It used to be a star. Now it's a 10 billion trillion trillion carat diamond.

us1.campaign-archive2.com

14 points·DanLivesHere··5 comments

The linked article seems to refer to an incorrect star. The correct one (which is also named in the BBC article linked from this article) is BPM 37093: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPM_37093

All in all, the linked article seems like a direct restatement of the BBC article (with errors added), so I recommend you read the BBC article directly: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3492919.stm

It seems the universe wants me to know this. Immediately upon loading the page, the coffee house I'm in decided to start playing "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds".

And people say that colonizing space is a waste of money. I bet this one star would pay for the ship to get there!

There is actually a valid argument that investing in planetary / stellar exploration and exploitation is a net win for humanity. The 3He on the moon is probably the closest example, followed by the hydrocarbons in Titan's atmosphere. However there is the 'egg' problem of a viable industrial base off planet. I suspect that colonizing the moon has at least 'bonus value' associated with 3He supplies in the Chinese moon plans.

Is the Moon that good of a source for 3He? Wikipedia doesn't suggest that - it says that the Moon is thought to have 0,01 to 0.05 ppm on surface while natural gases contain up to 7% of normal helium with some of it in 3He form and the atmosphere itself contains 1.38ppm

Reply on news.ycombinator.com