Recent comments in /f/space
peggedsquare t1_j6ejtxc wrote
Reply to comment by bellboy718 in PNW Winter Moon. Taken with my Canon M100 and 200mm zoom lens. by FunctionFluffy4932
Was just wondering if I was really seeing that too.
FunctionFluffy4932 OP t1_j6ejst6 wrote
Reply to comment by bellboy718 in PNW Winter Moon. Taken with my Canon M100 and 200mm zoom lens. by FunctionFluffy4932
Guess I should have specified this in the OP. But, I overlaid a 'noise' filter on top of the image, for an artistic effect. There are no stars (visible) in this image. Sorry for the confusion.
collegefurtrader t1_j6ejrq2 wrote
All motion is relative. If you are moving along a straight line out in space, and you want to start spinning, then you just do that. The linear motion means absolutely nothing because without reference to something else it doesn’t even really exist.
DogeVegasSupreme t1_j6ejgmd wrote
I believe so but I'm an idiot. Works in movies
bellboy718 t1_j6ej9k3 wrote
Why are the stars visible where the moon would normally block them out?
NJShadow t1_j6eio97 wrote
Click to find hot, young variable stars in your area!
[deleted] t1_j6eikya wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j6ehso6 wrote
[deleted] t1_j6ehp38 wrote
[removed]
UnbelievableTxn6969 t1_j6egxk2 wrote
“Beg your pardon Mr. President, but it’s a big-ass sky.”
[deleted] t1_j6egj1b wrote
[removed]
FireFromThaumaturgy t1_j6egb0z wrote
Reply to comment by FlametopFred in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
We’re gonna get it back on the air don’t worry SIX SEASONS AND A MOVIE
MrJackDog OP t1_j6efhi3 wrote
The recently appeared comet, C/2022 E3 (ZTF) reaches its closest point to Earth on February 1 and has become an evening object in the northern sky. It is not quite visible to the naked eye, but can easily be spotted with binoculars and long-exposure photography.
Photographed on January 24, when the comet c/2022 e3 ZTF had sprouted a large “antitail.”
This is a composite image over separate sky and land exposures: sky - 5x90s exposures, land: 300s - exposure.
Camera/lens: Sony A7iii + Askar FMA180
For more comet photos (and astrophotography in general), check out my Instagram.
Tom__mm t1_j6ef2o4 wrote
Sun is small and would be pretty faint from just a few light years away, but it’s possible.
Waddensky t1_j6eevak wrote
Reply to comment by daveinmd13 in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
The Sun has an absolute magnitude of 4.8. The (human) naked-eye limiting magnitude is 6.5. The Sun would be visible to the naked eye up to a distance of around 70 light-years.
carbonicnoodle t1_j6eecfb wrote
Just like my three favourites, Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka
citybadger t1_j6ebqci wrote
Reply to comment by Norwester77 in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
Also shot spacecraft above the solar poles.
citybadger t1_j6ebeq3 wrote
Reply to comment by VertigoOne1 in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
The Sun is below the average but above the median brightness, because so many stars are red dwarfs.
The population is stars is like rocks on a beach. Most are grains of sand. Then there are pebbles of various sizes. And then there are a few rocks and even giant boulders.
UHF1211 t1_j6eb2r4 wrote
Reply to comment by SavageRat in Asteroids sudden flyby shows blind spot in planetary threat detection by coinfanking
Wouldn’t work, there is no air in space. Something would have to be attached to the asteroid or hit it in order to nudge it a bit.
blackadder1620 t1_j6e7ops wrote
Reply to comment by Grilled0ctopus in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
yes, afaik its about 1000x less bright than daylight. our eyes have a pretty good low and high end range. you won't see much color probably.
[deleted] t1_j6e7e02 wrote
Apexx86 t1_j6e6yze wrote
Reply to comment by 14KL in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
Celestia still exists but SpaceEngine is prettier
BlazeObsidian t1_j6e5z67 wrote
Reply to A tiny, moving point of light. Copies of the Photographs use for the discovery of Pluto. Credit: Lowell Observatory. January 1930 by Aeromarine_eng
I'm curious now. Are these actual sizes of the photographs ? If yes that's amazing attention to detail.
namikazeiyfe t1_j6e5ds2 wrote
Reply to comment by uranusisenormous in What if our sun was a part of another constellation on another planet? by smilingpike31
I think it's human arrogance to think that THEY don't have some form dog language.
nesquikchocolate t1_j6ejy34 wrote
Reply to Hypothetical question about centrifugal force? by morphikk
What problem are you trying to solve...?
Two spinning spheres attached to eachother with a "tether" will definitely be able to function in a "centrifugal" manner as long as you keep the tether taut and both balls spinning around the centre - at the right speed, you'll also have the 1G gravity we like, at a very specific distance away from the centre of gravity - much more further away, and much less as you get closer to the middle.
This isn't ideal for travelling to destinations, though, as nobody can dock with you and you have to somehow get "rid" of all the momentum before you get to your destination anyway, you cannot safely orbit a planet while also spinning around yourself.
If you were to launch a shuttle from one of your spheres, you'd immediately have a major shift in your centre of gravity, since the balance of masses changed - this can jerk your tether and cause damage to the spheres.