Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old 4 Weeks Ago #21
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Cannon View Post
From what gravity?
The acceleration due to gravity on earth is about 10 meters per second per second. Traveling away from earth at that rate of acceleration, the passengers could experience earth-like artificial gravity while attaining a speed of 30,000 kilometers per second in just over a month.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old 4 Weeks Ago #22
Kosher Clown
Junior Member
 
Kosher Clown's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 151
Kosher Clown
Default

[QUOTE=Stewart Meadows;2314459]Vincent Price was a jew? Do you have a source for that claim?

Not offhand, I do recall him receiving an award from Abraham Foxman's ADL some 30+ years ago for being a 'Great Jew'.

In addition to being an ardent Marxist and an outspoken admirer of Lenin and Stalin, he was also a known bisexual.

His third wife and daughter both later identified as Lesbians.

BTW, do you know the definition of bisexual?

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't.
 
Old 4 Weeks Ago #23
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post
30,000 kilometers per second is 30,000,000 meters per second.
The acceleration due to gravity is about 10 meters per second per second.
By pulling just one G, it would take just 3,000,000 seconds to reach that speed.
That's just 50,000 minutes.
That's just 833:20 hours.
That's just 34 days, 17 hours, 20 minutes.
That's just a little over a month.
If you cut the acceleration down to one-tenth of that, it would take just 347 days, 5 hours, 20 minutes.
That's about 11 months, 2 weeks.
That's under a year.
It's doable, so long as we have sufficient propulsion.
If you don't see what's wrong with this, I'm not sure I can help you but certainly not in this venue.
There are many things wrong but the most pertinent for this discussion are that you have omitted any calculation of acceleration. Although, for some reason, you cite the nominal acceleration due to gravity but even that is not used. And at any rate your acceleration would not be due to gravity but rather to whatever is going to get you off the planet (e.g., a rocket). Acceleration is not a constant speed such as you are calculating here, constant speed is by definition not acceleration.
Also, you are using 'G' as if it is a unit of speed, distance, time, or something I'm not sure which. But the g-force is not arbitrary, it must be determined from your acceleration and there will be a time aspect (i.e., how long a particular g-force was experienced) since it is a product of acceleration which again is not constant.
You will need the equation I gave you earlier and of course the force needed to accelerate a particular mass is simply F=ma. I would do the math for you if I could imagine what you are proposing. Though I suspect now that you might be considering the problem in an over simplified manner.
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 4 Weeks Ago #24
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
If you don't see what's wrong with this, I'm not sure I can help you but certainly not in this venue.
Actually, I am doing just fine without your help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
There are many things wrong but the most pertinent for this discussion are that you have omitted any calculation of acceleration.
It wasn't necessary to calculate the acceleration. I was simply demonstrating that, at a rate of acceleration of 10 m/sec˛, you can reach one-tenth the speed of light in a little over a month.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
Although, for some reason, you cite the nominal acceleration due to gravity but even that is not used.
I cited it to show that, at a rate of acceleration of 10 m/sec˛, the passengers and crew would experience an artificial gravity of the same strength as the gravity on earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
And at any rate your acceleration would not be due to gravity but rather to whatever is going to get you off the planet (e.g., a rocket).
Well, duh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
Acceleration is not a constant speed such as you are calculating here, constant speed is by definition not acceleration.
Of course it's not constant speed. Where are you getting that from? It's constant acceleration, not constant speed. We're trying to accelerate up to one-tenth of the speed of light. That means that we have to go faster and faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
Also, you are using 'G' as if it is a unit of speed, distance, time, or something I'm not sure which.
"Pulling G's" is a commonly used expression to mean experiencing extreme forces due to acceleration. Anyone who's watched movies like The Right Stuff or Top Gun understands what that means. "Pulling one G" means experiencing artificial gravity at the same strength as gravity on earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
But the g-force is not arbitrary, it must be determined from your acceleration and there will be a time aspect (i.e., how long a particular g-force was experienced) since it is a product of acceleration which again is not constant.
Again, duh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
You will need the equation I gave you earlier and of course the force needed to accelerate a particular mass is simply F=ma. I would do the math for you if I could imagine what you are proposing. Though I suspect now that you might be considering the problem in an over simplified manner.
I didn't use the equation that you provided because it wasn't necessary. Introducing equations only makes it more complicated than necessary. It is a very simple problem, really. The force needed is irrelevant and would depend on the mass of the spacecraft. The calculation is the same, independent of force or mass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
Travelling at even 1% the speed of light would be no less fatal. The sound barrier was broken at less than 800 mph, 1% the speed of light is 1,863 miles per second. Even single digit g-force for more than a few seconds can be dangerous. 10 g could kill you in less than a minute.
But you don't need ten G; it can be done in one G. And why couldn't you understand what I meant when I wrote "one G," when you yourself write about "10 g"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
But you can workout how long it would take to slowly accelerate to 30,000 kilometres per second, keeping in mind that upon approach you would also need to decelerate in the same manner.
(you can use 0 as the starting time)
If we assume v(i) = 0 and t(i)= 0, then the equation reduces to a = v(f) / t(f). If v(f) = 30,000 km/sec and t(f) = 3,000,000 sec, then a = 0.01 km/sec˛, which is 10 m/sec˛. At that rate of acceleration, the passengers and crew will experience one G, or basically the same gravity as they did on earth.

This is all very simple. It's not rocket science. Well, actually, it is rocket science, but very basic, high-school rocket science. There's nothing complicated about it at all.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler

Last edited by Nikola Bijeliti; 4 Weeks Ago at 11:43 PM. Reason: Forgot that little ˛ doohickey near the end.
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #25
Donncha Dennis
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 275
Donncha Dennis
Default

The first thing would be to gain the ability to get to the speeds we are talking about. But I wonder what kind of a ship could travel at such speeds and protect itself from radiation and space debris along the way, not like you can pit stop that sucker out there. What kind of shape/size/ship and protection could it have if your sending something that fast through space? A single chunk of floating rock will mess your day up big time. Will ships be more triangular like the bow of a ship with some sort of plate or shielding? If thats the case it will have to limit or work around what kind of cargo and how many humans it could hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project

The book does cover space travel, has anyone here read it?

There are also some cool looking sci fi films coming out, the new Dune movie looks like it can be entertaining if you can try to get over the fact some blacks are now on aracus.
Raised by Wolves a Ridley Scott production looks good as well.
Foundation finally being made into a film based off the old isaac asimov book series.
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #26
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9,965
Ray Allan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donncha Dennis View Post
The first thing would be to gain the ability to get to the speeds we are talking about. But I wonder what kind of a ship could travel at such speeds and protect itself from radiation and space debris along the way, not like you can pit stop that sucker out there. What kind of shape/size/ship and protection could it have if your sending something that fast through space? A single chunk of floating rock will mess your day up big time. Will ships be more triangular like the bow of a ship with some sort of plate or shielding? If thats the case it will have to limit or work around what kind of cargo and how many humans it could hold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project

The book does cover space travel, has anyone here read it?

There are also some cool looking sci fi films coming out, the new Dune movie looks like it can be entertaining if you can try to get over the fact some blacks are now on aracus.
Raised by Wolves a Ridley Scott production looks good as well.
Foundation finally being made into a film based off the old isaac asimov book series.
The Project Daedalus study had their ship propelled by nuclear fusion rockets fueled by compressed deuterium, a type of hydrogen, combined with helium-3. For protection against space debris, a wide, blunt "erosion shield" similar in appearance to the blunt heat shields on the back of space capsules to protect against the heat of atmospheric re-entry would be installed at the front of the spacecraft. The engines, fuel tanks, crew and instrument compartments would all be placed behind this large shield. It makes the vehicle rather ungainly in appearance unlike the fictional starship Enterprise, but it would be functional and practical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

Another design study for a manned interstellar ship is the Enzmann starship:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzmann_starship
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor

Last edited by Ray Allan; 3 Weeks Ago at 11:01 PM.
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #27
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post

It wasn't necessary to calculate the acceleration. I was simply demonstrating that, at a rate of acceleration of 10 m/sec˛, you can reach one-tenth the speed of light in a little over a month.
10 metres per second per second or 10 m/sec˛ means by how many metres per second the velocity changes every second. With the g-force changing proportionally. You would only experience 1g for the first second. You could not survive that acceleration rate for even 34.72222 seconds!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post

If we assume v(i) = 0 and t(i)= 0, then the equation reduces to a = v(f) / t(f). If v(f) = 30,000 km/sec and t(f) = 3,000,000 sec, then a = 0.01 km/sec˛, which is 10 m/sec˛. At that rate of acceleration, the passengers and crew will experience one G, or basically the same gravity as they did on earth
Congratulations! You didn't experience more than 1g the whole time! I admit I failed to consider that you might simply proclaim it unnecessary to factor in acceleration.
I also mistakenly thought that if you solved this equation and saw, by your own work, that over the 3,000,000 seconds (34.72222 days) you had not accelerated 1f/s closer to 30,000km/s you would realise that it is necessary to factor in the acceleration for there to be any in the result, particularly when advancing a theory that entirely depends on it.
On the bright side, it would have been fatal and 30,000km in a month would be in itself no small achievement.

Just 40,151,340,095,632.9km left. Next stop Proxima Centauri! We'll be there in no time!!*

(no time=127,231,792 yrs)*
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #28
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
10 metres per second per second or 10 m/sec˛ means by how many metres per second the velocity changes every second. With the g-force changing proportionally. You would only experience 1g for the first second. You could not survive that acceleration rate for even 34.72222 seconds!
At this point it becomes apparent that you either know nothing about physics or you are a troll. At constant acceleration, the speed keeps increasing, but the g-force remains the same; it doesn't increase. G-force is proportional to acceleration, not speed. This is very basic high-school physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
Congratulations! You didn't experience more than 1g the whole time! I admit I failed to consider that you might simply proclaim it unnecessary to factor in acceleration.
I also mistakenly thought that if you solved this equation and saw, by your own work, that over the 3,000,000 seconds (34.72222 days) you had not accelerated 1f/s closer to 30,000km/s you would realise that it is necessary to factor in the acceleration for there to be any in the result, particularly when advancing a theory that entirely depends on it.
On the bright side, it would have been fatal and 30,000km in a month would be in itself no small achievement.

Just 40,151,340,095,632.9km left. Next stop Proxima Centauri! We'll be there in no time!!*

(no time=127,231,792 yrs)*
I stated that the acceleration would be a constant 10 meters per second per second. What do you mean that I didn't "factor in acceleration"? Constant acceleration means constant G-force. The only people who will believe that there is anything to what you are saying are those who have never picked up a physics book in their lives.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #29
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post

Constant acceleration means constant G-force.
You have to multiply the mass of the object (I don't know what that is) by the acceleration to get the G.

Please see the section 'Calculating One G' - https://sciencing.com/convert-newton...e-8720337.html

Also in the section 'Direction Matters' regarding upward G-force.
Accelerating at a rate that produces 1G wouldn't get you off the ground.
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #30
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
You have to multiply the mass of the object (I don't know what that is) by the acceleration to get the G.
That is correct, so that, for example, if your mass is 100 kg, and your acceleration is 10 m/sec˛, then you would be experiencing a force of 1000 Newtons.

However, when people talk about "pulling 3 G's," or "pulling 6 G's," the number of G's, 3, 6, or whatever, refers to acceleration, specifically, the acceleration compared to gravity on earth. In other words, 1 G is 10 m/sec˛, 3 G's is 30 m/sec˛, 6 G's is 60 m/sec˛, etc. You may hear someone say "a force of 6 G's," but that is sloppy speech, as the speaker is referring to acceleration, not force.

All of the above is taught in high school physics and is very basic. If you are trying to learn physics on your own, that is commendable, but there are pitfalls involved in reading different sources, some of which may use terms accurately and some of which may not. Also, sometimes the same terms may have different meanings in different contexts, for example, G may refer to the gravitational constant, which is quite different from what we are talking about here. This can be confusing if you are trying to learn without a teacher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
Accelerating at a rate that produces 1G wouldn't get you off the ground.
That is correct. To get off the ground, you'd probably need at least 4 G's. However, once you have reached escape velocity, the current procedure is to let the spacecraft simply coast to its destination at zero G's (i.e. no acceleration). By increasing that to just one G, you could eventually pick up as much speed as desired, until you approached the speed of light.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #31
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Woodpecker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post

That is correct. To get off the ground, you'd probably need at least 4 G's.
WTF?! Every time I've insisted you must speed up you start reminiscing (or having flashbacks) about high school!
When you worked out your acceleration and me and your math pointed out that you hadn't moved a foot in over a month you dismissed us both.
Now, when I've put together a series of virtual puppet shows to convince you that you must accelerate, suddenly you floor it?

Well you missed quite a show, I've already uploaded cannon guy...



4 Gs is enough to cause loss of consciousness. But never mind about that. Because despite the many articles waxing long about the possibilities of Proxima Centauri b, one thing had gone woefully under reported...
It was determined years ago that there is no likelihood of the planets in that system being habitable.

From 2018, 'Proxima Centauri just released a flare so powerful it was visible to the unaided eye' -
https://phys.org/news/2018-04-proxim...l-visible.html

It turns out superflares are a common occurrence. - 'Essentially, this and other studies have concluded that any planets orbiting Proxima Centauri would not be habitable for very long, and likely became lifeless balls of rock a long time ago.' There are plenty of lifeless rocks right here in this solar system.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post

However, once you have reached escape velocity, the current procedure is to let the spacecraft simply coast to its destination at zero G's (i.e. no acceleration). By increasing that to just one G, you could eventually pick up as much speed as desired, until you approached the speed of light.
The "current procedure"? There is no such procedure, current or otherwise. No person ever wants to reach escape velocity, there's nowhere to escape to. The only place to go that isn't on the surface is the ISS and that's only a couple hundred miles away in low earth orbit.
Most of the money seems to be going toward cramming as many satellites as possible into the sky.
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 3 Weeks Ago #32
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
WTF?! Every time I've insisted you must speed up you start reminiscing (or having flashbacks) about high school!
We're talking about high-school physics here, very basic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
When you worked out your acceleration and me and your math pointed out that you hadn't moved a foot in over a month you dismissed us both.
Now, when I've put together a series of virtual puppet shows to convince you that you must accelerate, suddenly you floor it?
What are you talking about? You act as if you haven't even read my posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
4 Gs is enough to cause loss of consciousness.
The Apollo astronauts experienced 4-G when they lifted off from earth.

How many Gs did the Saturn V have on launch?

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
But never mind about that. Because despite the many articles waxing long about the possibilities of Proxima Centauri b, one thing had gone woefully under reported...
It was determined years ago that there is no likelihood of the planets in that system being habitable.
That could be the topic of another discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
The "current procedure"? There is no such procedure, current or otherwise. No person ever wants to reach escape velocity, there's nowhere to escape to. The only place to go that isn't on the surface is the ISS and that's only a couple hundred miles away in low earth orbit.
Most of the money seems to be going toward cramming as many satellites as possible into the sky.
That was the procedure during the Apollo program, that is the procedure during unmanned interplanetary flights, and that will be the procedure in the upcoming manned flights to the moon and Mars. High acceleration initially, then coast the rest of the way.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old 2 Weeks Ago #33
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Woodpecker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post

That could be the topic of another discussion.
No, that is the discussion, hence the title of the thread 'Proxima Centauri Colonizing Mission'. That it has been determined uninhabitable could not be more pertinent. What certainly is the topic of another discussion is Apollo.
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 2 Weeks Ago #34
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeylowsac View Post
No, that is the discussion, hence the title of the thread 'Proxima Centauri Colonizing Mission'. That it has been determined uninhabitable could not be more pertinent. What certainly is the topic of another discussion is Apollo.
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but from a quick search it appears that Proxima Centauri has no inhabitable planets, but Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B very likely do have inhabitable planets.

Alpha Centauri: How Habitable Is Our Nearest Solar System?

Alpha Centauri B may have "superhabitable" worlds

If you have any further relevant information, I am certainly interested in reading it.
__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old 2 Weeks Ago #35
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post
I am by no means an expert on this subject, but from a quick search it appears that Proxima Centauri has no inhabitable planets, but Alpha Centauri A and Alpha Centauri B very likely do have inhabitable planets.
It is likely (statistically) that a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri A, B or both exists. Since its existence can, for now, only be guessed at, statements concerning the particulars (e.g., habitability) are well within the realm of imagination. Habitability depends on many factors some of which are impossible to predict such as distance from the star/s, whether there is an atmosphere, if there's a magnetosphere, rotation (i.e., tidal lock), etc. It probably won't be many years before we find some of that out though.

Alpha Centauri AB, via 8-inch Schmidt Cassegrain c8 Telescope


A couple of good scientific papers I've read recently:

Requirements and limits for life in the context of exoplanets
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4156692/

Exoplanet Biosignatures: Observational Prospects
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...pmid/24927538/

Also, a good resource on exoplanets:

NASA Exoplanet Archive
https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu

The Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes
http://archive.stsci.edu
__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 2 Weeks Ago #36
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9,965
Ray Allan
Default

Hopefully once the James Webb Space Telescope is launched, it can make more detailed observations of the Alpha Centauri system to see if these planets can support human life. Proxima b, however, looks less promising from the current data, but there is the possibility underground settlements can built there to protect against Proxima Centauri's solar flares and lethal radiation. I hope I can live long enough to at least see something like Breakthrough Starshot sent on its way there, but probably not long enough for it to reach its destination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Old 2 Weeks Ago #37
Nikola Bijeliti
Sex: Male
 
Nikola Bijeliti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 771
Blog Entries: 21
Nikola Bijeliti
Default

Here's an interesting video about the upcoming launch of the James Web Telescope.

__________________
All these ideas…are chained to the existence of men, to who[m]…they owe their existence. Precisely in this case the preservation of these definite races and men is the precondition for the existence of these ideas. --Adolf Hitler
 
Old 2 Weeks Ago #38
joeylowsac
RaHoWarrior-SKINHEAD
 
joeylowsac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Shingletown, CA
Posts: 818
Blog Entries: 24
joeylowsac
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post
Here's an interesting video about the upcoming launch of the James Web Telescope.

Why should SpaceX and Starship enthusiasts care about the James Webb Telescope? 25K Subs Special!
That's going to be kick ass! It's difficult to imagine the images of Hubble paling in comparison to anything.

Hubble Space Telescope - https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/h...ain/index.html

__________________
卐 White ⊕ Power 卐
 
Old 1 Week Ago #39
Ray Allan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 9,965
Ray Allan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti View Post
Here's an interesting video about the upcoming launch of the James Web Telescope.

Why should SpaceX and Starship enthusiasts care about the James Webb Telescope? 25K Subs Special!
The guy in the video was speaking so slowly it was sort of sleep-inducing, but an imaginative sci-fi story he told, nonetheless.

I can't wait to see some of JWST's images, too.
__________________
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

--Henry A. Kissinger, jewish politician and advisor
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.
Page generated in 0.13704 seconds.