Seems like "evaporate" is the wrong term for something that's already a gas cloud. "Dissipate", maybe?
Could a gas cloud only be dangerous (to us) if it is starting to condense, and forming denser regions?
EDIT: The actual paper says "photoevaporate"; Wikipedia explains: "Photoevaporation is the process where energetic radiation ionises gas and causes it to disperse away from the ionising source. The term is typically used in an astrophysical context where ultraviolet radiation from hot stars acts on clouds of material such as molecular clouds, protoplanetary disks, or planetary atmospheres."
ahazred8ta · 19h ago
It's 300 light years away, almost 100 light years wide, and very very thin. This is not exactly 'near'.
bell-cot · 18h ago
Astronomical distances are kinda relative. The Milky Way galaxy has a diameter of 80,000 or so light-years.
And even if it was only 3ly away, we wouldn't be visiting this cloud any time soon.
The referenced article in Nature Astronomy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-025-02541-7
Could a gas cloud only be dangerous (to us) if it is starting to condense, and forming denser regions?
EDIT: The actual paper says "photoevaporate"; Wikipedia explains: "Photoevaporation is the process where energetic radiation ionises gas and causes it to disperse away from the ionising source. The term is typically used in an astrophysical context where ultraviolet radiation from hot stars acts on clouds of material such as molecular clouds, protoplanetary disks, or planetary atmospheres."
And even if it was only 3ly away, we wouldn't be visiting this cloud any time soon.