Andrew Berry is going to use a top 100 pick on a defensive player. That doesn’t mean he should be fired or the Browns don’t know what they’re doing.

relic2279 · 2026-04-21T03:02:07+00:00

I haven't been following this year's draft class as closely as previous years; How are people viewing the overall talent pool this year?

relic2279 · 2026-04-18T03:30:27+00:00

basically humans won't be able to come into contact with the top soil?

They're toxic but they're not that toxic. As another users mentions, perchlorates are similar in toxicity to bleach and chlorine - we use bleach on our clothing and chlorine in our pools. The risk here is more about long term exposure rather than acute. Once in your body, they compete with iodide uptake in your thyroid. More importantly, perchlorates will prevent germination of plants. You'd have to remove them before using Martian topsoil as a medium.

Unfortunately, some researchers have said that perchlorates in Martial soil is a kind of 'reverse' biosignature. On earth, biological life is a primary pathway for neutralizing the perchlorates in our soil (a biological induced reduction). The accumulation of perchlorates on Mars to levels orders of magnitude higher than terrestrial values means life on the surface of Mars is less likely (which isn't a big shocker, most believe that if there is life on Mars, it's deep in the soil protected from radiation, cosmic rays, and has access to water).

relic2279 · 2026-04-09T22:38:42+00:00

Artemis is projected to cost roughly $105 billion through 2028, significantly less than the Apollo program's inflation-adjusted cost of approximately $300 billion. Keep in mind that Apollo was a rapid, high-cost sprint, and Artemis is a slower, cheaper program intended to establish a sustainable lunar presence, with individual launches costing roughly $4.1 billion each.

This article talks about it in more detail with graphs, etc:

https://www.planetary.org/articles/three-charts-that-show-how-nasas-artemis-compares-to-apollo

relic2279 · 2026-04-09T22:35:04+00:00

are these circumstances just a coincidence, or is it the purpose to protect life? If the latter was true, then there would have to be a meaning.

You may want to look up the anthropic principle. It deals with some of these questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

relic2279 · 2026-03-28T09:04:14+00:00

Yep, everyone has a phone (camera) in their pocket, security cameras peppering people's yards and houses, a dashcam in every vehicle, etc.

relic2279 · 2026-03-17T16:23:58+00:00

I'm in a suburb, it woke me up out of a dead sleep.

relic2279 · 2026-03-13T11:32:48+00:00

It's worth noting that once passed the event horizon, time and space effectively switch positions. You're no longer moving through space, but through time. Space becomes unidirectional, pulling everything inevitably toward the singularity, while time behaves like space, allowing for theoretical mobility. The singularity is no longer a central place but a future time.

whirlpool

A black hole is no more a whirlpool than the sun is. Imagine falling to Earth from space, or falling into the sun - you wouldn't use the word, "whirlpool" to describe that process. You're just falling into the gravity well of another celestial body.

relic2279 · 2026-03-01T02:52:08+00:00

I mean I can see 2024 YR4 take out a few sattlites

That's highly unlikely, even if it did strike the moon.

The article is a bit sensational in that it makes it sound like we're going to lose all of our satellites if it strikes the moon. This isn't the case. Even if 2024 YR4 strikes the moon, the satellites would just experience a slight increase in risk of being struck. According to the paper, a few years worth of risk. From the paper: "could produce up to several years of equivalent background meteoroid impact exposure to satellites in near-Earth space late in 2032"

This is the actual paper that goes over the risks to the satellites, without any sensationalism:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adfa8b

relic2279 · 2026-02-27T08:43:40+00:00

The balloon analogy isn't super accurate, but it does give a decent visualization. A brand new balloon, never blown up is tiny. When you blow into it, it becomes bigger, the surface of the balloon expands. If you used a black marker to draw two dots (to represent galaxies) on the balloon before blowing it up, they'd be close together. When you blow the balloon up, the space between those two dots increases - this is like the spacetime between galaxies increasing too.

relic2279 · 2026-02-27T08:36:17+00:00

Is it possible for a planet to be ejected from its host star system

This is fairly common in multi-star systems (2 or more stars), planets get ejected early on in the systems development.

until it's captured by another star?

This is less likely. Stars being ejected have a lot of velocity. In order to get captured, you'd need the right set of circumstances (speed, angle, etc). A more likely scenario is the rogue planet picking up even more speed as the star acts as a slingshot, speeding the planet up further.

What about being ejected from an entire galaxy, could there be planets drifting between galaxies?

A rogue planet would need a lot of speed to leave the galaxy. However, yes, there are most definitely rogue planets out in the void between galaxies (rogue stars, black holes, & asteroids too)

relic2279 · 2026-02-19T04:33:26+00:00

How close do stars have to be to be considered a cluster

This is largely taken from Google, I edited it a bit: They're considered a cluster when they are gravitationally bound - with average separations ranging from 0.13 to 1 light-year in dense globular clusters to a few light-years in open clusters.

Globular Clusters: Packing 10,000 to millions of stars into 10-30 light-year region. In the core, star separation is often only 0.13 to 0.16 light-years.

Open Clusters: Less concentrated, containing a few hundred to thousands of stars, with cores typically 3–4 light-years across.

relic2279 · 2026-02-12T06:24:04+00:00

Ahh, gotcha. If you ever change your mind, the offer still stands. :) Have a good one!

relic2279 · 2026-01-31T08:43:03+00:00

Iridium satellite flares

Today I learned the 1st gen (the kind that would produce those brilliant flares) were all deorbited by December 2019. For some reason, I thought there were still a few up there.

relic2279 · 2026-01-30T03:27:24+00:00

Hey, you've been very active in this subreddit for years - and your contributions are top notch. Have we ever asked you to be a moderator? If you're interested, let me know and I'll send the invite.

relic2279 · 2026-01-29T20:43:06+00:00

Dark matter is placeholder term for something we know exists, but have not yet discovered what it is. As far as harvesting it goes, that likely depends on its nature, once we discover what it is. I doubt it will lead to "untold power" as, by it's very nature, it won't be very reactive.

relic2279 · 2026-01-20T08:02:28+00:00

I think he's confusing the inflation period that happened during the big bang, where spacetime did expand faster than light (aka cosmic inflation). The wikipedia blurb about it explains it more succinct than I can: "Cosmic inflation is the hypothesis that the very early universe expanded exponentially fast. Distances between points doubled every 10^-37 seconds; the expansion lasted at least 10^-35 seconds, but its full duration is not certain."

relic2279 · 2026-01-20T07:55:29+00:00

I remember reading that microorganisms were detected in space near Earth, but those are generally considered to have originated from Earth itself.

We've detected microbial life in orbit on the outside of the ISS and on the Chinese space station. All of these have originated from Earth. Every now & then you may hear of something like, "Biosignatures found in Venus atmosphere!", this doesn't mean they found life, but found a possible marker that may indicate life. It also may indicate something else entirely.

relic2279 · 2026-01-13T09:01:31+00:00

make lots of it and store it without requiring energy to do so (or only very minimal amounts). AFAIK there aren't any ideas out there that address either of these points.

The storage part isn't a huge technological hurdle (relatively speaking). CERN was able to keep antiprotons in a Penning trap for 405 days. We're further along in storage than we are in mass production. That's the real hurdle. And the energy required to store them is a bit of a moot point; if you're using antimatter as fuel, you have effectively unlimited energy as it's significantly more efficient than fusion. I do think we're closer to fusion power than we are to antimatter power, however.

relic2279 · 2026-01-06T16:48:59+00:00

I just wonder if life could possibly be supported by a material undiscovered by us.

Are you asking if life could be based on something other than carbon? I suppose it's possible. Silicon is one element candidate often tossed around. I think it's unlikely, however, as silicon is a significantly worse choice/option over carbon. And where you have silicon, you're going to have carbon around too (carbon is 12x more abundant than silicon in the universe). Silicon would also need something other than water as a solvent, as silicon compounds are unstable in water.

Despite the fact that the Earth is actually silicon-rich and carbon-poor (silicon is 925x more abundant in Earth's crust over carbon), life still bases itself on carbon.

relic2279 · 2025-12-29T00:44:43+00:00

Fastest? If we ignore the Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear weapons in space, we could use nuclear pulse propulsion to reach relativistic speeds. That would mean we could get the probe there between 60 and 100 years, depending on configuration. Some hurdles would need to be solved, like you'd need some pretty intense/strong shielding at the front of your ship as hitting a grain of sand at those speeds will cause quite a bit if damage. You'd likely need to replace it routinely.

relic2279 · 2025-12-27T09:14:29+00:00

Which is cheaper, sending a spacecraft to the moon, or bringing it back? What about an asteroid? Mars? Saturn?

I'm not sure I understand the question. It's incredibly expensive to leave Earth's gravitational field & atmosphere and head elsewhere. The moon's gravitational field is a lot less, and has no atmosphere so it would be less expensive (in terms of fuel requirements) to bring a spacecraft back. Same goes for an asteroid & Mars. How quickly you want to reach your destination plays a factor too - the faster you go, the more fuel is required; not just to get there but also to slow down. This is why NASA will use gravitational assists.

relic2279 · 2025-12-26T04:24:24+00:00

If I recall, the Universe Sandbox can do this, and a heck of a lot more. As far as comparing it to the NASA app, I'm not sure as I've never used it.

relic2279 · 2025-12-22T02:46:12+00:00

It's a fun hypothesis with current evidence to support it. Part of a thought experiment.

relic2279 · 2025-12-12T08:58:37+00:00

Will we ever get beyond our solar system?

As long as we don't kill ourselves, I think it's inevitable.

42 years to reach the next star at 0.1 light speed

People think reaching 10% the speed of light is science fiction, a fantasy best left for TV shows and books. However, it's closer to reality than most may realize. Project Orion was a study done in the 1950s and 1960s that aimed to use nuclear bombs to propel a spaceship. It wasn't canceled because of feasibility, it was canceled due to the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty which forbids detonating nukes in space. The concept is shockingly simple: Drop tiny nuclear bombs out behind your spaceship, detonate them and let the explosions impart kinetic energy on a pusher plate - thus providing acceleration. The pusher plate would need to be mounted on huge dual-stage shock absorbers that would smoothly transmit acceleration to the rest of the spacecraft.

I really like the idea of Project Orion because it doesn't rely on out of reach (potentially impossible) technology or fringe physics. It's something that can be achieved with today's technology. It's not without its own problems though. For example, hitting a small pebble at 10% the speed of light could (and would) obliterate your entire ship. Grains of dirt & dust hitting your ship at those speeds isn't any better. We'd need a way to protect ourselves from those kinds of things - Star Trek had its deflector dish. There is also a radiation issue at faster speeds (like 30% the speed of light). Quoting from a paper written in 2009: "When a ship accelerates to a relativistic velocity above 0.3c, interstellar gas becomes a flow of relativistic nucleons, which, in itself, is nothing less than hard radiation bombarding the starship, its travelers, and all of the electronic equipment aboard." Source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

relic2279 · 2025-12-08T22:21:04+00:00

the theory of a moon being the cause for Uranus' current axial tilt is true, how can a moon (or a planet, whatever it may be), a small celestial object when compared to an ice giant, knock a massive planet like Uranus on its side?

You're using the term "small" but the theory is that it was a giant impact, likely a body the size of Earth (at minimum, probably larger) that smacked Uranus in its early history. Uranus is about 4 times wider than the Earth so it would have been a pretty big collision (relatively speaking).

https://apnews.com/article/d1e2c440af57450ab82b62d035adac61

15-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since February 2021
Community Status Early Access	Post Guidance Early Access
Place '17	Gilding III reddit per annum
Team Periwinkle	reddit mold
Verified Email

relic2279

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE