User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 1:43:25 PM EDT
[#1]
"Boy...9 years is along time to get to Pluto. How many astronauts are on that thing anyway?"
I overheard this over the weekend . 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 2:22:21 PM EDT
[#2]
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 2:33:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) It takes a lot of fuel to put mass up there. If you want to add more mass to the pay load... such as fuel and rocket engine to slow it down into an orbit... You need exponentially more fuel to get that off the ground. I'm pretty sure we didn't have a rocket powerful enough at the time of launch to do it. The SLS currently under development for the new NASA crew capsule might be capable. That means we still aren't yet capable of doing it. Or such a mission might require several launches and assembly in orbit. Either way doing such would have cost a whole heck of a lot more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 3:29:43 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) I asked myself the same questions, and I stumbled across this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3c5vu3/why_is_new_horizons_going_to_flyby_around_pluto/ Buried in there is a link to a proposal for a mission to Pluto leaving in 2016 and arriving in orbit in 2033, but at this point it's only a proposal. I didn't read it in depth, so I'm not sure if the technology in there exists today. http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/PRO/ACT-RPR-PRO-ISTS2004-Pluto.pdf I don't pretend to understand all of the the astrophysics, but intuitively it makes sense that we can get there relatively quickly and zoom on by or relatively slowly and insert a ship into orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 3:52:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It takes a lot of fuel to put mass up there. If you want to add more mass to the pay load... such as fuel and rocket engine to slow it down into an orbit... You need exponentially more fuel to get that off the ground. I'm pretty sure we didn't have a rocket powerful enough at the time of launch to do it. The SLS currently under development for the new NASA crew capsule might be capable. That means we still aren't yet capable of doing it. Or such a mission might require several launches and assembly in orbit. Either way doing such would have cost a whole heck of a lot more. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) It takes a lot of fuel to put mass up there. If you want to add more mass to the pay load... such as fuel and rocket engine to slow it down into an orbit... You need exponentially more fuel to get that off the ground. I'm pretty sure we didn't have a rocket powerful enough at the time of launch to do it. The SLS currently under development for the new NASA crew capsule might be capable. That means we still aren't yet capable of doing it. Or such a mission might require several launches and assembly in orbit. Either way doing such would have cost a whole heck of a lot more. That reminds me of something else I've often wondered. Seeing has how lifting large amounts of material off the ground is difficult, why don't we lift small amounts, assemble in orbit, then leave on the actual mission from there? If we can build ISS, we can build a bigger/better vessel to do the kind of work New Horizons is doing it would seem. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek lol.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 4:29:54 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That reminds me of something else I've often wondered. Seeing has how lifting large amounts of material off the ground is difficult, why don't we lift small amounts, assemble in orbit, then leave on the actual mission from there? If we can build ISS, we can build a bigger/better vessel to do the kind of work New Horizons is doing it would seem. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) It takes a lot of fuel to put mass up there. If you want to add more mass to the pay load... such as fuel and rocket engine to slow it down into an orbit... You need exponentially more fuel to get that off the ground. I'm pretty sure we didn't have a rocket powerful enough at the time of launch to do it. The SLS currently under development for the new NASA crew capsule might be capable. That means we still aren't yet capable of doing it. Or such a mission might require several launches and assembly in orbit. Either way doing such would have cost a whole heck of a lot more. That reminds me of something else I've often wondered. Seeing has how lifting large amounts of material off the ground is difficult, why don't we lift small amounts, assemble in orbit, then leave on the actual mission from there? If we can build ISS, we can build a bigger/better vessel to do the kind of work New Horizons is doing it would seem. Maybe I watch too much Star Trek lol. Get a game called Kerbal Space Program. It's not 100% accurate but gets a lot right (and is fun) and one thing it gets right is the problems of assembly in orbit. To put it simply... it's a structural problem. Each joint is a weak spot where thing will flex and bend. The larger rocket you have... the larger structurally rigid object you can put up there in one shot. This means less joints and thus proportionally larger thing you can build. Then there is the cost analysis. Each time you launch a rocket you're throwing away most of it. 5 small launches are more expensive than 1 big one... But it costs a lot in R&D to make that large rocket. If you make it then your future plans will cost less and be better. If you don't build it then you only have the multiple launch method. And that limits you. Then there is the difficulty and time involved in multiple launches. Each launch carries the chance of something going wrong in a big boom kind of way. Your space craft has to wait in orbit for long periods of time as new pieces are launched and connected. The longer it's up there the longer various things are running and wearing out. In the long run it's better to have a big rocket. In the short run... you make due with what you have and what Congress will give you funding for when they aren't wasting 10 times your entire budget on free phones for Shaniqua. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 7:32:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 7:54:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g Google Amy Shira Teitel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 8:23:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too bad we can't drop into orbit around Pluto. Hopefully we can reach some KBOs that make it worth the fly-by. Orbits are really hard to achieve when you lack enough atmosphere to aerobrake. And it only gets harder the smaller and further out you are. (Pluto beats all the other planets in both of these categories) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 8:34:27 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g She has an awesome channel. I've been a subscriber for about a year now. Her videos don't get the view counts they deserve. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 9:53:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She has an awesome channel. I've been a subscriber for about a year now. Her videos don't get the view counts they deserve. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g She has an awesome channel. I've been a subscriber for about a year now. Her videos don't get the view counts they deserve. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg I've been following her for about a month now. Great vintage space stuff. Right up my Apollo fixation. Her instagram account is great too. She's got a great sense of humor. You're right. She should have way more view counts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 10:45:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been following her for about a month now. Great vintage space stuff. Right up my Apollo fixation. Her instagram account is great too. She's got a great sense of humor. You're right. She should have way more view counts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? With the amount of time and effort it takes to get there, I'm assuming there's a technical reason we don't do that. I would venture to guess that it has something to do with fuel since decelerating likely takes a lot of it, but that's just a non-rocket scientist's guess :) Here's a great video explaining it. Plus, the girl is hot and smart! http://youtu.be/O6BBgLGgB7g She has an awesome channel. I've been a subscriber for about a year now. Her videos don't get the view counts they deserve. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw95T_TgbGHhTml4xZ9yIqg I've been following her for about a month now. Great vintage space stuff. Right up my Apollo fixation. Her instagram account is great too. She's got a great sense of humor. You're right. She should have way more view counts. What a coincidence. I just discovered her videos yesterday, and now she's being talked about on this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2015 11:13:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Hubble found an obscure spiral Galaxy and they released the photo today:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 8:11:31 AM EDT
[#14]
NASA's media briefing for the New Horizons approach is 8:15 EST on their home page. http://www.nasa.gov/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 8:23:38 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 9:39:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryThat's awesome. Growing up, I always pictured Pluto being a pale blue, like glacial ice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 9:41:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's awesome. Growing up, I always pictured Pluto being a pale blue, like glacial ice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's awesome. Growing up, I always pictured Pluto being a pale blue, like glacial ice. I think that is how most of us pictured it, I'm glad this was only one of its surprises 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 11:48:17 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? You really want your mind blown, check out how we inserted MESSENGER into Mercury's orbit. Mercury is relatively close compared to Pluto, and the spacecraft would be 'falling' into the Sun (due to gravity) so you'd think less fuel. Yet it took 7 years of travel, and flyby's of Earth, Venus, and Mercury to get the craft to finally get into Mercury's orbit. Neat stuff. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 12:02:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really want your mind blown, check out how we inserted MESSENGER into Mercury's orbit. Mercury is relatively close compared to Pluto, and the spacecraft would be 'falling' into the Sun (due to gravity) so you'd think less fuel. Yet it took 7 years of travel, and flyby's of Earth, Venus, and Mercury to get the craft to finally get into Mercury's orbit. Neat stuff. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/MESSENGER_trajectory.svg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's something about missions such as New Horizons that I don't understand. Instead of doing a "fly-by" where we hurtle by at mind-numbing speeds, hoping to capture some good info as we zoom by, why don't we insert into orbit and stick around? You really want your mind blown, check out how we inserted MESSENGER into Mercury's orbit. Mercury is relatively close compared to Pluto, and the spacecraft would be 'falling' into the Sun (due to gravity) so you'd think less fuel. Yet it took 7 years of travel, and flyby's of Earth, Venus, and Mercury to get the craft to finally get into Mercury's orbit. Neat stuff. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/MESSENGER_trajectory.svg This video is pretty good at explaining orbits, short of playing a certain Kerbal program. In 30 minutes, I can PROMISE you will learn something, and it is all basic information that anybody is able to digest. It mostly covers the Space Shuttle and Satellites, but there are bits of trivia here and there that I found fascinating...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2015 2:08:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Since the countdown timer went to 0 on flyby, APL had changed the time to when New Horizons 'Phone Home'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2015 10:36:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Only one new closeup of Pluto, a pretty cool shot of Charon and a blob of pixels for Hydra? If so, call me underwhelmed. I was hoping for at least a few pics of Pluto after all the build-up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2015 10:54:00 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only one new closeup of Pluto, a pretty cool shot of Charon and a blob of pixels for Hydra? If so, call me underwhelmed. I was hoping for at least a few pics of Pluto after all the build-up. The data transmission rate is very low that far out, they expect it'll take about 16 months to transmit everything it took in that few hours. We'll be getting a lot of very nice pictures, just be patient. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2015 11:21:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The data transmission rate is very low that far out, they expect it'll take about 16 months to transmit everything it took in that few hours. We'll be getting a lot of very nice pictures, just be patient. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Only one new closeup of Pluto, a pretty cool shot of Charon and a blob of pixels for Hydra? If so, call me underwhelmed. I was hoping for at least a few pics of Pluto after all the build-up. The data transmission rate is very low that far out, they expect it'll take about 16 months to transmit everything it took in that few hours. We'll be getting a lot of very nice pictures, just be patient. Oh, I know. I just feel like a kid who woke up on Christmas morning and found only three presents under the tree. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2015 12:18:14 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh, I know. I just feel like a kid who woke up on Christmas morning and found only three presents under the tree. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Only one new closeup of Pluto, a pretty cool shot of Charon and a blob of pixels for Hydra? If so, call me underwhelmed. I was hoping for at least a few pics of Pluto after all the build-up. The data transmission rate is very low that far out, they expect it'll take about 16 months to transmit everything it took in that few hours. We'll be getting a lot of very nice pictures, just be patient. Oh, I know. I just feel like a kid who woke up on Christmas morning and found only three presents under the tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2015 12:31:04 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2015 6:36:59 PM EDT
[#26]
Let my membership lapse so I could concentrate on preparing for my final defense.
I missed this thread. Now I'm done, so I'm back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 12:24:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Today's XKCD is pretty good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 1:01:45 PM EDT
[#28]
NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array has been orbiting Earth since its launch in 2012, mostly using its highly sensitive equipment to pick up the X-ray output of objects like black holes and supernovas, located thousands of light years from Earth. In this composite image released Wednesday by NASA, the data collected from NuSTAR has been combined with images from Japan's Hinode spacecraft and NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). NuSTAR captured high-energy X-rays, shown here in blue; Hinode captured low-energy X-rays, shown in green; and SDO grabbed images of extreme ultraviolet light, rendered here in yellow and red. NASA says all the images were taken around the same time on April 29. It's possible that the telescope could help observers pick up hypothetical nanoflares -- eruptions that would be one-billionth the energy of regular flares and that could be a reason why the sun's atmosphere is hotter than previously thought. There's also a "slim chance" the telescope could detect a dark-matter particle called the axion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2015 2:27:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Back of Pluto.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2015 12:37:05 AM EDT
[#30]
Star goes BOOM! July 31 (UPI) -- A new image -- captured by the Hubble Space Telescope and released by NASA -- reveals a dying star in its final moments.
It should be noted, however, that final moments mean different things for stars and humans. Like a wealthy patriarch who just can't seem to part with his estate, a dying star seems to hold onto the last threads of life forever. This particular star, NGC 6565, will likely drag its death out over the course of 10,000 years. Astronomers shouldn't wait around for the inheritance. A star's passage is not only painfully prolonged, it's also rather embarrassing. As the star loses its faculties, it's slowly stripped naked. Stellar winds blow its outer layers into the surrounding nebula of gas and dust, exposing the star's inner core. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2015 2:13:04 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 7:23:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Stumbled on Carl Sagan's original Cosmos.
If you ignore the non-english subtitles then this is a SCORE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 10:19:53 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryThat's fucking awesome. I haven't had much time to post in GD, let alone find stuff for this thread lately. Oh well, maybe soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 10:20:17 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stumbled on Carl Sagan's original Cosmos. If you ignore the non-english subtitles then this is a SCORE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 1:31:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Saturn Surprises
"Cassini keeps revealing puzzling phenomena in the Saturn system that challenge traditional theories and date estimates. Let’s scour the Saturn system for news, working from the planet outward." http://crev.info/2015/08/saturn-surprises/ Seriously, Ceres and Comets Look Surprising "Here are surprises found at asteroid Ceres and Comet 67P by spacecraft arriving there this year." http://crev.info/2015/08/ceres-comet-67p-dawn-philae/ Magnetic News "Magnetism is an important force in astronomy, planetary science and life. Here are news items involving magnets and magnetic fields." http://crev.info/2015/08/magnetic-news/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:10:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Been looking for that, thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stumbled on Carl Sagan's original Cosmos. If you ignore the non-english subtitles then this is a SCORE! Thanks! (shame there are sooooo many commercials tho |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 6:16:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let my membership lapse so I could concentrate on preparing for my final defense. I missed this thread. Now I'm done, so I'm back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 6:19:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Going on a date tomorrow with a feisty liberal hippie astronomy teacher. I may have lost my mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 8:26:40 PM EDT
[#39]
I bet you will hit it off. Bring your A game, she most likely pretty smart.
Says the guy with the undergrad astronomy degree.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2015 9:06:48 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I bet you will hit it off. Bring your A game, she most likely pretty smart. Says the guy with the undergrad astronomy degree.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2015 6:21:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Went well. Back to astronomy, tidbit from the gal: http://www.iflscience.com/space/planet-found-orbiting-two-stars-habitable-zone
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2015 7:50:08 PM EDT
[#42]
That place has to have some odd seasons and possibly really strange weather patterns like Jupiter or Saturn.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 2:40:46 AM EDT
[#43]
The planet may not be habitable, but it could certainly have satellites that are habitable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:51:01 AM EDT
[#44]
So a few weeks back I gave a little lecture on Stellar Evolution at the library as part of a summer STEM program. The kids loved it. I was so concerned that I would bore them to tears. Instead they were engaged and astounded to learn things they don't get taught in a school science class. I kept it simple with lots of pretty pictures and stuff for them to hold and see (I took my dob with me and they thought the mirror was the neatest thing).
I also put a lazy susan bearing on my dob, super easy and less than $10; a major upgrade for hand trackers like me. Pics From my Instagram account. My Dob upgrade (bearing on base) Me talking to the children at the library. Obligatory AR15 pic, I a built this one from the stripped upper and lower. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2015 9:59:51 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's your degree in? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Let my membership lapse so I could concentrate on preparing for my final defense. I missed this thread. Now I'm done, so I'm back. No, nothing cool (in terms of this thread). Just practical (boring for most normal people actually). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2015 12:13:17 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 8:11:13 AM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2015 1:05:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryNow where is that "like" button again. Do you work at JHU? And to think I get excited when I get to teach kids stuff and you get to zip past Pluto... I would need some depends if I worked there or JPL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2015 10:15:20 AM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2015 10:35:15 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Newest high resolution images from New Horizons have been made public: New Horizons Images http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/pics/Spherical-Mosaic-9-10-15.jpg out fucking standing 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
