S.M. Pritchard
@smpritchard.bsky.social
Physics BSc. | Hard SF Writer/Worldbuilder | Space Artist | Amateur (hopefully one day professional) Astronomer | They/Them | Opinions my own
This funding is legally required to be disbursed as directed in the budget. It is illegal for this money to be withheld like this. Russell Vought and the entire Trump admin are in violation of the law and need to be prosecuted and the funding released. This is screwing over so many workers!
February 13, 2026 at 7:30 PM
This funding is legally required to be disbursed as directed in the budget. It is illegal for this money to be withheld like this. Russell Vought and the entire Trump admin are in violation of the law and need to be prosecuted and the funding released. This is screwing over so many workers!
I was only able to afford to apply to 6 this year (though I did get a fee waiver for one). I think next year I'll adjust my strategy and apply to other programs in addition to exoplanets and astrobiology (maybe some stellar physics stuff?) and also keep an eye out for past-baccs and bridge programs.
February 13, 2026 at 5:12 PM
I was only able to afford to apply to 6 this year (though I did get a fee waiver for one). I think next year I'll adjust my strategy and apply to other programs in addition to exoplanets and astrobiology (maybe some stellar physics stuff?) and also keep an eye out for past-baccs and bridge programs.
First grad school rejection of this cycle and of course it's from my top choice program. Guessing this round is gonna be like last year.
February 13, 2026 at 4:36 PM
First grad school rejection of this cycle and of course it's from my top choice program. Guessing this round is gonna be like last year.
20 seconds. I suspected cosmic rays because it was so only a pixel or two across and quite bright with no blooming, and it didn't show any small-scale jittering from guiding corrections that I sometimes see with slower-moving satellite trails I've captured. Wish I could have grabbed the raw image.
February 13, 2026 at 6:39 AM
20 seconds. I suspected cosmic rays because it was so only a pixel or two across and quite bright with no blooming, and it didn't show any small-scale jittering from guiding corrections that I sometimes see with slower-moving satellite trails I've captured. Wish I could have grabbed the raw image.
I thought that briefly but it jinks around too much, each little segment is canted at a different angle.
February 13, 2026 at 6:08 AM
I thought that briefly but it jinks around too much, each little segment is canted at a different angle.
It could be multiple separate hits (it was a 20s exposure) but it's weird they're lined up like that. I know if it's a cosmic ray hit it's not actually the cosmic ray being recorded but the shower of electrons it makes when it slams into the atmosphere so maybe it's to do with the shower geometry?
February 13, 2026 at 3:15 AM
It could be multiple separate hits (it was a 20s exposure) but it's weird they're lined up like that. I know if it's a cosmic ray hit it's not actually the cosmic ray being recorded but the shower of electrons it makes when it slams into the atmosphere so maybe it's to do with the shower geometry?
I've seen cosmic ray hits in my data before but this looks different. I'm not sure what it is because in my experience cosmic ray hits are only a few px long, maybe 10-20 at most. It's also not a sat. The raw image wasn't saved as it was from a plate solve. Any ideas? (ignore misshaped stars)
🔭🧪
🔭🧪
February 13, 2026 at 3:08 AM
I've seen cosmic ray hits in my data before but this looks different. I'm not sure what it is because in my experience cosmic ray hits are only a few px long, maybe 10-20 at most. It's also not a sat. The raw image wasn't saved as it was from a plate solve. Any ideas? (ignore misshaped stars)
🔭🧪
🔭🧪
I'm pretty sure the article actually means mass driver and mis-interpreted it as a "catapult". Mass drivers have been envisioned since the 70's (like pretty much everything) and are basically just very high-speed maglev sleds. They'd be quite practical for launching payloads from the Lunar surface.
February 12, 2026 at 9:54 PM
I'm pretty sure the article actually means mass driver and mis-interpreted it as a "catapult". Mass drivers have been envisioned since the 70's (like pretty much everything) and are basically just very high-speed maglev sleds. They'd be quite practical for launching payloads from the Lunar surface.
I'm hopeful the the ILRS will actually get built for this reason. There doesn't seem to be any such long-term ambitions with Artemis so it's the only realistic shot at a Lunar station we have right now.
February 12, 2026 at 6:53 PM
I'm hopeful the the ILRS will actually get built for this reason. There doesn't seem to be any such long-term ambitions with Artemis so it's the only realistic shot at a Lunar station we have right now.
I don't believe LLM's can ever get to that point at all, but I also feel that there are some that will try use it to replace human researchers regardless and in so doing irrevocably damage science in the process.
February 12, 2026 at 6:18 PM
I don't believe LLM's can ever get to that point at all, but I also feel that there are some that will try use it to replace human researchers regardless and in so doing irrevocably damage science in the process.
I skimmed through most of this, I'll have to come back and do a proper read through, but it's hard not to become demoralized at the prospect of LLMs subsuming astronomy research. Makes me wonder if I should just focus on my own backyard astro work instead of bothering trying to get into grad school.
February 12, 2026 at 11:27 AM
I skimmed through most of this, I'll have to come back and do a proper read through, but it's hard not to become demoralized at the prospect of LLMs subsuming astronomy research. Makes me wonder if I should just focus on my own backyard astro work instead of bothering trying to get into grad school.
It's been so cloudy this month, I've not been able to get the scope out since January.
February 11, 2026 at 10:41 PM
It's been so cloudy this month, I've not been able to get the scope out since January.
The people hyping LLMs think they have internality and are conscious, which is patently absurd. They're grifters at best and delusional at worst. Why should we care about what the hypermongers say?
February 11, 2026 at 10:02 PM
The people hyping LLMs think they have internality and are conscious, which is patently absurd. They're grifters at best and delusional at worst. Why should we care about what the hypermongers say?
Weird how the people that view the Solar System as nothing more than a pile of extractable resources also tend to use "mankind" when describing who those resources would benefit.
February 11, 2026 at 1:58 AM
Weird how the people that view the Solar System as nothing more than a pile of extractable resources also tend to use "mankind" when describing who those resources would benefit.
Yeah, full-on settlement (cities, multi-generational residents, family-raising, etc) seems rather far-fetched to me, but a system of inter-connected bases and campuses with semi-permanent rotating staff? Very doable within this century.
February 11, 2026 at 1:51 AM
Yeah, full-on settlement (cities, multi-generational residents, family-raising, etc) seems rather far-fetched to me, but a system of inter-connected bases and campuses with semi-permanent rotating staff? Very doable within this century.
The Accords are at least I start, but the Moon Treaty explicitly outlined a system for designating natural science preserves, equitable management of resources, and emphasized environmental protection/contamination prevention. It was far more international whereas the Accords are rather US-centric.
February 11, 2026 at 12:05 AM
The Accords are at least I start, but the Moon Treaty explicitly outlined a system for designating natural science preserves, equitable management of resources, and emphasized environmental protection/contamination prevention. It was far more international whereas the Accords are rather US-centric.
I don't entirely agree with the Accords. I'd prefer if it had taken more from the Moon Treaty. As it stands, the US's view is that "space is not a global commons", which is very problematic from an ethics and sustainability standpoint. They're more interested in commercial exploitation than science.
February 10, 2026 at 11:59 PM
I don't entirely agree with the Accords. I'd prefer if it had taken more from the Moon Treaty. As it stands, the US's view is that "space is not a global commons", which is very problematic from an ethics and sustainability standpoint. They're more interested in commercial exploitation than science.
This natural history is part of our collective commons and should be preserved and studied, not ground up and sacrificed for "growth" or "progress". ISRU is in some capacity necessary, sure, but it must be regulated and environmentally considerate. We already have a framework for this in Antarctica.
February 10, 2026 at 11:22 PM
This natural history is part of our collective commons and should be preserved and studied, not ground up and sacrificed for "growth" or "progress". ISRU is in some capacity necessary, sure, but it must be regulated and environmentally considerate. We already have a framework for this in Antarctica.
I think, for exmaple, turning Eberswalde or Jezero crater into an open-pit mine would likewise cause real and irrevocable harm to many people by destroying the billions of years of natural history within the sedimentary alluvial strata, or using lunar fossil ice for rocket fuel for that matter.
February 10, 2026 at 11:20 PM
I think, for exmaple, turning Eberswalde or Jezero crater into an open-pit mine would likewise cause real and irrevocable harm to many people by destroying the billions of years of natural history within the sedimentary alluvial strata, or using lunar fossil ice for rocket fuel for that matter.
Okay, so would you be fine with strip-mining Yellowstone National Park or filling the Grand Canyon with luxury hotels? After all, it's just rocks.
February 10, 2026 at 11:14 PM
Okay, so would you be fine with strip-mining Yellowstone National Park or filling the Grand Canyon with luxury hotels? After all, it's just rocks.
I agree with Matthew's point, I'm not sure why you're quoting it back at me again
February 10, 2026 at 10:37 PM
I agree with Matthew's point, I'm not sure why you're quoting it back at me again
I assume it's because he's realized that he actually has to deliver on his NASA contracts instead of wasting money doing whatever it is he's doing
February 10, 2026 at 10:14 PM
I assume it's because he's realized that he actually has to deliver on his NASA contracts instead of wasting money doing whatever it is he's doing
It would not be better if it came at the expense of the eons of natural history in the Martian geology, which is the common heritage of all humankind.
February 10, 2026 at 9:03 PM
It would not be better if it came at the expense of the eons of natural history in the Martian geology, which is the common heritage of all humankind.
I think I understand and broadly agree. I suspect our differences are where we would draw the line. For me, ISRU should be limited to things like life support (using lunar fossil ice to supplement base water) and maybe local construction in as non-disruptive a way possible, not commodity extraction.
February 10, 2026 at 8:49 PM
I think I understand and broadly agree. I suspect our differences are where we would draw the line. For me, ISRU should be limited to things like life support (using lunar fossil ice to supplement base water) and maybe local construction in as non-disruptive a way possible, not commodity extraction.