• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Space and Astronomy Thread
<<
<
41 of 137
>>
>
Confusing
08-09-2009
What does it look like? I saw something pass over Norwich at one point (can't remember what time). Was it like a plane with headlights?
Ricardodaforce
08-09-2009
Originally Posted by Confusing:
“What does it look like? I saw something pass over Norwich at one point (can't remember what time). Was it like a plane with headlights?”

No Confusing, more like a bright star tracking quickly across the sky.
Confusing
08-09-2009
Ohh I think I may have seen it, did it go past (or quite close to) that really bright star (the North star or whatever, the one you follow to get home in stories)?
Ricardodaforce
08-09-2009
Originally Posted by Confusing:
“Ohh I think I may have seen it, did it go past (or quite close to) that really bright star (the North star or whatever, the one you follow to get home in stories)?”

I dunno what the sky is like where you are, but (other than the moon) the brightest thing in the first half of the night sky for a while now has been Jupiter. The first pass the evening of the ISS was due to go past Jupiter.
Confusing
08-09-2009
Where I was standing, there was a moon in the 10 o clock position, and a bright star in the 2 o clock position, with little stars everywhere. I don't know what that bright star is meant to be? It's bigger than all the others

Where abouts is jupiter from the moon? Is it just to the left of it?
Ricardodaforce
08-09-2009
Originally Posted by Confusing:
“Where I was standing, there was a moon in the 10 o clock position, and a bright star in the 2 o clock position, with little stars everywhere. I don't know what that bright star is meant to be? It's bigger than all the others

Where abouts is jupiter from the moon? Is it just to the left of it?”

No, currently to the right, but quite low in the sky in Norwich.
Confusing
08-09-2009
Is it bigger and brighter than other stars?
Ricardodaforce
08-09-2009
Originally Posted by Confusing:
“Is it bigger and brighter than other stars?”

Yes, but remember, it's not a star.
Confusing
08-09-2009
Ok I may have seen it then, I remember seeing something go past what I thought was a bright star (which must have been jupiter).
Pearl McG
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Confusing:
“What does it look like? I saw something pass over Norwich at one point (can't remember what time). Was it like a plane with headlights?”

Immediately before it there was a plane high in the sky to the left of jupiter.

The ISS came from the right of Jupiter seconds later. Just looks like a moving star. I couldn't see anything at 9:45.
Assa2
09-09-2009
Bad news from the Augustine Panel who have released their summary findings on NASA's future - $3 Billion annual budget shorfall if NASA are to continue with meaningful manned exploration. Reading between the lines it's the end of Constellation as we know it - Ares is as good as dead but Orion might live on. Shuttle program will be extended and they'll try to bodge something out of the 30 year old shuttle technology. Shocking! Forget about moon landings any time soon and Mars looks further away than ever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8245409.stm

Only good thing is that the ISS might live for a bit longer allowing further expansion.
Ricardodaforce
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Assa2:
“Bad news from the Augustine Panel who have released their summary findings on NASA's future - $3 Billion annual budget shorfall if NASA are to continue with meaningful manned exploration. Reading between the lines it's the end of Constellation as we know it - Ares is as good as dead but Orion might live on. Shuttle program will be extended and they'll try to bodge something out of the 30 year old shuttle technology. Shocking! Forget about moon landings any time soon and Mars looks further away than ever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8245409.stm

Only good thing is that the ISS might live for a bit longer allowing further expansion.”


It's quite staggering that the USA have been so inept and shuttle succession planning isn't it. The future reliance on Russian Soyuz craft just shows you how badly they have planned it all.
Assa2
09-09-2009
Originally Posted by Ricardodaforce:
“It's quite staggering that the USA have been so inept and shuttle succession planning isn't it. The future reliance on Russian Soyuz craft just shows you how badly they have planned it all.”

$3 Billion a year... that's all they need to make this work. It's peanuts for the US. Retire a couple of those silly aircraft carriers, sell a couple of the stealth bombers to friendly Mid East partners and bingo, the money's in the bank for the first couple of years at least.

Soyuz is what, 42 years old now?! The shuttle is 30 years old! If these were cars they'd be in museums. It seriously beggers belief. The sooner Mr Rutan gets SS2 working and can move onto SS3 and prove that private enterprise can do this better and cheaper than national governement agencies, the better.
CLL Dodge
09-09-2009
Loads of new photos of the surface of Mars:

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/releases/sept_09.php
Ricardodaforce
09-09-2009
Wow! Look at the new Hubble pics.
Ricardodaforce
09-09-2009
This one is beautiful http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3..._full_full.jpg
Ricardodaforce
09-09-2009
Another new beauty http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/3...label_full.jpg
BeethovensPiano
09-09-2009
They are incredible !!!
Assa2
10-09-2009
Nice one Ric. Very beautiful. It's just a shame how 'artificial' these public shots are in reality. It takes a huge amount of work by 'hand' (OK - computer manipulation but it's a person operating the computer) to change the raw data into these amazing shots and they're more akin to art works than scientific shots. They're no less amazing for that but I think it can be a bit misleading as the general public get's the impression that if they went into space they'd see things like this.
BeethovensPiano
10-09-2009
But if you could see in the infra red or ultraviolet you would see things like this.

Specific wavelengths of light reveal different things about an object - so it's bot misleading at all in my opinion.
Assa2
10-09-2009
Originally Posted by BeethovensPiano:
“But if you could see in the infra red or ultraviolet you would see things like this.”

No I don't think you would. All these pictures have gone through the same sort of 'touching up' that you get in glossy magazines. In reality you'd see a sort of 'warty, spotty Kate Winslett' version.
BeethovensPiano
10-09-2009
Originally Posted by Assa2:
“No I don't think you would. All these pictures have gone through the same sort of 'touching up' that you get in glossy magazines. In reality you'd see a sort of 'warty, spotty Kate Winslett' version.”

Sorry but that's BS - and what your implying is that scientists are faking scientific data.
njp
10-09-2009
Originally Posted by Assa2:
“No I don't think you would. All these pictures have gone through the same sort of 'touching up' that you get in glossy magazines. In reality you'd see a sort of 'warty, spotty Kate Winslett' version.”

I think that rather misrepresents the process and the purpose of colour in Hubble images. More about this here.
beagle23atrad
10-09-2009
Originally Posted by MadgeBishop:
“That's true isn't it. Big problem with binoculars in the cold weather.
I used to have an awesome pair of binoculars that were really strong. I used to be able to look at the moon for hours and pick out the craters.”

Yoss, Madge. I have a pair of 10X50 spy-noculars which are strong enuff to get a reasonable view of most stuff.Moon is great, there is quite a bit of light pollution around here, but, it's amazing what comes to light when I train me binos on the sky. It bursts into life with stars.
Assa2
10-09-2009
Originally Posted by BeethovensPiano:
“Sorry but that's BS - and what your implying is that scientists are faking scientific data.”

Not at all. I'm not suggesting for one second that the Hubble scientists are adding or taking away anything, just enhancing the data to make it more amenable for public viewing. My 'touching up' statement was meant as an analogy.

Originally Posted by njp:
“I think that rather misrepresents the process and the purpose of colour in Hubble images. More about this here.”

I don't think it does. There are two processes at work. One is a manipulation of the data fror scientific purpose, to highlight structure or chemical composition by way of visual colourisation. The other is to present images for public consumption. Sometimes the techniques and processes used are the same and an image prepared for scientific purposes can also be a nice public image. Sometimes an image prepared for public release is just a nice, glossy centrefold and is not a very 'true' representation of the real thing.
<<
<
41 of 137
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map