Diamond in a Black Hole, What's Holding Starship, Mining Jupiter for Fuel | Q&A 174

[@d-rockanomaly9243]

despite how clearly you explained the scientific method, it still goes right over so many people's heads.

[@earlworley-bd6zy]

Licquid carbin in a black hole?

[@philgillette1322]

I just noticed you answered my question! Thanks Fraser

[@frasercain]

Thanks for asking. 😀

[@DKTAz00]

"Tardigrades are really bad at building spaceships" lol, the more you know

[@President_Mario]

I love your interviews. They're great to listen to when working out. Same with your question show.

[@AliHSyed]

Wow based on chapter bookmarks, looks like you got thru a lot of questions this time. Good job 👍

[@EdMcStinko]

I remember there was an Atari video game where you could re-fill your fuel tank at any gas giant because... it's apparently made of gas I guess.

[@phoule76]

eat at Lando's and get gas

[@douglascunningham6319]

Author John Ringo in a 3 book series had pipes an pumps on a modified space elevator anchored in space. 1st book. Live free or die.

[@THIS---GUY]

Fraser, (hypothetically or empirically) would we able to observe any objects or clusters near the edge of the observable universe and infer any information from the gravitational forces of mass beyond the observable universe threshold? ‐--------------------------------------------------------------- For example, If a mass like the great attractor was just outside of the observable universe, or recently disappeared from the observable universe, could we analyze any gravitational force it still has on mass still within the observable universe? The person I'm talking too says all gravitational effects on other mass would disappear immediately when the object travels beyond the observable threshold. He insists that if we could observe gravitational force from beyond the observable universe than that area would also be observable by definition. I disagree, arguing about inferring data from beyond the observable universe does not expand the observable universe. I believe we can infer information based on gravitational forces we could hypothetically observe even though the mass is not direcrly observable from our location anymore. What do you think? Thank you so much, I love these episodes!! Sorry for posting same question twice my app was acting up.

[@phoule76]

I'm worried that a rover digging into watery areas under the Martian or Lunar regolith will just make whatever trapped water sublimate immediately once it's exposed, and nothing will be learned, except that the water sublimates immediately once it's exposed, which I guess is indeed something after all. But what we really want to find are microbes in it!

[@seditt5146]

Our detectors are ridiculously sensitive and even if that were to happen( which it largely will due to vapor pressures) they are still not going to all get away and due to that we will be able to detect whatever is around. Now if there happens to be life in there odds are good it is toast but hey.... saves us from the cell Lysis process and lets us get to the goodies inside the cell to see what's inside.

[@GoCoyote]

Sublimation is not immediate, especially the colder the surroundings of the frozen material. The temperature of the moon is 40º K (-233ºC) in the permanently shaded areas of the lunar poles that have water, and for sublimation temperatures below 70 K, the sublimation rate of an exposed ice surface is much less than one molecule of water vapor lost per square centimeter of surface per hour. This means that on the moon there will be plenty of time to remove material and process it. The average surface temperature of Mars is 193ºK (-80ºC), with the poles reaching down to 120K (-153ºC) during winter, but mars does have some atmospheric pressure, so sublimation will be slightly lower than for the same temperature in space.

[@horizonbrave1533]

Hi Fraser, my question, your answer! (maybe if you're feeling generous) So is there a gravitational limit to how massive or heavy an object can be to be actually sustained at a Lagrange point? Likewise do the different lagrange points have differing upper limits to the size of the object that can be successfully 'parked' there?

[@THIS---GUY]

Have you watched his video on Lagrange points? It's very informative and covers the rough details of your question.

[@Релёкс84]

Yes, the mass of the third object is neglected but if it's massive enough it can perturb the two parent bodies and break the stability, and this is quantifiable and wikipedia gives some threshold value in terms of mass ratios between each body: as a general approximation, it's on the order of 100, so think a Moon massed object at Earth's L4 point as the limit. There's probably a similar analysis to be made regarding the planet's orbital eccentricity but i didn't find a vlaue for that.

[@Barnardrab]

As far as the ISS, they should convert it to an orbital recycling center instead of letting the material be wasted by burning up in the atmosphere. They could use the old, current structure for scaffolding to build the new recycling center, then recycle that. A 3D printer would make new parts on demand, thus reducing launch rate. It could all be remote controlled.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

38:00f: > _Depends on the size of the black hole._ And the diamond, of course. The larger an object is in diameter, the less tidal stresses are needed to affect them. Eventually, everything will be spaghettified and disintegrated completely, but maybe not before crossing the event horizon.

[@CyberiusT]

Re Us and Von Neuman probes: if your probe can mutate, then what's to say we _aren't_ the decedents of the probes? A small twist on panspermia.

[@AliHSyed]

Thank you for answering my question! Here's another: Could JWST see 'Oumuamua?

[@LarsRyeJeppesen]

No

[@zapfanzapfan]

No, we haven't seen it for more than 4 years. It's tiny and out by Neptune now. Edit: Unless it really is an alien craft, then who knows where it is now 🙂

[@celestromel]

How about some photos of progress of your new abide?

[@AdRock]

The dude abides

[@miracleofsun]

Hello Fraser, should we preserve the ISS for the future, take it into a higher orbit, so it can be visited as a museum? TNX!

[@justfellover]

You addressed Jupiter's role in shepherding orbital bodies, but neglected its role in eating them. With no Jupiter ever, it would take longer for primordial comets to find a smaller planet to collide with, delaying Earth's habitability and punctuating our evolution with more frequent or more complete extinctions. At least this seems possible to a spectator like me. And there would be more stable Earth-crossing orbits.

[@allurbase]

I wonder if advanced species even have individuals... Anyway, Hi Fraser, question poped in my mind... Does the supermasive black hole at Sagitarius A* have a gravitational focal point? (I assume most likelly yes, the true question is the next one) At what distance from it would you have to set up a telescope to enjoy it's magnifying power?

[@ChemEDan]

The focus is more of a line. For the sun, I think parallel light rays will first converge at several hundred AU (at least that's where you would put a telescope). The light rays converging at that distance travelled directly over the surface of the sun. As you go farther out, light rays still converge, but they never got as close to the sun. For a black hole, light rays passing over the event horizon will converge really, really close to the event horizon. But same as with the sun, we're currently in the line of focus of every black hole out there. It's not likely that we're looking at something interesting.

[@alexakalennon]

Going there by rocket be like: ignition! And we have... lift I mean a problem. Kidding, interesting video

[@akers189]

What 3 questions would you ask an alien if you had a close encounter?

[@roblewis798]

How did you survive yourself? And not self destruct

[@leeFbeatz]

I would ask, after the introduction, if they needed something, if they wanted to go somewhere, and if they had time to converse further

[@psycronizer]

2:43...hmm, that's what the ancient's ship "Destiny" did in Stargate Universe ! came in for a low pass and powered itself up from skimming off parts of the corona, but, they had to choose the right kind of stars I believe, no trying that with type O or A stars !!...that was a BRILLIANT ship as far as sci fi goes..really loved that show, pity it got the boot..

[@frasercain]

I totally agree, Universe had the potential to be one of the best Stargates. Sucks that it got cancelled.

[@lancemenke2728]

The impending doom in the build up of the plot and then the replenishment ,survival was great example of so much that was discovered. The writing and maturity of Stargate spin offs were done so well. The exact star would be very significant so many parameters of a successful refuel especially if the inhabitants had no idea of what the ship was doing the first time.

[@WilhelmDrake]

@ 3:24 - Regarding the question about Scientific consensus. I think a lot of people misunderstand what science is. Science is NOT something an individual does by themselves. Science is, by its' very nature, a social process. It's a standard that has to be implemented. How science is implemented, ie: its' institutional & regulatory structure, varies across time and place.

[@FakeAccount-df7ny]

Just subscribed. Keep up this good work

[@frasercain]

Thanks! Welcome aboard.

[@timberwolf27]

*Question* Will Fusion reactors essentially be the doorway to almost light speed travel, flipping somewhere around or past half way to slow down, and will we be able to navigate at these speeds and using what?

[@LarsRyeJeppesen]

No. Fusion is not energy dense enough

[@AlexandruVataman]

Hi Fraser! How do we know the temperature of the surface of the sun is 5500 or so when the corona has much more? Thanks

[@phoule76]

probably infrared cameras

[@deSloleye]

It's modeled as a black body radiator and the spectrum is what you get when you have a black body at 5500K. Black body radiation a simple behavior with a peak wavelength controlled by the temperature. Work out the brightest wavelength and you know the temperature.

[@ocoro174]

corona? 😨

[@irontusk341]

While I was writing my series, I wondered How would hurricanes fair on Earthlike planets on K or M type stars? Would they be stronger? weaker?

[@savagesarethebest7251]

That would depend on how close the planet is to the star (i.e. energy input), how thick atmosphere, how much water covers the planet, how fast the planet rotates and a lot of other factors. So you cannot just deduce it from the star type

[@theOrionsarms]

Actually I read some time ago about a little known idea about how you could mine atmospheric gasses from a giant planet no matter how deep is its gravity weel , basically would be like that, you have floating vehicle like a balloon in the upper atmosphere and from there you beams a laser to a space station in the fix position around planet(the radiation pressure would push some gases all the way to that station), but the trick is the laser beam needs to have a higher intensity around the central axis in order to bounce atoms in the center and avoid dispersion into space, basically a pipeline made of laser light weaker in the center and stronger on the edge. But it's more complicated than I described because you need to use specific wawe length that interact with a specific element ionizing those atoms in order to keep them on the pipe.

[@savagesarethebest7251]

You are essentially descibing a laser tractor beam, which is a real thing by the way. Just not so powerful yet. Look at styropyros' KZbin channel, he shows how to use a laser to tractor diamonds 🔹

[@theOrionsarms]

@@savagesarethebest7251 Not a tractor beam, but a pusher one(it's a mind trap to think in the star trek terms) . But the creators of this concept of mining gases maybe fallen in a mind trap too when they thinked that a floating station is needed (because you need to push up the gasses), but in reality two satellites in low orbit can work better, because the pipeline made from light is a straight line, but the atmosphere of any planet have a curvature, and the pipeline can be sended from one satellite to scratch the upper atmosphere layers and transfer some gasses to the second satellite on the same low orbit but in front (or back) of the first one. Are some advantages in this approach, like a shorter distance for light pipeline and no need for floating emitting laser in the atmosphere of the gas giant planet I think.

[@scrambles1944]

hey fraser if im living in a symilation or a virtual reality i can mine the hydrogen with a certain pick mayb?

[@CraneArmy]

ref @3:24 I seem to be a little late catching up. I understand my question was packed pretty tight, with so many others to get to, and you do this all the time, and other things. You said you disagreed with the premise of the question I asked in the other episode, which is fine, and then most of your explanation of the scientific process im on board with. The idea of "scientific consensus" you give is reasonable (I would have gone a little deeper on the purpose of science not being consensus, but I'll take it). But you tipped your hand a little bit, "a lot of the time I hear people complaining about the scientific consensus or taking issue with it, its usually because the scientific consensus is running up against some preconceived notion or political ideology or religious issue....", I also agree with this. Where I dont agree is that there is a delineation between, the people who disagree with the use of the "scientific consensus" on ethical/political/religious grounds, and the other people who encourage its use as a way to instruct on the predominant results of empirical study in a field. that kind of delineation would be a _WILD_ correlation. Which is why I stated, "It seems to indicate some political/ethical conclusion". there is no reason scientific consensus should be cited by a dispassionate empiricists, and loathed to be cited by the ethically minded. I'm left questioning whether you actually disagree, in the short you did, in the long you didnt. given your initial definitions, as an institution the need to discuss or inform of a consensus seems to stop at risk/reward assessment for follow-on experimentation and/or replication of an experiment. (which id argue is also an ethical question, but a valid place for the ethical discussion within the institutions of science and empirical study) but that is not often (never?) the scope in which I hear it presented.

[@Swm9445]

100 years to profitable private asteroid mining?!? That seems a bit long to me, my guess was 30-40 years, personally. Why do you think its going to take such a long time?

[@theunknownunknowns256]

I like the live version but prefer the edited version because of the graphics.

[@zapfanzapfan]

We (ESA) should have built our own landing system from the beginning... and now maybe we will.

[@miracleofsun]

We (Europe) should have done a lot of things and didn't... and now we know it.

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

20:12f: > _Red dwarfs when they really get going can be quite troublesome, they can send out really killer flares but K- type states don't do that._ May this be due to the red dwarfs, however old they are in Terran years, are still in their kind of childhood whereas K- type stars aren't any more?

[@aurtisanminer2827]

I didn’t realize this video was 11 months old until the question about when jwst will finally be taking pics. Lol

[@DanBennett]

I love your shows. Thank you.

[@robertpastor4061]

Talk about the wire catch starship thingy....Nothing anywhere around to blow up..chk it out..great info

[@joaodecarvalho7012]

K stars are the best. How bad do they get in their last moments of life? How long a coral-shaped structure like the one found on Mars could resist to erosion?

[@crowtrobot313]

love your work! Everyone describes black holes by their mass. Its almost never mentioned what their diameters are. Is there a rule of thumb about how large a black hole is in comparison to the sun? Are solar mass black holes a 1/4 the diameter? Half size? What about super massive black holes?

[@Raz.C]

re - Question 2 about scientific consensus. One of the most fundamental aspects of the Scientific Method is *"Repeatability."* Scientific Consensus is an extension of that repeatability.

[@fireofenergy]

Can you please make an episode on that Jupiter thing, like how to prevent the hydrogen atmosphere from slowing down the rocket tanker, to its doom. Could the H2 be used just to make water (and for rocket fuel) or does it have to be a fusion based undertaking? Are there other elements not worthy, getting in the way, etc? Thanks

[@karrde593]

"Put them on in the background while you're playing some video game.." You know your audience pretty well.

[@THIS---GUY]

I get too drawn in lol I need to focus while gaming

[@janipihlaja7884]

Hi Frasier ! I was wondering .. It's often expected that Alien Civilizations thousands years more advanced then us are using Dyson spheres or other grand scale megasturctures to suck energy from surrounding stars . But wouldn't it be more likely that they are using dark energy ? Because dark energy is ~68% mass of the iuniverse compared to common material wich is only 5% ? This would allso explain why we haven't observed any megastructures yet. Thank you for great Channel ! 👍

[@williamblack4006]

Dyson did not actually envision a solid spherical shell around a star -- because well, that would never work -- what he actually envisioned were a very large number of individual solar collectors in orbit of a star. It was science fiction author Olaf Stapledon who described massive spherical, energy-trapping alien mega structures in his 1937 novel "Star Maker," the two entirely separate conceptualizations have been confused with one another for a very long period of time, so its common to see this confusion touted as fact.

[@kylehuntmaui]

With Mars gravity < Earth's, has there been study into structural engineering differences for building on Mars. Would shelters have to be shorter/wider to be less flimsy?

[@HebaruSan]

Probably the opposite. Less gravity means less stress on the materials.

[@jondoc7525]

Olympus mons could not be that big in higher gravity that should answer your question. . Wider would be fine

[@truvc]

You say you can’t believe every member of an alien civilization would abide by the prime directive. But that assumes civilizations will continue to have “members.” We may become more and more connected until we do behave as a species rather than individuals.

[@frasercain]

But there are always outliers. And it only takes one to reveal the whole thing.

[@alfonsopayra]

i have a question for you, how come you are doing this for so long now and so well done but you only have 350k subscribers? kudos sr!

[@HorsecreekDK]

Hi The ISS has been populated for a little more than 20 years of it's planned 30 years lifespan. Is the comming 'in-space-transfer-stations' like the Artemis gateway planned with the same lifespan? If so. How are we supposed to maintain space stations, O'neill cylinders and other (relative) megastructures to last way longer than 30 years?

[@microschandran]

Hi :Fraser, I am confused and need clarification. Why is blackhole temperature in event horizon so cold, near absolute zero. What happens to all the light that is swallowed by the BH, radiation even if sucked into the area near singularity has to increase the temperature inside!

[@petevenuti7355]

Maybe.. you wouldn't ever see if it's true as the heat wouldn't get out... But here's a mind blow, Heat is the movement of the atoms of the items that are hot, their speed is temperature..yada yada, Many scientists believe that movement through space is swapped for moving through time and vice versa..if that is true, *then* what is heat?

[@grahammatthews3798]

Jeez! The asteroid belt might be a simpler start

[@GabeTStarman]

What would happen if you pointed Hubble at the surface of the earth? Would you see anything with any clarity, or are its instruments not tuned to process whatever it would see? Would it damage the telescope or any of its sensors?

[@andyf4292]

it would flare out from the light...might work on the nightside though

[@williamblack4006]

The Hubble Space Telescope is a modified KH-11 spy satellite. With the original hardware/software package it was capable of taking extremely high resolution images of the Earth's surface.

[@rgraph]

Here's a question for you: Is the reason heat shields are necessary because spacecraft are traveling at roughly 20,000mph when they reenter the atmosphere? If they had a fuel source (eg... dilithium crystals) could they just slow down whilst they're in space and then drop into the atmosphere, therefore not needing a heat shield? Thanks.

[@deSloleye]

Ultimately yes if you have a lot of fuel, but if you stop outside the atmosphere and fall you're in for a bad time. You will still be going fast enough before the atmosphere gets thick enough to slow you down that you have horrible heating. Also, the atmosphere will get thick really fast and so the deceleration will become massive late in the fall. That leads to very high heating and very flat occupants.

[@deSloleye]

If you can fly down the whole way limiting speed, acceleration, and rocket related heating, you're golden.

[@rgraph]

@@deSloleye What about if you had a way to limit your speed to, say, 200-250mph all the way down?

[@deSloleye]

@@rgraph ok so you can do it with drag and you'll get intense heating, or you can do it with thrust, which will have less intense heating (think reentry burns from a falcon 9) or you're going to fly down aerodynamically with a shallow trajectory and that one is complicated. To do that you'll be flying at hypersonic speeds (heating) while unable to generate enough lift to stay flying. That is the definition of the karman line, where orbital lift is slower than aerodynamic lift. Until the atmosphere gets thick, you're flying very, very fast, and heating up because of it. You'll have burned up before you could have flown aerodynamically. If you slow down before the atmosphere then you're being heated by the rocket exhaust you use, or you're going to accelerate while falling down to the point you get aerodynamic heating. You're going to be really hot no matter which way you get down. There's just so much energy in an orbiting space craft.

[@patrickday4206]

Yeah that's the same conclusion I had for Jupiter!! Other people I've talked to made it sound impossible but their arguments never sounded right ! Do you think it has a lot of helium 3 ?

[@MarcusMacgregor2]

Has anyone ever noticed that if you put Mars at the Jupiter-Sun L5 point the following happens: 1. It stays there indefinitely until it falls towards Jupiter 2. It tends to miss due to the increased velocity increasing the distance to Sun, thus it loops in a parabola on the outside 3. It runs out of velocity around 4.8 AU and starts orbiting the Sun with high eccentricity 4. It can get to its current orbit by adjusting the impact parameter since the energy is right 5. Mercury and Venus do not have the mass, making the impact parameter less than their radius 6. Thus it could only pass Earth at at low altitude to get to its current orbit This predicts three things: Holes in Mars from Jupiter, A large raised area on Mars from Earth, A 15,000 km raised strip on Earth from Mars Check,check,check

[@altapan1233]

hello Mr Fraser, I love your show , but I'm wondering if you can anticipate your LIVE streaming a bit to let European fans to watch it ! ( for UTC time is quite late ) thanks anyway

[@Fiercefighter2]

I put the interviews on in the background while I renovate our master bedroom

[@MaxBrix]

The galactic zoo hypothesis has scientific consensus. I have had a many bad mechanics work on my car though.

[@scienceontheright]

In the Culture novels by Ian M Banks, they did interfere with less advanced civilizations, but did so by transforming themselves into those beings, so they looked and behaved just like the those creatures.Thus, rather than an alien version of Kirk showing up and nudging us in the right direction, perhaps there is a human alien who nudges toward the right direction.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The last 10% takes as long as the first 90%. The last 5% takes as long as the first 95%. The last 1% takes as long as the first 99%. Add that lot up and the 100% takes 10x longer than you planned for.

[@privateerburrows]

Asteroid mining is at least 100 years away; but the reason is NOT that we have plenty minerals. We have plenty of iron, lithium, titanium and aluminium; but we are running out of quite a few things ... helium, some rare earths, cobalt, phosphorus, zinc, gold, palladium, tellurium, rhodium, and many more. The real reason we won't be mining asteroids for at least 100 years is because we will be mining Luna, "the Moon", and Mars sooner. Mining asteroids is more difficult due to the extreme low gravity, and travel distance to any human comforts. Soon after a base is established on Mars, there will be first a huge phase of science and tourism, followed immediately by a prospecting phase. No point in flying for months in space looking for asteroids worth prospecting, when you have millions of asteroids buried in Mars, all nicely circled for you with craters. Once we run out of asteroids IN Mars, then it will make more sense to go get the ones elsewhere. Once we run out of asteroids buried in planets and moons; maybe then it will make more sense to go chasing the ones flying out there.

[@williamjulien5858]

If you "mine" the water on Earth for H2 and then you burn the H2 don't you get the water back since H2 + O = H2O. So how would you run out of water?

[@obrienct]

another problem with asteroid mining is once we do it, there will be so many 'precious metals' that it crashes the market and becomes worthless, lest there be exponential demand or an unreasonable withholding of product

[@williamblack4006]

It's likely asteroid mining will only become a thing once we start building large scale space habitats like O'Neil Cylinders or Stanford Torus.

[@johnkennyrasmussen1545]

how does a ramjet work in space? by disconnection from sience?

[@adij1611]

Question: Why does the ISS orbit at the hight that it does? I understand that if it were further up that it wouldn't need to be boosted as often. Is it just a cost reason? I.e. would the ongoing shipments and the initial build have been too expensive if it were further up? Or is there any specific scientific reason why the chosen hight is optimal?

[@Релёкс84]

I read somewhere that it wasn't placed too high up to avoid the radiation from the Van Allen belts, but don't quote me on that.

[@pm7734]

Hey Fraser! Quick question, if a magical evil wizard suddenly snapped his fingers and made our sun disappear ** POOF ** GONE, since the sun has so much mass and bends space time as Einstein tells us would the sudden disappearance of the sun cause space time to bounce back and create gravitational waves? This is why I never sleep at night, thanks!

[@tomhools1605]

20:00 maybe thus means that we should look for advanced civilizations around k stars bc even if thy didn't evolve there they would arrive there since it is a logical place to settle.

[@extropian314]

7:10 I see, so gravitational waves must actually come from masses *accelerating* through space -- that is, changing their direction or speed.

[@Релёкс84]

That's right. One intuitive way to think about it is that gravity "updates" at the speed of causality, and so it can make "bumps" in front of an accelerating object, kind of like if you thrust your hand forward in water and water bulges in front of it. But true gravitational waves of the type that are detected are caused by massives object that are moving back and forth repeatedly, a configuration that basically only occurs with a close orbiting pair of massive objects like neutron stars or black holes: in that case you see a repeating wave instead of a single buldge, which is far easier to detect especially against the large noise they have to deal with.

[@karm65]

the ISS is 33 years old emagan a computer from 1998 cutting edge was Pentium II Xeon 400 or AMD K6-2 both only supported 4GB of ram max. how viable do you think it would be today? and they expect the ISS to last another 10ish years that is mind-boggling?

[@THIS---GUY]

Imagine is the word you're looking for. The ISS isn't like an obsolete computer from 1998. It's more like an aging and outdated computer case from 1998. ISS has been constantly upgraded but there are limitations just as you would with replacing parts in the old case with the Pentium II Xeon for more modern hardware. It's just hard to make some things work as there are compatibility issues.

[@AliHSyed]

Lol Slatibartfast from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy?

[@camo733]

Hey Fraser, I know you’re a busy man but I’ve noticed over time you respond to less videos in the comment section. I remember a tine years ago you use to take the time and answer almost all of them. What holds higher priority now?

[@frasercain]

I always said there'd be a time when I wouldn't have the bandwidth to answer all the comments. By doing the live shows, I'm able to give an answer to lots of people at the same time. My ability to answer questions personally doesn't scale, unfortunately.

[@camo733]

Thank you for answering 🙂 I’ve been watching from Adelaide, Australia since 2015 and appreciate everything you and your team does 👍 PS: miss the guides to space.

[@HPA97]

Is it possible to have a bunch of galaxies orbit each other in manner similar to a solar system? I.e. Big galaxy in the middle (Sun) smaller galaxies orbiting around this one galaxy (Planets).

[@edwardkasimir8016]

Question: Why didn't the universe coalesce into one big star after the Big Bang and instead many gazillions of stars?

[@rikGoulart]

The early universe was way too smooth. There was no gravity difderential for mass to be pulled in a specific direction. Stars appeared way later when the universe was too big for that

[@kayakMike1000]

The problem with the scientific consensus analogy with the ten mechanics, is the ten mechanics are from volkswagen and the problem is clean emmissions.

[@nathanscottshoemaker2554]

They aren’t just moving the mirrors they are actually bending the mirrors on a micro level.

[@MyLittleMagneton]

So, there is the theoretical Alcubierre drive, which bends space-time around a ship to allow it to travel faster than light (light through untampered space that is). ...But I'm curious as to what the implications of using this near a black hole would be. Wouldn't it allow you to rip a hole in the event horizon?

[@MyLittleMagneton]

To clarify: wouldn't adding "negative mass" at the event horizon theoretically allow for a window to form? In which case, would that cause the contents to spew out? Or maybe it's wrong to think of it as a window, maybe it'd just create a crater on the surface ...a black hole-hole if you will.

[@CliffordSmeeton]

Hi Fraser, Does our moon have a name or is it just earth s moon ?......Thankx for all the info .

[@scottishadonis]

The reason the camera cuts out on the space x drone boats when the booster rockets land is that the satellite uplink connection can and does get Broken Earth due to the motion of the boosters landing on a floating platform in the oceanThe way that a satellite connection works is by “line of sight.” I.e the signal needs to be pointed directly at the satellite and what happens when a heavy object lands on a float in the ocean as the ocean is a fluid? It moves. Hence the break in satellite connectivity. Meaning no picture or sound until the connection realigns and transmission resumes. It’s also the reason that walking around while sending signals while jumping up and down doesn’t work so well for transmitting data over a satellite connection.

[@frasercain]

I'm sure SpaceX is working on some kind of gimbal so that it can maintain contact with the satellites.

[@scottishadonis]

@@frasercain I hope so as actually seeing the boosters land from the view of the platform would be great!

[@troychampion]

the ISS, it isn't how old it is, but how old it is compared to how long it was designed to last.

[@rivergrrrl1256]

Are there any new satellites to replace the space weather satellites that have quit working and the one that is now in an orbit that is too close to us to provide information to give us warning with time to prepare.

[@shockslice7632]

Are we von neumann probes? - that one made me laugh! Kind of forces you to turn everything you think you know upside-down and reconsider just in case

[@robertpastor4061]

The 4 tower wire catch thingy

[@rivergrrrl1256]

The hardest part is getting the space station up there so why not boost it farther out to be scavenged for parts for future space stations?

[@LosLS2]

you are tying yourself into knots with your consensus explanation.

[@manhunter3429]

i wonder how long before we have desktop sized telescopes that are so powerful that we can push a few buttons and see from earth the tire tracks of the rovers on Mars or see the heart of Pluto?

[@deSloleye]

Wait.... 36:55... Are Saturn's rings spaghettified moons and asteroids???

[@robertlewis2542]

What happens to the heliosphere if we change the sun as suggested? What happens to the orbits of everything in the solar system? Perhaps the sun is worth more than the energy output of its hydrogen?

[@pouch2598]

Without previously watching, I would say “no, mining Jupiter is out... something to do with gravity (not to mention the radiation that would fry electronics)..”

[@rahlmaclaren1478]

Mechanical computers. Ooo, maybe that's why Avon used hand tools to do programing on Blake's 7.

[@hadleymanmusic]

Pretty neat. Im ready to scoop carbon outa saturns sky

[@edmundchase]

They say that the rate of the passage of time slows as you approach a black hole. In fact it goes to zero as you approach the event horizon. That being said, it seems to me that nothing can ever cross the event horizon because it would take an infinite amount of time as we see it from outside, therefore it will never approach the center of the black hole. It will however appear to sink beneath it as "seen" from outside as the black hole's mass grows and the event horizon itself moves out past it. So everything should remain frozen inside the black hole and nothing ever moves to the so called singularity inside. What is wrong with this argument? If I'm right, everything gets relatively stuck in place. Thus there is no infinite density at the center and no information is destroyed. Why do the physicists keep talking about a singularity of infinite density at the center and the loss of information as things fall into a black hole?

[@hipser]

I remember when starship launched in 2022

[@douglascunningham6319]

Author John Ringo in a 3 book series, 1st book. Live free or die. Describes how you could have mirror collectors passing on energy in the form of lasers. To bigger collectors. An with that he melted ore an mined as well as making more an more mirrors to the point of 2nd book, Citadel. was a melted iron astoriod with a chunk of ice planted in the middle. That was blown up similar to a balloon to form a habitat shell. Look it's SF. But it logically held together. He probably didn't come up with the idea. Just made sense. An I couldn't shoot any insurmountable holes in the idea.

[@petermcguire8260]

Could we put a star out. Than more efficiently use it to power a colony

[@petermcguire8260]

A binary star?

[@dustman96]

Does intergalactic space have more or less radiation than galactic space. Does a galaxy act in a similar way to a planet with a magnetic field?

[@r.watson7672]

Bro I have this on in the background while playing no man sky.

[@jondoc7525]

Why do we need mine Jupiter with methane so easy to get on titan I’m confused

[@jensphiliphohmann1876]

21:36f: Do they really? If it only depended on the central star, it certainly would be so but what about the dynamo of the planet itself? Ours was said to stop working by about 10⁹ years from now and this could be fatal already, without Earth being scorched by an ever hotter sun.

[@wskinnyodden]

Can you help one person become a miner in the Asteroid Belt, Mars or Jupiter and its Moons? (Just asking, and no not for a friend!)

[@pi1392]

Hey Fraser. Could there be an universe made of antimatter?

[@savagesarethebest7251]

Yeah. How do you know that our universe is not already made of antimatter in some sense? It is relative

[@nathanscottshoemaker2554]

The sound alone from a landing rocket will rattle your camera.

[@mountainmarvels8240]

The US $ used to be pegged to gold, & is currently pegged to oil. When the oil is gone, and there are not enough trees left in the US to mill into paper to print $100 bills to pay the national debt (or remembering what happened to the DeutschMark after WW2) what happens to NASA and its programs ?

[@mikem2949]

The question about scientific consensus is probably pointing more towards politics and how people manipulate studies and scientific research to fit with their preferred political narrative. Some matters of science are being politicized. For example, this is very prevalent when it comes to climate change science. Yes, in an ideal world scientists and those who are passionate about science, love to look for holes in theories, including looking for holes in their OWN theories. In fact, that's built right into the scientific method. It's central to the development of scientic theories to approach your own ideas with sceptism and look for alternative explanations. That's the way it should be. But we now live in a world where if you don't believe humans are responsible for warming the planet, then you're a "climate denier" Or if you don't believe mask were necessary for children attending school and that it was counter productive to close schools, then you aren't "following the science" Many people were even dismissing the idea of herd immunity as if that's a concept that was pulled out of someone's rear end to indulge conspiracy theorists. So unfortunately things have changed a good bit. I'm a science geek at heart and always will be but scientist's are human, and as with every other proffesion, some are going to be driven by political or financial incentives. And as hinted at before, finding pseudo intellectuals online who try piggyback off of scientific research when it fits with their biases is common as well. So some are using "science" to claim a moral or intellectual high ground in such a way that it squashes healthy debate while making it easy for them to make no real effort at exploring dissenting viewpoints.

[@stevestarr9769]

Living on Mars would be like being stuck in a mall for a minimum of a year, the zero gravity on the way there and back would mess you up. And the low gravity on Mars would screw you up as well. th no thank you.

[@ronaldwhite1730]

Thank - you . ( 2023 / Feb / 19 )