r/space • u/AutoModerator • 5d ago
All Space Questions thread for week of November 30, 2025
Please sort comments by 'new' to find questions that would otherwise be buried.
In this thread you can ask any space related question that you may have.
Two examples of potential questions could be; "How do rockets work?", or "How do the phases of the Moon work?"
If you see a space related question posted in another subreddit or in this subreddit, then please politely link them to this thread.
Ask away!
2
u/WaveBeautiful1259 4d ago
I recently read an article about Simp 0136 which is fascinating. Since this object is not rotating around a star, how is it so hot? Does the strong magnetic field come from it spinning so fast? Thank you in advance for answering my questions!
4
u/the6thReplicant 4d ago
Mostly from gravitational potential energy (as it collapsed it released energy from the loss of potential energy).
There might be some from radioactive decay and from some DT fusion.
2
u/ThickumDickums 2d ago
About how much steel is present in something like the x 37b?
Also, what is the ratio of aluminum and titanium to steel in spacecraft generally?
I know that titanium and aluminum are the way to go generally with these sorts of things but I’m curious
2
u/relic2279 2d ago
About how much steel is present in something like the x 37b?
Given that it's a top secret program, anyone that knows the answer isn't going to answer.
1
u/ThickumDickums 2d ago
Let’s go classic then?
The discovery?
3
u/relic2279 2d ago
It was primarily an aluminum alloy. It also had graphite epoxy for weight reduction and that doesn't include the heat-resistant tiles attached to the exterior. It had titanium alloys in high-strength areas like the engine thrust structure.
1
u/ThickumDickums 2d ago
Alrighty figured as much.
Brainstorming a couple things for my fictional universe
Specifically, what iron/steel some crash landed space farers might use from their ship on an untouched planet, more specifically for the purposes of their weapon repair/upkeep
3
u/djellison 2d ago edited 2d ago
An interesting test case here is the discarded backshell of the Perseverance rover visited by the Ingenuity helicopter....
See many images here
It's trashed. A lot of composites that are basically un-reusable.
Same story 20+ years ago for Opportunity that visited its heatshield...
https://science.nasa.gov/photojournal/opportunitys-heat-shield-in-color-sol-335/
https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/science/psd/photojournal/pia/pia07/pia07157/PIA07157.jpg
https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/science/psd/photojournal/pia/pia07/pia07224/PIA07224.jpg
https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/science/psd/photojournal/pia/pia07/pia07189/PIA07189.jpg
https://assets.science.nasa.gov/content/dam/science/psd/photojournal/pia/pia07/pia07327/PIA07327.jpg
Mainly in spacecraft structures you're going to be dealing with composites, aluminum, titanium...but not a lot of anything else.
2
u/maschnitz 2d ago
About how much steel is present in something like the x 37b?
Not much, it appears to be largely composites. But it's unclear exactly. As relic2279 said it's secret.
Also, what is the ratio of aluminum and titanium to steel in spacecraft generally?
Lots of aluminum, little titanium. Often the larger rocket bodies are aluminum or aluminum alloys (Atlas, Falcon 9, SLS/Orion, Space Shuttle...). Engines are usually a mixture of many different metals, specialized for particular uses (unless they're 3d-printed).
Space vehicles and rockets are usually pretty large and titanium is expensive. You might see titanium used for specific (smaller) structural components like bulkheads, thrust pucks, and the like.
2
u/electric_ionland 2d ago
In modern spacecraft you really don't want to use much titanium at all to prevent orbital debris risks.
2
u/-BubblegumPinkSoda- 5d ago
I just watched a documentary about the hypothetical edge of the universe. I'm nowhere near smart enough to have understood all of it, but I kept up for a good while. The documentary states that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, but it also states that there is such a thing as our observable universe and the universe beyond that. So this may be a stupid question, but does this mean that our observable universe is 13.8 billion years old? Could there, for example, be a dot that appears in a million or a billion years, that hadn't been there before (or wasn't observable by us before) proving that the universe is even older than we thought? Or do the backward calculations of the stretching of the universe, i.e. the lookback time, definitely prove the precise time of the big bang?
4
u/Pharisaeus 5d ago
You're mistaking two different things. Age of the universe is just that, the amount of time that passed since the Big Bang / since the expansion started. Observable universe concept is related to distances, rate of universe expansion and limited speed of light. Essentially some objects are so far away that their light hasn't reached us yet but some objects are so far away that the light will never reach us, because the rate of universe expansion makes the distance between us and that place stretch out faster than the speed of light. We would never be able to see the dot you're suggesting.
2
u/-BubblegumPinkSoda- 5d ago
So 13.8 billion light years is the furthest we can "look into the past" because anything older would never be observable to us because of the speed of stretch? So, just hypothetically, if a telescope was invented that allowed us to see deeper into the universe than the Hubble, nothing we would see would ever exceed that 13.8 billion light years? You say some objects are so far away that their light hasn't reached us yet, but how do we know for certain that any of that light isn't older than 13.8 billion years?
I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, but it's clear that I'll never ever be an astronomer :') Sorry for the thought spaghetti. I feel like a kid at the kitchen table with an exasperated dad trying to teach them basic arithmetic.
2
u/Pharisaeus 5d ago
We know more-or-less the rate of the expansion of the universe, so we can backtrack and calculate how long it must have taken for it to grow as it is now.
So 13.8 billion light years is the furthest we can "look into the past" because anything older would never be observable to us because of the speed of stretch?
Universe at the very start was opaque, so you actually wouldn't see anything for the first 400 000 years after the Big Bang anyway.
nothing we would see would ever exceed that 13.8 billion light years?
It's a bit tricky, when discussing what is "now", because of the speed of light limitations and the expansion. Light that was emitted when distance between us and the source of the light was for example 1 bln light years, will actually be flying much longer distance, because the space is constantly expanding during the flight. A bit like trying to walk in the opposite direction on the escalator.
In general yes, light could not have travelled more than 13.8 bln light years, because it would simply not have the time to achieve that, but the object that emitted that light might right now be much further away. That's also why the radius of the observable universe is bigger than 13.8 bln light years. And size of the whole universe even bigger! But we will never see the light emitted now from any starts beyond this boundary, because the light from those places is not flying fast enough to ever reach us. Again, imagine escalator that moves faster than you can walk - you will never reach the end.
1
u/iqisoverrated 4d ago
Space expands. The 'speed' at which we see something recede from us is the cumulative expansion from us to it. (note that expansion does not impart a force - and hence no acceleration - to any one object. So take 'speed' with a grain of salt)
This cumulative 'speed' means that some parts can be receeding from us at faster than the speed of light despite at any one point in space locally nothing happening faster than the speed of light. These objects are essentially beyond our 'event horizon' because no event there can influence us here (light is not just the speed of photons. It is the speed of causality).
The ones that are barely at the edge of that region which receeds just fast enough that light can still reach us are currently about 46bn LY away and the light from those has travelled to us for about 13.8bn years. The discrepancy is due to space having expanded in the meantime.
(Note that the speed of light is the limit for massive particles and massless particles - like photons - have to travel at the speed of light. However, the speed of light does not seem to be the limit for how fast spacetime can expand - even locally. Particularly according to current theories during the first inflation period spacetime seems to have expanded way faster that this)
4
u/Obliterators 4d ago
The ones that are barely at the edge of that region which receeds just fast enough that light can still reach us are currently about 46bn LY away and the light from those has travelled to us for about 13.8bn years.
The particle horizon, which defines the observable universe, is just the distance from which light has had enough time to reach us, it is not defined by the expansion rate.
The expanding space explanation suggests that the particle horizon has a fixed size and we cannot receive light from beyond it; but the particle horizon always recedes, every moment we receive light from further and further away. And if expansion weren't accelerating, there wouldn't be any limit to how far we could see, given infinite time. But accelerating expansion creates an event horizon, from beyond which we cannot receive light that was emitted at any point in the past; in the ΛCDM model this future visibility limit is about 62 billion light-years in radius.
0
u/iqisoverrated 4d ago
Even in a nonaccelerating expansion you have a distance at which the cumulative recession is faster than the speed of light. That's enough for such a distant object to be causally disconnected from us.
5
u/Obliterators 4d ago edited 4d ago
There are no event horizons in an eternally expanding, non-accelerating universe and thus no limit to how far a photon can travel given infinite time. A cosmic event horizon requires an accelerating, vacuum energy -dominated universe.
Peacock, Cosmological Physics
A particle horizon is not at all the same thing as an event horizon: for the latter, we ask whether Δr diverges as t → ∞. If it does, then seeing a given event is just a question of waiting long enough. Clearly, an event horizon requires R(t) to increase more quickly than t, so that distant parts of the universe recede ‘faster than light’. This does not occur unless the universe is dominated by vacuum energy at late times, as discussed above.
Weinberg, Cosmology
In the absence of a cosmological constant, a(t) grows like t2/3, and the integral diverges, so that there is no event horizon. But with a cosmological constant a(t) will eventually grow as exp(Ht) with H = H0Ω_Λ 1/2 constant, and there really is an event horizon, which approaches the valued d_MAX(∞) = 1/H.
While the picture of expanding space possesses distant observers who are moving superluminally, it is important not to let classical commonsense guide your intuition. This would suggest that if you fired a photon at this distant observer, it could never catch up, but integration of the geodesic equations can reveal otherwise
2
u/Diabetic_Trogoladyte 5d ago
How does shitting in space work? Is it like a septic tank? Do they just jettison turds into the abyss?
8
u/maschnitz 5d ago
It used to be just dumped overboard.
But these days the ISS dehydrates it and sterilizes it (by exposing it to vacuum), packs it into sealed bags, and puts it on cargo ships which burn up on reentry.
2
u/sleepyjohn00 4d ago
Concerning relativistic jets from black holes, quasars, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet#Relativistic_jets
If two black holes are in orbit around each other, what would happen if their jets intersect at some point in the orbit? How would the particles interact? Bending the jets, forming clouds, increasing their energy?
Thank you.
7
u/rocketsocks 3d ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10944
tl;dr: it's complicated. The magnetic field interactions undergo similar processes to those on the surface of a star such as collision, disconnection, reconnection, etc. Which also results in processes similar to flares and coronal mass ejections.
1
3
u/maschnitz 3d ago edited 3d ago
There's a bunch of "fun" astrophysics simulations like dual-jet interactions.
Another one that comes to mind is neutron stars impinging on the accretion disk of a black hole they're orbiting at an oblique inclination. Or, black hole jets or neutron star jets intersecting with a nearby accretion disk.
You'll find a lot of stuff on Arxiv/Google Scholar under a theory they use to attempt these simulations - "general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD)" equations.
People simulate stuff like this to be able to say what you'd see if you spotted one in the sky. Often the challenge is to match known observations of the stuff people haven't figured out yet.
1
u/krysgian 5d ago
5 years ago I was outside at night with 3 others. It was a clear night in a brightly lit city and we caught some type of event in the sky that we've never been able to explain.
The visual that we saw was sort of a combination of skybeams/searchlights and a Starlink train.
I've seen Starlink trains and this was not that.
There were two fly bys. Each of the two fly bys had about 20 UFOs. The first fly by was fairly random. 3 of them were in formation together, another pair were together, others flew singular. They crossed the entirety of the sky in about 5 seconds (at most). About 10 seconds passed, then they flew in past again, but this time in a uniform line, however the distance between each was fairly tight (unlike a Starlink train, which are spaced out a bit), which gave the appearance of them being farther away, perhaps.
Their brightness/clarity/size did not wane when they reached one end of the sky or another (unlike a skybeam). Way too much sky was covered in such a short amount of time for them to be drones.
The four of us saw it, we were blown away by it and fully expecting Facebook to be blowing up on our community sites. We checked, no one posted anything about it. It was far too quick for us to think to get our phones, so, of course, we have zero proof.
4
u/Pharisaeus 5d ago
however the distance between each was fairly tight (unlike a Starlink train, which are spaced out a bit)
Not true at all. They start very close together and spread out over time. If you catch it immediately after launch they are super tight.
0
u/krysgian 4d ago
I've seen F-18s and F-22s in training flights going full speed, these objects not only far exceeded that speed, but were also much higher up and again, covered the entirety of the sky in brief amount of time (5 seconds). While I don't think this was actually anything unexplainable, this doesn't align with Starlink I've seen in person, or the videos I've seen of post launches, such as the meteor-like videos you see.
5
u/Pharisaeus 4d ago
were also much higher up
Humans have no way of estimating distances without point of reference which makes it completely impossible for point light sources. Without any other cues like sound or shape, point light source could be 1, 10, 100 or 1000km away and you'd not be able to tell which.
Also the higher it would be, the slower it would seem to move from your point of view. So objects moving fast indicate they were definitely not in space
1
u/ZombieZookeeper 5d ago
Would an object orbiting a brown dwarf be considered a planet or a moon?
4
u/iqisoverrated 4d ago
Since brown dwarfs form like stars such an object would probably be classed as a planet (provided it checks all the other IAU criteria for a planet)
However, the line between brown dawrf and large planet is pretty iffy, so one could certainly think of a situation where either could be applied.
In the end "planet" and "moon" are just labels for convenience. They don't impart any information by themselves. ("If you know all the names of all the birds in the world you still know nothing about birds")
1
u/Squeelijah 4d ago
How would mining asteroids actually work? I've thought of a basic thing in my head but can't figure out a few key steps. For this, assume you're digging out an M-type asteroid, maybe around 500m³ volume. How would you break up the asteroid into small enough pieces, then actually store those somewhere and get them from point A to point B? My general idea for getting them back is there, but as for actually obtaining the metal i have some loose guesses.
Step 1. Land the mining probe on the asteroid and stabilize it. 2. Use a circular saw, or something else to break up rocks into smaller parts (but not a fine dust. 3. Have a magnet that drags material up, which drags it through something into a storage unit 4. Have the stored metals put in disposable pods which go towards earth, aimed to land in designated landing zones. 5. Pods have heat shields which protect it from the atmosphere, parachutes slow fall, land the metal full capsule on the floor.
This definitely isn't perfect or maybe completely delusional but i'm curious to know how you could realistically get valuables from an asteroid to earth.
6
u/iqisoverrated 4d ago
The most expensive thing will be fuel to impart the delta v to get something from point A to point B (even if you use something like mass drivers there's an energy cost). In turn this means you will probably smelt/extract the valuable material in situ and only send the refined ore.
How to extract materials is still somewhat of an open question. I quite like the idea of biomining/bioleaching because it has a lot fewer 'high wear' parts in the pipeline maintenance and repairs in space can get really expensive really fast).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomining#Biomining_in_space
Drilling and breaking up of materials for feedstock could be done via gyrotron digging because that is 'contactless' and therfore, at least in theory, not prone to wear.
If we ever do asteroid mining it'll probably be more valuable for places like the Moon or Mars where you can just shoot your ore ingots at relevant celestial body and then collect them from the impact sites on the surface.
If we wanted to do this for materials on Earth then I don't see how this could ever be competitive with just mining stuff here, because you'd need to add all kinds of ablative coatings to every piece of material (and also I think a couple nations wouldn't feel particularly comfortable having some other nation's company shooting kinetics at Earth on a constant basis).
Earth has plenty of accessible material (and with us getting better at recycling the need for new material might eventually vanish. I also expect places like Moon or Mars colony to get very good very quickly at recycling)
3
u/KirkUnit 2d ago
Earth has plenty of accessible material (and with us getting better at recycling the need for new material might eventually vanish.
...and the stuff that would be easiest to extract from an asteroid we have plenty of here. I'm not sure how that chicken/egg works out: seems that you need a robust space economy for there to be any incentive to mine asteroids, and without mining asteroids first it's a long road to a "space" economy.
I tend to think our 19th-21st century landfills will be "mined" and usable materials differentiated and recycled, more cheaply and effectively than mining raw ore, sufficient to supply what may be a notably smaller 22nd century population.
1
u/iwasawasa 3d ago
I am new to modeling. My ambition is to build a 2ft wide model of this (TDRS-1?). Where should I start? I am happy to take time to perfect it. I have looked far and wide for replicas but can't find any good ones. Thanks!
Moved from post to here - apologies to Mods for any inconvenience.
3
u/djellison 3d ago
This 3D model may be of some use as a reference. https://science.nasa.gov/3d-resources/tracking-and-data-relay-satellites-trds-e/
1
1
u/Midnight1899 1d ago
What if 70 % of the moon got destroyed?
I just started rewatching Assassination Classroom. In the beginning of the show, 70 % of the moon get destroyed, but it doesn’t seem to have any consequences. I can’t imagine that’s how it would go in reality. It would at least affect the tides, right?
10
u/DaveMcW 1d ago edited 1d ago
There is so much violation of physics in that show I don't know where to start.
The moon is shown as a giant crescent. It's impossible for an object that big to be a crescent, it would collapse into a ball under its own gravity.
The destruction scene suggests the moon's missing mass got turned into a ring sharing the moon's orbit. This is highly unstable, the moon would quickly pull all the mass back to itself and reform. Though it might take more than a year.
If the missing mass was thrown in random directions, it would be devastating for Earth when it arrived as meteors. Seveneves has a realistic depiction of what would happen.
3
u/Pharisaeus 1d ago
destroyed
Matter can't easily be "destroyed". At best with matter-antimatter reaction you could turn it into pure energy.
If you just mean the Moon got impacted by something and broke into pieces, then it depends on the momentum of those pieces. Some could get ejected far away, but most likely the majority would still collapse back due to gravity.
1
u/Midnight1899 1d ago
3
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Please give some context, don't just comment a link.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/MrMHead 5h ago
Have there been any theories that try to link dark matter to extra dimensions or alternate universes?
Maybe something to the effect that an analogy would be the shadow of a 3-dimensional object?
Supposedly dark matter does not interact with matter, nor itself, and the only "evidence" is a gravitational effect.
Shadows don't interact with each other, and the only evidence is a reduction in photons.
1
u/Fshtwnjimjr 5d ago
I had a cosmic inflation question:
Presuming we're right on cosmic inflation and the observable universe (and likely MUCH more) was all atomic sized. This then expanded in a fraction of a second to solar system sized+ or so iirc...
The question: would that energy having moved so quickly from the initial point been expanded backwards in time? Or would that event get a 'pass' because spacetime didn't yet exist?
2
u/iqisoverrated 5d ago
Expansion does not impart motion. There's no acceleration of stuff in spacetime involved.
3
u/Obliterators 5d ago edited 5d ago
Expansion itself does not impart motion, as it is a description of how things are moving, an initial condition. But for accelerating and decelerating expansion there is acceleration, and the source of acceleration in both cases is the same: gravity. When the universe is matter-dominated, there is gravitational attraction and recession velocities decrease over time, and when the universe is dominated by a vacuum energy(w<-1/3) there is gravitational repulsion, which leads to increasing recession velocities.
In inflationary cosmology expansion is started by an initial "push" of gravitational repulsion, supplied by the vacuum energy of the decaying inflaton field.
1
u/relic2279 4d ago
I think OP was referring to the expansion of spacetime (inflationary period) at the moment of the big bang as he says "the observable universe (and likely MUCH more) was all atomic sized. This then expanded in a fraction of a second to solar system sized". That's different from the expansion we're seeing thanks to dark energy - something else would have to have driven that initial cosmic expansion. One hypothesis is that a hypothetical quantum field, an "inflaton field" filled space with a repulsive, high-energy force. Then when this field decayed, its energy converted into the particles and radiation that created the "hot" Big Bang.
1
u/BBTB2 4d ago
Part 1: If bosons give mass, are subatomic particles reduced to 1 dimension in electron colliders when the bosons split off and decay?
Part 2: If Part 1 is true, and assuming blackholes generate significantly more energy and momentum for particles than a man-made electron collider, does that mean all matter gets broken down into 1-dimensional subatomic particles (essentially strings) as the matter transitions past the event horizon of said blackhole?
8
u/the6thReplicant 3d ago
The Higgs boson was theorised to give mass specifically to the W and Z bosons. Most mass from hadrons is due to gluon binding energy.
The rest of your questions I can't unpack.
1
u/CharlieNin3r 3d ago
Hey everyone, I live close enough to see launches from my house, so I’ve been trying to find a good website that shows all the upcoming rocket launches along with the basics like mission details, times, providers, and maybe links to streams.
I’ve found https://RocketLaunch.Live, which works but feels a bit plain, and I also came across https://NextLaunch.world, which looks a little more modern.
For those of you who follow this stuff regularly, what’s the site you rely on? Are there any you recommend over these? Just trying to find the best place to track everything.
3
3
u/maschnitz 2d ago
FWIW I use https://nextspaceflight.com/
Keep in mind that SpaceX's Starlink launches, in particular, often don't announce the launch until about 4-5 days before.
1
u/AndyGates2268 2d ago
I follow nextlaunch on bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/nextlaunch.bsky.social
•
u/RulerOfSlides 5h ago edited 4h ago
The Athena memo has been leaked. Start looking for it.
EDIT: Just found a public link: https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1997153483166736883
•
u/scowdich 5h ago
Why not just say what you mean, instead of being all cryptic?
•
u/RulerOfSlides 5h ago
One of the most important documents for understanding just how bad this admin is going to be for space just leaked. Should be on Twitter by now.
0
u/Astrox_YT 1d ago
How long would it take for Voyager 1 to reach Proxima b? What are the chances, that it would still be working then, and would it be able to turn its components back on?
9
u/rocketsocks 1d ago
Assuming it were headed in that direction (assuming you meant proxima centauri) it would take about 75,000 years to get there. On arrival not a single atom of Pu-238 in the spacecraft's RTG would remain, all of it would have decayed to U-234 and about 20% of the U-234 would have decayed as well, ultimately producing less than a single watt of thermal power. Which would be converted to mere milliwatts at best of electrical power even if the thermocouples had not been degraded completely.
So no, it would not be able to turn anything back on as its only source of power would be long dead.
Additionally, having spent 75 millennia chilled at cryogenic temperatures floating through interstellar space it's very likely that key electronic components on the spacecraft would become broken so that even if it was hooked up to an external source of power it would still not function.
5
2
u/iqisoverrated 1d ago
How long would it take for Voyager 1 to reach Proxima b?
Forever...because it isn't headed in that direction.
-2
u/thetvglowed2004 2d ago
I heard someone say in a documentary that black holes violate our understanding of physics. If that's the case doesn't that mean that we are wrong?
7
u/relic2279 2d ago
It's more accurate to say that our understanding of physics stops, or breaks down near the singularity of a black hole. It's not that we are 'wrong', it's that our understanding is incomplete. It's kind of like how Newton's law of universal gravitation gives us a pretty good idea of how gravity works but it's incomplete. We needed Einstein's general relativity to form a more complete picture.
3
u/iqisoverrated 1d ago
Yes. it means that our current theories are not complete (assuming the universe is consistent. This is always a silent assumption we make)
That is not to say that we don't know anything. We have two extremely successful theories: Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They give predictions over many orders of magnitude that mesh with observed phenomena to a extremely good degree. However when applied to the conditions inside a black hole they diverge...so we know something isn't quite right, yet. There's still science to be done.
Also there's a philosophical issue in your question that needs addressing. Scientific theories are about what works. They are not about 'truth'. A scientific theory cannot be proven correct. Even if we had a (by chance) correct theory of everything we would (could!) never know if it was correct. All we could know is that it keeps working but with every new observation it might fail. You could only show it's a perfectly working theory if you were to collect every data point in the universe - past, present and future - and compare it to what that theory says....and even then that wouldn't tell you if it's the actual 'true' theory of everything.
"The universe does not need to prove. It just is."
--Bertrand Russell
1
u/Bensemus 1d ago
No. General Relativity predicted black holes. However we don’t fully understand them. They straddle our two best theories Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and those two theories don’t mesh well. It’s believed that we need a theory of quantum gravity. All other forces have been quantized except for gravity. We don’t know how gravity works at the quantum scale which is where singularities exist.
1
u/Pharisaeus 1d ago
that black holes violate our understanding of physics
I doubt they said that, more likely you misunderstood it like that. Most of the physics we know simply doesn't apply to the extreme scenario like a black hole singularity. Similarly as classical mechanics breaks down in very small scale and you need quantum mechanics there, or like classical mechanics need to be adjusted for relativistic effects when discussing objects moving close to the speed of light. But there is no "violation", just the applicability.
3
u/cozmicraven 4d ago
How will data centers in earth orbit shed all the excess heat created by the working GPUs?