Space and Astronomy Megathread (MERGED)

Is it real?

  • Yes

  • No, it's a hoax

  • It's something else

  • Yes

  • No, it's a hoax

  • It's something else


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
you and i are basically saying the same thing. i'm not saying that animals don't feel the need to dominate, but they don't try to rule entire towns or countries the way we do. their domination is for their survival, reproduction, and the promise that their species has a future. since we don't have the NEED to survive or reproduce (we know our species will be around longer than most)...our reason for domination is simply GREED. animals NEED to dominate, humans WANT to dominate. get what i'm sayin'? animals need to dominate because their immediate surroundings require them to be as high on the food chain as they can be...but (most times) those animals don't feel the need to go to a different environment and take over the way we do.

Again you are talking about 'feeling' like animals make conscious choices about things. Animals all the time move to new environments in an attempt to better their lives, and this DOES include dominating and possibly even wiping entire species off the map. This also includes the other buzzwords you mention like GREED and WANT. Do you actually think if given the chance any organism on this planet wouldn't grab all the resources that it can no matter who it effected as long as it benefited them? This is naive. They would, you can see it in their actions even within their own tribes and families, the way lions fight over who gets the biggest piece of the kill. You can see it in Beavers damming up a river, changing entire ecosystems for the worse for several species, just so he can get access to food with as little effort as possible. This is GREED pure and simple. Just because humans have a conscious and guilt doesn't make it any different.

You are setting humans and their actions apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, where we are one in the same. Humans don't just dominate for the sheer pleasure of it, it's to better their situation and future. Whether it be food, shelter, reproductive access or money, they are just currency in the battle to survive and survive well.

I am not trying to be a jerk to you, this topic just really interests me.
 
Again you are talking about 'feeling' like animals make conscious choices about things.
no i'm not. please don't put words in my mouth...i never said animals consciously want an equilibrium.

Animals all the time move to new environments in an attempt to better their lives, and this DOES include dominating and possibly even wiping entire species off the map.
so you mean to tell me that if a pack of wolves moves from one lake to another they'll take out all of the other animals who use that lake in just to call it their own?

Do you actually think if given the chance any organism on this planet wouldn't grab all the resources that it can no matter who it effected as long as it benefited them? This is naive.
so by your train of thought, a wolf that just moved to a new lake is going to take everything that it can possibly take? no, it'll only take what it needs for survival...they don't have a desire for abundance like us humans do. if they see extra meat and they're not hungry anymore they'll most likely leave it for the scavengers. that's not naive, that's nature.

They would, you can see it in their actions even within their own tribes and families, the way lions fight over who gets the biggest piece of the kill.
you're talking about dominance w/in a family or a group. i'm talking about dominance over entire territories. lions fighting for dominance w/in their own family is extremely different than us fighting for dominance over a city or a country.

You can see it in Beavers damming up a river, changing entire ecosystems for the worse for several species, just so he can get access to food with as little effort as possible. This is GREED pure and simple. Just because humans have a conscious and guilt doesn't make it any different.
beavers are a different story. you can use beavers to justify your argument because they're a lot like us. they make "buildings" at the cost of everyone/everything else. other animals do what they NEED to do but most animals needs don't interrupt the equilibrium. beavers don't NEED to build dams in order to survive, it just makes it more convenient for them. they WANT to build dams...therefor, beavers' GREED/WANT ends up messing up the flow.

You are setting humans and their actions apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, where we are one in the same.
we have a lot in common with natural animals but we have more differences than similarities. for instance........we have no REAL natural defenses. all of our defenses are technical. i'm not setting humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.....WE (humans) are.


Humans don't just dominate for the sheer pleasure of it, it's to better their situation and future.
we dominate because we WANT to better OUR future, but not necessarily the future of the world. we're so GREEDY that we'll sacrifice another species for things that we WANT.....not NEED. animals don't go around being dominant because they want THEIR species to be the best species in the world....they dominate because their survival depends on it....because they NEED to. we dominate because we WANT to.
 
no i'm not. please don't put words in my mouth...i never said animals consciously want an equilibrium.

you and i are basically saying the same thing. i'm not saying that animals don't feel the need to dominate, but they don't try to rule entire towns or countries the way we do.

Your words. What you stated indicates conscious actions.

so you mean to tell me that if a pack of wolves moves from one lake to another they'll take out all of the other animals who use that lake in just to call it their own?

If it benefits their survival, you bet they will, and they will have no qualms about taking what they desire.

so by your train of thought, a wolf that just moved to a new lake is going to take everything that it can possibly take? no, it'll only take what it needs for survival...they don't have a desire for abundance like us humans do. if they see extra meat and they're not hungry anymore they'll most likely leave it for the scavengers. that's not naive, that's nature.

Again, they will take whatever they want, and have no qualms about taking it. They will eat as much as they possibly can, impregnate as many females as they can, and kill whoever they can to establish dominance with no concern to the welfare of the land, to other animals or to a degree his own kin. The only way a predator would leave a fresh kill is when it's taken what it can eat(ie full stomach or it's all gone), or there is some outside pressure to leave the kill(enemies, more prey, females, boredom, etc).

You're naive in thinking a Wolf will sit and eat a meal, then when he knows he has enough calories to sustain him for the day, he will leave knowingly letting others have their fill, and to not deplete the biosphere of what it needs. I know you think this because you say things like 'they don't have a desire for abundance like us humans do.' like they make a choice based on some altruistic logic. They don't, they take as much as they can until something stops them from doing so.

you're talking about dominance w/in a family or a group. i'm talking about dominance over entire territories. lions fighting for dominance w/in their own family is extremely different than us fighting for dominance over a city or a country.

You actually think there is no interspecies fighting over land and resources? That is just plain silly.

beavers are a different story. you can use beavers to justify your argument because they're a lot like us. they make "buildings" at the cost of everyone/everything else. other animals do what they NEED to do but most animals needs don't interrupt the equilibrium. beavers don't NEED to build dams in order to survive, it just makes it more convenient for them. they WANT to build dams...therefor, beavers' GREED/WANT ends up messing up the flow.

Beaver dams are just one example of many of what they call an Extended Phenotype, which is when an organism actually has an effect outside of itself, which can be on the landscape and other organisms stretching from the simplest of bacteria to the most complex plants and animals. The equilibrium is always being upset by organisms stretching their boundaries, causing extinctions and disruptions to the natural order. How do you think evolution from simple to complex beings happened with this planets limited resources? It's been a bloody and messy battle from the begining, humans again are special here, because we hold such dominion over nature we upset the equilibrium even more.

we have a lot in common with natural animals but we have more differences than similarities. for instance........we have no REAL natural defenses. all of our defenses are technical. i'm not setting humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.....WE (humans) are.

Wow, no natural defenses, are you serious about this? You realize our species 'became' a species more than 200,000 years ago, where the only technology we had was fire and limited weapons and clothing. Humans would not have gotten where we are if we weren't durable.

we dominate because we WANT to better OUR future, but not necessarily the future of the world. we're so GREEDY that we'll sacrifice another species for things that we WANT.....not NEED. animals don't go around being dominant because they want THEIR species to be the best species in the world....they dominate because their survival depends on it....because they NEED to. we dominate because we WANT to.

Again, any organism on this planet would gladly exterminate hundreds of other species for their own benefit, and would have no qualms about doing so. This is where you are naive, thinking that all animals other than man are these benevolent creatures that happily maintain the status quo. They don't, they just have never been able to reach the level that we have to where natures attempts to level things out are less effective.
 
I am not trying to be a jerk to you

oh really? then what's this?

You're naive in thinking a Wolf will sit and eat a meal, then when he knows he has enough calories to sustain him for the day, he will leave knowingly letting others have their fill, and to not deplete the biosphere of what it needs.

This is where you are naive, thinking that all animals other than man are these benevolent creatures that happily maintain the status quo.

yeah facking right, gimme a break. i find it funny that you call me naive when everything you've told me so far (that actually makes sense) are things that i already know. actually, some of your points are just reiterations of mine (wolf not eating because it's full). it also seems like the things i'm telling you aren't passing the forcefield around your head. i don't know where you're trying to steer this discussion but i'm done with it. we've managed to stray so far from my original point that not all species want to be the dominant one that i doubt you even tried to understand why i posted what i posted. i don't wanna waste anymore of my time or energy on a discussion w/someone that's not getting what i'm saying whatsoever...later.
 
yeah facking right, gimme a break. i find it funny that you call me naive when everything you've told me so far (that actually makes sense) are things that i already know. actually, some of your points are just reiterations of mine (wolf not eating because it's full). it also seems like the things i'm telling you aren't passing the forcefield around your head. i don't know where you're trying to steer this discussion but i'm done with it. we've managed to stray so far from my original point that not all species want to be the dominant one that i doubt you even tried to understand why i posted what i posted. i don't wanna waste anymore of my time or energy on a discussion w/someone that's not getting what i'm saying whatsoever...later.

Well alright, you just can't reach some people. For the best, you have shown an inability to understand even the most basic concepts of evolution and the nature of how replicators and organisms work.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/space_shuttle;_ylt=AuuuXCVgmZRvC0.oo8CQyBQYAjMB

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - A patched-up Atlantis blasted off with seven astronauts Friday on the first space shuttle flight of 2007, putting NASA back on track after a run of bad luck and scandal that included a damaging hailstorm and a lurid love triangle.

Its big orange fuel tank covered with white blotches where the foam insulation had been repaired, the spaceship rose from its seaside launch pad with a roar and climbed into a clear and still-brightly lit sky at 7:38 p.m. EDT, setting a course for the international space station.


After a near-flawless countdown, the shuttle smoothly settled into orbit around the Earth.


During the 11-day flight, Atlantis' astronauts will deliver a new segment and a pair of solar panels to the orbiting outpost. They will also swap out a member of the space station's crew.


One of the few problems as the clocks ticked down was a loose pipe clamp on the launch platform. Technicians considered trying to screw it down but decided it was safe to leave it alone.


The mission had been delayed for three months after a freak storm at the launch pad hurled golf-ball-size hail at Atlantis' 154-foot fuel tank, putting thousands of pockmarks in its vital insulating foam and one of the orbiter's wings.


"It took us a while to get to this point, but the ship is in great shape," launch director Mike Leinbach said just before liftoff.


Over the past few months, NASA has also seen the arrest of astronaut Lisa Nowak in an alleged plot to kidnap her rival for a shuttle pilot's affections; a murder-suicide at the Johnson Space Center in Houston; and the derailment of a train carrying rocket-booster segments for future shuttle launches.



More recently, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has come under fire for suggesting that global warming may not be a problem worth wrestling with.


"We've had a tough six months for a number of different reasons," Griffin told The Associated Press hours before the liftoff. "We'd love to have a textbook launch and a textbook mission. It would just make everybody feel good."


NASA has not had a shuttle launch since December.
After the hailstorm, Atlantis was rolled back to the hangar, and the space agency decided to sand down and patch the gouge marks with foam rather than swap out the entire tank.


The foam has been of paramount concern to NASA ever since the Columbia disaster in 2003, when a chunk of the insulating material broke off during liftoff and gashed a wing, allowing fiery gases to penetrate the shuttle during its return to Earth. All seven astronauts aboard were killed.
Although the top of the tank Friday looked like a beat-up old car that had undergone bodywork in someone's garage, officials said it was safe.
"We have done extensive tests and analysis," said LeRoy Cain, launch integration manager.


There was no immediate from NASA on whether any dangerous pieces of foam fell off the tank during the ascent.
The hailstorm forced NASA to reduce the number of shuttle missions in 2007 from five to four. The space agency hopes to fly at least 12 construction missions besides this one to the space station, and also plans to send a crew to repair the Hubble Space Telescope before the shuttle fleet is retired in 2010.
Atlantis' crew is led by commander Rick Sturckow. The other members are pilot Lee Archambault and mission specialists Patrick Forrester, Steven Swanson, Danny Olivas, James Reilly and Clayton Anderson. It is the first all-male crew at launch since 2002.


Anderson will replace astronaut Sunita Williams as the U.S. representative aboard the space station, and Williams will return to Earth aboard Atlantis. She has spent the past six months in orbit.


Two astronauts will not be assisting in the launch as previously planned.
Nowak had been assigned to the ground team that communicates with the astronauts in flight. But she was fired by NASA in March, a month after her arrest.


And the object of her affections, Bill Oefelein, had been scheduled to fly a weather plane at a shuttle emergency landing site in Europe. But he was dropped from the astronaut corps this month and returned to the Navy.



Nice to see this one went off without a hitch. :up:

But I really think they need something new in place of the Space Shuttle.
 
Cool.

But I'll be more excited if we ever go back to the Moon or finally head to Mars.
 
The combination of the thread-starter's name and the thread content made me smirk and almost laugh.

I'm such a nerd :(.
 
fun to watch... I even saw the replays on the NASA channel
 
Alien worlds, once hidden from knowledge, are now being discovered in droves, stunning astronomers with their unique features and sheer numbers. The discoveries are so common that more and more don't even get reported outside scientific circles.


Take the announcement at the end of May of a massive planet, dubbed TrES-3, that zips around its star in an amazingly rapid 31 hours, giving the planet a 1.3-day year. Astronomers issued a press release, but you might not have heard about it because the discovery was so overshadowed by other planet announcements and barely received news coverage.

"It's pretty routine now," said Alan Boss, a planet formation theorist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. "Most planets that are found are not deemed worthy of a press release because they are sort of becoming 'one more planet.'"

The total is now more than 200 extrasolar planets confirmed. And this is the tip of the iceberg in planet finds. Astronomers have more tools than ever, and technology is so advanced that planet discovery has become almost mundane.

The regularity of planet finds, luckily, is buffered by the wild variety in the discoveries themselves, including the following contrasts: nascent worlds of just a million years versus those that are billions of years old; hot gas giants and icy Neptune-like orbs; planets that whip around their parent stars with cosmic speed and others that seem to creep at a slug's pace; and planets orbiting double-stars, red-dwarf stars and even so-called failed stars.


Transit technique

Astronomers spotted TrES-3 as part of the Trans-atlantic Exoplanet Survey while looking for transiting planets, or those that pass directly in front of their home star with respect to Earth. It was detected with a network of telescopes in Arizona, California, and the Canary Islands. When TrES-3 coasted in front of its home star, the telescopes picked up a slight dimming of the star's light, by about 2.5 percent. The scientists used the dimming to estimate the planet's mass, size and other properties.

It is located 800 light-years away in the constellation Hercules about 10 degrees west of Vega, one of the brightest stars in the summer skies of the northern hemisphere.

"It is also a very massive planet-about twice the mass of the solar system's biggest planet, Jupiter-and is one of the planets with the shortest known periods," said a co-discoverer of TrES-3 Georgi Mandushev of the Lowell Observatory in Arizona.

The giant orb orbits so close to its parent star, about 50 times closer than Earth is to the Sun, the astronomers estimate its temperature soars to about 1,500 degrees Kelvin.

Stellar wobbles

While the "transit method" provides astronomers with the best indirect information about an exoplanet, so far only about 20 transiting planets have been spotted.


That's why the most successful (based on the number of planet finds) teams have relied on the so-called wobble method, or radio-velocity technique.


"The radial-velocity teams are the most successful," Boss told SPACE.com. "They are a victim of their own success. They are able to get more and more telescope time, because they can prove to the assignment committees that give out the time that 'if you give us so many more nights we can probably find you so many more planets,'" Boss said.


He added, "The key bottleneck for finding more planets is simply more time on a telescope."


-The firsts and superlatives


-In addition to finding new worlds, the burgeoning field has achieved many firsts.


In 2001, a team led by David Charbonneau of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics used the Hubble Space Telescope and NASA's infrared-detecting Spitzer Space Telescope to detect for the first time the atmosphere of an extrasolar hot Jupiter called HD 189733b.


Another hot Jupiter, Upsilon Andromeda b, revealed for the first time an exoplanet with a temperature variation across its surface: One side has temperatures rivaling those found deep in a volcano while the other face could plunge below freezing.


Superlatives abound as well, with discoveries gaining fame as the windiest, tiniest, most massive and fastest orbiter.


-Shortest orbital period in catalog: HD 41004 B b completes a full orbit in 1.328 days.

-Longest orbit: HD 154345 b takes 13,100 days to orbit its parent star.

-Lightest planet: Gliese 581 C weighs just five Earth masses.

-Planet organizer


In an effort to keep track of the rapidly increasing list of exoplanets, a group of astronomers published a catalog of nearby exoplanets within 652 light-years of Earth in a 2006 issue of the Astrophysical Journal, though they realize updates will be a must on a routine basis.


"Without question, the catalog presented here will become out of date before it is printed," the researchers say in the published report of the catalog.


But with such a huge sample of relatively nearby planets, theorists now have the chance to test out their theories in the "real world."


"This whole business of extrasolar planets has been a real boon for theorists because so far they had only one planetary system to study-and that was ours," Mandushev said in a telephone interview.


For instance, when does an object stop being a planet and become a star, a threshold that theory places at 10 to 15 Jupiter masses and beyond which an object can ignite hydrogen fusion to power a stellar glow'


The real goal


The ultimate goal, say many planet hunters, is to find Earth-like planets, or those with similar masses, orbits and rocky compositions to Earth. And beyond finding the physical Earth-like attributes would be to find life. So far no "Earths" have been identified, though observatories are coming online with the sensitivity to detect small objects that orbit far from their host stars, as our planet does.


"The hunt is still on for rocky, Earth-like planets," said Jason Wright, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley, who was part of the team compiling the exoplanet catalog.


And astronomers have identified the first Earth-like planet that could support liquid water and harbor life. The "super Earth," Gliese 581 C, weighs about five Earth masses and is either a rocky planet or one covered entirely by oceans, astronomers speculate.


Multi-planet systems are also a goal. So far about 25 multi-planet systems have been identified with two such systems supporting four planets.


"We haven't found a clone of the solar system yet," Boss said. "But that's only ruling out maybe 10 percent of the stars. The other 90 percent could have exact solar system analogs and we wouldn't know it because we haven't been able to take data for long enough to actually find their planetary systems."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070611/sc_space/trickleofplanetdiscoveriesbecomesaflood
 
Ground Control to Major Tom
Ground Control to Major Tom
Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

Ground Control to Major Tom
Commencing countdown, engines on
Check ignition and may God’s love be with you

Spoken:
Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Lift-off

This is Ground Control to Major Tom
You’ve really made the grade
And the papers want to know whose shirts you wear
Now it’s time to leave the capsule if you dare

“This is Major Tom to Ground Control
I’m stepping through the door
And I’m floating in a most peculiar way
And the stars look very different today

For here
Am I sitting in a tin can
Far above the world
Planet Earth is blue
And there’s nothing I can do

Though I’m past one hundred thousand miles
I’m feeling very still
And I think my spaceship knows which way to go
Tell my wife I love her very much (she knows!)
Ground Control to Major Tom
Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear me, Major Tom?
Can you hear....

“ am I floating round my tin can
Far above the Moon
Planet Earth is blue
And there’s nothing I can do.?



:ff: :ff: :ff:
 
Ever since I was a kid I wanted to be an astronaut and it's always been my ambition to one day walk on Mars. Whether or not I ever achieve that dream, this news is good news for all of mankind and I am VERY happy to read it.
 
If an asteroid is headed towards Earth, it might be wise to get some of the population off the planet. We need to start making viable life domes on the moon and viable self supporting space stations. Spread our genes to the rest of the universe!!!

If an Asteroid comes to earth, I got it covered. ;)
 
Obviously nobody here is planning a trip for next week to go to the moon. Space tourism is incredibly expensive. but compare the cost of computers today to 20 years ago, and it is possilbe that within our lifetime space tourism will be cheap enough for some of us to take that voyage.

Is anybody here interested or planning to go into space someday?

For me it depends on what my health and my lifestyle is like in that time period. Space is rough on the body. And obviously it depends on the cost. I don't think I'd want to go into low earth orbit. I'd want to be able to look down on the earth.

I think looking down on the earth would be an amazing experience, probably worth some tears.
 
The risks far outweigh any possible benefits. So much can go wrong.

To die slowly of starvation and suffocation while your malfunctioning ship orbits Earth in black space would suck...it would suck something awful.
 
I would love to go if it didn't cost $100,000. I've always been fascinated by space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"