We aren't wasting the resources and money building settlements on the Moon or Mars...in doing so, we will solve problems and develop new technologies that we would otherwise not develop or at least not worry about until it's too late. As we all know, the "space race" saw the development of medicines and technologies that have the potential of helping the Earth as a whole, so humans trying to get off planet to anywhere and for any reason, will always ultimately be a good thing and NOT a waste of money. In my opinion.
Random update for Fraser. The Orion Capsule has safely made it to my back yard......ok Plum Brook Station, 20 miles away from me, close enough! That might be a cool little special. A history of all space vehicles that went through my neighborhood before going to space.
Hey Fraser, you said drop a question anywhere, so here I am doing just that! I was looking at a video comparing sizes of objects in the universe which always blows my mind. UY Scuti came up as the biggest known star and I began to wonder how much I would weigh on the surface of it. After some searching, it seems I would weigh LESS on the surface of UY Scuti than on Earth. Is this true? It seems strange, but does it have something to do with the relationship of size and gravity to the center of the object's mass? Thanks in advance!
Right, the gravity you experience on the surface of an object is defined by the size and its mass. Essentially, its density. So, you'd experience less gravity on the surface of Saturn than Earth. UY Scuti is big, so the surface gravity is only 0.008% of Earth.
I will live on Mars. After the first manned mission, i will spend so much time begging to be sent they will realize it's cheaper and easier just to send me
Question: can you clarify gravity’s status as a force? It is considered one of the four fundamental forces, but at the same time it is best described through Einstein’s equations as the bending of space time and not a force. I’m confused, which one is it?
I have a question, unrelated to this podcast. Voyager II has crossed into interstellar space, and I am hearing a lot of excitable talk about a "Wall of Fire" that surrounds our solar system. Is this for real? I am especially curious about this, as I have read other astronomy stories in the past that referred to the temperature of deep space - intergalactic space - in tens of thousands of degrees. Yet those articles always seemed rather dry and almost casual about the fantastic energies they were reporting. Here is my question: is deep space actually hot? And if so, is the heat in a form that we would actually experience? Like, would we need to shield astronauts from it? Thanks.
I believe that the answer is no, the particle density is extremely low such that it doesn't matter much. That's my understanding anyway, so it's a super hot plasma but it's so low in density that it's average temperature is still just a few degrees Kelvin. 50+ year old Voyager is still alive and kicking.
@@kylegoldston Yeah, I thought of that also. But then some other podcast picked it up, and suddenly it got the fire hose treatment. So, I had to question how much I really knew. Thank you for your response!
You can have individual particles have very high energies, but they don't actually cause you any damage. It's a problem when they're very dense. Think about team rising up from a pot. If you put your hand close you can get burned, but if your hand is far away, it just feels warm.
@@frasercain thanks for the assist, I couldn't think of a handy analog which explains why I just hang out in the comments section, I find it fascinating that our system has an analog of Earth's magnetosphere. Also that it is kinda analogous to a cell wall, just goes to show that the DMT Elves are correct. It's all just a fractal pattern. Sperm and comets, an egg cell and the Earth, and now the whole system with a natural barrier to entry and contamination.
Was watching a video on new space telescopes when I realised I hadn't heard of any that are based in The Rocky Mountains. Are they not tall enough? Not dry enough? Too far from major shipping routes? (i.e. oceans, because mirror segments are big)
I think the oceans and infrastructure built on the Moon and Mars with people working in unison towards a better tomorrow is the Hannah Barbara version of the future. The only travelers to other planets will be governments, companies that work for governments, powerful financial interests, and we will have a restricted Disneyland version.
Naw, launch prices will go down like everything else, I could imagine someone in Europe in 1520 saying the same of AMERICA, and yet every hurricane season produces hundreds of insurance auction boats that could make a crossing with some work. That's 500 yrs. I'm sure plenty thought the same about flight 100yrs ago and yet you can probably find an airline ticket for less than $100.00 right now. So 40-50 yrs if we get our act together and 15-20yrs if Elon proves that billionaires shouldn't be legislated out of existence.
The dyson swarm doesn’t have to be used to power earth. We could use it to power other satellites or bases on moons, asteroids, and other extraterrestrial bodies. I imagine the satellites would have tuned panels for a particular frequency of light and a number of satellites of the dyson swarm would aim their emitters at the base or satellite requesting power and blast away. Then it may be financially viable. I imagine the cost of building power plants on every body we visit would be out of the question
As an eventuality, people will live on the moon and mars. It will happen more as a function of convenience, (like the ISS) and over time, will become more and more, the norm.
As launches become commonplace, I think CO2 emissions will be a big problem. Hydrogen is expensive, but it's also a better rocket fuel, and it doesn't contribute to global warming. Hydrogen is also good because it can be made in space, for refueling.
During the last Starship presentation Elon mentioned that they would be working towards using the Sabatier process for generating Methane from CO2 on Earth as well as on Mars so carbon neutral.
I was wondering if it was the audio compression, a bandwidth issue, his style of speaking or a combination of it all. I missed quite a few words but I think I got the essence.
@@frasercain Not sure exactly what it may look like, but it seems to be the largest obstacle to progress at nearly every turn. Just during your conversation in this video, I think it came up at least 5 or 6 times.
Tom Pava what is the return on investment in a 35 billion dollar super carrier? Answer: the prospect of future accumulation after pulverizing your near peer rival who is competing for access to the same markets and resources. WE REFUSE TO BE CANNON FODDER FOR THE PROFITS OF THE BOSS CLASS
Listening to this guys arguments they quite bother me as there is so much more to gain that money. The survival of our species really seems quite a bit more important and if we don't develop the technology and infrastructure then we will never go anywhere, had our ancestors carried that mindset we would still be hunter gatherers stuck in Africa. If you get space based manufacturing to build it without having to bring stuff from the Earth surface then space based solar is literally the only scalable carbon neutral option in the absence of nuclear power so eventually we will have no other choice. The method may be cost prohibitive compared to solar wind etc but as of now to make renewable power work you would have to dedicate the Earth's whole surface to power generation while disrupting the Earth system in a way that may make the planet uninhabitable. Dr. Casey's argument is based solely on shortsighted monetary profits not accounting for other factors like economic incentives, politically driven disincentives and the likes as humanity is forced to come to terms with the degree of unsustainability or walk the path of extinction. Our current issues show that growth for the sake of growth economic or otherwise is not a good thing, by focusing on this uncontrolled "progress" we have walked a perilous path that threatens the global collapse of the biosphere. If he had looked into environmental and or sustainability practices he would realize where he arguments break down since we can't afford to allow all those Earth based resources to be extracted. The best value of Earth is to make it a ideal abode for life again as if we don't well it isn't replaceable. Mars for instance is never going to be able to be anything more than a hostile network of caves and domes since you can't give Mars a substantial atmosphere anymore as the solar wind ripped it away.
The problem is SpaceX can only a chunk of the marker even if they offered free launch with free satellite. France and to a lesser degree Germany considers space launch a national technology priority. No matter how much it costs they will subsidize Airbus/Ariane to compete with market competitors. They will never ever give up. So all the private companies can only so so much. Plus if you actually worked for an ISP like I did, you would know Starlink is a hugely flawed concept that offers you high ping for 0 gains. It can only compete with HughesNet and satellite providers and not with conventional ISPs. It only provides access. It still needs stations and fiber on the ground. If you live in an urban area you would be retarded to go for Starlink. Not even to mention the annual sun outage issue.
you are 1 experienced expert. and you know that it won't work. who does space x employ? some teams of experienced experts? well, then it is safe to assume that they understand the problem, too. and they still keep spending millions on the project. if it were an obvious failure, they wouldn't.
Starlink can link up with terminals the size of pizza box and bring internet access to parts of the world that isn't currently served by traditional ISPs. You can bet in the future every tesla vehicle will have one of these pizza sized boxed terminals built into them.
Private companies have the benefit of a constant focus on their mission, changing administrations can wreak havoc on funded programmes as political priorities change over the years. Yes space technology is vital, but not everyone believes this. Space X know they must succeed as they have limited funds which forces them to think creatively, whereas frankly if an organisation knows they are going to have endless amounts of money thrown at them - progress will be ssllooww.
Annual Sun outages affect geostationary satellites. The problem there is that periodically the Sun is directly behind the satellite and swamps the signal a ground station is trying to receive. Starlink satellites aren't geostationary, they're in low-Earth orbit, and so while they do pass in front of the Sun, it's only briefly and they hand off traffic to another node in the constellation, just as a cell tower hands off its communication if your signal is weak in one direction. As with GPS, you'll be in view of multiple satellites at a given time; instead of 31 satellites in orbit, however, they'll have a constellation hundreds with 122 already deployed. Regarding ping, you are again thinking of geostationary satellites, which must orbit at 36,000km and the speed of light imposes a delay of 120ms for a signal to go up and come down. Starlink satellites are like orbiting cellular towers, at orbital altitudes of 340 and 550km, resulting in a light-lag induced delay of 1 or 2ms directly overhead. While HughesNet and any other geostationary providers have latencies of about 600ms, SpaceX has said Starlink will offer latencies of 25-35ms, in line with fixed broadband service providers. How many downlink sites will they have? We don't know, but the horizon at 340km is about 2100km, so they could theoretically cover the United States with just one (centrally located) site. That seems unlikely, however, and I expect they'll have downlink sites on the East and West Coasts, which offers an interesting shortcut: a signal traveling 550km vertically and 2,000km horizontally, then the reverse, will take approximately 13ms; a signal traveling over a fiber optic cable across the surface of the Earth to the same endpoints will take 20+ms. Fiber optics have to transmit a signal at significantly less than the speed of light, as it's traveling through glass, rather than a vacuum. In fact, it's the difference in the speed of light between the core and the cladding that's responsible for its refraction of light that carries it down the length of the fiber. While this does not mean that a low-orbit satellite will be the faster route, end to end, it highlights that a beam can be faster than a cable, even if the former requires a relatively short detour into space. The test station SpaceX has been using is located right next to a Tier 1 provider (Level 3) facility. They haven't announced what kind of infrastructure they are going to have on the back-end, but i would be absurd to think that they haven't thought of it because they haven't made details of it public. Google has invested $900 million into the project, and while they have struggled with their own ISP service, Google Fiber, that means they have even greater awareness building out new infrastructure with Tier 1 access than established ISPs who have an infrastructure generations old. They're not going into this blind to the back-end infrastructure requirement, they just haven't shared how they plan on handling that side of the business.
I believe the plan is to be able to offer access to anyone on Earth, there are billions of people who don't have any access, so even if you have to offer it at $1/month in some markets that's maybe the largest potential revenue stream on Earth.
Fraser Cain well he mentioned his teacher came from Iran after the sha. IIRC he also said dude taught him the maths and folks like his teacher leaving Iran is why Iran has nuke production problems. Also, he is a theoretical physicist by training, but his actual position is software engineer (according to his site) so..
Kyle Goldston I’ve looked into it a bit. From what I understand a crude nuclear device is simple in theory but does take quite some doing to actually produce a nuke that won’t blow itself apart at the very first instance of criticality.
I wish I'd taken up Karate as a child. A did it for 5-6 months back in 2005-6 - loved it. Then my head exploded and I ended up in hospital for six months. And after that I can't even stand on one leg never mind kick someone in the face. A real bummer!
Just becuase cain is written on the belt she's wearing doest mean she's your daughter we know she's a paid actress trying to fool us (nobody goes for taekwondo classes in the middle of the night)
We aren't wasting the resources and money building settlements on the Moon or Mars...in doing so, we will solve problems and develop new technologies that we would otherwise not develop or at least not worry about until it's too late. As we all know, the "space race" saw the development of medicines and technologies that have the potential of helping the Earth as a whole, so humans trying to get off planet to anywhere and for any reason, will always ultimately be a good thing and NOT a waste of money. In my opinion.
Random update for Fraser. The Orion Capsule has safely made it to my back yard......ok Plum Brook Station, 20 miles away from me, close enough! That might be a cool little special. A history of all space vehicles that went through my neighborhood before going to space.
Very cool. Unfortunately, as a Canadian I wasn't allowed to see the previous version when I was at the Kennedy Space Center.
@@frasercain cause we all know you Canadians are secretly trying to steal our space tech. LOL
Hey Fraser, you said drop a question anywhere, so here I am doing just that! I was looking at a video comparing sizes of objects in the universe which always blows my mind. UY Scuti came up as the biggest known star and I began to wonder how much I would weigh on the surface of it. After some searching, it seems I would weigh LESS on the surface of UY Scuti than on Earth. Is this true? It seems strange, but does it have something to do with the relationship of size and gravity to the center of the object's mass? Thanks in advance!
Right, the gravity you experience on the surface of an object is defined by the size and its mass. Essentially, its density. So, you'd experience less gravity on the surface of Saturn than Earth. UY Scuti is big, so the surface gravity is only 0.008% of Earth.
I will live on Mars. After the first manned mission, i will spend so much time begging to be sent they will realize it's cheaper and easier just to send me
That sounds like it could be effective.
Congratulations to the black belter!
Question: can you clarify gravity’s status as a force? It is considered one of the four fundamental forces, but at the same time it is best described through Einstein’s equations as the bending of space time and not a force. I’m confused, which one is it?
Nice topics! Please revisit some of these topics in the future. ISRU deserves a dedicated discussion.
Got a whole episode on Mars ISRU on Monday
I have a question, unrelated to this podcast. Voyager II has crossed into interstellar space, and I am hearing a lot of excitable talk about a "Wall of Fire" that surrounds our solar system. Is this for real? I am especially curious about this, as I have read other astronomy stories in the past that referred to the temperature of deep space - intergalactic space - in tens of thousands of degrees. Yet those articles always seemed rather dry and almost casual about the fantastic energies they were reporting. Here is my question: is deep space actually hot? And if so, is the heat in a form that we would actually experience? Like, would we need to shield astronauts from it? Thanks.
I believe that the answer is no, the particle density is extremely low such that it doesn't matter much. That's my understanding anyway, so it's a super hot plasma but it's so low in density that it's average temperature is still just a few degrees Kelvin. 50+ year old Voyager is still alive and kicking.
@@kylegoldston Yeah, I thought of that also. But then some other podcast picked it up, and suddenly it got the fire hose treatment. So, I had to question how much I really knew. Thank you for your response!
You can have individual particles have very high energies, but they don't actually cause you any damage. It's a problem when they're very dense. Think about team rising up from a pot. If you put your hand close you can get burned, but if your hand is far away, it just feels warm.
@@frasercain thanks for the assist, I couldn't think of a handy analog which explains why I just hang out in the comments section, I find it fascinating that our system has an analog of Earth's magnetosphere.
Also that it is kinda analogous to a cell wall, just goes to show that the DMT Elves are correct. It's all just a fractal pattern. Sperm and comets, an egg cell and the Earth, and now the whole system with a natural barrier to entry and contamination.
Was watching a video on new space telescopes when I realised I hadn't heard of any that are based in The Rocky Mountains. Are they not tall enough? Not dry enough? Too far from major shipping routes? (i.e. oceans, because mirror segments are big)
I think the oceans and infrastructure built on the Moon and Mars with people working in unison towards a better tomorrow is the Hannah Barbara version of the future. The only travelers to other planets will be governments, companies that work for governments, powerful financial interests, and we will have a restricted Disneyland version.
Earl As opposed to? The natural manifestation of human cooperation and teamwork is in the form of companies and governments and unions.
Naw, launch prices will go down like everything else, I could imagine someone in Europe in 1520 saying the same of AMERICA, and yet every hurricane season produces hundreds of insurance auction boats that could make a crossing with some work. That's 500 yrs.
I'm sure plenty thought the same about flight 100yrs ago and yet you can probably find an airline ticket for less than $100.00 right now.
So 40-50 yrs if we get our act together and 15-20yrs if Elon proves that billionaires shouldn't be legislated out of existence.
It all depends on how it's funded.
Congratulations for your daughter. Impressive.
The dyson swarm doesn’t have to be used to power earth. We could use it to power other satellites or bases on moons, asteroids, and other extraterrestrial bodies. I imagine the satellites would have tuned panels for a particular frequency of light and a number of satellites of the dyson swarm would aim their emitters at the base or satellite requesting power and blast away. Then it may be financially viable. I imagine the cost of building power plants on every body we visit would be out of the question
It's still more efficient to have solar panels that use the power directly.
MK I didn't ''blow up''
It just launched before the official schedule
C'mon Fraser, let's be positive!
They'll launch it piece by piece.
Blue Origin is probably working on some big rocket secret project. Maybe a New Armstrong.
When I first saw his name, my brain read it as Chelsea Handler, and I momentarily became very angry.
Casey Handmer. :-)
Ha, ha, maybe get Chelsea Handler on the show? I wonder if she has any opinions on space besides drinking rocket fuel (vodka)? :-)
As an eventuality, people will live on the moon and mars. It will happen more as a function of convenience, (like the ISS) and over time, will become more and more, the norm.
Once there's a lot of infrastructure, it'll happen.
As launches become commonplace, I think CO2 emissions will be a big problem. Hydrogen is expensive, but it's also a better rocket fuel, and it doesn't contribute to global warming. Hydrogen is also good because it can be made in space, for refueling.
During the last Starship presentation Elon mentioned that they would be working towards using the Sabatier process for generating Methane from CO2 on Earth as well as on Mars so carbon neutral.
Congratulations on the black belt! She can make people fly, maybe with a bit more training she can get them into orbit :-)
Hah, good point. :-)
Jeez, I'm getting an anxiety attack trying to listen to this. But I know ur trying, keep it up
it's the guest's mic
Sorry about that audio quality.
I was wondering if it was the audio compression, a bandwidth issue, his style of speaking or a combination of it all. I missed quite a few words but I think I got the essence.
We need to shake loose from the yoke of money.
It could definitely work in VR with vr currency that you could exchange back and fourth between "real" money like in the movie ready player one.
Money in general?
@@frasercain Not sure exactly what it may look like, but it seems to be the largest obstacle to progress at nearly every turn. Just during your conversation in this video, I think it came up at least 5 or 6 times.
Tom Pava what is the return on investment in a 35 billion dollar super carrier? Answer: the prospect of future accumulation after pulverizing your near peer rival who is competing for access to the same markets and resources. WE REFUSE TO BE CANNON FODDER FOR THE PROFITS OF THE BOSS CLASS
Listening to this guys arguments they quite bother me as there is so much more to gain that money. The survival of our species really seems quite a bit more important and if we don't develop the technology and infrastructure then we will never go anywhere, had our ancestors carried that mindset we would still be hunter gatherers stuck in Africa.
If you get space based manufacturing to build it without having to bring stuff from the Earth surface then space based solar is literally the only scalable carbon neutral option in the absence of nuclear power so eventually we will have no other choice. The method may be cost prohibitive compared to solar wind etc but as of now to make renewable power work you would have to dedicate the Earth's whole surface to power generation while disrupting the Earth system in a way that may make the planet uninhabitable. Dr. Casey's argument is based solely on shortsighted monetary profits not accounting for other factors like economic incentives, politically driven disincentives and the likes as humanity is forced to come to terms with the degree of unsustainability or walk the path of extinction. Our current issues show that growth for the sake of growth economic or otherwise is not a good thing, by focusing on this uncontrolled "progress" we have walked a perilous path that threatens the global collapse of the biosphere.
If he had looked into environmental and or sustainability practices he would realize where he arguments break down since we can't afford to allow all those Earth based resources to be extracted. The best value of Earth is to make it a ideal abode for life again as if we don't well it isn't replaceable. Mars for instance is never going to be able to be anything more than a hostile network of caves and domes since you can't give Mars a substantial atmosphere anymore as the solar wind ripped it away.
The problem is SpaceX can only a chunk of the marker even if they offered free launch with free satellite. France and to a lesser degree Germany considers space launch a national technology priority. No matter how much it costs they will subsidize Airbus/Ariane to compete with market competitors. They will never ever give up. So all the private companies can only so so much. Plus if you actually worked for an ISP like I did, you would know Starlink is a hugely flawed concept that offers you high ping for 0 gains. It can only compete with HughesNet and satellite providers and not with conventional ISPs. It only provides access. It still needs stations and fiber on the ground. If you live in an urban area you would be retarded to go for Starlink. Not even to mention the annual sun outage issue.
you are 1 experienced expert. and you know that it won't work. who does space x employ? some teams of experienced experts? well, then it is safe to assume that they understand the problem, too. and they still keep spending millions on the project. if it were an obvious failure, they wouldn't.
Starlink can link up with terminals the size of pizza box and bring internet access to parts of the world that isn't currently served by traditional ISPs. You can bet in the future every tesla vehicle will have one of these pizza sized boxed terminals built into them.
Private companies have the benefit of a constant focus on their mission, changing administrations can wreak havoc on funded programmes as political priorities change over the years. Yes space technology is vital, but not everyone believes this. Space X know they must succeed as they have limited funds which forces them to think creatively, whereas frankly if an organisation knows they are going to have endless amounts of money thrown at them - progress will be ssllooww.
Annual Sun outages affect geostationary satellites. The problem there is that periodically the Sun is directly behind the satellite and swamps the signal a ground station is trying to receive. Starlink satellites aren't geostationary, they're in low-Earth orbit, and so while they do pass in front of the Sun, it's only briefly and they hand off traffic to another node in the constellation, just as a cell tower hands off its communication if your signal is weak in one direction. As with GPS, you'll be in view of multiple satellites at a given time; instead of 31 satellites in orbit, however, they'll have a constellation hundreds with 122 already deployed.
Regarding ping, you are again thinking of geostationary satellites, which must orbit at 36,000km and the speed of light imposes a delay of 120ms for a signal to go up and come down. Starlink satellites are like orbiting cellular towers, at orbital altitudes of 340 and 550km, resulting in a light-lag induced delay of 1 or 2ms directly overhead. While HughesNet and any other geostationary providers have latencies of about 600ms, SpaceX has said Starlink will offer latencies of 25-35ms, in line with fixed broadband service providers.
How many downlink sites will they have? We don't know, but the horizon at 340km is about 2100km, so they could theoretically cover the United States with just one (centrally located) site. That seems unlikely, however, and I expect they'll have downlink sites on the East and West Coasts, which offers an interesting shortcut: a signal traveling 550km vertically and 2,000km horizontally, then the reverse, will take approximately 13ms; a signal traveling over a fiber optic cable across the surface of the Earth to the same endpoints will take 20+ms. Fiber optics have to transmit a signal at significantly less than the speed of light, as it's traveling through glass, rather than a vacuum. In fact, it's the difference in the speed of light between the core and the cladding that's responsible for its refraction of light that carries it down the length of the fiber. While this does not mean that a low-orbit satellite will be the faster route, end to end, it highlights that a beam can be faster than a cable, even if the former requires a relatively short detour into space.
The test station SpaceX has been using is located right next to a Tier 1 provider (Level 3) facility. They haven't announced what kind of infrastructure they are going to have on the back-end, but i would be absurd to think that they haven't thought of it because they haven't made details of it public. Google has invested $900 million into the project, and while they have struggled with their own ISP service, Google Fiber, that means they have even greater awareness building out new infrastructure with Tier 1 access than established ISPs who have an infrastructure generations old. They're not going into this blind to the back-end infrastructure requirement, they just haven't shared how they plan on handling that side of the business.
I believe the plan is to be able to offer access to anyone on Earth, there are billions of people who don't have any access, so even if you have to offer it at $1/month in some markets that's maybe the largest potential revenue stream on Earth.
So this guy can do the math that none in Iran can do to make a fission bomb?
211212112 ?
I don't even think you really need math to make a crude "fission bomb" you need math to figure out that it's possible.
He's a theoretical physicist, not a nuclear physicist.
Fraser Cain well he mentioned his teacher came from Iran after the sha. IIRC he also said dude taught him the maths and folks like his teacher leaving Iran is why Iran has nuke production problems. Also, he is a theoretical physicist by training, but his actual position is software engineer (according to his site) so..
Kyle Goldston I’ve looked into it a bit. From what I understand a crude nuclear device is simple in theory but does take quite some doing to actually produce a nuke that won’t blow itself apart at the very first instance of criticality.
slowww dowwwn
Remember that you're listening a Canadian talk to an Australian.
Sounds a little bit like Elon Moosk
Black belt! A license to kick ass!
I wish I'd taken up Karate as a child. A did it for 5-6 months back in 2005-6 - loved it. Then my head exploded and I ended up in hospital for six months. And after that I can't even stand on one leg never mind kick someone in the face. A real bummer!
It's been a long time coming, she's been training for 11 years now.
Just becuase cain is written on the belt she's wearing doest mean she's your daughter we know she's a paid actress trying to fool us (nobody goes for taekwondo classes in the middle of the night)