Recent comments in /f/space

BackItUpWithLinks t1_jc5rtua wrote

Reply to comment by LiveComfortable3228 in Dust on Mars Rover's solar panels by LiveComfortable3228

If you’re talking about curiosity, that’s doubtful. It’s mission was supposed to last about two earth year ms and it’s been 11 years

https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/spacecraft/rover/summary/

So it’s doubtful they would have done anything to extend the mission when it’s already gone beyond expectations be a decade

0

KetamineAstronaut t1_jc5qa5s wrote

Reply to Dust on Mars Rover's solar panels by LiveComfortable3228

Dr. Becky Smethurst had a good explanation, it's basically weight cost and complexity issues, but the sparknotes version was:

Can't have air compression cause of weight, can't have wipers due to the coarse nature of Mars dust would damage the panels.

7

I-melted t1_jc4dbfq wrote

Reply to comment by Bobwindy in The largest NASA Hubble Space Telescope image ever assembled, this sweeping bird’s-eye view of a portion of the Andromeda galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA by Davicho77

There’s a lovely bit in the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, in which a character is punished by being put into something called The Total Perspective Vortex. A machine that allows you to glimpse for a moment the real size of the universe, and yourself relative to it. Which drives you completely mad, obviously.

2

Bobwindy t1_jc4bxco wrote

Reply to comment by I-melted in The largest NASA Hubble Space Telescope image ever assembled, this sweeping bird’s-eye view of a portion of the Andromeda galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA by Davicho77

They can understand it in terms of relative distance and sizes compared with other stellar objects i would imagine, but I think that humans only frame of reference in terms of understanding distance as we would imagine the distance to the next town or city is the size of our own planet, or for a lucky few the distance to the moon. To truly comprehend a distance and size I think you need to have seen a comparable reference first. We talk of light years and distance to other stars, but we have never experienced that distance first hand.

3

Which_Professor_7181 t1_jc3tzxq wrote

Reply to The largest NASA Hubble Space Telescope image ever assembled, this sweeping bird’s-eye view of a portion of the Andromeda galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA by Davicho77

in the past 3 years so much has come to light about Nassau and I don't mean tin foil hat wearing stuff I just mean the way they will airbrush pictures and I just can't trust any images that Nassau I mean I'm interested in seeing the pictures from Mars and everything but I'm very reluctant to see any images from that song believe that I'm looking at exactly the original picture. Nassau it's full of crap

2

phosphenes t1_jc3qpdy wrote

Reply to comment by Jazzlike-Outcome711 in Milky Way over Uruguayan Lighthouse. Credit: Mauricio Salazar by Davicho77

No, it doesn't look much like this to the naked eye. Even in very dark sky areas, the Milky Way looks a lot fainter than this and the colors are basically invisible. Here's a photographer simulating what it would look like, and that matches my experience.

On the other hand, time lapse night sky photos never do a good job capturing just how many stars there are far from the cities. It's wild, and everyone needs to experience it.

5