how should we know that?

If it's true, at least we get to be the enemy of the gods, instead of becoming a thin plastic film spread across the geological strata of Earth.
>>
John Riccioli - Sat, 02 Dec 2017 19:29:48 EST ID:NWuHYIye No.57108 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1512260988883.jpg -(165191B / 161.32KB, 1080x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57101

Yeah, I don't really place any value on the opinions of outside influences like that. The universe could be a big ol' data storage device for some extra-dimensional lifeforms, but that doesn't affect my decision processes in the here and now. We're here, we get to decide what we do with this place, insofar as that is possible.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Tue, 12 Dec 2017 12:08:47 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1513098527755.png -(5149B / 5.03KB, 584x33) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
dude
>>
Karl Jansky - Sun, 22 Apr 2018 06:10:38 EST ID:AZMi8krg No.57278 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Too much thread to read all of. There are a number of posts saying that neither we nor aliens would have any reason to colonise other places, as the resources aren't really very useful, colonies would be potential rivals and technology means we can just dick about in cyberspace instead.

They're good points but they're not enough. Life likes to go forth and multiply; if it didn't, it wouldn't be life. It's hard wired into us that we'll want to fuck off somewhere else if we can, just because. Even from a more logical point of view, the more habitats we have, the harder it'll be for us to go extinct; either by accident or at the hands of malicious aliens. Someone already said it's hard to imagine humanity just jerking off on the internet until the sun explodes. Our species, or whatever it turns into, can survive the sun's extinction, if we just make sure we're on other planets too. Not just planets; planets are sitting ducks to relativistic weapons. Generation ships in deep space on unpredictable courses would be impossible to eradicate as they'd be impossible to pinpoint. Which is another possible problem with finding aliens, if they've taken that route.


Stephen Hawking died at age 76 by Johan Galle - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:52:46 EST ID:UgaLEhyB No.57237 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1521013966541.jpg -(203302B / 198.54KB, 1160x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 203302
Goodnight you genius retard
>>
William Hartmann - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:04:12 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
His absurd in-mental astrophysics simulations will be missed. Rest in peace dude, you deserve it.
>>
Thomas Henderson - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:22:05 EST ID:sL8p9E02 No.57239 Ignore Report Quick Reply
RIP to the coolest dude.
>>
William Fowler - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:43:23 EST ID:Iarb3bdT No.57277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You were a remote-controlled animatronic silicone muppet for decades, but a pretty good mascot and an excellent rapper.


Fucking ECLIPSE thread! by Irwin Shapiro - Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:50:15 EST ID:KgS57XEk No.57006 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503258615031.jpg -(263261B / 257.09KB, 1932x1932) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 263261
ECLIPSE THREAD MOFOS!

Come on! Get excited for this!

I got a cheap solar filter sheet and put it in front of my 300mm lens. Which is plugged into a 2x teleconverter. 600mm to grab the eclipse.

Took some test shots today and got to see some sunspots! Which are freaking cool (well, RELATIVELY cool...LOL!)

Post eclipse shit here people!
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Bruon Rossi - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:04:53 EST ID:cP2dPTDR No.57011 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just got back from watching it in Casper, WY. It was amazing and felt so unearthly. It's really weird to look up in the sky and see something so different. You can't help but laugh and be in awe at the big ring of ghostly white light in the sky.

The difference between 99% and totality is unreal. Until that last bit of sun is covered, it's neat, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Then totality clicks in and the whole character of everything changes. If you missed seeing this one, def try to get to the one that runs from Texas to Maine in 2024.

Also, for the next one, make sure to check out the shadows on the ground as you approach totality. The dappled light/shadow under a tree acts as hundreds of pinhole projectors. You'll see hundreds of projections of the moon passing in front of the sun. The patches of light will all turn fishscale-shaped. It's pretty great.
>>
Alan Guth - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:20:56 EST ID:fsTyqOA+ No.57013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Was down in Greenville SC visiting my parents for it. Truly surreal, is the only way I can describe it. The most radical part was how the sun was still too powerfully bright to look at until absolute totality.

Down in Greenville totality lasted for what felt like a minute exactly. It is the most bizarre thing, it was getting visibly dimmer on the ground, and approaching totality it was near twilight. Up until exact totality though, you cant look at the sun. It was just that bright still. Then, totality, saw some Baileys Beads, even saw some sun snakes (atmospheric turbulence you can see on sidewalks as totality approaches).

Once totality was over, the sun came to the other side of the moon, and BAM, bright as fuck again.

It gave me a respect for how fucking powerfully bright that big plasma ball really is.

Surreal.
>>
Annie Cannon - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:09:30 EST ID:2C/bTB2T No.57134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57011
Also viewed in Casper, WY
>>
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 20:06:44 EST ID:87P+p9li No.57275 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57006

I saw it.
>>
Mike Brown - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:41:41 EST ID:Wv34DROU No.57276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i seent it


Intergalactic Electromagnetism by Bruon Rossi - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 06:53:57 EST ID:tC4KRASE No.57199 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518954837151.gif -(2096340B / 2.00MB, 400x354) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2096340
Hey /sagan/,

Quick question for y'all. Currently we observe the universe to be expanding at an accelerating rate and no equations can account for the force behind this since all scientists tend to be looking at gravity alone. However, the electromagnetic force is something like 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, and has the same inverse relationship to the square of the distance between the objects, meaning even at vast cosmic distances it should still be relevant, in fact MORE relevant, than gravity.

Maybe instead of "dark energy" it is simply the electromagnetic repulsion between galaxies who all gained like charges through the big bang or whatever and they simply move apart like two protons would?

Has this theory been debunked or seriously investigated?
10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Ejnar Hertzprung - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 05:06:10 EST ID:ipXKhk7s No.57218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7jVTGjb-I
>>
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:12:32 EST ID:4qSB6SyR No.57219 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57214

ok nerd calm down i know the difference. notice i never typed "scientific theory", i was using it in the layman's meaning, an "idea based on a bit of thinking". i never said my idea or the guy i was asking for his idea had come up with a true scientific theory like evolution or something
>>
Karl Jansky - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:21:30 EST ID:PAGBpgJc No.57220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519960890192.gif -(747912B / 730.38KB, 300x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57199
Inflation theory doesn't say that stuff in the universe is moving away from each other, rather that the space-time where the stuff resides is expanding, giving the red shifted appearance of most celestial objects. I'm not sure where you got the gravity thing from, as it's not really coming into play.
>>
Thomas Henderson - Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:30:53 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Place your bets dudes and dudettes.

Dark energy is:
1) something we haven't discovered yet
2) an error in our understanding of physics
3) cthulhu ftaghn ia ia ia ia tekeli
>>
Rudolph Minkowski - Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:41:19 EST ID:oI9ZFXsB No.57273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57240
Those aren't mutually exclusive.


fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
10 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 23:36:09 EST ID:2O5lO8M8 No.57123 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57112
Well I'm not going to make an argument for the Big Crunch because I don't think it will happen, it's Big Freezes all the way down. However, I would make an argument for their nonetheless being an infinite number of Big Bangs, and thus the universe having a cyclic quality without any need for a Big Crunch.

The argument for this is simple, one based on a priori logic rather than a posteriori empiricism, as well as the Copernican principle: our universe, apparently, arose from nothing at all into the universe we perceive today. If we believe in the Big Bang, we must minimally accept this. We must take nothing to mean really nothing, as extension in no qualities of any kind. In this way the moment immediately after the Big Freeze is the same as the moment before the Big Bang -- time ceases to exist for an infinite amount of non-time, because what time is is a measurement of change, and in nothing, there is no change at all.

Because we know it is possible for the universe to arise from nothing, and know it is going back into nothing, and we know that nothingness can exist for an infinite amount of time, it would be a violation of the Copernican principle to assume that our vantage point is the only time ever that nothingness would generate a universe. No, that would imply a violation of causality and us having a privileged perspective, so we must reject it.

If nothing really is nothing, and the universe can come from nothing but also inevitably goes into nothing, then there's nothing about nothing that can stop universes from infinitely eternally being formed out of it. Since there are an infinite number of universes, there will also be an infinite number of identical universes, eventually. Thus, cyclical universe.
>>
Jan Hendrik Oort - Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:52:12 EST ID:JrU5uOl/ No.57124 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57123

like a pac-man screen
>>
William de Sitter - Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:00:03 EST ID:JaX78I2e No.57125 Ignore Report Quick Reply
https://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-universes-may-exist
>>
Henry Russell - Sat, 10 Mar 2018 00:08:37 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57123
Not cyclical. Like a tree. Or a fractal. Self-similar.

Our universe dies into nothingness. Nothingness gives rise to new big bangs. These big bangs spawn new universes that die into nothingness.... etc. ad infinitum.
>>
William Lassell - Sun, 11 Mar 2018 17:37:47 EST ID:xu+ta0+j No.57236 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57235
If there are only a finite number of configurations which a given hubble volume can manifest (which is necessary, because there are a finite number of planck lengths within the hubble volume and a finite number of elementary particles & energies) then with an infinite number of alternate universes, eventually the same configuration will appear again (not only once, but an infinite number of times) since the number of possible hubble volume configurations is less than infinite. Each one of these manifestations is one complete 'cycle' although the length of cycles (i.e. the number of permutations between each recurrence of an identical configuration) would always vary.


Red Dwarf ayy lmaos by William Hartmann - Mon, 15 Jan 2018 13:34:12 EST ID:y3vStdZD No.57154 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1516041252879.jpg -(66050B / 64.50KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 66050
In this thread ITT we discuss the habitability of red dwarf systems
Scientists have theorized that these planets could be habitable despite being tidally locked with their stars. They believe there would be enough convection between the light and dark sides to maintain oceans, an atmosphere etc.
I think it would be interesting how life would evolve on such a world, particularly intelligent life. Imagine how the material conditions of the world would affect culture, technological development, geopolitics etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems
Discuss
8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hannes Alven - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:43:07 EST ID:NyLhIW/E No.57182 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57180
>> the interaction between a star and a planet (gravity) does not affect the electromagnetism of the planet in question
Well, no, gravity isn't the only fundamental force that causes interaction between stars and planets. We are absolutely electromagnetically affected by our star, we are bathed in its EM radiation continuously, but that's not at all the reason we have an magnetic field on earth, and I never suggested it was.

I suggested that stars with low metallicity necessarily have planetary systems with low metallicity, and that you can't have a magnetic planet without it being composed of a sufficient proportion of magnetic metals (you need other things too, like a sufficient mass, which is apparently why Mars' magnetic field collapsed.) The relationship between a star's composition and its planets' magnetism occurs during the proto-stellar phase, when the star is accumulating whatever heavy elements will go into its accretion disk. Only if enough magnetic metals are present will there be a planet with sufficient mass to maintain a liquid core of cobalt, nickel or iron. After the planetary system has formed, the electromagnetic interaction between star and planets is limited to effects directly caused by the electromagnetic radiation of the star and how it interacts with the electromagnetic field, if any, of its planets, which sustain on their own merits after that point.

In sort you either misunderstood my post or yourself don't have a firm understanding of how the four fundamental forces relate to the physics of the formation of star systems and planets.
>>
Stephen Hawking - Sat, 10 Feb 2018 15:23:04 EST ID:p73EfNkl No.57184 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57182

ok ok i guess if you want to take it back to the actual formation of the planet, which is a function of the gravitational force between the star and planetoid, then fine, it has an eventual determining effect on the existence and/or strength of the planet's electromagnetic field. however i didn't think you meant it in a historical sense, but rather a consistent determination of the EM from G which i was saying is not true.
>>
Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:18:11 EST ID:4uIlxD// No.57190 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57154

I feel like if life developed on any planet it would spread and adapt to all envitonments.

Imagine a planet with three wildly divergent patterns, in the hot, twilight, and dark sides.

Any intelligent ayyylmaos would want to access resources from the other zones, the technology and methods developed to survive and colonize the opposite side of their planet would translate well to space travel. The history of the conquest of their own planet would be fascinating.

What would it do to a society to have half the planet living in hostile conditions?

What if two separate races descended from entirely different trunks of an evolutionary tree that branched in the microbial era became sapient separately, isolated from each other by their wildly different environments?
>>
Charles Bolton - Tue, 13 Feb 2018 12:30:08 EST ID:4uIlxD// No.57191 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57167
Jupiter has a magnetic field from its metallic hydrogen core. Gas giant's have moons big enough to hold an atmosphere, and the tidal forces from orbiting close to a gas giant have been observed to create geologic and weather activity.

Could Jupiter sized gas giant's exist close enough to a gas dwarf to be warm enough to evolve life? Would the magnetic field of such a hypothetical gas giant protect its moons?

Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth life, Earth life even uses proteins to store the information that makes evolution possible.

Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?
>>
Viktor Ambartsumian - Thu, 15 Feb 2018 03:10:20 EST ID:m3P6k9jA No.57193 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518682220337.gif -(45588B / 44.52KB, 640x452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57191
>Earth life hates radiation because it denatures proteins, a fundamental structure in all earth life
In the beginning, it hated oxygen because it oxidized proteins. It's not inconceivable that carbon-based life in in an environment with ionizing radiation could adapt to mitigate the damage and use the energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic_fungus

>Are there any classes of molecules capable of the kind of structural and interactive diversity of proteins that aren't as vulnerable to radiation?
All molecules are, under a few feet of water.


Private Space Industry can now reach Mars. by Henrietta Levitt - Tue, 06 Feb 2018 17:11:41 EST ID:unNII3om No.57169 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1517955101747.jpg -(14848B / 14.50KB, 153x258) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 14848
The Falcon Heavy launch was a success. There's a Tesla car now in transfer orbit to Mars, and this is a fact. Beyond how absurd that sounds, this actually means that a private actor now has the capability to put orbiters and more around Mars. Which means a huge step closer to putting people on the world.

Space-X has provien that they at least has the capability to reach the un-told numbers of asteroids passing through that range.
Is this Musk's actual end-game here? To capture some metal-heavy asteroid and bring it into low-Earth orbit for mining? I dunno, but still, the future is getting tangible as fuck.
6 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Antony Hewish - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:04:03 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57177 Ignore Report Quick Reply
For asteroid mining you need fusion or cheap ass solar.
And possibly a way to make metallic hydrogen fuel.

Moving stuff is still expensive as fuck in space because of the fucking rocket equation,.

That said I'm impressed by the Falcon Heavy, but has less umpf that the Saturn V had (and equivalent lifting capability to low earth orbit doesn't count)
The thing is the Saturn V could have done the one thing the falcon heavy was _optimized_ for as a side note. Lookup what the Lunar Lander did weigh.

The Falcon Heavy couldn't redo Apollo.
>>
Antony Hewish - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:11:50 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57178 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The Falcon Heavy couldn't redo Apollo.
This also means it can't send stuff to mars on a fast transfer orbit. That tesla in space will orbit the sun several times before it gets to mars.
>>
Harlow Shapley - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:18:49 EST ID:p73EfNkl No.57179 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57177

the point of heavy is the recovery of the boosters (although the 3rd one did crash so more work needs to be done)
>>
Hannes Alven - Thu, 08 Feb 2018 19:31:02 EST ID:NyLhIW/E No.57181 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57177
But that's not the point of the Falcon Heavy, it was to become the largest lift capacity commercial rocket presently operated...which it now is. You'll have to wait until later this year for them to surpass the Saturn V with the Big Fucking Rocket, which absolutely could redo Apollo. (Also, imagine how much lighter we could make a modern Apollo mission with current materials and tech.)
>>
William Herschel - Fri, 09 Feb 2018 23:52:48 EST ID:coC9H9eG No.57183 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1518238368620.gif -(1620911B / 1.55MB, 654x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Starman is definitely a construction android.

That bell under the car sure had a lot of room for secret gear.

Mars is a hologram: we already live on Mars. Earth is long dead.


Juno Close-Up of Jupiter by Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Sat, 16 Dec 2017 14:49:08 EST ID:unNII3om No.57129 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1513453748388.jpg -(117513B / 114.76KB, 1041x586) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 117513
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/juno/images/index.html

These pictures alone are worth the 1 billion dollars of the mission.
>>
Edwin Hubble - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 00:13:35 EST ID:GzPfXXE4 No.57159 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516425215727.jpg -(165760B / 161.88KB, 1041x884) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57129
Totally worth it. Fuckin love jupiter
>>
Galileo Galilei - Sat, 20 Jan 2018 07:34:49 EST ID:8caD3Z7Z No.57161 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1516451689471.jpg -(1387428B / 1.32MB, 1041x1239) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>57159
Nasa bitches be trippin


Revolutionary new theory disproving gravity and our understanding of the cosmos by William Lassell - Sun, 26 Nov 2017 13:07:45 EST ID:Wzm4xeu3 No.57104 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1511719665892.jpg -(70190B / 68.54KB, 1000x707) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 70190
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDSS5k-105M

What if the heavens we have gazed in wonder for so long are not so vast...but in fact smaller than the landmass we inhabit?

Unlike the ridiculous flat earth theory, which makes no sense, this new theory makes a lot of sense, and not only that, it manages to combine science with religion in a rational, logical way.
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Tue, 05 Dec 2017 22:13:02 EST ID:2ov/AXi5 No.57120 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57104
Sorry chap, that didn't disprove anything, and you're a fucktard!
>>
Edward Pickering - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 11:03:40 EST ID:pyme3SEs No.57121 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57120

Disprove a bag of shit, onk.
>>
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:12:29 EST ID:unNII3om No.57122 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57121

Easy. Who would seriously put shit in a bag besides dog-owners?

Check mate nb
>>
Wilhelm Beer - Mon, 01 Jan 2018 12:27:22 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57141 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Is this the "Elon Musk is Satan" guy that spammed /high/ full of his schizophrenic retard shit a few months ago?
>>
Nicolaus Copernicus - Mon, 05 Mar 2018 12:39:55 EST ID:ej0yxAjW No.57230 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I can here to check this out from a complaint thread on /420/ to see if it was true.. Gave me a good chuckle. Thanks 420chan.


Astronomy Club by Ejnar Hertzprung - Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:02:26 EST ID:dWt9NTso No.57017 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1505318546672.gif -(181264B / 177.02KB, 197x270) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 181264
I'm trying to make an astronomy club but I don't know what it would be about or what to do. Everyone else who likes astronomy are just shy like me and we all refuse to talk. Logically I know that the club show be at night because astronomy but what do you think I should do at such a club. Thank you
>>
Dr. Mario !gWLn19/oKs - Thu, 14 Sep 2017 21:49:37 EST ID:9UftK+wR No.57018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57017
definitely smoke weed together. lots of weed. thats a given
>>
Jocelyn Bell - Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:26:08 EST ID:2H001r1f No.57020 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57018
Alrighty !
>>
Karl Swarzchild - Thu, 21 Sep 2017 10:46:21 EST ID:sywMqW4i No.57025 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57017
>the club should be at night
>what do you think I should do at such a club

well gee, ill tell you what i think
>>
Galileo Galilei - Sat, 23 Sep 2017 21:07:05 EST ID:7bk1TGPO No.57028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
maybe you could look at stars and talk about them
>>
Tycho Brahe - Fri, 22 Dec 2017 01:13:32 EST ID:mZKzn5Lt No.57133 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>57017
in my highschool astronomy club we participated a lot in SETI


https://www.celestron.com/products/powerseeker-127eq-telescope by Joseph von Fraunhofer - Sun, 03 Dec 2017 04:35:05 EST ID:UEOi/cKA No.57111 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1512293705978.png -(193419B / 188.89KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 193419
Im looking for a telescope in the 150-180 range for my cousin
can someone knowledgable help me
https://www.celestron.com/products/powerseeker-127eq-telescope

some of these have more "zoom" I am retarded but are some are cheaper and some have less and are more expensive so I don't get it?
>>
Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Fri, 15 Dec 2017 12:14:31 EST ID:Wnqom/n1 No.57128 Report Quick Reply
Go for something with a larger aperture size. This collects more light, allowing lenses with more zoom to be used without everything fading out.
I'd recommend something with a 4"+ aperture. It will come with at least a 40mm eyepiece, and if your cousin wants, they can get other lenses that will zoom more.


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.