Latest Space Missions (& Other Science Stuff)

The answer to the generic question “does it move” is always yes!
A more precise question would be “does it move relative to x”? in which case the answer is “if it’s not friction-locked to the same surface, yes, otherwise the changes in relative position may be slow enough to make ‘no’ a suficiently accurate answer”.

5 Likes

Starship launch delayed

Launch targeting November 18 at 7:00 -7:20 a.m. CST (13:00-13:20 UTC)

3 Likes

there are over a billion observations in here;

I really thought that the stars would be moving faster than what has been found. Maybe when we achieve a high enough pixel density or a telescope the size of our solar system we could see movement in real time.

1 Like

I agree, and was in shock when nearly every single star was lining up on top of each other from any random comparisons between Hubble and James Webb overlaid images of the same locations. Things be moving real slow out there.

2 Likes

Ah, I kinda misunderstood your question, then. Yeah, I’d expect you’d need a stupendiously high resolution to see meaningful motion at that distance after such a short time (and then you wouldn’t see it, but you could measure it in the image. But we have other means of measuring that rather than checking pixels, so there’s really not much point to it).

1 Like

Well, there is also distance to consider. The higher a jet is in the sky, the slower it appears to be moving. Stars are really, really far apart. The only way to see movement is by photo comparisons spread out over a very long time.

1 Like

The human Eye is a tricky thing. Are telescopes already doing what this video shows when observing the stars? Or are they looking directly at them? I ask this because what if the highest resolutions imaginable can be possible by simply drawing an imaginary observation circle around the point of interest during observations. Instead of only having 1/10 of an arc second of resolution like with Hubble and Webb, we could somehow draw larger and larger circles around the observation point to increase that 1/10 into maybe 1/1000000000 arc seconds of resolution.

1 Like

1 Like

You point the telescope directly at the object but avert your eye when looking thru the telescope. That’s for backyard observations. Obsevatories don’t look thru an eyepiece but use computers so, I would think that would likely make a difference.

You also need to consider that you’re not looking at the stars as they are now. Again, due to the distances involved, and the speed of light, some of the stars you see are as they were thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years ago.

None of the stars you can see are in the positions you see them any more - neither relative to us, or to each other.

3 Likes

Thank you for that reminder :wink:

Well, anything we can see within our galaxy shouldn’t be more than 80’000 years or so out of date (not quite sure how far it is from Orions Arm to the far edge, honestly…). And I’m not sure if we can resolve individual stars in other galaxies?

2 Likes

I will defer to NASA for this one
"While most galaxies cannot be resolved into the individual stars they are made up of, the Milky Way’s neighbours, including the Magellanic Clouds and the Andromeda Galaxy (M 31, the closest spiral galaxy to the Milky Way) can now be broken down into hundreds of millions of individual points of light, and their stars [studied individually]

Hubble has even been able to resolve star clusters in the Andromeda Galaxy, despite it being around 2 million light years away. It has also discovered that the stars in the halo (the sparse region around a galaxy’s disc) of M 31 are significantly younger than those of the Milky Way.

Hubble’s ability to study stars in nearby galaxies is superior to any ground-based telescopes, and its ability to observe ultraviolet light (important for studying young stars) is unique"

3 Likes

‘Rapid, unscheduled disassembly’ is becoming a common phrase…

1 Like

Not really “becoming”. RUD has been a common acronym in rocketry for a long time now.

1 Like

Okay. I really meant, becoming more frequently used. :smile:

I asked an AI how many stars there were in No Man’s Sky and its 256 galaxies, here is what it had said…
" According to one source1, the game’s universe contains 256 galaxies with a massive number of stars, far more than the Milky Way. On average, each game galaxy has 14 quadrillion stars and approximately 72 quadrillion planets , which is still a staggering number. This means that the total number of stars in all 256 galaxies is about 3.6 sextillion (3.6 x 1021), which is a number so large that it is hard to comprehend. To put it in perspective, if you could count one star per second, it would take you more than 114 trillion years to count them all, which is much longer than the age of the universe. "

Crazy eh!
No Man’s sky has more stars than real life can observe using our current primitive tech.
A device with infinite magnification would be very useful to everybody on Earth. At first, I was thinking of galaxy sized eyeballs to act as a relay for light to help with magnification, and then found things move too much for that to be practical. Lately, i have started to think that it may be possible for a way to shrink things down further into something we could hold in our hands. It could be that the future is to grow an organic telescope that somehow allows us to see farther and in more detail than ever before.

I was disappointed with what James Webb had shown us. The images they provide are not good enough in my tin foil shielded books.

Most of the stars don’t look like they move in real life, so keeping planets as they are in NMS instead of having them orbit is a good decision. Thats my 2 cents.

1 Like

I’m not quite sure what one has to do with the other. While I don’t think NMS will change its handling of planets, the motion of planets and of stars are quite different. We have observed the motion of planets within our own solar system quite possibly since the dawn of humanity, with nothing but the naked eye. The zodiac circle, while primarily being occupied with cataloguing the motion of stars through the night sky (very different from tracking the motion of stars relative to other stars) over the year, was also used to track the motion of the planets, and is assumed to be about 7000 years old. At that time, the only measurable difference between a star and a planet was that planets are the shining dots that move relative to the others, while the others always formed a fixed pattern.
In fact, the term “planet” is from greek and means “wanderer”, so the easily observable motion of planets is literally what we named them after.

James webb wasn’t primarily built to provide pretty pictures. Those are just a side hussle, so to speak. Webb can measure the motion of stars just fine, but certainly not by comparing pixels in a digital image.

2 Likes

NMS has given us the effect of planet rotation with a day/night cycle. I suspect that is the closest we will ever get to planetary rotation. However, they did this by rotating the sphere the stars are generated on…not at all like reality.

1 Like

image
Telescopic vision is one of Peepers super powers. Peepers also interacts with Deadpool and Wolverine who can now travel through time.

Who is the Void Mother in No Man’s Sky? And how would she attempt to exit the simulation? Is she attempting to reset the universe, after waiting for Switch players the time to absorb the current iterations of the sim? Would an ARG come before the reset? I have seen too far, and have ran out of tin foil.

2 Likes