The problem with hydrogen propellent isn't the rocket, it's the hydrogen production which is done by processing methane. As I understand it, hydrogen is overall actually worse than just using fossil fuels. If hydrogen was produced by electrolyzing water with renewables, it might be different, but that isn't how hydrogen is produced at scale at this time.
Worse than that, most oil refineries produce hydrogen in vast quantities as a waste product, and they burn it off; you could say secretly, because a hydrogen flame is nearly invisible.
Each starship launch creates about 3,400t of CO2. At 3 launches per day for a whole year thats about 3.7 million tons of CO2 per year. Last year the US emmited 4,807 million tons of CO2. Launching Starship 3 times a day for a whole year increases the US CO2 emmisions by only 0.077%.
Also ignores other countries which are far worse in terms of climate change. Not that we shouldn't take action here, but really we should be really really focused overseas.
It's not just the CO2 created during flight that has climate implications with Starship (or rockets in general). Additionally, you are going to have some amount of methane leakage on the ground, as well as CO2 production from burning methane gas on the ground. Additionally, water vapor is also a potent greenhouse gas when emitted above the troposphere and outside the water/ weather cycle. Finally, it's also clear from the orange/brown streak in the Superheavy exhaust, that there is likely a substantial amount of nitrogen oxides being formed during lift-off, which also has global warming implications. That doesn't necessarily mean Starship launches are going to end up being a significant GHG emission source (especially if they end up launching closer to once every 3 days than 3 times per day), just that your analysis is probably to reductive. Just for comparison, some research suggests that natural gas based power plants can actually be worse than coal when accounting for methane leakage.
@@therealanyakusame with using methane as rocket fuel when it burns it produces water and co2. Kerosene doesn’t burn clean at all so it has a bunch of junk that comes out with it.
Early in the life of thw Shuttle fleet, there was discussion about the amount of air pollution caused by the shuttle if it launched as often as originally planned (multiple launches a month)
I think every country in the world should contribute to building a new space station. Even if it is a few thousand dollars. It would be a steppingstone to a truly global humanity.
On 10:00 "do rockets pollute" One thing you missed is /where/ the emissions are produced. We know very little about the effects of adding the combustion gasses in other layers of the atmosphere. Even for stratospheric water vapor.
love the attitude on not arguing with objective truths about the universe and how to conceptualize the scientists credibility when they publish findings
Enjoyed the video, very informative! Something else to consider about Gabsare Sarg's question, even though CO2 is said to be worse in part because it "tends to linger in the atmosphere longer", water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas retaining heat from the Sun/other sources in our atmosphere. Ironically, not only is it coming from NASA's rockets/rocket tests but from our automobiles by the MILLIONS of vehicles in the U.S. alone over the last ~50 years, due to the EPA's insistence upon the utilization of "catalytic converters".... It's not to suggest that the alternative was better but maybe catalytic converters were not the best solution. There is approximately ~0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere whereas there is ~3+ percent water vapor so it's far more abundant & it is heat/water vapor and pressure differences which fuel storms, particularly tropical cyclones.
Catalytic converters' main purpose is to convert carbon, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides into CO2, H2O, and N2, which are better for the environment.
I couldn't think of anything being more fulfilling as having an educated suspicion as to how the universe came to be, and then one day, before you kick it, to have science say you had it right all along....I could die happy like that....provided the universe wasn't ran by giant evil gods that we had been secretly sacrificing to in a secret underground torture complex with some cabin on top in the woods...
Using renewables to convert CO2 into Hydrocarbons was something I thought of when the discussion about EVs vs ICE cars came about. We really don't have any practical options that beat the energy density of gasoline/diesel. Obviously converting solar->electricity->hydrocarbons is way less efficient than solar->electricity->batteries. But it might help smooth out the transition to a carbon neutral/negative world since people cling so dearly to their ICE cars.
Hey Fraser do you see a reason (technical not financial) not to "gobble up" the space station modules by starship and bring it back down instead of dumping it in the ocean?
When a star goes supernova how does the gravity of the star change? Even though the mass disperses and some of it (how much?) turns into energy, shouldn’t the center of mass stay roughly the same? If it’s in a binary system how will the other star be affected?
As I understand it, gravity is holding the star together while the nuclear fusion in the core is exerting force outwards. Once the fusion stops, the star collapses. The size of the star (1.4 times the size of our sun or larger, if memory serves)will result in supernova.
@@12345....... The barycentre has inverse square relationship betwixt two stars so when inflated the distance is smaller then as it super nova's the outer shell of the core explodes out at relativistic speeds so it shrinks,pushes the outer gaseous envelope and gets further from the other star simultaneously and everything else gets lost as neutrino's. Quick and dirty explanation think of a golf ball under a bowling ball on a tramp the golf balls the core after collapse and the bowling ball is all of the outer core and gas envelope and energy converted to neutrino's if the bowling ball just disappears the rebound is your gravity waves and the golf ball is now the remaining mass.
Here's an idea to save the ISS - inflate one of those new kevlar modules around the entire space station, so the ISS becomes an inner module & the problems with it leaking / falling apart isn't relevant anymore.
Question: Would Super Heavy be able to launch from Starbase, Boca Chica, Texas, and land in lc 39a, Cape Canaveral, Florida, to avoid a boostback burn and carry more payload into orbit?
Redesigning entire manufacturing methodologies for microgravity seems a far larger task than simulating it with inertia. Wherever the space factory is it'll take the form of a rotating pressurized habitat.
12:20 the ironic thing is the amount of "bunker fuel" (worse than Diesel) burnt in shipping oil around the globe is ridiculous (around 20% of all shipping emissions).
Question: do we currently have the technology to place a large asteroid ( like apophis) in orbit around earth to mine material. Love the Question show btw
The space shuttle had solid rocket boosters that used powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate. Major pollution! The liquid fuel was hydrogen and oxygen, producing water vapor. Water vapor is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas, but it condenses and falls out of the atmosphere as rain. Water vapor is not a pollutant. The "methane store" is the gas company that owns the gas pipeline running into your house. Methane is natural gas.
A single launch of the Starship superheavy, which uses methane and O2, leaves about 76k metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. A standard Falcon Heavy, which uses kerosene and O2, leaves about 79k of CO2, because kerosene is so much dirtier. We've had *six* Starship launches. We have 90-100 Falcon launches per *year* . A single transatlantic flight of a commercial jet airliner produces one metric ton of CO2 *per passenger* , and there are about 200 passengers per flight. There are also about 530 transatlantic flights *per day* -- or 106k metric tons of CO2 produced by flights between the U.S. and Europe. Every. Single. Day. When compared to the pollution created by commercial aviation, when you throw in all the *other* types of flight, rocket pollution doesn't even rate as a *rounding error* . 🤨🙄
76 ktCO2e? Well then at ~4.5 launches per day Starship would match the entire European aviation industry, and if they ever reach their "rapid reusability goal" of relaunching the same booster an hour after landing, the Starship program alone could be close to 50% of 2022 EU emissions, even if they only launch out of 3 launch sites. Sure, if Starship launches about twice a month, like Vulcan Centaur is aiming for, it's not a problem. But if they come anywhere close to the launch rate Musk has been promising, it'll be a significant problem.
@Fraser Cain You know, I would love to say something about social commentary on how people's attention spans are getting too short and what not since I'm a bit of a cynical person but not gonna lie I kind of like the more frequent and shorter episodes. I've missed some in the past because I didn't have time to commit and when I choose to watch stuff, I like to pay attention and think about it and the more compartmentalized question shows makes it easier to commit to an episode here or there which is nice. IDK, just thought I would throw a little feedback your way for what it's worth from a longtime fan.
Hello Fraser. Space travel in the future will also be open to tourists and sooner or later private individuals will arrive not only in orbit but also on the moon or perhaps on Mars. But how long will it really take for normal people to be able to afford space travel? And how long will it take to have workers, miners, plumbers, carpenters, computer scientists and secretaries in space?
RE do rockets pollute a lot?: I calculated that launching something like 9 starships a day would produce about 1% of all the CO2 of the airline industry, and that produces only 2.5% of global emissions. 99.9% of the space industry emissions come from ground operations (building rockets etc), not launching. Launching reusable rockets is a hugely less damaging thing to do.
"1% of all the CO2 of the airline industry" And for what purpose? Making somebody REALLLLLLY rich? having tons of satellites polluting the sky for astronomers. Im off the musk/spacex bandwagon until that turd is gone
Should also be noted that the SRBs from the shuttle released many pollutants and several toxins. Liquids burn much cleaner, and tend to have fewer and simpler combustion byproducts.
Question: There is lots of excitement about the future of space exploration. But would we actually see proper colonies on mars, moon and beyond, where people other than scientists live and prosper, in say 50 years? or 100? What are the reasons that current bodies(governments, companies etc.) actually capable of doing such things would plan such projects?
Once an Earth city grows to a certain size, servicing the needs of the city's residents becomes a primary employment creator. That pattern should continue.
The most important reason is the preservation of the human race. It's insurance if something cathastrophic happened that wiped out all humans on Earth. Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not. Maintaining a large colony on another world will be extremely difficult, especially if it has to be self sustained.
@@arnelilleseter4755 Maybe not as difficult as we assume. The rapidity with which Earth micro-organisms started growing as the "pristine" asteroid sample recently returned to Earth implies farming might be more easily doable than assumed.
Imagine a planet wandering through intergalactic space, not orbiting a star and with the nearest light source millions of light years away. Possibly the only types of life that could exist there would be extremophiles or organisms associated with hydrothermal vents.
Respectfully disagree with Fraser there on factory siting. Asteroid are rock piles loosely bound with gravity. Add to that the pockets of various volatile ices trapped within. Would be a very unstable object to build anything on
Factories in space are a long way off, I expect. Not so much for technical reasons, as for economic ones. It has to be REALLY difficult to do something on Earth to make any economic sense for doing it in space. The exception might be if you were supplying Mars with materials you can't readily mine there, that are critical, as you have a reduced gravity well, and you are closer to your work, in the case of the belt. For a long time, they are going to have enough trouble just staying alive on Mars, assuming we get there.
@@friendlyone2706 Understood, and that is fine, but without the motive the reality of practical mining will not materialize. You can't ultimately do it without learning how, so I support such research, I guess. To me, though, it is about the most useless of research, right now.
@@MrJdsenior As the demands for rare earths increase, and the realization of the full cost of rare earth mining increases, the asteroids will begin to look like easy pickings. The dream of 100% robotic mining, guided by AI will most likely be futile. AI relies on previously known facts -- but many assumptions are often erroneous, even in engineering. The time delays communicating with distant stations prevent spontaneous reactions to the unexpected. Those mining robots will need human supervision less than a light second away. Some asteroids seem to have more oil deposits than all of Earth's known reserves. Very strange.
@@friendlyone2706 All of that presupposes that AI won't achieve a level where none of those aspects are a concern, possibly to the point where we get in the way of machines, not vise versa. But yeah, I get your drift. You are totally correct about unknowns, especially starting from square one, in virtually every aspect. I am a retired electronics design engineer, so a total YES to partially to totally incorrect to somewhat erroneous assumptions. EVERYTHING relies on previously known facts, AI, or otherwise. Just sayin'. ;-) As AI exists today, it would be practically a no starter.
@@friendlyone2706REEs are actually pretty common on earth but aren't normally very concentrated. The situation on asteroids would be no better. What might be worthwhile is mining platinum-group metals.
I miss voting Tulak (The James Webb answer, that was a good one, I'm calling that Tulak) Soon I'll be looking for elections to vote in, just for the buzz again. I can't go cold turkey!
Just interested. Do flat earthers ever attack you lol? I’m not one but have had several arguments with them. They never give up. 😂😂😂I just had an argument with one is why I ask. Thanks Fraser. Love you content.
@ I agree. I used to get a kick out of debating them but don’t waste my time now either. The one argument I used was the equator being the largest line of latitude on the globe model and the lines get shorter as you know I’m sure, o the flat earth model it’s the opposite. I would tell them to buy a plane and fly each line to put the argument to bed. You wouldn’t believe the silence I got 🤣🤣🤣
Someone did an analysis of the types of stars that are evaporating from the galaxy. There is a star variety of (comparatively) short lifetime that when it goes nova would be very life threatening to any inhabited planet many light years distant (sorry, this is from memory, don't remember enough to give numbers or easily look up the papers). Over half of those stars are high velocity. Something in common about their history? Or someone systematically making the galaxy safer?
I'll tell you what I have learned to do with information in my life. I'm 58. Listen to all sides, the crazy idea's and the proven scientific ones. Now store ALL of that information for later. Proven scientific 'facts' can get disproven when more information is available.
I was under impression the Saturn V series of rockets used hydrogen and oxygen as fuel not kerolox as falcon 9 did?.....also....the space shuttle like SLS has 2 rather dirty polluting solid rocket boosters which likely make both vehicles very polluting....
Hydrolox is good for upper stages. Saturn IV-B used that. And yeah, people do this really dumb thing where greenhouse gases are pollutants (which any given greenhouse gas may or may not be - "pollutant" means directly harmful to humans) and even the *only* pollutants, this Our World in Data infographic, for instance: ourworldindata.org/images/published/safest-form-energy_1350.png
See how humble Fraser is? he has no opinion on the beginning of the universe because he's a journalist, just imagine if all the idiots at the big new outlets could have that , actually reporting news and NOT ramming their half baked ideologies down our throats...and don't get me started on movie stars telling us what to think and who to vote for...America you've done us all proud, you know what I mean.
Deep sixing the ISP when NASA is done with it, is a TERRIBLE idea in my opinion, I'm sure the thing has way way more life left in it, just patch it up as it breaks, that's so so much cheaper than replacing all those launches to get new stuff up there again, plus, I suspect NASA might let it go for next to nothing given their weird mindset about how things seem to just stop being viable at a chosen time...
b4 big bang came big foreplay. Making stations is just a waste of money if the new ones are just as functional as the old ones. Unless the new one has a rotating section, I urge all to whom it concerns no to fund it.
Especially when our green plants are struggling to get enough CO2. When desserts get more CO2, even without any increase in rainfall, the desserts green.
It's just so lame and sad to hear we "hope a company" does something rather than humanity organizing to do it themselves. For me, I have no interest in watching billionaire money-frauds making the decisions and having the first hand experience and knowledge of space exploration and settlement. So I don't, though I try to support this independent media effort. I want to watch and be involved, but I just am not ... and I'm actually bitter at the flunkie techies who just f'ing ohh and ah at the latest gizmo they build as servants for jerks.
He misunderstood the question, James web enlarged the observable capacity for human technology. Not what ultimately is possible. So our ability to observe was enlarged thus enlarging the relative observable universe.
Those of you that call it "the CO2 religion" tend to be anti-science because YOU are the ones going by religion, not science. Treating those going by science as being the ones going by religion, is just another version of "I'm not crazy, it's everyone else that is crazy!" delusion.
The problem with hydrogen propellent isn't the rocket, it's the hydrogen production which is done by processing methane. As I understand it, hydrogen is overall actually worse than just using fossil fuels. If hydrogen was produced by electrolyzing water with renewables, it might be different, but that isn't how hydrogen is produced at scale at this time.
Steam Reformation creates a lot of CO2 which plants love.
Worse than that, most oil refineries produce hydrogen in vast quantities as a waste product, and they burn it off; you could say secretly, because a hydrogen flame is nearly invisible.
Might as well just store liquid methane! There are companies wanting to use it for jets too.
the problem with hydrogen is the storage.
@@ashleyobrien4937 Yes, those tiny molecules don't like being constrained in containers.
10:46, "hydrogen is not very polluting", surely that depends upon how the hydrogen was produced.
Of course, from coal, bad. From water using solar electricity, fine.
Thanks Fraser. Great info. it's impressive that you stay on top of all this stuff.
Each starship launch creates about 3,400t of CO2. At 3 launches per day for a whole year thats about 3.7 million tons of CO2 per year. Last year the US emmited 4,807 million tons of CO2. Launching Starship 3 times a day for a whole year increases the US CO2 emmisions by only 0.077%.
Also ignores other countries which are far worse in terms of climate change. Not that we shouldn't take action here, but really we should be really really focused overseas.
3 launches per day ? glad you know you are being hypothetical here...
It's not just the CO2 created during flight that has climate implications with Starship (or rockets in general). Additionally, you are going to have some amount of methane leakage on the ground, as well as CO2 production from burning methane gas on the ground. Additionally, water vapor is also a potent greenhouse gas when emitted above the troposphere and outside the water/ weather cycle. Finally, it's also clear from the orange/brown streak in the Superheavy exhaust, that there is likely a substantial amount of nitrogen oxides being formed during lift-off, which also has global warming implications.
That doesn't necessarily mean Starship launches are going to end up being a significant GHG emission source (especially if they end up launching closer to once every 3 days than 3 times per day), just that your analysis is probably to reductive.
Just for comparison, some research suggests that natural gas based power plants can actually be worse than coal when accounting for methane leakage.
How do you leave out the Space Shuttle's SRBs when answering a question about rocket pollution???
Used on SLS as well.
Ammonium Perchlorate and Aluminum powder in a synthetic rubber binder, truly noxious exhaust products. Space Shuttle example is bogus.
@@therealanyakusame with using methane as rocket fuel when it burns it produces water and co2. Kerosene doesn’t burn clean at all so it has a bunch of junk that comes out with it.
Early in the life of thw Shuttle fleet, there was discussion about the amount of air pollution caused by the shuttle if it launched as often as originally planned (multiple launches a month)
Or china's hypergolic rockets although they're getting phased out slowly.
I think every country in the world should contribute to building a new space station. Even if it is a few thousand dollars. It would be a steppingstone to a truly global humanity.
On 10:00 "do rockets pollute"
One thing you missed is /where/ the emissions are produced. We know very little about the effects of adding the combustion gasses in other layers of the atmosphere.
Even for stratospheric water vapor.
volcanoes have been doing it for eons by the gigaton meteor impacts too.
love the attitude on not arguing with objective truths about the universe and how to conceptualize the scientists credibility when they publish findings
Your commentary on Science Communicators was absolutely premium. I hope Neil doesn't take it personally. Lol
Love that you are adjusting your live stream times for different regions around the globe. Now I just have to remember so I don’t miss it again.
Wearing an asteroid belt keeps Uranus warm.
18:40 There are people who say we have no idea what created our universe. I'm on your side. I say we have too many ideas and not enough evidence.
Enjoyed the video, very informative! Something else to consider about Gabsare Sarg's question, even though CO2 is said to be worse in part because it "tends to linger in the atmosphere longer", water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas retaining heat from the Sun/other sources in our atmosphere. Ironically, not only is it coming from NASA's rockets/rocket tests but from our automobiles by the MILLIONS of vehicles in the U.S. alone over the last ~50 years, due to the EPA's insistence upon the utilization of "catalytic converters".... It's not to suggest that the alternative was better but maybe catalytic converters were not the best solution. There is approximately ~0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere whereas there is ~3+ percent water vapor so it's far more abundant & it is heat/water vapor and pressure differences which fuel storms, particularly tropical cyclones.
Catalytic converters' main purpose is to convert carbon, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides into CO2, H2O, and N2, which are better for the environment.
Thank you for answering my question.
I couldn't think of anything being more fulfilling as having an educated suspicion as to how the universe came to be, and then one day, before you kick it, to have science say you had it right all along....I could die happy like that....provided the universe wasn't ran by giant evil gods that we had been secretly sacrificing to in a secret underground torture complex with some cabin on top in the woods...
Intergalactic planets, that's mindblowing.
Using renewables to convert CO2 into Hydrocarbons was something I thought of when the discussion about EVs vs ICE cars came about. We really don't have any practical options that beat the energy density of gasoline/diesel. Obviously converting solar->electricity->hydrocarbons is way less efficient than solar->electricity->batteries. But it might help smooth out the transition to a carbon neutral/negative world since people cling so dearly to their ICE cars.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.
Wonderful answer, thank you
Hi Fraser! Thanks for your answers. Why many solar systems within galaxies, including ours, are not aligned with the plane of the galaxy?
Hey Fraser
do you see a reason (technical not financial) not to "gobble up" the space station modules by starship and bring it back down instead of dumping it in the ocean?
Can you explain what a gravastar is?
When a star goes supernova how does the gravity of the star change? Even though the mass disperses and some of it (how much?) turns into energy, shouldn’t the center of mass stay roughly the same?
If it’s in a binary system how will the other star be affected?
As I understand it, gravity is holding the star together while the nuclear fusion in the core is exerting force outwards. Once the fusion stops, the star collapses. The size of the star (1.4 times the size of our sun or larger, if memory serves)will result in supernova.
@@12345....... The barycentre has inverse square relationship betwixt two stars so when inflated the distance is smaller then as it super nova's the outer shell of the core explodes out at relativistic speeds so it shrinks,pushes the outer gaseous envelope and gets further from the other star simultaneously and everything else gets lost as neutrino's. Quick and dirty explanation think of a golf ball under a bowling ball on a tramp the golf balls the core after collapse and the bowling ball is all of the outer core and gas envelope and energy converted to neutrino's if the bowling ball just disappears the rebound is your gravity waves and the golf ball is now the remaining mass.
Here's an idea to save the ISS - inflate one of those new kevlar modules around the entire space station, so the ISS becomes an inner module & the problems with it leaking / falling apart isn't relevant anymore.
Question: Would Super Heavy be able to launch from Starbase, Boca Chica, Texas, and land in lc 39a, Cape Canaveral, Florida, to avoid a boostback burn and carry more payload into orbit?
Redesigning entire manufacturing methodologies for microgravity seems a far larger task than simulating it with inertia. Wherever the space factory is it'll take the form of a rotating pressurized habitat.
12:20 the ironic thing is the amount of "bunker fuel" (worse than Diesel) burnt in shipping oil around the globe is ridiculous (around 20% of all shipping emissions).
Question: do we currently have the technology to place a large asteroid ( like apophis) in orbit around earth to mine material. Love the Question show btw
The space shuttle had solid rocket boosters that used powdered aluminum and ammonium perchlorate. Major pollution! The liquid fuel was hydrogen and oxygen, producing water vapor. Water vapor is by far the most powerful greenhouse gas, but it condenses and falls out of the atmosphere as rain. Water vapor is not a pollutant. The "methane store" is the gas company that owns the gas pipeline running into your house. Methane is natural gas.
A single launch of the Starship superheavy, which uses methane and O2, leaves about 76k metric tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
A standard Falcon Heavy, which uses kerosene and O2, leaves about 79k of CO2, because kerosene is so much dirtier.
We've had *six* Starship launches. We have 90-100 Falcon launches per *year* .
A single transatlantic flight of a commercial jet airliner produces one metric ton of CO2 *per passenger* , and there are about 200 passengers per flight.
There are also about 530 transatlantic flights *per day* -- or 106k metric tons of CO2 produced by flights between the U.S. and Europe.
Every. Single. Day.
When compared to the pollution created by commercial aviation, when you throw in all the *other* types of flight, rocket pollution doesn't even rate as a *rounding error* . 🤨🙄
I think that matches what I said. 😀
@@frasercain Yep. 🙂
76 ktCO2e? Well then at ~4.5 launches per day Starship would match the entire European aviation industry, and if they ever reach their "rapid reusability goal" of relaunching the same booster an hour after landing, the Starship program alone could be close to 50% of 2022 EU emissions, even if they only launch out of 3 launch sites.
Sure, if Starship launches about twice a month, like Vulcan Centaur is aiming for, it's not a problem. But if they come anywhere close to the launch rate Musk has been promising, it'll be a significant problem.
Why is the camera on Europa Clipper only 8 megapixels? When the camera on my phone is 50 megapixels?
@Fraser Cain You know, I would love to say something about social commentary on how people's attention spans are getting too short and what not since I'm a bit of a cynical person but not gonna lie I kind of like the more frequent and shorter episodes. I've missed some in the past because I didn't have time to commit and when I choose to watch stuff, I like to pay attention and think about it and the more compartmentalized question shows makes it easier to commit to an episode here or there which is nice. IDK, just thought I would throw a little feedback your way for what it's worth from a longtime fan.
Hello Fraser.
Space travel in the future will also be open to tourists and sooner or later private individuals will arrive not only in orbit but also on the moon or perhaps on Mars. But how long will it really take for normal people to be able to afford space travel? And how long will it take to have workers, miners, plumbers, carpenters, computer scientists and secretaries in space?
I thought the observable universe is always expanding because there is light from just beyond the edge that is always just arriving to us.
RE do rockets pollute a lot?: I calculated that launching something like 9 starships a day would produce about 1% of all the CO2 of the airline industry, and that produces only 2.5% of global emissions. 99.9% of the space industry emissions come from ground operations (building rockets etc), not launching. Launching reusable rockets is a hugely less damaging thing to do.
"1% of all the CO2 of the airline industry"
And for what purpose? Making somebody REALLLLLLY rich? having tons of satellites polluting the sky for astronomers. Im off the musk/spacex bandwagon until that turd is gone
Should also be noted that the SRBs from the shuttle released many pollutants and several toxins. Liquids burn much cleaner, and tend to have fewer and simpler combustion byproducts.
Question, does the calculation for the life of a star take relativity into account?
U use a Starship and store water in it then in deep space travel you can use the water to generate hydrogen and oxygen for propulsion for the engines.
how far away are the near earth asseroids
Question: There is lots of excitement about the future of space exploration. But would we actually see proper colonies on mars, moon and beyond, where people other than scientists live and prosper, in say 50 years? or 100? What are the reasons that current bodies(governments, companies etc.) actually capable of doing such things would plan such projects?
Once an Earth city grows to a certain size, servicing the needs of the city's residents becomes a primary employment creator. That pattern should continue.
The most important reason is the preservation of the human race. It's insurance if something cathastrophic happened that wiped out all humans on Earth.
Will it happen anytime soon? Probably not. Maintaining a large colony on another world will be extremely difficult, especially if it has to be self sustained.
@@arnelilleseter4755 Maybe not as difficult as we assume. The rapidity with which Earth micro-organisms started growing as the "pristine" asteroid sample recently returned to Earth implies farming might be more easily doable than assumed.
> build a new space station
don't need it, build a moon base instead
i thought you were going to say "you can make methane in the bath!" XD
Some do.
You can add layers like an onion so that the space station has different levels, rockets and new technology will develop
Imagine a planet wandering through intergalactic space, not orbiting a star and with the nearest light source millions of light years away. Possibly the only types of life that could exist there would be extremophiles or organisms associated with hydrothermal vents.
Respectfully disagree with Fraser there on factory siting. Asteroid are rock piles loosely bound with gravity. Add to that the pockets of various volatile ices trapped within. Would be a very unstable object to build anything on
I wonder what happens to the orbit of the asteroid when you fire off the railgun...
The asteroid moves in the opposite direction.
Kumtria !
You forgot to talk about the pollution caused by the space shuttle SRBs. That was nasty.
Yeah, and now on the SLS.
Is the Planck length expanding with the universe? If so then it must have been a lot shorter right after the big bang. Potentially infinitely short.
No, the plank length is constant.
Fraser are you planning on playing Path of Exile 2 or have you seen the trailer yet?
I've already bought my early access pass. Friday is almost here
Factories in space are a long way off, I expect. Not so much for technical reasons, as for economic ones. It has to be REALLY difficult to do something on Earth to make any economic sense for doing it in space. The exception might be if you were supplying Mars with materials you can't readily mine there, that are critical, as you have a reduced gravity well, and you are closer to your work, in the case of the belt. For a long time, they are going to have enough trouble just staying alive on Mars, assuming we get there.
Part of the financing for the asteroid sample return projects was a test of robotic mining practicality. Not an advertised motive.
@@friendlyone2706 Understood, and that is fine, but without the motive the reality of practical mining will not materialize. You can't ultimately do it without learning how, so I support such research, I guess. To me, though, it is about the most useless of research, right now.
@@MrJdsenior As the demands for rare earths increase, and the realization of the full cost of rare earth mining increases, the asteroids will begin to look like easy pickings.
The dream of 100% robotic mining, guided by AI will most likely be futile. AI relies on previously known facts -- but many assumptions are often erroneous, even in engineering.
The time delays communicating with distant stations prevent spontaneous reactions to the unexpected. Those mining robots will need human supervision less than a light second away.
Some asteroids seem to have more oil deposits than all of Earth's known reserves. Very strange.
@@friendlyone2706 All of that presupposes that AI won't achieve a level where none of those aspects are a concern, possibly to the point where we get in the way of machines, not vise versa. But yeah, I get your drift. You are totally correct about unknowns, especially starting from square one, in virtually every aspect.
I am a retired electronics design engineer, so a total YES to partially to totally incorrect to somewhat erroneous assumptions.
EVERYTHING relies on previously known facts, AI, or otherwise. Just sayin'. ;-) As AI exists today, it would be practically a no starter.
@@friendlyone2706REEs are actually pretty common on earth but aren't normally very concentrated. The situation on asteroids would be no better. What might be worthwhile is mining platinum-group metals.
I miss voting
Tulak (The James Webb answer, that was a good one, I'm calling that Tulak)
Soon I'll be looking for elections to vote in, just for the buzz again.
I can't go cold turkey!
15:32 PanAm booked 90 000 flights to the Moon by 1971.
How many flights did they fulfill?
@@frasercain 😀
Just interested. Do flat earthers ever attack you lol? I’m not one but have had several arguments with them. They never give up. 😂😂😂I just had an argument with one is why I ask. Thanks Fraser. Love you content.
They attack, but I never respond. Why bother?
@ I agree. I used to get a kick out of debating them but don’t waste my time now either. The one argument I used was the equator being the largest line of latitude on the globe model and the lines get shorter as you know I’m sure, o the flat earth model it’s the opposite. I would tell them to buy a plane and fly each line to put the argument to bed. You wouldn’t believe the silence I got 🤣🤣🤣
Why don't they just replace modules on the iis as need to basically rebuild the space station
The news has started talking about rocket fuel in food.
Someone did an analysis of the types of stars that are evaporating from the galaxy. There is a star variety of (comparatively) short lifetime that when it goes nova would be very life threatening to any inhabited planet many light years distant (sorry, this is from memory, don't remember enough to give numbers or easily look up the papers). Over half of those stars are high velocity.
Something in common about their history? Or someone systematically making the galaxy safer?
the moons of mars require less deltaV than the moon of earth
"Pollution from Rocket Launches"
Trump and Musk will make sure this isnt even looked at or cared about
I'll tell you what I have learned to do with information in my life. I'm 58.
Listen to all sides, the crazy idea's and the proven scientific ones. Now store ALL of that information for later. Proven scientific 'facts' can get disproven when more information is available.
In capsule the space station with a base balloon
I was under impression the Saturn V series of rockets used hydrogen and oxygen as fuel not kerolox as falcon 9 did?.....also....the space shuttle like SLS has 2 rather dirty polluting solid rocket boosters which likely make both vehicles very polluting....
Hydrolox is good for upper stages. Saturn IV-B used that.
And yeah, people do this really dumb thing where greenhouse gases are pollutants (which any given greenhouse gas may or may not be - "pollutant" means directly harmful to humans) and even the *only* pollutants, this Our World in Data infographic, for instance: ourworldindata.org/images/published/safest-form-energy_1350.png
First stage od Saturn V was using kerose e.
🚀
What if consensus is created by an echo chamber?
It comes down to nature as the ultimate arbiter
@@frasercain If politicians don't tip the scale.
Do you consider *97 percent* of all the atmospheric and oceanic scientists *in the world* an "echo chamber"? 🤨
See how humble Fraser is? he has no opinion on the beginning of the universe because he's a journalist, just imagine if all the idiots at the big new outlets could have that , actually reporting news and NOT ramming their half baked ideologies down our throats...and don't get me started on movie stars telling us what to think and who to vote for...America you've done us all proud, you know what I mean.
6:30 because it's going out to get pizza
how can you loose a huge thing like a star.
Deep sixing the ISP when NASA is done with it, is a TERRIBLE idea in my opinion, I'm sure the thing has way way more life left in it, just patch it up as it breaks, that's so so much cheaper than replacing all those launches to get new stuff up there again, plus, I suspect NASA might let it go for next to nothing given their weird mindset about how things seem to just stop being viable at a chosen time...
In terms of science, being persuasive does not mean you are right.
b4 big bang came big foreplay. Making stations is just a waste of money if the new ones are just as functional as the old ones. Unless the new one has a rotating section, I urge all to whom it concerns no to fund it.
Everyday Astronaut did a great video going over how much rockets pollute ua-cam.com/video/C4VHfmiwuv4/v-deo.html
The book series Delta-V by Daniel Suarez is a great near future look att near earth astorid mining and building a economy in cis-lunar orbit
So tired of people talking about co2 when things like fluorine get released all the time.
Especially when our green plants are struggling to get enough CO2. When desserts get more CO2, even without any increase in rainfall, the desserts green.
It's just so lame and sad to hear we "hope a company" does something rather than humanity organizing to do it themselves. For me, I have no interest in watching billionaire money-frauds making the decisions and having the first hand experience and knowledge of space exploration and settlement. So I don't, though I try to support this independent media effort. I want to watch and be involved, but I just am not ... and I'm actually bitter at the flunkie techies who just f'ing ohh and ah at the latest gizmo they build as servants for jerks.
BOs will be the least expensive on account that it will only ever be CGI
Great content btw
He misunderstood the question, James web enlarged the observable capacity for human technology. Not what ultimately is possible.
So our ability to observe was enlarged thus enlarging the relative observable universe.
He misunderstood the question, but you didn't? Did the person tell you what they meant, but not him?
Some of us do not subscribe to the CO2 religion.
Then don't listen to me about scientific consensus. Get your PhD in climate science
Those of you that call it "the CO2 religion" tend to be anti-science because YOU are the ones going by religion, not science. Treating those going by science as being the ones going by religion, is just another version of "I'm not crazy, it's everyone else that is crazy!" delusion.
Methane becomes CO2 + H2O, so no pollution.
CO2 is pollution, that's the biggest greenhouse gas.
the background music is so distracting, impossible to focus on the valuable content.
Want Starbase 1. The proposals look and feel worse than a shanty built on top of a graveyard and the showers are even worse.