Kinda crazy how the nearest star to our solar system is a part of a rare triple star system
Like, what do you mean there are 3 Centauri's and thats the neighbor
Its like if you were living in Boston and your neighbor next door was fucking Mario, wtf
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from Netherlands

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Italy
seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Australia

seen from Malaysia
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
seen from Italy
seen from China
Kinda crazy how the nearest star to our solar system is a part of a rare triple star system
Like, what do you mean there are 3 Centauri's and thats the neighbor
Its like if you were living in Boston and your neighbor next door was fucking Mario, wtf
really hate when mainstream astronomy journalism does this
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/saturns-rings-disappear-from-view-march-23-2025-nasa-expert-says/
this entire article feels like it's written from the perspective of a space skeptic getting confirmation from nasa that it's real
even in the title, they say "nasa says" like the new york times says "palestinians say"
the entire article would come off so much better if any of this (correct!) info was said with like 1% confidence in it, it legit feels like they intentionally included the "nasa says" parts to feed into pseudoscience. it comes off so horribly to anyone with some knowledge of astronomy
"Saturn's rings will seemingly disappear from view in 2025" the addition of "seemingly" here is totally unnecessary and only adds more apparent skepticism from the author (and by extension, the reader)
"Saturn won't actually lose its rings in 2025, but they will go edge-on, meaning they will be essentially invisible to earthlings, NASA confirmed to CBS News." correct info, but adding "nasa confirmed" instantly makes us think this was just a random theory before nasa told them that it's true, when it is not by any means a random theory
the article gets noticeably more scientific as it goes on, which makes it even worse that they put the most clickbaity skeptical stuff in the headline and opening paragraphs
it perpetuates the weird idea that info about astronomy in particular is like, sacred to people that are in the field, and can't be reported on without contacting 5 people at nasa to confirm it in your article
it's so wrong because most stuff about basic astronomy is totally definitive and can be predicted 100% of the time using basic math, we shouldn't need top scientists at nasa to confirm that there's a full moon coming up on the day the moon will be full (something i have actually seen happen!)
and overall, it also perpetuates the general stigma on astronomy as somehow harder or more complex than most other fields, something that average person can't get into and that's reserved for genius level intellects
not great stuff cbs!
The first photo shows the Sun's chromosphere in stunning 250MP 8K. This is the hydrogen alpha wavelength and requires a very narrowband filter that notches out every other wavelength except Ha. In this view you see solar flares, prominences on the limb and surface activity. The second is a photo of the Sun's photosphere, which is the view we get using a regular broadband filter. In this view, we see sunspots, granulation and faculae.
MagentaSoup2527 is not from Earth
Camina Drummer, S06E05
Something about Drummer makes you want to commit to her..fiercely
I'm way to into space at the moment because of Prometheus and just had the random thought: "How do Astronauts wash their clothes?"
Googled it, found out that they don't.
They wear their clothes for up to a week and then just throw it out because the waste burns up before it re enters out atmosphere.