Seen a video on it as well it said for the observer they would see you die but in your perspective you crossed into the black hole but can never leave it.

Except the subjective experience of time never stops, no matter how dilated it gets, so the first thing you’d likely experience crossing the event horizon is the evaporation of the black hole, or the end of the universe, whatever those might look like.

If you could hang out for a while, you’d see the black hole growing around you as it’s gravity leaves space more and more distorted. The event horizon would be the point where the black hole wraps all the way around and closes behind you.

At that point there is no physical way out, and any direction you can travel is going to be inward.

…I may have seen too much PBS as a kid.

It's how it's used conversationally.

We don't talk about electric engines, for example.

We do sometimes talk about the motor in a car, though, so it's not perfect, just a general rule.

Which we have no way to model for, since current mathematics still just returns a big ‘ol error sign when trying to calculate beyond the event horizon. It’s entirely possible that physics just.ceases to operate properly at that point

For South Koreans a UAP would not be the first explanation that would come to mind. More like incoming missile from NK. Think about it.

No, I'm kind of making fun of you because you are saying the same things I am.

[removed]

This is what I was looking for. Thank you!

That is generally my belief - they are mostly in the "wouldn't it be great" category.

I do support the NASA program because there's an open question as to practicality of NTR engines and I think settling those kinds of questions aligns well with NASA's charter.

I thought it was more that space time itself has been bent so far that all directions head towards the singularity. So you can't see anything from beyond the event horizon because space time does not extend from it.

[removed]

It is true that from the perspective of an observer inside the event horizon of a black hole, the photons falling into the black hole would appear to be infinitely blueshifted and would arrive at the singularity at the center of the black hole all at the same time. This is a consequence of the extreme gravitational forces present in the region, which cause the photons to be blueshifted and to follow highly curved paths as they fall towards the singularity.
However, from the perspective of an observer outside the event horizon, the photons falling into the black hole would not be infinitely blueshifted, and would not all arrive at the same time. From this perspective, the photons would follow paths that are determined by the curvature of spacetime, which would generally not be straight lines.

I can’t find a single definition of “motor” that supports this.

Apart from the fact that model rocket engines have always been called motors, most definitions of the word “motor” don’t involve rotation.

Propellant volume, mass, complexity and difficulty of maintenance put NTR engines at such a disadvantageous position that it will be difficult to find missions that justifies their usage over methane engines.

NTR also died because of their cost, difficulty to repair them during the mission (or even after) and the volume of the propellant.

[removed]

Very good points.

I really don't see a way how thermal nuclear will be more ecconomally than methane rockets in the inner solar system.

Density, thermal properties, development and retail cost, maintenance, thrust, common propulsion system with landers / launch vehicles...

All this heavily favours methane propulsion systems.

[removed]

It's very interesting what you can do when you have a rocket with a high maximum payload mass, but relatively low launch cost.

Suddenly you don't need a payload anymore that fits your rocket "perfectly". You can just launch practically any payload as long as it is not too heavy. 6,000km? Okay. 600kg? Doesn't matter.

Extrapolating this to fully reusable systems we will see pretty wild ranges of payload masses, even without ride share.

[removed]

[removed]

Is this the “firewall hypothesis” of everything inside a black hole piling up in an infinitely hot infinitely thin surface just inside of the event horizon?

Sorry. I did not mean to imply that blueshifted light observed from within an event horizon is what most mainstream scientists mean when they say "loss of causality information"

I understand that debate relatively well, and it pertains to recovery of information about what fell into the black hole from the outside.

I'm asking: is there something fundamental that I'm overlooking with my description of the "infinitely blueshifted" light? Seems to me that from the inside of a black hole you would be unable to deduce anything about the order of events outside using the photons falling in, because from your perspective, they would be arriving all at the same time.

Tidal disruptions have been, yes. They are also simulated in supercomputers and they were predicted decades before they were observed!

The direct “swallowing” of a star by a billion solar mass black hole has not been observed. One way to think about it is this event would just involve the center of the galaxy decreasing in brightness by 1 star’s worth, whereas a tidal disruption event is like fireworks - a lot of energy gets released and if we happen to have a telescope checking on that galaxy at least every few weeks, we’ll see it.