Parker Solar Probe

I prefer the raw power of magnetars. Get close enough to one and their magnetic fields will rip anything apart at the atomic level, overpowering atomic bonds.

Squeezed out with help from the svtperformance.com mobile app

Relaxed Chaos said:

I prefer the raw power of magnetars. Get close enough to one and their magnetic fields will rip anything apart at the atomic level, overpowering atomic bonds.

Squeezed out with help from the svtperformance.com mobile app

Click to expand...

At work we were told to modify our "identity" to what we thought we were. I put down magnetar, and thought that would be both the coolest and dumbest. Nope. A co-worker said he identified as an A-10.


Sent from my iPad using the svtperformance.com mobile app

James Snover said:

At work we were told to modify our "identity" to what we thought we were. I put down magnetar, and thought that would be both the coolest and dumbest. Nope. A co-worker said he identified as an A-10.


Sent from my iPad using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Click to expand...

I identify as an A-10 with afterburning engines....

blk02edge said:

I identify as an A-10 with afterburning engines....

Click to expand...

Dammit! That’s even more cool! Dammit!


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

Mr. Snover... do you play KSP by chance? Just curious.

U.M.

Uncle Meat said:

Mr. Snover... do you play KSP by chance? Just curious.

U.M.

Click to expand...

No. But I highly approve of it.


Sent from my iPad using the svtperformance.com mobile app

James Snover said:

No. But I highly approve of it.

Click to expand...

I have a blast designing & piloting vehicles while trying to prevent rapid disassembly's.

U.M.

I continue to enjoy your posts, James. I learn, and yet don't always understand much of what your say. LOL. Maybe that's why I barely passed Physics in high school. Back then, I didn't devote the time to the subject. Today, for me, learning is never taken for granted.

More Parker Solar Probe news!

This was just announced: In it's second flyby of Venus for another gravity assist, the probe has detected radio waves emanating from Venus' atmosphere. It appears to be some sort of reaction between the planet, it's atmosphere, and the sun entering the low spot of it's 11-year sun-spot cycle.

This is one that took everyone by surprise.

James Snover said:

More Parker Solar Probe news!

This was just announced: In it's second flyby of Venus for another gravity assist, the probe has detected radio waves emanating from Venus' atmosphere. It appears to be some sort of reaction between the planet, it's atmosphere, and the sun entering the low spot of it's 11-year sun-spot cycle.

This is one that took everyone by surprise.

Click to expand...

Just a minor glitch, they'll patch it out in the next round of updates.

The "sound" of the radio frequencies that the Parker Solar probe picked up from Venus:

Space whales

James Snover said:

The answer is: the more massive something is, the more it curves space near if. The space around the sun is so warped it is actually difficult to get anything small in any kind of stable orbit. Because despite its gravity, it tends to just fling things away from it. You can see this in the orbits of planets and comets. Planets are big, and have mostly circular orbits with just a bit of elliptical to them. Comets have hugely elliptical orbits and many are not stable.

Debris does crash into the sun, every day. But itakes forever for any one bit of debris to hit that perfect trajectory. It only happens because the solar system is an amazingly dirty place.

So they had toss the probe out there with our biggest rocket and get a gravity boost off Venus just to get put in the right place.


Sent from my iPad using svtperformance.com

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The more gravity an object has (and spins), the more it distorts space around it by dragging items with it. The massive gravity along with the spin drag spacetime around it. You would orbit around a black hole without establishing a speed to orbit around it. It would not fling things away because it was going too fast. The jets eminating from a black hole are due to heating of material in the accretion disk and the resulting magnetic fields that twist around and finally break and that's the jets you see, throwing things out at large percentages of the speed of light.

All celestial bodies exhibit frame dragging to some degree but the effect scales with mass.

xblitzkriegx said:

This is incorrect. The more gravity an object has (and spins), the more it distorts space around it by dragging items with it. The massive gravity along with the spin drag spacetime around it. You would orbit around a black hole without establishing a speed to orbit around it. It would not fling things away because it was going too fast. The jets eminating from a black hole are due to heating of material in the accretion disk and the resulting magnetic fields that twist around and finally break and that's the jets you see, throwing things out at large percentages of the speed of light.

All celestial bodies exhibit frame dragging to some degree but the effect scales with mass.

Click to expand...

Ok, if what you said was correct, then: gravitational assist trajectories to pick up speed in spacecraft would not work. They do work, and are used often. It's the least expensive way to gain speed we know of without burning fuel. It takes a bunch of time and planning to implement them. If they didn't work, no one would even try it. Also: if you were right, comets and meteors wouldn't work. Every time one goes blasting by the sun it picks up a speed boost and is flung back out into it's typically wildly elliptic orbit.

You're right on the the other points of mass and frame dragging. And black hole jet creation.

However: the more massive something is, and the smaller it is, the harder it is to actually hit it rather than pick up an unintentional gravity assist and be flung away from it. Our sun, twice as large as the average star, is still pretty small. Yes, stuff hits it every day, but only because there is a solar system worth of debris out there flying around. Most of it has to orbit for millions, if not billions of years, before it hits the right trajectory to hit the sun.

Less than black hole mass objects exhibit that phenomenon but on a very small scale, this is why it's not seen often. It's basically black holes or neutron stars only.

There are threads that make me think I’m retarded


Then there are threads such as this that prove I’m retarded

CompOrange04GT said:

There are threads that make me think I’m retarded


Then there are threads such as this that prove I’m retarded

Click to expand...

There's no shame in playing with crayons at an adult age.

xblitzkriegx said:

Less than black hole mass objects exhibit that phenomenon but on a very small scale, this is why it's not seen often. It's basically black holes or neutron stars only.

Click to expand...

So, is it incorrect, as you first stated; or only correct for certain classes of objects? Not trying to be a jerk, but you seem to be saying different things.

Are you now saying only supermassive objects fling stuff away from them? Because, as before, we use gravitational-assist trajectories off planets all the time. A gravity-assist is an example of a body pulling something towards it and then flinging it away, at a higher speed than it was initially traveling.

Just trying to be clear that we’re talking about the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app

James Snover said:

The "sound" of the radio frequencies that the Parker Solar probe picked up from Venus:

Click to expand...

Protomolecule.

wundrbird said:

Protomolecule.

Click to expand...

Gotta watch out for them dang ‘ol protomolecules. If it turns into a world weary detective, that ain’t so good. But it can also turn into a ridiculously hot chick, and then you’re all set for good times!


Sent from my iPhone using the svtperformance.com mobile app