On the contrary, it makes it much harder. On earth, you can radiate away heat by direct contact with air. No air in space means the only way to dump heat is by black body radiation.

If you told people it was shot in 1969 they'd probably believe you ;) that's what makes it so cool IMO.

Whirlpool Corp made freeze dried ice cream for Nasa.

Not sure what to buy, but check out astronaut Chris Hadfield’s YouTube vids. This is one I used to show a lot:

https://youtu.be/IvdohUPWg-0

Posting because I'd like to know too. Always wanted to see a launch.

"I'm looking to settle with a nice K-type star within a 100 light year radius"

Reminds be of the sonic burst from learn how to fly

Something - anything - disappating that amount of energy that quickly, is going to make a big bang, even if it doesn't leave a huge crater. The Tunguska Event didn't leave a crater, but it would have 'broken a few windows' if it had occurred near a built-up area. If by 'minimal threat to life' you mean 'all life on Earth', then - absolutely - this would have been a local disaster - a few hundred square miles.

Actually it makes it harder. Without air to use as a heat transfer medium you don't have anything to bleed heat into.

TLDR from the article:

• TOI-700e is about 101 light years away, it's in the habitable zone of a red dwarf star (so it'll be tidally locked)

• orbital period is 27.8 days

• it is around the same diameter as the Earth, slightly more massive

• "87% chance" that it's a rocky planet

• it is pretty much on the very inner edge of the habitable zone, like it's possibly slightly too close

IMO seems unlikely to be habitable. I think a gas giant in the habitable zone of a red dwarf would be more likely if it has a possibly habitable rocky moon around the size of one of Jupiter's moons. If it has multiple moons, maybe two of them will be habitable.

The moon wouldn't be tidally locked to the star, it would be orbiting the gas giant, so it should get more evenly distributed sunlight

Extraordinary footage? This is exactly what it looks like driving through a snow storm at night lol.

This isn't a discovery, it's not existing technology, nobody assumed it wouldn't work, and it's not clear yet how well it actually will work. It's an early test of a new technology that has been in the conceptual stage for decades, has only recently been gotten to work, but which has been expected to improve performance.

[removed]

I think it's cool that it's "kinda-sorta round". Like it's obviously not spherical but it does have a relatively defined smooth-ish shape.

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

[removed]

Sounds like a no-refund type issue.

Realistically, anything Earth-like would likely be uninhabitable. Aside from the forward and backward contamination issues, an entirely alien biosphere wouldn't contain any diseases or poisons adapted to us, but would be saturated with things that are moderately to severely toxic or just noxious, and complex organic substances that our immune systems have never encountered before, some of which would be likely to cause severe allergic reactions.

In short, it'd probably stink horribly and send you into anaphylactic shock, and if it didn't, it'd probably have environmental toxins that would kill you slowly. Habitable environments are those with the natural resources needed to support habitats where we can support Earth life, not those already filled with alien life.

Mars? Oh no, perchlorates! Yeah, about 0.5-1% of the regolith consists of salts twice as toxic as table salt that are unstable, easily washed out with water or decomposed by heat or reducing agents, and which do not bioaccumulate. Worry more about heavy metals and long-lived organic compounds leaching out of plastics and such.

[removed]

Do not stand directly under the rocket. My buddy Joe did that and it didn’t end well for him

Exactly!

Can’t get rich off of this. Paying someone to bury your carbon footprint, haha yes that works.

Am I the only one who sees the great flame sword descending from space?

[removed]