The Astronomy Thread

meStevo said:

Random reminder of our inferiority.

Click to expand...

That needs to be in the Global Warming thread. To remind those cultists, who the real boss is.

Pops said:

That needs to be in the Global Warming thread. To remind those cultists, who the real boss is.

Click to expand...

I already know that you're stupid, but I have a handful of super easy questions I'd like you to try to answer to see just how stupid you are. Feel free to use Google to find the answers.

1. What planet is closest to the Sun?

2. What is the surface temperature on the dark side (the side facing away from the Sun) of the planet in question 1?

3. What planet is the second closest to the Sun?

4. What is the surface temperature on the dark side (the side facing away from the Sun) of the planet in question 3?

5. Are those two temperatures very similar, or very different?

6. Can you explain why those two temperatures are similar or different?

Big Phoenix said:

Venus is smaller.

Click to expand...

Think Furry meant Venus is bigger than Mercury.

Melvin said:

I already know that you're stupid, but I have a handful of super easy questions I'd like you to try to answer to see just how stupid you are. Feel free to use Google to find the answers.

1. What planet is closest to the Sun?

2. What is the surface temperature on the dark side (the side facing away from the Sun) of the planet in question 1?

3. What planet is the second closest to the Sun?

4. What is the surface temperature on the dark side (the side facing away from the Sun) of the planet in question 3?

5. Are those two temperatures very similar, or very different?

6. Can you explain why those two temperatures are similar or different?

Click to expand...

Meh I'm drunk, and I've been trying to figure out what your point is here. So hell with it.

Mercury and Venus have nothing in common. Yes mercury is cooler on its dark side vs Venus, since it has a trace atmosphere, doesn't retain heat. Venus is isothermal, although it has tempature variations based on elevation blah blah blah. Fuck this strawman shit.

If this is some "gotcha" on climate change comparing Venus to Earth, neither planet has much in common either.

Venus has virtually no magnetic field, so the solar wind strips lighter elements from its atmosphere, like hydrogen, oxygen ect, while heavier elements are mostly left behind, carbon dioxide being one. Earth doesn't have this issue.

So unless some dipshit scientist fucks with our core, and we need to send a team down there to restart the dynamo effect in our core with a couple nukes, earth is never going to turn into Venus.

I don't post in or read the pseudoscience thread on "climate change", could yas keep that shit in the right thread?

Cynical said:

Meh I'm drunk, and I've been trying to figure out what your point is here. So hell with it.

Mercury and Venus have nothing in common. Yes mercury is cooler on its dark side vs Venus, since it has a trace atmosphere, doesn't retain heat. Venus is isothermal, although it has tempature variations based on elevation blah blah blah. Fuck this strawman shit.

If this is some "gotcha" on climate change comparing Venus to Earth, neither planet has much in common either.

Venus has virtually no magnetic field, so the solar wind strips lighter elements from its atmosphere, like hydrogen, oxygen ect, while heavier elements are mostly left behind, carbon dioxide being one. Earth doesn't have this issue.

So unless some dipshit scientist fucks with our core, and we need to send a team down there to restart the dynamo effect in our core with a couple nukes, earth is never going to turn into Venus.

I don't post in or read the pseudoscience thread on "climate change", could yas keep that shit in the right thread?

Click to expand...

Not the worst "B" disaster movie.

Cynical said:

Meh I'm drunk, and I've been trying to figure out what your point is here. So hell with it.

Mercury and Venus have nothing in common. Yes mercury is cooler on its dark side vs Venus, since it has a trace atmosphere, doesn't retain heat. Venus is isothermal, although it has tempature variations based on elevation blah blah blah. Fuck this strawman shit.

If this is some "gotcha" on climate change comparing Venus to Earth, neither planet has much in common either.

Venus has virtually no magnetic field, so the solar wind strips lighter elements from its atmosphere, like hydrogen, oxygen ect, while heavier elements are mostly left behind, carbon dioxide being one. Earth doesn't have this issue.

So unless some dipshit scientist fucks with our core, and we need to send a team down there to restart the dynamo effect in our core with a couple nukes, earth is never going to turn into Venus.

I don't post in or read the pseudoscience thread on "climate change", could yas keep that shit in the right thread?

Click to expand...

The answer to number 6 isn't any kind of "gotcha," at all. The answer is "greenhouse effect." Mercury doesn't have enough atmosphere to have a significant greenhouse effect, Venus and Earth both do. I'm sorry that you're retarded. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone that has to deal with your colossal stupidity on a regular basis.

The good news is that there are quite a few scientists who (in addition to not being colossally stupid like you are) are capable of making observations that let them measure the differences and similarities between the atmospheres of planets both in and out of our Solar system. Then the craziest thing happens after they measure the atmospheres of the other planets, they compare the observations they've made to all the other observations that other scientists have made, and they draw the most accurate conclusions they can based on the evidence that exists at the time. This wild and wacky process isn't anything like what you just did when you pulled random bullshit straight out of your ass though, and I don't really expect you to understand anything about empirical methods. I'm just mentioning it in case you have any desire to be less stupid in the future.

*iceburn.gif*

There's a possible launch from Vandenburg AFB in about 6 hours. There is a narrow launch window and they have had a few delays already. If it goes, it should be visible from a large area of California.

EDIT: Launch scrubbed for today, will try again in about 24 hours. Upper atmosphere wind was out of constraints.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.05578.pdf

The lightest binary black hole merger detected. 12 and 7 Solar Masses respectively. 19 Total for the system. Lost 1 solar mass in the merger. 1.1 billion light years away.

Jovian Tempest | Mission Juno

This color-enhanced image of a massive, raging storm in Jupiter’s northern hemisphere was captured by NASA’s Juno spacecraft during its ninth close flyby of the gas giant planet.

The image was taken on Oct. 24, 2017 at 10:32 a.m. PDT (1:32 p.m. EDT). At the time the image was taken, the spacecraft was about 6,281 miles (10,108 kilometers) from the tops of the clouds of Jupiter at a latitude of 41.84 degrees. The spatial scale in this image is 4.2 miles/pixel (6.7 kilometers/pixel).

So I'm reading NASA's latest report on the cost-benefit assessments of taking on their public-private partnerships with folks like SpaceX and ULA and others, which is pretty interesting by itself (spoiler alert: they save billions outsourcing to SpaceX), when they mentioned that SNC's little spaceplane "Dream Chaser" mini-shuttle spaceplane thing is actually slated to be ready for its first flight early next year.

Last I heard about it was when ULA was locked to be its booster (dunno whether or how hard it would be to use Falcon/Falcon Heavy), but it kinda fell off the radar. SNC is a small private firm that previously made microsats and more famously the engines for Virgin Galactic's spaceplane. The Dream Chaser is gonna be their big orbital splash---the thing is designed to take up to 7 crew down from orbit and their drop test came off without a hitch just last week:


Here was their original concept video from 2011:

khorum said:

So I'm reading NASA's latest report on the cost-benefit assessments of taking on their public-private partnerships with folks like SpaceX and ULA and others, which is pretty interesting by itself (spoiler alert: they save billions outsourcing to SpaceX), when they mentioned that SNC's little spaceplane "Dream Chaser" mini-shuttle spaceplane thing is actually slated to be ready for its first flight early next year.

Last I heard about it was when ULA was locked to be its booster (dunno whether or how hard it would be to use Falcon/Falcon Heavy), but it kinda fell off the radar. SNC is a small private firm that previously made microsats and more famously the engines for Virgin Galactic's spaceplane. The Dream Chaser is gonna be their big orbital splash---the thing is designed to take up to 7 crew down from orbit and their drop test came off without a hitch just last week:


Here was their original concept video from 2011:

Click to expand...

When I read about the test flight, it was implying they are cargo only now?

Palum said:

When I read about the test flight, it was implying they are cargo only now?

Click to expand...

Sounds like it yeah. Sounds like it won't be carrying much of anything for a while. SpaceX Dragon's been to the ISS a few times and they're holding off on crew transport till next year.

Hadn't heard anything about them since they won that contract years ago tho.