“Earth-like” “no atmosphere”

Can we please ban space.com already?

[removed]

[removed]

Well with all that pulling and dragging of the tides it had to happen at some stage

Was hoping for this post. Lotta love to 'Dr. Astronomer here'!

Me too but I swear my Gf is the best!

A conjunction of the spheres, if you will. Also called a greater syzygy.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

No, it’s not because even if we cut the moon in half nothing would really happen other than it just reshaping into another sphere, and there’s no incredibly valuable environment to destroy there so it doesn’t really matter

[removed]

Maybe not melt, but heat and force the release of water rich volatiles. Then it is time for fractional distillation to separate the volatiles. Water might not be the only thing we would want

I guess it depends on how much data they’re collecting for orbital mechanics and satellite telemetry vs what does this mean for my horoscope omg, odds are it’s all still less data than the total amount of cat photos online

How could you possibly think we would be able to calculate the hawking radiation of the universe. There are probably a trillion different variables in determining the amount of matter in black holes. How many there are, and what size they are also affects the emanation rate of Hawking radiation. Even an estimate trying to get within an order of magnitude would be highly suspect.

[removed]

OP was talking about dark energy, not dark matter. Given that Hawking radiation is in the form of photons which have no rest mass, it's already a poor candidate for dark matter.

Then there's the minor detail that the combined Hawking radiation output of every black hole in the observable universe is less than than the power consumption of the tablet I'm typing this on. Indeed, black holes absorb far more energy than that just from cosmic microwave background radiation, so they're net energy absorbers even without actively feeding on matter.

Even if we ignore that, the the upper limit on thier total energy emited as hawking radiation since the big bang is on the order of a few joules, or less than a picogram of mass equivalence. Ignoring primordial black holes anyway, since we've got no solid evidence for thier existence.

Even if it was a signifcant amount it wouldn't matter since any amount of 'hawking-equivalent-matter' emited by a black hole will reduce the black hole's mass by that same amount.

Since the combined mass of all black holes theoreized to exist is insuffcient to explain dark matter, then so too will be any amount of hawking radiation emited by them.

Mars was too cold and atmosphere didn't really stuck. Venus was much better, but look at how that turned out and that's just for a bit of much needed AC.
Good thing that in the mentime that hellish third planet turned out pretty nice, they say third time the charm, no..?

On the one hand, there is an honest endeavor to seek more information about a particular question and being grateful for receiving that information (from a very likely reliable source) without drawing any conclusion as to the question's final resolution, but on the other hand, there is snark and completely baseless assumptions about a stranger's state of mind. Case definitely closed.

But you're right, and it's kind of amazing: even without the slightest shred of evidence, that guy on Reddit surely did sound really confident about what I was thinking.

I'm not sure that there is a way to engineer something that would "prevent it being weaponised".

Nation states are likely prohibited by treaty from putting one in orbit, not sure why a private company should be allowed to do so.

In terms of using it for lunar colonisation the same problems arise but there's no treaties preventing it.

In terms of environmental benefit... all the power you lose forcing the microwave transmission through the atmosphere is energy that would not have been added to the Earth's budget otherwise. Attenuation in the air is drastically increased by water content, so cloudy / rainy areas are not great for receiving stations.

It's not a bad idea in principle and it's well within our capabilities from an engineering perspective but there is no world leader / private individual / council of wise pacifists I would trust with control.

I’m very sus of that paper to be honest. Watch the PBS space time episode about it, they are obviously way more articulate and definitive in their analysis than I could ever be

"Very real problem"

I mean, it's real, it's not a problem though, lmao.

"Oh no, this water doesn't go back into the water cycle"

As if we don't have a planet with 90% oceans and issues with global warming and rising sea levels, soon it will be 95% lol. Maybe we should be putting MORE in bottles, fuck me, what a non issue.

Infact, the more I read that article, the more I realise how much bullshit it actually is. They seem to think water in bottles is no longer in our atmosphere. No, it's still in our atmosphere. Plastic doesn't last forever. We aren't launching it into the sun ffs.

"While nearly 70% of the world is covered by water, only 2.5% of it is fresh. The rest is saline and ocean-based. Even then, just 1% of our freshwater is easily accessible, with much of it trapped in glaciers and snowfields."

They do know how rain works, yeah? That the 2.5% fresh water is taken from the oceans, then dropped onto the mountains as rain, where the mountains filter it? Have they even heard of clouds before? I mean, I was taught that at like 8 years old or less.

And if you wanna talk about droughts, and the effect of droughts, then I can guarantee you the droughts were not caused by some water being in a bottle, lmao. Maybe they should take up a new cause that actually matters, like global warming.

[removed]

It’s all political. They abandoned Plattsburgh AFB in the 90s in favor of some base in NJ that requires billions of investment just to get it up to par with Plattsburgh.

[removed]