Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 02-04-2003, 09:19 PM

Well, not if there was direct sunlight.

Feather · 02-05-2003, 07:46 AM

Damn that infernal ball of gas.

02-05-2003, 08:56 AM

Count me in, I'd go.

Ab_Normal · 02-05-2003, 09:17 AM

For first grade, my daughter had to make a poster describing herself and her family. One part had to be "the family dream". She was the only kid in her class with a picture of her whole family (including the cat) in a classic 50's style rocket ship. I guess we're bringing her up right.

Psycho Economist · 02-05-2003, 02:24 PM

No question. Even considering... recent events.

The clincher for me wouldn't be walking on the moon, or seeing the terminator from miles up. One word: microgravity.

It'd have to be worth something (like helping found a Colony) at 5% failure risk. I'd draw the absolute line at 10%.

Now... if only they had a use for a social scientist.

Shadowy Man · 02-05-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Abacus
Actually, you would see more stars than you probably ever imagined were even in existence.

Not really, the atmosphere only reduces starlight a little bit, maybe a magnitude or two depending on airmass (I don't know the exact number off the top of my head). With the naked eye from the ground you can typically see down to 5th or 6th magnitude stars.

Now, if you are comparing the number of stars you could see from space to the number you can see from the downtown of a major city, then yes, there'd be more than you might imagine.

Pierre Bezukhov · 02-05-2003, 02:46 PM

Sign me up now!

NOWNOWNOW!!!

Mageth · 02-05-2003, 03:03 PM

Shadowy Man:

Star magnitude table

The question is, what magnitudes are visible from orbit? If it's just a couple lower magnitude than 6, as you indicate (i.e. magnitude 8), that would be between 8 and 9 times more stars visible. That's a lot more stars, IMO.

Shadowy Man · 02-05-2003, 03:09 PM

Yes, it is a lot more stars. But it is a lot more faint stars. So, the overall impact of what you are seeing wouldn't change a lot. I'm too lazy at the moment to calculate the actual change in total flux from the input of a lot more faint stars.

But, I don't think the sky from orbit would be significantly more impressive than the sky from the darkest sites on Earth.

But I will state that since a lot of people haven't been to the darkest sites on Earth, the sky from orbit would be very impressive indeed.

Edited to add: Ahh.. I found the number. It's only about 0.5 magnitudes per airmass in visible extinction. So you could probably see down to 6.5 or so, so it's not quite the dramatic improvement that I had thought earlier (though airmass increases very quickly away from the zenith).

Mageth · 02-05-2003, 03:27 PM

Well, I've been to a couple of the darker places, particularly the Chihuahuan desert in West Texas, hundreds of miles from larger cities, on a dry, clear, cold winter's night. The night sky's way more impressive than what you see in "typical" places, that's for sure.

But isn't it the case that the dimmer stars you see from the surface (actually, all stars you see from the surface) would appear brighter when viewed from space, and the ones you can't see from the surface would appear like the dimmer ones you see from the surface? I'm not sure this is the case, but if so, the increase in apparent brightness, in addition to the 8.5x number of visible stars, must surely seem quite impressive. Just think; there would be 10 times more stars that appear about as bright or brighter than the magnitude 4 stars appear from the surface.

Somewhere at some time I've read some astronauts' quotes about the astral view from space, and they seemed pretty damned impressed, IIRC.

Anyway, if I had a chance, I would probably go. The only thing that might hold me back right now is that I have a 6-year-old son to think about.

View Poll Results: Would you risk a 1-2% chance of death on a spaceflight?
Yes	96	88.07%
No	13	11.93%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2003, 09:19 PM	#41
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Well, not if there was direct sunlight.

02-05-2003, 07:46 AM	#42
Feather Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 1,827	Damn that infernal ball of gas.

02-05-2003, 08:56 AM	#43
The Insomniac Guest Posts: n/a	Count me in, I'd go.

02-05-2003, 09:17 AM	#44
Ab_Normal Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 2,842	For first grade, my daughter had to make a poster describing herself and her family. One part had to be "the family dream". She was the only kid in her class with a picture of her whole family (including the cat) in a classic 50's style rocket ship. I guess we're bringing her up right.

02-05-2003, 02:24 PM	#45
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	No question. Even considering... recent events. The clincher for me wouldn't be walking on the moon, or seeing the terminator from miles up. One word: microgravity. It'd have to be worth something (like helping found a Colony) at 5% failure risk. I'd draw the absolute line at 10%. Now... if only they had a use for a social scientist.

02-05-2003, 02:46 PM	#47
Pierre Bezukhov Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 882	Sign me up now! NOWNOWNOW!!!

02-05-2003, 03:03 PM	#48
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Shadowy Man: Star magnitude table The question is, what magnitudes are visible from orbit? If it's just a couple lower magnitude than 6, as you indicate (i.e. magnitude 8), that would be between 8 and 9 times more stars visible. That's a lot more stars, IMO.

02-05-2003, 03:09 PM	#49
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Yes, it is a lot more stars. But it is a lot more faint stars. So, the overall impact of what you are seeing wouldn't change a lot. I'm too lazy at the moment to calculate the actual change in total flux from the input of a lot more faint stars. But, I don't think the sky from orbit would be significantly more impressive than the sky from the darkest sites on Earth. But I will state that since a lot of people haven't been to the darkest sites on Earth, the sky from orbit would be very impressive indeed. Edited to add: Ahh.. I found the number. It's only about 0.5 magnitudes per airmass in visible extinction. So you could probably see down to 6.5 or so, so it's not quite the dramatic improvement that I had thought earlier (though airmass increases very quickly away from the zenith).

02-05-2003, 03:27 PM	#50
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, I've been to a couple of the darker places, particularly the Chihuahuan desert in West Texas, hundreds of miles from larger cities, on a dry, clear, cold winter's night. The night sky's way more impressive than what you see in "typical" places, that's for sure. But isn't it the case that the dimmer stars you see from the surface (actually, all stars you see from the surface) would appear brighter when viewed from space, and the ones you can't see from the surface would appear like the dimmer ones you see from the surface? I'm not sure this is the case, but if so, the increase in apparent brightness, in addition to the 8.5x number of visible stars, must surely seem quite impressive. Just think; there would be 10 times more stars that appear about as bright or brighter than the magnitude 4 stars appear from the surface. Somewhere at some time I've read some astronauts' quotes about the astral view from space, and they seemed pretty damned impressed, IIRC. Anyway, if I had a chance, I would probably go. The only thing that might hold me back right now is that I have a 6-year-old son to think about.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.