Comments
CrimsonWolfSage t1_j64o7xo wrote
It would be interesting to arbitrarily place it at the end of the known universe, and document what's seen from there. Would it mirror our existing views, or maybe provide an unimaginably different perspective?
OnlyMortal666 t1_j64s3td wrote
The Alpha Centauri system.
Admittedly, comms (if possible at all) would have somewhat of a latency but the resultant images and other measurements would be of huge interest.
kennyarsen OP t1_j64smcv wrote
I meant to include instantaneous data transmission, in addition to satellite placement*
Intelligent_idiot-_- t1_j64stje wrote
A few thousand ly above the Milky Way so that it can see the great attractor
OnlyMortal666 t1_j64tiqy wrote
Well, anywhere other than low Earth orbit isn’t instant. Even that has latency.
If “magic UDP” existed, I’d still put it in Alpha Centauri. Results of the survey may well drive us to go there by “some magic” technology.
ChrisARippel t1_j64tl9k wrote
I would place it on the edge of the observable universe, 46 billion light years from us. I would point it toward the Milky Way and away from the Milky Way, toward that part the universe we cannot observe.
kennyarsen OP t1_j64v0ig wrote
I understand. The whole thing is very hypothetical, just like being able to instantaneously place a satellite at any desired distance.
[deleted] t1_j64v35s wrote
[removed]
Madmarrdegan t1_j64wt79 wrote
Any planet in the Stephans quintet. The night sky must be amazing
Mother_Nebula904 t1_j6544l3 wrote
Maybe everything is moving faster than light at the edge of the universe and we wont see anything at all...
Varsect t1_j6570x0 wrote
Why tho. It would literally take information to travel 46 billion years. Pretty sure quadrillions of generations could live in that timescale.
[deleted] t1_j65awnm wrote
[deleted]
-_-PandaChic t1_j65cpqv wrote
The halfway point between the Milky Way glaxag and Andromeda galaxy. Just because i think it'd be cool af to be able to see both of them at a distance and be able to record more accurately their eventual collision
John-the-cool-guy t1_j65ddn9 wrote
I would check out the Trappist system up close. Just to get a look at another star system with multiple planets
AbbydonX t1_j65e65t wrote
Perhaps in orbit around Proxima Centauri b as it is the nearest planet in a habitable zone, there are other planets present and Alpha Centauri AB isn’t far away.
Or perhaps around one of the TRAPPIST-1 planets as it would probably get a good view of the other six planets as well since they are so close.
dbell t1_j65ed8j wrote
1,533,333,333.33 generations to be exact.
Anonymous-USA t1_j65foth wrote
The known universe is so vast that it’s unobservable. And if you placed that telescope at the edge of the observable universe the images wouldn’t reach us for another 14B years. Will you wait? 🧐
cousgoose t1_j65fzs6 wrote
Put it somewhere near a black hole, not really to view the BH, but to use its power as a gravitational lens. Could theoretically see a ton of interesting things around it with more clarity.
Anonymous-USA t1_j65ggrw wrote
No, the speed of expansion is relative to the observer and the distance of the object, so if looking towards us, it would look like our galaxy was moving away faster, and galaxies near to it would be moving away slower.
Anonymous-USA t1_j65hduw wrote
This was my thinking too… that telescope could point at and observe so many other planets and stars and the data (39 ly away) would be worth the wait. It would need to be automated to imo observe each body — including it’s sun — for at least an earth year. Also, I’d not make it a telescope but a full spectrum receiver (not just visible light).
It would be fantastic some day to create near light speed small automated probes that could reach Trappist 1 and observe all the bodies there, in orbit, endlessly sending back data to earth.
ChrisARippel t1_j65hpbc wrote
Thanks for asking.
When the OP stated instantaneously placing a space telescope light years away, I assume this also meant information would be instantaneously sent between Earth and the telescope.
I would place the telescope at the edge of the observable universe for two reasons.
-
Test the cosmological principle that the universe actually is isotropic and homogeneous everywhere, inside and beyond the observable universe.
-
Hopefully, compare the same galaxies at different stages of life. The Milky Way is estimated to have started 160 million years after the Big Bang. It would be interesting to compare early images of the Milky Way from that space telescope with what we see today from Earth.
[deleted] t1_j65j7fw wrote
[removed]
Varsect t1_j65jp7n wrote
Oh, but then you'd need a lot of observations in a lot of observable universes to truly confirm isotropy in our universe.Also, the Milky Way image would most likely be redshifted into oblivion, and that's not even talking resolution, but thanks for this answer.
3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_j65klyi wrote
542 AU, solar gravitational lens. We could, theoretically, see surface details on exoplanets, directly observing life if it's there.
Keithic t1_j65omds wrote
If you could teleport to the edge of universe, or rather the observable universe, it'd look pretty much exactly what we see where we are. The edge we see is the universe as it was 13.8B years ago, not as it is now.
[deleted] t1_j65qfc0 wrote
[removed]
SaishDawg t1_j65r3ph wrote
I would say our best candidate for a planet with intelligent life. That’s cheating though since we don’t have one (maybe life, but no signs of intelligence yet). The center of the galaxy (outside its black hole) would also be fascinating to pan around what must be a dizzyingly different night sky.
You do have the separate problems of getting any information back home (in a reasonable time at the speed of light) and potentially power (could we ever get a signal from current technology telescopes we place really far away)?
WictImov t1_j65rdv4 wrote
I don't think using a black hole as a gravitational lens would achieve your objective. A simple lens like a magnifying glass does not work like a set of lenses with well-placed relative distances like a telescope (or microscope). Try using a magnifying glass to see something in the distance. It doesn't work, it will only focus on something closer to it than it is to your eye.
This is all moot however because you would see those things with more clarity if you placed the space telescope close to them, to begin with.
rogerdanafox t1_j65tccm wrote
Robert bussard Proposed placing a telescope 55 au from sun To use the sun as a Gravitational lense to view distant objects
_PM_ME_YOUR_FORESKIN t1_j65vht6 wrote
Are we assuming like — instant reception of data? Or like, we’d have to wait potentially billions of years to receive the first images?
kennyarsen OP t1_j65wju9 wrote
Yes, I forgot to include that.
Feeling_Percentage_9 t1_j65wr1m wrote
Similar, but I would place it at one of the Lagrange points of our black hole.
majorbraindamage t1_j65xr0b wrote
Ist choice: 0LY, in my back yard so I could cruise the skies at my leisure 2nd choice: I dont know where to put it, but I'd love to have a dedicated scope to look for habitable planets.
Intelligent_idiot-_- t1_j661mq4 wrote
Unless it has some seriously efficient thrusters, it probably wouldn’t last long because of all the orbiting stars
AurumArgenteus t1_j661up1 wrote
Assuming it can communicate back even for an a few moments, the inside of a black hole. Assuming it cannot, probably inside a nebula at that age where rocky planets can begin forming. And assuming the comms are bound by physics, choose one of the interesting moons NASA and others aren't going to.
DarthIndifferent t1_j666b94 wrote
66 million LY away, looking at Earth so we can watch the dinosaurs get whacked.
[deleted] t1_j6693gs wrote
[removed]
ChrisARippel t1_j669ogv wrote
Observations from the space telescope would be looking to disprove isotropy from that location. If the space telescope doesn't disprove isotropy from that location, this is at least partial confirmation. Similar to Eddington's 1919 eclipse test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Milky Way may well be invisible to the space telescope, but other galaxies may well be visible from both directions.
Williw0w t1_j66b2nl wrote
I'd be curious about Jesus too.
HilaryClintonsEmails t1_j66b79p wrote
I would place a space telescope at a distance of approximately 4.5 billion light years from Earth, in the direction of the galaxy cluster known as the "Cosmic Evolution Survey" (COSMOS) field. This location would provide an unparalleled view of the early universe, allowing us to document and study the formation and evolution of galaxies, stars, and other celestial objects.
The main purpose of this observation would be to gain a deeper understanding of the physical processes that shape the universe, such as the role of dark matter and dark energy, and to study the properties of the first galaxies that formed after the Big Bang. Additionally, this telescope would also be able to detect and study distant supernovae,which would provide valuable information about the expansion rate of the universe and the properties of dark energy.
CastokYeti t1_j66dh6h wrote
I think people are thinking too small with placing the telescope next to a nearby solar system with possible life — while it might take us a few dozen decades we’ll eventually get there soon enough anyways. Plus we don’t really gain much information looking at a new solar system with just a single space telescope, we’ll need a proper full-decked out station and everything.
Rather, this telescope (assuming it can’t be placed on Earth and deconstructed to understand the technology of a magical FTL communication and transportation) should be used to actually advance our understanding of the universe in a way we will unlikely see anytime soon in the next hundreds and thousands of years.
Next to / in black holes, at galactic centers, above a galactic plane, and at the edge of the universe are all excellent choices.
cousgoose t1_j66ep3o wrote
Hmm I swear I read a thing or two about the concept! The idea being if you were at a certain distance away, the BH could capture and 'focus' light emitted behind it, such that the image would be in finer detail? Unless I misunderstood. And I briefly tried searching the web for answers, but could only find articles about basic concepts of lensing. I'll keep looking!
My thinking was, if this were indeed possible, you could maybe rotate around the BH to get many clearer images of many different objects
alwcrcrap t1_j66f50c wrote
The same distance from Earth to the super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Just on the other side of it though so we can see what is on the other side of it.
immortalis88 t1_j66fl4h wrote
In the Zeta Reticuli system simply because apparently that’s where Bob Lazar heard the craft that we have possession of came from 🤣
samhain2000 t1_j66lnkf wrote
The near center of our galaxy to observe the supermassive black hole Sagittarius A.
Ghostsarepeopletoo t1_j66m9vm wrote
The observable universe is 90 billion ly across.
JohnnyChopstix1337 t1_j66ohun wrote
Yep this was my first thought, OP also said data transmission was instantaneous.
momolamomo t1_j66oi26 wrote
I’d put it at the nearest planet we think is hospitable and aim it at earth. Get top scientist who don’t know it’s earth, get them to analyse the data and cross check it with data we are certain are true. That will teach us so much on how to recalibrate our interpretation of data and the assumptions we make about how planets are based on their signatures
[deleted] t1_j66roup wrote
Free_Deinonychus_Hug t1_j66tmn2 wrote
You have the proposal written up for this already don't you?
BirdKey3710 t1_j66ty33 wrote
Or catch OJ Simpson in the act ;-)
Anonymous-USA t1_j66vbvj wrote
The observable universe is 45B ly in all directions only because the objects we see now in almost 14B years have moved 45B ly away by now.
The universe has an observable event horizon about 16B light years away. Any light leaving now from that distance may be observed (in 16B light years). But beyond that the expansion of space exceeds light speed and we will never see that light. Or hypothetical telescope signal.
So don’t put your telescope 90B ly away. Or 45B. Or 16B. No one will ever observe it.
C0smo777 t1_j66w1hf wrote
This is my favorite answer as well. It would be observing something that may be impossible to observe under any other circumstances.
windysideofcare t1_j66wzoc wrote
I would position it enough light years away to be able to see dinosaurs and point it at earth. Purpose: DINOSAURS
[deleted] t1_j66y1es wrote
[removed]
Devil9304 t1_j66yjhp wrote
I would place it near a black hole to witness the universe from there
H-K_47 t1_j673372 wrote
Oh man you guys aren't thinking creative enough.
Solar Gravitational Lens Telescope. use the Sun itself to get some amazing data. Either our own star or put it around some other massive star or even a black hole, get some crazy data.
Carried_by_Whispers t1_j673l2j wrote
This was my answer. Technically halfway between the milky way and Andromeda is within both the milky way and Andromeda Galaxy at the same time, and we have recently discovered stars in orbit in this area. It would be a very interesting spot to observe!
[deleted] t1_j6784jp wrote
[removed]
teaandsnark t1_j678q44 wrote
either by Jupiter to watch the storms or by Saturn to watch the rings bc both are just neat
JoshIsFallen t1_j6794uo wrote
I would place one 2000 light years from earth, pointed at earth, to learn more about our history
[deleted] t1_j67b9ep wrote
[removed]
frowawayduh t1_j67bogv wrote
LaGrange points exist for a body in orbit around another much more massive body. What is Sag-A* orbiting?
[deleted] t1_j67ci8r wrote
[removed]
Varsect t1_j67cstx wrote
>Assuming it can communicate
You can't assume what is impossible.
[deleted] t1_j67cw2n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j67ddj5 wrote
[removed]
RollaCoastinPoopah t1_j67dvmg wrote
On Elock-32b-clum203b facing earth, zoomed in on the Pantera cover band photo that www.news.com.au used in a story about Pantera’s Germany gigs being cancelled earlier today, instead of using photos of the actual band or it’s current line-up that is touring.
Feeling_Percentage_9 t1_j67fc6k wrote
As if nothing is orbiting Sagittarius A*. The Lagrange point can be between it and another star, or between other stars. My point was that we could get it to a place of neutral gravity near the black hole.
-_-PandaChic t1_j67ffyo wrote
I did not know that, but that's cool af
AurumArgenteus t1_j67hbvr wrote
Then this prompt is stupid. We can't immediately put a satellite anywhere, so what's the point of asking where you'd do that impossible thing.
By answering with both assumptions, my answer is more thorough and logically consistent with the illogical question.
Varsect t1_j67hgps wrote
Whether you're trying to argue with the OP or yourself is the real question to ask.
LittleDentist_5 t1_j67hjml wrote
Outside of the big bang blast radius to see the history of the universe.
AurumArgenteus t1_j67jo6u wrote
Or perhaps this is how we submit a support ticket because it's all a simulation. We may never know 😜
Varsect t1_j67ju1h wrote
I personally think the simulation idea isn't true. But hey, maybe.
AurumArgenteus t1_j67jx1g wrote
I think it's plausible, but I bet we aren't allowed to submit support tickets regardless of how we complain.
SailingNaked t1_j67k35r wrote
Close, but one issue. The observation is relative to the observer. The speed of expansion is the same everywhere. But, I understand what you were saying.
[deleted] t1_j67k6z1 wrote
[removed]
SailingNaked t1_j67kxbj wrote
You are correct in a way. There is a visible distance limit that we can observe. This is because any light produced beyond that distance will never reach us... ever. Even traveling at the speed of light, the space between the source and the observer expands into a greater distance than the light can travel. It'll constantly head towards us, but it will never reach us. A little photon, lost in the ever expanding emptiness, continuing on to never be observed.
Birblets t1_j67lfqm wrote
i didnt think about this, thatd be so cool to see tbh
Anonymous-USA t1_j67lqdf wrote
The speed of expansion isn’t the same everywhere, it’s 73 kps per megaparsec. The further the distance the faster the expansion (and redshift). And yes, as we both said, that Mpc distance is relative to the observer. And the aforementioned expansion rate is the same for all observers anywhere.
SailingNaked t1_j67mdr0 wrote
At any point in space, the Hubble flow is the same. That is why it's called a constant. It is the same everywhere.
The observation that farther things move away faster is just that - an observation. They aren't so much moving as they are just getting more distant. Every point between the observed object and the observer is expanding at the same rate. It's not expanding faster the farther away the object is... it is just observed to be faster because there is more space expanding in between.
The speed of expansion is the same. Just when you have more space expanding, you move apart faster.
Edit: Maybe I can make the point clearer...
The rate of expansion is the same everywhere.
The observation that the expansion rate is faster the more distant the observed object is just an observation.
The reason we observe it to be faster is because to our eye we see it moving away faster than something close.
The speed of expansion isn't faster for a distant object or a close object.
The more space (distance) there is between an object, the more space there is to expand.
That space expands at the same rate (Hubble flow).
The expansion isn't faster... only the amount of distance increases.
That distance increases proportionally (at the same rate) to the distance between observed and observer.
mdotca t1_j67rp1w wrote
65 million light years from earth. I want to see dinosaurs.
[deleted] t1_j67sal6 wrote
[deleted] t1_j67ydel wrote
[removed]
nicuramar t1_j6807ie wrote
> At any point in space, the Hubble flow is the same. That is why it’s called a constant. It is the same everywhere.
Yeah, but you said “speed of expansion” in the other comment, which doesn’t exist, since it’s a rate ;). Maybe that’s what they meant.
nicuramar t1_j680bws wrote
What do you mean by natural gravity?
nicuramar t1_j680i15 wrote
> This location would provide an unparalleled view of the early universe
How? If placed there, it will not observe the light as it was 4.5 billion years ago.
nicuramar t1_j680j21 wrote
Such as magically placing a telescope anywhere?
nicuramar t1_j680kt5 wrote
> I would say our best candidate for a planet with intelligent life. That’s cheating though since we don’t have one (maybe life, but no signs of intelligence yet).
I was gonna say “earth” until you added the last bit ;)
Varsect t1_j680v5y wrote
Can you read?
SailingNaked t1_j680vmz wrote
That is where OP and you are wrong, and that's their point I wanted to clarify. The words are interchangeable. The Hubble flow has a speed and distance component... (km/s)/Mpc... speed over distance. Rate of expansion is just another expression of the speed of expansion that new space is created.
Edit: to try my hardest to clarify and settle this issue...
The expansion is given as (km/s)/Mpc.
That means that there is a rate over a distance.
If you take (10 km/s)/10 km or (20 km/s)/20 km... they are the same.
When the denominator is bigger the numerator will be bigger.
When the distance is greater the speed will be greater.
They are still the same...
(10 km/s)/10 km = (1 km/s)/1 km
(20 km/s)/20 km = (1 km/s)/1 km
The expansion rate/rate of expansion/speed of expansion are all the same everywhere.
[deleted] t1_j681vn9 wrote
[removed]
nicuramar t1_j68311l wrote
> That is where OP and you are wrong, and that’s their point I wanted to clarify. The words are interchangeable
Well, it’s just arguing semantics. Since I know how it actually works, irrespective of what you or I wish to call it, I am not going to address the rest of the comment.
CHANROBI t1_j686x7c wrote
Id just place people at that point, why bother with A telescope
saulbellow1 t1_j6876zc wrote
A point far enough away that light reaches it from the Cretaceous era, I’ll turn the scope on earth and document some Dinos in action
And then move it closer to earth for every mysterious time period: pyramids being built? in 4K resolution. Jesus on the Mount? With Crystal clear sound. Advanced civilizations of south and Central America before the Spanish conquistadors wiped them out? I’m getting enough footage for a moving biopic of Quetzalcoatl. Anything we have questions about regarding our history will be answered with my Time Machine telescope
Ivanka_Gorgonzola t1_j687m57 wrote
At around 100 AU, where it can perfectly use the sun as a gravity lens, and almost read the number plates on alien cars 150 light years away.
Bubble_James_Bubble t1_j6881g7 wrote
Mad crazy that the universe is 14 B years old but 95 B light years wide
MadBroCowDisease t1_j688qhy wrote
Whatever will give me the best chance of seeing the very beginning of the universe.
Feeling_Percentage_9 t1_j6899v7 wrote
Lagrange points are where there is NEUTRAL gravity is when the gravitational forces from different objects cancel each other out, thus no pull in any direction. An object can be in this location indefinitely without the need of thrusters.
nicuramar t1_j689lu5 wrote
That’s not exactly correct? First, you’ll still be in orbit around something. It’s just some local gravity that cancels. Second, an orbit is another point where you can stay indefinitely. “Location” is pretty relative.
2dozen22s t1_j68aknm wrote
About the width of our galaxy, directly above our galaxy. A 2nd reference point would be invaluable, and it would let us image our own Galaxy better.
Feeling_Percentage_9 t1_j68b3bx wrote
I was trying to explain in simpler terms for you because you cannot read the difference between natural and neutral.
Taalnazi t1_j68fnr0 wrote
Or KOI-4878.01.
Likely to be in the habitable zone. No idea if it has got a large moon and a Jupiter in the outskirts, though. Star is also an F-type, meaning it stays stable for only 2-4 billion years, rather than our G-type Sun's 10 billion (though Earth will be in the habitable zone of it for only 5.5 billion years).
Kepler-90 similarly has an F-type star, but it has the same amount of planets.
There is "habitable", which you should understand as "habitable for life" (so even only for microbacteria-like life), and there is "Earth analog", which is what laymen are actually looking for.
• A stable star (G, K-type main sequence; or a M-type. Either way, the star's luminosity variability should be "quiet", ie. no more than 0.5%; our sun has 0.1%). The star should be older than 500 milion years. For alien life that's not just microbes, I personally think at least 3 billion, but not more than 6 billion years old, would be a safe bet.
• Eccentricity below 0.20 (for comparison, Earth has 0.0167, Mars 0.0934, and Mercury 0.2056). This is assuming a 24-hr orbit, 365 days of year, with a star like our sun. Higher, and water can remain liquid only temporary.
• A longer period, about 100 days at least (this is just my opinion). While I think shorter cycles could also be possible, I think it'd be hard for life to adapt to short and quick seasons. Perhaps it'd be adapted like a sleep cycle.
• Should be in the zone where the solvent is mainly liquid (ie; oceans; thus, habitable zone); or be a moon whose atmosphere is protected and whose surface is warmed, both by the host planet's magnetic field. Where this habitable zone starts and ends, depends on the star. For a G2V star like our sun, with water as solvent, it's about 0.8-1.15 AU (120-172 million km) away from the star.
• Have a relatively high density (which points to an iron core and thus likely a magnetic field).
• Equilibrium temperature combined with its atmospheric pressure needs to provide for a liquid solvent (ie. ocean) of water, methane, or ammonia.
• The planet should be below 10 Earth masses and between 0.8 and 2.5 Earth radii. Note that planets like these, if they have a radius leaning close to 2 or more, may be easily entered but hard to leave by rockets. Bigger and the atmosphere will be too dense. Smaller and it cannot hold onto its magnetic field for long, and thus also not its atmosphere.
• A large gas giant further away, to redirect meteors and comets away, also helps.
fdeslandes t1_j68hahs wrote
Too bad the closest black hole is thousands of light years away, because even at tens of light years away, decades of latency would have been worth it to put a telescope near the black hole and not only observe it, but use it as a lens to get the best telescope we could ever hope to have.
[deleted] t1_j68isdy wrote
[deleted]
ElementalWheel t1_j68iv0b wrote
Your mother so I can see the expansion of the known universe
Williw0w t1_j68jjcm wrote
Did they ever find out who killed JR?
Intelligent_idiot-_- t1_j68k69x wrote
Other nearby stars would make the location inherently unstable
[deleted] t1_j68lesu wrote
[removed]
duterium1 t1_j68mj5x wrote
14.7 billion light years away from the center of the universe; the Big Bang
Anonymous-USA t1_j68rmez wrote
The Hubble flow is indeed constant. Everywhere. We’re all saying the same thing. Cheers to you both, I think we all understand it well from the get go and now surely OP too 🥂
Anonymous-USA t1_j68rnga wrote
The Hubble flow is indeed constant. Everywhere. We’re all saying the same thing. Cheers to you both, I think we all understand it well from the get go and now surely OP too 🥂
kennyarsen OP t1_j68rth2 wrote
Exactly what I would be looking for as well. Especially surrounding the construction of significant megaliths and structures. And if there was some sort of extraterrestrial influence involved, we may be able to determine a rough direction of where it came from. Furthermore, moving the satellite closer to earth, at the appropriate speed, would provide a Timelapse of the last X amount of years.
ravathiel t1_j68yoa0 wrote
I don't how to explain when theirs no true direction.
But in plain simpleton terms - you see the south pole?
That galaxy that would be down towards that direction.
What's "down" there
Rupertfitz t1_j695meq wrote
Somewhere in the Trappist system because I need to know about that one.
John-the-cool-guy t1_j695o0s wrote
Good stuff. Thanks for the info!
SailingNaked t1_j6a3dyy wrote
You and OP are still wrong, and I am not arguing semantics. There are two things I corrected with my original comment, and they are not interchangeable.
The OP said the speed of expansion is different for something farther away. That is just plain wrong. The speed of expansion does not change just because something is farther away.
The correct thing to say would be the velocity (observation) of a distant object is faster than a closer object. That is what I said to OP in my original comment.
The rate or speed of expansion is the same no matter the distance.
A more distant object's velocity is faster than a closer object.
The velocity of a distant object is not the same thing as rate of expansion.
Velocity increases with distance, but the rate/speed of expansion stays the same.
cjameshuff t1_j6aah80 wrote
As close as you can safely locate the telescope to the nearest magnetic monopole. You can do what you like with the telescope afterwards, I just want an answer to whether monopoles exist.
nicuramar t1_j6abs1h wrote
> You and OP are still wrong,
I’m not OP or defending their views. I am just saying that expansion is stated as a rate, and doesn’t have units of velocity. I know how expansion works, and I wasn’t talking about that. You don’t need to keep explaining it, at least not for my sake :)
2muchcheap t1_j6adjl5 wrote
This question reminds me of the show “Night Sky”. Awesome show if you haven’t seen it
kennyarsen OP t1_j6afz4m wrote
great show!
NecroAssssin t1_j6airlq wrote
I want 4, each placed .25 ly from Sol, each pointing inward, so we can use Sol for a gravitational lens to amplify our knowledge about everything within a 100ly radius.
[deleted] t1_j6d3w61 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j64lo62 wrote
[removed]