• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Space: The Final Frontier

Windu

never heard about the cat, apparently
Mar 29, 2007
35,906
0
0
More Man on the Moon Images:



Click For Larger Image

Surrounded by Man's footprints on the Lunar surface, Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. erects a solar wind experiment near the Tranquility Base established by the Lunar Module, Eagle.
Click For Larger Image
Man's first landing on the Moon was accomplished at 4:17 p.m. today as Lunar module "Eagle" touched down gently on the Sea of Tranquility on the east side of the Moon. Astronaut Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., Lunar Module Pilot, removes scientific experiment packages from a stowage area in the Lunar Module's descent stage. Left behind on the lunar surface by Aldrin and Neil A. Armstrong, Apollo 11 Commander, were a Passive Seismic Experiments Package and a Laser Ranging Retro Reflector.
Apollo 17 Astronaut Eugene Cernan On The Moon


Click For Larger Image

This is a close-up view of an astronaut's footprint in the lunar soil, photographed by a 70 mm lunar surface camera during the Apollo 11 lunar surface extravehicular activity. The first manned lunar mission, the Apollo 11 launched aboard a Saturn V launch vehicle from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida on July 16, 1969 and safely returned to Earth on July 24, 1969. The 3-man crew aboard the flight consisted of Neil A, Armstrong, mission commander; Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., Lunar Module Pilot; and Michael Collins, Command Module pilot. The LM landed on the moon's surface on July 20, 1969 in the region known as Mare Tranquilitatis (the Sea of Tranquility). Armstrong was the first human to ever stand on the lunar surface. As he stepped off the LM, Armstrong proclaimed, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". He was followed by Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin, describing the lunar surface as Magnificent desolation. Astronaut Collins piloted the Command Module in a parking orbit around the Moon. The crew collected 47 pounds of lunar surface material which was returned to Earth for analysis. The surface exploration was concluded in 2½ hours. With the success of Apollo 11, the national objective to land men on the Moon and return them safely to Earth had been accomplished. The Saturn V vehicle was developed by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) under the direction of Dr. von Braun.
Click For Larger Image

Carrying astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" was the first crewed vehicle to land on the Moon. The LM landed on the moon's surface on July 20, 1969 in the region known as Mare Tranquilitatis (the Sea of Tranquility). The LM is shown here making its descent to the lunar surface, while Astronaut Collins piloted the Command Module in a parking orbit around the Moon. The Apollo 11 mission launched from The Kennedy Space Center, Florida aboard a Saturn V launch vehicle on July 16, 1969 and safely returned to Earth on July 24, 1969. The 3-man crew aboard the flight consisted of Neil A. Armstrong, commander; Michael Collins, Command Module pilot; and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., Lunar Module pilot. Armstrong was the first human to ever stand on the lunar surface. As he stepped off the LM, Armstrong proclaimed, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". He was followed by Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin, describing the lunar surface as Magnificent desolation. The crew collected 47 pounds of lunar surface material which was returned to Earth for analysis. The surface exploration was concluded in 2½ hours. With the success of Apollo 11, the national objective to land men on the Moon and return them safely to Earth had been accomplished. The Saturn V vehicle was developed by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) under the direction of Dr. von Braun.
Click For Larger Image
 

Windu

never heard about the cat, apparently
Mar 29, 2007
35,906
0
0
Click For Larger Image

Apollo 11 Onboard Film -- The deployment of scientific experiments by Astronaut Edwin Aldrin Jr. is photographed by Astronaut Neil Armstrong. Man's first landing on the Moon occurred today at 4:17 p.m. as Lunar Module "Eagle" touched down gently on the Sea of Tranquility on the east side of the Moon.
Videos:

Apollo 15 Galileo's Gravity Experiment
APOLLO 15: A demonstration of a classic experiment. From the film documentary 'APOLLO 15 "The mountains of the Moon"'', part of a documentary series on the APOLLO missions made in the early '70's and narrated by Burgess Meredith. APOLO 15: Fourth manned lunar landing with David R. Scott, Alfred M. Worden, and James B. Irwin. Landed at Hadley rilleon July 30, 1971;performed EVA with Lunar Roving Vehicle; deployed experiments. P& F Subsattelite spring-launched from SM in lunar orbit. Mission Duration 295 hrs 11 min 53sec
Apollo 17 : Time...Enemy of the Lunar Investigator
APOLLO 17 : There's just never enough time to do everything, especially on the moon From the film documentary 'APOLLO 17: On the shoulders of Giants'', part of a documentary series on the APOLLO missions made in the early '70's and narrated by Burgess Meredith. APPOLO 17 : Sixth and last manned lunar landing mission in the APOLLO series with Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E.Evans, and Harrison H. (Jack) Schmitt. Landed at Taurus-Littrow on Dec 11.,1972. Deployed camera and experiments; performed EVA with lunar roving vehicle. Returned lunar samples. Mission Duration 301hrs 51min 59sec
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Jun 9, 2004
15,532
0
0
SE DC
We did land on the moon...didn't we. Impressive stuff. How come we have yet to go back?
 

Arthas

Banned
Sep 9, 2007
1,502
0
0
Australia
DaCocoBrova said:
We did land on the moon...didn't we. Impressive stuff. How come we have yet to go back?
It was just a penis measuring contest with the soviet union, it had nothing to do with exploring the moon for the hell of it.
 

Flizzzipper

Member
Jun 8, 2004
4,235
2
1,255
Indiana
I know nothing about space but find it really intersting. Help me understand how it breaks down and things are classified. Is it basically the universe -> galaxies -> stars -> planets? Does the Sun just sit there in the Milky Way Galaxy or does it orbit something?
 

santouras

Member
Sep 28, 2006
5,078
0
0
Flizzzipper said:
I know nothing about space but find it really intersting. Help me understand how it breaks down and things are classified. Is it basically the universe -> galaxies -> stars -> planets? Does the Sun just sit there in the Milky Way Galaxy or does it orbit something?
universe is made up of galaxies, galaxies are made up of solar systmers, solar systems have one or more suns that are orbited (maybe) by one or more planets/other objects.

this here explains it pretty well
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JWVshkVF0SY
 
Jun 16, 2007
3,718
0
0
Washington State


The ISS is way over budget, way behind schedule, underutilized, and in a shitty orbit.

But damn if it isn't the single most impressive piece of engineering of the late 20th, early 21st centuries. Can't wait till its get's finally completed and goes to a full crew in a couple years.
 

xabre

Banned
Jun 11, 2004
4,975
0
0
Flizzzipper said:
Does the Sun just sit there in the Milky Way Galaxy or does it orbit something?
It orbits the galactic centre. Takes about 220 million years for each complete orbit.
 
Jun 16, 2007
3,718
0
0
Washington State
Finally a (false) color image from Messenger's recent fly-by



The color image was generated by combining three separate images taken through WAC filters sensitive to light in different wavelengths; filters that transmit light with wavelengths of 1000, 700, and 430 nanometers (infrared, far red, and violet, respectively) were placed in the red, green, and blue channels, respectively, to create this image. The human eye is sensitive across only the wavelength range 400 to 700 nanometers. Creating a false-color image in this way accentuates color differences on Mercury's surface that cannot be seen in the single-filter, black-and-white image released last week.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
 
Jun 16, 2007
3,718
0
0
Washington State
SpaceShipTwo:



Attached to White Knight 2



I'm surprised how different the design is from SS1.

Pics of construction:



The SS2 is 18.3m (60ft) long, has a wingspan of 12.8m, a tail height of 4.5m with a passenger cabin that is 3.66m long and 2.28m in diameter. Despite being so much larger than SS1, SS2 will still use a front nose skid, and not nose gear. Released at 50,000ft (15,200m) by WK2, the rocket glider's apogee is expected to be up to 110km (68 miles).


The carrier aircraft, WK2, is now 23.7m-long, it still has a wingspan of 42.7m, with a tail height of 7.62m and its integration is now 80% complete - with the assembly of the wing underway in preparation for its mating with the twin fuselages.
http://www.flightglobal.com/AirSpace/photos/virgingalactic/default.aspx
 

mr_nexus

Banned
Dec 7, 2006
1,324
0
0

Wow, I'm quite impressed with the planes they are building. I though it looked kinda small but after seeing a picture of Burt Rutan inside the cockpit I think it's pretty big. I hope I'm still around when it's affordable enough to fly on one. I guess some of the best things in life aren't free after all. :lol
 

Windu

never heard about the cat, apparently
Mar 29, 2007
35,906
0
0
fallout said:
I'm particularly fond of this one:

[image]

From APOD (was linked through today's ... i.e., your photo): http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060121.html
That is not a self shot though, you can see the photographer in the reflection. Still though, very cool shot.

edit: unless i'm wrong, which after looking at it more closely might be the case, is the camera in his left hand? (right hand, in the picture)
 

fallout

Member
Jun 8, 2004
12,875
0
0
35
Downtown, Canada
www.n-sider.com
No, I guess it's not a "real" self-shot. It just has the photographer's reflection in the target's helmet, which means that you effectively get two ends of the horizon of the moon, which I thought was really cool.
 

fallout

Member
Jun 8, 2004
12,875
0
0
35
Downtown, Canada
www.n-sider.com
king said:
any black hole pics
Since a black hole is infinitely dense and massive, it "looks like" an infinitesimally small point known as a singularity. Light is not reflected by them, nor is it emitted by them. They just can't be seen. You can infer the presence of one by the motions of bodies near the black hole, though.

Have a look at this page for examples:

http://space.about.com/library/weekly/bliblackholesa.htm
 

Deku

Banned
Jan 6, 2005
16,689
0
0
カナダ
santouras said:
The pic is of Olympus Mons and looks CG to me. I don't think any of the orbiting probes are that close to the surface to that a picture like that and note the copyright at the bottom.

I think the real thing would look even more spectacular though :D
 
Jun 16, 2007
3,718
0
0
Washington State
king said:
any black hole pics
This is as close as we can get at the moment. Of course its impossible to actually image the black hole itself, but it has so much gravity (obviously) that it pulls in tons of matter that through friction heat up and glow, and some gets pushed out in big jets through some math I don't understand. A the center of this jet is a black hole.

 

Windu

never heard about the cat, apparently
Mar 29, 2007
35,906
0
0
fallout said:
This Project Excelsior stuff got me thinking about Apollo. For anyone with any remote interest in space travel, do yourself a favour and check out From The Earth to the Moon. It's an excellent mini-series produced by Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer and it chronicles the entire Apollo space mission in great detail. It's on Amazon for 20 bucks.



http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Moon-Signature-Mason-Adams/dp/B000A0GYD2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1200558452&sr=8-1
Thanks for suggesting this, I just got finished watching all the episodes. Excellent Series.
 

Alfarif

This picture? uhh I can explain really!
Jan 28, 2007
5,108
0
0
37
Ohio
www.youtube.com
fallout said:
Since a black hole is infinitely dense and massive, it "looks like" an infinitesimally small point known as a singularity. Light is not reflected by them, nor is it emitted by them. They just can't be seen. You can infer the presence of one by the motions of bodies near the black hole, though.

Have a look at this page for examples:

http://space.about.com/library/weekly/bliblackholesa.htm
I wonder what would happen to the human body if it got near a black hole...

Have we made black holes in labs yet? I was pretty certain we did.
 

pxleyes

Banned
Sep 19, 2004
19,817
0
0
Orlando, FL
www.352media.com
fallout said:
This Project Excelsior stuff got me thinking about Apollo. For anyone with any remote interest in space travel, do yourself a favour and check out From The Earth to the Moon. It's an excellent mini-series produced by Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer and it chronicles the entire Apollo space mission in great detail. It's on Amazon for 20 bucks.
ZOMG. $20!!!! MINE!
 

fallout

Member
Jun 8, 2004
12,875
0
0
35
Downtown, Canada
www.n-sider.com
Windu said:
Thanks for suggesting this, I just got finished watching all the episodes. Excellent Series.
No problem. I love how it doesn't tread on any of the stuff already covered by The Right Stuff and Apollo 13. Can't recommend it enough.

Alfarif said:
I wonder what would happen to the human body if it got near a black hole...
We actually discussed this in one of my courses. If a human body got near the event horizon, just like anything else, the matter information would be destroyed. Here's some stuff I pulled out from the notes on an "indestructible astronaut" (note that R_s is the Schwarzschild radius):

Let’s consider a brave and indestructible astronomer volunteering to travel into a non-rotating 10Ms black hole, with R_s=30km. What would happen to her from her frame of reference, and from our frame of reference inside a space ship at a safe distance of away from the black hole?

From the Spaceship

To keep communication with us, she continuously shines monochromatic flash light at us every second (of her time). As she’s being accelerated closer to the black hole, her time (as we see it) slows down (gravitational time dilation), with light flashes arriving later and later. The light also becomes increasingly redshifted (gravitational redshift), losing its E=h ע energy (intensity of light).

As she approaches the event horizon (R_s), her light seems to never get to us, with time between flashes being ‘infinite’ (frozen). Her light became infinitely red-shifted, and is now not even detectable, as its intensity (energy) has decreased to zero.

We never see her actually ‘fall into the black hole’ – it’s an infinite voyage!

For the Astronaut

Nothing unusual happens as she’s still sufficiently far away from the black hole. She continues to monitor her ‘proper’ time and sends a flash of light toward the ship every second.

However, as she starts to get closer to the black hole, she starts to feel as if she’s being stretched from head to toe, and being compressed even stronger from left to right shoulder. If she were an ordinary human being, she would get ripped apart at 3,000km away from the black hole – she could never get close enough to the event horizon at
R_s=30km! From the normally-terminal (for humans) distance, she reaches the R_s within 2ms. As she crosses it, her fate is sealed – she can never get out! Within another 6μs, she’s drawn into the singularity, being crushed to a zero-volume!
Have we made black holes in labs yet? I was pretty certain we did.
... I certainly hope not.
 

Wes

venison crêpe
May 14, 2006
41,689
0
0
fallout said:
... I certainly hope not.
Don't worry. We've got until May when the Large Hadron Collider goes active.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Black Holes

Though the standard model predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some non-standard theories lower the requirements, and CERN themselves have published articles that the LHC could create micro black holes [MBHs] at the rate of one per second. The primary cause for concern is that Hawking radiation, a postulated means by which any such black holes would dissipate before becoming dangerous, remains entirely theoretical. In academia, the theory of Hawking radiation is considered plausible, but there remains considerable question of whether it is correct.

CERN and others have pointed out that the probability of such events is extremely small. One argument for the safety of colliders such as the LHC states that if the Earth were in danger of any such fate, the Earth and Moon would have met that fate billions of years ago due to their constant bombardment from space by very high energy cosmic rays such as protons and other particles, which are millions of times more energetic than anything that could be produced by the LHC. (The "oh-my-god particle", with an energy of 3×1020 eV, had 42 million times the energy of the LHC's 7×1012 eV collisions.) However some theorists argue that simple Newtonian physics requires that opposite momentum collisions for colliders result in "at rest" MBHs. If they are created it will contrast sharply with cosmic ray induced events from bombardment of the upper atmosphere, which would result in near-relativistic MBHs. Relativisitic MBHs are expected to be even more difficult to detect than relativisitic neutrinos[citation needed] , but if they were created "at rest" relative to earth and captured in earth orbit, they may have endless opportunity to interact, if they do not evaporate via Hawking Radiation.
Fun! Also, how cool does the "oh-my-god particle" sound?
 

Laurentius

Member
Sep 24, 2007
5,134
1
0
One of the reasons I find black holes so interesting is how the idea was originally proposed. It was theorized by several people, I believe, that according to equations in physics it was possible to have matter so dense that it would exhibit the properties of a black hole. It wasn't until much later that they were actually able to observe black holes, or rather things that imply the existence of a black hole.

It's also interesting to note that black holes are theorized to lose matter over time through Hawking radiation. As far as my understanding goes, it's not known how this would happen, but it would be required for black holes to follow the second law of thermodynamics. It hasn't been observed, but it's theoretically possible (and probably even plausible). It would be possible for black holes to "evaporate" over time if the amount of matter going in was less then the amount it was dispelling.

This is such a great thread, I spent awhile just reading through the entire thing. I've always had a fascination with space (and physics for that matter).

EDIT: Regarding the LHC. I'm actually particularly excited to see how it goes. It could go a long way to either proving or disproving string theory and supersymmetry if it manages to discover the Higgs Boson. Well, really, just if it does. If it doesn't, physics will likely continue to be stuck in the same endless circle that it's been going through for the past thirty years or so, with little actual progress into finding an actual unifying theory of physics. Or heck, even a theory of quantum gravity.

Anyway, I don't think we have much to worry about in regards to the LHC creating black holes and killing us all. Er, at least I hope so. 0_0 There have also been people who have theorized that it could obliterate the entire universe. Scary stuff.
 

fallout

Member
Jun 8, 2004
12,875
0
0
35
Downtown, Canada
www.n-sider.com
SenseiJinx said:
One of the reasons I find black holes so interesting is how the idea was originally proposed. It was theorized by several people, I believe, that according to equations in physics it was possible to have matter so dense that it would exhibit the properties of a black hole. It wasn't until much later that they were actually able to observe black holes, or rather things that imply the existence of a black hole.
You'd be surprised how much in physics actually comes about like this. There's a constant rivalry going on between theorists and experimentalists (sometimes to the point of pure disdain, actually). Theorists come up with stuff and experimentalists try to show that they're wrong. It's a wonderful system!
 

Laurentius

Member
Sep 24, 2007
5,134
1
0
And then there's string theory, which thus far has been completely failed in being either proven or disproven through experimentalism, since it doesn't predict any new phenomena that can be tested. Heh. But they've been beating that same dog for the past thirty years or so, and it makes you wonder if they'll ever actually prove or disprove the stinking theory or just move on.
 

Teknoman

Member
Nov 7, 2007
61,371
0
0
Houston, Texas
www.youtube.com
Amir0x said:
god guys why is the galaxy so fucking awesome

every new magical space image is like receiving a cosmic blowjob or some shit
Seriously. I wanted to buy a telescope before, but now im SERIOUSLY looking into what would be the best telescope (at a reasonable price for a casual observer of course).
 
Jun 16, 2007
3,718
0
0
Washington State
So, what exactly did Apollo moon walkers do on the moon? Other than make footprints and plant flags? Well a whole bunch of stuff.

Here's one really cool experiment:

Moon Explosives:


Through the use of seismology the internal structure of the Moon could be determined to several hundred feet underground. The ASE [Active Seismic Experiment] consisted of three major components. A set of three geophones was laid out in a line by an astronaut from the Central Station to detect the explosions. A mortar package was designed to lob a set of four explosives from varying distances away from the ALSEP [Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package]. Finally, an astronaut activated Thumper was used to detonate one of 22 charges to create a small shock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Surface_Experiments_Package
 

Arthas

Banned
Sep 9, 2007
1,502
0
0
Australia
skybaby said:
Fact. The mars rovers are just astounding. How can they still be working is out of this world
The conditions on mars are milder than on earth regarding mechanical equipment. Lower gravity, lower atmospheric pressure etc. Plus they run on solar power.
 
Jun 16, 2007
3,718
0
0
Washington State
Arthas said:
The conditions on mars are milder than on earth regarding mechanical equipment. Lower gravity, lower atmospheric pressure etc. Plus they run on solar power.
Yeah, but the dust on Mars has been a real bitch on their solar panels.



There have been some almost miraculous instances where just as they were reaching the limit on dust a wind storm blew up and cleaned the panels. The engineers have really done an amazing job keeping the rovers running while their power levels continue to steadily fall.

Thankfully the next rover is going to be nuclear: :D



 

fallout

Member
Jun 8, 2004
12,875
0
0
35
Downtown, Canada
www.n-sider.com
Yeah, those rovers have VASTLY outlived their life-expectancy a number of times over. Naturally, they're going to keep their expectations low, but the teams have certainly done an amazing job. They've also gotten lucky a few times.

I remember a story I heard about Sojourner. Basically, if radio communication ever failed, the rover was to continually drive. At the end of its life cycle, they basically lost the power to transmit radio, but the rover would have still had the power to drive itself around. Members of the team were saying that they hoped someone in the future would come across the rover and find that it had carved out a deep circular hole.