What angular resolution is expected during New Horizon's flyby of Ultima Thule?
Ultima Thule is thought to be about 20 miles (30 km) across. However, I can't seem to find any detail about approach distance or typical image resolution of New Horizons in regards to the second target.
What I am interested in, is that Pluto is fairly larger as compared to Ultima Thule, we also knew a lot more about it before we got there. What meter/pixel resolution could we expect to get from such a small target?
probe imaging new-horizons
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Ultima Thule is thought to be about 20 miles (30 km) across. However, I can't seem to find any detail about approach distance or typical image resolution of New Horizons in regards to the second target.
What I am interested in, is that Pluto is fairly larger as compared to Ultima Thule, we also knew a lot more about it before we got there. What meter/pixel resolution could we expect to get from such a small target?
probe imaging new-horizons
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can you clarify the second paragraph? In particular, the third clause of the first sentence is confusing in context, seems out of place, and is a bit of a non sequitur.
– Alex Hajnal
15 mins ago
add a comment |
Ultima Thule is thought to be about 20 miles (30 km) across. However, I can't seem to find any detail about approach distance or typical image resolution of New Horizons in regards to the second target.
What I am interested in, is that Pluto is fairly larger as compared to Ultima Thule, we also knew a lot more about it before we got there. What meter/pixel resolution could we expect to get from such a small target?
probe imaging new-horizons
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Ultima Thule is thought to be about 20 miles (30 km) across. However, I can't seem to find any detail about approach distance or typical image resolution of New Horizons in regards to the second target.
What I am interested in, is that Pluto is fairly larger as compared to Ultima Thule, we also knew a lot more about it before we got there. What meter/pixel resolution could we expect to get from such a small target?
probe imaging new-horizons
probe imaging new-horizons
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
edited 19 mins ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
908313
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
asked 1 hour ago
TheGeneral
1134
1134
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
TheGeneral is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can you clarify the second paragraph? In particular, the third clause of the first sentence is confusing in context, seems out of place, and is a bit of a non sequitur.
– Alex Hajnal
15 mins ago
add a comment |
Can you clarify the second paragraph? In particular, the third clause of the first sentence is confusing in context, seems out of place, and is a bit of a non sequitur.
– Alex Hajnal
15 mins ago
Can you clarify the second paragraph? In particular, the third clause of the first sentence is confusing in context, seems out of place, and is a bit of a non sequitur.
– Alex Hajnal
15 mins ago
Can you clarify the second paragraph? In particular, the third clause of the first sentence is confusing in context, seems out of place, and is a bit of a non sequitur.
– Alex Hajnal
15 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I was gathering data to do the math and came across this:
New Horizons is planned to come within 3,500 km (2,200 mi) of 2014 MU69, three times closer than the spacecraft's earlier encounter with Pluto. Images with a resolution as fine as 30 m (98 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) are expected.[
49[1]][62[2]]
Source: (486958) 2014 MU69, Wikipedia
Various estimates of 2014 MU69's diameter have been made:
- 25–45 km 3
- 30 km or binary pair of 15 to 20 km each 4
- 30–45 km 5
Source: ibid, as cited
Note that "Ultima Thule" is currently just a nickname for 2014 MU69. As partially quoted on the above-linked Wikipedia page:
[W]e’re going to give 2014 MU69 [sic] a real name, rather than just the “license plate” designator it has now. The details of how we’ll name it are still being worked out, but NASA announced a few weeks back that it will involve a public naming contest. [6]
Another source7 adds:
After the flyby, NASA and the New Horizons team will choose a formal name to submit to the International Astronomical Union, based in part on whether MU69 [sic] is found to be a single body, a binary pair, or perhaps a system of multiple objects.
Citations:
1 Green, Jim (12 December 2017), New Horizons Explores the Kuiper Belt, 2017 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans: 12–15.
(PDF)
2 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2017), New Horizons Files Flight Plan for 2019 Flyby, 6 September 2017, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
3 Buie, Marc (15 October 2014), New Horizons HST KBO Search Results: Status Report, Space Telescope Science Institute, 23.
(PDF)
4 Bill Keeter (3 August 2017), New Horizons' Next Target Just Got a Lot More Interesting, NASA, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
5 Lakdawalla, Emily (15 October 2014), Finally! New Horizons has a second target, Planetary Society blog, Planetary Society, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
6 Stern, Alan (28 April 2017), No Sleeping Back on Earth!, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
7 Tricia Talbert (13 March 2018), New Horizons Chooses Nickname for 'Ultimate' Flyby Target, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
1
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
TheGeneral is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33133%2fwhat-angular-resolution-is-expected-during-new-horizons-flyby-of-ultima-thule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I was gathering data to do the math and came across this:
New Horizons is planned to come within 3,500 km (2,200 mi) of 2014 MU69, three times closer than the spacecraft's earlier encounter with Pluto. Images with a resolution as fine as 30 m (98 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) are expected.[
49[1]][62[2]]
Source: (486958) 2014 MU69, Wikipedia
Various estimates of 2014 MU69's diameter have been made:
- 25–45 km 3
- 30 km or binary pair of 15 to 20 km each 4
- 30–45 km 5
Source: ibid, as cited
Note that "Ultima Thule" is currently just a nickname for 2014 MU69. As partially quoted on the above-linked Wikipedia page:
[W]e’re going to give 2014 MU69 [sic] a real name, rather than just the “license plate” designator it has now. The details of how we’ll name it are still being worked out, but NASA announced a few weeks back that it will involve a public naming contest. [6]
Another source7 adds:
After the flyby, NASA and the New Horizons team will choose a formal name to submit to the International Astronomical Union, based in part on whether MU69 [sic] is found to be a single body, a binary pair, or perhaps a system of multiple objects.
Citations:
1 Green, Jim (12 December 2017), New Horizons Explores the Kuiper Belt, 2017 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans: 12–15.
(PDF)
2 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2017), New Horizons Files Flight Plan for 2019 Flyby, 6 September 2017, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
3 Buie, Marc (15 October 2014), New Horizons HST KBO Search Results: Status Report, Space Telescope Science Institute, 23.
(PDF)
4 Bill Keeter (3 August 2017), New Horizons' Next Target Just Got a Lot More Interesting, NASA, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
5 Lakdawalla, Emily (15 October 2014), Finally! New Horizons has a second target, Planetary Society blog, Planetary Society, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
6 Stern, Alan (28 April 2017), No Sleeping Back on Earth!, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
7 Tricia Talbert (13 March 2018), New Horizons Chooses Nickname for 'Ultimate' Flyby Target, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
1
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
add a comment |
I was gathering data to do the math and came across this:
New Horizons is planned to come within 3,500 km (2,200 mi) of 2014 MU69, three times closer than the spacecraft's earlier encounter with Pluto. Images with a resolution as fine as 30 m (98 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) are expected.[
49[1]][62[2]]
Source: (486958) 2014 MU69, Wikipedia
Various estimates of 2014 MU69's diameter have been made:
- 25–45 km 3
- 30 km or binary pair of 15 to 20 km each 4
- 30–45 km 5
Source: ibid, as cited
Note that "Ultima Thule" is currently just a nickname for 2014 MU69. As partially quoted on the above-linked Wikipedia page:
[W]e’re going to give 2014 MU69 [sic] a real name, rather than just the “license plate” designator it has now. The details of how we’ll name it are still being worked out, but NASA announced a few weeks back that it will involve a public naming contest. [6]
Another source7 adds:
After the flyby, NASA and the New Horizons team will choose a formal name to submit to the International Astronomical Union, based in part on whether MU69 [sic] is found to be a single body, a binary pair, or perhaps a system of multiple objects.
Citations:
1 Green, Jim (12 December 2017), New Horizons Explores the Kuiper Belt, 2017 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans: 12–15.
(PDF)
2 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2017), New Horizons Files Flight Plan for 2019 Flyby, 6 September 2017, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
3 Buie, Marc (15 October 2014), New Horizons HST KBO Search Results: Status Report, Space Telescope Science Institute, 23.
(PDF)
4 Bill Keeter (3 August 2017), New Horizons' Next Target Just Got a Lot More Interesting, NASA, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
5 Lakdawalla, Emily (15 October 2014), Finally! New Horizons has a second target, Planetary Society blog, Planetary Society, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
6 Stern, Alan (28 April 2017), No Sleeping Back on Earth!, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
7 Tricia Talbert (13 March 2018), New Horizons Chooses Nickname for 'Ultimate' Flyby Target, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
1
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
add a comment |
I was gathering data to do the math and came across this:
New Horizons is planned to come within 3,500 km (2,200 mi) of 2014 MU69, three times closer than the spacecraft's earlier encounter with Pluto. Images with a resolution as fine as 30 m (98 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) are expected.[
49[1]][62[2]]
Source: (486958) 2014 MU69, Wikipedia
Various estimates of 2014 MU69's diameter have been made:
- 25–45 km 3
- 30 km or binary pair of 15 to 20 km each 4
- 30–45 km 5
Source: ibid, as cited
Note that "Ultima Thule" is currently just a nickname for 2014 MU69. As partially quoted on the above-linked Wikipedia page:
[W]e’re going to give 2014 MU69 [sic] a real name, rather than just the “license plate” designator it has now. The details of how we’ll name it are still being worked out, but NASA announced a few weeks back that it will involve a public naming contest. [6]
Another source7 adds:
After the flyby, NASA and the New Horizons team will choose a formal name to submit to the International Astronomical Union, based in part on whether MU69 [sic] is found to be a single body, a binary pair, or perhaps a system of multiple objects.
Citations:
1 Green, Jim (12 December 2017), New Horizons Explores the Kuiper Belt, 2017 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans: 12–15.
(PDF)
2 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2017), New Horizons Files Flight Plan for 2019 Flyby, 6 September 2017, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
3 Buie, Marc (15 October 2014), New Horizons HST KBO Search Results: Status Report, Space Telescope Science Institute, 23.
(PDF)
4 Bill Keeter (3 August 2017), New Horizons' Next Target Just Got a Lot More Interesting, NASA, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
5 Lakdawalla, Emily (15 October 2014), Finally! New Horizons has a second target, Planetary Society blog, Planetary Society, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
6 Stern, Alan (28 April 2017), No Sleeping Back on Earth!, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
7 Tricia Talbert (13 March 2018), New Horizons Chooses Nickname for 'Ultimate' Flyby Target, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
I was gathering data to do the math and came across this:
New Horizons is planned to come within 3,500 km (2,200 mi) of 2014 MU69, three times closer than the spacecraft's earlier encounter with Pluto. Images with a resolution as fine as 30 m (98 ft) to 70 m (230 ft) are expected.[
49[1]][62[2]]
Source: (486958) 2014 MU69, Wikipedia
Various estimates of 2014 MU69's diameter have been made:
- 25–45 km 3
- 30 km or binary pair of 15 to 20 km each 4
- 30–45 km 5
Source: ibid, as cited
Note that "Ultima Thule" is currently just a nickname for 2014 MU69. As partially quoted on the above-linked Wikipedia page:
[W]e’re going to give 2014 MU69 [sic] a real name, rather than just the “license plate” designator it has now. The details of how we’ll name it are still being worked out, but NASA announced a few weeks back that it will involve a public naming contest. [6]
Another source7 adds:
After the flyby, NASA and the New Horizons team will choose a formal name to submit to the International Astronomical Union, based in part on whether MU69 [sic] is found to be a single body, a binary pair, or perhaps a system of multiple objects.
Citations:
1 Green, Jim (12 December 2017), New Horizons Explores the Kuiper Belt, 2017 American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting in New Orleans: 12–15.
(PDF)
2 Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (2017), New Horizons Files Flight Plan for 2019 Flyby, 6 September 2017, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
3 Buie, Marc (15 October 2014), New Horizons HST KBO Search Results: Status Report, Space Telescope Science Institute, 23.
(PDF)
4 Bill Keeter (3 August 2017), New Horizons' Next Target Just Got a Lot More Interesting, NASA, web page, retrieved 2018-12-27.
5 Lakdawalla, Emily (15 October 2014), Finally! New Horizons has a second target, Planetary Society blog, Planetary Society, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
6 Stern, Alan (28 April 2017), No Sleeping Back on Earth!, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
7 Tricia Talbert (13 March 2018), New Horizons Chooses Nickname for 'Ultimate' Flyby Target, NASA, web page, retrieved 2017-12-27.
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
edited 41 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
answered 1 hour ago
Alex Hajnal
908313
908313
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
1
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
1
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Thanks for that info, exactly what i was looking for!
– TheGeneral
51 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
Remarkable citation style.
– Boosted Nub
36 mins ago
1
1
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
@BoostedNub How so? You mean mixing inline and numbered citations? I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative so I typically don't provide full, formal citations when I reference it (just links and acknowledgement).
– Alex Hajnal
36 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
If I were writing a formal research paper it would be different though; everything would get a proper citation, Wikipedia included. Note that given its non-authoritative nature, Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source in any serious paper. (It can be useful for tracking down primary sources though.)
– Alex Hajnal
10 mins ago
add a comment |
TheGeneral is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
TheGeneral is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
TheGeneral is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
TheGeneral is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33133%2fwhat-angular-resolution-is-expected-during-new-horizons-flyby-of-ultima-thule%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Can you clarify the second paragraph? In particular, the third clause of the first sentence is confusing in context, seems out of place, and is a bit of a non sequitur.
– Alex Hajnal
15 mins ago