@@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)
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.
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
@@thabzmad7265 Im a former fan of musks and a sad space fan these days. This is how the world is, you dont even know what Im trying to say because it could be anything: I think Teslas/EVs dont pollute but then someone could say what about the kids in the lithium mines and the battery fires, etc Musks promise of dozens of launches a day, if it EVER happens, would be horrible for the environment but I gather thats why he spent 200million getting orange man elected.
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lxdepends where you live doesn’t it. But this is a weak argument. The entire economy will be switching to alternatives to fossil fuels. Because the replacements are cheaper and reducing cost year over year. It’s just a matter of time.
love the attitude on not arguing with objective truths about the universe and how to conceptualize the scientists credibility when they publish findings
0:45 My answer for the space factory would be to exploit Jupiter's Trojan's, relatively dense cluster of what might be very interesting diverse objects, moving near enough the same speed so easy to hop between. Obviously making assumptions of being fairly well established in utilising space to be that far out, Fraser answer more near term having a space factory operation working as Earth for a base.
Regarding rocket pollution: at 11:15, you talk about using 1/3 of an acre of solar panels to fuel the Starship, but how many flights per day/week/year?
La première question est excellente et j'avais hâte de vous écouter là-dessus. La réponse m'a époustouflé. On n'entend jamais parler de ces objets célestes si proches. Il faut absolument leur envoyer des sondes d'analyse et de surveillance, les étudier à fond et les exploiter. Parce la Terre est la pire place d'où envoyer des vaisseaux arpenter le système solaire.
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
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?
The most important technical reason in my opinion is the human element. Assuming Starship is ready, the tools are there to disassemble and securely attach to Starship in a way they can't come loose during re-entry, there's still risks to having people launch if something goes wrong. The other 2 things would be degradation of 20+ year old components on re-entry (the extremes of longterm exposure to radiation and heating/cooling cycles) and where to store them when returned because of the whole international aspect. That's just a few of my thoughts. It'd be a shame to lose such a marvel of human history.
a non-functional starship might be a good reason. THE primary one. Other than that, IF starship works by then, money. Who could hope how much profit from such a mission? (NASA missions don't generate profit, but here we are talking about OLD space stuff. Already KNOWN hardware. Exploration cannot be a reason. That's why I ask you about all the profit you can imagine)
Question: You've mentioned ideas for using spacecraft flying in formation as shield and telescope to image exoplanets. How would they stay aimed at a particular target when they are orbiting the Earth or the Sun? How long could the shield block the light from the target star without spewing propellant (and thereby scattering more starlight into the telecope)?
Space factory: what about one at L1 earth - moon tethered to the moons surface? Use the tether to get up moon materials without the need for propellants - just electricity from the factorys solar panels... The finished products destined for earth orbit simply are moved a short distance direction to the elevators counterweight to be dropped direction earth. The delta v requiered for orbit insertion could be provided by highly efficient ion thrusters. For other destinations like mars a much lower delta v is sufficient compared to factorys down on the moon. Additionally you get near to 24/7 solar power up there and avoid the long lunar nights.
How to deal with the threat of a NEO? A: Setup a mining colony and disassemble it. The observable universe is increasing in size every year by 2 light years, simply by the passage of time.
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.
I like Your optimism there are roughly 200-300 who cares countries in the world. Most of which could afford a thousand sure but it costs billions if every country did that annually you'd have enough funds to build it in you lost all your money to inflation adjustments and management quit to move into stocking shelves at costco for a payrise.
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.
I’ve got a question that I’ve been wondering for some time now. You said just drop questions wherever, so here goes. Do we take gravitational effects on time into consideration when calculating distant objects, such as with the apparent acceleration of distant galaxies? We know that time slows down when near an object that produces gravity. Time is actually measurably faster at the top of a skyscraper than at the bottom. With our position at the bottom of a gravity well (not to mention within the gravitational influence of our host star, never mind within the gravitational influence of Sag-A), wouldn’t it make sense that objects further away from us would appear to be accelerating, as they become less affected by our local perception of the flow of time? Love your content! Thanks if you answer this! I don’t understand the math enough to figure this out myself! XD
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.
While there's some near earth asteroids we could reach with lower delta V, I can't imagine they're practical since their periods are all a decade+ I believe. So you'd have to be REALLY sure that whatever you're sending works. Meanwhile, if you set up a base on the moon and just sent back to Earth orbit tanks full of oxygen, you'd be getting a 70%+ discount on sending Earth mass anywhere past the rendezvous point and the moon's consistently a few days away.
Renewable rocket fuel is a fine idea, but you must also consider the enormous amount of water vapor being deposited into the extreme upper levels of the atmosphere where airplanes don't fly. The emissions at those levels create heat trapping clouds which is much worse than in the lower atmosphere.
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.
The cosmic microwave background was emitted not at the beginning of the universe, but a few hundred thousand years later. Yes, we can't see beyond it in the electromagnetic spectrum, because the universe was opaque, but what about gravitational wave observatories? Could they see back to the moment when gravity decoupled from the other forces in the universe? Would there be anything to see?
I've recently read an article on your website about gravastars written by Brian Koberlein. It's great for giving a general idea about what those would be if they existed. Can you explain this topic a bit more in detail? Thanks.
@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.
If we ever don't have a space station we can expect our near neighbours to quietly look down on us, like if you live in the only house in the street without a conservatory.
about the best place for a Spacefactory: what do you think about earth-sun L4 or L5. how many good astereoids are there already? and would those places be a good place to direct asteroids into?
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?
Depending on "richness" of Moon it might still be very good option to start (bootstrap) space mining and production. It has some gravity well - true, but then all our mining, refining and production tech evolved at the bottom of gravity well and relies on it quite significantly. It's actually quite a challenge to drill without gravity assistance. Right?
Hi Fraser. Thank you for another enjoyable & informative Q & A vid. Here's a QUESTION for you please - where did you get that awesome Darwinian type T-shirt, showing human evolution up to s person looking through a Telescope eyepiece ? Very COOL. (As seen in B-roll when you are filming at an AAS meeting.) Does "Universe Today" have a Merchandise section ? Thanks again Fraser. All the Best, Paul Conti, Wales (UK).
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.
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.
Hi Fraser. Is Falcon 9 saving nasa and other customers any money? Are we seeing f9 launches being cheaper than delta, atlas etc launchers in the past - kg for kg?
Question. examples often show the big bang originating from a point, and obviously eventually after billions of years it gets to us, but how can the light from the big bang that is causing the cosmic background radiation be coming from all directions around us? I suppose one way is that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light? I'm not sure where the science stand on that one.
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.
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?
your phone does not have to send data half a solar system away. And if it had to send data so far faaaar away, you could charge your phone almost anywhere. You don't have to care how much battery power such a transmission costs. And your cell phone is designed for planet Earth. A very pleasant planet. IF your phone breaks, you buy another one. A camera out there needs to be robust and needs a lot of parts for redundancy. Tried and tested tech needed. If analogies help: - your phone has to be a Ferrari. So that you can ENJOY that it works. - a camera out there has to be a ww2 Jeep. So that it works and works and keeps working.
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).
Then Observable Universe is also limited by the expansion rate of the Universe, you should have covered that. That there are stars so far away that their light has not reached us, will never reach us.
Based on Heisenberg uncertainty principle some things can never be known without affecting them by observation, such is the scientific consensus. Do you have some ideas on a unified theory of quantum gravity
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.
17:40 Don't you think the viewer question was asking not for your personal opinion, for your professional assessment as a journalist of what the scientific consensus says? Or, in this case, how far are we from reaching a consensus? Cosmic Inflation is the consensus model. Eternal Inflation is the best contender to solve some problems in that model, so it should be mentioned first in a very short list of well-supported hypotheses.
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.
Hi Frasier, just for us English cud u say miles sometimes as we've been brought up with miles even tho the conversion isnt hard, just so we/i feel included aawww poor me ha ha. As always u've Cained it brother!!
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 🤣🤣🤣
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.
Let’s put a nuclear engine in it this time and it can ferry us back-and-forth to the moon also. It can be both the SpaceStation, the moon station, and the transport in between them.
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.
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.
It's strange to think that the Photon has no mass thus literally time doesnt exist from it's perspective so Fraiser Photon is emitted 13.7 billion years ago and reaches our detectors no time later but to people its an eternity!!
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
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
@@frasercain OK. Useful for *increasing* the distance to the recipient (and possibly your other logistics) with each shipment, I guess. Not sure I see the business case though.
Question: it seems like you do not report on the Chinese space programs at all. Why is that? Has American companies tried to work with them? Are docking ports there the same as the iss? Does Russia do anything with China with respect to their space programs?
I report on them all the time. I'm actually learning Mandarin so I can understand what they're doing from the source. American aerospace companies are forbidden from working with Chinese firms by law, also scientists can collaborate. They have their own docking ports, so they wouldn't be compatible with US hardware, but I'm sure it would be possible to adapt it. Russia and China have proposed some future collaborations, but Russia is distracted.
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!
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.
Very good answer about personal opinions and what was before the BigBang! Untill recently I thought this a rather silly question. There is no way we can find out;• no way we can ever look back to the BigBang. The CMB is the border line to our quest for answers. But then there is the unsymetry. Why the missing antimatter? The only explanation that survives is the BlackHole Universe Theory. Or better, the only explanation with a tini chance of more probability. For the Cyclic Universe the curvature of space is too flat;• not enough gravity to stop the expansion. So do we live inside a BlackHole? That is not possible. The gravity crushes everything, even Quarks! But how can all the entered mass stay all in the same point? What if this opens a completely new Universe? BlackHole Stars don't go SuperNova; they implode into themselves. Sometimes the outer layers may explode, but mainly it's an implosion. We can safely assume the same for SuperMassiv BlackHoles. But all the mass and energy must go somewhere. The maximum density that our physic allows is Neutron Stars. It should be examined if this BHU theory influences the preference of matter vs antimatter. CERN is not yet powerfull enough to handle the amount of energy. Perhaps we should move CERN to the Moon equator. We wouldn't even need to build tunnels, bc vakuum is already there. The Super Conductor cooling is also much easier on the Moon. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
If our black hole is 1 million times the mass of our sun does that mean that over the lifetime of the black hole it has consumed 1 million times the mass of our sun or do they appear as super massive black holes depending on the size or strength of the event that caused it and then just collect in the ecretion disk without ever adding more mass to the black hole? And hawking radiation decreases the mass of a black hole over time?
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...
Thanks Fraser. Great info. it's impressive that you stay on top of all this stuff.
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.
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.
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.
You spoke of the Space Shuttle not producing pollution due to the use of hydrogen, but didn't the SRBs it used produce pollution?
Oh, absolutely. I was just talking about the liquid hydrogen oxygen part.
@@frasercainbut those were stage zero; it couldn't develop enough thrust to lift off without them
Wearing an asteroid belt keeps Uranus warm.
you meant an aSS-teroid belt, I am sure.
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.
@@ashleyobrien4937 yeah, it's a worst-case scenario.
@@plainText384It’s still barely a rounding error when compared to the overall emissions.
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
Because we all like to focus on that big red or yellow smoking bus and blame it for air quality, meanwhile the dozen cars that went by polluted more!
@@thabzmad7265 The Teslas?
@@gamegoof I guess you are taunting? Commenting on pollution in general in the spirit of the video and to the OP...
@@thabzmad7265 Im a former fan of musks and a sad space fan these days. This is how the world is, you dont even know what Im trying to say because it could be anything: I think Teslas/EVs dont pollute but then someone could say what about the kids in the lithium mines and the battery fires, etc
Musks promise of dozens of launches a day, if it EVER happens, would be horrible for the environment but I gather thats why he spent 200million getting orange man elected.
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.
And how are the Solar Arrays built? How is the water brought to proccessing? Does the carbon fingerprint make a big difference in the end?
ۥ;
@@MichaelWinter-ss6lxdepends where you live doesn’t it. But this is a weak argument. The entire economy will be switching to alternatives to fossil fuels. Because the replacements are cheaper and reducing cost year over year. It’s just a matter of time.
love the attitude on not arguing with objective truths about the universe and how to conceptualize the scientists credibility when they publish findings
Wonderful answer, thank you
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative video. Great job. Keep it up.
Thank you for answering my question.
0:45 My answer for the space factory would be to exploit Jupiter's Trojan's, relatively dense cluster of what might be very interesting diverse objects, moving near enough the same speed so easy to hop between.
Obviously making assumptions of being fairly well established in utilising space to be that far out, Fraser answer more near term having a space factory operation working as Earth for a base.
Regarding rocket pollution: at 11:15, you talk about using 1/3 of an acre of solar panels to fuel the Starship, but how many flights per day/week/year?
Great video, thanks🚀
La première question est excellente et j'avais hâte de vous écouter là-dessus. La réponse m'a époustouflé. On n'entend jamais parler de ces objets célestes si proches. Il faut absolument leur envoyer des sondes d'analyse et de surveillance, les étudier à fond et les exploiter. Parce la Terre est la pire place d'où envoyer des vaisseaux arpenter le système solaire.
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
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?
The most important technical reason in my opinion is the human element. Assuming Starship is ready, the tools are there to disassemble and securely attach to Starship in a way they can't come loose during re-entry, there's still risks to having people launch if something goes wrong.
The other 2 things would be degradation of 20+ year old components on re-entry (the extremes of longterm exposure to radiation and heating/cooling cycles) and where to store them when returned because of the whole international aspect.
That's just a few of my thoughts. It'd be a shame to lose such a marvel of human history.
a non-functional starship might be a good reason. THE primary one.
Other than that, IF starship works by then, money.
Who could hope how much profit from such a mission?
(NASA missions don't generate profit, but here we are talking about OLD space stuff. Already KNOWN hardware. Exploration cannot be a reason. That's why I ask you about all the profit you can imagine)
Question: You've mentioned ideas for using spacecraft flying in formation as shield and telescope to image exoplanets. How would they stay aimed at a particular target when they are orbiting the Earth or the Sun? How long could the shield block the light from the target star without spewing propellant (and thereby scattering more starlight into the telecope)?
Space factory: what about one at L1 earth - moon tethered to the moons surface? Use the tether to get up moon materials without the need for propellants - just electricity from the factorys solar panels...
The finished products destined for earth orbit simply are moved a short distance direction to the elevators counterweight to be dropped direction earth. The delta v requiered for orbit insertion could be provided by highly efficient ion thrusters.
For other destinations like mars a much lower delta v is sufficient compared to factorys down on the moon.
Additionally you get near to 24/7 solar power up there and avoid the long lunar nights.
Intergalactic planets, that's mindblowing.
How to deal with the threat of a NEO? A: Setup a mining colony and disassemble it.
The observable universe is increasing in size every year by 2 light years, simply by the passage of time.
Why don't they just replace modules on the iis as need to basically rebuild the space station
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.
I like Your optimism there are roughly 200-300 who cares countries in the world. Most of which could afford a thousand sure but it costs billions if every country did that annually you'd have enough funds to build it in you lost all your money to inflation adjustments and management quit to move into stocking shelves at costco for a payrise.
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.
I’ve got a question that I’ve been wondering for some time now. You said just drop questions wherever, so here goes.
Do we take gravitational effects on time into consideration when calculating distant objects, such as with the apparent acceleration of distant galaxies? We know that time slows down when near an object that produces gravity. Time is actually measurably faster at the top of a skyscraper than at the bottom. With our position at the bottom of a gravity well (not to mention within the gravitational influence of our host star, never mind within the gravitational influence of Sag-A), wouldn’t it make sense that objects further away from us would appear to be accelerating, as they become less affected by our local perception of the flow of time?
Love your content! Thanks if you answer this! I don’t understand the math enough to figure this out myself! XD
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.
While there's some near earth asteroids we could reach with lower delta V, I can't imagine they're practical since their periods are all a decade+ I believe. So you'd have to be REALLY sure that whatever you're sending works. Meanwhile, if you set up a base on the moon and just sent back to Earth orbit tanks full of oxygen, you'd be getting a 70%+ discount on sending Earth mass anywhere past the rendezvous point and the moon's consistently a few days away.
Hi Fraser! Thanks for your answers. Why many solar systems within galaxies, including ours, are not aligned with the plane of the galaxy?
Renewable rocket fuel is a fine idea, but you must also consider the enormous amount of water vapor being deposited into the extreme upper levels of the atmosphere where airplanes don't fly. The emissions at those levels create heat trapping clouds which is much worse than in the lower atmosphere.
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.
You forgot to talk about the pollution caused by the space shuttle SRBs. That was nasty.
Yeah, and now on the SLS.
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.
The cosmic microwave background was emitted not at the beginning of the universe, but a few hundred thousand years later. Yes, we can't see beyond it in the electromagnetic spectrum, because the universe was opaque, but what about gravitational wave observatories? Could they see back to the moment when gravity decoupled from the other forces in the universe? Would there be anything to see?
I've recently read an article on your website about gravastars written by Brian Koberlein. It's great for giving a general idea about what those would be if they existed. Can you explain this topic a bit more in detail? Thanks.
@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.
If we ever don't have a space station we can expect our near neighbours to quietly look down on us, like if you live in the only house in the street without a conservatory.
about the best place for a Spacefactory: what do you think about earth-sun L4 or L5. how many good astereoids are there already? and would those places be a good place to direct asteroids into?
Can you explain what a gravastar is?
I thought the observable universe is always expanding because there is light from just beyond the edge that is always just arriving to us.
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?
The HAVEN series of space stations are being built by VAST, Inc.
Depending on "richness" of Moon it might still be very good option to start (bootstrap) space mining and production. It has some gravity well - true, but then all our mining, refining and production tech evolved at the bottom of gravity well and relies on it quite significantly. It's actually quite a challenge to drill without gravity assistance.
Right?
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.
Hi Fraser. Thank you for another enjoyable & informative Q & A vid. Here's a QUESTION for you please - where did you get that awesome Darwinian type T-shirt, showing human evolution up to s person looking through a Telescope eyepiece ? Very COOL. (As seen in B-roll when you are filming at an AAS meeting.) Does "Universe Today" have a Merchandise section ? Thanks again Fraser. All the Best, Paul Conti, Wales (UK).
Thanks, it came from a telescope company that's gone out of business. :-(. I don't have a merch shop. Maybe one day.
Your commentary on Science Communicators was absolutely premium. I hope Neil doesn't take it personally. Lol
Neil has a too big of an ego to be offended 😉👌
@savagesarethebest7251 I didn't suggest he'd be offended. I just thought he might think this diatribe is about him.
Frasier is funding being reduced or stopped for the Chandra X-ray telescope and is that a mistake in ur opinion?
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.
@@leonmusk1040 name checks out for the random reply.
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.
Question: What would happen if the earth's axial tilt was zero?
no seasons at all.
You can add layers like an onion so that the space station has different levels, rockets and new technology will develop
You mentioned stations everywhere but Phobos. Why not a station on Phobos?
Hi Fraser. Is Falcon 9 saving nasa and other customers any money? Are we seeing f9 launches being cheaper than delta, atlas etc launchers in the past - kg for kg?
Question. examples often show the big bang originating from a point, and obviously eventually after billions of years it gets to us, but how can the light from the big bang that is causing the cosmic background radiation be coming from all directions around us? I suppose one way is that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light? I'm not sure where the science stand on that one.
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.
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?
It’s not “off of”, it’s simply “off”!!!
> build a new space station
don't need it, build a moon base instead
how far away are the near earth asseroids
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.
Great content btw
Why is the camera on Europa Clipper only 8 megapixels? When the camera on my phone is 50 megapixels?
your phone does not have to send data half a solar system away. And if it had to send data so far faaaar away, you could charge your phone almost anywhere. You don't have to care how much battery power such a transmission costs. And your cell phone is designed for planet Earth. A very pleasant planet. IF your phone breaks, you buy another one. A camera out there needs to be robust and needs a lot of parts for redundancy. Tried and tested tech needed.
If analogies help:
- your phone has to be a Ferrari. So that you can ENJOY that it works.
- a camera out there has to be a ww2 Jeep. So that it works and works and keeps working.
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).
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
Then Observable Universe is also limited by the expansion rate of the Universe, you should have covered that.
That there are stars so far away that their light has not reached us, will never reach us.
Based on Heisenberg uncertainty principle some things can never be known without affecting them by observation, such is the scientific consensus. Do you have some ideas on a unified theory of quantum gravity
If two black holes collide and break up into smaller pieces, and thus less mass, would these pieces still be black holes or not ?
They can't break up, they can only merge.
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.
17:40 Don't you think the viewer question was asking not for your personal opinion, for your professional assessment as a journalist of what the scientific consensus says? Or, in this case, how far are we from reaching a consensus? Cosmic Inflation is the consensus model. Eternal Inflation is the best contender to solve some problems in that model, so it should be mentioned first in a very short list of well-supported hypotheses.
Russia and India also want their own soace stations by 2030 i think.
So there should be more
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.
"Pollution from Rocket Launches"
Trump and Musk will make sure this isnt even looked at or cared about
Hi Frasier, just for us English cud u say miles sometimes as we've been brought up with miles even tho the conversion isnt hard, just so we/i feel included aawww poor me ha ha. As always u've Cained it brother!!
I'm Canadian, I never learned the Imperial system.
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 🤣🤣🤣
i thought you were going to say "you can make methane in the bath!" XD
Some do.
Kumtria !
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.
Let’s put a nuclear engine in it this time and it can ferry us back-and-forth to the moon also. It can be both the SpaceStation, the moon station, and the transport in between them.
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
In capsule the space station with a base balloon
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.
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"? 🤨
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.
It's strange to think that the Photon has no mass thus literally time doesnt exist from it's perspective so Fraiser Photon is emitted 13.7 billion years ago and reaches our detectors no time later but to people its an eternity!!
The news has started talking about rocket fuel in food.
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.
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.
@@frasercain OK. Useful for *increasing* the distance to the recipient (and possibly your other logistics) with each shipment, I guess. Not sure I see the business case though.
Before the Universe was a Turtle. What a naive question.
🚀
Question: it seems like you do not report on the Chinese space programs at all. Why is that? Has American companies tried to work with them? Are docking ports there the same as the iss? Does Russia do anything with China with respect to their space programs?
I report on them all the time. I'm actually learning Mandarin so I can understand what they're doing from the source. American aerospace companies are forbidden from working with Chinese firms by law, also scientists can collaborate. They have their own docking ports, so they wouldn't be compatible with US hardware, but I'm sure it would be possible to adapt it. Russia and China have proposed some future collaborations, but Russia is distracted.
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!
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.
Very good answer about personal opinions and what was before the BigBang! Untill recently I thought this a rather silly question. There is no way we can find out;• no way we can ever look back to the BigBang. The CMB is the border line to our quest for answers.
But then there is the unsymetry. Why the missing antimatter? The only explanation that survives is the BlackHole Universe Theory. Or better, the only explanation with a tini chance of more probability. For the Cyclic Universe the curvature of space is too flat;• not enough gravity to stop the expansion.
So do we live inside a BlackHole? That is not possible. The gravity crushes everything, even Quarks! But how can all the entered mass stay all in the same point? What if this opens a completely new Universe? BlackHole Stars don't go SuperNova; they implode into themselves. Sometimes the outer layers may explode, but mainly it's an implosion. We can safely assume the same for SuperMassiv BlackHoles. But all the mass and energy must go somewhere. The maximum density that our physic allows is Neutron Stars.
It should be examined if this BHU theory influences the preference of matter vs antimatter. CERN is not yet powerfull enough to handle the amount of energy. Perhaps we should move CERN to the Moon equator. We wouldn't even need to build tunnels, bc vakuum is already there. The Super Conductor cooling is also much easier on the Moon.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
If our black hole is 1 million times the mass of our sun does that mean that over the lifetime of the black hole it has consumed 1 million times the mass of our sun or do they appear as super massive black holes depending on the size or strength of the event that caused it and then just collect in the ecretion disk without ever adding more mass to the black hole? And hawking radiation decreases the mass of a black hole over time?
how can you loose a huge thing like a star.
15:32 PanAm booked 90 000 flights to the Moon by 1971.
How many flights did they fulfill?
@@frasercain 😀
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...
In terms of science, being persuasive does not mean you are right.