• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Space: The Final Frontier

L

lilbaby Jesus

Member
Alienshogun said:
They "add" color, but isn't the color they add representative of how it really looks?
Click to expand...

Yep, as humans we are basically blind compared to whats out there. There are more spectrums of light that we cannot see without the use of our instruments. The universe is full of the different spectrums that we cant see. So yes this is indicative to how its actually looks, if we see it with a blind eye it would look diff.
 
T

teruterubozu

Member
It's also super long exposure, so it's collecting "continual" light - something our eyes can't do. So yeah, it's black and white if you look at it with naked eyes.
People are always disappointed when I show Andromeda or Orion Nebula through my telescope - they say, "Why is it Black and white and fuzzy?"
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
Not sure where to ask this... so, here.

I'm trying to build a world for a scifi (PnP) RPG for our games, my problem is that i want to avoid magic as much as possible. By magic i mean faster than light travel. I don't want to confine the game to our solar system or deal with inconveniently long interstellar travel (decades or centuries of travel, heck even just years of travel is just too much for what i need) either though. Months is fine (and years for unmanned spacecraft).

So, i got this wonderful idea of setting the game to a single solar system with 3 stars, each one having a habitable zone, and thus having multiple habitable (after terraforming) planets, along with moons and asteroids, enough to create pretty damn large empires, to get sort of space opera (or maybe "solar opera"?) feel. Also allows quality, in a real space opera setting planets are merely cities (Planetville) that don't really differ from each other. Want uniqueness.
But for the same reason as i want to avoid FTL: Is this possible? Could a star system have 3 stars, with multiple rocky planets suitable for terraforming, with a few gas giants (with multiple, large moons like Jupiter and Saturn) and asteroids? Can such a system form?
Probabilities be damned, all i need is such system to be theoretically possible.

The system would consist a double star and a companion star (as usual for a trinary). The double stars AB would each have their own planets... but could they ALSO have planets that orbit both?
The companion C would have its own planetary system. And the system shouldn't be too far away to make traveling to it impractical (ie not like Alpha Centauri with Proxima, which orbits Alpha Centauri a quarter lightyear away...).
Could such a system truly work?

EDIT the stars need to be K or G (or F if such wouldn't present problems) class stars all. Or some combination of them. Ms wouldn't have a human habitable zone really, would they?
 
P

Partial Gamification

Banned
Woorloog said:
Not sure where to ask this... so, here.

I'm trying to build a world for a scifi (PnP) RPG for our games, my problem is that i want to avoid magic as much as possible. By magic i mean faster than light travel. I don't want to confine the game to our solar system or deal with inconveniently long interstellar travel (decades or centuries of travel, heck even just years of travel is just too much for what i need) either though. Months is fine (and years for unmanned spacecraft).

So, i got this wonderful idea of setting the game to a single solar system with 3 stars, each one having a habitable zone, and thus having multiple habitable (after terraforming) planets, along with moons and asteroids, enough to create pretty damn large empires, to get sort of space opera (or maybe "solar opera"?) feel. Also allows quality, in a real space opera setting planets are merely cities (Planetville) that don't really differ from each other. Want uniqueness.
But for the same reason as i want to avoid FTL: Is this possible? Could a star system have 3 stars, with multiple rocky planets suitable for terraforming, with a few gas giants (with multiple, large moons like Jupiter and Saturn) and asteroids? Can such a system form?
Probabilities be damned, all i need is such system to be theoretically possible.

The system would consist a double star and a companion star (as usual for a trinary). The double stars AB would each have their own planets... but could they ALSO have planets that orbit both?
The companion C would have its own planetary system. And the system shouldn't be too far away to make traveling to it impractical (ie not like Alpha Centauri with Proxima, which orbits Alpha Centauri a quarter lightyear away...).
Could such a system truly work?

EDIT the stars need to be K or G (or F if such wouldn't present problems) class stars all. Or some combination of them. Ms wouldn't have a human habitable zone really, would they?
Click to expand...

Planets in Trinary systems have been found.

It really depends on how tight you want to try and pack the system(s). The closer it all is, the higher the tidal forces due to gravity. Theoretically, it is just a matter of finding an equilibrium for the orbits of all the masses inconsideration. Another thought is to scale it down, having Dyson Spheres and habitable stations (like the pics above) in order to create diverse environments within a certain distance of each other, but it sounds like you have a specific direction in mind. Good luck!
 
P

Powdered Toastman

Member
Woorloog said:
Not sure where to ask this... so, here.

I'm trying to build a world for a scifi (PnP) RPG for our games, my problem is that i want to avoid magic as much as possible. By magic i mean faster than light travel. I don't want to confine the game to our solar system or deal with inconveniently long interstellar travel (decades or centuries of travel, heck even just years of travel is just too much for what i need) either though. Months is fine (and years for unmanned spacecraft).

So, i got this wonderful idea of setting the game to a single solar system with 3 stars, each one having a habitable zone, and thus having multiple habitable (after terraforming) planets, along with moons and asteroids, enough to create pretty damn large empires, to get sort of space opera (or maybe "solar opera"?) feel. Also allows quality, in a real space opera setting planets are merely cities (Planetville) that don't really differ from each other. Want uniqueness.
But for the same reason as i want to avoid FTL: Is this possible? Could a star system have 3 stars, with multiple rocky planets suitable for terraforming, with a few gas giants (with multiple, large moons like Jupiter and Saturn) and asteroids? Can such a system form?
Probabilities be damned, all i need is such system to be theoretically possible.

The system would consist a double star and a companion star (as usual for a trinary). The double stars AB would each have their own planets... but could they ALSO have planets that orbit both?
The companion C would have its own planetary system. And the system shouldn't be too far away to make traveling to it impractical (ie not like Alpha Centauri with Proxima, which orbits Alpha Centauri a quarter lightyear away...).
Could such a system truly work?

EDIT the stars need to be K or G (or F if such wouldn't present problems) class stars all. Or some combination of them. Ms wouldn't have a human habitable zone really, would they?
Click to expand...

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/orbits.html, but it might not be very likely to exist, plus it doesn't show if there are any stable planetary systems possible in such a configuration.

A more likely scenario might be a few Jupiter+ sized planets orbiting a large sun with a relative large habitable zone. With each planet having multiple near earth (variably) sized moons, you could have live originating on a few of the moons. That could possibly create pretty unique life forms.
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
Partial Gamification said:
Planets in Trinary systems have been found.

It really depends on how tight you want to try and pack the system(s). The closer it all is, the higher the tidal forces due to gravity. Theoretically, it is just a matter of finding an equilibrium for the orbits of all the masses inconsideration. Another thought is to scale it down, having Dyson Spheres and habitable stations (like the pics above) in order to create diverse environments within a certain distance of each other, but it sounds like you have a specific direction in mind. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Not a fan of Dyson Spheres. Swarms. Whatever.
But space stations, O'Neil cylinders, stuff like that i will use. In addition to some 6-8 planets, a bunch of moons and asteroids. It is enough to make the place diverse enough but without sacrifing too much quality, or making places really small (one village per planet or something like that). Might be a bit too much even now... Especially since i was planning on have a few, um, Empires/major faction sharing everything.

I suppose it is much easier to belive in a complex trinary system i'm thinking of than FTL, no? Plausible, feeling real is more important than strickly realistic... the problem with FTL is that i cannot create a single "realistic" enough system, not counting wormholes but wormholes are boring. This triple star system idea is far more plausible at least, and fulfils what i need without having to resort something that is really magic.

Powdered Toastman said:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/orbits.html, but it might not be very likely to exist, plus it doesn't show if there are any stable planetary systems possible in such a configuration.

A more likely scenario might be a few Jupiter+ sized planets orbiting a large sun with a relative large habitable zone. With each planet having multiple near earth (variably) sized moons, you could have live originating on a few of the moons. That could possibly create pretty unique life forms.
Click to expand...

That typical triple star system is what i'm thinking of*. The question is, can such one have many planets? Can such one have planets orbiting both stars and planets orbiting invidual stars? The former isn't important if it is not compatible with the latter. And can such a system have gas giants too?

EDIT *it seems the triple star's binary component needs to be circular. If for nothing else than to make it possible for them to have planets.

EDIT most writers, creators, whatever wouldn't bother thinking whether this is possible, they'd only care if it sound plausible at most. Wonder if i'm a perfectionist.

EDIT interesting page BTW. Bookmark'd
 
Cuban Legend

Cuban Legend

Member
What would happen if a woman became pregnant and delivered a baby while travelling at the speed of light?

I presume no changes from her perspective right? but from the perspective of those on Earth, how would the gestation period be affected if at all?
 
Chittagong

Chittagong

Gold Member
Cuban Legend said:
What would happen if a woman became pregnant and delivered a baby while travelling at the speed of light?

I presume no changes from her perspective right? but from the perspective of those on Earth, how would the gestation period be affected if at all?
Click to expand...

On earth, you'd be stuck watching a gaping vagina with a baby's head in it forever.
 
W

WeAreStarStuff

Member
Machado said:
aould you please recomend me a +-$100 telescope from amazon?

thanks in advance
Click to expand...

You may be better off buying these if your budget is $100; I have a telescope and I still enjoy these quite a bit:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007UQNTU/?tag=neogaf0e-20

418uufJN-pL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
Cuban Legend said:
What would happen if a woman became pregnant and delivered a baby while travelling at the speed of light?

I presume no changes from her perspective right? but from the perspective of those on Earth, how would the gestation period be affected if at all?
Click to expand...

Everything is normal from the mother and baby's perspective.
 
J

José Mourinho

cocknose
I'm currently reading "Why does E=mc2?" Where Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw attempt to explain the equation and what lead up to it in a reasonably simple manner. Needless to say I'm not finding it quite so simple. Almost to the point where I don't believe it. I should note, not that I actually don't believe it, but rather my puny mind cant really comprehend what some of the theories, or facts rather, suggest.

For example, they mention the idea of traveling at near lightspeed away from earth for 50 years and back again, and how in those 100 years the earth would of aged 59,000 years (If I remember correctly).

So reading this stuff and trying to comprehend it leaves my head like...

0f60e189d6840b3294f90d4663fd20e9.jpeg


It's sort of like prehistory for me. When people talk so matter of factly about x amount of billions of years and what they think was happening/happened. I can't comprehend what say, 7 billion years ago could even be like. I can think about it as a number on a page, but that's about it.
 
H

Hootie

Member
I was just browsing Apollo videos on youtube and came across this:

Apollo 4 launch

dat flawless launch...dat sound....dat Cronkite commentary

I must attend the first SLS launch in 2017 (although that'll only be the 70t variant)
 
Melchiah

Melchiah

Member
http://www.space.com/19174-mars-one-colony-astronauts-wanted.html
Wanted: Mars Colonists to Explore Red Planet

pLfpL.jpg


If you think you have the right stuff to help colonize Mars, you'll soon get your chance to prove it.

The Netherlands-based nonprofit Mars One, which hopes to put the first boots on the Red Planet in 2023, released its basic astronaut requirements today (Jan. 8), setting the stage for a televised global selection process that will begin later this year.

Mars One isn't zeroing in on scientists or former fighter pilots; anyone who is at least 18 years old can apply to become a Mars colony pioneer. The most important criteria, officials say, are intelligence, good mental and physical health and dedication to the project, as astronauts will undergo eight years of training before launch.
Click to expand...
More in the link
 
Insane Metal

Insane Metal

Member
Maklershed said:
I can't even wrap my head around this ...

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-astronomers-largest-universe.html

An international team of astronomers, led by academics from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), has found the largest known structure in the universe. The large quasar group (LQG) is so large that it would take a vehicle travelling at the speed of light some 4 billion years to cross it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read it at NewScientist today. They actually say this find questions Einstein's theory that the Universe should look relatively the same in all directions, imposing a limit to the size of stuff. This is clearly way bigger than anything so far, and there's nothing quite like it in any other part of the universe.

By the way, the lead astronomer for this research had already found a ridiculously big structure back in 1991, with 1 billion light years across.
 
F

fallout

Member
I love deep space objects "in action". If you watch the video, you can see what looks like a little wobble occurring.

Video link here: http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?media_id=158178731

This movie from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory shows a fast moving jet of particles produced by a rapidly rotating neutron star, and may provide new insight into the nature of some of the densest matter in the universe. The star of this movie is the Vela pulsar, a neutron star that was formed when a massive star collapsed. The Vela pulsar is about 1,000 light years from Earth, spans about 12 miles in diameter, and makes over 11 complete rotations every second, faster than a helicopter rotor. As the pulsar whips around, it spews out a jet of charged particles that race out along the pulsar’s rotation axis at about 70% of the speed of light. In this still image from the movie, the location of the pulsar and the 0.7-light-year-long jet are labeled. The Chandra data shown in the movie, containing 8 images obtained between June and September 2010, suggest that the pulsar may be slowly wobbling, or precessing, as it spins.​

717493main_vela_665.jpg
 
Melchiah

Melchiah

Member
Maklershed said:
I can't even wrap my head around this ...

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-astronomers-largest-universe.html

An international team of astronomers, led by academics from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), has found the largest known structure in the universe. The large quasar group (LQG) is so large that it would take a vehicle travelling at the speed of light some 4 billion years to cross it.
Click to expand...

My friend summarized this pretty well.
"While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG"... difficult, eh? *DIFFICULT?!* IMPOSSIBRU!
Click to expand...
 
F

FACE

Banned
Maklershed said:
I can't even wrap my head around this ...

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-astronomers-largest-universe.html

An international team of astronomers, led by academics from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan), has found the largest known structure in the universe. The large quasar group (LQG) is so large that it would take a vehicle travelling at the speed of light some 4 billion years to cross it.
Click to expand...

So that thing is roughly 10^23 kilometers in size or ~6,67x10^14 times longer than the distance between the earth and the sun(one astronomical unit).

mind-1.gif
 
Melchiah

Melchiah

Member
S3Mi7uk.jpg

THE LARGEST KNOWN VOLCANO IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM

Olympus Mons is a Martian shield volcano of epic proportions that can be seen through telescopes on Earth. It stretches an incredible 25 Km (15.5 miles) above sea level into the thin Martian atmosphere, three times the height of Mt Everest, towering well above the brutal dust storms of the planet.

The volcano is surrounded by 6 km high scarp (perimeter) at its base where ancient lava flows drape over the edges. It spans a ginormous 624 Km (374 miles) in width! To put this into perspective, that is the width of the state of Arizona and wider than the entire chain of Hawaiian islands.

Yet Olympus Mons is not the only large volcano on the planet, it is part of an area of volcanoes known as the Tharsis region. Spanning 4000 km across this region contains 12 large volcanoes all ranging between 10 – 100 times larger than any volcano found on Planet Earth.

The reason these large volcanoes exist is believed to be due to high volcanic activity. Concentrated stationary regions of rising mantle plumes known as hot spots transfer heat away from the planets interior and deliver lava to the surface. On Earth these hot spots can create chains of volcanic islands due to the movement of the planets tectonic crust. As the plates pass over the hot spot new volcanoes are formed and existing ones become extinct, revealing a distribution of lava over vast areas.

This is what formed the volcanic island chains of Hawaii.

On Mars, this is not the case. It is believed that ancient hot spots rose up from the mantle of the planet, but the crust did not move across them, resulting in a build-up of lava over billions of years forming huge structures.

Surface areas of the western scarp of this volcano have been dated to as little as 2 million years old, which in geological terms can be considered very recent. This suggests that the volcano may still be active, although at a much reduced rate due to the planets cooling interior.

There is much to learn about this intriguing and dynamic planet, we are just beginning.

In the words of the great Carl Sagan, “Mars is a world of wonders.”


Source: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...-dwarfing-mount-everest-marsolympus-mons.html

Image credit: http://spoki.tvnet.lv//upload/articles/17/178957/images/_origin_Olympus-Mons-Olimpa-kalns-2.jpg
Click to expand...
 
S

Seep

Member
What kind of views am I going to get with 10x50 binoculars. If my sky map is correct Jupiter is just up and right of the moon tonight it was visible during the day and is still bright now. U.K.er here.
 
F

fallout

Member
Seep said:
What kind of views am I going to get with 10x50 binoculars. If my sky map is correct Jupiter is just up and right of the moon tonight it was visible during the day and is still bright now. U.K.er here.
Click to expand...
I think with 10x50s, you should be able to make out some definition of craters on the Moon, Jupiter's Gallilean moons (as small points of light) and some definition of Jupiter as a disc. A tripod would probably help to keep your view steady.
 
Dice

Dice

Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
So if someone landed on Mars, how the hell would they get back to earth? Wouldn't it take too much fuel to break orbit?
 
S

Seep

Member
fallout said:
I think with 10x50s, you should be able to make out some definition of craters on the Moon, Jupiter's Gallilean moons (as small points of light) and some definition of Jupiter as a disc. A tripod would probably help to keep your view steady.
Click to expand...

Cheers. So I'll get decent views of the moon but planets won't be much better? Are there any pictures of what realistic results I might expect to see.
 
N

Nokterian

Member
I love the universe ever since i was a little kid. Star gazing in france at the beach away from the city and bright lights. I got loads of books,dvd's,blu ray's. It boggles the mind how big it is and the new things people are discovering and that we as a race can think about and see what is happening in space is absoluty amazing. We live in a golden age of this.
 
G

Goodacre0081

Member
costsoflivingonmars.jpg

does anyone else see a problem with putting costs on these types of monumental leaps in human exploration? I know were a long way off from a society free of currency, poverty and hunger but how will we ever colonize mars when we're limited to being so materialistic in everyday life?
 
F

fallout

Member
Seep said:
Cheers. So I'll get decent views of the moon but planets won't be much better? Are there any pictures of what realistic results I might expect to see.
Click to expand...
If you're willing to stay up a bit later, you might be able to make out Saturn's rings (might be a bit of a challenge though ... in binos they'd be quite small). After a quick look, I couldn't find any pictures. The internet is terrible for talking about amateur astronomy and then posting ridiculous HST images alongside it.
 
T

Thug Waffle

Member
maxcer0081 said:
costsoflivingonmars.jpg

does anyone else see a problem with putting costs on these types of monumental leaps in human exploration? I know were a long way off from a society free of currency, poverty and hunger but how will we ever colonize mars when we're limited to being so materialistic in everyday life?
Click to expand...

Realistically, we don't know the cost. The numbers posed by that infographic seem insurmountable, but really, it depends on the technology we create to bring us to Mars. We might end up with less (or more) expensive fuel, for example, depending on the propulsion system we ultimately rely on to get us there.
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
Slightly Live said:
Better yet, hypernova.
Click to expand...

Eh, hypernova? Those can be so massive they leave no remnant (neutron star or black hole), right? I think i read that somewhere...

And... near future? People mean the light will be arriving soon? It seems Eta Carinae is some 7.5k ly away, which means it blew up ages ago. I know, i know, nitpicking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Starfield Shattered Space |OT| Is that the Great Serpent or are you just happy to see me?
2 3 4 5 6
256
11K
Punished Miku replied
DF - Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth: PS5 Pro vs PS5 - A Vast Improvement At 60FPS
9 10 11 12 13
649
27K
PaintTinJr replied
Destiny 2: The Final Shape | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2
58
3K
Warnen replied
Sonic Frontiers Final Previews
48
3K
Whitecrow replied
  • Poll
(Somewhat) How Not To Retrospective: The Nintendo 64 Chronicles (Sakhura Baguette)
Opinion Analysis Retro
23
2K
Katajx replied
Top Bottom