 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Impressive as usual.
Hmm, thanks.
> But I do wonder if I am the only one who does not
> make an immediate intuitive connection between 9.54 and .5/8?
Oops, haha, should be .5/9.54. I got conflicting values from google and
accidentally used the worse one in my calculation. The actual result is
about 6 degrees.
I got 2*asin(.5/9.54) by trying to find the angle of the top of an isosceles
triangle with two sides of length 9.54 and one side of length 1. The sun
would be one of the bottom corners of this triangle, we'd be the other.
Whether this will actually happen in our lifetime depends on our orbit
relative to Saturn and how fast they move respective to each other.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rick Measham" <rickm*at%isite.net.au> schreef in bericht
news:42f8623a@news.povray.org...
> EagleSun wrote:
>
> But they never went to the moon. Still haven't.
>
Of course not! Everybody knows the Russians landed first on the far side of
the Moon (still there, I heard).
THomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> > We'll never see the shadow from earth.
>>
>> Saturn is 9.54 AU away from the sun (Earth is 1), so the maximum possible
>> angle between our line of sight to Saturn and the incoming light
>> direction
>> on Saturn is 2*asin(.5/8) = 7.2 degrees. So it should be possible to see
>> a
>> sliver of the shadow when our orbits are in the right positions.
>>
>> - Slime
>
> Cool! I thought we might see a little of it with super-powerful
> telescopes
> :)
Actually....
Speaking as a amateur astronomer, I can confirm that you can see the shadow
of Saturn's rings in a reasonable sized telescope. Slightly easier to see
is the shadow of Saturn on the rings behind it. My 10in reflector shows
both quite easily, given good seeing conditions.
Phil
Norwich Astronomical Society
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick Measham <rickm*at%isite.net.au> wrote:
> But they never went to the moon. Still haven't.
Why not?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msn com> wrote:
> Slime wrote:
> >>You never get to see shadows of Saturn's rings from earth because we're
> >>always looking at it face-on. Saturn is always behind us. Cassini
> >>approached Saturn from the side and therefore got to see the shadow.
> >
> > We'll
> >
> >>never see the shadow from earth.
> >
> >
> > Saturn is 9.54 AU away from the sun (Earth is 1), so the maximum possible
> > angle between our line of sight to Saturn and the incoming light direction
> > on Saturn is 2*asin(.5/8) = 7.2 degrees. So it should be possible to see a
> > sliver of the shadow when our orbits are in the right positions.
> >
> > - Slime
> > [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
> >
> >
> Impressive as usual. But I do wonder if I am the only one who does not
> make an immediate intuitive connection between 9.54 and .5/8? And
> 149,598,000,000 for that matter? :(
If you mean this (in the picture), that's pretty impressive. A sliver of a
shadow on the right side below the ring.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'besthubble_saturn_02.jpg' (55 KB)
Preview of image 'besthubble_saturn_02.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick Measham <rickm*at%isite.net.au> wrote:
>But they never went to the moon. Still haven't.
Warp wrote:
> Why not?
Booster rockets would melt the surface (http://moon.google.com/ .. zoom
right in)
Cheers!
Rick Measham
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
lol... cute
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rick Measham nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2005-08-10 19:20:
> Rick Measham <rickm*at%isite.net.au> wrote:
>
>> But they never went to the moon. Still haven't.
>
>
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Why not?
>
>
> Booster rockets would melt the surface (http://moon.google.com/ .. zoom
> right in)
>
> Cheers!
> Rick Measham
That page is crapy! It won't display correctly (empty gray square) if you use anything
other than
m$ie. It use some proprietary m$ ententions.
The largest zoom is a farce.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> That page is crapy! It won't display correctly (empty gray square) if you
use anything other than
> m$ie. It use some proprietary m$ ententions.
Works fine in Firefox for me. (Unless you're making a joke about moon =
empty grey square.)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>That page is crapy! It won't display correctly (empty gray square) if you use
>anything other than
>m$ie. It use some proprietary m$ ententions.
It should work in any of the Google Maps compliant browsers - IE5.5+,
Firefox/Mozilla, Safari 1.2+ and Opera.
Although the page seems to use VML, it uses clever tricks to achieve the
same results (less efficiently) in non-IE browsers. The other
"proprietary" features that it relies on (such as "onload" functions)
are widely supported.
--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
