Being grounded in science and being practical to the point of actually implementing are to different things. Put another way, just because is possible doesn't make it practical or worth while to do.
@@TechIngredients You obviously are not familiar with the Rocket equation! I hate to break it to you sunshine, but; there is a limit to extant propulsion systems and that limit was, to all intents and purposes, reached with the Rockets of both Russia and the US in the '60s and '70s. NASA, I am afraid is a fraud, making trillions where people like Elon Musk have done the same thing as NASA is now proposing to do for 1/50th the cost. It's a Military Industrial Complex fraud! The so-called Apollo missions did NOT have enough insulation/covering for meteorites and radiation with the 1/16" covering they used. The extra weight needed to protect lifeforms is far beyond the weight limit described by the Rocket Equation. Its time you woke up from your daydream and realized Santa and the tooth fairy, as well as landing on the moon, was faked! By the way, before you dismiss my comment I have 12 years post-secondary in the Sciences and a younger brother who is an Astro Physicist! I Know several scientists that would tell you the same thing in private!
Imagine a UPS truck full of magnets driving at speed causing a magnetic ripple to affect the electrics of all adjacent buildings and cars ;0) The faster they drive the stronger the effect ....... is that why they are taking it slowly?
As always, thought provoking material..Thank you. I started reading at an early age and the first si-fi novel was Puppet Masters then The Moon is a harsh mistress. Stayed with me all these years. Inertia weapons are most likely the weapon of future choice in a lunar based attack on the Earth. Lasers will be space to space but will suffer the degradation from the atmosphere ,as you have shown.
Heinlein's novels are favorites of mine, partly because of the engineering knowledge he brought to the table. In the mid 1960's I read a SF short story about dueling aliens on the moon. The Earthling's weapon was indeed a rifle in 220 Swift calibre... and the punch line of the story involved a missed shot that did precisely what you describe... only it hit the alien, of course!
This video is quite different to the rest of the channel, but rewatching this now, I did really enjoy it. It would be nice to have more of this style of content occasionally too.
I love that you brought up Robert Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' He is one of my favorite authors, and thinks things through like you do. Keep up the great work, I have subscribed!
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your videos. I like how thoroughly you cover a topic. I consider your videos to be a valuable resource. Thank you and please continue to make more videos.
In response to your confusion about the need for a moon base as a stepping stone for a Mars base, the primary reason would be to learn how to build a relatively self sustaining ground base in Space, while still being in rescue distance from Earth. We could send a rescue mission to the moon in about a week, but sending one to Mars could take almost 2 years in the worst case. Also the recent confirmation of water ice on the moon's poles makes the moon a much more attractive target.
Also, if we stockpiled on the moon, we could send larger rockets from there to Mars, because the moon has much less gravity, requiring less fuel. There are issues with this, since going all the way to Mars doesn't require much more energy than going to the moon, but from the moon, we could launch huge rockets that are themselves giant habitats. In other words, we'd send 4 rockets to the moon, assemble the components into a huge, flying, space motel, and launch that to Mars. This may be an advantage in certain situations or NASA missions. A single Falcon Heavy or BFR might not be very comfortable for a 6 month trip to Mars, while also bringing equipment, tools, housing, etc. But if a few Falcon Heavys went to the moon, you could bring much more stuff from there to Mars.
In response to James Burleson, The best place to learn how to construct ground bases while still being in rescue distance would surely be on Earth itself?
Very good thought experiment. A lot to ponder. For example, could a high powered pulsed laser be defeated by something like cladding your missile in a first-layer mirror material under which you put a layer of graphite or ceramic? Nukes lose a lot of their effectiveness in space due to the lack of atmosphere and therefore no shock wave. They would have good EMP effects and some pressure pulse from x-rays and gamma rays. Projectile weapons could be a problem because those projectiles could potentially stay in orbit for a long time. It would suck to get whacked in the head by a bullet you fired three weeks ago. Dunno. Maybe we should just learn to get along.
I stumbled across your channel while studying magnets and instantly became a fan. Your explanations on such a range of topics are so understandable even when i have little real understanding to begin with. Love what you are doing. Keep it up. I'm hooked.
I have dozens of things I would say both in response to and in support of this video but the topics keep coming fast and I can't keep up. I had to restart it to remember all the stuff I forgot. 1. Rifles firing 1500m/s burn their barrels up quite fast. The vacuum will exacerbate this problem by not providing conductive cooling like Earth's atmosphere does. EM guns currently have even more extreme thermal erosion. Hope you have good heat sinks. 2. You need to do a collab with Isaac Arthur sometime. Even if it is just you two talking space tech or something. I'd take a sick day just to watch. 3. The Moon has helium3 which will be a useful fusion fuel, provided controlled fusion isn't just permanent sci-fi. 4. A permanent base on the moon would be able to build components there for the Mars mission. They would also be able to launch interplanetary missions using solar powered mass drivers entirely, saving the fuel for delta V upon arrival at Mars. Also you could learn so much about surviving in space beyond the Van Allen belts that will become useful on any Mars mission. And you could grow food there for a much smaller cost than shipping it up from Earth. 5. The first entirely space based state will certainly militarize space. (Provided the asteroid mining corporations don't beat them to it.) Those treaties are at best a pipe dream, and most likely lies for the pearl clutchers so they don't get aneurysms knowing what *their* government is already doing. There is no such thing as an unarmed spaceship. Any object moving at 17km/s is a deadly weapon. All the space ship needs to do is accelerate toward you, dump some random trash, and then change course. Presto! You die. 6. HMMWV fires are certainly hot enough to cause atmospheric turbulence. Using projectile weapons near them is already problematic, let alone light which can defocus. 7. If a space muhreen shoots himself in the ass on the moon, does he still get a purple heart? (Does Army still have to MedEvac him???) 8. >Heinlein shout out. Thank you. 9. Satellite based "rods from gawd" are less useful than nuclear weapons when you consider the incredible cost and mission complexity needed to properly use them, when dial-a-yield bunker buster weapons could be used the next town over and all you would get is a tiny increase in the chance of getting cancer in forty years. ICBMs are already essentially impossible to stop now. Doubling the terminal velocity from "unstoppable" to "causes secondary shockwaves and atmospheric plasma which can kill dozens of bystanders" serves no purpose, and wastes absolutely critical resources which should go into missile research and the construction of more dial-a-yield bunker busters. although.... 10. Mass drivers on the moon would work much better than the satellite version of "rods from gawd." For all the reasons you mentioned in your video. Especially when you consider that there is no such thing as stealth in space. This means that the "rods from the moon gawd" operator can use his mass driven regolith to defend himself from you when you try to stop him from 200,000 km away. He will have all week to aim. 11. Because there should always be an eleventh bullet point. Thank you for the video. I really liked the laser demonstration.
Radiative cooling of the barrels will be necessary. Investing in advanced barrels made of tungsten or silicon carbide and coated with advanced ceramics or even "diamond like" films could mitigate these problems
6 років тому
@@TechIngredients That radiative cooling will make quite the pretty thermal target. Of course, since there is no stealth in space, the winner is the guy who shoots first and changes course last. Trying to hide the thermal signature can only be effective temporarily. Tungsten carbide rail gun barrels with TiAlN coating would be pretty sweet, though.
Not necessarily. If the radiating surface has a high aspect ratio (fins) and these are perpendicular to the target, the radiation profile could be minuscule. Single wall carbon nanotubes or graphene sheets are excellent candidates due to their near unity emissivity and extremely high thermal conductivity. The thin edges could even be shielded.
@@TechIngredients Why aren't barrels lined with DLC currently? Or even other components? As for radiative cooling, it wouldn't be on the barrel. Liquid cool the barrel like old time machine guns, and have a remote radiator maybe? And to get back to your fridge, what about Pelletier cooling?
I grew up reading the science fiction that my grandfather grew up reading... Including a lot of Heinlein. Not only was he a brilliant writer, he was a brilliant futurist - and I love seeing his work referenced in a video half a century later.
I think that you didn't necessarily take the projectile argument to its final conclusion. Every projectile weapon on the moon is essentially pointed at the head of every other user. Two opposing force bases, even if separated by thousands of kilometers are essentially right next to each other if they are armed with aimable projectile systems. HOWEVER! There will be a limit to the amount of velocity you can hit any other location with. That over-the-horizon capability is limited to a maximum terminal velocity of the moon's escape velocity (1.5km/s (+/-)) which is not an overwhelming number. It is very very fast, but modern main battle tank armor is made to resist such velocities tied to materials of extreme density and hardness. I would imagine that open/mobile/light armor/infantry combat would not be a very viable option and moving equipment would be extremely difficult, because with only a modest ability to propel itself and launched from an over-the-horizon firebase, a projectile would be able to strike against any point on the moon from any other. Any surface action would be suicidal *if it left your troops/equipment exposed more than about an hour*. However, digging into the surface (like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (great book, by the way)) would effectively reduce the threat of bombardment to your personnel, but not your surface equipment (like all those fragile photoelectric or photocollector banks). So, any two military bases would not be able to rely on their limitless solar resources in case of conflict, which would relegate them to either stored solar energy (sublunar thermal storage, batteries/capacitors, or flywheels, maybe), or nuclear systems. As the moon has no lunothermal (lunathermal?) resources, the options are limited, and likely the energy storage of such a base would be the measure of its might. I usually write better, I'm about half in the bag at the moment, lovely video, I enjoy your content greatly.
Thank you! 1.5 km/sec is indeed very fast and remember that heavy armor is expensive and mobile vehicles will be relegated to the surface for a long time before expensive tunnels are excavated. Rail guns can reach much higher velocities, and although you are correct that a horizontally fired gun will be limited to around 1.5 km/sec what if the gun is located at an elevation such as a mountain or the edge of a crater and fires somewhat downward? Its range will be more limited, but the velocity can be much higher. Solar generation does not have to be limited to fragile crystalline panels. Flexible, distributed, photovoltaic films and coatings are already available (though, for the present, quite inefficient). Ultimately, subsurface development is the way to go for multiple reasons beyond defense.
@@TechIngredients I couldn't help but think, what about just a wall? Using a projectile's orbital velocity would, as you mentioned, change what elevations could be struck from/at and cap the energy a projectile imparts. The moon has an abundance of natural features and steep elevation changes, specifically craters with kilometer-scale walls, that would probably make the required path impossible over any distance large enough to necessitate using the moon's orbital velocity in the first place. Also from a different angle entirely, the prospect of missing your target and putting a bullet into ~permanent low-moon orbit is a little sketchy. I imagine if projectiles were being used in any extended capacity you'd eventually end up with a literal bulletstorm blanketing the moon.
Regarding lunathermal resources, isn't the cold temperature an advantage for maintaining superconductivity? For a relatively modest input, you could probably accomplish some pretty significant things in the dark.
I very much enjoy your scientific thoughts and thoroughly explained experiments. From recreating some of the experiments I've regained interest in pursuing further study. Thanks!
The game called Children Of A Dead Earth is a very realistic game representing why lasers are not good for long distance because of diffraction limit or that guns need big and heavy gimbals for precision shooting
Lasers are good for long distances, but they are constrained by optical effects. For example, a one meter apature mirror can put 80% of a laser's energy into a one mm spot at one km.
+MikrySoft True, but we're not talking about spaceships here. We're talking about combat on the surface of the moon, and combat between the earth and the moon. So lasers make pretty effective weapons at the ranges involved here, unless you're trying to directly attack earth's surface from the moon, in which case the optical effects are irrelevant because they pale in comparison to the deleterious effects of having to travel through earth's atmosphere before striking the surface.
@@polyjohn3425 in that case the 1m mirror makes the weapon unwieldy even for a stationary turret and I can render it useless simply by kicking up a dust cloud. Ablative shielding is much easier than kinetic
Fake news. He's obviously a paid shill for the Pan Franco/Aztlan cheese cartel sent to secure their monopoly of the lunar cheese market for the personal use of their reptilian masters.
I signed up for Space Force hoping to be posted to New Berlin Colony as a Fromager.. I already have Cody & Elon working on my Tesla 18650 powered Disrupter. Just waiting for a ride there with Zephram.
Actually, a moon base staging area makes good sense if you were to use a solar cell powered rail or coil gun as a primary launch system. Using a rail/coil gun, a *HUGE* space ship (or several large space ships, even) could be launched on a ballistic trajectory towards Mars, with only small steering rocket fuel burns required for course adjustments. The planetary gravity well escape velocity from the moon is significantly less than from earth, so a rail gun or coil gun accelerator of, say several kilometers, should allow for safe acceleration of rather large payloads to velocities well beyond those attainable using chemical rockets, thus reducing the transit time from around a year to only several months. I would think that the moon would be an excellent environment for a solar powered launch system: no clouds, no atmosphere, low escape velocity, plenty of raw materials, etc.
I love this times we are living that you can put all this knowledge recorded in a place anyone can watch, learn and start thinking. Live long and prosper from Brazil!
I have 2 points to make: 1: Helium 3 is basically the only substance you'd want to get specifically from the Moon, it's there right at the surface and it's very useful if you have fusion reactors and you want them light (in space) Because if you use Helium 3 you don't get neutrons in the fusion reaction and you only need minimal shielding. 2: the moon long rail guns would certainly work but there is another type of weapon to consider: The Stellaser. I should point you to the video by Isaac Arthur on this weapon and in general on interplanetary warfare but the short story is: If you get 2 big mirrors in space you can use them as solar sails and get them close to the Sun. Then just point them at each other. There is a constantly reenergized lasing medium in the Suns corona so just by doing that you have a VERY powerful laser. And it's not out of the question to think about instead of just schorching a city with that laser you can put a mirror on the back of a bullet and point the laser at that. Instead of kilometers per second velocities you'd be talking significant fractions of lightspeed for that bullet. You're losing a lot of accuracy by increasing the distance but getting many orders of magnitude more power instead.
Yes actually. Even though you're using the Sun you're still pulling a laser out of it. You get a single wavelength of light off it. And we already can (I think only in some cases but whatever) make a perfect mirror for a specific wavelength. And by perfect I mean actually perfect so that could handle any arbitrary ammount of power. The problem comes when you start pushing something up to relativistic speeds the doppler shift changes that wavelength (and there is no perfect mirror for a wide range of wavelengths as far as I know). So that might actually limit you to maybe 10% of the speed of light or something like that. But it only limits the actual speed, not the power which means you can use a heavier projectile and STILL achieve that 10% lightspeed. But really it's more about pushing REALLY heavy things around in the solar system rather than using it as a weapon, but you can ... just as well as you can send a REALLY fast probe to nearby stars with it. Anything as useful as that can and will be used as a weapon if history is any indication.
A stellaser is many orders of magnitude more difficult of an engineering problem than a lunar railgun (even one utilizing high-temperature superconductors). We're talking about a device that would require the engineering capabilities of a Type-I to Type-II civilization on the Kardashev scale. A lunar railgun is nowhere near that demanding.
Another great video. Fascinating talk about lunar based weapons. A big problem with hand held projectile weapons in lunar/space environments is recoil.
The moon is made of potential projectiles, and is at the top of the gravity well compared to Earth. So much easier than shipping lasers and fuel to the moon. The moon is a harsh mistress.
Not that I want to weigh in with a ridiculous observation to an equally ludicrous assertion, but typically human beings always assume they are on the "right side" of a military endeavour. So he is simply assuming that his "faction" is "us", and any other faction is "they". There is nothing sinister or alien about that, it is simply sociological reality with which human beings must contend.
When at the laser room scene, you looked like Doc from back to the future. May i suggest you to cover the topic on the property of 88 on your next video?
I have been in a state bliss since I found your channel by accident. Wow, someone who actually knows something and knows how to communicate it. I have dreams of someday building a hovercraft that does not use a ducted fan for propulsion (too loud and too much engine wear) Something that could be used on land in traffic as well as over water, ice, mud, what have you. I was thinking an air cushion vehicle that uses a single paddle wheel type tire that is steerable may work. Do you have any comments on the feasibility of such a vehicle?
Thanks! I see no reason why this idea wouldn't work. Having played around with hovercraft in the past, the bulk of the noise comes from the ducted fans or blowers required to provide the lift. Once you have a successful flotation, significant movement can be achieved with a weight shift and the increased leakage from a particular side of the craft. You would probably want to consider the effect of a ground contacting drive wheel producing an upward force as well as the tip of the craft from accelerations produced by this wheel so that the air cushion is not working against this supplementary drive system.
'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' has always been one of my favorite Heinlein stories. Those who have read it will recognize the phrase "throwing rocks". My vote (and not *just* because of this book) will always be projectiles!
I have a question. I want to use Laser instead of LED for usage in stimulating a phototropic and photosynthetic reactions. My main goal is to reduce the amount of energy needed to start the metabolic mechanism in a plant - since regular methods waste the most of the energy. How could I figure out the amount of Wattage needed to start the reaction and in which frequencies I had to pulse or scatter the laser, to keep this process going. This idea is surely crude, but maybe you can help.
Even if it only takes 2.4 meter per second to get something out of the Moon's gravity well, it would still be orbiting the Earth at about 1,000 meters per second. The moon rocks would still be orbiting at about the same speed as the moon. Wouldn't the projectile still need to some sort of propulsion to change the orbit enough to hit the Earth?
Tech Ingredients, do you have any experience in making synthetic sapphires/ruby. I want to make synthetic ruby for the jewelry market using the Flux-Fusion process. For those who do not know about the Flux-Fusion process; molten flux such as cryolite, lead oxide, lead fluoride, and bismuth oxide-lead fluoride is used as a solvent. Aluminum oxide is dissolved in the molten flux solvent heated to 1300C and then slowly cooled (1 deg C/hour) allowing sapphire/ruby crystals to form. Any information on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
Where has your channel been all these years?! Definitely subbed. I'm extremely satisfied mentally after watching your videos & It's a nice break from all of the other less down to Earth "Science" channels out there.
How the hell do you know so much and how many people do you have for a think tank on new subject you may not know? Absolute genius and you make a great teacher. War is a losing game and the hollow moon is just a death star hiding over us. Lol. Billionaires playing good among men may make mankind evolve yet. Great work you do.
Thunderf00t Only gets involved on scammy products/ideas with lots of funding and publicity. He gets -jealous- pissed because he doesn't gets that money for his research. Maybe if he developed a way to gather energy from "beating dead horses" he could produce energy and sell it to become billionaire.
@Tech Ingredients - Can you do more experiments or share some links to experiments exploring this technology tested in vacuums? experiments in other atmospheres are pretty cool and I think are very educational.
Even if we solve all these issues (transportation , unlimited energy resources, unlimited food supply) Radiation hazard from being out of earth's electromagnetic field will not make it possible for us to live forever in mars's environment
I enjoy learning and this channel has enlightened me many times particularly around the subject of composites and the transfer of energy... in all forms and its effects. Funny side note that golf ball probably was the furthest driven ever when hit on the moon but its landed some were by now.
rare earth metals, helium 3... The fact that the Moon and the Earth share the same origin is true, but the Moon has been receiving unfiltered cosmic rays for millions of years, therefore slowly building a reserve of things we just can't find as common in our planet
The idea of shooting a rifle on the moon horizontally, so that 2 hours later you hit YOUR OWN BUT really cracked me up!! Hilarious! And it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN! On the other hand the thought that at such a stage of development so to use the lunar resources efficiently will the humankind still be in the caveman state of phycology (TO THINK HOW TO KILL EACH OTHER MORE EFFICIENTLY) is so SAD... I am an engineer. And I really, really appreciate the great depth and detail that "Tech Ingredients" discusses so many subjects! I am AMAZED!
I can't believe I hadn't seen this video yet! Somehow I must have missed it when it was first uploaded, but I am very glad that today the algorithm finally decided to bless me with this exquisite collection of knowledge! By the way I was wondering about this; is there a previously prepared script you're reading from a teleprompter, or are you **ahem** _(and for lack of a better word)_ "simply" spooning this knowledge out of your brain straight into the camera, all the while either recalling those hypothetical scenarios from memory, or imagining them on the spot, and as if that wasn't incredible enough, without breaking even a single sweat you seem to be effortlessly making connections between those hypotheticals and other appropriate information, not to mention managing _on the spot_ to weave everything into a compelling narrative! 😳😮👌 Bravo, and what an incredible feat! You must have an IQ of at least 200!👏👏👏👏 😁
While atmospheric turbulence (in astronomy: seeing) and scattering are huge problems for earth-based lasers, for space-based lasers the problem is the diffraction limit, which applies to lasers just as much as telescopes. Taking a somewhat random example, say you have a 10cm aperture laser at 500nm. I then get a beam angle of about 2*500/10^8 = 10^-5 radians. When you shoot this beam moon-earth, you get a spot size of 10^-5*300.000 = 3km. How much power do you need in a laser to still make it destructive when it has a 3 kilometer spot size? We're struggling with this already when trying to hit the retroreflectors we left on the moon.
Your numbers appear accurate and therefore lasers would not be the weapon of choice at those ranges. A kinetic energy weapon might well be. There is no universal solution. For example, a hand held, ultrafast laser with 100 W average power at 500nm and a 15 cm aperture will project a spacesuit dissolving spot, 8mm in diameter at 3 km.
For space weapons in general, do you think laser-equiped anti-satelite satelites make any sense? A satelite shouldn't be able to take very much damage before failing, and I think most are in a reasonably small area of low earth orbit. I haven't given this very much thought to be honest. On a complete side-note, how hard would it be to intentionally cause Kessler syndrome to deny your enemy acces to space? The kinetic weapons seem quite scary. Aiming them will be hard, but is not fundamentally physics-limited, they pack a mean punch and are nearly impossible to stop.
Kessler syndrome seems unlikely as the density would have to be much higher than it is at present and at some time it will self limit as spontaneous cascades will remove material from orbit. Lasers undoubtedly have place as they don't consume mass, cause reactive effects to the launching vehicle and arrive completely unannounced.
Ultrafast (femtosecond) laser pulses are also faster than the time it takes for heat to propagate in a material so you can get perfectly round holes without melting the edges.
Incredibly informative, enlightening, and utterly terrifying. Now I get to live the rest of my life with the knowledge that I might one day get plasmatized by a kinetic weapon from the moon.
Very interesting talk. I haven't read through all the comments, but "The Expanse" incorporated some of these ideas to great effect. I haven't read the books, but the show was good. And I don't usually have patience for television shows.
It's a quiet scary to hear someone able like you talk about these concepts. One Note: The cause for the diffusion of the laser beam isn't the moving air (turbulence), but the difference in temperature between regions of air which creates refraction, right? Another reason of diffusion is the interaction of the laser with the air molecules them self which reflect the laser light in all directions. Greetings from Weimar, Germany
I was wondering what your plan would be to stop a meteor. Like you said, simply breaking up a meteor would simply disperse its mass over a larger area, so how would you minimize damage and/or prevent impact? By the way, I'm a huge fan of this channel, and I love how much it's grown in the last few months! Keep up the amazing work! This is truly the best channel out there.
Thank you! That is really nice to hear. You need to detect it a long way away and nukes are probably the only option at this point, in order to place enough energy on the meteor to deflect it sufficiently
I think the regolith rods might be one of those things like nuclear warfare, it might be too devastating of a weapon to be tactically useful in a minor conflict, and its effects would be nearly impossible to undo. Something that interfered with an entire country's wireless communications could be used over and over. I imagine a rail gun station on the moon would be particularly vulnerable without the atmosphere to protect from laser attacks, unless they have mirrors :) Very good video, thanks for making it!
Your moon dirt slinger idea is interesting, I actually think it could be the only task that spin launch could be viable for. I haven’t done the math but I imagine it’s a lot easier then using it on earth. You wouldn’t need a vacuum chamber
It probably isn't because the very system that can use helium 3, fusion, will generate more than it consumes by converting the lithium in the cooling jacket into more helium 3.
Although the Thor program had some interesting sides and could deliver huge amounts of energy, in comparison to a nuke it was pretty whimpy. A ten ton rod traveling at 8km/s has just 320GJ, while Little Boy was calculated to have 63TJ. Ok, that falling rod produces no fallout and it could have been used with higher precision / less collateral damage, but the potential targets were not on the own soil, so that does not really matter too much, if the cost is taken into consideration. But a launch from the moon, with the available energy, materials and low gravity... Not that pretty of a thought, even with the moon not being over you all the time, but uncomfortably often. Guns on the moon: At least in the first stages standard weapons will do the trick. Payload cost is an issue, yes, but that also affects armor. Armor has to cover 100% of a suit, as is doesn´t matter where the hit lands, if the suit has a hole, game over. Even a tiny pocket pistol in small caliber will work. Not to forget - the technology is proven, reliable, easy to use. If, at one point, we have the tech to easily carry a few kJ of electric energy around (for a decent amount of shots), then it will change. Charging up is easy with 24/7 of perfect sunlight, but it doesn´t happen instantly.
The sinister lighting from below, the tone of your voice and the subject matter are you and evil genius...??? At 18:51 when it zooms in on you I totally expecting the ransom request subscribe or the earth gets it.... Then zooming right out, while the white screen behind you rises. To a control room with a globe in the middle with the moon in orbit and some indication of your terrible plot to hold the world to ransom. Yes indeed, you would make an excellent baddy character in the next austin powers movie, now what to call it? Suggestions below. P.S. keep up the good work! :D
I think a depleted uranium sabot round with ceramic re-entry coating/ layers shot through a rail gun is the best space weapon because they require less power and yet have great kinetic energy. The ceramic coating/ layer makes it a great atmospheric penetrator and the depleted uraniums density makes it have such a ferocious impact power. The only issue is the lag time between firing and impact ... so guidance, targeting, and target movement projection is what needs real characterizing. It would make a great artillery round from space on static targets although.
There are actually two really good reasons to go to the moon first: 1) Test colony equipment/environment. If people can't stay in low G for months or years, it's a better place to test that. Also if the equipment can hold up that long and be repaired. Getting supplies to the moon takes 4 days. To Mars would take 6 months under ideal conditions. You could chat in almost real time with the moon, and a surgeon on Earth could operate on someone on the moon via remote controlled robot. But the lag to Mars is 16-40 minutes, so, at most, they could record what needed to be done and email it to the Martian doctor. 2) In-situ resource utilization (ISRU). Like you said, it costs thousands of $ per kg to get stuff into Earth orbit (I think the Falcon Heavy got it down to $1k per kg), but it's actually far cheaper fuel-wise to ship from the moon to Earth orbit. If it can be built on the moon or in orbit, sending it or the materials to make it to Earth orbit from the moon will save a lot of money and let the ship be much bigger.
this channel needs attention and growth
guys please post about this channel on social media as
this kind of content is rare and needs to be cherished
This channel contains useful information, it can really teach something. It can't get more mainstream without sacrificing what we appreciate of it.
Really? you think this kind of clear thought needs to get to politicians and terrorist?
@@AEON. but just think of what they don't let us know about.. hmmm would love to know 😁👍
I agree completely and cannot stop binging these videos.
Wouldn't you prefer another "satisfying glitter slime" video or someone setting fire to a big pile of matches?
You cover a diverse selection of topics but are always very well grounded in science
Thanks from The Netherlands.
Welcome! And, thanks.
Being grounded in science and being practical to the point of actually implementing are to different things. Put another way, just because is possible doesn't make it practical or worth while to do.
I read that as "Thanks from The Neanderthals". Needless to say I was perplexed and intrigued.
@@TechIngredients
You obviously are not familiar with the Rocket equation! I hate to break it to you sunshine, but; there is a limit to extant propulsion systems and that limit was, to all intents and purposes, reached with the Rockets of both Russia and the US in the '60s and '70s. NASA, I am afraid is a fraud, making trillions where people like Elon Musk have done the same thing as NASA is now proposing to do for 1/50th the cost. It's a Military Industrial Complex fraud!
The so-called Apollo missions did NOT have enough insulation/covering for meteorites and radiation with the 1/16" covering they used. The extra weight needed to protect lifeforms is far beyond the weight limit described by the Rocket Equation.
Its time you woke up from your daydream and realized Santa and the tooth fairy, as well as landing on the moon, was faked! By the way, before you dismiss my comment I have 12 years post-secondary in the Sciences and a younger brother who is an Astro Physicist! I Know several scientists that would tell you the same thing in private!
@@15past2 Do you ever look up?
UPS hurry up already! The guy needs his magnets ASAP
Imagine a UPS truck full of magnets driving at speed causing a magnetic ripple to affect the electrics of all adjacent buildings and cars ;0) The faster they drive the stronger the effect ....... is that why they are taking it slowly?
It's a joke, but theres enough metal in a delivery truck to soak up all the magnetic flux without even saturating.
FBI: "Whatcha' buildin'?" "um, nuthin' (mad scientist mag-lev railgun to deploy to the moon, and TAKE OVER THE WORLD, BwaHaHAAAAA!"
where has this channel been all my life
Well it's been right here since about 2007 so probably the majority of your life. JK =P
It's a hidden gem of UA-cam only the chosen ones finde ;)
@@MakenModify the rapture is coming.
Thank you kind sir for bestowing these tidbits to us, it's very much appreciated.
Getting popular enough for us to find it!
As always, thought provoking material..Thank you. I started reading at an early age and the first si-fi novel was Puppet Masters then The Moon is a harsh mistress. Stayed with me all these years. Inertia weapons are most likely the weapon of future choice in a lunar based attack on the Earth. Lasers will be space to space but will suffer the degradation from the atmosphere ,as you have shown.
Heinlein's novels are favorites of mine, partly because of the engineering knowledge he brought to the table.
In the mid 1960's I read a SF short story about dueling aliens on the moon. The Earthling's weapon was indeed a rifle in 220 Swift calibre... and the punch line of the story involved a missed shot that did precisely what you describe... only it hit the alien, of course!
This video is quite different to the rest of the channel, but rewatching this now, I did really enjoy it.
It would be nice to have more of this style of content occasionally too.
I love that you brought up Robert Heinlein's 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' He is one of my favorite authors, and thinks things through like you do. Keep up the great work, I have subscribed!
Thanks!
That channel really gave me food for thought. Thank You very much.
Every topic on this channel is incredibly cool thank you !
This is like watching "MISTER WIZARD" for adults! Very informative on a variety of subjects. Thank you.
Mr. Wizard... crossed with Walter White!
I really appreciate the time and effort you put into your videos. I like how thoroughly you cover a topic. I consider your videos to be a valuable resource. Thank you and please continue to make more videos.
Thank you! We will.
In response to your confusion about the need for a moon base as a stepping stone for a Mars base, the primary reason would be to learn how to build a relatively self sustaining ground base in Space, while still being in rescue distance from Earth. We could send a rescue mission to the moon in about a week, but sending one to Mars could take almost 2 years in the worst case. Also the recent confirmation of water ice on the moon's poles makes the moon a much more attractive target.
Also, if we stockpiled on the moon, we could send larger rockets from there to Mars, because the moon has much less gravity, requiring less fuel. There are issues with this, since going all the way to Mars doesn't require much more energy than going to the moon, but from the moon, we could launch huge rockets that are themselves giant habitats. In other words, we'd send 4 rockets to the moon, assemble the components into a huge, flying, space motel, and launch that to Mars. This may be an advantage in certain situations or NASA missions. A single Falcon Heavy or BFR might not be very comfortable for a 6 month trip to Mars, while also bringing equipment, tools, housing, etc. But if a few Falcon Heavys went to the moon, you could bring much more stuff from there to Mars.
@Andy Jones why send 4 rockets to the moon to be assembled when you can just assemble them in orbit around earth? Seems like a waste of fuel to me.
Yeah its a long term solution, we would see the cost back over time
In response to James Burleson, The best place to learn how to construct ground bases while still being in rescue distance would surely be on Earth itself?
I think it would be a lot easier to build a spaceship with a small amount of gravity...
An in-depth analysis of such conditions and purposes. As usual a mind blowing watch. Thanks.
Very good thought experiment. A lot to ponder. For example, could a high powered pulsed laser be defeated by something like cladding your missile in a first-layer mirror material under which you put a layer of graphite or ceramic? Nukes lose a lot of their effectiveness in space due to the lack of atmosphere and therefore no shock wave. They would have good EMP effects and some pressure pulse from x-rays and gamma rays. Projectile weapons could be a problem because those projectiles could potentially stay in orbit for a long time. It would suck to get whacked in the head by a bullet you fired three weeks ago. Dunno. Maybe we should just learn to get along.
Always a pleasure to see a new and interesting video from you.
Holy cow this comment section is epic! Well done Sir, you captured the internet with this one!
Thanks!
I stumbled across your channel while studying magnets and instantly became a fan. Your explanations on such a range of topics are so understandable even when i have little real understanding to begin with. Love what you are doing. Keep it up. I'm hooked.
Great!
Watching this is like watching Carl Sagan's mad scientist twin.
Arguably one of the most interesting and intelligent blokes I've seen on UA-cam and I'm a happy subscriber to this channel
Glad to hear that. Thanks!
I have dozens of things I would say both in response to and in support of this video but the topics keep coming fast and I can't keep up. I had to restart it to remember all the stuff I forgot.
1. Rifles firing 1500m/s burn their barrels up quite fast. The vacuum will exacerbate this problem by not providing conductive cooling like Earth's atmosphere does. EM guns currently have even more extreme thermal erosion. Hope you have good heat sinks.
2. You need to do a collab with Isaac Arthur sometime. Even if it is just you two talking space tech or something. I'd take a sick day just to watch.
3. The Moon has helium3 which will be a useful fusion fuel, provided controlled fusion isn't just permanent sci-fi.
4. A permanent base on the moon would be able to build components there for the Mars mission. They would also be able to launch interplanetary missions using solar powered mass drivers entirely, saving the fuel for delta V upon arrival at Mars. Also you could learn so much about surviving in space beyond the Van Allen belts that will become useful on any Mars mission. And you could grow food there for a much smaller cost than shipping it up from Earth.
5. The first entirely space based state will certainly militarize space. (Provided the asteroid mining corporations don't beat them to it.) Those treaties are at best a pipe dream, and most likely lies for the pearl clutchers so they don't get aneurysms knowing what *their* government is already doing.
There is no such thing as an unarmed spaceship. Any object moving at 17km/s is a deadly weapon. All the space ship needs to do is accelerate toward you, dump some random trash, and then change course. Presto! You die.
6. HMMWV fires are certainly hot enough to cause atmospheric turbulence. Using projectile weapons near them is already problematic, let alone light which can defocus.
7. If a space muhreen shoots himself in the ass on the moon, does he still get a purple heart? (Does Army still have to MedEvac him???)
8. >Heinlein shout out.
Thank you.
9. Satellite based "rods from gawd" are less useful than nuclear weapons when you consider the incredible cost and mission complexity needed to properly use them, when dial-a-yield bunker buster weapons could be used the next town over and all you would get is a tiny increase in the chance of getting cancer in forty years.
ICBMs are already essentially impossible to stop now. Doubling the terminal velocity from "unstoppable" to "causes secondary shockwaves and atmospheric plasma which can kill dozens of bystanders" serves no purpose, and wastes absolutely critical resources which should go into missile research and the construction of more dial-a-yield bunker busters.
although....
10. Mass drivers on the moon would work much better than the satellite version of "rods from gawd." For all the reasons you mentioned in your video. Especially when you consider that there is no such thing as stealth in space. This means that the "rods from the moon gawd" operator can use his mass driven regolith to defend himself from you when you try to stop him from 200,000 km away. He will have all week to aim.
11. Because there should always be an eleventh bullet point.
Thank you for the video. I really liked the laser demonstration.
Radiative cooling of the barrels will be necessary. Investing in advanced barrels made of tungsten or silicon carbide and coated with advanced ceramics or even "diamond like" films could mitigate these problems
@@TechIngredients That radiative cooling will make quite the pretty thermal target. Of course, since there is no stealth in space, the winner is the guy who shoots first and changes course last. Trying to hide the thermal signature can only be effective temporarily.
Tungsten carbide rail gun barrels with TiAlN coating would be pretty sweet, though.
Not necessarily. If the radiating surface has a high aspect ratio (fins) and these are perpendicular to the target, the radiation profile could be minuscule. Single wall carbon nanotubes or graphene sheets are excellent candidates due to their near unity emissivity and extremely high thermal conductivity. The thin edges could even be shielded.
@@TechIngredients Why aren't barrels lined with DLC currently? Or even other components?
As for radiative cooling, it wouldn't be on the barrel. Liquid cool the barrel like old time machine guns, and have a remote radiator maybe?
And to get back to your fridge, what about Pelletier cooling?
Wonderful work; loving the empiricism around everything touched upon in this channel, keep it up
Thank you! We will.
i dont get it..why would an evil superscientist be teaching us stuff..
Evil? Well OK.
Tech Ingredients you have that look.you cant fool me!
Did someone mention me ?
Bert Isevil
no
@@royjonesrampage6684 a lot of scientists look this way lol
Very same book was in my mind as you moved onto projectiles. Excellent tale and one of my Dads books I re-visit from time to time with great pleasure.
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" - my favorite book!
I grew up reading the science fiction that my grandfather grew up reading... Including a lot of Heinlein. Not only was he a brilliant writer, he was a brilliant futurist - and I love seeing his work referenced in a video half a century later.
Absolutely terrifying.
Thank you.
lol. I love that you're describing humans and keep saying "they" as opposed to "we." The mask is slipping, perhaps?
I watch your videos as soon as I see them posted, really great stuff. Thank you very much.
Please do a video explaining your background and training!
No ! leave the man to his secrets, he'd lose that majestic almost unreal vibe he has.
thank you , Mr.Spork your thoughts on the subject are much appreciated.
I think that you didn't necessarily take the projectile argument to its final conclusion. Every projectile weapon on the moon is essentially pointed at the head of every other user. Two opposing force bases, even if separated by thousands of kilometers are essentially right next to each other if they are armed with aimable projectile systems. HOWEVER! There will be a limit to the amount of velocity you can hit any other location with. That over-the-horizon capability is limited to a maximum terminal velocity of the moon's escape velocity (1.5km/s (+/-)) which is not an overwhelming number. It is very very fast, but modern main battle tank armor is made to resist such velocities tied to materials of extreme density and hardness.
I would imagine that open/mobile/light armor/infantry combat would not be a very viable option and moving equipment would be extremely difficult, because with only a modest ability to propel itself and launched from an over-the-horizon firebase, a projectile would be able to strike against any point on the moon from any other. Any surface action would be suicidal *if it left your troops/equipment exposed more than about an hour*.
However, digging into the surface (like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (great book, by the way)) would effectively reduce the threat of bombardment to your personnel, but not your surface equipment (like all those fragile photoelectric or photocollector banks).
So, any two military bases would not be able to rely on their limitless solar resources in case of conflict, which would relegate them to either stored solar energy (sublunar thermal storage, batteries/capacitors, or flywheels, maybe), or nuclear systems. As the moon has no lunothermal (lunathermal?) resources, the options are limited, and likely the energy storage of such a base would be the measure of its might.
I usually write better, I'm about half in the bag at the moment, lovely video, I enjoy your content greatly.
Thank you! 1.5 km/sec is indeed very fast and remember that heavy armor is expensive and mobile vehicles will be relegated to the surface for a long time before expensive tunnels are excavated.
Rail guns can reach much higher velocities, and although you are correct that a horizontally fired gun will be limited to around 1.5 km/sec what if the gun is located at an elevation such as a mountain or the edge of a crater and fires somewhat downward? Its range will be more limited, but the velocity can be much higher.
Solar generation does not have to be limited to fragile crystalline panels. Flexible, distributed, photovoltaic films and coatings are already available (though, for the present, quite inefficient).
Ultimately, subsurface development is the way to go for multiple reasons beyond defense.
@@TechIngredients I couldn't help but think, what about just a wall? Using a projectile's orbital velocity would, as you mentioned, change what elevations could be struck from/at and cap the energy a projectile imparts. The moon has an abundance of natural features and steep elevation changes, specifically craters with kilometer-scale walls, that would probably make the required path impossible over any distance large enough to necessitate using the moon's orbital velocity in the first place.
Also from a different angle entirely, the prospect of missing your target and putting a bullet into ~permanent low-moon orbit is a little sketchy. I imagine if projectiles were being used in any extended capacity you'd eventually end up with a literal bulletstorm blanketing the moon.
Regarding lunathermal resources, isn't the cold temperature an advantage for maintaining superconductivity? For a relatively modest input, you could probably accomplish some pretty significant things in the dark.
I very much enjoy your scientific thoughts and thoroughly explained experiments. From recreating some of the experiments I've regained interest in pursuing further study. Thanks!
That's great!
So we're gonna go with the whole 'no cheese' idea?
Yup
....the moon is indeed a harsh mistress
Thank you from italy. Your videos are excellent in quality!
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is one of my favorite books
Robert Heinlein says to throw rocks. Lazers don't have a chance.
I can't get enough of your videos, you are such a cool and knowledgeable guy, Spock would be proud!
The game called Children Of A Dead Earth is a very realistic game representing why lasers are not good for long distance because of diffraction limit or that guns need big and heavy gimbals for precision shooting
Lasers are good for long distances, but they are constrained by optical effects. For example, a one meter apature mirror can put 80% of a laser's energy into a one mm spot at one km.
1km is almost point blank range for spaceships. Space is big.
+MikrySoft
True, but we're not talking about spaceships here. We're talking about combat on the surface of the moon, and combat between the earth and the moon. So lasers make pretty effective weapons at the ranges involved here, unless you're trying to directly attack earth's surface from the moon, in which case the optical effects are irrelevant because they pale in comparison to the deleterious effects of having to travel through earth's atmosphere before striking the surface.
@@polyjohn3425 in that case the 1m mirror makes the weapon unwieldy even for a stationary turret and I can render it useless simply by kicking up a dust cloud. Ablative shielding is much easier than kinetic
Double pulse lasers have been experimented with to counter the atmospheric effects of Earth based lasers. They worked moderately well.
Not even 20 seconds in and I felt compelled to stop and comment, one of the best video intros ever 😂😂😂😂
Wait... No cheese!?!?!? Well screw it, screw NASA, screw space force, honestly there is no point in going on anymore
Fake news. He's obviously a paid shill for the Pan Franco/Aztlan cheese cartel sent to secure their monopoly of the lunar cheese market for the personal use of their reptilian masters.
I was hoping for some Swiss :(
Isn't Google wonderful!
Joshua Noble
Wait, Reptilians like Cheese? What kind do they favor most? Muenster? I wanna bait some traps.
I signed up for Space Force hoping to be posted to New Berlin Colony as a Fromager.. I already have Cody & Elon working on my Tesla 18650 powered Disrupter. Just waiting for a ride there with Zephram.
Great opening statements, all correct, of course. "It's unlikely..."... shows just how fast SpaceX is moving... Great content.
Actually, a moon base staging area makes good sense if you were to use a solar cell powered rail or coil gun as a primary launch system. Using a rail/coil gun, a *HUGE* space ship (or several large space ships, even) could be launched on a ballistic trajectory towards Mars, with only small steering rocket fuel burns required for course adjustments. The planetary gravity well escape velocity from the moon is significantly less than from earth, so a rail gun or coil gun accelerator of, say several kilometers, should allow for safe acceleration of rather large payloads to velocities well beyond those attainable using chemical rockets, thus reducing the transit time from around a year to only several months. I would think that the moon would be an excellent environment for a solar powered launch system: no clouds, no atmosphere, low escape velocity, plenty of raw materials, etc.
Super Geek Just use the gravity - slingshot effect.
I love this times we are living that you can put all this knowledge recorded in a place anyone can watch, learn and start thinking. Live long and prosper from Brazil!
Welcome! You too!
fancyyy lighting
I watch this channel for motivation. Thank you.
I have 2 points to make: 1: Helium 3 is basically the only substance you'd want to get specifically from the Moon, it's there right at the surface and it's very useful if you have fusion reactors and you want them light (in space) Because if you use Helium 3 you don't get neutrons in the fusion reaction and you only need minimal shielding.
2: the moon long rail guns would certainly work but there is another type of weapon to consider: The Stellaser. I should point you to the video by Isaac Arthur on this weapon and in general on interplanetary warfare but the short story is: If you get 2 big mirrors in space you can use them as solar sails and get them close to the Sun. Then just point them at each other. There is a constantly reenergized lasing medium in the Suns corona so just by doing that you have a VERY powerful laser. And it's not out of the question to think about instead of just schorching a city with that laser you can put a mirror on the back of a bullet and point the laser at that. Instead of kilometers per second velocities you'd be talking significant fractions of lightspeed for that bullet.
You're losing a lot of accuracy by increasing the distance but getting many orders of magnitude more power instead.
Do we have any material that could handle that energy though?
Yes actually. Even though you're using the Sun you're still pulling a laser out of it. You get a single wavelength of light off it. And we already can (I think only in some cases but whatever) make a perfect mirror for a specific wavelength. And by perfect I mean actually perfect so that could handle any arbitrary ammount of power.
The problem comes when you start pushing something up to relativistic speeds the doppler shift changes that wavelength (and there is no perfect mirror for a wide range of wavelengths as far as I know). So that might actually limit you to maybe 10% of the speed of light or something like that. But it only limits the actual speed, not the power which means you can use a heavier projectile and STILL achieve that 10% lightspeed.
But really it's more about pushing REALLY heavy things around in the solar system rather than using it as a weapon, but you can ... just as well as you can send a REALLY fast probe to nearby stars with it. Anything as useful as that can and will be used as a weapon if history is any indication.
A stellaser is many orders of magnitude more difficult of an engineering problem than a lunar railgun (even one utilizing high-temperature superconductors). We're talking about a device that would require the engineering capabilities of a Type-I to Type-II civilization on the Kardashev scale. A lunar railgun is nowhere near that demanding.
@@Toasty27-q6w It's just 2 big mirrors. It's not THAT difficult.
Hydrogen
Another great video. Fascinating talk about lunar based weapons.
A big problem with hand held projectile weapons in lunar/space environments is recoil.
The moon is made of potential projectiles, and is at the top of the gravity well compared to Earth. So much easier than shipping lasers and fuel to the moon. The moon is a harsh mistress.
Yes! The Moon is Harsh Mistress! Was thinking of this book for so much of the video and it got mentioned! Finally a good answer to its premise.
lol. I love that you're describing humans and keep saying "they" as opposed to "we." The mask is slipping, perhaps?
PolyJohn hes an alian lol
PolyJohn An alien from planet Pluto, the bestest planet in the galaxy! 👌🏻
Freudian slip
Not that I want to weigh in with a ridiculous observation to an equally ludicrous assertion, but typically human beings always assume they are on the "right side" of a military endeavour. So he is simply assuming that his "faction" is "us", and any other faction is "they".
There is nothing sinister or alien about that, it is simply sociological reality with which human beings must contend.
@Dave Hanson And you win the Interwebz Moron of the Day Award.
Congratulations, thanks for sharing and also attempting to make my last name an issue.
The moon is a harsh mistress. Immediately came to mind. Was happy to hear you mention it later in the video.
When at the laser room scene, you looked like Doc from back to the future.
May i suggest you to cover the topic on the property of 88 on your next video?
Equal parts terrifying/informative...
Thank you for sharing.
I have been in a state bliss since I found your channel by accident. Wow, someone who actually knows something and knows how to communicate it. I have dreams of someday building a hovercraft that does not use a ducted fan for propulsion (too loud and too much engine wear) Something that could be used on land in traffic as well as over water, ice, mud, what have you. I was thinking an air cushion vehicle that uses a single paddle wheel type tire that is steerable may work. Do you have any comments on the feasibility of such a vehicle?
Thanks!
I see no reason why this idea wouldn't work. Having played around with hovercraft in the past, the bulk of the noise comes from the ducted fans or blowers required to provide the lift. Once you have a successful flotation, significant movement can be achieved with a weight shift and the increased leakage from a particular side of the craft. You would probably want to consider the effect of a ground contacting drive wheel producing an upward force as well as the tip of the craft from accelerations produced by this wheel so that the air cushion is not working against this supplementary drive system.
Tech Ingredients
Thank you for the consideration.
this is the best science channel i have seen so far
Thank you!
'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' has always been one of my favorite Heinlein stories.
Those who have read it will recognize the phrase "throwing rocks".
My vote (and not *just* because of this book) will always be projectiles!
I have a question. I want to use Laser instead of LED for usage in stimulating a phototropic and photosynthetic reactions. My main goal is to reduce the amount of energy needed to start the metabolic mechanism in a plant - since regular methods waste the most of the energy. How could I figure out the amount of Wattage needed to start the reaction and in which frequencies I had to pulse or scatter the laser, to keep this process going.
This idea is surely crude, but maybe you can help.
Even if it only takes 2.4 meter per second to get something out of the Moon's gravity well, it would still be orbiting the Earth at about 1,000 meters per second. The moon rocks would still be orbiting at about the same speed as the moon.
Wouldn't the projectile still need to some sort of propulsion to change the orbit enough to hit the Earth?
When you ended with the Vulcan salutation it was perfect great video 🖖
I'd prefer an array of radio telescopes on the far side of the moon over space wars, but the technology is cool.
Have a large enough group of people somewhere, you will have a feud. You will need something in place to protect your lenses.
In that case, face ablating femtosecond pulsed laser robotic turrets would be in order
...sharp and very funny response..classic !!
Seems like this extremely smart man has worked in defense. Very well thought out and presented.
Tech Ingredients, do you have any experience in making synthetic sapphires/ruby. I want to make synthetic ruby for the jewelry market using the Flux-Fusion process. For those who do not know about the Flux-Fusion process; molten flux such as cryolite, lead oxide, lead fluoride, and bismuth oxide-lead fluoride is used as a solvent. Aluminum oxide is dissolved in the molten flux solvent heated to 1300C and then slowly cooled (1 deg C/hour) allowing sapphire/ruby crystals to form. Any information on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
I know something about this process, but I don't have any direct experience with it.
Where has your channel been all these years?! Definitely subbed. I'm extremely satisfied mentally after watching your videos & It's a nice break from all of the other less down to Earth "Science" channels out there.
It's the father of the son of the main presenter (himself). lol
How the hell do you know so much and how many people do you have for a think tank on new subject you may not know? Absolute genius and you make a great teacher. War is a losing game and the hollow moon is just a death star hiding over us. Lol. Billionaires playing good among men may make mankind evolve yet. Great work you do.
Thunderf00t is coming for you now.. 🤣🤣
oooh excited for this one...
"gwab a dwink and a snack you wascawwy wabbits, dis might be a wong episode" -Issaic Arthur
Thunderf00t will prove there is cheese on the moon. XD
Thunderf00t Only gets involved on scammy products/ideas with lots of funding and publicity. He gets -jealous- pissed because he doesn't gets that money for his research. Maybe if he developed a way to gather energy from "beating dead horses" he could produce energy and sell it to become billionaire.
I love how casually he talks about futuristic military technologies as if they're inevitable and not something he's just speculating about.
@Tech Ingredients - Can you do more experiments or share some links to experiments exploring this technology tested in vacuums? experiments in other atmospheres are pretty cool and I think are very educational.
I really like your content and I'm excited to see how this channel develop!
thanks from Saudi Arabia
Even if we solve all these issues (transportation , unlimited energy resources, unlimited food supply)
Radiation hazard from being out of earth's electromagnetic field will not make it possible for us to live forever in mars's environment
Why do I get the feeling that Mr. Tech Ingredients used to work for the military in some direct or indirect capacity?
I enjoy learning and this channel has enlightened me many times particularly around the subject of composites and the transfer of energy... in all forms and its effects.
Funny side note that golf ball probably was the furthest driven ever when hit on the moon but its landed some were by now.
Great idea.
Yes we should think about it in peace time.👍👍👍
rare earth metals, helium 3... The fact that the Moon and the Earth share the same origin is true, but the Moon has been receiving unfiltered cosmic rays for millions of years, therefore slowly building a reserve of things we just can't find as common in our planet
The idea of shooting a rifle on the moon horizontally, so that 2 hours later you hit YOUR OWN BUT really cracked me up!! Hilarious! And it is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN! On the other hand the thought that at such a stage of development so to use the lunar resources efficiently will the humankind still be in the caveman state of phycology (TO THINK HOW TO KILL EACH OTHER MORE EFFICIENTLY) is so SAD... I am an engineer. And I really, really appreciate the great depth and detail that "Tech Ingredients" discusses so many subjects! I am AMAZED!
Thanks!
I can't believe I hadn't seen this video yet! Somehow I must have missed it when it was first uploaded, but I am very glad that today the algorithm finally decided to bless me with this exquisite collection of knowledge!
By the way I was wondering about this; is there a previously prepared script you're reading from a teleprompter, or are you **ahem** _(and for lack of a better word)_ "simply" spooning this knowledge out of your brain straight into the camera, all the while either recalling those hypothetical scenarios from memory, or imagining them on the spot, and as if that wasn't incredible enough, without breaking even a single sweat you seem to be effortlessly making connections between those hypotheticals and other appropriate information, not to mention managing _on the spot_ to weave everything into a compelling narrative! 😳😮👌
Bravo, and what an incredible feat! You must have an IQ of at least 200!👏👏👏👏 😁
..the true value of UA-cam right here...top marks.
Thank you very much!
This was fantastic! Thank you!
This channel is way too underrated.
Lunar Warfare, a really interesting talk with a twist. Thanks.
While atmospheric turbulence (in astronomy: seeing) and scattering are huge problems for earth-based lasers, for space-based lasers the problem is the diffraction limit, which applies to lasers just as much as telescopes. Taking a somewhat random example, say you have a 10cm aperture laser at 500nm. I then get a beam angle of about 2*500/10^8 = 10^-5 radians. When you shoot this beam moon-earth, you get a spot size of 10^-5*300.000 = 3km. How much power do you need in a laser to still make it destructive when it has a 3 kilometer spot size? We're struggling with this already when trying to hit the retroreflectors we left on the moon.
Your numbers appear accurate and therefore lasers would not be the weapon of choice at those ranges. A kinetic energy weapon might well be. There is no universal solution. For example, a hand held, ultrafast laser with 100 W average power at 500nm and a 15 cm aperture will project a spacesuit dissolving spot, 8mm in diameter at 3 km.
For space weapons in general, do you think laser-equiped anti-satelite satelites make any sense? A satelite shouldn't be able to take very much damage before failing, and I think most are in a reasonably small area of low earth orbit. I haven't given this very much thought to be honest.
On a complete side-note, how hard would it be to intentionally cause Kessler syndrome to deny your enemy acces to space?
The kinetic weapons seem quite scary. Aiming them will be hard, but is not fundamentally physics-limited, they pack a mean punch and are nearly impossible to stop.
Kessler syndrome seems unlikely as the density would have to be much higher than it is at present and at some time it will self limit as spontaneous cascades will remove material from orbit.
Lasers undoubtedly have place as they don't consume mass, cause reactive effects to the launching vehicle and arrive completely unannounced.
one of heinlein's best ..top 3 for me... excellent video TI
Thank you!
This man's level of knowledge is astounding
Ultrafast (femtosecond) laser pulses are also faster than the time it takes for heat to propagate in a material so you can get perfectly round holes without melting the edges.
Incredibly informative, enlightening, and utterly terrifying. Now I get to live the rest of my life with the knowledge that I might one day get plasmatized by a kinetic weapon from the moon.
Very interesting talk. I haven't read through all the comments, but "The Expanse" incorporated some of these ideas to great effect. I haven't read the books, but the show was good. And I don't usually have patience for television shows.
It's a quiet scary to hear someone able like you talk about these concepts.
One Note: The cause for the diffusion of the laser beam isn't the moving air (turbulence), but the difference in temperature between regions of air which creates refraction, right? Another reason of diffusion is the interaction of the laser with the air molecules them self which reflect the laser light in all directions.
Greetings from Weimar, Germany
I was wondering what your plan would be to stop a meteor. Like you said, simply breaking up a meteor would simply disperse its mass over a larger area, so how would you minimize damage and/or prevent impact?
By the way, I'm a huge fan of this channel, and I love how much it's grown in the last few months!
Keep up the amazing work! This is truly the best channel out there.
Thank you! That is really nice to hear.
You need to detect it a long way away and nukes are probably the only option at this point, in order to place enough energy on the meteor to deflect it sufficiently
Definitely like your stuff, glad I found your channel.
Another video full of quality content. appreciate the entertainment
You could write one heckuva good scifi book. Thoroughly enjoyed this one. 👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks!
The best could come true.
I think the regolith rods might be one of those things like nuclear warfare, it might be too devastating of a weapon to be tactically useful in a minor conflict, and its effects would be nearly impossible to undo. Something that interfered with an entire country's wireless communications could be used over and over. I imagine a rail gun station on the moon would be particularly vulnerable without the atmosphere to protect from laser attacks, unless they have mirrors :) Very good video, thanks for making it!
I've got you thinking about this and you're not alone.
Your moon dirt slinger idea is interesting, I actually think it could be the only task that spin launch could be viable for. I haven’t done the math but I imagine it’s a lot easier then using it on earth. You wouldn’t need a vacuum chamber
I have not thought about Robert Heinlein for years. Perfect timing. I am just wrapping up the last of Michael Lewis’s books.
"The moon is a harsh mistress" is one of my most favorite books!
Live long and prosper, he said. God damn, that dude is a nerd! I love him!
I did hear once that the one thing worth going to the moon for would be helium 3. For use in energy generation. Is that still a thing?
It probably isn't because the very system that can use helium 3, fusion, will generate more than it consumes by converting the lithium in the cooling jacket into more helium 3.
@@TechIngredients That’s interesting!
@tech ingredients I love this channel. Came for the distilling and now I'm interested in science again lol
Great!
Although the Thor program had some interesting sides and could deliver huge amounts of energy, in comparison to a nuke it was pretty whimpy. A ten ton rod traveling at 8km/s has just 320GJ, while Little Boy was calculated to have 63TJ.
Ok, that falling rod produces no fallout and it could have been used with higher precision / less collateral damage, but the potential targets were not on the own soil, so that does not really matter too much, if the cost is taken into consideration.
But a launch from the moon, with the available energy, materials and low gravity...
Not that pretty of a thought, even with the moon not being over you all the time, but uncomfortably often.
Guns on the moon:
At least in the first stages standard weapons will do the trick.
Payload cost is an issue, yes, but that also affects armor.
Armor has to cover 100% of a suit, as is doesn´t matter where the hit lands, if the suit has a hole, game over.
Even a tiny pocket pistol in small caliber will work. Not to forget - the technology is proven, reliable, easy to use.
If, at one point, we have the tech to easily carry a few kJ of electric energy around (for a decent amount of shots), then it will change. Charging up is easy with 24/7 of perfect sunlight, but it doesn´t happen instantly.
That's a pretty good run down of the potential.
The sinister lighting from below, the tone of your voice and the subject matter are you and evil genius...???
At 18:51 when it zooms in on you I totally expecting the ransom request subscribe or the earth gets it....
Then zooming right out, while the white screen behind you rises. To a control room with a globe in the middle with the moon in orbit and some indication of your terrible plot to hold the world to ransom.
Yes indeed, you would make an excellent baddy character in the next austin powers movie, now what to call it?
Suggestions below.
P.S. keep up the good work! :D
What a missed opportunity! Maybe we should pull it and redo that part? Anyway, thanks for the support. We will.
I think a depleted uranium sabot round with ceramic re-entry coating/ layers shot through a rail gun is the best space weapon because they require less power and yet have great kinetic energy. The ceramic coating/ layer makes it a great atmospheric penetrator and the depleted uraniums density makes it have such a ferocious impact power. The only issue is the lag time between firing and impact ... so guidance, targeting, and target movement projection is what needs real characterizing. It would make a great artillery round from space on static targets although.
I think the .17 Remington is faster than the 220 swift. Great videos, love your teaching style.
There are actually two really good reasons to go to the moon first:
1) Test colony equipment/environment. If people can't stay in low G for months or years, it's a better place to test that. Also if the equipment can hold up that long and be repaired. Getting supplies to the moon takes 4 days. To Mars would take 6 months under ideal conditions. You could chat in almost real time with the moon, and a surgeon on Earth could operate on someone on the moon via remote controlled robot. But the lag to Mars is 16-40 minutes, so, at most, they could record what needed to be done and email it to the Martian doctor.
2) In-situ resource utilization (ISRU). Like you said, it costs thousands of $ per kg to get stuff into Earth orbit (I think the Falcon Heavy got it down to $1k per kg), but it's actually far cheaper fuel-wise to ship from the moon to Earth orbit. If it can be built on the moon or in orbit, sending it or the materials to make it to Earth orbit from the moon will save a lot of money and let the ship be much bigger.