

It used to be a star.  Now it's a 10 billion trillion trillion carat diamond. - DanLivesHere
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=2889002ad89d45ca21f50ba46&id=08699f34de

======
kinetik
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>

------
Groxx
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".

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

~~~
ChuckMcM
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.

~~~
yread
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

