Diamond in a Black Hole, What's Holding Starship, Mining Jupiter for Fuel | Q&A 174
Vložit
- čas přidán 16. 06. 2024
- In this week's episode, I explain how we could use Jupiter as a source of fuel for our fusion reactors, what it means to say there's a scientific consensus, and if gravitational waves can trigger earthquakes.
00:00 Start
01:26 Could we mine Jupiter for hydrogen?
03:24 What does "scientific consensus" mean?
07:04 Could gravitational waves trigger earthquakes?
08:47 Is there really a need to build Dyson Spheres?
10:52 Could aliens know our history?
12:33 When will there be good pictures from JWST?
14:19 What's holding up Starship?
16:21 What happens to ISS if Russia pulls out?
19:35 Would life be better at a K-star?
22:12 Where can we invest in space mining?
23:15 How do we know the source of gravitational waves?
24:22 Could the Solar System leave the Milky Way?
27:06 Are we Von Neumann probes?
28:17 Does SpaceX really land rockets?
29:29 Why aren't there more rovers going to the ice on the Moon and Mars?
30:43 How can Webb get solar power?
31:35 Are there any other uses for ISS?
33:18 Do neutron stars have crusts?
34:32 Will LUVOIR get build?
36:55 Would a diamond spaghettify entering a black hole?
38:11 Does life need a Jupiter to protect it?
39:47 Could we survive just living in spacesuits?
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
despite how clearly you explained the scientific method, it still goes right over so many people's heads.
Licquid carbin in a black hole?
"Tardigrades are really bad at building spaceships" lol, the more you know
Fraser, (hypothetically or empirically) would we able to observe any objects or clusters near the edge of the observable universe and infer any information from the gravitational forces of mass beyond the observable universe threshold?
‐---------------------------------------------------------------
For example, If a mass like the great attractor was just outside of the observable universe, or recently disappeared from the observable universe, could we analyze any gravitational force it still has on mass still within the observable universe?
The person I'm talking too says all gravitational effects on other mass would disappear immediately when the object travels beyond the observable threshold. He insists that if we could observe gravitational force from beyond the observable universe than that area would also be observable by definition.
I disagree, arguing about inferring data from beyond the observable universe does not expand the observable universe. I believe we can infer information based on gravitational forces we could hypothetically observe even though the mass is not direcrly observable from our location anymore.
What do you think?
Thank you so much, I love these episodes!! Sorry for posting same question twice my app was acting up.
I love your interviews. They're great to listen to when working out. Same with your question show.
Wow based on chapter bookmarks, looks like you got thru a lot of questions this time. Good job 👍
Hi Fraser, my question, your answer! (maybe if you're feeling generous) So is there a gravitational limit to how massive or heavy an object can be to be actually sustained at a Lagrange point? Likewise do the different lagrange points have differing upper limits to the size of the object that can be successfully 'parked' there?
Have you watched his video on Lagrange points? It's very informative and covers the rough details of your question.
Yes, the mass of the third object is neglected but if it's massive enough it can perturb the two parent bodies and break the stability, and this is quantifiable and wikipedia gives some threshold value in terms of mass ratios between each body: as a general approximation, it's on the order of 100, so think a Moon massed object at Earth's L4 point as the limit. There's probably a similar analysis to be made regarding the planet's orbital eccentricity but i didn't find a vlaue for that.
I remember there was an Atari video game where you could re-fill your fuel tank at any gas giant because... it's apparently made of gas I guess.
eat at Lando's and get gas
Author John Ringo in a 3 book series had pipes an pumps on a modified space elevator anchored in space. 1st book. Live free or die.
38:00f: > _Depends on the size of the black hole._
And the diamond, of course. The larger an object is in diameter, the less tidal stresses are needed to affect them. Eventually, everything will be spaghettified and disintegrated completely, but maybe not before crossing the event horizon.
Just subscribed. Keep up this good work
Thanks! Welcome aboard.
I just noticed you answered my question! Thanks Fraser
Thanks for asking. 😀
I'm worried that a rover digging into watery areas under the Martian or Lunar regolith will just make whatever trapped water sublimate immediately once it's exposed, and nothing will be learned, except that the water sublimates immediately once it's exposed, which I guess is indeed something after all. But what we really want to find are microbes in it!
Our detectors are ridiculously sensitive and even if that were to happen( which it largely will due to vapor pressures) they are still not going to all get away and due to that we will be able to detect whatever is around. Now if there happens to be life in there odds are good it is toast but hey.... saves us from the cell Lysis process and lets us get to the goodies inside the cell to see what's inside.
Sublimation is not immediate, especially the colder the surroundings of the frozen material. The temperature of the moon is 40º K (-233ºC) in the permanently shaded areas of the lunar poles that have water, and for sublimation temperatures below 70 K, the sublimation rate of an exposed ice surface is much less than one molecule of water vapor lost per square centimeter of surface per hour. This means that on the moon there will be plenty of time to remove material and process it.
The average surface temperature of Mars is 193ºK (-80ºC), with the poles reaching down to 120K (-153ºC) during winter, but mars does have some atmospheric pressure, so sublimation will be slightly lower than for the same temperature in space.
What 3 questions would you ask an alien if you had a close encounter?
How did you survive yourself? And not self destruct
I would ask, after the introduction, if they needed something, if they wanted to go somewhere, and if they had time to converse further
Going there by rocket be like: ignition! And we have... lift
I mean a problem.
Kidding, interesting video
Re Us and Von Neuman probes: if your probe can mutate, then what's to say we _aren't_ the decedents of the probes? A small twist on panspermia.
Hello Fraser, should we preserve the ISS for the future, take it into a higher orbit, so it can be visited as a museum? TNX!
Thank you for answering my question! Here's another: Could JWST see 'Oumuamua?
No
No, we haven't seen it for more than 4 years. It's tiny and out by Neptune now.
Edit: Unless it really is an alien craft, then who knows where it is now 🙂
You addressed Jupiter's role in shepherding orbital bodies, but neglected its role in eating them. With no Jupiter ever, it would take longer for primordial comets to find a smaller planet to collide with, delaying Earth's habitability and punctuating our evolution with more frequent or more complete extinctions. At least this seems possible to a spectator like me. And there would be more stable Earth-crossing orbits.
I love your shows.
Thank you.
As far as the ISS, they should convert it to an orbital recycling center instead of letting the material be wasted by burning up in the atmosphere.
They could use the old, current structure for scaffolding to build the new recycling center, then recycle that.
A 3D printer would make new parts on demand, thus reducing launch rate.
It could all be remote controlled.
2:43...hmm, that's what the ancient's ship "Destiny" did in Stargate Universe ! came in for a low pass and powered itself up from skimming off parts of the corona, but, they had to choose the right kind of stars I believe, no trying that with type O or A stars !!...that was a BRILLIANT ship as far as sci fi goes..really loved that show, pity it got the boot..
I totally agree, Universe had the potential to be one of the best Stargates. Sucks that it got cancelled.
The impending doom in the build up of the plot and then the replenishment ,survival was great example of so much that was discovered. The writing and maturity of Stargate spin offs were done so well. The exact star would be very significant so many parameters of a successful refuel especially if the inhabitants had no idea of what the ship was doing the first time.
How about some photos of progress of your new abide?
The dude abides
@ 3:24 - Regarding the question about Scientific consensus.
I think a lot of people misunderstand what science is. Science is NOT something an individual does by themselves.
Science is, by its' very nature, a social process. It's a standard that has to be implemented.
How science is implemented, ie: its' institutional & regulatory structure, varies across time and place.
Hi Fraser!
How do we know the temperature of the surface of the sun is 5500 or so when the corona has much more? Thanks
probably infrared cameras
It's modeled as a black body radiator and the spectrum is what you get when you have a black body at 5500K. Black body radiation a simple behavior with a peak wavelength controlled by the temperature. Work out the brightest wavelength and you know the temperature.
corona? 😨
love your work!
Everyone describes black holes by their mass. Its almost never mentioned what their diameters are. Is there a rule of thumb about how large a black hole is in comparison to the sun? Are solar mass black holes a 1/4 the diameter? Half size? What about super massive black holes?
Talk about the wire catch starship thingy....Nothing anywhere around to blow up..chk it out..great info
*Question*
Will Fusion reactors essentially be the doorway to almost light speed travel, flipping somewhere around or past half way to slow down, and will we be able to navigate at these speeds and using what?
No. Fusion is not energy dense enough
100 years to profitable private asteroid mining?!? That seems a bit long to me, my guess was 30-40 years, personally. Why do you think its going to take such a long time?
Can you please make an episode on that Jupiter thing, like how to prevent the hydrogen atmosphere from slowing down the rocket tanker, to its doom.
Could the H2 be used just to make water (and for rocket fuel) or does it have to be a fusion based undertaking? Are there other elements not worthy, getting in the way, etc?
Thanks
While I was writing my series, I wondered How would hurricanes fair on Earthlike planets on K or M type stars? Would they be stronger? weaker?
That would depend on how close the planet is to the star (i.e. energy input), how thick atmosphere, how much water covers the planet, how fast the planet rotates and a lot of other factors. So you cannot just deduce it from the star type
Actually I read some time ago about a little known idea about how you could mine atmospheric gasses from a giant planet no matter how deep is its gravity weel , basically would be like that, you have floating vehicle like a balloon in the upper atmosphere and from there you beams a laser to a space station in the fix position around planet(the radiation pressure would push some gases all the way to that station), but the trick is the laser beam needs to have a higher intensity around the central axis in order to bounce atoms in the center and avoid dispersion into space, basically a pipeline made of laser light weaker in the center and stronger on the edge. But it's more complicated than I described because you need to use specific wawe length that interact with a specific element ionizing those atoms in order to keep them on the pipe.
You are essentially descibing a laser tractor beam, which is a real thing by the way. Just not so powerful yet. Look at styropyros' CZcams channel, he shows how to use a laser to tractor diamonds 🔹
@@savagesarethebest7251 Not a tractor beam, but a pusher one(it's a mind trap to think in the star trek terms) . But the creators of this concept of mining gases maybe fallen in a mind trap too when they thinked that a floating station is needed (because you need to push up the gasses), but in reality two satellites in low orbit can work better, because the pipeline made from light is a straight line, but the atmosphere of any planet have a curvature, and the pipeline can be sended from one satellite to scratch the upper atmosphere layers and transfer some gasses to the second satellite on the same low orbit but in front (or back) of the first one. Are some advantages in this approach, like a shorter distance for light pipeline and no need for floating emitting laser in the atmosphere of the gas giant planet I think.
ref @3:24
I seem to be a little late catching up.
I understand my question was packed pretty tight, with so many others to get to, and you do this all the time, and other things.
You said you disagreed with the premise of the question I asked in the other episode, which is fine, and then most of your explanation of the scientific process im on board with. The idea of "scientific consensus" you give is reasonable (I would have gone a little deeper on the purpose of science not being consensus, but I'll take it).
But you tipped your hand a little bit, "a lot of the time I hear people complaining about the scientific consensus or taking issue with it, its usually because the scientific consensus is running up against some preconceived notion or political ideology or religious issue....", I also agree with this.
Where I dont agree is that there is a delineation between, the people who disagree with the use of the "scientific consensus" on ethical/political/religious grounds, and the other people who encourage its use as a way to instruct on the predominant results of empirical study in a field. that kind of delineation would be a _WILD_ correlation. Which is why I stated, "It seems to indicate some political/ethical conclusion". there is no reason scientific consensus should be cited by a dispassionate empiricists, and loathed to be cited by the ethically minded. I'm left questioning whether you actually disagree, in the short you did, in the long you didnt.
given your initial definitions, as an institution the need to discuss or inform of a consensus seems to stop at risk/reward assessment for follow-on experimentation and/or replication of an experiment. (which id argue is also an ethical question, but a valid place for the ethical discussion within the institutions of science and empirical study)
but that is not often (never?) the scope in which I hear it presented.
hey fraser if im living in a symilation or a virtual reality i can mine the hydrogen with a certain pick mayb?
20:12f: > _Red dwarfs when they really get going can be quite troublesome, they can send out really killer flares but K- type states don't do that._
May this be due to the red dwarfs, however old they are in Terran years, are still in their kind of childhood whereas K- type stars aren't any more?
Yeah that's the same conclusion I had for Jupiter!! Other people I've talked to made it sound impossible but their arguments never sounded right ! Do you think it has a lot of helium 3 ?
Hi Frasier ! I was wondering .. It's often expected that Alien Civilizations thousands years more advanced then us are using Dyson spheres or other grand scale megasturctures to suck energy from surrounding stars . But wouldn't it be more likely that they are using dark energy ? Because dark energy is ~68% mass of the iuniverse compared to common material wich is only 5% ? This would allso explain why we haven't observed any megastructures yet. Thank you for great Channel !
👍
Dyson did not actually envision a solid spherical shell around a star -- because well, that would never work -- what he actually envisioned were a very large number of individual solar collectors in orbit of a star. It was science fiction author Olaf Stapledon who described massive spherical, energy-trapping alien mega structures in his 1937 novel "Star Maker," the two entirely separate conceptualizations have been confused with one another for a very long period of time, so its common to see this confusion touted as fact.
20:00 maybe thus means that we should look for advanced civilizations around k stars bc even if thy didn't evolve there they would arrive there since it is a logical place to settle.
re - Question 2 about scientific consensus.
One of the most fundamental aspects of the Scientific Method is *"Repeatability."* Scientific Consensus is an extension of that repeatability.
K stars are the best. How bad do they get in their last moments of life?
How long a coral-shaped structure like the one found on Mars could resist to erosion?
I didn’t realize this video was 11 months old until the question about when jwst will finally be taking pics. Lol
Jeez! The asteroid belt might be a simpler start
hello Mr Fraser, I love your show , but I'm wondering if you can anticipate your LIVE streaming a bit to let European fans to watch it ! ( for UTC time is quite late ) thanks anyway
Here's a question for you: Is the reason heat shields are necessary because spacecraft are traveling at roughly 20,000mph when they reenter the atmosphere? If they had a fuel source (eg... dilithium crystals) could they just slow down whilst they're in space and then drop into the atmosphere, therefore not needing a heat shield? Thanks.
Ultimately yes if you have a lot of fuel, but if you stop outside the atmosphere and fall you're in for a bad time. You will still be going fast enough before the atmosphere gets thick enough to slow you down that you have horrible heating. Also, the atmosphere will get thick really fast and so the deceleration will become massive late in the fall. That leads to very high heating and very flat occupants.
If you can fly down the whole way limiting speed, acceleration, and rocket related heating, you're golden.
@@deSloleye What about if you had a way to limit your speed to, say, 200-250mph all the way down?
@@rgraph ok so you can do it with drag and you'll get intense heating, or you can do it with thrust, which will have less intense heating (think reentry burns from a falcon 9) or you're going to fly down aerodynamically with a shallow trajectory and that one is complicated. To do that you'll be flying at hypersonic speeds (heating) while unable to generate enough lift to stay flying. That is the definition of the karman line, where orbital lift is slower than aerodynamic lift. Until the atmosphere gets thick, you're flying very, very fast, and heating up because of it. You'll have burned up before you could have flown aerodynamically.
If you slow down before the atmosphere then you're being heated by the rocket exhaust you use, or you're going to accelerate while falling down to the point you get aerodynamic heating.
You're going to be really hot no matter which way you get down. There's just so much energy in an orbiting space craft.
i have a question for you, how come you are doing this for so long now and so well done but you only have 350k subscribers? kudos sr!
We (ESA) should have built our own landing system from the beginning... and now maybe we will.
We (Europe) should have done a lot of things and didn't... and now we know it.
I wonder if advanced species even have individuals... Anyway, Hi Fraser, question poped in my mind... Does the supermasive black hole at Sagitarius A* have a gravitational focal point? (I assume most likelly yes, the true question is the next one) At what distance from it would you have to set up a telescope to enjoy it's magnifying power?
The focus is more of a line. For the sun, I think parallel light rays will first converge at several hundred AU (at least that's where you would put a telescope). The light rays converging at that distance travelled directly over the surface of the sun. As you go farther out, light rays still converge, but they never got as close to the sun.
For a black hole, light rays passing over the event horizon will converge really, really close to the event horizon. But same as with the sun, we're currently in the line of focus of every black hole out there. It's not likely that we're looking at something interesting.
With Mars gravity < Earth's, has there been study into structural engineering differences for building on Mars. Would shelters have to be shorter/wider to be less flimsy?
Probably the opposite. Less gravity means less stress on the materials.
Olympus mons could not be that big in higher gravity that should answer your question. . Wider would be fine
"Put them on in the background while you're playing some video game.." You know your audience pretty well.
I get too drawn in lol I need to focus while gaming
What would happen if you pointed Hubble at the surface of the earth? Would you see anything with any clarity, or are its instruments not tuned to process whatever it would see? Would it damage the telescope or any of its sensors?
it would flare out from the light...might work on the nightside though
The Hubble Space Telescope is a modified KH-11 spy satellite. With the original hardware/software package it was capable of taking extremely high resolution images of the Earth's surface.
The 4 tower wire catch thingy
So, there is the theoretical Alcubierre drive, which bends space-time around a ship to allow it to travel faster than light (light through untampered space that is).
...But I'm curious as to what the implications of using this near a black hole would be. Wouldn't it allow you to rip a hole in the event horizon?
To clarify: wouldn't adding "negative mass" at the event horizon theoretically allow for a window to form? In which case, would that cause the contents to spew out? Or maybe it's wrong to think of it as a window, maybe it'd just create a crater on the surface ...a black hole-hole if you will.
If you "mine" the water on Earth for H2 and then you burn the H2 don't you get the water back since H2 + O = H2O. So how would you run out of water?
7:10 I see, so gravitational waves must actually come from masses *accelerating* through space -- that is, changing their direction or speed.
That's right. One intuitive way to think about it is that gravity "updates" at the speed of causality, and so it can make "bumps" in front of an accelerating object, kind of like if you thrust your hand forward in water and water bulges in front of it. But true gravitational waves of the type that are detected are caused by massives object that are moving back and forth repeatedly, a configuration that basically only occurs with a close orbiting pair of massive objects like neutron stars or black holes: in that case you see a repeating wave instead of a single buldge, which is far easier to detect especially against the large noise they have to deal with.
You say you can’t believe every member of an alien civilization would abide by the prime directive. But that assumes civilizations will continue to have “members.” We may become more and more connected until we do behave as a species rather than individuals.
But there are always outliers. And it only takes one to reveal the whole thing.
how does a ramjet work in space? by disconnection from sience?
another problem with asteroid mining is once we do it, there will be so many 'precious metals' that it crashes the market and becomes worthless, lest there be exponential demand or an unreasonable withholding of product
It's likely asteroid mining will only become a thing once we start building large scale space habitats like O'Neil Cylinders or Stanford Torus.
The galactic zoo hypothesis has scientific consensus. I have had a many bad mechanics work on my car though.
Lol Slatibartfast from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?
Question:
Why does the ISS orbit at the hight that it does?
I understand that if it were further up that it wouldn't need to be boosted as often.
Is it just a cost reason? I.e. would the ongoing shipments and the initial build have been too expensive if it were further up?
Or is there any specific scientific reason why the chosen hight is optimal?
I read somewhere that it wasn't placed too high up to avoid the radiation from the Van Allen belts, but don't quote me on that.
Hi :Fraser, I am confused and need clarification. Why is blackhole temperature in event horizon so cold, near absolute zero. What happens to all the light that is swallowed by the BH, radiation even if sucked into the area near singularity has to increase the temperature inside!
Maybe.. you wouldn't ever see if it's true as the heat wouldn't get out...
But here's a mind blow,
Heat is the movement of the atoms of the items that are hot, their speed is temperature..yada yada,
Many scientists believe that movement through space is swapped for moving through time and vice versa..if that is true, *then* what is heat?
Has anyone ever noticed that if you put Mars at the Jupiter-Sun L5 point the following happens:
1. It stays there indefinitely until it falls towards Jupiter
2. It tends to miss due to the increased velocity increasing the distance to Sun, thus it loops in a parabola on the outside
3. It runs out of velocity around 4.8 AU and starts orbiting the Sun with high eccentricity
4. It can get to its current orbit by adjusting the impact parameter since the energy is right
5. Mercury and Venus do not have the mass, making the impact parameter less than their radius
6. Thus it could only pass Earth at at low altitude to get to its current orbit
This predicts three things: Holes in Mars from Jupiter, A large raised area on Mars from Earth, A 15,000 km raised strip on Earth from Mars
Check,check,check
I put the interviews on in the background while I renovate our master bedroom
Hi
The ISS has been populated for a little more than 20 years of it's planned 30 years lifespan. Is the comming 'in-space-transfer-stations' like the Artemis gateway planned with the same lifespan? If so. How are we supposed to maintain space stations, O'neill cylinders and other (relative) megastructures to last way longer than 30 years?
Hey Fraser,
I know you’re a busy man but I’ve noticed over time you respond to less videos in the comment section. I remember a tine years ago you use to take the time and answer almost all of them. What holds higher priority now?
I always said there'd be a time when I wouldn't have the bandwidth to answer all the comments. By doing the live shows, I'm able to give an answer to lots of people at the same time. My ability to answer questions personally doesn't scale, unfortunately.
Thank you for answering 🙂
I’ve been watching from Adelaide, Australia since 2015 and appreciate everything you and your team does 👍 PS: miss the guides to space.
Here's my question...a while ago think it was a year or two I heard the department of defence was giving NASA several space telescopes.. what's happened to that...are they up there working or sat in a warehouse somewhere
In the Culture novels by Ian M Banks, they did interfere with less advanced civilizations, but did so by transforming themselves into those beings, so they looked and behaved just like the those creatures.Thus, rather than an alien version of Kirk showing up and nudging us in the right direction, perhaps there is a human alien who nudges toward the right direction.
The problem with the scientific consensus analogy with the ten mechanics, is the ten mechanics are from volkswagen and the problem is clean emmissions.
The reason the camera cuts out on the space x drone boats when the booster rockets land is that the satellite uplink connection can and does get Broken Earth due to the motion of the boosters landing on a floating platform in the oceanThe way that a satellite connection works is by “line of sight.” I.e the signal needs to be pointed directly at the satellite and what happens when a heavy object lands on a float in the ocean as the ocean is a fluid? It moves. Hence the break in satellite connectivity. Meaning no picture or sound until the connection realigns and transmission resumes. It’s also the reason that walking around while sending signals while jumping up and down doesn’t work so well for transmitting data over a satellite connection.
I'm sure SpaceX is working on some kind of gimbal so that it can maintain contact with the satellites.
@@frasercain I hope so as actually seeing the boosters land from the view of the platform would be great!
Hey Fraser! Quick question, if a magical evil wizard suddenly snapped his fingers and made our sun disappear ** POOF ** GONE, since the sun has so much mass and bends space time as Einstein tells us would the sudden disappearance of the sun cause space time to bounce back and create gravitational waves?
This is why I never sleep at night, thanks!
Is it possible to have a bunch of galaxies orbit each other in manner similar to a solar system? I.e. Big galaxy in the middle (Sun) smaller galaxies orbiting around this one galaxy (Planets).
Hi Fraser, Does our moon have a name or is it just earth s moon ?......Thankx for all the info .
The last 10% takes as long as the first 90%.
The last 5% takes as long as the first 95%.
The last 1% takes as long as the first 99%.
Add that lot up and the 100% takes 10x longer than you planned for.
Wait.... 36:55... Are Saturn's rings spaghettified moons and asteroids???
i wonder how long before we have desktop sized telescopes that are so powerful that we can push a few buttons and see from earth the tire tracks of the rovers on Mars or see the heart of Pluto?
What happens to the heliosphere if we change the sun as suggested? What happens to the orbits of everything in the solar system? Perhaps the sun is worth more than the energy output of its hydrogen?
Question: Why didn't the universe coalesce into one big star after the Big Bang and instead many gazillions of stars?
The early universe was way too smooth. There was no gravity difderential for mass to be pulled in a specific direction. Stars appeared way later when the universe was too big for that
the ISS, it isn't how old it is, but how old it is compared to how long it was designed to last.
Could we put a star out. Than more efficiently use it to power a colony
A binary star?
Are we von neumann probes? - that one made me laugh! Kind of forces you to turn everything you think you know upside-down and reconsider just in case
Are there any new satellites to replace the space weather satellites that have quit working and the one that is now in an orbit that is too close to us to provide information to give us warning with time to prepare.
the ISS is 33 years old emagan a computer from 1998 cutting edge was Pentium II Xeon 400 or AMD K6-2 both only supported 4GB of ram max. how viable do you think it would be today? and they expect the ISS to last another 10ish years that is mind-boggling?
Imagine is the word you're looking for.
The ISS isn't like an obsolete computer from 1998. It's more like an aging and outdated computer case from 1998.
ISS has been constantly upgraded but there are limitations just as you would with replacing parts in the old case with the Pentium II Xeon for more modern hardware. It's just hard to make some things work as there are compatibility issues.
The hardest part is getting the space station up there so why not boost it farther out to be scavenged for parts for future space stations?
They aren’t just moving the mirrors they are actually bending the mirrors on a micro level.
you are tying yourself into knots with your consensus explanation.
Can you help one person become a miner in the Asteroid Belt, Mars or Jupiter and its Moons? (Just asking, and no not for a friend!)
Author John Ringo in a 3 book series, 1st book. Live free or die. Describes how you could have mirror collectors passing on energy in the form of lasers. To bigger collectors. An with that he melted ore an mined as well as making more an more mirrors to the point of 2nd book, Citadel. was a melted iron astoriod with a chunk of ice planted in the middle. That was blown up similar to a balloon to form a habitat shell. Look it's SF. But it logically held together. He probably didn't come up with the idea. Just made sense. An I couldn't shoot any insurmountable holes in the idea.
Asteroid mining is at least 100 years away; but the reason is NOT that we have plenty minerals. We have plenty of iron, lithium, titanium and aluminium; but we are running out of quite a few things ... helium, some rare earths, cobalt, phosphorus, zinc, gold, palladium, tellurium, rhodium, and many more. The real reason we won't be mining asteroids for at least 100 years is because we will be mining Luna, "the Moon", and Mars sooner. Mining asteroids is more difficult due to the extreme low gravity, and travel distance to any human comforts. Soon after a base is established on Mars, there will be first a huge phase of science and tourism, followed immediately by a prospecting phase. No point in flying for months in space looking for asteroids worth prospecting, when you have millions of asteroids buried in Mars, all nicely circled for you with craters. Once we run out of asteroids IN Mars, then it will make more sense to go get the ones elsewhere. Once we run out of asteroids buried in planets and moons; maybe then it will make more sense to go chasing the ones flying out there.
The US $ used to be pegged to gold, & is currently pegged to oil. When the oil is gone, and there are not enough trees left in the US to mill into paper to print $100 bills to pay the national debt (or remembering what happened to the DeutschMark after WW2) what happens to NASA and its programs ?
21:36f: Do they really? If it only depended on the central star, it certainly would be so but what about the dynamo of the planet itself? Ours was said to stop working by about 10⁹ years from now and this could be fatal already, without Earth being scorched by an ever hotter sun.
I remember when starship launched in 2022
Hey Fraser. Could there be an universe made of antimatter?
Yeah. How do you know that our universe is not already made of antimatter in some sense? It is relative
Pretty neat. Im ready to scoop carbon outa saturns sky
I like the live version but prefer the edited version because of the graphics.
Does intergalactic space have more or less radiation than galactic space. Does a galaxy act in a similar way to a planet with a magnetic field?
They say that the rate of the passage of time slows as you approach a black hole. In fact it goes to zero as you approach the event horizon. That being said, it seems to me that nothing can ever cross the event horizon because it would take an infinite amount of time as we see it from outside, therefore it will never approach the center of the black hole. It will however appear to sink beneath it as "seen" from outside as the black hole's mass grows and the event horizon itself moves out past it. So everything should remain frozen inside the black hole and nothing ever moves to the so called singularity inside. What is wrong with this argument? If I'm right, everything gets relatively stuck in place. Thus there is no infinite density at the center and no information is destroyed. Why do the physicists keep talking about a singularity of infinite density at the center and the loss of information as things fall into a black hole?
Planet Earth have eboght resources coming from our moon I could possibly restore Earth energy resources by more than double with Helium-3 on the moon surface. In large quantities could be very valuable just have to figure out a feasible launch and retrieval process in which to get it back and forth
Scientists have proven 75% of ideas which come to be out true. Without scientists I think we would all be still stuck in a stone age error
Without great minds of scientists I think we would all be still stuck in a stone age error take great minds to come together and prove if it is true or not right from wrong up or down. Came from ground loving monkeys to building stories a hundred plus feet high, Just saying but also humidity have lost a few hundred thousand years of knowledge with the burning of Library of Alexandria for which is still a mystery why for.
2:15 surface gravity? what surface?
You can calculate the surface gravity of any object. That point where the object ends and space begins.
@@frasercain Is there a point, where Jupiter ends as such? my understanding is, that it is more of a gradient over quite a long distance.
Or to put in form of a question, that you can answer in a vid:
How do we determine, where Jupiter Ends, and space begins.
Why do we need mine Jupiter with methane so easy to get on titan I’m confused
Thank - you . ( 2023 / Feb / 19 )
So dark matter and expanding universe. Could these be just our ignorance of what and or where gravity is or comes from. I heard a hypothesis that gravity was "leaking into our universe" somehow through alternat universes or dimensions? Or at least a phenomena that we perseave as gravity? I can't remember her name. I would like to learn more.
The question about scientific consensus is probably pointing more towards politics and how people manipulate studies and scientific research to fit with their preferred political narrative.
Some matters of science are being politicized. For example, this is very prevalent when it comes to climate change science. Yes, in an ideal world scientists and those who are passionate about science, love to look for holes in theories, including looking for holes in their OWN theories. In fact, that's built right into the scientific method.
It's central to the development of scientic theories to approach your own ideas with sceptism and look for alternative explanations. That's the way it should be. But we now live in a world where if you don't believe humans are responsible for warming the planet, then you're a "climate denier" Or if you don't believe mask were necessary for children attending school and that it was counter productive to close schools, then you aren't "following the science" Many people were even dismissing the idea of herd immunity as if that's a concept that was pulled out of someone's rear end to indulge conspiracy theorists.
So unfortunately things have changed a good bit. I'm a science geek at heart and always will be but scientist's are human, and as with every other proffesion, some are going to be driven by political or financial incentives. And as hinted at before, finding pseudo intellectuals online who try piggyback off of scientific research when it fits with their biases is common as well. So some are using "science" to claim a moral or intellectual high ground in such a way that it squashes healthy debate while making it easy for them to make no real effort at exploring dissenting viewpoints.