thank goodness NASA is on hand to lighten the mood up a bit so we all don't top ourselves? "A ‘mysterious disturbance’ on Jupiter has been glimpsed ('glimpsed' lol) ‘stealing’ from the gas giant planet’s iconic Great Red Spot. Nasa has just released a series of stunning pictures (they mean CGIs) showing the solar system’s largest planet in all its awesome glory. The snaps (CGIs) were captured by the Juno spacecraft and then pieced together by citizen scientists." WTF's a 'citizen scientist'? Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/14/nasa...-jupiters-great-red-spot-8247409/?ito=cbshare
Citizen scientists are volunteers, hobbyists, etc. They may or may not have training in science. I think most asteroids have been found by individuals with personal equipment and on their own time. There are even coordinated efforts using citizen scientists. I believe you could volunteer to do tasks like drawing circles around craters on a photograph of the moon, for example. Your results would be compared to and added to the work of many others. It is not limited to astronomy.
Will, nobody 'finds' something which is hurtling through space at nearly 300,000 mph. And as to landing on one . . . "Nasa plans landing on 280,000mph asteroid travelling towards the Earth" - that's what I meant when I said we can always depend on NASA for a bit of light relief from our earthly problemos, as young Bart Simpson would say. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...ing-280-000mph-asteroid-travelling-Earth.html NB. the Daily Mail link is reporting a NASA statement of intent??
The Daily Mail almost never gets a story fully right. I would encourage you to read what NASA says when you see one of these stories rather than just believing what the Daily Mail SAYS NASA says. It's definitely the case that NASA has a satelite that is intercepting an asteroid, obtaining a sample and returning to Earth. No astronauts are involved. It is totally robotic. It launched in 2016 and is at or near the asteroid right now, I think. BUT, your article is from 2008, making statements about plans being made back then. The OSIRIS-REx mission of today may well be what your article is talking about. I'm not sure. I didn't read the full article or try to find out what it's talking about. Yes, there is a big speed differential between Earth (at ~70K mph) and the asteroid. How that is resolved is interesting. It's one of the reasons the mission takes a while.
If you really believe that a NASA satellite, probe, lander, robot, - call it what you will, Will - can 'intercept' and then land on a massive body consisting of rock, solid wodda (ice?), stardust ( ) careening through space at 300,000 mph, then 'obtain a sample' thence to take off and bring that sample back to this planet, I'm afraid there's nothing else I can do for you. Like my dear old nanny used to say as she dandled me on her knee, 'There's no way a closed mind can be opened, Master Cerby.'
Why the hell not? You know these objects are found by comparing still images taken of a particular patch of sky at different times, don't you? The faster something is moving, the better.
As usually anything that can't be understood by the OP is therefore fake or impossible. The fact you can see Jupiter through a telescope you can use at home makes no difference. http://www.deepskywatch.com/Articles/what-can-i-see-through-telescope.html Based upon your're previous posts you seem to think the only way for this to work is to have someone actively flying these things around the solar system or sat behind a steering wheel in mission control driving the Mars rover around and is therefore impossible
I am just curious how you would answer this: If you are in a car going 120MPH and someone in another car going 120MPH pulls up next to you, can they throw a baseball from their window into yours?
Pardon? Can you tell me by what means a still image of something hurtling through the universe at 300.000 mph is photographed please? And how it's easier to take the photo whilst it's on the move, rather than when it's stationary?
So how are these probes, landers, blah blah steered through millions of miles of universe to their intended destinations then, and always arrive on schedule and at the exact time predicted? I'm trying to learn, don't you see?
, Put simply, the same way traffic cameras work you take 2 pictures and you see how far the object has moved between the two images. Asked and answered before in a different topic and you refused to believe it then, so no I don't think you're interested in learning at all. If you are interested have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft) and get back to us.
Yes, but that's done by measuring the calibration marks on the road beyond the camera, and as means of confirming the radar speed when approaching the camera. So where are the calibration marks beyond the camera when it's taking the picture of . . . well I think you'll get my meaning, but I'll try and put it even more 'simply' if you don't. NASA probably originated that Wiki page - Wiki is an open-forum site for all comers you know? I mean, you could originate something on Wiki, no matter how barmy it might be.
The calibration marks are there so you don't have to know how far away the road / car is from the camera, if the camera is further away the calibration marks would be closer together. If you know the distance from the camera to the object you don't need calibration marks, you just measure the distance and trigonometry gives you the distance moved. As for the WIKI page, the Rosetta spacecraft was ESA not NASA but I'm assuming that makes no difference to you, anyway, I'm not going to break things down to first principles for you when you won't even accept the parallax works for measuring these distances. If you know where something is and the speed and direction it is going you can predict where it's going to be. You claim to understand parallax and agree that it can be used to measure how far away something is but then the concept suddenly stops working when we talk about things in space. So before you go and dismiss all of this as you usually do explain why parallax will no work in these situations.
Does it matter? They're all in it together, and they've made it into a worldwide industry. There are so many bloody 'space agencies' that very soon they won't be able to send up any more probes/landers de-dah-de-dah because they'll keep hitting all the space junk up there. I note your use of the buzzword 'parallax' though - by the number of times you parrot it, it seems to have made quite an impression on you. If you're an adult, get a grip for gods sake!
So parallax is a buzzword now, I used parallax as it's one of the very few things you claimed to understand. So once a again, why can parallax not be used to measure how far away things are, or does parallax just breakdown on a flat earth and stop working over longer distances? Nice to see you can' t back up a single thing you said or refute anything, guess we'll be back to your infamous gut any time now as proof that it's a lie. As it's the only truly reliable thing and it's never wrong. Talk about closed minds.
Look, we're never going to see eye-to-eye in a million years, so I'll just leave you with this - it's one of my signatures "It is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled." Now, ponder on it and ask yourself why you would so readily buy into NASA's bullshit with such blind belief even though they offer you not one jot or tittle of proof nor evidence of their escapades and supposed achievements, rather than share my scepticism.
It's not matter of seeing eye-to-eye it's looking at facts and data, you refuse to supply any and ignore anything posted that contradicts your view. The do offer proof, I understand the principles and concepts involved, you have never once defined what you would accept as proof, all this says is there is nothing that you will accept as it does fit with your understanding of how things work and what's possible. You have no interest at all in trying to learn no matter what you say. One last attempt, you claimed that the pictures are CGI, ignoring the fact you provided nothing to back this claim, you were shown that you can see Jupiter with a telescope you can buy from a shop and use in your back garden. So is this possible or not, let's start off with understanding there are things beyond our atmosphere.
Well, that's the cynic in me? lol Some people will believe everything anyone whom they perceive as being experts, as you obviously do, and others question them, and watch their body language; notice how when being interviewed they always try to make it jokey, and if the interviewer adds some input no matter how ridiculous, the interviewee will pounce on it with positive (but usually condescending) comment. You don't 'understand the principles and concepts involved', you only parrot what you've heard in commentary or read in space magazines; and you do that because for whatever reason, you want to believe what you're hearing or reading. I'm not denying there's a universe out there and that there are planets in it, ffs, only irritated by the way the self-serving 'space industry' hypes it up as if they're speaking to children in 4th year; most of them are CGIs, especially the dynamic ones, and they have 'artists impression' tags, and I've never seen one of them with a photographic reference. I know when I'm being fooled - it's inherent in my genetic makeup. Incidentally, did you give any thought to my signature? From what you say above, I'd presume that the answer to that is a resounding 'No'? I suspect that you're getting annoyed with me because I'm forcing you to review your convictions, and self-doubt is beginning to creep in. As an example of what I said above about CGIs, note the words underneath the link graphic photo 'Getty images', which suggests 'CGI' to me even if it doesn't to you. I'll make no comment on the actual story though, other than Does it effing matter even if it is true? lol "NASA says Saturn’s rings are disappearing at ‘alarming speed’" https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/18/nasa-says-saturns-rings-disappearing-alarming-speed-8263137/
You have no idea what I do or don’t understand, don’t judge people by your own inadequacies. Every debate you seem to have regarding science seems to be a logical fallacy. An argument from incredulity is not an argument.
I don't understand that thought process either...some people see every science issue as the result of some government conspiracy or aliens...it's never about their own lack of education or reasoning abilities because they're 100% sure they already know everything...
These are all politically motivated people, not out to seek any truth, but to discourage truth that’s inconvenient to them .
