Redbelly98
Redbelly98 t1_j4ihhxd wrote
EDIT: For this comet binoculars are wanted. It'll be barely visible to the naked eye. (Thank you u/aspheric_cow )
Original post:
Comets generally look pretty cool just to the naked eye. I wouldn't buy anything just for this event. Binoculars or monocular (7x or so) do improve the view, while a telescope will just show a big fuzzy blur without adding more detail. (This was my experience from a couple of comets that were visible around 1997 or so.)
Or, as someone else posted, you can search for a local amateur astronomy group and see if they have any viewing events / star parties planned for this.
Redbelly98 t1_j2zg3bh wrote
Reply to comment by horsetuna in How fast would a body fall to earth if there was no atmosphere to stop it from accelerating past a terminal velocity? by straubzilla
Not quite. There is no law that says the energy must be zero. That was just a starting assumption in order to arrive at some kind of answer.
What Conservation of Energy says is that the total energy (potential + kinetic) does not change as the body moves toward Earth. If it starts at zero energy, then the energy remains zero. But the energy could have started with some other value too.
Redbelly98 t1_ix5okuu wrote
Reply to comment by MegatheriumRex in Do We Know Where Our Sun Was Born? by baracuda68
It's also weird to think about how the constellations we see today were identified hundreds (or thousands?) of years ago and the stars' positions in the sky have changed little in that time. Yet one sun-orbital-period ago, it must have looked very different.
Redbelly98 t1_ix1j72p wrote
Reply to comment by Barcata in Do We Know Where Our Sun Was Born? by baracuda68
It has made at least 20 orbits around the galaxy. So, probably not born anywhere near where it is now.
Redbelly98 t1_iubn6u6 wrote
Reply to comment by J3RRYLIKESCHEESE in Here's a collage of some of my best photos of that planets I've taken with my telescope this year by J3RRYLIKESCHEESE
Nice! Was going to ask if they were all at the same magnification. Thanks for clarifying.
Redbelly98 t1_iubmg81 wrote
Reply to comment by davew111 in A Monster Black Hole has Been Found Right in our Backyard (Astronomically Speaking) by joosth3
>"In our own backyard" would be Alpha Centauri or Barnards Star kind of distances.
The expression is quite vague with lots of wiggle room. 1550 light-years is still a lot closer than the black hole at the center of the galaxy, which is around 30,000 light-years away.
Redbelly98 t1_iu572d6 wrote
Reply to comment by dustofdeath in How long do you predict it will take before a probe reaches a habitable exoplanetand actually sends back footage of alien life? by sky_shrimp
Solar sails will not work well in interstellar space. As for lasers, far from Earth (or wherever the laser is located), the beam will be spreading out from diffraction -- at which point its power is subject to an inverse-square-law dependence.
Redbelly98 t1_iu2tam0 wrote
Reply to comment by dustofdeath in How long do you predict it will take before a probe reaches a habitable exoplanetand actually sends back footage of alien life? by sky_shrimp
It is a huge leap to go from 0.005% to 1% of the speed of light.
I'm of the mind that thousands of years is an optimistic estimate, but minimally realistic.
Redbelly98 t1_jbcl1ow wrote
Reply to comment by MechaMaya in hi, my mom keeps saying the moon is upsidedown. by ilysmmate
I believe the correct term would be "lunaphobe"