A radiotelescope image of the black hole at the center of M87 was taken a couple of years ago, adding strongly to the evidence that black holes are real.

No, but it's within a case. However, over untold millions of years, there will be erosion. Extremely sparse as interstellar dust is, over time the collisions will have their effect, slowly eating away at the spacecraft. At some point the case, record, and vehicle will be "eaten."

> ... super complicated and full of complex earth-based math ...

To the contrary, they are simplified as much as practical, resorting to very basic depictions of universally common natural measures, and using base 2 representation - the most basic number system. That doesn't mean inherent human assumptions aren't influencing layout or some other facet, but it's well within the bounds of reason to expect a technological society to be able to decode it.

Of course, the odds of such a society being close enough to find Voyager are low indeed (let alone the odds of detecting it).

Beware such depictions. Orbital space is nowhere near that densely crowded. The scale of the dots is massively exaggerated - necessary simply to see them on such representations. Were they to scale, they'd be far too tiny to be visible.

In this example, were the dots as depicted to scale, they'd be larger than cities.

Can you provide a credible reference for your assertion that reuse saves SpaceX 0 dollars?

> ... it’s just a marketing stunt that saved 0 dollars.

According to Musk, the marginal cost of launching a used Falcon 9 (ie, used booster and fairings) is around $15 million. Apparently, refurbishing the booster costs just $250,000. Based on these numbers, there's no longer any reasonable argument saying reuse is not cost effective.

The whole article attached to the image is but four sentences long, in which the answer is clear. Yet s/he asks if a rock on Mars is a terrestrial bird! Assuming it isn't a child (for which I made explicit exception), this person is so far afield one might wonder if s/he isn't trolling.

So, the utility of the comment is to hope s/he and others who read it won't do the same thing (again) - post before reading or giving reasonable thought. Admonishment can be useful. Indeed, you're employing such yourself!

> "If this rock were a real bird ..." [from the linked article]

Perhaps the poster is young, in which case I give leeway. But if an adult, this question is a terrible indictment on his/her education system. While one cannot know everything, there's an obvious lack of critical thinking, and a quick read of the four sentence article would have answered the question.

I believe the accompanying description is incorrect. This is a color image (note the copper color of the fenders).

Not certain quite how interesting this would be to a child (how old is your son?), but the 2007 documentary (not the more recent fictional movie) "In the Shadow of the Moon" might fit the bill.

Another excellent documentary for any audience is I think the 2019 "Apollo 11." This shows the ground crew along with the astronauts as they work through the first lunar landing mission.

Hope this helps.

It'll be good for everyone if they can execute on this. However, earlier European dismissal - "selling a dream" (spool to 3:25) - and subsequent resistance to reusable rocket development - "that does not make sense" (Google translation) - have put them in a very uncompetitive position.

Goes to show that even "respectable" publications like The Guardian aren't immune from resorting to click-bait.

Space is overwhelmingly voluminous and empty beyond everyday human experience. Even planets shrink to insignificance at Voyager distances.

To give an idea, look at this picture of the Earth+Moon and surrounding neighborhood, taken by Voyager 1. Even at this relatively zoomed scale, the Earth and Moon don't fill a single pixel of the camera.

To be clear, I do not in any way deny the possibility. Further, chemistry appears to be the same no matter how deep observations sensitive to such can be made. And that we exist means life is possible (statement of the obvious :-) ).

However, it might be exceedingly unlikely for reasons yet to be found. And again, we've no evidence at all that it exists beyond Earth. So saying "Life is everywhere" is a leaping statement of faith, not fact. Also, saying the "probability of them not existing is way less ..." is also a statement of faith. No probability can yet be determined beyond saying it isn't zero.

Caveat: Were the universe truly infinite, with matter and energy distributed much as we see it in our "corner," then yes, everything that's possible will happen. But as I read it, the universe is not infinite in that manner.

If you mean outside the Earth, there's absolutely no evidence (as yet).

Well, yes. I figure that's implied. Also, with a sample size of 1, and without any evidence otherwise, it's the only reasonable reference.

Nevertheless, pictures such as yours are humbling, considering the scale of what one sees.

Globular clusters are apparently considered poorer locations for potential life, with a dearth of heavier elements and high star population densities making for less stable planetary orbits.

If the stars align (heh), it'll soon be dwarfed by a monster that'll dwarf even a Saturn V. Rumor has it the first attempt at a Starship full stack launch will be in December (but of course any issue between now and then will change that).

SLS's prime contractor is Boeing, while this HLS's is SpaceX.

Not quite so colorful to the naked eye. But if you haven't ever been at a fully dark site, having let the eyes dark adapt, you're in for a wondrous sight. This web page might give some idea of what to expect.

Heh, having lived some years in the Southern Hemisphere, I remember well how there Orion is a summer object, and how he stands on his head! :-)

I believe the best long term solution is O'Neill cylinders. They'd likely be made from lunar and asteroid mined raw material. But of course, while within the bounds of engineering possibility, they're far off. In the interim, settling surfaces (Moon, Mars, etc.) is much less difficult.