Space Chat | Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. - General

[video=youtube;BVn1oQL9sWg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVn1oQL9sWg[/video] space

[QUOTE=Sableye;43649429][t]http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_1496a_Orion-at-KSC_Ken-Kremer-386x580.jpg[/t] just waiting on the CSM....and the rocket......and even then its not going to be manned for 3 more years... BUT its almost done![/QUOTE] What is it? [editline]edit[/editline] SpaceX now has a Merlin Vac hanging up: [t]https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1017349_10153834353145131_1443586693_n.jpg[/t]

can't believe i took so long to find this thread

[QUOTE=Pelf;43655289]What is it? [editline]edit[/editline] SpaceX now has a Merlin Vac hanging up: [t]https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1017349_10153834353145131_1443586693_n.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Think that's the first time I've seen an MVAC in the factory. They don't usually show pictures of them. Or maybe I'm just not noticing. Question time, What's the difference between a normal Merlin and an MVAC?

[QUOTE=OvB;43663382]Think that's the first time I've seen an MVAC in the factory. They don't usually show pictures of them. Or maybe I'm just not noticing. Question time, What's the difference between a normal Merlin and an MVAC?[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.kcet.org/socal/departures/columns/assets/images/Tom Mueller Arrival Story Merlin engines.jpg[/IMG] [t]http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_privee/SpaceX/falcon/2008 F9 merlin vac.jpg[/t][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Merlin_1D_engines_and_octaweb_harness----image-cropped.jpg[/t] The nozzle expands out quicker and is longer after the throat. And it has a much larger nozzle extension to increase thrust in a vacuum (690 vs 801 kN to be specific). There might be some other more minor differences too. Here's a picture of it on the second stage: [IMG]http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/f91s2.jpg[/IMG] Most of those pictures are of the 1C vac engine but its basically the same idea

The vacuum version can throttle down an extra 10% too (Merlin D nonvac can do 70-100, vac can do 60-100). According to Wikipedia anyway.

Guess I just haven't seen it with the nozzle.

I'm thinking of buying my first telescope. [url]http://amzn.to/1jvQErc[/url] This was fairly cheap for a beginners telescope. What can I see with it? I wanted a good but still cheap one.

[QUOTE=Kannata;43666886]I'm thinking of buying my first telescope. [url]http://amzn.to/1jvQErc[/url] This was fairly cheap for a beginners telescope. What can I see with it? I wanted a good but still cheap one.[/QUOTE] Last page: [QUOTE=Swebonny;43592640]You can see enough stuff with most basic telescopes. A 130 mm would probably satisfy a lot of people. [URL]http://www.ozscopes.com.au/what-can-you-expect-to-see-with-a-telescope.html[/URL] I suggest reading a lot of stuff online before getting a scope. [url]http://www.skyandtelescope.com/equipment/basics/12511616.html[/url] [editline]19th January 2014[/editline] What you can expect to see: [url]https://www.astronomics.com/what-can-you-expect-to-see-in-a-telescope_t.aspx[/url][/QUOTE] The telescope you linked to is a 90mm refractor, so good if your not looking to see super deep sky objects but good for most people just starting up, and its on an equatorial mount so it will be easier to use. Also, if your only looking to do astronomy with it, I'd go with a reflector telescope. From what I've seen you can get a much more powerful reflector than a refractor for the same price.

There was some kind of abnormality with the Chinese rover and they didn't manage to prepare it in time before the Lunar night. It most likely won't survive. [URL]http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/01251527-bad-news-for-yutu-rover.html[/URL] RIP. [t]http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/spacecraft/2014/20140125_Be16F2LCMAA3Mb2.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Geeray;43667946]Last page: The telescope you linked to is a 90mm refractor, so good if your not looking to see super deep sky objects but good for most people just starting up, and its on an equatorial mount so it will be easier to use. Also, if your only looking to do astronomy with it, I'd go with a reflector telescope. From what I've seen you can get a much more powerful reflector than a refractor for the same price.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/TS-Optics-Telescope-moonfilter-accessories-Starscope1149/dp/B004K8SYAG[/url] And this one? It has 2x barlow lens apparently which apparently means things will get a lot bigger.

I found something a few days ago that went something like a supernova in the position of the sun would output more photons through your corneas than a fission bomb pressed against your eyelid. Is this true?

[QUOTE=Kannata;43676731][url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/TS-Optics-Telescope-moonfilter-accessories-Starscope1149/dp/B004K8SYAG[/url] And this one? It has 2x barlow lens apparently which apparently means things will get a lot bigger.[/QUOTE] A barlow lens is just an attachable second eyepiece used to up the power of the telescope, it can let you see further but will sacrifice some of the clarity of your image. I'd say go for it, that one is around the same as the last one but being a reflector should be better suited to astronomy. Once again though, check out this link for details on what you can see (The inches refer to the aperture.The aperture on the telescope you linked to is 114 mm or 4.5 inches) : [url]https://www.astronomics.com/what-can-you-expect-to-see-in-a-telescope_t.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=Cockslap;43678958]I found something a few days ago that went something like a supernova in the position of the sun would output more photons through your corneas than a fission bomb pressed against your eyelid. Is this true?[/QUOTE] Yes. It is true by an enormous margin. I just calculated it out. I didn't get the same result as xkcd What If, but I was assuming the hydrogen bomb was the Tsar bomb, and delivered ALL of its energy to your eye, and I still got that the supernova delivers more energy to your eye.

I think we all should agree on the fact that supernovas are cool (not literally though, they are quite hot!)

[QUOTE=dije;43681187]I think we all should agree on the fact that supernovas are cool (not literally though, they are quite hot!)[/QUOTE] They are quite brilliant. :^)

If you have a smartphone nearby, take it in your hand. Now realize the fact that most of it wouldn't have existed if there wasn't a supernova that fused the atoms into heavier atoms than iron. (Iron is the heaviest element that we know of that can form in regular stars!)

whats more, iron one of the most common element in our daily lives and the element that mankind has depended upon for centuries is completely toxic to a star, once a star's core forms iron it only has seconds to live afterwards

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43680361]Yes. It is true by an enormous margin. I just calculated it out. I didn't get the same result as xkcd What If, but I was assuming the hydrogen bomb was the Tsar bomb, and delivered ALL of its energy to your eye, and I still got that the supernova delivers more energy to your eye.[/QUOTE] Wow shit. How far away would a medium sized super nova have to be to be as bright as the sun then?

[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2668640/erhg.PNG[/t] This is just getting ridiculous :I

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43680361]Yes. It is true by an enormous margin. I just calculated it out. I didn't get the same result as xkcd What If, but I was assuming the hydrogen bomb was the Tsar bomb, and delivered ALL of its energy to your eye, and I still got that the supernova delivers more energy to your eye.[/QUOTE] The solution is obviously to make a supernova sized nuke.

[QUOTE=Cockslap;43682055]Wow shit. How far away would a medium sized super nova have to be to be as bright as the sun then?[/QUOTE] About 58,000 times as far away as the sun is from us.

[url]http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html[/url] Live EVA at the ISS right now, if anyone is interested. Helmet cams and such.

Oh so ONLY light year away. Well good thing nothing like that is close by.

[QUOTE=LarparNar;43683188][t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2668640/erhg.PNG[/t] This is just getting ridiculous :I[/QUOTE] You must sell your telescope to undo the curse!

I watched Contact again the other day, I really love it. Was actually one of the films that made interested in astronomy. Got kinda sad seeing how far I've strayed from the subject now years later.

[video=youtube;ToXaNUjNfS4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToXaNUjNfS4[/video] It the vacum was oxygen. You guys... I think it's amazing.

guys, guys NASA is going back to the moon [url]http://www.nbcnews.com/science/nasa-puts-out-call-commercial-lunar-landers-2D11999570[/url] [quote]CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — NASA plans to provide free technical expertise, equipment, facilities and software to help selected companies develop lunar landers as part of a new program called Lunar Catalyst. "The intent of this initiative is to stimulate and help commercialization," Jason Crusan, who oversees NASA's advanced exploration programs, said during a conference call with prospective bidders on Monday. ("Catalyst" is meant to stand for "Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown.") [/quote] they're putting out a call for an unmanned lunar lander to deliver future robotic explorers to the moon [editline]28th January 2014[/editline] the comercial landers are supposed to soft-land small to medium sized payloads. which means morpheus would probably be scaled up to be a large sized lander

Some awesome jet propulsion landing system cyberwar stuff [video=youtube;PzHaWc5n70A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzHaWc5n70A[/video] Obligatory Chris Hadfield [video=youtube;KaOC9danxNo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo[/video]

Check this out, really cool stuff. [URL="http://www.dd1us.de/spacesounds%206.html"]Radio frequencies translated into sounds from a variety of planets.[/URL]