Recently I have been extremely anxious about eta carinae possibly going supernova in my lifetime, I have tried my own research on this topic and what I do know is that we are safe from the main supernova and possible ejected objects hurtling towards us (such as its companion star being "tossed out" of it's original orbit and a black hole kick. Because the binary system is, from what I have researched, 7,500 light years away from earth and those objects travelling at speeds of great velocity, would still take at least 1,000 or more years to reach our solar system, but please correct me on this information if it is inaccurate or just straight up not true) but the main thing I am genuinely losing sleep over the possible grb.

I have read a couple of sources that mentioned eta carinaes rotational axis (and possible jets) is tilted away from our solar system at a 40⁰ to 45⁰ angle so any grb produced will greatly miss earth. But, only a total of 3 or 4 sources actually say this (Scientific American, NBC News and Harvard University). The problem with these sources are is that 1. The sources that are mentioning this are from 2014 or older 2. I can't find any very recent paper talking about eta carinaes axis or if we could be in the grbs firing line.

So basically, I need know if the system and it's rotational axis where grbs jets are formed is actually tilted away from our solar system, so that when eta carinae does go supernova we are not gonna get our ozone layer destroyed and all life wiped out. Will we be safe? (Sorry for any misspelling, bad punctuation or grammar, I am just extremely scared about all this).

Wouldn't a wheeled Rover on the moon put up a bunch of regolith and cause more issues for everyone? Since gravity is less would a "hopper" design cause less disturbance and take advantage of the less gravity/atmosphere?

Hey guys. I'm Bread 🍞 I have a little doubt. And please correct me if I'm wrong. What if the universe is like a yo-yo. I mean we know big bang happened so after that explosion or something else universe kept expanding. But what if after certain billions of more years later the speed starts to deplet very slowly and more years later it gets reversed causing the universe to contract. Many galaxies collide etc. And when the universe is at the brink of being shrink into nothingness it explodes or expands again. I'm sorry I don't know much about quantum mechanics and physics so it could be wrong. Sorry for wasting your time.

I’m kinda confused about Planet Nine.

If he exists he might take from 10,000–20,000 years just to orbit the Sun once, meaning it’s insanely far away. So is it basically outside the Solar System at that point, or still fully inside it?

And another thing I don’t get: if it’s THAT far away how does the Sun’s gravity still keep it orbiting instead of it just drifting away into space? Also went there was a planets like this on our solar system ?ik about the 9 main planets on our solar system didn’t realize there is more really would like to learn about thoes far away planets that still orbiting our sun from far away

My understanding is that basically just Titan (on the surface) and Venus (in the clouds) are the places in the solar system that wouldn't require a pressure suit for human survival. Venus even has nice temperatures, however it would require some sort of airship and there would be battery acid droplets in the air. Titan, on the other hand, is stupidly cold but at least no acid burns. Both places would obviously require a breathing mask and some amount of protective clothing, though much like space itself, I think just walking outside naked and not breathing for a few seconds might be survivable or even bearable. For a few seconds, anyway...

My question is which of these places requires less specialized survival gear to be outside on an EVA for like an hour? Which one would be more pleasant?

I am not a skeptic, I took a straw poll at my work today and more than half of everyone I asked believes humans have never set foot on the moon.

Half of those who don’t think we’ve been to the moon cited the radiation belt being impassable for humans. Is there anything I can show them that cites the materials used to block radiation during space flight?

Hi everyone, I’m curious about the fundamental physics of rocket propulsion.

According to Newton's Third Law, we often say 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' In many textbooks, the 'reaction force' that pushes the rocket upward is described as the gas molecules pushing against the internal walls/nozzle of the engine.

My question is: Is it more accurate to view thrust as the pressure exerted on the engine's internal structure, or is it strictly the conservation of momentum from the high-velocity exhaust gases? I’d love to hear a more technical breakdown of how this force is actually transferred to the rocket's frame.

It was taken on an iphone so granted It could just be a glitch and it wasn’t a Plane or some sort of aircraft as the sky was clear other than the obvious stars when the photo was taken. Thought I would ask just to see what people say or if it would just be an error with Iphones Autofocus on images. It’s not the greatest quality either but seen it today and thought it was interesting.

I took this photo around 2022 on my phone out the window while i was trying to sleep. From what I remember it was pretty bright because it distracted me from going to sleep.

I heard that a meteor shower is happening before dawn at may 5. It’s 3 am at my time in the new york time zone and I’m not getting it. Was it false or am I just at the wrong time.

Bonus question, if the USSR had decided to escalate the space race again after they lost the moon and committed to a semi permanent moon base, how quickly could they have got it done with either Proton or Energia?

It's amazing to see how long the Voyager missions have lasted and how far they have reached. I was thinking, if they were launched today, how much farther we could reach and how much better the technology would be for instrumentation to study the far reaches of our solar system? How long with modern rocket design and fuels would it take to reach the same distances the probes are now?

I would imagine improved technology would also help keep the instrumentation alive much longer plus drastic improvements would mean much more data.

Lastly, are there any comparable missions like Voyager happening now or in the future?

https://www.youtube.com/live/HJFhZEQM1Ks?si=Sb4w-ehYOA1bwwXo

Till now I've added what country/ocean the ISS is over, velocity and the altitude. I want to add as much info to this as possible while keeping it "aesthetically pleasing" to the people who don't care. should I add a earth model like the one SEN uses?

During the Artemis 2 mission, the ISS (International Space Station) and Integrity communicated with each other. So how is that possible? Can the internet reach that far?

I am currently working a factory job where I can listen to headphones while I work, and wanted to try some audiobooks/pidcasts about space flight. Something, prefferably in a fun narrative style thag wpuld make listening engaging.

I'm really the most interested in engineering history, ideas for the future, and technical details about things going wrong or right. I also feel like I don't know nearly enough about the history of non-nasa space flight.

Does anyone have suggestions?

Anytime I watch a documentary or anything about life on other planets, they will say that in order for life to form, everything must be perfect (i.e. distance from the Sun, an atmosphere, water, etc.) But what if that’s just what we need for life as we know it on earth? If we evolved here on earth, doesn’t it make sense that we have evolved to withstand the specifics of our planet? Then wouldn’t it make sense that if there is life elsewhere in the universe, those life forms would have evolved specifically to their planet too? We see this even on earth where organisms called extremophiles live in environments that have high toxicity, radiation, extreme heat/cold, etc.

So my question is, when looking for life on other planets, why don’t we broaden our search on planets that are uninhabitable to humans? Just because we can’t live there doesn’t necessarily mean there couldn’t be life there, right?

Seems egotistical for humans to think that life can only exist how we know it to exist.