dorlomin Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Considering it is 7.5 billion km away WHO THE F*** left the lights on so we could get pictures. Its 32 AU away (1 AU is roughly the distance from the Sun to Earth) so using the inverse square law that is the sunlight will be about 1/1024 as intense as on Earth. So given the full moon is about 1/400 000th as bright as the Sun, there will be about 400 times as much light as a full moon. Apparently the Sun will be so bright it will still hurt the eyes badly but you could look straight at it from Pluto It is dim but the unaided eye would still be able to see, really good cameras should have few problems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) Its 32 AU away (1 AU is roughly the distance from the Sun to Earth) so using the inverse square law that is the sunlight will be about 1/1024 as intense as on Earth. So given the full moon is about 1/400 000th as bright as the Sun, there will be about 400 times as much light as a full moon. Apparently the Sun will be so bright it will still hurt the eyes badly but you could look straight at it from Pluto It is dim but the unaided eye would still be able to see, really good cameras should have few problems. Does that not just mean that, forgetting about the differences in reflectivity, that Pluto is 1024 times as dark as the moon? Edited July 20, 2015 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Does that not mean that, forgetting about the difference in reflectivity, that Pluto is 1024 times as dark as the moon? Which side? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Which side? Dark to dark, bright to bright, middling to middling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Absolutely gutted nobody used any song lyrics 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Its 32 AU away (1 AU is roughly the distance from the Sun to Earth) so using the inverse square law that is the sunlight will be about 1/1024 as intense as on Earth. So given the full moon is about 1/400 000th as bright as the Sun, there will be about 400 times as much light as a full moon. Apparently the Sun will be so bright it will still hurt the eyes badly but you could look straight at it from Pluto It is dim but the unaided eye would still be able to see, really good cameras should have few problems. If you want to experience the sort of light conditions you'd get on Pluto NASA have a page for finding out what time Pluto time is for you - http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/plutotime/ I'd have to be up at 4:35am tomorrow morning for the next Pluto time in Aberdeen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Here's a question! They say it all started with the BIG BANGNo they don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Here's a question! They say it all started with the BIG BANG No they don't. I don't think his maw needs to go into more detail about his conception, for all our sakes 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Sky At Night Was excellent last night -Patrick, as mentioned on the show, would have loved all this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 It is dim but the unaided eye would still be able to see, really good cameras should have few problems. I'm not going to pretend to know the first thing about all this but a chap explained how to 'see' Pluto last night on the BeeB and the method required using a very high magnification lens on a high quality camera then comparing pictures taken over a series of nights before studying the results for a spot of faint light that had moved between pictures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmadaleKillie Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 (edited) I'm not going to pretend to know the first thing about all this but a chap explained how to 'see' Pluto last night on the BeeB and the method required using a very high magnification lens on a high quality camera then comparing pictures taken over a series of nights before studying the results for a spot of faint light that had moved between pictures. Pluto is currently a magnitude 14 object in the sky. The limit for a naked eye observer from a really dark site is around about 6.5 so you can't see Pluto naked eye. I suspect you would need at least a 10 inch scope to see it and even then it would just be a white dot to be honest. The example of taking pictures across a period of time is the best method of at least showing something interesting. Edited July 21, 2015 by ArmadaleKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 There was also in interesting Horizon programme on Beeb4 last night about NASA's plan to send a manned mission to Mars. Seemed to be a lot more planning going into getting them there, than there was about getting them back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 There was also in interesting Horizon programme on Beeb4 last night about NASA's plan to send a manned mission to Mars. Seemed to be a lot more planning going into getting them there, than there was about getting them back ssshh they'll hear you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 There was also in interesting Horizon programme on Beeb4 last night about NASA's plan to send a manned mission to Mars. Seemed to be a lot more planning going into getting them there, than there was about getting them back Buzz Aldrin did his doctoral thesis in orbital rendezvous back in the day, years ago he worked out that there were orbits that you could space stations in so that they'd swing around the sun between Earth and Mars. Once you had a few positioned on those orbital trajectories they'd cycle between the two planets like a cosmic ski lift. I always liked that idea, a bit more elegant than strapping together a big ass rocket waiting for a launch window (you could at least reduce the time between launches by the number of cyclers in orbit). After that the big problems are making sure you have a Martian ascent vehicle to get back of Mars and above all else, keeping your guys alive on a planet with no magnetic field (and indeed, your spacecraft for travelling between the two would need some heavy shielding as well). Realistically you'd have to bury any habitat a good few feet under ground..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Question for the scientists on here. If it was discovered that earth would be wiped out completely by an asteroid etc in 25/30 years from now. How would human race survive - would they build big space stations and ship people up there? Would 25 years be long enough to do a program like that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Question for the scientists on here. If it was discovered that earth would be wiped out completely by an asteroid etc in 25/30 years from now. How would human race survive - would they build big space stations and ship people up there? Would 25 years be long enough to do a program like that? We wouldn't. The human body isn't designed for a zero gravity environment. Not even sure it would be possible to have children as gravity plays a bit part in a lot of things our body does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banana Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Question for the scientists on here. If it was discovered that earth would be wiped out completely by an asteroid etc in 25/30 years from now. How would human race survive - would they build big space stations and ship people up there? Would 25 years be long enough to do a program like that? Prevention would be the main task. If we were able to nudge the asteroid etc. off course by a large enough degree (the earlier the nudge, the smaller the degree needed), then earth saved. If the asteroid etc. was too large then we'd probably go ahead with some Mars colony-type thing for a few hundred/thousand carefully selected properly skilled and fertile folk (and 'important people', perhaps). I doubt much would come of that tbh if we're talking about survival of the human race - we'd probably be done for within a generation or two (resources, skills/knowledge/expertise dying as people die, disease) even if the colony had a fully repleneshing bioshpere with food and water. Space stations anywhere near earth would get obliterated by earth debris. Not totally sure on this, but the debris and resultant decentralisation of a gravitational force the size of the earth might affect other planets. In short, the human race would be fucked. I'm not even convinced we'd see out a full year once the knowledge was 100% accurate and widely known, I could imagine societies breaking down pretty rapidly. If you haven't already, watch the movie Melancholia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Extinction events are not exactly that uncommon either, We know of 5. and every time they are devastation to the planet that can take 100's of thousands of years to recover if not longer. one of these events wiped out 96% of all life on Earth. Even if we did somehow survive the main events. We'd still be fucked afterwards http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/mass-extinctions/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Rather than move the asteroid off course is there anyway we could move earth slightly? Like create some sort of controlled explosion in the core that would shift us a few hundred metres or whatever was required 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Rather than move the asteroid off course is there anyway we could move earth slightly? Like create some sort of controlled explosion in the core that would shift us a few hundred metres or whatever was required Moving the orbit of the planet or changing it's tilt would be just as devastating 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.