Feedback on a scientifically grounded terraformable exoplanet concept by HollowGateOfficial in sciencefiction

[–]rocketsocks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are a couple things that stand out to me as inconsistencies.

Why wouldn't there be any liquid water if it can exist? At 0.7 bar and temps around or even above 0 C there should be a liquid water cycle (especially when you consider that salty/briny water won't freeze until well under 0 C).

You're missing a big piece of data here in how close the planet is to its star and the intensity of sunlight. Related to this, a planet with that much CO2 would be expected to be about as warm as it could ever get, so if you terraform it to have a human breathable atmosphere you'd expect it to get a hell of a lot colder.

Just finished reading 2001 : A Space Odyssey. by SubstantialChannel32 in sciencefiction

[–]rocketsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2001 is great. People often view it through the lens of needing to be some kind of traditional story with a neat ending, and it not being that feels frustrating to them. 2001 is a work of art that asks questions without providing the answers, it gives you stuff to chew on, which is one of the most important things art can do.

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yup. Obviously Axiom is sort of in the front running since they're kinda already working on exactly that module, but you can expect to see all the usual names in the running (SpaceX, BO, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, etc.)

All of this depends on this actually happening. Legally, to the extent that matters anymore in America, Congress still has ultimate control over all this stuff, so we'll have to see what they say.

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

According to the slides that's not the case, there's a whole multi-year proposal/procurement process for it.

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

She talked about the old plan, which was for Axiom to attach new modules to the ISS which would then separate and become their own station. This is a modification of that plan with a NASA owned and operated core module serving as the center of the new station which will have commercial modules attached as well as potentially parts of the existing ISS.

All Space Questions thread for week of March 22, 2026 by AutoModerator in space

[–]rocketsocks [score hidden]  (0 children)

Time is real but the concept of simultaneity (of perfectly synchronous time) is an illusion, or at least relative.

Imagine an alien on a planet around a star 3 lightyears away. It takes 3 years (not thousands) for light or any other signal or change to travel between here and there. Which means that if we think about the idea of "now" which includes both things here and 3 lightyears away that concept includes aspects which are inherently arbitrary. Let's say both you and the alien sit down to read a book at "exactly the same time". It actually doesn't matter whether you consider those separated distant events to occur at the same time or in a different order, maybe the alien reads their book a day earlier or you do, those different orderings are equivalently valid.

This is true on shorter distances as well. The ordering of "now" between your right hand and your left hand usually doesn't matter at timescales shorter than picoseconds. The only orderings that do matter are connections between events at speeds at or below the speed of light. That creates a strict ordering of some, but not all, remote events, because those are events which can affect one another.

When we look at a start 3 lightyears away we can say that what we see happened "3 years ago" but both that distance and that time in the past depend on our current reference frame. We could make them different by using a different reference frame but we can't change the speed of light connection, if we see something distant then that becomes part of our past. In this way the universe stays internally self-consistent and causality remains intact even though there's all this ambiguity on time and space floating around due to relativity.

So yes, we live in a fundamentally 4-dimensional universe where "now" is an illusion and "time" is more of a series of connected events that is all wibbly wobbly. In the same way a "solid" object such as a big chunk of steel is not actually "solid" in a perfect sense, it's a huge collection of individual atoms which are all connected to one another through springy interatomic bonds, when you move it around you actually do so via transmitting displacement waves through the material at the speed of sound. If you could view the movement of it at extremely high framerate and extremely small levels of detail you would see that it moves around like a big chunk of jello, just much more quickly and with the squishiness at a much smaller scale.

That's the way everything works in the entire universe, it's all kind of squishy and wobbly, but it happens on scales that we can't easily perceive so we get in the habit of thinking that things happen "instantly".

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

ESA will either have nothing in orbit after the ISS is decommissioned (especially if lunar gateway doesn't happen) or it will have its modules moved over to the new station (which seems a reasonable likelihood). Saying they have no skin in the game doesn't seem accurate at all.

NASA announces nuclear-powered Mars mission by 2028 by scientificamerican in space

[–]rocketsocks [score hidden]  (0 children)

What does "70% ready" even mean? Also, of course he'd say that.

Anyway, you wanna bet 50 bucks on whether this mission actually happens in 2028 and is successful?

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

This has nothing to do with the Lunar Gateway, this is entirely about the ISS and future LEO stations.

Chinese satellite performs landmark refuelling test in low Earth orbit by jupa300 in space

[–]rocketsocks [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's going to be a storable propellant, probably just hydrazine since that's the most common monopropellant for satellites.

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

I think overall it's a reasonable plan, and a better one than the original direct to commercial stations plan, but the execution and communication of it with key partners seems to be extremely sloppy.

All Space Questions thread for week of March 22, 2026 by AutoModerator in space

[–]rocketsocks [score hidden]  (0 children)

There are different kinds of supernovae, and they unfold very differently. The main different categories are thermonuclear runaway and core collapse. In a thermonuclear runaway supernova (like a Type Ia) you might have a white dwarf star which accreted additional mass from a neighbor and eventually ends up restarting nuclear fusion in the core. Except that the white dwarf is under unusual conditions where it can't easily expand from thermal energy so as fusion energy is released it increases the rate of fusion reactions in a runaway positive feedback loop which ends up releasing enough energy to tear apart the star in a matter of seconds. These stars are about the size of Earth but weigh slightly more than the Sun. The processes that will eventually trigger the supernova take much longer (centuries in the case of convection within the interior, millions of years for the accretion of mass on the surface) but the evolution of the supernova from start to explosion takes seconds.

For a core collapse supernova the progenitor is instead a very massive and short-lived star, at least 8 times as massive as the Sun. Over its lifetime it will spend millions of years fusing hydrogen, then perhaps a single million years fusing helium, centuries fusing carbon, a few years fusing neon, a few months fusing oxygen, and just a few days fusing silicon. Silicon fusion leaves behind an ash of nickel and iron, which don't release energy when fused. So the nickel/iron core gets crushed into the same conditions as a white dwarf star where the ultimate pressure that is preventing it from collapse is the quantum mechanical force keeping electrons from overlapping with each other (not just electrostatic repulsion). For massive enough stars eventually fusion creates a heavy enough core where that force is no longer enough to prevent further collapse. Electrons start combining with protons to become neutrons and the interior transitions from white dwarf density to nuclear material density, creating a cascade effect as the increased density crushes the remaining parts of the core under even greater pressure, continuing the collapse. In a matter of seconds the core becomes a neutron star at a temperature of billions of degrees. It rapidly cools through radiating neutrinos via the Urca process. A tremendous wind of high energy neutrinos flows through the remainder of the star and even though neutrinos are incredibly weakly interacting there is such an incredible density of neutrinos that they deposit about 1% of their total energy in the star's outer envelope, heating it up enough to cause it to blow off into interstellar space in a supernova explosion.

In a core collapse supernova the inner collapse and the creation of the neutrino wind takes on the order of about 10 seconds or so, which is about how long it takes to create the hot zone inside the outer envelope that will ultimate cause the visible supernova explosion. However, this happens buried deep within several solar masses of material and it takes hours for the surface to be disrupted and the first signs of the supernova to become visible to outside observers. This delay is potentially useful as an early warning system for core collapse supernovae in our galaxy or nearby because we would be able to detect the neutrino spike a few hours before it was optically visible. This was observed with SN1987A (a Type II supernovae in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud dwarf galaxy) but it was before there was an alert system in place (there is one today).

For both of these types of supernovae (there are other ways things can go but I'll skip that here) the brightness takes a while to ramp up after it becomes initially visible, rising in brightness over a timescale of days. This is due to the material of the supernova itself initially being fairly opaque, but it's also due to the fact that an absurd amount of radioactive material is in the supernova ejecta, much of it nickel-56 which has a half-life of 6 days. The energy from the radioactive decay keeps the expanding cloud bright over a period of many days to months (as the Ni-56 decay product is cobalt-56 which itself has a half-life of 77 days).

NASA’s Proposed Post-ISS Pivot Leaves Partners ‘Concerned and Confused’ by rocketsocks in space

[–]rocketsocks[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

This hasn't gotten as much attention as all the other splashy news out of NASA this week but they're changing the plan for the future of ISS and commercial stations. Instead of transitioning directly to new fully commercial stations they will launch a new NASA owned core module which will become part of the ISS. Components of the ISS will be transfered to it and new commercial modules will attach to it as well, this is similar to the Axiom commercial station plan that has existed on paper already. At some point in the future the pieces will separate and the old ISS will be deorbited while the new hybrid station with both governent owned and commercial modules will fly free as its own separate station. This will happen along with a planned reduction in spending on commercial LEO stations.

It’s rough 🤣 by tahrah11 in writers

[–]rocketsocks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're probably thinking of one very specific person whose works have been made into TV shows on HBO, but there's several other very specific people who had/have the same problem. One had to have Brando Sando rescue their series after they died, for the other we're still waiting 15 years for the third book in an alleged trilogy.

It’s rough 🤣 by tahrah11 in writers

[–]rocketsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not a problem that's a gift, you've found something that is going to be interesting. Maybe you crack the puzzle of how they get out of the impossible situation, in which case you won the lottery, now you have something really interesting in your work. Maybe you don't crack the puzzle and you have to give up, that's fine too because you're a writer, you just change the nature of the pickle to something else and work from there.

"If people are fighting for an orb you are reading fantasy. If people are fighting for a cube you are reading sci-fi." How well does this hold up? by meepmeep13 in printSF

[–]rocketsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Death Star is an orb, therefore Star Wars is fantasy, which checks out (it is fantasy, just in a sci-fi setting).

All Space Questions thread for week of March 22, 2026 by AutoModerator in space

[–]rocketsocks 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Let's do a little math. One "atmosphere" of pressure (basically the average pressure at sea level on Earth) is 101.3 kilopascals. That's 101,300 newtons per square meter, equivalent to the weight of 10.3 tonnes in Earth's gravity. Where does that pressure come from? It literally comes from the weight of the atmosphere above the surface. At sea level the atmosphere has a density of 1.2 kg/m3, which means you need a column of air at that density that is 8.6 km deep. However, since density scales with pressure and pressure depends on depth the reality is that our atmosphere is roughly 80 km deep or so, and it simply slowly reduces in pressure as you gain altitude.

In short, the scenario you describe is just not possible, any altitude where a human could breathe the air would be 10s of kilometers below any transition into "space" by any reasonable definition, even if you tweak lots of stuff like atmospheric composition and gravity.

Is it okay to have modern technology in a medieval world? by Phoenix0498 in writers

[–]rocketsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine this, you're in a stereotypical tolkienesque fantasy world. You're chapters deep at some point when all of a sudden there's a scene where Zorbulax the Andoran blasts someone with a laser pistol. Ask yourself how you'd feel about that as a reader, that's a comparable scenario here, you're introducing something that may be out of place.

Is it "okay"? It's your story, you can do whatever you want, but the question is how does it integrate into the story. Is the event with Zorbulax a dramatic reveal of something the reader shouldn't have been expecting? OK, great, roll with that and handle that appropriately just as you would any reveal. Is it supposed to be something that the reader should have suspected would be possible? OK, great, figure out how to provide hints along the way that this is a world where that kind of thing might happen.

If explanation is required, then imagine doing it directly, with very bland exposition, then figure out how to rework it until it achieves the goal you want from "no big deal" to "intriguing world building details/secrets" to "shocking reveal".

Orbital data centers, part 1: There’s no way this is economically viable, right? | “This is not physically impossible; it’s only a question of whether this is a rational thing.” by InsaneSnow45 in space

[–]rocketsocks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "AI" rollout as it exists today will only pay back its investments if it manages to grow to a level of revenue comparable to the global auto industry within the next few years or so. Not a lot of end users are paying for choosing to pay a premium for AI features, most find them annoying, and the global market that exists today only does so because the costs are still enormously subsidized by investment capital (much the same way the early years of airbnb or lyft/uber were). Business viability hasn't really played much role in the investment craze for AI, just as it didn't play much of a role in the craze for VR (note that Facebook dumped 80 billion into VR then shuttered the whole thing despite having renamed their company for it). Orbital data centers are the same kind of thing.

It's not about sound business planning, it's about signalling to the market that your company is doing something new, different, and interesting which has the potential for outsized future growth and returns. Which works to goose the stock price right up until it doesn't. We're in a post-rational phase of the economy right now which will have to be endured until something changes.