amazing science/nature images

Page: 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 78
Online now: Majestic-12 [Bot]
Post Reply
TOS
User avatar
that's some mighty intelligent design right there
dv
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
ukimalefu posted:
DEyncourt posted:
dv posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Given that all the planets in the Solar System are in a plane (sorry, Pluto)


No they are not.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/tables/tablesb.htm

First table - orbital properties. - inclination column.

<sigh>

Are all the planets in a PRECISE plane. No, there are slight deviations.

Are any of those deviations so great that they should never be described as "in a plane"?

Frankly this is more a "potayto, potahto" type of argument.


I didn't know this, so I googled it

Image

Now take each of those lines and draw their lengths proportionally to each planet's orbit around the Sun. On my MBP's screen the entire length is about 9 cm.

Taking the entire left-to-right length of those lines to be the orbit of Neptune (average 30.1 billion km), then the orbit of Mercury (average 58 million km) is about 0.002 times that. Less than a pixel on my screen.

Even Saturn--at an average orbital distance from the Sun of 1.429 billion km and being that HUGE 2º 29' off the Earth's ecliptic--would have a line that is 0.047 times that length. On my screen Saturn's line would extend about 4 mm in length from the left.


At 2.29 degrees and 1.4 billion km, Saturn is almost as far above Earth's orbital plane as Venus is from the Sun.

But yeah, sure, it looks flat on your computer screen.
dv posted:
DEyncourt posted:
ukimalefu posted:
DEyncourt posted:
dv posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Given that all the planets in the Solar System are in a plane (sorry, Pluto)


No they are not.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/tables/tablesb.htm

First table - orbital properties. - inclination column.

<sigh>

Are all the planets in a PRECISE plane. No, there are slight deviations.

Are any of those deviations so great that they should never be described as "in a plane"?

Frankly this is more a "potayto, potahto" type of argument.


I didn't know this, so I googled it

Image

Now take each of those lines and draw their lengths proportionally to each planet's orbit around the Sun. On my MBP's screen the entire length is about 9 cm.

Taking the entire left-to-right length of those lines to be the orbit of Neptune (average 30.1 billion km), then the orbit of Mercury (average 58 million km) is about 0.002 times that. Less than a pixel on my screen.

Even Saturn--at an average orbital distance from the Sun of 1.429 billion km and being that HUGE 2º 29' off the Earth's ecliptic--would have a line that is 0.047 times that length. On my screen Saturn's line would extend about 4 mm in length from the left.


At 2.29 degrees and 1.4 billion km, Saturn is almost as far above Earth's orbital plane as Venus is from the Sun.

But yeah, sure, it looks flat on your computer screen.

My point is that on the planetary scale the Solar System is basically flat.

What you wrote is true, but drawn to scale in that graph when Saturn is at its greatest distance off the Earth's ecliptic it would be less than a pixel off the Earth's ecliptic.

Is Kansas "flat"? You are basically arguing that because you can see local distortions like small rolling hills and depressions caused by rivers that the state cannot be called that.

Last edited by DEyncourt on Tue Sep 19, 2017 10:18 pm.

Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
Well, the people have spoken and DEyncourt is painfully and obviously wrong. As punishment, chop his dick off and ban him from posting on space-related topics.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
C'mon...Saturn is obviously not one of the planets. It's totally doing it's own thing.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Metacell posted:
C'mon...Saturn is obviously not one of the planets. It's totally doing it's own thing.


Also, demote Jupiter to "failed sun".
Let's scale this up a bit.

Take a standard footlong ruler. This happens to be 30.48 cm long, so conveniently one can draw a line placing the Sun at one end and Neptune at 30.11 AU at the other end.

Sorry, I misread that number in one of my previous posts: Neptune's orbit is at 4.5 B km (= 30.1 AU) and NOT 30.1 B km.

So how many cm (AU) off of that line can each of the planets be?
Code:
        AU from Sun  max AU off Earth's ecliptic
Mercury    0.39              0.048
Venus      0.73              0.044
Earth      1.00              0
Mars       1.52              0.049
Jupiter    5.20              0.118
Saturn     9.55              0.414
Uranus    19.22              0.257
Neptune   30.11              0.929

Remember that the rightmost numbers are the distance from a centerline (i.e., the Earth's ecliptic), so double them for the total possible "thickness" of each orbit.

Re-scaling these numbers to a "typical" 7.5-cm (3-inch) in radius pancake--and remember the numbers in the first column are for the radius of each orbit so quarter the orbits and halve the "thickness" in the above table--then I think even Neptune could easily fit inside such a pancake (unless you make pancakes with SUPER runny batter), thus the orbits for the major planets in the Solar System could be characterized as being literally "as flat as a pancake".
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
The solar system is wibbly wobbly, we get it.
Robert B. Dandy Highwayman
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
snip


THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN!!!
dv
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
Let's scale this up a bit.

Take a standard footlong ruler. This happens to be 30.48 cm long, so conveniently one can draw a line placing the Sun at one end and Neptune at 30.11 AU at the other end.

Sorry, I misread that number in one of my previous posts: Neptune's orbit is at 4.5 B km (= 30.1 AU) and NOT 30.1 B km.

So how many cm (AU) off of that line can each of the planets be?
Code:
        AU from Sun  max AU off Earth's ecliptic
Mercury    0.39              0.048
Venus      0.73              0.044
Earth      1.00              0
Mars       1.52              0.049
Jupiter    5.20              0.118
Saturn     9.55              0.414
Uranus    19.22              0.257
Neptune   30.11              0.929

Remember that the rightmost numbers are the distance from a centerline (i.e., the Earth's ecliptic), so double them for the total possible "thickness" of each orbit.

Re-scaling these numbers to a "typical" 7.5-cm (3-inch) in radius pancake--and remember the numbers in the first column are for the radius of each orbit so quarter the orbits and halve the "thickness" in the above table--then I think even Neptune could easily fit inside such a pancake (unless you make pancakes with SUPER runny batter), thus the orbits for the major planets in the Solar System could be characterized as being literally "as flat as a pancake".


And?

Yeah, it's more or less flat if you're drawing a diagram to scale in MS Paint. I get that. If you're doing anything the least bit science-ey, from a telescope in the backyard to a NASA probe, then it is not "flat" and you need to take that into account.

You made an understandable oversimplification, I was a grammar-nazi about it. So post a "technically correct" meme, or an animated GIFs of someone making a "badgering the witness" motion. Don't stick to your guns out of principle when you're wrong.
dv posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Let's scale this up a bit.

Take a standard footlong ruler. This happens to be 30.48 cm long, so conveniently one can draw a line placing the Sun at one end and Neptune at 30.11 AU at the other end.

Sorry, I misread that number in one of my previous posts: Neptune's orbit is at 4.5 B km (= 30.1 AU) and NOT 30.1 B km.

So how many cm (AU) off of that line can each of the planets be?
Code:
        AU from Sun  max AU off Earth's ecliptic
Mercury    0.39              0.048
Venus      0.73              0.044
Earth      1.00              0
Mars       1.52              0.049
Jupiter    5.20              0.118
Saturn     9.55              0.414
Uranus    19.22              0.257
Neptune   30.11              0.929

Remember that the rightmost numbers are the distance from a centerline (i.e., the Earth's ecliptic), so double them for the total possible "thickness" of each orbit.

Re-scaling these numbers to a "typical" 7.5-cm (3-inch) in radius pancake--and remember the numbers in the first column are for the radius of each orbit so quarter the orbits and halve the "thickness" in the above table--then I think even Neptune could easily fit inside such a pancake (unless you make pancakes with SUPER runny batter), thus the orbits for the major planets in the Solar System could be characterized as being literally "as flat as a pancake".


And?

Yeah, it's more or less flat if you're drawing a diagram to scale in MS Paint. I get that. If you're doing anything the least bit science-ey, from a telescope in the backyard to a NASA probe, then it is not "flat" and you need to take that into account.

You made an understandable oversimplification, I was a grammar-nazi about it. So post a "technically correct" meme, or an animated GIFs of someone making a "badgering the witness" motion. Don't stick to your guns out of principle when you're wrong.

OK, I had to let this sit for a while because my first reaction was fiddlesticks OFF.

But really: YOU are calling ME the oversimplifying pedant? You who brought a VERY limited 2-dimensional argument--JUST the angles of the planets' orbits relative to the Earth's ecliptic--for a 3-dimensional structure? And projected onto me that my use of "plane" must be in error because I failed to use that term by its strictest geometric definition? And when I brought the numbers to show that very literally the Solar System could be fitted into a typical pancake, your reaction was "And?"

Mercury at its furthest off of the Earth's ecliptic gets as far as 7.2 million km, but remember that the overall scale here is Neptune's orbit of 9 BILLION km in diameter. That HUGE 7.2 million km distance is MERELY three orders of magnitude smaller than the overall system.

To get a sense OF SCALE with something everyone should be familiar: projecting the Solar System onto a DVD (12 cm in diameter) then 7.2 million km would be about a tenth of a millimeter. That is "And?"

"to scale in MS Paint"? There are reasons why EVERYTIME when NASA/JPL makes a projection of when various spacecraft leave the inner Solar System and gets out JUST to Jupiter that everything inside the Asteroid Belt gets shrunk down to nothing. Even Mars' orbit to scale becomes so small that it is difficult to depict accurately, much less so when a projection gets out to Saturn.

On that DVD scale: to depict the orbit of Jupiter would be a circle an ellipse (because I'm dealing with a pedant here) that is about 2 cm from its center AND 0.5 mm at its maximum height/depth, thus would fit within that DVD platter (thickness: 1.2 mm). The entire inner Solar System (perhaps less the outermost asteroids in the Belt) would fit inside the hole of a DVD (0.75 cm in radius) and their orbits easily would fit within the plastic of that DVD if that were extended all the way to its center.

Oh, on that DVD scale the orbits of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would barely stick out of the surface of that DVD, so let's give our pedant his due (slight as it is). I guess that the characterization of the Solar System being nearly as flat as a DVD must be out of the question because of "And?"

Tell me: do you also argue that a flat sheet of paper can never be called a "plane" because there are many indentations caused by the fibers forming that paper? Hell, some of those indentations--if projected from one end of that sheet to the other--could be meters tall. You must because apparently ONLY the angles being formed by those fibers are of ANY importance.
TOS
User avatar
okay well i hate to throw a monkey wrench into the works, but this is from nasa's website

here's the caption:

Quote:
Through the brilliance of Saturn’s rings, Cassini caught a glimpse of a far-away planet and its moon. At a distance of just under 900 million miles, Earth shines bright among the many stars in the sky, distinguished by its bluish tint.


Image

so perhaps i was right to ask about that perspective after all ...
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
There's nothing that blue in our sky ...
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
dv posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Let's scale this up a bit.

Take a standard footlong ruler. This happens to be 30.48 cm long, so conveniently one can draw a line placing the Sun at one end and Neptune at 30.11 AU at the other end.

Sorry, I misread that number in one of my previous posts: Neptune's orbit is at 4.5 B km (= 30.1 AU) and NOT 30.1 B km.

So how many cm (AU) off of that line can each of the planets be?
Code:
        AU from Sun  max AU off Earth's ecliptic
Mercury    0.39              0.048
Venus      0.73              0.044
Earth      1.00              0
Mars       1.52              0.049
Jupiter    5.20              0.118
Saturn     9.55              0.414
Uranus    19.22              0.257
Neptune   30.11              0.929

Remember that the rightmost numbers are the distance from a centerline (i.e., the Earth's ecliptic), so double them for the total possible "thickness" of each orbit.

Re-scaling these numbers to a "typical" 7.5-cm (3-inch) in radius pancake--and remember the numbers in the first column are for the radius of each orbit so quarter the orbits and halve the "thickness" in the above table--then I think even Neptune could easily fit inside such a pancake (unless you make pancakes with SUPER runny batter), thus the orbits for the major planets in the Solar System could be characterized as being literally "as flat as a pancake".


And?

Yeah, it's more or less flat if you're drawing a diagram to scale in MS Paint. I get that. If you're doing anything the least bit science-ey, from a telescope in the backyard to a NASA probe, then it is not "flat" and you need to take that into account.

You made an understandable oversimplification, I was a grammar-nazi about it. So post a "technically correct" meme, or an animated GIFs of someone making a "badgering the witness" motion. Don't stick to your guns out of principle when you're wrong.

OK, I had to let this sit for a while because my first reaction was fiddlesticks OFF.

But really: YOU are calling ME the oversimplifying pedant? You who brought a VERY limited 2-dimensional argument--JUST the angles of the planets' orbits relative to the Earth's ecliptic--for a 3-dimensional structure? And projected onto me that my use of "plane" must be in error because I failed to use that term by its strictest geometric definition? And when I brought the numbers to show that very literally the Solar System could be fitted into a typical pancake, your reaction was "And?"

Mercury at its furthest off of the Earth's ecliptic gets as far as 7.2 million km, but remember that the overall scale here is Neptune's orbit of 9 BILLION km in diameter. That HUGE 7.2 million km distance is MERELY three orders of magnitude smaller than the overall system.

To get a sense OF SCALE with something everyone should be familiar: projecting the Solar System onto a DVD (12 cm in diameter) then 7.2 million km would be about a tenth of a millimeter. That is "And?"

"to scale in MS Paint"? There are reasons why EVERYTIME when NASA/JPL makes a projection of when various spacecraft leave the inner Solar System and gets out JUST to Jupiter that everything inside the Asteroid Belt gets shrunk down to nothing. Even Mars' orbit to scale becomes so small that it is difficult to depict accurately, much less so when a projection gets out to Saturn.

On that DVD scale: to depict the orbit of Jupiter would be a circle an ellipse (because I'm dealing with a pedant here) that is about 2 cm from its center AND 0.5 mm at its maximum height/depth, thus would fit within that DVD platter (thickness: 1.2 mm). The entire inner Solar System (perhaps less the outermost asteroids in the Belt) would fit inside the hole of a DVD (0.75 cm in radius) and their orbits easily would fit within the plastic of that DVD if that were extended all the way to its center.

Oh, on that DVD scale the orbits of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would barely stick out of the surface of that DVD, so let's give our pedant his due (slight as it is). I guess that the characterization of the Solar System being nearly as flat as a DVD must be out of the question because of "And?"

Tell me: do you also argue that a flat sheet of paper can never be called a "plane" because there are many indentations caused by the fibers forming that paper? Hell, some of those indentations--if projected from one end of that sheet to the other--could be meters tall. You must because apparently ONLY the angles being formed by those fibers are of ANY importance.

Image
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
[img]http://loyalkng.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/nerd-fight.jpg[/img]

Last edited by obvs on Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:46 pm. Edited because it was demanding that Macstack users log in

TOS
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
There's nothing that blue in our sky ...


point being there's no "moon" in that image, nor, i feel certain, should there be
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
There's nothing that blue in our sky ...


I think it's called scattering... and... maybe some reflection from the oceans?

and the Earth does look blue from space, there's lots of images, Sagan called it a "pale blue dot" for a reason

it could also be "false color" (that doesn't mean it was painted blue)

-

Mars looks red(ish) from here, up in the sky, with my own eyes, no I'm not just imagining things.
dv
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
dv posted:
DEyncourt posted:
Let's scale this up a bit.

Take a standard footlong ruler. This happens to be 30.48 cm long, so conveniently one can draw a line placing the Sun at one end and Neptune at 30.11 AU at the other end.

Sorry, I misread that number in one of my previous posts: Neptune's orbit is at 4.5 B km (= 30.1 AU) and NOT 30.1 B km.

So how many cm (AU) off of that line can each of the planets be?
Code:
        AU from Sun  max AU off Earth's ecliptic
Mercury    0.39              0.048
Venus      0.73              0.044
Earth      1.00              0
Mars       1.52              0.049
Jupiter    5.20              0.118
Saturn     9.55              0.414
Uranus    19.22              0.257
Neptune   30.11              0.929

Remember that the rightmost numbers are the distance from a centerline (i.e., the Earth's ecliptic), so double them for the total possible "thickness" of each orbit.

Re-scaling these numbers to a "typical" 7.5-cm (3-inch) in radius pancake--and remember the numbers in the first column are for the radius of each orbit so quarter the orbits and halve the "thickness" in the above table--then I think even Neptune could easily fit inside such a pancake (unless you make pancakes with SUPER runny batter), thus the orbits for the major planets in the Solar System could be characterized as being literally "as flat as a pancake".


And?

Yeah, it's more or less flat if you're drawing a diagram to scale in MS Paint. I get that. If you're doing anything the least bit science-ey, from a telescope in the backyard to a NASA probe, then it is not "flat" and you need to take that into account.

You made an understandable oversimplification, I was a grammar-nazi about it. So post a "technically correct" meme, or an animated GIFs of someone making a "badgering the witness" motion. Don't stick to your guns out of principle when you're wrong.

OK, I had to let this sit for a while because my first reaction was fiddlesticks OFF.

But really: YOU are calling ME the oversimplifying pedant? You who brought a VERY limited 2-dimensional argument--JUST the angles of the planets' orbits relative to the Earth's ecliptic--for a 3-dimensional structure? And projected onto me that my use of "plane" must be in error because I failed to use that term by its strictest geometric definition? And when I brought the numbers to show that very literally the Solar System could be fitted into a typical pancake, your reaction was "And?"

Mercury at its furthest off of the Earth's ecliptic gets as far as 7.2 million km, but remember that the overall scale here is Neptune's orbit of 9 BILLION km in diameter. That HUGE 7.2 million km distance is MERELY three orders of magnitude smaller than the overall system.

To get a sense OF SCALE with something everyone should be familiar: projecting the Solar System onto a DVD (12 cm in diameter) then 7.2 million km would be about a tenth of a millimeter. That is "And?"

"to scale in MS Paint"? There are reasons why EVERYTIME when NASA/JPL makes a projection of when various spacecraft leave the inner Solar System and gets out JUST to Jupiter that everything inside the Asteroid Belt gets shrunk down to nothing. Even Mars' orbit to scale becomes so small that it is difficult to depict accurately, much less so when a projection gets out to Saturn.

On that DVD scale: to depict the orbit of Jupiter would be a circle an ellipse (because I'm dealing with a pedant here) that is about 2 cm from its center AND 0.5 mm at its maximum height/depth, thus would fit within that DVD platter (thickness: 1.2 mm). The entire inner Solar System (perhaps less the outermost asteroids in the Belt) would fit inside the hole of a DVD (0.75 cm in radius) and their orbits easily would fit within the plastic of that DVD if that were extended all the way to its center.

Oh, on that DVD scale the orbits of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune would barely stick out of the surface of that DVD, so let's give our pedant his due (slight as it is). I guess that the characterization of the Solar System being nearly as flat as a DVD must be out of the question because of "And?"

Tell me: do you also argue that a flat sheet of paper can never be called a "plane" because there are many indentations caused by the fibers forming that paper? Hell, some of those indentations--if projected from one end of that sheet to the other--could be meters tall. You must because apparently ONLY the angles being formed by those fibers are of ANY importance.


Yes. Technically a piece of paper is not a plane. You're catching on.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
get over it nerds
TOS
User avatar
so ... that wasn't the moon in that image, then
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS posted:
so ... that wasn't the moon in that image, then


Image

:paranoid:
TOS
User avatar
please note: it's fully armed and operational
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
TOS posted:
so ... that wasn't the moon in that image, then


go find one you like

https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+a ... 52&bih=651
TOS
User avatar
that's some mighty dreamin'

Image
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
dv posted:
Yes. Technically a piece of paper is not a plane.

Depends on how you fold it, man.
TOS
User avatar
some girl were goofing in an elevator, when suddenly ...

Image
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
I'm sure they all aced their science tests
Séamas Honorary Consul General
User avatar
TOS posted:
some girl were goofing in an elevator, when suddenly ...

Image


Safe to assume it goes to NSFW right at the end of the clip?
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
Séamas posted:
TOS posted:
some girl were goofing in an elevator, when suddenly ...

Image


Safe to assume it goes to NSFW right at the end of the clip?


"awright, let's do this." -- bill, while loosening his tie
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
i never could understand why nasa always relied on those horrendously expensive bespoke probes when they could standardize like crazy, churn 'em out and save a bundle

maybe that's an opportunity for the next space-related start-up
dv
User avatar
TOS posted:
i never could understand why nasa always relied on those horrendously expensive bespoke probes when they could standardize like crazy, churn 'em out and save a bundle

maybe that's an opportunity for the next space-related start-up


Launch costs.

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-95-141BR

At half a billion per attempt (20 years ago) it's cheaper to over-engineer the probes so that nothing goes wrong, because even if you can build ten "good enough, probably" probes for the price of one uber-probe, you don't have the budget to launch ten probes.

They're probably due to change how they operate, what with SpaceX and all. But then you get into the way NASA appropriations happen, government bureaucracies, etc.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
"honey, the fence is down and the lava's getting out!"
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
dv posted:
TOS posted:
i never could understand why nasa always relied on those horrendously expensive bespoke probes when they could standardize like crazy, churn 'em out and save a bundle

maybe that's an opportunity for the next space-related start-up


Launch costs.

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-95-141BR

At half a billion per attempt (20 years ago) it's cheaper to over-engineer the probes so that nothing goes wrong, because even if you can build ten "good enough, probably" probes for the price of one uber-probe, you don't have the budget to launch ten probes.

They're probably due to change how they operate, what with SpaceX and all. But then you get into the way NASA appropriations happen, government bureaucracies, etc.

Also, NASA payloads are self-insured, so things go tits-up on launch and NASA (and uncle sam) is out the half a billion dollars or whatever the probe cost. This is one area where Atlas V has a distinct advantage, because its perfect launch record is comforting to bureaucrats. A spaceX launch still costs $100 m to the us government, so its not like you can just get away with making a cheaper spacecraft. It is still expected to operate perfectly for at least 10 years (and most NASA probes well surpass their initial mission length).

There's also the issue with how the science payload is designed. JPL might design and fabricate the bus, but NASA puts forth a call for proposals for scientific instruments open to the whole scientific community. A myriad of different teams are responsible for each instrument. It is likely not the most efficient use of funds, but it is far more in line with NASA's mission than producing everything in house.
maurvir posted:
Image


I like that Venus is a site for exploration. There's so much to be learned about atmospherics from that planet. It could have been a earth-like, of sorts, like Mars.

Money is never sent on planetary explorations; that stuff stays on earth ready to be recycled for the next mission.
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
I like the proposed mission to send a balloon to Venus. That would be a great way to study the atmosphere of that planet.

Venus did once have a very hospitable environment. A runaway greenhouse effect* led to it reaching the hellscape it is today.




* Venus has no working carbon cycle, unlike earth, so even the worst case scenarios with GW do not approach the runaway status of venus.
TOS
User avatar
venus is damn tricky to explore due to the brutal conditions, but the balloon idea is great ... i remember when the french and soviets got together to do that in the 80s (i think it was the 80s, i'm too lazy to check)

unfortunately they didn't bother attaching a camera to the thing, but maybe it would have seen nothing but clouds
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
I actually wonder if it would be possible to seed Venus with extremophiles that could live in the cloud layers and create a limited carbon cycle? Yes, that atmosphere is highly nasty, but so are some of the places we have found microbial life on Earth - like volcanic vents at the bottom of ridiculously deep ocean trenches.

This would be a very, very long-term project, but I wonder if it is even remotely feasible technically?
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

amazing science/nature images

Page: 1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 78