Astrophysicist explains why JWST HASN'T "disproved Big Bang theory" | Night Sky News Aug 22

[@danmoyer4650]

In your discussion of the Artemis program, you refer to it as a "joint project between NASA and the European Space Agency". Please note that the Canadian Space Agency and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency are both very active participants and contributors to this program. Canada's main contribution is the design and construction of the "Canadarm 3" robotic manipulator. A Canadian astronaut will be part of the first Artemis crew to land on the Moon. It seems to me that these contributions deserve at least a passing mention in your coverage..

[@DrBecky]

My apologies!

[@dhwang101]

It's curious that NASA can find way to work with Russia but not with China

[@geesehoward700]

whos making the window screen wipers?

[@DNTMEE]

Canada has an actual, honest to goodness space program with launch vehicles and everything? Or is a government supported Canadian firm simply the contractor building the arm?

[@unconcernedbeast9190]

8:55 i hate that they picked a colored person and a woman to let them land on the moon . obama was random they did not say let pick a black guy and make him the new the president .he did it himself it was beautiful the colored person and women did not deserve their place i hate this world . that like saying let put the first black guy on everest so they carried him there

[@deepakmahtani2667]

Another fantastic episode Dr Becky! As a former astrophysicist I’m in awe of your communication of complex concepts. Have you ever thought about doing a book on how to do science communication well? Love this channel and your super massive podcast

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

how can someone be a FORMER astrophysicist. once you have invested that much time and gold toward learning something, NOBODY can take it away from you.

[@deepakmahtani2667]

@@tracyavent-costanza346 that’s a very good question, I left academia unfortunately after my PhD

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

@@deepakmahtani2667 WRT "... I left academia unfortunately after my PhD.." good choice on when to leave. I hope you found a decent job on the "outside". In college they called that the "real world" and once in it, I seemed to detect that it really was not all that different. Except I got paid.

[@bitshuffler]

Artemis (and to a large degree Apollo) were more engineering efforts than scientific ones. There is a huge amount to be gained from the discoveries and inventions required by these efforts. They expand human knowledge and capability just as scientific discover does.

[@rickrocks007]

But it's such a boondoggle. It never should have been continued when Obama said kill it. They authorized using private space companies and should have killed the massive humongous multi-corporate, multi-country, program which after so many years of delay, still won't be the best rocket built in the USA by the year 2024.

[@sjaakderksen531]

The gain in engineering knowledge during Apollo which made amongst others JWST possible and indirectly advances in science possible. In that respect I agree it's possibly not Artemis which brings the same amount of engineering advances but more likely private space companies. Imagine what kind of space telescopes could be launched with starship? Likewise they pose a risk: take for instance Starlink obstructing the view from Earth.

[@rorykeegan1895]

Artemis is an engineering bad joke. Its a Frankenstein rocket and completely bonkers. Its cost a fortune to save money!

[@StephensEFRC]

Tosh

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

agreed. in "engineering" often a FAILURE teaches you more than a "success" does. And let's face it, the US space program has had there share. the MOTIVE might have been "science" (at least in part) but the METHOD was engineering.

[@SvenScholz]

Scientists: "Our research results won't make sense without context!" Media: "Scientists say, their research make no sense!"

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

lack of context never seemed to bother research mathematicians.

[@ticktockbam]

@@tracyavent-costanza346 Mmmh, I wonder why that would be? It's not like they'd need any context in pure mathematics.

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

@@ticktockbam WRT "... It's not like they'd need any context in pure mathematics..." precisely my point.

[@tjzambonischwartz]

I will never forget HOW I learned about Betelgeuse dimming. I was setting up my telescope in the backyard getting ready to do some observing, and I looked at Orion and something felt WRONG. Took me a minute to figure out what was triggering that feeling, but I'll never forget that "uncanny valley" sensation from looking at the sky. It was like Lovecraftian cosmic horror stuff. Jumped online to make sure my eyes weren't playing tricks on me.

[@feldegast]

Dr Becky's delivery is joyous, just hearing her deliver these videos makes the day all the better 😀

[@TurinTuramber]

Having once seen the night sky from remote places in NZ and Canada, it's tragic that I have to search for the milky way. 😒

[@maksphoto78]

I feel you bro! I grew up in an Estonian town where street lights were rare, and you could see this hazy band of light all across the sky.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Light pollution sucks. Necessary because of criminals

[@limiv5272]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer How about just seeing where you're going when it's dark outside and cars not crashing into each other? Even without criminals those lights would be necessary

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@limiv5272 I use something we like to call headlights

[@limiv5272]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer They're not enough, that's why intersections have to be well lit, at least in my country.

[@Hypernova87]

I just wanna say that I hope you’ll continue this channeI. I know you’re busy with work and just life in general. You’re enthusiasm for the Cosmos is just contagious though. I have nobody in my life who even remotely cares to hear me talk about anything space-related. Even when I’m familiar with a topic you’re covering, you always make it exciting and I learn something new each time. -just a big fan :)

[@michaelrogers9866]

Let me get this straight: you're a full-time astrophysicist, you write, produce, and edit your podcasts, you wrote a new book, AND you narrated that book. WHEN DO YOU SLEEP? I'm really not complaining - I'm in awe. And envious. Mostly in awe. And VERY appreciative of the awesome output.

[@timl.b.2095]

Exactly my feeling. Not to mention she's an *award-winning* astrophysicist. (See her Wikipedia page.)

[@likegoodvino]

I was thinking the exact same thing @Michael! She is a totally inspiring human being!

[@patreekotime4578]

I guess the important science related to Artemis is really things like testing improved space suits and the other periphery equipment required for humans to visit other planets. The fact that humans havnt landed on another body in space in 50 years means that there may be a huge backlog of equipment related to those kinds of missions that hasnt really been tested. If we ARE to go to Mars, knowing where we stand with that equipment has to be considered the first step. Also... If Betelguise dies in our lifetimes that would be wild... Orion, one of the most important constellations for ancient peoples would be changed forever. Wild.

[@tonywilson4713]

As an aerospace engineer who graduated in the late 80s, I can say for change you're someone on the right path. There's an extraordinary backlog of stuff that was never fully developed or deployed on any mission. I normally hate these discussion because so many people hear so many things via social media that they never hear what we went through. In 1985 we were expecting to not only build the next space station by the mid 90s but be back on the moon BEFORE or just around the year 2000. Then January 28, 1986 happened Challenger blew up during the launch and reality came down like a hammer. I was actually in Orlando and watched Columbia take of only 16 days earlier. I would have like to be way closer but form 60 miles away it was staggering. Looking back the space shuttle was double edged. On one hand it was a spectacular technical success in that they made a reusable spaceplane actually work and nobody should ever misread that. On the other hand it utterly crippled our progress in manned exploration. It consumed 2 things in particular - money and man hours. That meant many other programs just didn't get funded as well as they needed or not funded at all. But even worse there wasn't the time spent, as in people actually working on things like life support for a moon base or long duration missions. There was a massive delay on new space suit design and there wasn't a heap of other things done. The ISS program is also similar. yes its done some amazing science but it has also consumed massive amounts of money and human time. Its saving grace is the testing and proving of technologies. The lame super slug in this has been SLS, which would take me a long time to explain, but its been a disaster so far. To not end up producing a decent result will be a catastrophe. So you are absolutely right. The main reason we need to go back to the moon is to simply do all those things we didn't do during the 90s or 2000s

[@danilooliveira6580]

I think its less testing, since you can test it on earth, and more about proving it. the engineering and technological challenge we will have to overcome to do it will teach us a lot about more important missions, that is the difference between practical engineering and theoretical science, the best way to progress is by actually doing things and seeing what you learn from it. its also setting the path for future missions. proving everyone, specially the people handling the money, that we can have a reliable foothold on the moon will make it a lot easier to convince them to fund the next missions. having a long term base on the moon will not just be of extreme scientific significance (imagine all kinds of science we could do on the moon, imagine building a HUGE space observatory on the moon that we can only hope to do with the help of human hands), specially if we plan to go to mars, but can also have practical significance in the future, since the moon is the best place to get He-3 that we may need for some types of nuclear fusion since D/He-3 is not just one of the best reactions but T is on short supply.

[@Kelnx]

This is absolutely the reason why we have to go to the Moon. If we're serious about eventually going to Mars, we can't just test proposed systems meant to keep astronauts alive on a base or colony on Earth and hope they work well in such a harsh environment. The Moon is right there, and if we can make things work there, we can make them work on Mars. I know some scientists argue that we shouldn't even bother sending humans anywhere for exploration, but they're only thinking about gathering science, not future of our species. There is a hard time limit for how long Earth can be habitable. We need to work towards the eventuality of finding ways to live in inhabitable places, and Mars will be a good first effort. But to get there, we need to test things in our own "backyard", which means the Moon.

[@DrBecky]

The problem with that is that I don't think it is a good idea for humans to visit other planets. I talked about this the other day on my video about Mars. If you want to know if life existed on Mars, the worst thing you can do is send humans there because you contaminate the surface. Especially if you find life and then want to know if it had a common origin with Earth or not. Anything you find after humans have been will always be cast in doubt

[@tonywilson4713]

@@Kelnx You're absolutely right on most of this. Despite the delta-v being similar the flight time to Mars just makes it a nightmare technological solution. You have people alive (food, water, oxygen, CO2,.....) for 6 months versus 3 days. In an emergency you could get people back from the moon in 3 days, while 6 months isn't an emergency option. As for the reason there are scientists NOT wanting to do manned missions, that's more complex than the future of our species. The species line is being pushed by people like Elon Musk and I can tell you its garbage. If we are to rely on Mars for survival we are already doomed. Its a longer discussion if you want to have it but Elon is pushing a fantasy. *Either we learn to properly manage this planet or we really are doomed.* The reason why many of those scientists want to use probes and rovers is because they are so cost effective at the moment to learn more about Mars and other planets. Don't forget we have been trapped in Low Earth Orbit for a few decades. If you look at my other comment there just hasn't been the resources to go anywhere. Right now, there's 2 rover missions that are obvious to me but I haven't seen ANYBODY propose. 1) Lunar South Pole to look for and analyse water. We know its there but we don't know what its actually like or how much is really there. So its a combination of survey and analysis. Is it just straight H2O or are there salts and dissolved minerals. We need to know what is actually there and what we can do with it. The monster problem is how do we power a rover inside those craters where there's no sunlight. I think the problem is that every answer so far produces 3 or more problems to solve. 2) Mars North or South Pole. Its pretty much the same for Mars but id' expect its a lot more expensive, because its Mars and its seriously cold at those poles and there'd be less light to charge batteries. So its more complex and I suspect like for a lunar south pole every solution produces 3 or more problems

[@cyborg555]

In the long term, what we learn from going to the moon and establishing a permanent base there were inform our efforts to eventually go to Mars. If you read NASA's justifications for lunar missions that's one of the main selling points.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

We could go to Mars that is possible. Figuring out something worth wile doing on Mars and getting back is the problem. We already have Rovers taking samples on Mars. Sending bigger robotic drilling riggs and getting samples back to earth could be done cheaper without sending any squishy bags mostly made of water (Humans) to the barren and hostile planet.

[@rezadaneshi]

Those are all baby steps Chris. World has never seen a leap like JWST because it will solve a huge number of our cold file questions. Humanity is at its pinnacle desperately needing technology that need understandings, that only JWST type of machine can deliver. There will never be a time machine like the ones in the movies. Well, that will destroy physics. But JWST is that kind of miracle that actually follows all of the lows of physics as we know them while evolving it. It’s only been a little over a month Chris. Wow

[@ghoti221]

@@lubricustheslippery5028 The real question we’re trying to answer is whether humanity is stuck on Earth forever. Sending probes is all well and good, and the SLS has been a massive financial boondoggle IMHO, but at some point we have to learn to crawl out of our cradle, or humanity dies here. The pale blue dot wasn’t just a warning to take care of the only home we have, but a reminder that we need to leave home, or something is eventually going to get us.

[@sisilotau2185]

What we need to actually do is send the willing to either the moon or Mars or both with the materials needed to at least attempt to set up a base or settlement of some kind. We are suffering from cold feet and the fear of disaster. And if we hope to colonize anything outside the earth that needs to end. It's a must we must do everything possible to avoid deaths or life long injury in the possible, but we need to actually take the risk numerous times before we can ever hope to get a footing outside Earth. We only need to look at history of how setting up colonies on earth took place to figure out that it is very dangerous even on our own planet, but enough attempts with those who are willing will eventually prove fruitful. But just thinking and planning and sending robots will never actually make it happen. Humans need to be sent to actually make progress and it won't always be pretty, but if we send the willing, they will eventually figure it out, and they'd do it quicker and better than if we just keep theorizing

[@witchdoctor6502]

Exactly! This is just a baby step for humanity to colonize the sol system. Scientifically we can do better with that kind of money, but this is to inspire and show everyone what we can do right now and for us to imagine what we can do in upcoming decades if we (really) want to.

[@johnfry1011]

As an engineer I’m excited by the willingness to push the limits of human exploration, just pushing in small steps doesn’t always break us through, we need the occasional punch.

[@tyrantworm7392]

Couldn't agree more John. We've probably all worked on projects that have been piecemeal funded, and appreciate how hard it is to make substantial steps forwards in this environment. It's unusual for politicians to be willing to plan/spend beyond the current term, but is needed to progress this sort of ambition. Perhaps Becky will see the virtue in 30 years when we have an ELT on the moon.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

We need your engineering punch in energy storage, decarbonising the atmosphere, water management, food production, reforestation techniques, ecofuels, etc. We don't need an engineering punch in space. The satellites we have work quite well.

[@ShaneSemler]

It's not a zero-sum game.

[@Chris-iv3bc]

Hell yeah brother! Einstein was a moron! Go back to classical physics. Why do we know everything? When we know nothing? Why? Go tell them to make people think. Bing bang is just made up story. Please... i'm an educated intellectual.... This Dr. Becky tells me no electricity in space?

[@solsystem1342]

@@ronaldderooij1774 you say that like we can't do both? I'd love to see as much money put towards renewables as space travel but, we don't have to remove one to have the other. It's not like space travel takes up a significant fraction of any nation's budget.

[@billrowe8718]

I think the discussion about Artemis funding is a bit of a false dichotomy. The money was made available to fund Aretemis because it is a big prestige project and kept jobs going in key states/congressional districts. If there was no Artemis project, the money wouldn't have been budgeted.

[@sundhaug92]

Yeah. Utah, Texas, Florida, California,... it's a massive jobs-program

[@finkergamer8557]

Maybe I'm still asleep, but yeah - if there is no project, there is no project.

[@xEvilRaptorx]

@@finkergamer8557 ...then there is no funding*

[@aspzx]

I don't see how it's a false dichotomy. If Congress had not funded Artemis, they would have had more tax money available to fund other science or non-science programmes.

[@HappyMathDad]

​@@aspzx I don't see how the elemental curiosity of humans has to be restricted to basic science. Many people want to see humans in space. And it would be a huge achievement just as basic science. Both are valid from a human perspective. It seem narrow-minded to say only basic science deserves funding.

[@philochristos]

Chapter 4: Why black holes are "black." Chapter 7: Why black holes are not 'black." That sounds like a riveting plot twist.

[@UnseenMenace]

Isn't the main benefit of returning to the Moon being a stepping stone to setting up a permanent base there which could be used as a stop off point for further reaching missions in the future?

[@G360LIVE]

Yes.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

I don't think so. One big deterrent to a permanent manned base is the moon is a large electrostatic dirt ball with no water. The dust aggressively clings everywhere as it has been stripped of electrons by unabated radiation by the Sun. Earth dust is one thing, moon dust another. A major hurdle, among a host of others.

[@rorykeegan1895]

The proposed Moon base is anything but permanent if SLS is involved. It simply makes the entire project financially silly in the extreme. Basically Artemis as proposed is a selfie opportunity for the NASA PR department and that's about it, given the meagre utilisation envisaged. It only begins to work by dumping SLS and Gateway, then utilising other assets such as Starship / Dragon or Starliner combinations to give us 24/7, 365 occupation of the Moonbase. Have a worthwhile goal, simplify the project, lower costs and increase the chances of success.

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

yep, at this point primarily Mars missions but probably ultimately others to major moons.

[@berdeter]

It's so great to have Dr Becky to tell us about space news in that refreshing, comprehensive and accurate way.

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

yeah, I made comments but really they are DETAILS and I think she's great. Even with the British-isms which yank English would probably be advised to borrow more from. Ye tosser, ye.

[@aikiwolfie]

NASA: We're going back to the moon. Dr. Becky: Is there a black hole on the moon? NASA: No. Dr. Becky: Funding denied! 🤪

[@Wombatzone31]

I feel us finally going back to the moon opens so many new doors for us into space travel and observing our universe more. Imagine building a 50m telescope on the moon!

[@cynewulf1]

There's a PR and visibility benefit to sending people back to the moon which will I suspect will inspire future generations to get involved far more than perhaps a bunch of smaller, much less visible missions. There's nothing more inspirational than humans overcoming huge technical hurdles to achieve something spectacular. I would say the more people are inspired by events like this, the better that for is space science in the long run.

[@garethbattersby]

I would more focus on a mixed nation team than skin colour and genitalia. Especially with everything going on now. If we had a team of American, European and Asian astronauts that would be more symbolic I feel. When we last went it was one nation, now we return as a global team.

[@stevenwilson5556]

@@garethbattersby I agree. The identity politics isn't inspiring, but multiple nations being involved absolutely is.

[@anoyingnomad]

JWST is also one of those achievements!

[@LouDeeCruz]

Yes and JWST has given us amazing data showing how the latest Big Bang theory predictions have failed again! Last time the BBT failed was when distant supernovae lightcurves failed to show time dilation . And the theorists had to make up imaginary acceleration to prevent the BBT from being thrown onto the scrap heap of science history along with flat earth theory.

[@helgelk]

In my view, Artemis is like marketing. It costs a big clump of money, but one of the dividends is increased public interest in space - and hence, increased funding. People tend to engage more with other people on the ground than they do robots, even if the robots can get the actual job done just as well or better. That's one massive marketing budget, though.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

...and a few deaths along the way.

[@Great_Olaf5]

So I'm not the only one frustrated by the naming of the Apollo program! As for the allocation... I think we need the Artemis missions. People have been legitimately losing interest in space, with the shuttle program shutting down, the ISS being slowly aged out, and a bunch of other decisions, the public face of space exploration has just bell constantly losing ground. There's a lot of important science going on, I'm fully aware of that, but a lot of that is extremely esoteric the the average person, or to the children learning about them from the news or in school. For a lot of us, even space nerds like me, most of what comes out boils down to a bunch of pretty pictures that look nice, but very little humanity to them. We don't just want to see stars, we want to see ourselves among them. I remember watching this big retrospective on the Apollo program, and they were easily focusing in on the question of whether or not it was worth it, and they came to the conclusion that there were so many things that we learned from the program, the successes and the failures, the intentional and the mistake, that would have been impossible to learn without actually doing them and sending people up there. Maybe there's less out there that absolutely requires a person to learn more than there wax then, but I still think that as valuable as observation and analysis are to science, there are still things we need to interact with, get our hands on, and things that we need to do, and be seen doing to keep our eyes on the sky.

[@daedaluscenter2825]

it was named apollo becusase he was the god of light and education, which the program did

[@AUTUMN-DARK]

Also the sun hits the moon and reflects back to earth.... The Apollo mission took men to the moon and then the they came back to earth so on many levels it makes sense.

[@yinnyari]

I was born in 1968 and grew up in a world obsessed with the moon landings, it's the core of my inspiration and desire to know more about science, space, astrophysics and many other subjects.

[@jahnghalt3864]

Born 1958 - Apollo was very much about "beating the Russians". IF they'd proved to be better at rocketry we'd may well have a real space-infrastructure now (see Kubrick's 2001)

[@Kroesis]

I always thought that having a permanent presence on the moon would be a gateway to further exploration of the solar system, no? Would the Artemis missions not be the first step in creating that base? Would the complexity of creating a base on the moon not create many jobs for STEM personnel?

[@Dragrath1]

Well there are a number of issues for example the Moon does have a lumpy gravitational field which tends to destabilize many orbits so as Artemis is built around that in the Lunar gateway it might limit the missions longevity. The point of this is a lot of the Artemis decisions don't exactly resemble the best long term solution but rather a lot Now as for jobs this here comes to the dirty truth about US industry and jobs is its largely guess work in the US the use of contractors and subcontracting to the point where there is a whole method to winning contracts via unrealistic proposals and then asking for more funds to make up the difference arguably via exploiting the Sunken cost fallacy. In this sense more money doesn't always mean more jobs because a lot of that goes to the same companies like Boeing or Northrop Grumman. Of course this is oversimplified but it was meant to show that there are lots of complexities and its less than an ideal system if job creation was the goal.

[@MrHAPPYHAWAIIAN]

The moon would become a weapons system, designed for nuclear or high powered laser. Everything is militarized.

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

Creating jobs by doing things in an inefficient and stupid way is always bad. The moon have lower gravity than earth and it's therefore easier to launch stuff from the moon than the earth. The problem is that we barely can do anything on the Moon so everything have to first be transported from earth to the moon and that is just worse than sending it directly to space. Maybe something like big telescopes on the Moon could be interesting?

[@KJ-yk4nq]

Agree, if we survive long enough there's an inevitability to us becoming multiplanetary, the moon has got to be part of the picture in our earliest steps

[@lubricustheslippery5028]

@@KJ-yk4nq That is in a very long term. To get there we should not send astronauts to space now. We should do real science and take care of the planet we can live on now so we have a better chance to get there.

[@RobertFantinatto]

Dr. Becky, when I was in grade school, this would have been the late 70's, I was obsessed with black holes and did a science fair project all about what was known up to that point. Later I did a year of undergrad astrophysics but found I just didn't have the talent or the math chops and ended up going into the fine arts, but I'm an amateur astrophotographer and love to keep up with what is happening. I really enjoy your videos and have nothing but a deep respect for anyone who can get a Ph.D in astrophysics! I can't wait to catch up on my black hole knowledge with your book...so excited!

[@lolygagger5991]

For me personally. It's not the scientific objectives that matter in the Artemis mission. What matters is its symbolism. Like how the Apollo missions were a symbol of humanities first steps outside the confines of our planet, Artemis is the symbol of humanities first settlement of space. It is our first firm step into calling outer space our home. It is a small and pathetic step into the mind boggelingly vast and empty sea that is our universe, but is a step nonetheless. For better or for worse, all of humanities colonial expansion into our universe starts with Artemis being its key to unlock it.

[@darren8453]

Yes and no. You can't really disentangle Apollo from the Cold War, from JFK's need for a distraction tactic at a time of political uncertainty, the collective will to fulfill the mission after his assassination, and the subsequent political hangover where Apollo missions were considered almost boring once the US had beaten the Soviets. Artemis is simply what happens when you don't have that kind of political capital driving something. And it for all its cost, in real terms it has cost something like a tenth of the try-anything, throw-money-at-problems approach of Apollo. But it has so obviously been a dinosaur project held together by pork in Congress for so long now that I can't muster much enthusiasm for it, knowing that it will be eclipsed in relatively short order and for a fraction of the cost by private space companies.

[@TotalyKenyan]

@@darren8453 the jfk and the cold War happened and gave us the moon landing. Now we are actually try to collonise space. Little steps, it's OK to stop and take a chill pill

[@darren8453]

@@TotalyKenyan eh? I was trying to say that Apollo has been romanticised as this wonderful humanitarian project, but in reality the reasons for it's inception and continued existence reflect more on our darker urges and self-preservation

[@jonathanp89]

Artemis will also inspire a new generation.

[@Mortico88]

I think most Americans, and most people generally, share the opinion that manned space exploration of other worlds should NEVER have been halted. Let's keep it going, this time!

[@john.ellmaker]

I don’t think you’re wrong to voice your opinion from your perspective on Artemis. You’re thoughtful and explain your position which is what we should hope our scientists should feel free to do. It’s going forward though so I hope there is an inspirational effect worldwide that makes the investment worth it as you said, Apollo really moved the needle in so many disciplines.

[@Siansonea]

The moon missions aren't about the science, they're about generating enthusiasm for space exploration and science. It's a PR exercise. And if it's successful, it will do a lot toward raising the tide that raises all the other science boats, as it were.

[@EBDavis111]

It didn't work last time, why would it work this time?

[@Siansonea]

@@EBDavis111 so, people weren't inspired by the moon missions back in the day?

[@EBDavis111]

@@Siansonea No. The public was famously bored by them. It's why Congress cut the funding in the first place.

[@Siansonea]

@@EBDavis111 so, all the footage and photos of people glued to the TV sets watching Apollo 11 land on the moon-fake news?

[@EBDavis111]

@@Siansonea No, that was real. Then the ratings dropping for the next missions was also real. Did you forget about that? Or was that fake news? You ,know, peopel were glued to the TV for the MASH tv series finale. Do you think that corrolated with a public interest in science? Maybe we should reboot that series and end it again.

[@seansreading]

I think the strongest argument for the moon mission is pure inertia. It's less the mission itself than it is getting a process going of getting to the moon, and out into space generally, and doing things other than unmanned probes.

[@alanlawless7750]

"Inertia" is your Strong Argument, at 4.1 billion per launch? Hope your not a lawyer, you'll starve.....

[@danilooliveira6580]

yes, even if we ignore all the engineering and scientific rewards from the mission, things like this spark the interest in space exploration on people and investors. it will be what funds the next scientific missions and heat up the space race.

[@DrBecky]

The problem with that is that I don't think it is a good idea for humans to visit other planets. I talked about this the other day on my video about Mars. If you want to know if life existed on Mars, the worst thing you can do is send humans there because you contaminate the surface. Especially if you find life and then want to know if it had a common origin with Earth or not. Anything you find after humans have been will always be cast in doubt

[@StockportJambo]

@@DrBecky Respectfully, I think that's an astrophysicists view rather than an exobiologist's view. If we find microbes on Mars (which humans could do), they will be very obviously different from anything here on Earth to the trained eye... even if they both share a "common origin" like DNA.

[@BlackEpyon]

@@DrBecky That assumes the goal for a human presence on Mars is science. Apollo was never about the science, but national prestige. In the case of Artemis, I think there's enough public will to justify going again. We've tootled long enough on the ISS, and anybody who's dreamed the dreams of Sci-Fi yearns for the time when Humanity will finally have a permanent presence outside of Earth. That will be a long and hard road, so we best get started.

[@kid.forever]

I love the chapter titles of you book! 😂 Def gonna grab a copy.

[@neiljenkins2011]

Thanks, Becky. I’m a bit behind in catching up with your updates, sadly (which I always enjoy). Re. the bit about Betelgeuse’s hypothesised SME “dredging up dust”, do you know anything about the process involved and the composition of the dust? A VERY long time ago, I did my PhD on modelling dust formation around cataclysmic variables and recall that dust grains (carbon, at least) don’t stand up well to high temperatures (>2x10^3K) or radiation sputtering. Curious to find out more about how the grains form and where they “live” awaiting being dredged up. And do you know if the dust grain hypothesis was supported by any follow-up IR observations? (I realise that by asking these questions I might be overlooking some links you’ll have helpfully provided somewhere!)

[@laxxrick]

Disagree with Artemis funding… so many technologies we use today everyday were developed to solve problem of keeping humans alive in space. Developing technologies to keep people alive in environments they aren’t supposed to survive in might prove valuable here on earth with climate change.

[@larryschweitzer4904]

Many new technologies have been developed. They could have been done much more efficiently by direct means but likely wouldn't have been funded. The difference in efficiency of funding by government and private can be seen in SpaceX VS NASA's contractors. Do you throw it away or design for reuse? Looking at speed of development, constant innovation, reducing system costs I see a huge difference in how NASA's traditional system works and a private company going into the rocket business. I believe robotic systems could be used to accomplish more science but the political gains would be less. Which takes precedence?

[@gerstmanndavid]

Has JWST looked as far back into time as it is capable of, or can it see further back than it has so far? If I understand correctly, it has only trained it's instruments in one area for about one day, which I assume means that it is capable of taking a far longer deep field observation, thus looking further back into our universe's history? Are there plans to take much longer deep field observations?

[@defaultHandle1110]

Yeah and they likely saw something they don’t want to publish.

[@MisterItchy]

@@defaultHandle1110 I think this may be the first time I've felt compelled to reply with an SMH but this certainly deserves one. SMH,

[@HappyMathDad]

​@@defaultHandle1110 What, nobody wants to be the next Einstein? Successfully contradicting the status quo. Gets you the novel price.

[@gerstmanndavid]

Is anyone capable of answering this question?

[@gerstmanndavid]

@Smee Self; thank you. It seems to me that before we make any conclusions, whether pro big bang or con, we probably should wait for these longer deep field observations? It seems to me that JWST has already significantly challenged many of our standard theories for the age, development and size of the universe. It stands to reason that more observations will continue to challenge, or maybe even prove many theories wrong. Whether a person is for or against the big bang theory, we should probably hold off on any pronouncements until we have more information. It's going to take a while to process all the data and even longer for egos and biases to heal from the bruising they're going to get. We tend to get emotionally attached to our belief systems. I think it's very healthy to have our paradigms smashed at least once in our lifetimes. The academic world tends to get calcified in their positions and theories, I see it as a very healthy thing that their theories are being challenged. They may even have to admit they were wrong about the big bang. I know that saying such a thing is akin to defiling the sacred, but let's admit that it is at least within the realm of the possible. I mean, there can't just be only one possible theory for the origin of the known universe. We just may have to stretch our imagination and exercise some academic humility before we get closer to the truth. Anything worth having is going to be a little painful to acquire. What say you?

[@Curious_Traveler]

Artemis isn’t all about the science, it has a chance of creating a future industry. What use is science if it doesn’t actually improve our lives. How many trees, desalination plants, and so on could have been planted or built with the funding of the JWST. Sometimes I think many scientist are lost in the numbers.

[@daedaluscenter2825]

how many things do you use today that came from Apollo how many people are alive today because we went to the moon? you need to do so reading about it before you write something like that

[@Curious_Traveler]

@@daedaluscenter2825 Wow just wow, you really should read what I actually wrote again. It sucks that we agree, because you are just so... I don't know what the right word would be.

[@daedaluscenter2825]

@@Curious_Traveler oh sorry yes your right it's not you it was my mistake . I have seen all what Apollo has done for us all have watch every moon landing and know how it changed the world and been waiting for us to go back , the benefits that will come from Artemis will be so great and will help save the planet , once more I am sorry ad thank you for pointing out my mistake

[@Curious_Traveler]

@@daedaluscenter2825 no worries, I am likewise looking forward to see what we can come up with, when we have new extremely large challenges.

[@lukasbaum6303]

i think artemis is like a stepping stone for going to mars. Its like learning how to do this stuff again (since its quite a while since we did it the last time) to then have learning experience for the mars mission

[@DrBecky]

The problem with that is that I don't think it is a good idea for humans to visit other planets. I talked about this the other day on my video about Mars. If you want to know if life existed on Mars, the worst thing you can do is send humans there because you contaminate the surface. Especially if you find life and then want to know if it had a common origin with Earth or not. Anything you find after humans have been will always be cast in doubt

[@Dht1kna]

Hi dr becky, whats up with the news that the schrodigner galaxy (red shift ~17)? exists around 200Mya which is far too early for galaxy formation? Is this related to the panic at the disco article?

[@prdoyle]

20:14 - Amazing how Webb seems to just effortlessly break records every time we point it at anything. And we could be getting a couple of decades of observations from it!

[@facts2741]

Weird that you don't understand how many scientific missions/experiments throughout history ended up yielding unexpected results that resulted in tons of practical uses.

[@adrianleighton2771]

Love your work Becky! I do however agree with a lot of comments though (may be bias as I work with rocketry) the money spent on the Artemis program is valid for trying to push physical exploration and space construction beyond what we know. Unfortunately not in our lifetime, but something we could pass on. Imagine, how difficult it was to put JWST into space (due to it's size) and then if we expanded our space building capabilities, the size of a telescope we truly could achieve is (excuse the pun) astronomical!

[@13thAMG]

My Grandson's name is Orion. When I did the VIP tour at NASA I got to see behind the scenes of them preparing the Orion capsule and I got my Grandson a photo of it along with an Orion mission T-shirt. He's now about to turn 15 and see this mission in his lifetime. Huge. I'm so proud.

[@henrivanbemmel]

Dr. Becky, I was a boy of 8 years when Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon. I could not get enough of it and am still keen to watch documentaries of those days. There was a political imperative for the US to undertake this effort assuming they wanted to be a ‘world leader’ then countries of that station are expected to ‘lead’ in all areas and do the things that less wealthy countries cannot. Certainly in 1969, many people around the world saw the accomplishment as one for humankind not just an American one. If we move forward to today, as you correctly suggest, the cold war political tension even with our world’s current stressors is no longer there. As such, the justification for this expense needs to come from elsewhere. I think, first, one needs to consider the objectives of such a program. They are in my view: 1. Engineering 2. Science 3. Human 4. Future Technology 5. Financial If the US or any other country is going to be a leader in such technology, then the people able to do this work need to be doing this work. Such work, be it design, or manufacture cannot be conjured up in a jiffy time periods due to some sudden need. The technical demands are far too great. So, in my view the US and the EU for example need to continue projects of sufficient magnitude to maintain their prowess. We have had the shuttle retired for over 10 years. Many technicians and engineers spent much of their careers on this vehicle. Artemis is quite different. I wonder how much intellectual transfer was permitted or possible. I think further that many smaller projects while valuable, do not generate the drive to create new technologies and materials as do these larger ones as often by their nature, they are required to expand the engineering envelope rather than build a new smaller device with a lot of current technology and less innovation. At least mission’s by Artemis will be longer permitting more science and research for a given expenditure of launch vehicle and fuel. I quite agree that the science argument here or even with the ISS is a thin one. If the scientific justification is simply to explore how humans can manage in space it seems self-serving. While the moon is comparatively near sending folks to more remote destinations seems premature to me. If one considers a Mars trip, right now it seems like an endless sandy desert. So, what would be the point? Rather, I would send not just 1, but perhaps 100 opportunity class rovers that have uprated abilities to travel faster and then have scientists from wherever drive these things around all over the planet. When we find a palm tree etc, it is then time to set down a scientific rover such as Perseverance to further investigate and only THEN given the results of same might we consider a human trip. We need to remember that the moon and Mars are horrible places utterly hostile to human life. Furthermore, I cannot see how Orion can travel for months to some place with the crew in microgravity the entire time, they will be completely useless if there is a gravity field of consequence. I would also question the psychological realities of spending months in a small craft like Orion. I hope this has been thought out. It has been said that people are interested in people. As such Artemis is going to garner substantially greater amounts of attention and inspiration for humankind than any uncrewed vehicle regardless of the efficacy of its science accomplishments. This cannot be ignored. This coverage will inspire many children today to undertake scientific type careers as did Apollo years ago. While it may be trite, we never really know how many scientific/engineering discoveries will be made simply due to Artemis’ large public footprint and its influence on career aims of today’s young. In any engineering undertaking no one can really say how this or that technology will be utilized in the future. It is in the doing and creating of such technologies that ideas evolve on how best to use them. For example, in the time of Apollo, the program cost about 40B 1970 USD. A helluva a lot of money. Much of this was development costs such as building KSC and JSC for example. The Apollo 15 mission was costed at about $500 million 1971 USD making it about $2.5B today or slightly less as projected Artemis launches, which are supposed do more. Depending on the source, the technology from Apollo has engendered economic activity of somewhere between 80 and 200 million per year since the 1960’s and is one of the best investments the US taxpayer has ever made (although largely the beneficiaries were the children of said taxpayers … but I digress) Finally, the elephant in the room is the stunning cost of this entire development. Using the Apollo metrestick (I’m Canadian) and realizing that while facilities had to be adapted for Artemis, they did not have to be constructed from nothing in a Florida swamp. If we consider that Apollo cost $40B = 200B today, then what we are seeing in reasonable given what is being asked of the technology. Aside from my comment above about maintaining a country’s technological prowess, I think we need to realize that people squander money all the time for uses far less holy than space exploration. When covid restrictions were imposed here in 2020, the liquor stores had to be kept open because a significant fraction of the country is dependent. 20% of the population still smokes cigarettes. NFL stadiums now cost well over 1 BILLION dollars to watch men play a boy’s game when there are far more wholesome family activities that could had in its place. On same, billions are wagered every weekend, money that is often lost that is needed for the less exciting but more imperative needs of food and shelter. During Apollo, it has been said that the women of America alone spent TWICE as much on cosmetics as it did to build Apollo. The people who get us to the moon are not the brains that will cure other ills of society. If we are free, and free to fail as well as succeed, then we cannot print enough money to fix all that is wrong with people and society in general. To avoid anarchy, an entity has been found necessary to decide what balance is appropriate. It is called a government. So, in sum, as a space enthusiast I am keen to see this new voyage. As a Canadian, my taxes are going to our share of this program as well. My concerns above are I am quite sure well-known to the managers and NASA in general and yet they have proceeded. They are smarter than I and will look forward to Monday morning as I did in April of 1981 and November of 1967. Thank for again for your work. Henri van Bemmel

[@bloodypommelstudios7144]

I agree with Becky that the science should be what's important but science costs money and NASA's money comes from politics. Getting more people on the moon is something everyone on the planet will be aware of and get excited about, unfortunately the general public probably wouldn't even notice a dozen smaller but more scientifically significant missions.

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

yep, let's face it, the moon missions would not likely have been FUNDED except the rivalry of the cold war.

[@oramac7237]

Great video! I'm just excited for the Artemis mission in general. But also for all the other things going on. Been keeping an eye on JWST and Betelgeuse as well. As much as I **love** the constellation Orion, I think it would be so cool to be alive to see a supernova at that scale. Also, don't like motorbikes?! Sad face! :(

[@WarrenParks]

I'm guessing it's the noise she doesn't like when trying to record a video.

[@spacemanspiff3052]

Hey Dr. Becky! Looking forward to your book. Congratulations again on it’s publication. As for manned space missions, I understand your feelings to a large extent. I really believe the future of human interstellar exploration and unlocking the secrets of the Cosmos will be automated probes, basically like it is now. However, I’m excited about Project Artemis for two reasons. 1) Having a future permanent manned instillation on the moon of, hopefully in the far future, considerable size may help ensure human survival of catastrophic extinction events either natural or man made. 2) The heavy lift capabilities of the rocket technology developed and the understanding of long duration manned flight could allow humanity to reach abundant natural resources in the asteroid belt that could improve life on Earth for all. I do have a question. Could you do a episode on how the galaxies in the universe move as the cosmos expand. Do the spin around expanding like a inflated balloon? Do they spin off in a uniform outwardly direction like a starburst from some centrally located Big Bang location? Do the meander away from each other like dust blowing in the solar winds? Do we even know how they move away from each other beyond the evidence that they are? Keep up the AWESOME, Dr. Becky!!!

[@kukulroukul4698]

both are ugly and COWARD the book and the author

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

I'm excited about Project Artemis for one reason: 1) It's awesome.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Spiff, I agree with you 100% on the Artemis mission, and our need to become a multi-planet species, before one lousy asteroid closes the book on our story far too soon.

[@standardnerd2046]

I've been catching up on so many of your videos that when you said your new book was out next week I laughed smugly at all the people in the past that had to wait to buy it and figured out it's not out until tomorrow 😅 Pre-ordered and looking forward to it!

[@Jezee213]

How long did the narration take to record? I'm curious! congrats on the book btw, I'm defiantly picking up a copy!

[@busybillyb33]

I'm absolutely in favour of expanding human missions beyond LEO (the cost is highly questionable though and could have been better along with planning). But not in the way some envision like terraforming other worlds to make it a second permanent home. For one thing, I see the need for manned research outposts on other worlds and in deep space to do science and research just as with the $100 billion ISS. Robots are still very limited compared to human and the ability to make decisions on the fly. Yes we have successfully sent robots to other worlds and have done a lot of science but they are still very slow and limited in reach. And the time delay in communicating with them so far away is an obstacle to real time work . At some point, sending humans would make better sense than peppering the Martian surface with 100s of robots. And maybe human led missions can build some really cool supersized observatories in deep space or on the moon. Secondly, I'm of the view that if we can find alternative sources for our resource needs and industrial work, we should look at moving them off our world to protect earth. You don't have to move mountains to mine a few grams of precious minerals here. And lastly, it serves as an inspiration to the public and should encourage people to take on difficult challenges in science and engineering. JFK said it best: “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

[@robsellars9338]

I agree with you on all the technical points improving our existing performance in the field of earthly and spatial development BUT come on, the Moon? We could have achieved all the good things you say and done something harder and learner more surely?

[@NeoDemocedes]

To me, Artemis is about learning to live and work away from Earth so that we can someday have a self-sustaining colony somewhere else in the solar system (Mars for example). If we don't do this before the next mass-extinction, there will be no more Humans to do science.

[@marinmitu995]

It's just a project for now only on papers!

[@objective_psychology]

In that case I hope we don't succeed

[@Metaplayer]

Great video and wow, I actually find myself disagreeing slightly on the benefits of the Artemis mission. From my way of looking at this, we (humankind) are entering a new space age and this one kick-starts everything. We may not feel the scientific benefits from of this specific mission directly, but if it goes well, it will green light a whole bunch of stuff that is waiting in the background. (I want to see people on mars before I die, so lets get this started already!)

[@DrBecky]

The problem with that is that I don't think it is a good idea for humans to visit other planets. I talked about this the other day on my video about Mars. If you want to know if life existed on Mars, the worst thing you can do is send humans there because you contaminate the surface. Especially if you find life and then want to know if it had a common origin with Earth or not. Anything you find after humans have been will always be cast in doubt

[@greggary7217]

@@DrBecky I enjoy your videos and commentary but IMO it’s not that clear. As a species we’ve always grown. Maybe we’ll get wise and stop but so far I see no evidence of it. We’ll go to the planets in part because that’s who we are, and in part because there is ultimately more knowledge, wealth and power out there. That is also who we are. So far. I agree it will be a shame if scientific opportunity is lost but based in history it seems almost inevitable.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@greggary7217 I feel its pretty clear, contamination is a real thing, so is dying on the moon, or the inevitable accidents. Send robots and probes to get a better idea if we are going to spend blood, sweat and tears on these projects that lead to habitation. Creating the infrastructure that builds upon and supports future space discovery by means of robotics is woefully neglected. I'm always reminded that we're earthlings, bound to the earth for the necessities that nuture life.

[@charlesackman892]

@@greggary7217 Gary, after browsing through all the comments and replies I have to write that your's aligns with mine the most closely. I am 66 yrs old and have had many hours of solitude where I have mentally investigated this intangible idea of the human condition. When the concepts of progress is magnified in conversation(s), I often find the that the train or motion of these conversations to all end in the same spot: The betterment of the human specie. PEACE LOVE and GROVINESS Well what and who defines BETTERMENT? What is one person's trash is another's treasure. This is a reflective thought and nothing more, we as a specie have done quite well by slaughtering each other. Most of our "technologies" have been developed and brought to market that were initially originated for the purpose of blowing the shit out of someone else. So in my my and only my opinion we seem to be doing rather well. If all the countries and people of the world somehow came together and started hugging and kissing each other, perhaps the concepts of innovation and achievement would evaporate because there would be no need to compete any longer. Which sort of gets back to your take: WE ARE WHO WE ARE! And we can't be anything else By the way if I wrote Gary instead of Greg please pardon, getting old sucks and your not going to like it. Well I hope I didn't misinterpret your comment. I think I'll smoke a cigarette and drink a cold beer. Thx Chuck

[@greggary7217]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus well I just simply disagree. You want not to explore because people might die? You remove one of the fundamental underpinnings of our makeup as a species. Those who wish to remain safe & warm certainly can but our species explores. As for contamination, by the time we get to Mars there will have been many robots looking for life. What % of the surface would they need to cover in order to avoid an argument that humans contaminated the place? To what depth? It’s reasonable to have a look robotically but with current technology it’s simply not possible to be there seriously with robotics. There are always those who won’t go to the new world, do not want to fly or think the railroad is evil. History has never seen them prevail & I’ve seen nothing to suggest humanity has changed so much that they will this time.

[@Elephantine999]

I'll be watching the Artemis launch at 6:30 in the morning here, but like you I'm not that excited to be going back to the moon and think that the money could be better spent elsewhere. But maybe we do need a manned mission every so often--or cuter, more relatable robots? ;)

[@Jakub_J_1983]

Can you provide link to the sky survey you mentioned in the end of the video

[@frede1905]

Huh. Maybe I'm too young and naive, but I can't wait for the next manned moon landing from the Artemis Program. The idea that people will land and walk on the moon again, and that I will be able to see it live (instead of it being way before I was born), is absolutely breathtaking to me. I am essentially counting down the number of years until it'll happen!

[@weylinpiegorsch9253]

I'm not sure the Artemis project is unfounded. I agree that the science value of it is the least significant portion of it. But I think there's strong value in becoming a space-faring race, and I don't think that can happen without massive projects like this that pushing us in that direction. (There's also a secondary argument about capturing the public's attention.) Do we need it "now," when there are so many other worthy causes, rather than "later" when it becomes less burdensome on resources? Good topic for debate, though I'll counter that any argument supporting the "wait until later" side will still be a valid argument in 1000 years, and in 2000 years, and in 3000 years... At some point you just gotta pull the trigger.

[@johnadastra1754]

Going back to the moon is about technology, not science. We need to have the ability to go there when needed, for future explorations, discovery of mineral and energy resources, and yes to have the means for potential military defense capabilities.

[@jackboyce]

As a scientist myself, I am a lot more enthusiastic about Artemis when I don't think of it as displacing science budgets. Because realistically it is not; Congress appropriated money specifically for the SLS/Artemis because it benefits some large aerospace contractors, creates jobs across almost all 50 states, and is pretty good PR. I personally find it more inspiring than a lot of the other things the federal government does with money.

[@miduke]

I love your videos and have a pre-order in for your book, cant wait. A quick question, will JWST ever be used to have a look at Betelgeuse?

[@mikewilson3169]

I feel just the opposite about manned space missions versus studying far away galaxies, etc. I come to this from the perspective that we are all stuck here, all of us eggs in one basket, subject to a single catastrophe wiping human kind out. Much better to my mind to disperse ourselves to preserve the species. We have wasted so much time not learning and developing space travel over the last 50 years. We should be aiming to go to the stars not sitting here just looking at them.

[@txmike1945]

I look at it differently. We should take care of Earth AS IF it will be the only chance humanity gets, we need to do whatever is necessary to insure we won't extinguish ourselves. For practical purposes being able to travel to another star system is very, very far away, if at all achievable. There is a chance it can never happen so banking on that would be very chancy indeed. But let's say it will be possible, how about in 500 years. The rate humans are going now we may not last 500 years here on Earth. Every country needs to wake up.

[@Paul99T]

@@txmike1945 500? We'll be lucky to get through the next 50!

[@kazeshi2]

while i dont disagree artemis is expensive (too expensive because of sls and some other reasons), i do disagree that probes can do anything humans can do. actually being there, especially long term, is vital to doing more than just sample return and simple soil testing missions via rovers/probes. also, we desperately need to get off the planet in any way possible as fast as possible while it is still possible. while a few years probably wont make a difference missing out on this and waiting a few decades to get a moon base going could be critical. we need to do more than just have an outpost there, we need manufacturing and large scale living on the moon as it is SO much better to launch missions from the moon than it is from earth both for exploring and colonizing the solar system as a whole but also sending things to earth orbit and deep space. consider the idea of power satellites for just one thing, its currently the widely held position that it is far too expensive to launch them into orbit vs just using ground based ones....but if we were manufacturing them on the moon and moving them to earth orbit the energy and monetary costs are vastly lower which opens up both more options for power generation but also better for planetary health options as you could beam that power where needed where as currently many locations on earth are not great for wind/solar/tidal/hydro etc. and energy storage concerns ease as well. all of that for smelting aluminum and silica from the rocks on the moon which also releases hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen as gas byproducts which we could use for rocket fuel and water and air. that's just one example but there are a million other good reasons to go there and set up asap in a major way (safety of the species, technological advancements, potential solar shields on the cheap without modifying the atmosphere, harmful manufacturing in an environment off earth, eventual population pressure relief (both actual and perceived for many groups), the dreams of children who grow up to be the next generation etc). it all starts with a moon base, not a rover.

[@tracyavent-costanza346]

once space-launches are a reality, the cost of heavy launch from EARTH, will begin to look drastically different with respect to both economics and vessel design.

[@kevinrusch3627]

As for going to the moon -- you're completely right that it's a suboptimal investment for the science return. HOWEVER, the political element can't really be ignored. China is, like it or not, setting itself up as a space-flight rival to the US/Europe, and "the good guys did it better" is worth considerable real-world resources. (Just think of the mess that a war between China and Taiwan would cause.) The US landed on the moon as much to show India, China, Egypt, et al that we were the better horse to back. Given all that, going to the moon is a lot cheaper and more constructive than a war, should it ever turn out that the Artemis program was useful in heading off such a war. Also, if we're ever going to go to Mars with people (or even to go get Percy's vials of dirt), re-establishing the institutional knowledge of deep space travel at NASA is critical to that mission, and so this is a worthwhile increment.

[@daedaluscenter2825]

no, she is not she is well wrong and so are you having people on the moon will do so much for the whole world It will give us hope and answer we don't know we needed. so why spend all that money on the JSW telescope?

[@majorbruster5916]

I think that the political angle is just a small part of it. China has clearly demonstrated that it wants to be a world super power, and has accelerated it's space program, even deploying satellites that have covert military capability against other satellites. Thinking far ahead into the future, if the Chinese colonized the moon first, think what disruption/damage a future space weapon could cause if deployed against satellites and missions from competing nations. They have already proved to the world that they are untrustworthy with Earth's resources and hold human life in little regard, what would they do if they monopolized the lunar surface? No, a joint US/EU mission is by far the better option, no matter the cost at today's money. Extrapolating further, do we want the Chinese to be the first human ambassadors to another civilization?

[@kevinrusch3627]

@@daedaluscenter2825 If you want hope, watch a Disney movie or watch an Apollo documentary. JWST is far cheaper than Artemis.

[@daedaluscenter2825]

@@kevinrusch3627 on thanks LOL ad they are around the same price, by the way, it's not hope without apollo you wouldn't have JSWT

[@EBDavis111]

@@daedaluscenter2825 "having people on the moon will do so much for the whole world " Oh? Will it please the Moon God and then he'll bless us with his bounty? "so why spend all that money on the JSW telescope?" Because it's actual real science.

[@chrisnewell3331]

Ok Dr. Becky you asked for it.. It doesn’t really matter that Artemis didn’t launch today. It still marks the start of the second great space race. This will bring us into our solar system in the next decade. We will finally do the “other things” not because they are easy but because they are hard. It is bold, it is brave, it is Promethean and I feel extremely lucky that it’s happening it my lifetime. Ultimately, it may even be what saves our species. Let’s support this and carry the fire for the horizons of our humanity. I look forward to checking out your book. Rock on.

[@chrisnewell3331]

@@lepidoptera9337 SLS isn’t going to do a lot and it will be short lived. Starship and Relatively will lead the way, but the stage is set.

[@chrisnewell3331]

@@lepidoptera9337 I think you are definitely wrong. Starship was definitely designed to answer more questions then just Mars. Elon wants to have genuine support for NASA’s goals. Elon loves NASA and he is honored to be part of what they are doing. SpaceX can’t do everything. They need others working on it especially with ISRU tech, Hab tech, robotics tech. All areas Artemis should accelerate engineering for all of these. I also think above these politics there are enough common goals to lift not only SX and NASA engineering achievements, but those of all sciences simply through preparation on stepping foot into the solar system. I include astrophysics in that theory Dr. Becky. BTW Even Artemis itself is designed with more in mind then the moon. I think the program itself will keep its name as it turns to the red planet. The name of the game is boots on celestial bodies. I don’t know how anyone could mot think that worthwhile. Especially any engineer, but scientists too.

[@Mostusernamesaretakn]

Dr Becky! I’m interested in your book… the audio book appeals to me for my morning commute, but would it be better to purchase a hard copy since it sounds like there’s some stuff (equations, for example) that might not be as digestible. Is that the case?

[@jcarroll276]

I'm more excited for the sls rocket than actually going to the moon, BUT I think despite this large price, it's gonna be a huge way to raise public interest in space projects. Is that really worth the money? Idk, but it could mean increased funding to future projects which I think would be a great thing

[@0f0crypto]

You are correct in that the manned space program is too expensive and dangerous. But, in this case, you're (a bit) wrong about the incentives ... which are not really that of science but rather science literacy. Landing a human on the Moon after more than half a century is simply the best PR for science and engineering. There's just no other way to get (pre)school kids more interested in science than this. You guys (I mean youtubers, tiktokers, etc) do an amazing job of communicating science to ordinary people. But, in a vast majority, your viewers are those who already are/were interested in science (or space in this particular case) in the first place. However, if you want some kids in the 1st/2nd grade to say I wanna be a scientist, I wanna be an engineer, etc to the question of "what you wanna be when you grow up", we really do need this "PR".

[@objective_psychology]

Your entire theory of how inspiration works is baseless

[@0f0crypto]

@@objective_psychology 1) baseless theory is an oxymoron 2) the idea is def not baseless, just ask kids what they wanna after they had a doctor, policeman, firefigther etc in the class ... or watch literally anything NdT has to say about it ...

[@AUTUMN-DARK]

I am more excited about the Artemis mission and its objectives than anything else in my lifetime! Making steps towards becoming a multiplanetary species is the only guarantee we have to survive any, or many of the earth based existential threats this planet faces so it seems pretty darn important. Can we definetley detect all asteroids that present a threat?... Nope... Can we stop them if we could... Nope... Do we have a certainty that the spinning iron core of our planet will continue to provide protection from the sun in the even the near future?...nope Do we know when the next catastrophic volcano may erupt?.. Nope The list goes on. Becoming a multiplanetary species just equates to not putting all our eggs in one basket really... Seems like a fairly wise plan to make such progress.

[@stevenwilson5556]

Solar flare might disrupt electrical systems, power generation, communication, etc. That could be catastrophic for our advanced civilization but it won't wipe out all life.

[@rolandwatts3218]

Re lack of enthusiasm for Artemis. I'm an old fogie and I remember the same kind of debate back in the days of Apollo. I think Fred Hoyle may have been annoyed at the money being spent on the moon shots. But look at it this way. By developing a human capability in space and on the moon then maybe one day we will able to build and "man" 50 km diameter mirrors in space, just for you astrophysicists. :) :) Love your channel and your enthusiasm.

[@psidud]

Will there be any signed versions of your new book like the last one?

[@notmyname327]

Great episode! Like others have said I'm also excited about Artemis but I realize the science results could be achieved by robotic missions. I believe that the main point is to work on the engineering of interplanetary travel, which is something I'd love to see. Just like pure or basic science, the resources spent may seem too large, but we never know what returns it will bring to our everyday lives. It does seem a bit expensive lol

[@Mosern1977]

If a model is correct, you don't get "unexpected" observation when you get better tools for observations. The model would have correctly predicted the future observations, and the observations done would just confirm things being as predicted. Adapting the model to suit observations is doable, but it really takes away any value of the model - you can make thousands of models that fit any given dataset. Especially if you allow unknown/made up physics to be part of the model. So, what we can take away from this is that the Big Bang theory failed to predict, yet again, reality. Oh well, time for some more Dark Fudge to fit model to observations. Eventually it must become obvious even for the people in the field, that they have been barking up the wrong tree for 60+ years. When Copernicus came along he made 2000 years of astronomy void, so I can understand why he didn't publish it while alive.

[@MaryAnnNytowl]

Dr. Becky, I think the importance of the Artemis mission is to prepare us for Mars, and we desperately need to become a multi-planet species before a random asteroid we didn't see in time to nudge out of the way comes along and dooms us. That's why we need to do this!

[@markofthemitch]

A really interesting and measured response to the "no big bang" article, I'd probably just want to shout at them. Also , as well as the book, when can we pre order your space songs album?

[@jiubboatman9352]

I got a number of the big Bang stories in my news feed. I noticed none of them were from science sites, so immediately looked up primary sources and quickly found a more accurate narrative. This is a really good example of how taking stories at face value or comport with your biases is a poor way to determine the truth.

[@OptimusGnarkill]

I was just about to ask about the audiobook and then you answered my question ha very cool that you narrate it yourself, too. Will def be picking it up. Congrats! Also, gotta agree. The moon thing is kind of a yawn fest. Been there done that. Would much rather see a mission to Titan or Enceladus or some other potentially life bearing moon out there. Honestly, I’d take anything other than the moon.

[@dumbasgenius7227]

I respect this opinion for a bit of short term, but the long term benefits of developing a lunar base are immense! Especially with the potential of producing rocket fuel on the moon will make everything in the future way easier in terms of space research and frankly so much more. Tbh we know… plenty. At this point I feel we should be looking for results, industry and technology rather than more science. And this is coming from someone obsessed with science. Is it really that important for humanity to understand dark matter and energy? I’m not convinced.

[@roccosfondo8748]

Actually I really hope to be able to see Betelgeuse going supernova in my lifetime. It would be amazing either by astrophysics and by sociologic point of view. You can imagine? People freaking out, a lot of disinformation spreading and so on.

[@robjohnston1433]

YES!!!!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

Considering the distance, it would have had to supernova around 642 years ago. And light from it today shows no sign of its impending doom. People freak out and spread misinformation too much as it is....over nothing. The world is mad.

[@sleepytime999998]

John Glenn made a visit to my elementary school in the early 90s, and while I know that space scares the hell out of me, he is also why I watch your channel. Someone has to be brave so that the least of us can be informed.

[@Obi-Wan-1]

OK, so I have to ask... Will there be a bloopers reel from the audio book narration?!

[@darthrainbows]

I think Artemis is important specifically because of its non-science goals. Artemis is a step towards permanent deep-space human presense, and I don't think we can afford to _not_ take that step. I do wish that SLS had been cancelled 10-15 years ago when it became obvious to everyone that private space companies were going to be building rockets that could do the job for a tiny fraction of the cost. SLS is just a waste of money.

[@jameshamilton6863]

An old yank here , who went out with a Yorkshirewoman for the six longest months of my life and of course heard the word “tosh” ,(usually directed at me ) several thousand times. (And yes,folks,I know dr Becky is not from Yorkshire). it was interesting to watch you go through the process ,finally deciding that “tosh” was the right word ,the only possible substitute was also a britishism ( bollocks). Also,there are at least three ways to decode the term.Since you are speaking,and have an Expressive way of talking , one can deduce from the “tune” - it was such - tosh,that it had To mean “nonsense “Second ,the context was such that it was unlikely that to mean “wisdom” or “great insight “.Finally,we can Look it Up , usually being in close proximity to a Computing machine as we listen raptly to our FN astrophysicist… I’ve been compiling a “dr becky to Amurkin “ word list , some are in fact just Britishisms Such as “ maths” to “math” ,and “aluminium” to “aluminum “;( annoyingly the Brits are right on both of these). Jewel = dual , kump a zit = composite , you lot = y’all , The Plow=The Big Dipper , bin bag ( pronounced “bimbag” ) = large opaque trash bag , and of course Satin,just A fabric here in the states = Saturn,a whole planet,( the one with the rings and dr b ‘s favorite.)

[@ilikethischannel5719]

Hello Dr Becky, I really appreciate and enjoy your content, in this video, with reference to the SLS you say "you explain objects in space, you do not send objects to space" I am a bit confused but this statement, is not the voyager probes and all other probes along with the JWT "sending objects to space" or did you only mean if there was a human on board with reference to this point you were making? I am sending you my kindest and most caring thoughts of hope and peace to you.

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Its pretty sure we do live in an oscillating cosmos where space and energy of the ‘big bang’ oscillator alternate in the max and min setting. BBT as its most recent expansion makes absolute sense. That said, JWST images of early galaxies being mature and (too) small , do contradict the very theory itself. One cannot simply ignore that as a ‘minor discrepancy’ which just implies some extra tweaking to get BBT on track again. The scientifc method tells us to reject a theory when outcomes dont match predictions, not tweak it. I am not in favor of abolishing BBT but with dark energy not found, we should consider re assessing some very basic assumptions of bbt (espacially the link between cmb and expansionrafe) and not just tweak it. The critics may not be correct in their ‘panic’ claim nor in their own theories, but some introspective is needed here. There will be more inconvienient pictures coming in if we dont adjust ourselves.

[@MichaelPenny]

Hey Dr. Becky, can you go into detail about Solar Mass Gap? I saw something about a 2-3 Solar Mass Gap where there aren't objects in space within this gap, but maybe LIGO maybe detected some gravitational waves that may have found something in the 2.6 SM range?

[@NASA-Shill]

Becky, what options on MAST do I choose when looking for these cool and clear photos that JWST is taking?

[@Fry1743]

The new moon missions are named after Artemis who is the goddess of hunting and Orion who is the hunter. So we could going there to hunt those pesky moon creatures, to make it safe to build moon bases. That's the science behind it lol 🤪🚀🌕🏹👽 "We're whalers on the Moon, we carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune" 🌕🐋 lol just kidding. Seriously though great vid, and I can't wait for more JW images.

[@jamesodonnell3965]

Dr.Becky you make the info so much more lively your accent you sense of humor and the fact you rather pleasant on the eyes keep up the good work!

[@estraume]

Would you see any more details if you used the JWST to study Betelgeuse or is it more useful to just use Earth based telescopes for studies of such bright star?

[@cerebrophage7709]

In re: Artemis Mission. I may just be naive in my understanding of our pioneering into space. But, is it not the purpose of the Lunar Base to build larger spacecraft piecemeal to make it possible to launch? It seems to me that constructing the item in space would be easier than doing so on the Earth. Isn't it like two tons of fuel for every pound in the cockpit or something like that? Edit: Don't we also want that abundant supply of Helium-3?

[@bmwallace4735]

Just pre-ordered your book! How do we get it signed? 😎

[@FirestormX9]

Dr Becky, regarding the Artemis statements, wouldn't there be scientific gains when astronauts are sent as well? That may trickle down into the field of medicine or the field of construction or mining by way of better protective materials and such.

[@haroldlocke7991]

Oh Dr. Becky it’s the mining and building spacecraft for civilization’s future as a Space fairing people. The moon is an important place to establish our base of operations

[@flyjet787]

Dr.Beck, congratulations on the release of your new book! Can't wait to get a copy!

[@tubesoupio]

Newbie question...have they found a certain distance away where the galaxies end, and there's just empty space? Or do more and more galaxies keep appearing the further away we can see? Thanks!

[@infra-cyan]

Imo this is probably the most crucial prediction of big bang cosmology. If we just keep seeing galaxies futher and further back in time as we build ever more capable telescopes then we will have to conclude the big bang never happened.

[@executivesteps]

@@infra-cyan I don’t think you understand the nature of the structure of the visible Universe. We discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background back in 1964. It’s been mapped across the entire sky and is considered one of the “proofs” of the Big Bang. It’s also the earliest we can possibly “see” backwards in time (when the Universe was only 380,00 years old) with a telescope detecting electromagnetic radiation.

[@infra-cyan]

@@executivesteps If this is true and as our telescopics progressively improve we should see fewer and fewer galaxies until we can only see stars, and then we should see fewer and fewer stars... . The JWST is the first telescope that is powerful enough to really begin to see if this predicted thinning of galaxies and stars is true. Dr. Becky is refering to an article by Eric Lerner in which he argues that the early data from the JWST indicates that this expected thinning is not happening. He could be proven wrong as more data comes in, but so far I have only see some scientists publically dispute Eric Lerner's characterization of how astronomers and astrophysicists _feel_ about the data rather than seriously engage with his analysis of the data. Perhaps they feel they are not obligated at this time since his analysis has not been formally published or peer reviewed, but I think they should say so explicitly.

[@executivesteps]

@@infra-cyan The two best determinations of Hubble’s constant today disagree by about a whopping 5%. One being 68 km/sec/Mpc, the other 72. Those measurements are difficult and are vital to determining the age of the Universe. Based on JWST data, if the Big Bang is pushed backed a couple of 100 millions years that’s only 1% or 2%. How does that “disprove” the Big Bang? Also the Planck precision measurements of the CMB also indicate mass concentrations (when the Universe was only 400,000 years old) that are the beginnings of what would eventually be early galaxies/clusters.

[@infra-cyan]

@@executivesteps I am just pointing what sort of evidence would constitute a refutation of the big bang. At this time the CMB and the Hubble redshift seem to be adequately explained using the big bang but those are not the only grounds for judging the validity of the big bang. Another refutation could come in form of large scale structures which are too large to form in the time since the big bang. Anyway, the idea that we can know the origins the universe just by making observations from our galaxy seems like a revival of geocentrism at the galactic scale.

[@Jasruler]

Someone needs to get reporters to stop reading the arxiv. Confusing the public, making the arxiv look bad.

[@executivesteps]

And get astronomers posting on the arXiv to quit with the adolescent jokes that most people didn’t “get”.

[@rafaelerto3487]

The CBR has an equatorial feature that is aligned to the solar system's equator. Why is that not an indication that the observed radiation is not really background and could be a local phenomenon?

[@calinculianu]

Indeed.

[@executivesteps]

The map of the CMB is aligned with the Milky Way (galactic) equator.

[@goldenera7090]

Can't wait until Monday. Hope we have a video from you doc

[@Kelnx]

I do my "reading" using audio books these days since I am on the road so much. Hoping your book will be available on Audible.

[@DanJohansen]

Just ordered your new book. I'd like the audio-book too, but I don't have, or plan on getting, Audible. All my audio books are on CD/mp3. Any idea if that's gonna happen for your book?

[@artemis5168]

So, I was sitting in the shipyards where I work, enjoying another phenomenal Dr. Becky episode. Long day at work, on duty with the US Navy, grabbing a quick dinner, nice and chill. Then 15:40 happens. Now there's a fine mist of Diet Coke all over my table, I'm choking and wheezing, and definitely am no longer chill because my sides hurt from laughing.

[@TheRealInscrutable]

Is a surface mass ejection related to a nova? Is it sort of a nova in minature? Is a full nova just an SME that spreads everywhere? Or is it some other mechanism at work?

[@kooskroos]

@DrBecky, would be great to see (live?) how you would grap and proces one of those images and follow your metholgy to start analyse and hypothise over the data.

[@barendnaude4950]

Now that that book is out of the way, when can we expect our favourite astrophysicists' first record? 😁 Wholeheartedly agree on the moon mission b.t.w. Thanks for all the great content.

[@ganashal]

Does the new information on the formation of early galaxies have the potential to help bring the two competing 'Age of the Universe' figures closer together? Or is this not really connected to those?