Discussion in 'Community' started by jp-30, Jul 16, 2010.
Bah. There are more things in heaven and earth, VadersLaMent, than are dreamt of in your science.
[link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U]This is still better.[/link]
[link=http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/gliese-581d-con.php]French scientists have confirmed with computer models that Gliese 581d, a planet orbiting a red dwarf star about 20 light years from here, has a stable atmosphere, comfortable temperatures, and a surface covered in liquid water. It's the first planet orbiting another star that could definitely support life, and it's basically next door.
And I forgot all about this:
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Message_From_Earth]A message from Earth to Gliese[/link]
Not that I expect and answer, but interesing.
Not to be a killjoy, but mouch of that line from the article isn't true.
There is NO indication that I can find that the planet has an atmosphere. And also, the French scientists didn't confirm any of that whole 'water' thing. They just said that for certain conditions and pressure ranges (which are fairly sizable) that it could maintain liquid water.
Does "stable atmosphere" even mean anything? I'm sure Venus and Mars also have stable atmospheres.
I think with stable atmosphere they mean that you can a. have a stable atmosphere and not have it disappear or something and that b. the conditions for liquid water are met at the point where the atmosphere is stable. In contrast to, say, Mars, which likely had liquid water in the past, but the atmosphere was unstable and in it's current state can no longer support liquid water.
Well it's all relative though. Mars' atmosphere would've been stable enough to support water at some point, but like you say, it changed to a new state of er.. stableness.
Projects like that are symbolically cool and all, but just imagine what the quality of that radio signal is going to be after traveling that distance.
If it's a beam like military radar then it'll be a clear message. Omni-directional radio broadcasts are detectable out to perhaps a light year, if that.
Well, my point though was is that at the time, it wasn't a stable atmosphere, it was leaving the planet.
[link=http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-asteroid-earth-june.html]Another asteroid to give Earth a close shave June 27, 2011
A newly discovered house-sized asteroid will miss the Earth by less than 17,700 km (11,000 miles) on Monday June 27, 2011. That?s about 23 times closer than the Moon. The size and location of the asteroid, named 2011 MD, should allow observers in certain locations to take a look at the space rock, even with small telescopes. It?s closest approach will be at 13:26 UTC on June 27.
Just a bit over and Earth diameter away. [link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7u3HiUmzP4]Found this animation[/link]
I see various comments abouthow much of an impact such a thing would have, everything from Hiroshima to megatons.
So we were driving up through the deepest darkest corners of the South Island on Thursday night, and I got out to look at the stars... and holy crap, I've never seen it so bright. It took me ages just to figure out the brightest constellations such as Crux and Scorpio, the milky way was like a painting. Sure I've seen it from the country before, but never like that. I was impressed.
[link=http://oddnews.cosmobc.com/2011/03/16/400-trillion-trillion-pints-of-beer-lost-in-space/]My God, it's full of beer...[/link]
House panel proposes killing Hubble telescope successor
Let's see, we can give a trillion to bailout banks that have yet to use that money but we cut an important scientific instrment?
To be fair, the banks did use the money, and they paid it all back to us.
Is the Hubble Telescope failing? If not, why not just keep the Hubble, does it need a successor right now?
James Webb can see farther than Hubble
To my knowledge the Big Three auto companies paid back their loans, the banks are just sitting on the money ripped from us totalling some 1.2 trillion dollars last I saw.
The James Webb Scope would bury Hubble in ability. It is more than worth it even with cost overruns.
But what will that achieve? Is it worth the cost overruns and delays they're already experiencing with the Webb telescope?
The mission had been working towards a launch date in 2014, but during the summer of 2010 an independent review panel determined that 2015 was the earliest possible launch date, and even that would require a significant influx of additional funding. Notably, this review commended the JWST project for being in excellent technical shape with most flight hardware making good progress to completion. The delay and cost overruns are due to an unrealistic original budget and insufficient program management. In response, NASA instituted significant management changes in the JWST project, but the need for increased funding has led to a substantial mission delay. As of June 2011, it appears likely that JWST will launch no sooner than 2017 or 2018.
I like NASA, I like investing in science and technology, but is this really worth it? We're going to be cutting entitlements, and defense, and financial aid for college students, and financial aid for heating for the elderly, and the safety investigations for deepwater-drilling oil platforms ... which are all more important and valuable than this... we need to prioritize. We need investment in Research, but I'd rather we invest our limited government funds into stuff like Clean Energy and Medical Advances, not looking at the stars. Just keep the Hubble up and running, revisit this better telescope when the economy is in better shape (and then the technology will probably exist for an even better telescope).
No, the banks paid everything back (with interest), which was less than $700 billion. We're only waiting on Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.
How is it worth it, even with cost overruns? See what I wrote above, persuade me.
If we look far enough we can see Jesus.
Neptune was discovered on 24th September 1846. Today, on 12th July 2011 the planet completed its first orbit of the Sun since we discovered it. That's one Neptunian year (164.79 Earth years).
I have been "convincing" people for just about a decade on these boards many times over. I get sick of jumping through hoops. Go find out for yourself.
A. It has been, and we can't service it anymore as they cut the shuttle without a strategy. It's expected to function until around 2014, and additionally it'll fall out of orbit somewhere around 2019-2032.
B. Webb would look into the infrared as well, something Hubble can't do.
I read elsewhere online that production on Plutonium 238 (the isotope used to power outer planet probes like Cassini and New Horizons) would be funded for $10 million under the 2012 NASA budget.
If JWST's cancellation means more outer planet missions being developed if P238 is once again in supply, then so be it.
So messages were sent to Gliese 581d twice? My message is on the beam that got transmitted[link=http://www.hellofromearth.net/] from Australia in 2009[/link]
I looked it up on Wikipedia, still not sure why it is worth it. Where we are now (economically and politically) is a lot different than we were just a couple years ago.
It might have looked worth it 10 years ago, even with the cost overruns and delays... but it might not be worth it anymore, after gaining some perspective of the current situation and prioritizing.
Ok, but when a Democratic president is admitting programs like Social Security and Medicare need to be cut, when Republican Congressmen are admitting Defense probably needs to be cut, along with countless other programs, I'm not sure why a Space Telescope (with delays and cost overruns) should prioritized as untouchable. It might be better to wait and come back to it later, in better economic times.
Is there any practical use the Webb telescope could give us? You know I like science and unravelling the mysteries of the universe, I do value knowledge for knowledge's sake, but I can definitely see why this could be cut. Do you understand where I'm coming from?