Voyager Spacecraft Detect An Increase In the Density of Space Outside the Solar System 88
As Voyager 2 moves farther and farther from the Sun, the density of space is increasing. "It's not the first time this density increase has been detected," notes SciencAlert. "Voyager 1, which entered interstellar space in 2012, detected a similar density gradient at a separate location." From the report: Voyager 2's new data show that not only was Voyager 1's detection legit, but that the increase in density may be a large-scale feature of the very local interstellar medium (VLIM). The Solar System's edge can be defined by a few different boundaries, but the one crossed by the Voyager probes is known as the heliopause, and it's defined by the solar wind.
[...]
One theory is that the interstellar magnetic field lines become stronger as they drape over the heliopause. This could generate an electromagnetic ion cyclotron instability that depletes the plasma from the draping region. Voyager 2 did detect a stronger magnetic field than expected when it crossed the heliopause. Another theory is that material blown by the interstellar wind should slow as it reaches the heliopause, causing a sort of traffic jam. This has possibly been detected by outer Solar System probe New Horizons, which in 2018 picked up the faint ultraviolet glow resulting from a buildup of neutral hydrogen at the heliopause. It's also possible that both explanations play a role. Future measurements taken by both Voyager probes as they continue their journey out into interstellar space could help figure it out. But that might be a long bet to take. The findings have been published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
[...]
One theory is that the interstellar magnetic field lines become stronger as they drape over the heliopause. This could generate an electromagnetic ion cyclotron instability that depletes the plasma from the draping region. Voyager 2 did detect a stronger magnetic field than expected when it crossed the heliopause. Another theory is that material blown by the interstellar wind should slow as it reaches the heliopause, causing a sort of traffic jam. This has possibly been detected by outer Solar System probe New Horizons, which in 2018 picked up the faint ultraviolet glow resulting from a buildup of neutral hydrogen at the heliopause. It's also possible that both explanations play a role. Future measurements taken by both Voyager probes as they continue their journey out into interstellar space could help figure it out. But that might be a long bet to take. The findings have been published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
Voyager I & II are awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
> Soon.
IMHO Voyagers used environment to get so far. Current Solar system does not allow same kind of voyage and it would cost far more to do it.
are you an ummoite or Raelist? (Score:2)
Oh, so that's what an invisible barrier looks like
Mankind is quarantined [wikipedia.org] from the rest of the Galactic Federation [unarius.org] until the race has evolved to sufficient maturity. (The fact that you're snickering up your sleeve at this emissary [messynessychic.com] is just proof of our species' shortcomings...)
Re: are you an ummoite or Raelist? (Score:1)
I heard that the Vogon's built a giant wall around this solar system. No doubt to keep illegal aliens from entering, or us from escaping.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I thought the story was considerably older - a decade or two.
Re: (Score:2)
And it takes so much time to reach the interstellar space that we (any country on Earth) should launch newer models filled with the latest technology advances. Soon.
Well that Musk guy tried with a 2008 Tesla Roadster, but you probably mean the 2021 model.
Re: (Score:1)
New Horizons - Launched 16 years ago , distance from Earth- 50 AU
New Horizons will eventually pass the Voyager spacecraft.
Re: Voyager I & II are awesome (Score:5, Informative)
> Voyager - Launched 43 years ago , distance from Earth- 150 AU
> New Horizons - Launched 16 years ago , distance from Earth- 50 AU
>
> New Horizons will eventually pass the Voyager spacecraft.
50 AU x 3 = 150 AU
16 Y x 3 = 48 Y
Unless Voyager starts slowing down I donâ(TM)t see how New Horizon will catch up.
Speed from our sun:
Voyager: 17 kps
Voyager II: 15.3 kps
New Horizon: 16.3 kps
Sources:
https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/m... [nasa.gov]
https://ourplnt.com/new-horizo... [ourplnt.com]
Re: Voyager I & II are awesome (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
> Voyager was boosted by multiple gravity assists that make its speed faster than New Horizons will travel. Voyager 1 is escaping the solar system at 17 kilometers per second. When New Horizons reaches that same distance 32 years from now, propelled by a single planetary swingby, it will be moving about 13 kilometers per second. -> https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
It took Voyager 1 28 years to reach 100 AU. New Horizons will take 32 years to reach the same distance.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it seems that the big countries that can afford such missions, are also obsessed with Science having a profitable end goal.
There is no money in knowing what is between the gaps between Star Systems. It won't let Apple make a faster Phone, or Google sell more Ad's. It won't solve global warming, or make hamburgers taste better.
Today knowing more about the Universe is considered a waste. We only want science that the Engineers can get their hands on and make money off of it.
This is really a Sad
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that the love of money is a bad thing? /s (in case anyone is confused)
I don't follow it enough to write authoritatively, but there has been talk of mining asteroids for precious metals, rare earth minerals, etc. Again, I don't know enough to have much opinion of whether that investment is more important than oh, say, investing in medical / virus research. But I know which one I'd like to see now, and always have (wanted more investment in cancer and virus research. Throw in prion research
Density of space is increasing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is there a scientist in the house? (Score:5, Informative)
Talking about the density of space is like talking about the half-life of time. It makes no sense.
Looking at TFA, it seems that what they are measuring is the electron density in free space as it varies with distance from the sun, and surprisingly there are more electrons per unit volume measured outside of the edge of the solar system (heliopause).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Talking about the density of space is like talking about the half-life of time. It makes no sense.
Looking at TFA, it seems that what they are measuring is the electron density in free space as it varies with distance from the sun, and surprisingly there are more electrons per unit volume measured outside of the edge of the solar system (heliopause).
Appreciate that very surprising explanation of how they measured the density of a particular space.
How very nonsensical of you.
Re:Is there a scientist in the house? (Score:4, Informative)
No, they did not measure the density of space. They measured the _electron_ density in space.
But, you be you, and good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they did not measure the density of space. They measured the _electron_ density in space.
But, you be you, and good luck with that.
Where exactly, do electrons exist?
Yeah, you go off and ponder a different answer than mine. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about the density of space is like talking about the half-life of time. It makes no sense.
No, this assertion makes no fucking sense.
Space- or outer space- call it what you will, refers to the area outside of and between celestial bodies.
Space in this instance is not analogous to a vacuum, or the metric distance between those bodies, and it most certainly has a density. There are better terms to use than space to avoid the ambiguity you're trying to pick nits on, like (inter)?(stellar|galactic) medium; but still, space suffices.
measured the _electron_ density
I'm confused. Do you think electrons do not have mass?
What does on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Space != space
Unfortunately for English, we don't have a nice way to distinguish parts of speach, other than by usage.
In other languages it is clear when a word is being used as a noun, or an adjective, or other form.
Re: (Score:3)
In other languages you also have homophones in spoken language and homonyms in written language that can cause confusion if the context is ambiguous. That is how word plays and puns work. The problem can usually be resolved by putting additional words in there to make the context clear.
Re: (Score:3)
In other languages you also have homophones in spoken language and homonyms in written language that can cause confusion if the context is ambiguous. That is how word plays and puns work. The problem can usually be resolved by putting additional words in there to make the context clear.
The context isn't ambiguous.
Someone is being pedantic.
It's similar to saying "I butchered my ass and had it for dinner", and OP saying "hyuck hyuck, you cut your butt off and ate it?!?!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To a physicist, the use of density would imply energy and mass. Not sure why you're confused.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd disagree unless you're calling mass and energy the same thing, which might make some sense in the context of interstellar space, but isn't the normal usage. So maybe to an astrophysicist, but not us earth-bound-physicists to whom "density" without other context means simply mass per volume, otherwise it's specified e.g. "charge density", "probability density" etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Interaction between matter and even photons will create pressure. A higher energy density will have a effect on any body with mass. If we assume that interstellar space is filled with the so-called "Galactic wind", which is streams of photons and charged particles, then that energy pressure will effectively have mass, and will most certainly be measurable by any probe we send out beyond the heliosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a space right here at the bottom of my keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
We have Void, and Cosmos. And I expect many other words that can mean the same as outer space.
Space was rather accurate description from its classical understanding at the time. Where we just assumed there was nothing between the planets other than some forces that we didn't quite understand. Like Gravity and Light.
Now that we have tools that can measure it, we find that it isn't just a blank void, but more complex, with a weather and patterns. So Space is probably not the best description.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about the density of space is like talking about the half-life of time. It makes no sense.
The headline set off my physics pedant alarm. I should emphasise that I am not a professional scientist, but an engineer.
Having got over the headline, it is rather interesting to find out how diffuse matter is distributed, outside of obvious stars, planetary systems, and gas and dust clouds. There is a lot of stuff out there that is exceedingly difficult to detect, because it is not in the form of big, bright lumps of matter.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm amazed that those scientists way back in the 1960s thought of all of this, created a spacecraft that could pull this all off twice all these years later. I remember when they took off. I was just a boy.
Re: (Score:2)
It just means the luminiferous ether is more energetic as one approaches the crystal firmament.
Re: Is there a scientist in the house? (Score:2)
Time to Step Up, NASA... (Score:5, Informative)
But it's been 43 years since Voyagers 1 and 2 launched.
OK, costs $250MM and $895MM back in the late 1970s, amounted to an awful lot of money, so it was by no means a "cheap" experiment to execute.
But with NASA adjusting its mission to reflect the changes now happening in the commercial space sector, maybe it's time for NASA to revisit some of the long-range, long duration missions that it does so successfully. Most importantly, maybe now is a good time to think about some of the technological advances in the field that have happened since the Voyager probes launched:-
1. Cost of Launch
Both Voyager probes launched on Titan IIIE rockets, which had a launch cost of $72.5MM in 1974 dollars (roughly $403MM when inflation-adjusted). You could get roughly 4 Falcon Heavy launches for that sort of money. So start thinking about what sort of spacecraft you could put together with FH launches... (OK, point to concede here - this pre-supposes that it's possible to launch 4 quarters of a deep space vehicle to orbit and then magically assemble and fuel them there. We haven't done anything close to that since ISS assembly... but we do know how to do it.
2. Launch Mass
Voyager 1's launch mass was 1,820lb (825.5kg). By comparison, SpaceX calculate that a Falcon Heavy could boost 37,000lb (16,800kg) to Mars. For the sake of this comparison, let's assume that FH could lift the same mass for outer system missions but that it would just take a bit longer to get there... So the four FH launches we could get for the cost of the single Titan IIIE launch [in inflation-adjusted dollars] would get you 148,000lb or 67,200kg to the outer system planets and beyond for the same price. That's roughly 80 times the mass of a Pioneer probe... Just think about how much more science equipment and fuel you could put in a 65-plus ton deep-system vehicle...
3. Technology
Each Voyager probe has 69.63 kilobytes of memory. Voyager 1 has a 22.4 Watt transmitter [because it's launch power system generated just 470 Watts]. The main computer aboard Voyager can process a mighty 8,000 instructions per second. Chances are that if you own a smartphone, you have a handheld device processing upwards of 14 billion each second.
By any stretch of your imagination, NASA should today be able to put together a vehicle several orders of magnitude more capable than Voyager. Such a vehicle would be able to carry enough compute power to be semi-autonomous, able to follow high level instructions such as "center, track and photograph that planet". A 2020 vehicle would carry a more efficient fuel system, with the ability to carry more fuel, to give a much longer operating life. Using the same technology that NASA developed for the JWST, such a vehicle would be able to carry a communications dish and high-gain antenna that could unfurl in orbit, instead of being fixed (and therefore limited by fairing dimensions). To give you an idea of what is possible with today's technology: Hubble, which launched inside a Shuttle, has a primary mirror of 7 feet, 10.5 inches - 2.4 meters. The JWST primary mirror is 21'3" in diameter, or 6.5 metres. This difference in scale - for the telescopes - gives the JWST 6.5 times the light-collecting capability. That should mean that a long-range probe, fitted with more efficient amplifiers, a much more capable power supply, plus of course plenty of fuel, would be able to keep sending a signal we could detect far beyond the heliosphere.
How about it, NASA?
Re:Time to Step Up, NASA... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't New Horizons the very probe you are describing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you summarise the problem there. New Horizons was designed with the cutting edge of flight-proven technology when it was designed. In the early 1990s. There were some updates before launch, but not many, because of that need for "cutting edge" technologies to become "flight-proven".
You want to put your career on the line by putting a non-proven technology into a high-profile missio
Re:Time to Step Up, NASA... (Score:4, Interesting)
People like to thin science is done for the sake of science. It's not. These things had the budget because they had geopolitical motivations; it was to highlight the technical superiority of the US and Capitalism over the USSR and the Communist way of doing things. Those motivations do not exist anymore, so budgets are reassigned to the political topic of the day, like healthcare, global warming, social issues, and economic bailouts.
The DoD has survived by taking moderate budget cuts and arguing it's relevant in a unipolar world because it allows for American to be unipolar. It can do humanitarian missions like international disaster relief, and it maintains a strategic mission because parking a carrier battle group off the coast of an annoying country has a way of bringing those countries to the State Department for negotiation rather than belligerance, and yes if terrorists need swatting they can do it. NASA however has struggled to remain relevant and justify the high expense of their missions after the end of the Cold War; by design NASA is a relic that needs to define it's relevance; hence it's budget challenges.
Enter commercial space travel. If there's money to be made, and the commercial entities can do it cheaper than NASA (now proving to be true), then the commercial guys will drag the rest of humanity up there. That lowers the cost of cool science missions making it much more justifiable. Remember, Columbus didn't sail into the Atlantic to prove the Earth was round and his voyage wasn't funded for that, he went looking for a cheaper, faster route to China and India so he and his patrons could make money. The trans-pacific flights in the early 20th century were not pioneered with government technology, it was pioneered by Pan Am and Boeing who wanted to create travel routes to open up trade to Asia; the military borrowed their technology and bases and tagged along.
NASA's taking a strategic move here; if you can incentive commercial opportunities in space, the commercial entities will open the door and NASA will benefit to be right alongside. Their best bet is to be a regulatory agency like the FAA or FCC, regulating and guiding commercial space flight to take us into space.
Re: (Score:2)
Over the centuries, there were a great many achievements that were funded for reasons other than monetary gain. I mean, what is a cathedral for? Many great artists and musicians would not have been able to live and work without patronage. My crude analysis is that much of this sponsorship was motivated by various kinds of showing off among competing wealthy patrons, and this is still going on, but not in the same way that it used to. For example, the USA putting a man on the moon was perhaps not a great sci
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If economics were the reason for NASA's budget allocation then Congress would be shoveling truckloads of money into the organization. It has the best multiplier of any federal government agency at 7 dollars generated in the economy for every 1 dollar invested, after taxes are accounted for they Treasury makes money off NASA.
In the 1970s Gerard O'Neil had one of his classes figure out the ROI on Apollo. To everyone's surprise (including his) they found that JUST the taxes on JUST the improvements in JUST t
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me for being a bit Hobbesian, but if you look at when people do things and assume they're doing it for their own selfish interest, everything makes sense rather quickly. Congress is not interested in economic gain. They are interested in political gain. Some forms of economic gain result in political gain, and they are interested in that. But funding NASA to invest in a moonshot space project b
Re: (Score:2)
A cathedral is for political gain
That is possibly the reason for almost all dramatic architecture; to demonstrate wealth and power. Nonetheless, one can appreciate the beauty that can result from this.
Art is funded because people want to change how others think.
That is a rather narrow view of art. Sometimes, art is just is what it is, without being some kind of intellectual or emotional tool. Art that has an ulterior motive can already get funding from interested paries.
Science is funded because it can change people's lives for the better.
I think you are talking about technology, rather than science. Good science can lead to useful technology, but that is not the reas
Re: (Score:2)
It is also easier to make yourself feel better by beating up your enemies, compared to working to make yourself better.
Oh look China is making good products at a cheaper price. So we just put tariffs on their products, we don't bother looking inwards to see if there are inefficiency in our production methods that can be improved.
A group of people hate us. So we will arrest them, or make their lives difficult, vs actually seeing what we may be doing to make them hate us so much.
When ever someone says or doe
Re: (Score:2)
The military budget survives for three reasons:
1) To protect the investments of the multinational corporations who feed the congresscritters
2) The Pentagon has unlimited access to snipers and the home address of every one of those congresscritters
3) Conservative voters are cowards
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just matter of cost and technologies. The Voyager missions were only possibly because of a less that once in a life time arrangement of the outer planets. Any probe you sent now could only transit a single planet on it's way out of the system, maybe two if you're lucky or want to wait a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Your observation would be entirely and completely correct if we were contemplating launching a vehicle that was exactly the same as either Voyager 1 or 2.
But as I tried to point out in my original post, technology has moved on *so far* since the Voyager launches, that for the same cost in inflation-adjusted dollars, we could launch 80 times as much mass to the outer planets.
Another thing that technology has given us since the Voyager launches is the ion drive or ion thruster. These incre
Voyager detects an increase in density (Score:2)
and Captain Janeway asks 7 of 9 ti investigate
Good to know (Score:2)
That the density of the vacuum itself is decreasing. Of course, saying that the number of charged particles per cubic meter decreases, will not make such a nice headline.
But now that the space itself is less dense, will the Voyager spacecraft travel faster ? Or will their transmissions back home sound like a Helium voice ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly, you lack the education in physics, to be aware of empty space itself, without any particles, still being an object itself, that one might associate some kind of density.too.
Like the density of some quantum field. Or of virtual particles. Etc.
Which is exaclty what people here are complaining about. Smartass.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you lack the education in physics, to be aware of empty space itself, without any particles, still being an object itself, that one might associate some kind of density.too.
Beyond your clear ignorance in English (this sentence isn't saying what you wanted it to say) you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about with regard to space, either.
Space, the word, has multiple meanings, and none of them is a vacuum. In the context where it's unable to have a density, you'd be referring to space as the metric distance between celestial objects. Clearly they're not referring to that.
Outer space, or space, or the interstellar medium, or of course any other medium, is a hard
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually I was assuming it meant something like "the number of atoms per unit volume". If they're measuring ions that's a different measure. But I can understand why it would be easier to measure. (Also interesting would be the ration of ion to atoms.)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're measuring ions that's a different measure. But I can understand why it would be easier to measure. (Also interesting would be the ration of ion to atoms.)
They are different measures- but assuming the models are correct, one can be inferred by the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but...
This is a new area. I think assuming the models are correct is a bit optimistic.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean that all parts of the model are in question.
For example, while it may be possible somehow that something out there is causing an increase in ionization ratio, it's far more likely that there's simply more mass out there than we thought, and it's becoming ionized, expectedly.
So ya, I'm not really arguing with you... just that one can assign fair proba
Re: (Score:2)
Would a normal nerd reading "The Density of space" translate it unambiguously into "The charged particle density of space" ? I, for one, would not and I have a physics degree.
You have a physics degree, and you would not interpret "The Density of Space" as the amount of mass in a volume of space?
You should call your university and ask them for a refund, no offense.
Re: (Score:3)
When I write a paper, in the beginning I have to define the terms that are used further down in the paper. There I would write what kind of densities we would be talking about exactly and maybe clarify that these are referred to as just densities from that point.
Look through the links into the papers. Everywhere they use the word density they put another noun in front of it for cl
Re: (Score:2)
In science we're normally super pedantic in order to avoid different interpretation from the one that we intended to express.
The very paper referred to in the Article uses the phrase "Interstellar Density"
/me thinks you're not "In science", because you seem in capable of resolving a contextual reference when one result is nonsensical, and the other makes perfect sense.
Well that just doesn't make any sense! How can the distance between stars have density?!?!
No,
"Density of Space" means, technically, in this very instance, "electron density of the VLISW"
"Space" is a valid word for the VLISW, and though density and electron de
Re: (Score:2)
Surely a scientist would have been very confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the expression "interstellar medium", which is an established expression already.
Furthermore let's cite the abstract
Re: (Score:2)
Observations of a Radial Density Gradient in the Very Local Interstellar Medium by Voyager 2
It does say that, indeed!
But using your complaint- the density of what?
Tell me how you guys do it "In science" again.
I love the parts you bolded making my point precisely though. I thank you for that.
Think of the paper title as the headline. If you can.
Re: (Score:2)
In the abstract they do what I described I have to do when authoring a paper.
They state what they are talking about in the beginning, setting up some declarations or definitions that can be referred to later by shortened terms or even acronyms.
But in the sciencealert article they don't do that. You have to read a lot further into the article to get that those declarations and definitions. And they're the only ones who do it that way in with the given sources here.
In
Re: (Score:2)
In the totle, they merely refer to "The density" though (Radial density, to be precise- but still, that lacks a noun indicating what in particular they're measuring the density of within space/VLISM)
I'm arguing that that is acceptable for a headline/title.
The authors of the paper clearly agreed. Being their credentials as being "In science" are not in question as yours are, I'm taking some cheap shots at you to rub it in a bit. It's not very diplomatic, and
Re: (Score:2)
Everywhere they use the word density they put another noun in front of it for clarity in the beginning. Because that's how we do it in science.
The "very paper" headline reads: Observations of a Radial Density Gradient in the Very Local Interstellar Medium by Voyager 2
Ah, you're right. They clearly point out that it's the density of Radials in the VLISM.
Troll cave, lol. Someone get this man a shovel.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if someone uses ISM or VLISM, those who know the declaration know that it is a substitute for "matter and energy wit
Re: (Score:2)
I wrote that the term "interstellar medium" is already an established term.
Your initial complaint was regarding the lack of a specifier for density.
You're beginning to make me think you're just desperately looking for a way not to be wrong at this point.
And yes- scientists do just call it Space.
Of course they don't when they're trying to be specific- no doubt about that.
But specificity isn't a requirement in the headline.
VLISM is a type of space, it is therefor perfectly acceptable to use it in a summarized title; just as the paper did with density.
Re: (Score:2)
They also wrote it out as Very Local InterStellar Medium before they used the acronym. That way they declared the acronym.
That's good form. There might be no laws that require it to be that way, but it's become a convention.
Yes, VLISM is a type of space. Likewise VLISM is a specific type of space that is defined by the attribute of having matter and energy in it and being located what is defined as between solar systems. Such specific terms are
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can argue that maybe they were talking about all regions of space outside of the solar system, but that wouldn't make a lot of sense when taken in the context of Voyager, who is currently cruising through the- you guessed it- VLISM.
So again, I posit that the article's headline is merely a friendlier-worded, but equally accurate form of the paper's title.
Re: (Score:2)
What does "Very Long InStruction Word" have to do with outer space? You just proved their point. Being pedantic is important in science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @05:40AM (#60627844)
*VLISM- I mixed CPU architectures with astrophysical medium acronyms.
Surely a scientist would have been very confused.
by thereddaikon ( 5795246 ) Alter Relationship on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @06:28AM (#60628006)
What does "Very Long InStruction Word" have to do with outer space? You just proved their point. Being pedantic is important in science.
Did you forget the posts were timestamped before you tried to be cl
Re: (Score:2)
Was below my view threshold. So I didn't see it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, I give you the title of the paper the article was written about:
"Observations of a Radial Density Gradient in the Very Local Interstellar Medium by Voyager 2"
Density of what? Radials?
Is it important?
Not really. The overarching point is the same regardless of whether or not it is plasma density, electron density, or particle density.
Is it important for someone who wishes to reproduce the results, or le
Firmament collision (Score:2)
I'm expecting the Voyager probes to crash into the firmament any day now. I just hope it doesn't ignite a massive fire in the sky.
Re: (Score:2)
Na, it just will punsh a new hole which we see as a star from earth.
Star Trek like Technobabble. But it's not? (Score:2)
Soon they will hit the crystal sphere (Score:3)
Best sentence ever (Score:2)
slow down? (Score:2)
Did voyager slow down when it hit this dense space?