| Author |
Thread |
|
whispering
Moderator
Finland
8,453 posts
Joined: Nov, 2002
|
 Posted - 2010/10/08 : 18:01:48
Gif on the same pic Lilley posted:
Alert moderator 
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,637 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2010/10/08 : 18:31:17
only part i dont get is if you left the shutter open that long, the smallest, tiniest little nudge during those 4 months...would result in a terribly blurred picture..
i dont know the science as to how they managed to get around that..
also - you can download the high-res version here:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a/warn/
60mb+!
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
Edited by - Triquatra on 2010/10/08 18:32:46 |
Dante
Advanced Member
Vatican City State (Holy See)
1,185 posts
Joined: Dec, 2009
|
Posted - 2010/10/08 : 19:35:40
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
quote:
Originally posted by Dante:
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
quote:
Originally posted by acidfluxxbass:
Mars hasnt got an atmosphere so telescopes more powerful than the hubble could be used.
Yes it does.
Doesn't matter since Hubble is in orbit outside of the earth's atmosphere :p
wtf does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with the point of putting stronger telescopes on Mars because it has a thinner atmosphere. Since Hubble is outside the earth's atmosphere, taking atmospheres into consideration is pointless.
__________________________________
The "artist" formerly known as Nakk(enboro)!
-----------------------------
http://soundcloud.com/bballs
Alert moderator
|
DJ Specimen
Senior Member
United States
350 posts
Joined: Apr, 2010
|
Posted - 2010/10/08 : 19:35:48
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
He's actually right. However, all that will affect is the moons distance to earth. Ie. how long it takes to orbit the earth, the run of the tides, and just about everything that require the moon. The way to counteract that is to have the rockets leaving from points evenly spread over the moon.
All that he seems to have forgotten is that
a) it's ROCKETS that do the moon voyages, space shuttles are exactly that - shuttles to space stations, not the moon
b) The lower mass and gravity of the moon mean the rockets only require a minuscule amount of energy to escape the moon when compared to escaping earth. This means less fuel required to leave the moon which means less mass required on the rocket to hold the fuel which means less fuel required to leave the moon, which means... etc.
Not forgetting the inspection process that each rocket must undertake between each launch. Pretty much stripped down to bare bones and rebuilt.
Oh and the fact that there is no air on the moon, that's a pretty major point.
Or cheese.
You need a space shuttle attached to the rockets to carry people to the moon. They would also just as much if now more fuel than it would take to get to the moon, because there's no useful atmosphere on mars parachutes won't work. They would have to use reverse propulsion to land safely (pointing the rockets down and firing to slow the shuttle). This means that having rockets take off on opposite sides of the moon simultaneously would be less efficient than just going directly, however if it's impossible to go directly, then it could still be beneficial.
The escape velocity I listed was that of the moon, not the earth. Which means I did take the moon's smaller size into account. As fas as moving the moon being negligible, I suggest you look further into that. The moon doesn't just cause tides and romantic nights, it keeps the earth on it's axis at a 23 degree tilt which causes consistent temperatures around the globe. If we didn't have the moon balancing the earth, north america could look like Antarctica today and the Sahara dessert next month, it would be completely uninhabitable.
__________________________________
MSN: [email protected]
That's right, hellokitty.com, and don't act like you don't want one too.
Alert moderator
|
DJ Jessie
Average Member
United States
195 posts
Joined: Dec, 2009
|
Posted - 2010/10/08 : 23:35:35
Blast them to the moon with Hardcore Di-No-Might!
__________________________________
New to the mix
Alert moderator
|
Brian K
Advanced Member
United States
8,663 posts
Joined: Sep, 2001
528 hardcore releases
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 00:33:36
quote:
Originally posted by Audio Warfare:
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing talks of plans to start going to the moon to build a base for scientific research and refuelling for further trips? The date 2015 sticks in my head for some reason, maybe when it was all going to start?
I think it was a US thing but other countries where getting together to help with it or something...
Japan was wanting to put humanoids on the moon by 2015 and get a station up there by 2020. all those scary looking robots they keep building have a purpose =P
Unfortunately I don't see nations coming together to better humanity any time soon, just look how well the UN works =P
I don't think we could terraform the moon but a base for refuelling would definitly help in the exploration of outerspace.
__________________________________
"we'll delete the weak"
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 14:20:34
quote:
Originally posted by DJ Specimen:
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
He's actually right. However, all that will affect is the moons distance to earth. Ie. how long it takes to orbit the earth, the run of the tides, and just about everything that require the moon. The way to counteract that is to have the rockets leaving from points evenly spread over the moon.
All that he seems to have forgotten is that
a) it's ROCKETS that do the moon voyages, space shuttles are exactly that - shuttles to space stations, not the moon
b) The lower mass and gravity of the moon mean the rockets only require a minuscule amount of energy to escape the moon when compared to escaping earth. This means less fuel required to leave the moon which means less mass required on the rocket to hold the fuel which means less fuel required to leave the moon, which means... etc.
Not forgetting the inspection process that each rocket must undertake between each launch. Pretty much stripped down to bare bones and rebuilt.
Oh and the fact that there is no air on the moon, that's a pretty major point.
Or cheese.
You need a space shuttle attached to the rockets to carry people to the moon. They would also just as much if now more fuel than it would take to get to the moon, because there's no useful atmosphere on mars parachutes won't work.
nup, that is what a space station is for. Dock the shuttle there, possibly in orbit of the moon or maybe just in a very distant orbit of the earth and have a lunar shuttle to and from the space station. Much more practical.
quote:
They would have to use reverse propulsion to land safely (pointing the rockets down and firing to slow the shuttle). This means that having rockets take off on opposite sides of the moon simultaneously would be less efficient than just going directly, however if it's impossible to go directly, then it could still be beneficial.
ummm, how does the second sentence have anything to do with the first? A craft landing on the moon will never go straight there, will always orbit a few times first.
quote:
The escape velocity I listed was that of the moon, not the earth. Which means I did take the moon's smaller size into account. As fas as moving the moon being negligible, I suggest you look further into that. The moon doesn't just cause tides and romantic nights, it keeps the earth on it's axis at a 23 degree tilt which causes consistent temperatures around the globe. If we didn't have the moon balancing the earth, north america could look like Antarctica today and the Sahara dessert next month, it would be completely uninhabitable.
errr, ok. how does the moon have anything to do with the earth's tilt. The earth's tilt stays constant due to newtons law of inertia. And it would not change North America from being Antarctica to Sahara. Hell, even if it did it's no major loss.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
Edited by - Lilley on 2010/10/09 14:26:41 |
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 14:45:04
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
only part i dont get is if you left the shutter open that long, the smallest, tiniest little nudge during those 4 months...would result in a terribly blurred picture..
dude, what's going to nudge a telescope in space? Even if a few small rocks hit the hubble, you can bet the telescope itself was well protected from the external body. If a large rock hit the hubble then there would be no more hubble.
The link you posted says the pic was taken over a year and a bit using 800 exposures, two per orbit with average exposure time of 21 min.
quote:
Originally posted by Dante:
It has to do with the point of putting stronger telescopes on Mars because it has a thinner atmosphere. Since Hubble is outside the earth's atmosphere, taking atmospheres into consideration is pointless.
Ok, I completely misunderstood acid's comment then.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
Edited by - Lilley on 2010/10/09 14:47:04 |
DJ-Intensity
Advanced Member
United States
1,903 posts
Joined: Mar, 2008
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 14:51:13
What if it's half of a moon lol.
__________________________________
DJ Intensity.
Alert moderator
|
Dante
Advanced Member
Vatican City State (Holy See)
1,185 posts
Joined: Dec, 2009
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 14:52:42
Strictly speaking I think the conditions on Antarctica already count as desert conditions, except it's a god damn cold desert. There's actually very little precipitation there, which you might not believe, because there's so much ice there. Not trying to argue with you Lilley, just thought I'd drop in a meteorology fun fact ;P
Also, with regards to astronomic processes that affect the earth's climate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
__________________________________
The "artist" formerly known as Nakk(enboro)!
-----------------------------
http://soundcloud.com/bballs
Alert moderator
|
Triquatra
Moderator
United Kingdom
12,637 posts
Joined: Nov, 2003
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 18:47:25
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
quote:
Originally posted by DjTriquatra:
only part i dont get is if you left the shutter open that long, the smallest, tiniest little nudge during those 4 months...would result in a terribly blurred picture..
dude, what's going to nudge a telescope in space? Even if a few small rocks hit the hubble, you can bet the telescope itself was well protected from the external body. If a large rock hit the hubble then there would be no more hubble.
The link you posted says the pic was taken over a year and a bit using 800 exposures, two per orbit with average exposure time of 21 min.
yea - but even still - "orbit" so its moving originally..
__________________________________
Triquatra/Bee Trax/Cuttlefish
http://www.hardcoreunderground.co.uk/ - http://CLSM.net -
Alert moderator
|
Lilley
Advanced Member
Australia
3,740 posts
Joined: Jul, 2006
|
Posted - 2010/10/09 : 21:46:17
quote:
Originally posted by Dante:
Strictly speaking I think the conditions on Antarctica already count as desert conditions, except it's a god damn cold desert. There's actually very little precipitation there, which you might not believe, because there's so much ice there. Not trying to argue with you Lilley, just thought I'd drop in a meteorology fun fact ;P
Also, with regards to astronomic processes that affect the earth's climate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Please do argue with me.
anyhow, yes, antarctica is a desert, largest desert in the world and possibly the driest, but I suspect that gig goes to the Chilean Atacama desert.
__________________________________
nearly in line....
.....strange continuity problems
Alert moderator
|
DJ Specimen
Senior Member
United States
350 posts
Joined: Apr, 2010
|
Posted - 2010/10/10 : 05:21:36
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n9_v143/ai_13533907/
quote:
Without the moon, life on Earth would likely face the same kinds of wild fluctuations in climate that Mars has apparently experienced through the eons. Its spin axis no longer maintained by the moon at an angle of 23.5 degrees, Earth could drastically change its tilt in just a few million years, sometimes dipping enough to bring more sunlight to polar regions than to equatorial zones.
So I overestimated the effects a bit, whatever. Also, you'll find that Newton's laws of rotational inertia more affect discs than spheres. The moment of inertia for a solid sphere is 2/5 that of a disc. This means that rotation is what keeps your bike upright, not the earth; the earth is fairly prone to tumbling.
And those sentences got a little mixed up because I type these little arguments between classes or before going to sleep and don't bother to read what I've written, which is why words are typed wrong or out of place. What I was shooting for was that because the rockets would need to carry just as much fuel to get from the moon to mars as from earth to the moon, it would be incredibly inefficient to launch rockets on either side of the moon to counteract the third law of motion.
Also, I'm not sure what exactly you plan to put people in for an 8 month trip if not a space shuttle. You're giving off the idea that they can simply seatbelt themselves to the rocket and be fine. A rocket is nothing more than an engine, there's still the rest of the vehicle to be considered.
__________________________________
MSN: [email protected]
That's right, hellokitty.com, and don't act like you don't want one too.
Alert moderator
|
Future_Shock
Advanced Member
Australia
2,483 posts
Joined: Apr, 2007
|
Posted - 2010/10/10 : 05:45:14
i find this debate both intriguing and intellectually stimulating.
__________________________________
New Future Shock Hardcore: https://soundcloud.com/futureshockgroup
Alert moderator
|
Dante
Advanced Member
Vatican City State (Holy See)
1,185 posts
Joined: Dec, 2009
|
Posted - 2010/10/10 : 05:53:49
quote:
Originally posted by Lilley:
Please do argue with me.
Naw ;<
__________________________________
The "artist" formerly known as Nakk(enboro)!
-----------------------------
http://soundcloud.com/bballs
Alert moderator
|
|
Printer friendly
