meStevo
I think your wife's a bigfoot gus.
- 6,386
- 4,658
The Astronomy Thread
- Thread starter Araxen
- Start date
- 32,078
- 125,773
Vanessa
Uncle Tanya
- 7,689
- 1,417
This image is a smaller chunk and lower resolution version of the Hubble Legacy Field image. The actual image contains 265,000 galaxies and is the result of 16 years of work building this mosaic.
HUGE download warning!
v v v
Here is the 25,000 square pixel image of the high res version of the Legacy Field from NASA's website.
^ ^ ^
Here is a pan-out video from NASA of the Legacy Field.
Existence sure is beautiful... I get awestruck looking at this stuff
- 4
- 1
- 4,107
- 4,043
I just spent three days trying to understand Bell's Theorem
en.wikipedia.org
I cannot grasp most of its claims, but one of its claims does ring too clear: if it is correct, local realism is simply incomplete.
That conclusion, which stems from this idea of quantum entangelment, renders the absolute C (speed of light) as not absolute, since entanglement can happen / be detected at infinite greater than light speeds.
Three days. I am not that smart. Bell's Theorem just gave me a headache. If the theorem is right, Einstein is wrong?
Bell's theorem - Wikipedia
I cannot grasp most of its claims, but one of its claims does ring too clear: if it is correct, local realism is simply incomplete.
That conclusion, which stems from this idea of quantum entangelment, renders the absolute C (speed of light) as not absolute, since entanglement can happen / be detected at infinite greater than light speeds.
Three days. I am not that smart. Bell's Theorem just gave me a headache. If the theorem is right, Einstein is wrong?
- 2
Woefully Inept
Ssraeszha Raider
- 8,844
- 34,185
I've been (slowly) reading through Through Two Doors at Once and the quantum stuff is just mind blowing. We really have no clue how reality and consciousness actually work. But hey I'm really glad we have people arguing about important things like feminine penises at least!
- 4
- 1
- 4,107
- 4,043
Wait a sec. In that central pic of Jupiter, isn't the whorl at the center photoshop'ed in from Van Goh's Starry Night?
- 1
- 32,078
- 125,773
It's so amazing. Makes me glad I dont eat shrooms or drink lsd. Could easily get stuck in the endless swirls.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Brahma
Obi-Bro Kenobi-X
- 12,055
- 42,942
Starlink website is live, launch appeared to go off for the first 60.
THIS is fuckin why we need to increase our space budget. This is something NASA should be spearheading. This type of shit, along with exploration and discovery on a yearly basis. Things that just can make lives better.
- 3
Cybsled
Avatar of War Slayer
- 16,519
- 12,173
It's an awesome idea, but the scope is insane. He literally wants to put up 30x the amount of currently operational satellites into orbit as part of this plan and other tech bigs want to do something similar. Putting that much stuff into orbit, especially when you consider what could happen if someone fucks up and creates a cascading debris field, is kind of scary.
- 1
Brad
Trakanon Raider
- 198
- 480
I agree with your concern as well. It is somewhat mitigated by the fact that these are low orbiting satellites to reduce latency and items falls down to earth quite a bit easier as well.
Still more interested in progress. I believe once AI has progressed to ASI in the next 30 years or so, the cascading debris field problem won't even be an issue anymore cos that will be a trivial matter for the ASI to solve.
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
They will need to keep at least 4,445 starlinks in orbit in six years to keep their FCC license. That’s a total of 74 launches in six years....which is something like a launch every 4.3 weeks.
Thing is at the reduced 550km orbits, about a fifth of the starlinks will deorbit after only a year while even the ones with the cleanest orbits wouldn’t be able to stay up there for more than five years so they’ll need at least 25% more launches to meet the FCC’s schedule so it’s closer to a launch every 3.35 weeks.
And the FCC’s countdown started in February.
More importantly, I really really hope Musk isn't hoping to finance BFR and the Mars project with starlink. That's a dumb revenue model. It's a commodity service and the value proposition targets a market that's underserved for a reason. The notion that there will be enough customers to fund SpaceX in places SO REMOTE that they still don't have Internet in 2019 is a non-starter.
Thing is at the reduced 550km orbits, about a fifth of the starlinks will deorbit after only a year while even the ones with the cleanest orbits wouldn’t be able to stay up there for more than five years so they’ll need at least 25% more launches to meet the FCC’s schedule so it’s closer to a launch every 3.35 weeks.
And the FCC’s countdown started in February.
More importantly, I really really hope Musk isn't hoping to finance BFR and the Mars project with starlink. That's a dumb revenue model. It's a commodity service and the value proposition targets a market that's underserved for a reason. The notion that there will be enough customers to fund SpaceX in places SO REMOTE that they still don't have Internet in 2019 is a non-starter.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Cybsled
Avatar of War Slayer
- 16,519
- 12,173
I do agree there. It will help service rural areas and other places without the proper infrastructure, but I'm not convinced there is enough revenue potential there. Even if he disrupted the traditional telecoms in areas already supplied, at best it would just spark a pricing/investment war. Consumers would win, but it would end up diluting the potential profits they could reap. Not a huge issue if Starlink was the only venture, but thinking it will pay the ticket to Mars is kind of lul.