Q&A 164: Could Too Much Gravity Prevent a Civilization Going to Space? And More...
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- In this week's live questions and answers show, I speculate what kind of civilization could be permanently stuck on the surface of their planet, if rival nations could shoot down each other's spacecraft, and how do I really feel about the Space Launch System?
00:00 Start
01:01 How much gravity makes spaceflight impossible?
04:40 Could a rival shoot down a rocket during launch?
07:07 Should I apologize for advocating for SLS?
11:50 Do photons experience time?
13:42 Can you see Earth's lights from the Moon?
15:28 Can we detect exoplanets with their magnetic fields?
17:27 What missions do I wish were never cut?
20:21 Does finding life mean we're doomed?
22:45 Are galaxies orbiting something bigger?
23:42 Can a star collapse directly into a black hole?
25:36 Should we move away from complex telescopes?
29:03 What does it cost to use Hubble?
Want to be part of the questions show? Ask a short question on any video on my channel. I gather a bunch up each week and answer them here.
🚀 OUR WEBSITE:
════════════════════════════════════
www.universetoday.com/
🚀 PODCAST LINKS:
════════════════════════════════════
RSS: universetoday.com/audio
iTunes: universetoday.com/itunes
Spotify: universetoday.com/spotify
🚀 EMAIL NEWSLETTER:
════════════════════════════════════
Read by 50,000 people every Friday. Written by Fraser. No ads.
Subscribe Free: universetoday.com/newsletter
🚀 OTHER PODCASTS:
════════════════════════════════════
Weekly Space Hangout: Weekly news roundup with Fraser, special guests, and other space journalists.
RSS: www.universetoday.com/feed/ws...
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
CZcams: / @weeklyspacehangout
Astronomy Cast: Award-winning, long-running deep dive into space and astronomy with Fraser and Dr. Pamela Gay.
RSS: astronomycast.libsyn.com/rss/
iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast...
CZcams: / @astronomycast
🚀 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY:
════════════════════════════════════
Patreon: / universetoday
🚀 OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA:
════════════════════════════════════
Twitter: / fcain
Twitter: / universetoday
Facebook: / universetoday
Instagram: / universetoday
Twitch: / fcain
🚀 CONTACT FRASER:
════════════════════════════════════
Email: frasercain@gmail.com
🚀 LICENSE:
════════════════════════════════════
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
You are free to use my work for any purpose you like, just mention me as the source and link back to this video. - Věda a technologie
'So, steady as she goes.' Dude, I love your responses!
One of the aspects of the Regan era Strategic Defence Initiative (AKA Star Wars) was to develop the ability to shoot down rockets during the launch phase. There were several systems proposed to do it, ranging from space based lasers, ground based lasers reflecting off orbital mirrors, to guided kinetic kill weapons. None got much beyond paper studies, but in principle, it is entirely feasible.
One of the concepts in my computer science education is software testing. Most systems lend themselves to testing sub-units of the code. For completeness most systems also can be tested after integration. The big brain 30 years ago, David Parnas, pointed out that Star Wars would demand software with millions of lines of code. The only way to have tested Star Wars completely was to put it through a nuclear war. So the software was essentially untestable. Who would be crazy enough to trust untested software with potential human extinction?
"None got much beyond paper studies"?
My step Dad was a machinist, he made parts, very special, very, very expensive part's. He said one day, these are for the Star wars program, they are sending these parts to space, or they would never make these parts out of pure Nickel, they would use aluminum for a prototype test article.
@@DigDougDig Assuming your dad wasn't mistaken, it was likely parts for the Brilliant Pebbles program: a set of satellite based interceptors that were designed under SDI, and which made it far enough to be prototyped. The reason I think this is because pieces of those prototypes actually flew into space as part of the barely related Clementine Program. So those parts had to have been space-capable to begin with.
@@z-beeblebrox yes, agree. The official name was the space defense initiative. Approximately 1983.
Pure Nickel is difficult to machine compared to aluminum. Must machine while cold, or it will gum up and stick to the cutting bit and break it. This always made my dad very unhappy. 😁
Great show Frasier! Glad to see a lot of these Q&A shows they are among my favourite!
Thanks for the great content!
I have only one wish for santa this christmas, that jWSt launches safely and ofc .. on schedule ;)
Great wish! I hope it comes true
My favorite space channel! Great episode again
Thank you Fraser!
Eyy, got into a second question show! Highlight of my month
Concerning your question, I don't believe there is a practical gravity well that could keep an intelligent species from conquering space. It is likely the preferred method to get to space would be different that what we use here on Earth, but there are many technologies we do not use that would be more advantageous on a high gravity world. One example that I can think of would be using the thick atmosphere that a high gravity planet would likely have as an initial source for lift. We don't do that because we haven't needed to do so, but it would be a possibility for a species living on a heavy planet. So to assume that a civilization would do space launches the way we have is a bad assumption. In a few short years, we may even develop methods that make rockets look foolish.
Question: Based on the information we have received from both Voyager spacecrafts, how much does our star protect our planet from cosmic rays from outside our solar system and how would a different star size or type work differently?
Love that magnetosphere question. The concept of just cutting to the chase is a brilliant idea. ;O)-
I'd like to see a telescope that parcels out any conceptial parameters to zero in on particular "livable" planets.
They can then detail each one as to what degree of life would survive and then further seperate if there actual is life on said planets.
Thanks Faser for your amazing work! A question has popped into my brain: The more I compare the universe to a very large computer program, the more I get the feeling that the universe is so big that it is right at it's maximum memory usage. We do not know the state of something that is not observed, yet we know it has exactly one state, as soon as we measure it. Could it be, that there are particles across the universe that are always quantum entangled with another particle, even if we don't know it? So establishing a new quantum entaglement would always break another one, which we don't know about, because its original partner was literally outside our observable universe? That would explain randomness here, if there was another intelligence somewhere out there, that does that every now and then.
Hey you have influenced my love in space and science you commented to me about 5 years Go please do again!!!!
to escape gravity well you just need to build Helium Balloon and lift the rocket in the near cosmos and then start the engines
YES! MOAR HUBBLES!
Hi Fraser, can you expand on the fact that photons don't experience time. Let's say we send astronauts to Alpha Centauri in a vessel that travels at the speed of light. That would take 4+ years of time for people that remain on Earth. Would the astronauts have any memory of the time they spent on the trip? Would they experience even one heart beat during their travel time?
If you get the chance you should watch the movie "Interstellar", it does an awesome job at showing time dilation! I think that the astronauts be there in a basic instant in Thier minds, if we could see them it would look like Thier frozen in time. Space is incredible, it's insane how time works... It often bogle's my mind and iv been studying it for decades
@@backwoodsjunkie08 Thanks. I have seen Interstellar and, of course, I've heard of the Twins Paradox for ages but it never dawned on me to follow the implications through to the logical end of traveling at the speed of light. The ship still needs to consume fuel (doesn't it?), adjustments to instruments have to be made (I assume), and wouldn't food have to be consumed? Just can't wrap my brain around it.
Re - Question 1.
Not only that, but one would imagine that if we lived on a world with twice the earth standard of gravity, we should expect the atrophic conditions of the astronauts in space to be far more alarming and far more damaging. There would presumably be a limit to how much time such a person could spend in space, before the gravity of such a planet would become lethal to them.
If we don't want to find life
Just simply don't search and close your eyes 👀
Regarding super earth and space flight… does air launched rocketry (like Pegasus or Virgin Orbital) mitigate the tyranny of the rocket equation? At some point, space flight will absolutely become impossible or nearly so, but I’ve wondered bout this…
Aging, cancer and radiation exposure have been described as different facets to the same underlying problem, dna damage, and that a breakthrough in one will likely lead to breakthroughs for the other two. This is a technological advancement I hope to see happen in my lifetime because I believe living longer, healthier lives and mitigating radiation damage will be the key to becoming a truly capable spacefaring species. What technological breakthrough are you hoping to see in your lifetime?
I never get the "if we find life, the great filter is ahead of us" point. If we detect microbes in Mars, the great filter can still be between microbes and us, no?
Hi Fraser. With many of us on tenterhooks counting down to the launch of JWST in just under 3 weeks there's been much discussion of the near impossibility of sending a crewed repair mission should some mission critical component fail to deploy or suffer some other malfunction (thinking of the issues the Hubble ST faced in its early years) or later on to potentially refuel and install some upgraded components in order to extend JWST's service life. I'll admit I have only the most rudimentary understanding of orbital mechanics but my question is given that L2 is a fraction of the distance to Mars would it not be technically feasible (budgetary questions aside) for NASA's SLS or SpaceX's Starship to make the journey, enabling a small crew to perform necessary fixes, then return safely to Earth? Would love to hear your thoughts.
Hi Fraser :) Could a kind of great filter be dedicating too many resources into space activity too early and running out?
The crazy thing about light is that it actually goes through things on its lightspeed journey. An X-Ray photon can stretch to be visible light by the time it strikes one of our telescopes. Yet, the light experienced no time. Weird.
Hey fraser, I love your show! I was watching one of your episodes about blackholes and this thought popped in my head. Hear me out, but If I'm not mistaken, according to general relativity, time itself theoretically can flow backwards inside the region surrounding a "rotating blackhole", allowing for time travel into the past! If that's true, couldn't we send a low mass space craft, like the "breakthrough starshot mission", back in time, by flying by a nearby rotating blackhole? Also if it is plausible, how far back into the past could you actually travel? A few milliseconds or billions of years? I'm assuming the longer you can orbit the blackhole, without falling in or being torn apart, the further back in time you can go? Would you be able to gather/transmit/receive any useful data from the probe while or after it has actively traveled backwards though time or would there be some violation of the laws of physics, or a paradox? I doubt we would see the results from a mission like this within our lifetimes, because the closest blackhole is 1000's of lightyears away, but i do think it could answer a lot of the biggest questions humans have been asking for eons! Thanks
Seems to be assuming those people trapped in a gravity well would be using the tech we choose to.
Something like project Orion would open up different possibilities.
Also a higher gravity planet would have a denser atmosphere... So an air launched rocket would make more sense as well.
Our launch tech was created to work on our planet in our gravity well.
Like first, watch after ♥
Heard this from a Facebook group and wanted to get your perspective.
Considering the idea of the universe spinning as a possible solution to dark energy, as the distance of the galaxies to the center of the mass of the universe grows the gravitational force will decrease with the square of the distance..
(Fg = G x m1 x m2/r^2)
..the opposing centripetal force will decrease linearly with the distance..
(Fc = m x v^2/r)
..so the force of gravity will decrease faster than the outward centripetal force. This would generate an acceleration of all the particles that are spinning about their common center of mass. That is what cosmologists have observed, an accelerating expansion.
In what location is the mass inside a black hole, is it all distributed on the event horizon? Or is it in the center?
In regards to Galaxy clusters, you mentioned the Galaxies in the super cluster all orbit around a common center of gravity. Do we know what the source of the gravity is - ie what are they all orbiting? Thanks
They orbit the collective gravity of the entire system. This is actually true for everything. The moon for example doesn't orbit the Earth, rather the moon and Earth together orbit a shared center of gravity which happens to be located way inside the Earth very close to (but not quite) its center, because it's much more massive. But if you had two equally massive stars orbiting each other, their shared center of gravity would be halfway between each other, making it look like they both orbit a completely empty point in space. We call these empty points a system's Barycenter
@@z-beeblebrox Makes sense - cheers for taking the time to explain
If you take time dilation into consideration it makes sense that the closer you get to the speed of light the more energy it takes.
Hey Fraser. Do you know whether the Milky Way is gravitationally bound to the Virgo Cluster, or whether we're in a hyperbolic trajectory relative to it and just happen to be grazing it at the moment?
From what I understand, expansion and dark energy dominate at that scale. We're only really gravitationally bound to the Local Group
If evidence was discovered that the universe is in fact infinite wouldn’t that also answer the Fermi Paradox since there would be another version of us out there? Maybe even one a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away?
You stated that the Virgo supercluster rotates around its CM. However, I understand that superclusters are not gravitationally bound.
It rotates around it, but it's also expanding.
A question: If the universal constant is equal to the speed of light and the speed of electromagnetism and the speed of gravity, is it correct to refer to it as the speed of light only?
If one thinks in terms of ‘speed of gravity’, could the value of ‘c’ change dependant of how close or far it is from a gravity well?
I assume the answer is a resounding ‘no’ but I do not understand why. Enlighten us please, oh great one. And thank you.
Hey Fraser,
Can we count any wins due to James Webb’s delays?
Did space telescope engineers learn how to make the next big thing after this, quicker?
Did we witness growing demand for NASA to conduct more science closely with ESA? Or CSA?
Thanks.
A planet with stronger gravity would have a denser atmosphere making powered flight much easier so rocket launch platforms could be built far above the planets surface.
So, IF we find life, any kind of life. anywhere out there 20:40, we are doomed? Dude, you have some serious explaining to do. I don't see how finding intelligent life somewhere means we are doomed to the great filter. That makes no sense.
That of course assumes they would use chemical rockets. If they were not so afraid of nuclear as us a little extra gravity wouldn’t be a bother. 😆
Sure, nuclear has a higher thrust so it would enable launches from higher gravity.
What's the minimum anyone would wait to use the hubble telescope? Let's say for a simple and quick observation.
As a probe passes through the Suns corona is the heat it’s dealing with all radiative or is there enough solar wind or “atmosphere” that it also experiences convective heat or heat due to drag?
How do space telescopes keep their lenses/mirrors clean? I'd imagine they would accumulate a lot of dust and even scratches or nicks after a while.
Would it be possible for a lighter then air craft to slowly float to space ? could it float and slowly start orbiting the Earth and eventually enter into space? and if not what would be the slowest possible speed you could reach space??
Hi Fraser
Thank you for these question shows. I've enjoyed them for years.
My question: How come there are stars of such drastically different sizes/masses? As I understood it, the process of star formation consists of a gas cloud aggregating/collapsing due to gravity. Then one time you mentioned that as soon as the star is formed and large and heavy enough for fusion to commence that the resulting "stellar" wind would clear out the area around the star and blow away these lighter elements. According to this, shouldn't most stars be of the same size? Meaning they aggregate as much hydrogen as they need for fusion to start and then blow away the rest.
Of course star mergers would lead to larger stars but I wouldn't think these occurrences were enough to explain it.
Does it maybe have to do something to do with the gas cloud's angular momentum or it's metallicity?
Greetings from Switzerland
Interesting question. I think it has to do with the size and density of the gas cloud from which the star has formed. The denser and larger the gas cloud, the bigger the star will be, as more material can be accreted by the time the star starts fusing hydrogen.
Thanks for this response. I see your point, however I guess there is still something missing to a complete explanation. I mean what is "initial density" after all? It's not like we could pinpoint a time where we measure the density. The whole process of a collapsing gas cloud just describes an area in space where the density increases over time so any pair of gas clouds will have the same density at some time during their collapse.
I worked on the scheduling algorithm for sifting through all the proposals for satellites.
The 2 major factors to get a satellite on the schedule for launch was how many scientists with given experiments will this help and what's the timeline to launch this satellite. So saying that one giant satellite is a bad thing compared to a bunch of small satellites, is incorrect.
Hey Frasier, great content as always.
One thing though, I thought we had agreed last video that we won't talk about the telescope that will not be named until after it's launched, it's at L2 and the sunshade is deployed?
If something ends up going wrong, I'm blaming it on you...
If the telescope is the one I believe you are talking about it is going to l2. L1 is between the earth and the sun in the earth-sun system.
@@TheFirebird123456 ah yes I did a goof there. Thank you for letting me know. Have a good one!
Why is Iron always the element that fusion in a star at would stop, and it goes boom?
Do you think it would be profitable for a private company to launch a Hubble equivalent telescope and pay for it by auctioning off observation time on it? And if it was, how would you feel about companies (or governments possibly) doing these sorts of space missions for profit?
That's a great question. I'm not Fraser but I'm thinking it would not be. Although the cost of launching to space has fallen a lot, combine that with the cost of making and maintaining a space telescope would be too great to turn a profit. At best I think it would cover it's running cost. Although I have not done any cost calculations.
Would spin launch create a sonic boom?
If gravity waves are a thing, is it possible that the entire universe could be in a massive wave? Could that explain the current expansion of the universe?
Chemical rockets are not the only way to get into space. What is the maximum gravity for a project Orion type nuclear rocket?
10 Hubble telescopes : great idea. 10 hubble telescopes working as a giant optic interferometer : incredibly wonderfully good idea.
I'm really disappointed that radio astronomy is the only one benefiting from interferometry. There are a few small experiments here and there, but the technology is not "there" for giant optical interferometers.
It's really hard with visible light telescopes. You can do radio telescopes after the fact with computation, while visible light needs to be aligned within a few hundred nanometers.
@@frasercain Yes, if it was simple, there would be much more applications, as this technology is somewhat magic...
But maybe we should try something like infrared, microwave and the teraherz waves... I don't know if that's possible rigth now.
But, I do think long distance/high precision interferometers are the future, whatever bandwidth they use. That's the only way to map those exoplanets. We need to invest more money/technology to make it possible.
What is a civ on a high-gravity world decided that they wanted to get into space no matter what, and realizing that chemical rockets wouldn't cut it, built a nuclear fusion rocket or even an Orion nuclear bomb-powered spaceship?
If TON-618 were in the place of Alpha Centauri, how big/visible would it appear in our night sky?
Does time stop at the singularity of a black hole or at the event horizon?
I hope that there wormholes!
A thought came into my head. Nuclear fusion is common in our Universe (in stars). Is nuclear fission common? Does it happen in a Supernova or if stars collide?
Natural fission reactions can happen in high concentrations of Uranium 235. The first one was discovered in the African country of Gabon. The reaction is believed to have occurred about 2 billion years ago. Others have since been discovered as well.
@@my3dviews Hi, thanks for the reply. So it would fairly uncommon then? So it would not happen in anything like the amount that happens in a Sun?
What if most rocky exoplanets found are either desert worlds or water worlds and very few of them have the right mix of water and land. Could intelligent life still form?
19:43 "And in the end they cancelled it because the budget was going to be too high, was going to be a billion dollars or something".
Funny (ironically) how 1 Billion USD is "too high" for something as cool as a giant telescope, but it's not much in warfare money :(
Should the far side of the moon be off limits for human settlement and persevered for radio astronomy?
Hey Fraser. Simple question: When looking at the size of the earth compared to the rest of the universe "in space", you get a HUGE difference (1 / [huge number here]). But when looking "in time" you get that earth is weirdly similar old than the universe: roughly 1/3. Are there any theories why that is?
Universe is infinite in both space and time
and obviously - matter
Fraser, can you explain what actually happens in a supernova when the outer layers "bounce" off the core? If the core turns into a black hole, any infalling matter hitting the event horizon would simply fall in. What does it bounce off?
Not Fraser, but this is the best explanation I've seen for what happens to the core during a supernova, and it explains the 'bounce' very well: czcams.com/video/Yt-SBT7nNfU/video.html
Re Hubble usage: In the style of how most people use Google Maps, do you think I could use it to look at my house? :-)
The Amazeballs Telescope Max
Given the increase in public awareness of spaceflight thanks to organisations like SpaceX will/has anyone ever tried to crowd fund a mission? Successfully or not? Except Mars One 🤣 The amount of space nerds globally might be enough to raise some serious cash by now?
Hear me out here. I am spitballing. If you travelled to Alpha Centauri faster than the speed of light, you wouldn't arrive before you left. You would still arrive in t = d / t to an external observer. It is the observer on the FTL ship that would experience negative time. The only way I can describe that would be to reverse causes and effects. So to say, the observer would feel like the reason they left Earth was because they were already at Alpha Centauri. But that is if the chemistry of your brain could survive the trip to observe anything.
Am I crazy?
Why does nobody talk about Ceres? A 'Megasatellite' Orbiting Ceres Would Make a Fine Home For Humans
Fraser has nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to apologize for. What a stupid question from Bjorn Larsson. And Fraser answered it with class and dignity.
I think that remark or accusation on the SLS was far too strong
Especially given Musk's record of overpromising. Hyperloop is a farce, Starlink could only provide internet service to a small fraction of people at a higher price than teased, Boring tunnels are inferior to and slower-to-build than standard tunnels, Neuralink's schedule forecast is decades too optimistic, Starship is having development issues, Autopilot is not as capable as planned. I don't think he's a conman, but I think he overestimates his ability and underestimates the challenges of the projects he hypes.
Could we detect a dino killer event (asteroid) on another planet?
You mention that at a certain point a civilization couldn’t get out of a super earth’s gravity well. Does atmospheric pressure have any effect on this?
absolutely!
a higher atmopheric pressure implies in a higher atmospheric density, which implies in a higher drag on the rocket.
D = 0.5*Cd*A*rho*v^2
D: Drag
Cd: Drag coefficient
A: Area orthogonal to the atmospheric flow
rho: atmospheric density
v: speed
Yeah, the atmospheric drag and gravity work together to prevent a rocket getting to space.
@@frasercain Another words -- possible civilizations are prisoners of their own "SUPER-Earth" planets! Yet you forget a Karman Line. On Earth it's 100km above, but if you got 2G -- the atmosphere would be a lot thicker & denser. How about 300km?
No doubt high gravity makes it rather difficult to get into space, as over 90% of a rockets mass has to be the fuel it needs to fight gravity and reach orbit. Heck, it costs an average of $10,000 to $25,000 per kilogram to launch anything or anyone from Earth's surface into orbit. If an extraterrestrial race evolved on any of the so called "super earths" or "mega earths" with twice or thrice Earth's gravity, it would likely cost them the equivalent of $30,000 + per kilogram to launch things into orbit, that is, if they could even do it.
Kinda disappointed at how Fraser answers Q1 - How much gravity makes spaceflight impossible? Why no delta-V and escape velocity discussion?
Overall interesting (first time watching your newscast) but several glaring issues in your answers.
For example, could you see city lights on Earth from the Moon? Definitely! You would need to have the night-side of Earth visible though and block out any bright foreground / sunlight. But no telescope required. The pic you showed didn't have any stars in the sky either, yet the astronauts could easily see stars from the Moon. It's all about exposure. If you're standing in bright sunlight and looking into a doorway, it appears black, right? But step into the doorway, and suddenly you can see the room inside as your eyes adjust. Same thing.
Another issue I have is your explanation of "the Great Filter" and your claim that finding any other life in the Universe immediately puts it in front of us instead of behind us. Firstly you briefly mentioned there could be many filters, but the rest of your argument seems to center around the concept of there only being one. Any life we find which hasn't reached "technological civilisation level" is behind us, and therefore can be discounted; or at least, having as having passed the same filters as we have.
But only because we might be "ahead" of other life in the race to dominate our Galaxy doesn't mean we don't have any Great Filters still in front of us, it just means we've already passed several. But that in no way excludes there being additional Filters ahead of us. As long as we remain a single-solar-system civilisation (let alone single-planet) our eggs are all in one basket. Whether or not it's physically possible to become an interstellar civilisation remains to be seen.
Re "where is everybody", well, that's a huge assumption... we've barely looked, and primarily we looked based on some huge assumptions based on our own technological background, mostly radio waves. Even in our extremely short civilisation so far we've gone from "blasting" radio waves out willy-nilly (not that they were all that strong to start off with) to pretty much sending out nothing as our technology has improved. So that's say a 50-year span of unintentional radiowaves being emitted by our civilisation which is detectable in say a 500ly sphere around our solar system before it becomes so faint as to merge into the background. (I'm guessing at the numbers here). If other civilisations are similar, it means we can only detect other civilisations which have been in the same stage of technological development as us within 500ly. Our galaxy is 100,000ly across. So hardly conclusive evidence of absence.
We've come up with more interesting ways to detect life (not civilisations) such as oxygen content in exoplanetary atmospheres, but there've hardly been comprehensive surveys done for those.
All that said, great show and I've subscribed.
I think he was more explaining the views of the book than his own personal views on the great filter. He was also being concise in an attempt to quickly answer the question. I enjoyed reading your comment btw.
How are y’all watching this channel’s videos and not clicking the like button?
Thanks! But... don't forget to subscribe. :-)
Could life on an Earth like planet look very similar to life on Earth, kinda like how convergent evolution results in life on opposite sides of the Earth look similar.
There are a number of features of life that prove so advantageous that they are independently evolved several times. Flight evolved in insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats. Eyes evolved many times independently. Even intelligence seems to have evolved a few times on Earth. Or streamlining that evolved in ichthyosaurs and dolphins.
But terrestrial life shared a huge common factor: Earth. Gravity of 9.8 m/s^2. A nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere. A protective magnetosphere.
A very common planet type may be ice-shelled ocean worlds wherein light is very hard to come by. If lifeforms do evolve there would be no selection preference for eyes but huge advantage for sonar.
Euhrr, well, does a nuclear rocket not have more power ? Could those civs not just use nuclear power to leave their gravity well ???
I think the aliens on a super Earth would go with project Orion to get off their planet. Boom, boom, boom... :-)
We already have only 5% of the weight of the rocket available for payload...
Funfact: At higher gravity planets, the aliens could just live as ocean creatures, as pressure isnt relevant if they exist anerob life forms.
No but it could delay space travel untill very advanced physics was developed mayby a hundred years
If you have seen Instagram video of our Sun orbiting milky way centre,you will see all planets are nearly in one vertical line where small terrestrial planets are more close to the imaginary vertical line and heavy planets little bit far left than the vertical line.
This vertical line in our solar system perspective is our planetary orbital plane.
Why this is not taught to school children?
Why complicate kids brain by teaching them space time theory(CZcams video of our sun on elastic cloth and marbles model) to explain why our planets are in one flat plane orbiting our Sun?
The "filter/doom" speculation, I belive is just silly. Like finding a pbj smooshed on the side walk and believing all sandwiches are doomed.
It would be more like, having stores filled with peanut butter, jam and bread. Recipes, and a common knowledge of how to make a PB&J, but no record of anyone ever eating one. Ever. You don't know anyone who's ever had one, never on TV, no 3rd-party anecdotes. Nothing.
Faster then speed of light will make you invisible.
I can imagine the US or Russia shooting down a rocket of a country like Uganda, unless they launch from Cape Canaveral, Siberia or pay billions of dollars to spaceX.
why don't they use planes . with that gravity they would have a dense atmosphere , heck it might even be an advantage .
Mr Björn Larsson's question doesn't match the level of decency that I value in this channel and it's viewers.
You can see a bee from the moon And it was named James
Simping is the great filter.
bear in mind the Earth has the highest gravity of any planet in our solar system which has a surface.
SpaceX seems to get all the headlines, is anybody else catching up?
Nope, unfortunately.
this gravity well is bad enough tbh
If we all lived on a 2x earth gravity world, wouldn't it then just be a 1x earth gravity world?
Nice Pink Floyd pfp!
You have to be American to work at NASA? If true you learn something every day.
To run NASA. I don't think they'd let a Canadian run it.
@@frasercain I don't know I believe they would think twice if it was you Fraser!
:(
This is independent of anyone's opinion, but the SLS long had a "smell" about it. For me it was simply marketing that looked to promise the world. Coupled with a timeline that looked suspiciously as if it weren't a gov't project!
Probably a jobs program more than anything. Keeping your rocket science and tech people employees in nation is a national security issue. It would be worthwhile to have them make paper airplanes if it kept them happy and in nation.
do it yourself space astronomy 😂
Hey ilobevvyilou