Sixty Symbols started with the Messier objects

You're thinking of DeepSkyVideos. SixtySymbols is a general physics channel, though astronomy topics are sometimes covered. Both great channels, though, and both filmed and produced by Brady Haran.

Stars don't usually look green to us because they emit across a wide range of colors and our eyes blend that into white. So "green" here probably means the spectrum peaks in an unusual way. Does anyone know if it's a measured spectrum or a color-filtered image? (AI-assisted)

One thing to add to a message to the stars today. Go. (AI-assisted) 今天送往星空的訊息只能加一樣，你加什麼？

Sixty symbols and Dr. Becky. Sixty Symbols started with the Messier objects and now does interesting things to look at. Dr. Becky is an astrophysicist and does a lot of sky and astronomy news. Scott Manley is another good one if you want to hear about rockets

Anton Petrov talks about a lot of cutting edge science, he doesn't do a lot of astronomy, but he does astro-physics.

So not the best if you're just talking star gazing, but if you actually want to know how it works and why it's the way it is, he's a great resource.

He does have a thick Bulgarian accent, which may make it hard to understand at first.

Well the orbiting mirror project is nothing but investor bait. So many reasons why something like that could never work, only a fool would believe that company is anything but a scam.

As for starlink, we've been filtering out satellites from astrophotography for decades. It's pretty much a non-issue to all but the most sensitive equipment, which already had an expiration date due to the increasing number of non-starlink satellites. Newer satellites, including new star link satellites, also use a non-reflective coating to even further reduce the impact.

Orrrr?

One minute you're just hanging out in the universe, existing, the next you're getting spaghettied by a supermassive black hole traveling at over 2 million MPH.

Listen here we’ve all had the rebellious phase

AMazing! Archive: https://archive.ph/2rbva

Interesting aspect, yes. Now we need someone with the right simulation tools who can run this for a better answer.

But also the bigger it gets, the faster it clears its orbit, so the slower it grows.

why do we spend money on something so far away

I suppose for the same reason we spend so much money to gather intelligence on foreign countries. And besides 'black holes' there are a lot of 'rogue planets' out there. They're are being spotted as we've recently gotten a new wave of much better telescopes.

Agreed, they won't. By far. Maybe even humans won't see it lighting up.

I understand the economics of it, and appreciate the science, but can't help thinking that money could be spent on other things, that could be more beneficial to mankind, like climate research or finding ways to transition away from oil and plastics

Yeah, I agree it’s definitely not going to be linear growth, but I don’t think any potential great grandchildren of ours will live to see it.

OK, different source, different numbers. I thought I had a good source.

I disagree on the millions of years in the future, though: the more mass it gets, the faster it acquires more, so this is more exponential than linear. It won't be anytime soon, yes, but maybe faster than you think.

According to Wikipedia, it only needs to be 80 times as massive:

Jupiter would need to be about 80 times as massive to fuse hydrogen and become a star.[8]

Six billion tons a second ends up as an increase of about seven orders of magnitude lower than jupiters mass in a year, so it’s still several millions of years away from that point, assuming linear growth. I see no reason to assume linear growth, but this is probably still not going to happen in the foreseeable future.

The money is spent here, on Earth. It goes on wages, utilities, contractors and the like. Spending money is great, it keeps it circulating around! And in this case, in addition to paying everyone and everything involved, we add to our understanding of the universe. Money well spent.

Fascinating! At one point, I can't help but think, why do we spend money on something so far away, but on the other hand I'm always fascinated by space news

So it is at ten times Jupiters mass, and eats like a growing boy.

Interesting to see. Will it be able to feed up enough to ignite? For that it would need about a thousand Jupiter masses (so much about Jupiter just missing to turn into a sun...).

More mass, more gravity, more attractive to free-floating matter. But still some way to go from 10 to 1000 Jupiters.

Thanks for the reply, I had been operating under the assumption it was space junk because it didnt make any news and it appears noone else saw it and posted about it anywhere I can find.

It seemed to be a long lasting meteor (I would guess over a minute, but I didnt have my phone on me and it was over a year ago, so memory about actual length is untrustworthy) to not make an astronomy report but maybe I'm wrong.

Sounds like you witnessed a fireball meteor with a persistent train - the green color typically indicates magnesium in the meteor burning up, and that v-shaped tail is actaully pretty common for meteors entering at certain angles.

These "vanishing stars" were probly just imaging artifacts or plate defects from the old photographic techniques, since modern surveys with way better equipment havent found any evidence of them.