Recent comments in /f/space

MisterISchmitt t1_j2ck2lt wrote

I will never understand why people think we're ever going to run out of water on this planet. Over 70% of the surface is covered in it, and basic chemistry will tell you that when O2 and 4H are present, they will combine into water. So unless we're somehow consistently splitting hydrogen and oxygen atoms for several billion years, or are otherwise removing water, oxygen, and hydrogen from the planet, we will never run out of water.

Clean, drinkable water, on the other hand, is harder to come by, and for some reason, companies have decided desalination plants and other purification systems are just not worth investing in to provide clean drinking water for millions of people around the globe. Something about "what's in it for me," I think they said.

2

bitemy t1_j2chq9n wrote

The amount of speculative mumbo-jumbo here is amusing.

The short answer, of course, is that they would both be dead from spaghetti if Acacian. The title forces of the insane amount of gravity would tear them to shreds.

The amount of gravity around a black hole is staggeringly humongous. Just imagine how strong gravity would have to be to bend light.

Everything inside the event horizon is presumably moving straight inward at nearly the speed of light.

1

gyunikumen t1_j2cguh1 wrote

In the avatar universe, the interstellar starships can reach 0.7 C / speed of light using Antimatter - Matter engines. We currently understand enough about Antimatter physics to know such engines and speeds are theoretically possible.

Therefore, the time of flight to Prox A, ~4 light years away, should roughly take ~6 years.

1

EverlastingM t1_j2cgn76 wrote

There's lots of hydrogen in space but it's spread so thin it's basically non-existent. On the other hand, every year we collectively emit 41 billion tonnes of water made from hydrogen that has been locked away in hydrocarbons. Also CO2 which is the part we're usually concerned about.

2

watkinobe t1_j2cfcv6 wrote

Define "Pandora-like." Do you mean one that has a lot of bioluminescent flora and fauna with large blue humanoids? I seriously doubt we can imagine what habitable planets actually look like, but I doubt they will bear much resemblance to the vision of a Hollywood film producer.

1

vetiarvind t1_j2ceqfk wrote

A watery planet? Yes. A planet with near-human looking aliens with hair on top of their head? Almost 0. The upright posture with opposable thumb design is clearly not very common, as evidenced by the fact that the hominid species came into existence for only about a million years in a timeline that spans 530 million years for vertebrates to come into existence. (or 1 million since the 100+ million years that mammals existed) Seems a huge fluke that a primate-like species with 3 cones for finding fruit that eventually becomes upright on the plains will ever popup in the universe.

1

thirdeyefish t1_j2ceqbb wrote

For what it is worth, water is a byproduct of burning hydrogen. Water reclamation is already a thing and by the time we are in space we will have water reclamation in-built. Capture of ice rich objects will certainly be normal in a space faring culture.

2

DolphinWings25 t1_j2cel6k wrote

Reply to comment by ToddBradley in Carl Sagan's Cosmos by [deleted]

I may be making this all up but I think it was published for PBS, which is like the freeware of television.

If anyone owns the rights to it, I would like to think it would be his wife or foundation.

1

Syonoq t1_j2ce3cp wrote

There’s a government report on the Columbia shuttle. In the last part of it is a rather lengthy ‘well, here’s what we could have done’ type plan and it’s really cool. It talks about how fast they could have ramped up a rescue mission and what it would have looked like.

1