Possibly the most important job advert of all time
SpaceX is making the BFR, the Big Fucking Rocket (officially, big Falcon rocket). It's real, it's happening. It will take us to Mars within the next couple of decades.
This isn't speculation. This week, NASA said they're considering BFR for launching LUVOIR, which is the space telescope which supersedes the James Webb, which supersedes Hubble.
Hubble changed the way we see our universe. So will JWST, so will LUVOIR. We live in interesting times, we will be living on Mars within a couple of decades.
For no particularly good reason, here is Hubble's "Pillars of Creation". 640 × 631 pixels, sue me.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 19:46, Reply)
To many Americans, that doesn't really count.
To my mind, if you're not allowed to be President due to reasons of birth, you're not really American.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 20:17, Reply)
Race is a cultural construct?
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:08,
Reply)
Race is completely meaningless,
Go back far enough and we're all African - or whatever you want to call Africa at that time. Mitochondrial DNA proves it.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:12, Reply)
This is being contested quite a bit recently
www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831750-200-origin-of-our-species-why-humans-were-once-so-much-more-diverse/
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:37,
Reply)
Generally, the more mixed people are the fewer genetic problems.
I've never understood the racial purity nonsense.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:56,
Reply)
You would say that, mudblood, with your non existent midi-chlorians count.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:06,
Reply)
"...and smaller fleas have smaller fleas and so ad infinitum".
Or something like that.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:33,
Reply)
If you'd quoted Donne's effort on the same subject I'd have to have told you I'm not that kind of boy.
(
Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:42,
Reply)
Siphonaptera is a rhyme by the mathematician Augustus De Morgan
Big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum.
And the great fleas, themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:46, Reply)
"Vonce zee rockets go up, who cares vere zey come down..."
"Zat's not my department!" Says Wernher von Braun.
youtu.be/TjDEsGZLbio?t=39s
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 20:10,
Reply)
Lehrer was quality
Anyone who does not know should go on a YouTube journey through his music
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:34,
Reply)
Yes. This so much.
I linked Poisoning Pigeons in the Park above, as I guess it's the most universally entertaining, but really it was quite tricky to pick one song to best represent his stuff.
New Math, Elements, The Vatican Rag, and I Got It From Agnes are also strong contenders!
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:47, Reply)
National Brotherhood Week, Smut, Pollution
Still relevant and all these above were all knocked up quickly as part of the American That Was the Week That Was, I believe (can't be arsed to Google it). We got Millicent Martin, they got Tom Lehrer...
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:53,
Reply)
The great thing about him is he is still relevant.
The sad thing about the world is that he is still relevant.
(
Draconacticus Reject shampoo. Demand real poo!, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:08,
Reply)
Smut!
How could I forget that one?... I'm a market they can't glut!
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 13:23, Reply)
As I understand it,
That is not Hubble's "Pillars of Creation", but an artists impression of an image taken by hubble. In fact, all of those spectacular Hubble images are not actual images, but sexed-up versions.
Hubble hasn't got colour camera's.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 20:41,
Reply)
Dude,
You are entering the realms of wearing a tin foil hat.
It's real. It's not exactly what you would see with your eyes... but no photo is.
"Hubble hasn't got colour camera's" is so fucking ignorant, it's hard to know where to start. It detects stuff from ultra-violet to infra-red.
But hey, I'm just another NASA shill, right? Jesus fuck.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:00, Reply)
Eh?
WTF sort of response is that?
I merely state a few facts.
fact: hubble hasn't got colour cameras.
fact: these images are not 'made by hubble', they're colourized impressions.
That's it, no more, no less. I'm not making any remarks regarding the validity of these images or the type of headwear I prefer. Since when is stating facts ignorant and the hallmark of a flat earther?
Are you of your meds again?
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:16,
Reply)
Oh, ffs.
hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.cat=topten&id=93
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:34,
Reply)
He's right you know
Those colours aren't there.
To quote the wikipedia page: The photograph was made with light emitted by different elements in the cloud and appears as a different color in the composite image: green for hydrogen, red for singly ionized sulfur and blue for double-ionized oxygen atoms.
So it's a false colour image. It's constructed by putting different filters looking for different elements in front of a greyscale CCD and stacking the results. It just so happens that the result looks a bit pretty.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:32,
Reply)
No shit sherlock
Is any picture what you see with your eyes? You said "False colour" - OK, show me a true one. Anything, ever. Any pic that actually looks identical to real life. Go on, I'll wait.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:28, Reply)
Dude,
They arbitrarily chose a colour to represent specific elements.
You're now claiming photographs don't look identical to real life?
Ignoring facts and calling people who don't comply with your simplistic views silly names might get you elected in the US, but that shit doesn't fly here.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:39,
Reply)
Show me a photo that looks the same as what I see with my eyes
Cockwomble
PS I'm English
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:52, Reply)
You really can't take criticism can you? That's a false colour image. No amount of whatabouts is going to change that.
I don't have the equipment here to prove it, but I'd be willing to bet good money that a photo out my window by my DSLR would look a fuckload closer to real life than one created by stacked hydrogen, sodium and oxygen filters.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:48,
Reply)
"I don't have the equipment here to prove it"
ie I'm talking shite; I have zero evidence, but here's what I chinny-reckon.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:54, Reply)
Straight from the Donald J. Trump school for debating.
You need to seek professionel help. Seriously.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:58,
Reply)
tbh, both of your arguments
...are superseded by asking why those images are missing the obligatory b3ta pink colourisation and 3-pubes-per-ball quotient.
(
Prestidigitus will set this 'ere black puddin on you, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 23:08,
Reply)
"That's a false colour image"
Show me a real colour image then.
Any photo, ever, that looks like what we see with our eyes.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 3:44, Reply)
Most digital imaging done with telscopes use monochrome sensors,
I think you can get higher resolution and better sensitivty that way. Colour images are formed by taking a number of images using different filters. You can still construct an accurate colour image using this method but, as others have pointed out, that is not the case with this image. I'm not sure I would call it an artist's impression though.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 23:16, Reply)
It's not "monochrome"
They grab what they can, any wavelength -according to design specs.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 0:18, Reply)
When I say monochrome I mean the sensor just reads out intensity.
It can't generate colour images by itself, filters are required.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 1:06, Reply)
Can't it? Why?
It detects light of various waveforms.
That's colour, to you.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 1:22, Reply)
yes
but the sensor itself doesn’t capture colour information, only the intensity of all light in a broad spectrum that is permitted through interchangeable filters. thus you could capture a hi res frame of ‘red’ light, by filtering all but red frequencies. then a frame of ‘blue’ light, then ‘green’. add them together and you’ll have something like an rgb image of the field. visible light isn’t as important as radio and xray though. these can be turned into some very pretty ‘colour’ images. but i expect you know this already.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 10:33, Reply)
You could say the same thing about our eyes
Cones detect light within a certain band
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:07, Reply)
Then that information is processed by our brain.
Perception is individual and relative to previous experience.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:18,
Reply)
Sure; same thing for Hubble
Colour is light of different wavelengths. Hubble can detect different wavelengths. It processes that information. It can see colours.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:23, Reply)
Hubble is likely to be more consistent in its colours than we are.
The function of our cones varies.
I think we've been left arguing on the same side.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:59,
Reply)
ok, so the point being made, since it apparently still eludes you,
is that the hubble’s ‘retinas’ consist only of ‘rods’, sensitive to the combined intensity of a broad spectrum of frequencies, specific colour information is not discernable, which is where filters come in.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 21:53, Reply)
So what?
Colour is light of different wavelengths. Hubble can detect different wavelengths. It processes that information. It can see colours.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 22:53, Reply)
so you’re coming across as a belligerent dunce
by debating an important, albeit academic point about the way colour information is (post-) processed
here's a succinct cnet article to help you out
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 23:16, Reply)
Here's an interesting article:
https://www.space.com/8059-truth-photos-hubble-space-telescope-sees.html
Some context. 'Colour' doesn't actually matter when viewing the depths of space; it's scientifically a bit trivial. The universe isn't the light show in Star Trek: The Next Generation's opening crawl, it's measured more scientificaly on gravity and radiation. So adding a bit of spice to something the other end of telescope photographing something untold light years away to humanise it to our experience of existence is completely within the confines of cool. So yes, if we we a species were ever in the position to be in a spacecraft literally looking at the Pillars of Creation up close, i'm sure visually there would be a colour feast for our eyes; plus grayscale photographs tend to loose their impact of the heavens, given space is essentially black.
Or something, i've woken up two hours before schedual for some reason
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 6:33,
Reply)
LUVOIR is, at present, merely hypothetical.
And, no: we won't be living on Mars in a couple of decades. At most, there'll've been a few people visiting Mars for a short time before either (a) coming home, or (b) dying.
We'll no more be living on Mars than we were living on the Moon between 1969 and 1972.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 9:24,
Reply)
The plan is to take about 100 people at a time to Mars
This isn't 3 astronauts for a few days. We'll need to be reasonably self-sufficient on Mars from day 1, because of the time it takes to get there. We need lots of people to make it work. It's not feasible to keep going back and forth; people will be staying there for many months/years at a time, even the first trip.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:20, Reply)
Well, precisely.
Taking 100 people to Mars is simply ridiculous. Keeping them going for months or years is ridiculous2.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 16:00,
Reply)
all the videos I've seen of SpaceX employees
they're screaming and cheering like a cult, and look like I wouldn't trust them to build a website.
Also why the fuck are we going to live on Mars? Visit, investigate, sure. But being that we're fucking up the only habitable space rock we've yet found, moving to one which doesn't support human life seems like solving the wrong problem.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 21:18, Reply)
I suppose it depends on WHO you send to Mars
(
Fadgebadger Sweaty sumo wanks for everyone!, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 21:30,
Reply)
Backup?
Apart from all the science reasons... it's pretty inevitable that something is gonna wreck Earth at some point in the next few thousand years or so. It has before, it will again. Could be a supervolcano, could be a meteor, could be disease. We're very vulnerable.
I think the cheering thing is rather American. I've met lots of SpaceX employees, and they were all nice and just as normal as any other bunch of sciency folks.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 21:34, Reply)
The backup reason is utter nonsense.
First of all, it presupposes that there's something morally important about human (or terrestrial) life; that's not at all clear, though.
It also presupposes that it'd be possible to recreate whatever it is that we want to preserve on Mars. But that's implausible. We're part of a hugely intricate machine. You can't just take bits of it and drop it on another rock and hope for the best - especially when that other rock is uninhabitable.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 31 Jul 2018, 10:25,
Reply)