How long until we see a picture of Planet 9? How detailed a picture

>>7843212
200au is pretty far. It's probably frozen as fuck so no ayyys

>>7843224
But I want to meet ayys now!

>>7843228
Check u're bunghole

Its even further than pluto and we only got to take its pictures because our shitty probe just made it there. Planet X isn't officially in our solar system so it's not lit by our sunlight and won't be passing for a long long time.

You won't see a photo of planetX in your life time, only CGI renderings.

>>7843212
Due to the physical limitations of optics Hubble probably won't be able to get an image worth a shit. Only way to see it clearly is to send a probe, but that obviously will take ages.

>>7843232
>1916
>"You wont see a picture of Neptune in your life"
>>7843224
The Jovian system is frozen as fuck yet Io is boiling hot.

>>7843247
> 1916
> "You wont see a picture of PlanetX in your life"
Yeah and you still won't. Deal with it cumkid :^)

>>7843230
>>7843230
And post results

>>7843253
>what are nuclear rockets?
We have the technology to get there in 10 years, we just dont have the will because the cold war is over.

>>7843285
We can't even go to mars yet. The only mission to Mars was scheduled for 2020 and even that got postponed to 2032 what are you talking about ?
Current existing technology doesn't imply or guarantee anything. You will die without seeing planetX. Deal with it bumkid :^)

>>7843292
Being a contrarian is a lazy way to look smart. Sit back and predict faliure all the time and you will be correct most of the time therefore looking like you know what you are talking about.

>>7843314
Then why shouldn't I be a contrarian ? That way i'll be smart and you'll be a dumkid :^)

>>7843317
Because it would make you a pseudointellectual which is the cancer destroying /sci/

>>7843327
Well it was a joke. We can do lots of shit much faster on earth for sure but we're stuck with ancient clunky insufficient technology as long as we don't develop something much much better than fueled rockets.

>>7843332
Can we do better than chemical rockets? absolutely. Can we do better than reaction propulsion? Not in our lifetimes.