A friend actually messaged me to watch this one. "Dude, Cain made a video about that thing you never shut up about." I love the future in lunar-based astronomy. I cannot lie.
Superbly enjoyable interview, and I'm entirely onboard with the "tube-in-a-tube" concept, and the lunar telescope concepts. IFT-5 really felt like the step up that we have been waiting for.
Very interesting interview, by the way. I was hesitant about starting a 1+ hr video but I ended up watching it stem-to-stern. This was, in part, due to the excitement and keen interest shown by both or the participants. Well done, Martin and Fraser!
Man I love when scientists talk about starship, I've imagined all the possibilities with starship, even I've imagined it as starter of interstellar civilization, but when scientists talk about it I realize that things are getting serious and we will see practical things very soon and maybe our dreams will come to reality very soon
Absolutely we should use the Moon as a base for telescopes of all varieties. The Moon is simply another resource available to the science community, and we should utilize that resource along with space and Earth based observatory platforms. Bravo, Frasier, and thanks to Dr Elvis ! These are some exciting ideas and proposals and I hope they're acted on sooner rather than later.
There must be a reason we have not been back yet! We landed with less computational power of the phone you undoubtedly are using to watch this. Yes, I know we had some very smart women perform and check many important computations. Just saying with today’s power we should have been back at the very least to set up remote 3D printing factory. Not sure why now one has done that yet.
@@devingoss2863 The problem isn't about computational power. We've been adequate on that front since 1969. The problems are the will to pursue more space missions and back those missions up with increased funding. We live in a very incurious society.
Dr Elvis sounds spot on like dr john hammond in the original jurassic park. I was waiting to hear about the great parks dinosaurs. In all seriousness - great content & interviews as always!
I really enjoyed this interview! The section about Gravitational Wave Astronomy on the Moon was fascinating. I have never heard of some of those ideas. However, my favorite part was at the half-hour mark when Dr. Elvis was so excited to hear about the other Kilonova candidates. Fraser continued his side-job of informing busy scientists about related news they missed while immersed in their work. Great job, Fraser!
Dr. Elvis is so charming. Thanks for the interview. The propellant mass and system complexity of landing system still seems very challenging. I wonder if Starship makes it attainable or we have to wait for thermal nuclear thermal propulsion to be matured.
This is AMAZING!!! I've been thinking about these exact questions. Thank you for the follow up questions pressing about what astrophysics and astronomy folks are thinking about what Starship has meant and will mean in the near future.
Haha I like the "clickbaity" thumbnail with Starship. Radio astronomy is fascinating so it would be awesome to put a telescope on the far side of the moon and avoid all the "pollution" from Earth. I hadn't considered how useful it could be for gravitational waves too, that's really interesting! And even the possibility of using just seismometers instead of lasers. Man, the ideas people come up with are just unbelievable.
Less than 4 minutes in and the guest is talking about needing to get many tons to the moon. No other launch system under development has that kind of capabilities. So it’s either Starship or they are talking about some far future concepts.
@@ReinReads Oh and later in the video they talk a lot more about the possibilities Starship will unlock in the future. I was just poking a bit of fun because come on, that thumbnail is still click-baity for this subject (I totally respect click bait for good causes lol)
I just discovered this channel and I have to tell, Fraser has a great mind, you can see him freeze here and there tryin to process all the informations coming to him, replying with great other questions on that topic. Awesome interviews!
Yeah I like the computational freeze Fraser does. So many people mess that up by looking like they are going to resort to disputing with the interlocutor as an excuse for not being able to process quickly. The trick, as ever, is to think quickly but deeply.
Don’t underestimate the problems that moon dust will give. It’s as fine grained as powder and it’s electrostatic. Equipment with moving part and even suites will wear much faster than on earth and you can’t avoid it coming indoors.
I think that research has been done to counteract the electrostatic dust. Keep in mind also that the Moon is almost airless. Very little dust can come up from the surface to the equipment. (Moonquakes can kick up some, and so can vibrations on the equipment itself). This isn't Mars.
The fact there are permanent shadows means dust won't pick up electro static charge from solar rays, as mentioned in the interview. I don't think it will be the problem you seem to be suggesting
Starship is going to kick up the biggest dust storm imaginable landing and taking off. Don't think the mirror on a telescope on the moon are going to like that
@@allangraham970And that is why the spaceport will not be right next to the telescope. Not if this is planned well. The lack of air will not allow the dust to hang in the air as dust can do in an atmosphere. The dust will quickly fall down again.
The way they develop Starship they may very well want to do a "lets test ejecting a satellite" test. If they do they could deploy a real satellite but there will be no guarantees it will work so better slam together something cheap.
@@tankourito5419 Really now. Go ahead buddy, do provide the actual numbers for payload weight, size and the different orbits it can achieve. Not the numbers Musk keeps making up but actual capabilities.
@@angrydoggy9170 refuel in orbit and then... What would other rockets be able to deliver to the moon, even if we include a refueling or re-stacking in orbit? They only have a small capsule with a small trunk in orbit or unmanned: A small module with a few tons.
@@richard--s Ok. So what’s that heavy bulky stuff we want to send to the moon? Any ideas on how that could become commercially viable? Also, the number flaunted by SpaceX are similar to what Saturn V could send up, but that rocket could have its upper stage switched out for a space station. Starship seems to be designed with starlink in mind and little else. How is Starship supposed to bring huge objects into orbit with that small slit as a payload deployment tool? The current design is pretty useless for anything but small satellites and altering the design would negate the reusability concept. The booster looks like a valuable concept, Starship not so much.
What about a telascope made of starlink type satellites but small each their own antenna Combining that to a enormous receiver no surface rougnes to deal whot no landing needed And the problem we do have (position of the satalites changing ) can be a solved whit computing power But around the moon Charging on the solar ligt side and observing on the dar radio site transmiting thier recorded data ONLY on the side facing the earth to not interfere whot the observation
Superb. Happy to know I'm not the only obsessed Starship watcher. It gives me great comfort that an experienced and credible scientist will also be in a strait-jacket in the adjoining asylum cell.
not mentioned, there are meteors that constantly mar the surface of the moon of all sizes. Without an atmosphere to burn it up before it hits the surface, a baseball-sized meteor striking the telescope/facility could do alot of damage to it and/or any facilities that maintain it.
@@MarinCipollina doing a cursory search on the internet led me to this: "Meteoroids, which are smaller than one meter in diameter, hit the moon's surface every day, similar to how they hit Earth. On average, about 100 meteoroids the size of pingpong balls hit the moon each day, which adds up to around 33,000 meteoroids per year. These impacts can be forceful, with each rock hitting the surface with the force of 7 pounds of dynamite." Dunno about you, but I'd say 33k meteoroids a year could increase the odds of them hitting any installations we build on the moon a LITTLE higher that your perceived 'vanishingly remote'.
The moon is about 15 million square miles. Divide that by 33,000 meteors and you get one for every 455 sq miles per year. If your telescope takes up an acre that’s roughly one 300,000th of the 455 sq miles. So, yeah, it’s EXTREMELY unlikely to be hit by a goofball sized object.
@@trevinom69 The lunar surface includes 37.9 million square kilometers. 100 ping pong ball sized impacts a day on that much surface area makes any single location an improbable target. The installation would need to be exceedingly unlucky.
Often they name these things by size: Square Kilometer Array, Very Large Array, Very Large Telescope, Large Binocular Telescope. I think you have come up with the next name. The Outrageously Large Telescope it is!
Thanks for another interesting interview. Question: About the separate seismic detectors for detecting gravitational waves - you still need measure their deflection in relation to each other, no? Isn't the idea of a gravitational wave that you can't just feel it pass thru you at one point, no matter how sensitive your device?
About Starship and side-bets. I wouldn't be surprised if people were queuing up now to load up Starship in this ironing-out phase. A "success is not guaranteed" discount price might be very attractive.
Considering that launch costs are but a very small fraction of the total price tag for launching these instruments you probably couldn't pay them enough to take that risk.
I'd just like to say that my housemate and myself both thoroughly enjoyed this video. Thanks! The only issue I can think of is the (slightly?) higher risk of impacts due to the Moon's gravity well, as compared to a free-orbiting telescope.
Thanks for the excellent video. I really did find it enjoyable and informative. Based on the current, positive progress that the SpaceX Super Heavy/Starship program is making, I can see in my own limited way of it evolving into three or four different variants. There would be the basic Super Heavy/Starship reusable stack for launching satellites and bringing astronauts to the ISS and other space stations in low earth orbit. The next would be the Starship HLS currently in development for NASA’s Artemis program. There’s the Starship interplanetary/deep space version that’s in development to put humans on Mars, but it could also be used for other crewed deep space missions to, say, Venus or the asteroid belt. A fourth version would be a Starship heavy cargo launcher in both reusable and expendable versions that can put large payloads into space, such as a next-generation telescope or something ambitious such as service or retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope. The possibilities would be endless if SpaceX continues to keep the Super Heavy/Starship program as apparently affordable as it is now.
@salland12 The fact that your last visible comment was 'Starship isn't going anywhere' and it literally just landed back on Earth after being in space, is comical. Also, if you want to seem respectable in any way shape or form, don't say 'u' instead of 'you'. Half the time you pretend to be intelligent, the other half you let your window licking childlike self out for everyone to see. Embarassing lmao.
@@salland12After checking out your account, I feel even more second hand embarrassment. Hide your own comment history in the future. It'll save you some shame.
5:24 “…peaks of eternal light…” That’s some of the most valuable real estate off Earth. You’re going to have to build an exceptional reason for using it over all the other space-colonizing, space-unlocking uses.
Question: With the upcoming planned deorbiting of the ISS and subsequent plans for an axiom station soon after, how long are we going to keep using the ISS orbital path? Is there anything special about that orbit?
Bray Falls from Star Front Remote Observatory should be thinking of Star Front 2 on the Moon. But I think the monthly pier rates would be slightly higher than they are in Texas.
Could you mount a couple dozen Hubbles on the far side of the moon? Maybe spread around the moon. Exactly like the one in orbit but probably bigger solar panels and batteries to last the 14 days of night, but you wouldn't need gyros to steer it, you could have hydraulic pistons to change it's position. Put them reasonably close to the base so that astronauts can go and perform maintenance and upgrade instruments as needed. The mirrors could be made on the moon as could much of the body of the telescope (which you would sill need to stop dust from coating the mirrors) from native materials with just the science instruments needing to be shipped from earth. Hell, you could start with Hubble sized telescopes and then as they learn how to make them better, make bigger and bigger ones until you have mirrors larger than the ELT. Making the bulk of them out of local materials negates the issue of delivering everything from Earth, and the lower gravity means you can make bigger structures with less material. PS: I like how refering to the far side as the dark side in radio caught Dr. Martin's interest.
Sounds great, I am a bit more sceptical about starship though. To get to the heavy lifting it needs to do a lot of refueling. Starship will need a far degree of fast reusability to have that making economic sense. Falcon 9 did not lower the cost of launch really that much. Don't get me wrong, even if starship achieves less than promised, it may still be a huge win. But we're still years from being certain the refurbishment needed after every launch will have low costs. The almost complete destruction of the flap was a great lightshow, but work needs to be done.
at around 9:00 , he says people couldn't service james webb because of the radiation out there is too strong? really? further away from the sun is bad? what about the astronauts who circled the moon, and what about people going to mars?
JW is the same distance from the earth as the earth is from the sun. or 2 au, or a few million football fields. The earth and also the moon somewhat is protected by the magnetosphere. out there(4-5 times further than the moon) hardly any protection.
Question: is there any way we could know how a distant galaxy 13.8b years ago might have evolved/look like in actual time? My understanding is that the light we are seeing has been travelling for 13.8b years and so we see the object as it was back then. Maybe some of these galaxies have grown so massive that they are pulling younger galaxies towards them but we just can’t see it. If we could accelerate the photons coming towards us, would we be able to see these galaxies change?
I can see a near future (in the next 400 years) where astronomy grad & post grad students attend their studies at stations in the Kuiper Belt, where most of the unhindered observations are able to be made of the greater universe once the inner and outer system are bursting with economic activity. Giant spin stations that can house hundreds of people, and parked close (within 1/10th of an AU) to much larger and more sensitive instruments than JWST or Chandra. Out in the Oort Cloud may be the best place to put HUGE space built tools for Interferometry. Tools that can be built on site by students, instructors and researchers alike.
If lunar surface has advantages over L2, for space-based observatories, should future space-probe telescopes be pushed much farther out, in orbital distance? For example, getting even better parallex measures, when the probe's orbital diameter is asteroidal, or farther out.
Starship is cool but having it go to the moon once is a massively tall order; for every starship going to the moon it would need between 14 and 18 launches. This is based entirely on the need and ability for starship to do orbital refueling.
@@salland12You get upset about Elon Musk. You click on a video with starship on, to cry about Elon Musk. You go scrolling on the comments to let show everyone how upset you are. Pathetic.
I'm convinced it's easier to conduct astronomy in the place we have been . Not in outer space, but low earth orbit. Protection from harmful radiation by the magnetosphere and much much lower costs to service the telescope if it gets built with the wrong mirror or has other issues.
Interferometry thought experiment: Imagine a cube inside the moon where the corners deliniate eight points on the surface. Each plane of the cube has four points (front, back, left, right, up and down) where obsevatories could be placed to work together. Take the cube and rotate it 45 degrees and rotate it again on an perpendicular axis so that each point is in the middle of the original points. Now you have the poles, nearest and farthest point from earth, and finaly the leftmost and rightmost points on the moon. Build a VLA of Arecibo class dishes on the far side, Build a ELT array on the poles similar to the VLT at Atacama Build a earth observatory the closest point and build a radar facility on the left and right sides for near earth asteroid detection and tracking.
We should put a smaller radio telescope on the moon first. We will need a satellite designed to communicate w/ these things. Maybe they can use light based communication instead of radio?
I would imagine there would be moon launch sites on the dark side of the moon so it would be difficult to keep it clear for these type of Observatorys unfortunately.
I mean why not use all this new rocket testing and sending supplies to build telescopes and different tools to build a moon base to understand our universe more. I love it
I think it’s because NASA feel they have to justify all the money on the pointy head stuff by headlining something everyone can understand with no effort: people walking about. Plus the politicians see the mileage in the moonwalk.
I believe that we can protect people from radiation by putting them in bunkers. Work outside could done with teleprecense controlled drones. By physically being close to the drone we solve the problem with light lag delaying the control of the drones. Only occasionally would people in spacesuits have to do things manually. We could also make use of elderly pioneers out there. Cancer take time to develop after all. So if a 70 year old astronaut get exposed to radiation it may not really matter that much. One last adventure to enjoy.
Likewise, the first to go to Mars should be elderly --- with the deliberate plan to be buried on Mars. We all die -- but to die helping create a new civilization on a new planet... I'd pick a crude Martian shelter over a pampered Earth side hospital bed any day of the week. Many of us in our 70's & older could handle a one way trip to either the moon or Mars.
Instead of thinking we would need a 200km diameter antenna, how about making a 200km or more virtual antenna as us currently being used in different applications?
It will always cost much more to construct anything on the surface of the Moon than in Space. The delta-V to deliver something to the lunar surface is higher than that to place something in a halo orbit around either the Earth-Moon L2 point or the Sun-Earth L2 point. In space you can set up an enormous constellation of instruments thousands of km across as a phased array. Proposals to build observatories ON the Moon are examples of Planet-centric thinking.
... assuming that the Moon hasn't got an industrial base of its own. Lunar industry means that space gets a lot cheaper. Escape velocity, which is related to the delta-v you are talking about, is lower from the Lunar surface.
A friend actually messaged me to watch this one. "Dude, Cain made a video about that thing you never shut up about." I love the future in lunar-based astronomy. I cannot lie.
Those other brothers can't deny.
34:18 "That's no moon. Its a gravitational wave detector!" -- Obi Wan (probably)
No, that's yo mamma!!
-- Palpatine
I never regret watching your interviews Fraser, you chose wise guest, and ask wise questions! Thanks for all your hard work!
His past time is a clown for kid's birthday party.
Fraser, this was a really good interview. Cheers.
martin feels like one of us. so excited and interested in everything. great interview. glad you mentioned it in space bites or i would have missed it.
Superbly enjoyable interview, and I'm entirely onboard with the "tube-in-a-tube" concept, and the lunar telescope concepts. IFT-5 really felt like the step up that we have been waiting for.
Oh yeah, and there's a lot more to come too.
Very interesting interview, by the way. I was hesitant about starting a 1+ hr video but I ended up watching it stem-to-stern. This was, in part, due to the excitement and keen interest shown by both or the participants. Well done, Martin and Fraser!
Incredible insight on our prosperous moon. I hope he comes back for follow up interviews.
Man I love when scientists talk about starship, I've imagined all the possibilities with starship, even I've imagined it as starter of interstellar civilization, but when scientists talk about it I realize that things are getting serious and we will see practical things very soon and maybe our dreams will come to reality very soon
I've watched this like 4 times now. It's really great. So inspiring.
Absolutely we should use the Moon as a base for telescopes of all varieties. The Moon is simply another resource available to the science community, and we should utilize that resource along with space and Earth based observatory platforms. Bravo, Frasier, and thanks to Dr Elvis ! These are some exciting ideas and proposals and I hope they're acted on sooner rather than later.
There must be a reason we have not been back yet! We landed with less computational power of the phone you undoubtedly are using to watch this.
Yes, I know we had some very smart women perform and check many important computations. Just saying with today’s power we should have been back at the very least to set up remote 3D printing factory. Not sure why now one has done that yet.
@@devingoss2863 The problem isn't about computational power. We've been adequate on that front since 1969. The problems are the will to pursue more space missions and back those missions up with increased funding. We live in a very incurious society.
Dr Elvis sounds spot on like dr john hammond in the original jurassic park. I was waiting to hear about the great parks dinosaurs.
In all seriousness - great content & interviews as always!
I really enjoyed this interview! The section about Gravitational Wave Astronomy on the Moon was fascinating. I have never heard of some of those ideas. However, my favorite part was at the half-hour mark when Dr. Elvis was so excited to hear about the other Kilonova candidates. Fraser continued his side-job of informing busy scientists about related news they missed while immersed in their work. Great job, Fraser!
Dr. Elvis is so charming. Thanks for the interview.
The propellant mass and system complexity of landing system still seems very challenging.
I wonder if Starship makes it attainable or we have to wait for thermal nuclear thermal propulsion to be matured.
This is AMAZING!!! I've been thinking about these exact questions. Thank you for the follow up questions pressing about what astrophysics and astronomy folks are thinking about what Starship has meant and will mean in the near future.
Haha I like the "clickbaity" thumbnail with Starship.
Radio astronomy is fascinating so it would be awesome to put a telescope on the far side of the moon and avoid all the "pollution" from Earth. I hadn't considered how useful it could be for gravitational waves too, that's really interesting! And even the possibility of using just seismometers instead of lasers. Man, the ideas people come up with are just unbelievable.
Click bait? How else are we going to get a gigantic reflector to the moon's surface?
Less than 4 minutes in and the guest is talking about needing to get many tons to the moon. No other launch system under development has that kind of capabilities. So it’s either Starship or they are talking about some far future concepts.
@@ReinReads Oh and later in the video they talk a lot more about the possibilities Starship will unlock in the future. I was just poking a bit of fun because come on, that thumbnail is still click-baity for this subject (I totally respect click bait for good causes lol)
Great interview. Really great! 🎉
Love this ch Fraser I never miss anything you put out there it’s so interesting. Thanks for sharing.
One of your best interviews, Fraser! II'm going to make a donation right now.
Its got to be called 'pink floyd base'
or brain damage
Gilmour Point, watch Waters have an actual stroke.
Dr. Elvis rocks!
Im so glad you made a video about this thank you
I just discovered this channel and I have to tell, Fraser has a great mind, you can see him freeze here and there tryin to process all the informations coming to him, replying with great other questions on that topic. Awesome interviews!
Yeah I like the computational freeze Fraser does. So many people mess that up by looking like they are going to resort to disputing with the interlocutor as an excuse for not being able to process quickly. The trick, as ever, is to think quickly but deeply.
Don’t underestimate the problems that moon dust will give. It’s as fine grained as powder and it’s electrostatic. Equipment with moving part and even suites will wear much faster than on earth and you can’t avoid it coming indoors.
I think that research has been done to counteract the electrostatic dust. Keep in mind also that the Moon is almost airless. Very little dust can come up from the surface to the equipment. (Moonquakes can kick up some, and so can vibrations on the equipment itself).
This isn't Mars.
The fact there are permanent shadows means dust won't pick up electro static charge from solar rays, as mentioned in the interview. I don't think it will be the problem you seem to be suggesting
Starship is going to kick up the biggest dust storm imaginable landing and taking off. Don't think the mirror on a telescope on the moon are going to like that
If the dust is electrostatic maybe we could give it something else to stick to? Some form of de-dusting device inside (or outside of) the airlock.
@@allangraham970And that is why the spaceport will not be right next to the telescope. Not if this is planned well.
The lack of air will not allow the dust to hang in the air as dust can do in an atmosphere. The dust will quickly fall down again.
I want to know more about "sneaking a telescope onto the next starship test" !!!
The way they develop Starship they may very well want to do a "lets test ejecting a satellite" test. If they do they could deploy a real satellite but there will be no guarantees it will work so better slam together something cheap.
34:45 A Douglas Adams reference! My man!
Great episode. Love a bit of Blue Sky thinking.
Amazing video, thank you so much 😊
Alright, am I the only one who wants Fraser to ask Dr Elvis about that last name?
WOW! It's true! ELVIS LIVES !!!
Really good stuff!
Very interesting interview.
@frasercain Amazing as always.. Thank you so much..
I'm so looking forward to see what Starship can deploy over the next years. Astronomers will be like kids on christmas.
Starship can’t do anything other large rockets can’t do. The booster might become a useful tool with a different second stage.
@@angrydoggy9170You're showing your level 1 knowledge on Starship. Don't comment on things you clearly don't understand.
@@tankourito5419 Really now. Go ahead buddy, do provide the actual numbers for payload weight, size and the different orbits it can achieve. Not the numbers Musk keeps making up but actual capabilities.
@@angrydoggy9170 refuel in orbit and then...
What would other rockets be able to deliver to the moon, even if we include a refueling or re-stacking in orbit?
They only have a small capsule with a small trunk in orbit or unmanned: A small module with a few tons.
@@richard--s Ok. So what’s that heavy bulky stuff we want to send to the moon? Any ideas on how that could become commercially viable?
Also, the number flaunted by SpaceX are similar to what Saturn V could send up, but that rocket could have its upper stage switched out for a space station. Starship seems to be designed with starlink in mind and little else. How is Starship supposed to bring huge objects into orbit with that small slit as a payload deployment tool? The current design is pretty useless for anything but small satellites and altering the design would negate the reusability concept. The booster looks like a valuable concept, Starship not so much.
This was a very inspiring conversation, much enjoyed.
What about a telascope made of starlink type satellites but small each their own antenna
Combining that to a enormous receiver no surface rougnes to deal whot no landing needed
And the problem we do have (position of the satalites changing ) can be a solved whit computing power
But around the moon
Charging on the solar ligt side and observing on the dar radio site transmiting thier recorded data ONLY on the side facing the earth to not interfere whot the observation
I like this guy
So exciting! 🤩
Outstanding incredible material that would normally have been way over my head was thoroughly understood between these two individuals it is awesome
Superb. Happy to know I'm not the only obsessed Starship watcher. It gives me great comfort that an experienced and credible scientist will also be in a strait-jacket in the adjoining asylum cell.
Yes, this sounds like a really good idea!
They should really put telescopes and gravitational wave detectors on the moon!
Thanks!
Love this channel !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geopolitics might wreck it, but way to go . . . Elvis on the Moon . . . 😎
I like this guy and one letter more and he’d be Martian Elvis
Love hearimg the factors of consideration elucidated.
not mentioned, there are meteors that constantly mar the surface of the moon of all sizes. Without an atmosphere to burn it up before it hits the surface, a baseball-sized meteor striking the telescope/facility could do alot of damage to it and/or any facilities that maintain it.
The odds of that happening are vanishingly remote.
@@MarinCipollina doing a cursory search on the internet led me to this: "Meteoroids, which are smaller than one meter in diameter, hit the moon's surface every day, similar to how they hit Earth. On average, about 100 meteoroids the size of pingpong balls hit the moon each day, which adds up to around 33,000 meteoroids per year. These impacts can be forceful, with each rock hitting the surface with the force of 7 pounds of dynamite." Dunno about you, but I'd say 33k meteoroids a year could increase the odds of them hitting any installations we build on the moon a LITTLE higher that your perceived 'vanishingly remote'.
The moon is about 15 million square miles. Divide that by 33,000 meteors and you get one for every 455 sq miles per year. If your telescope takes up an acre that’s roughly one 300,000th of the 455 sq miles. So, yeah, it’s EXTREMELY unlikely to be hit by a goofball sized object.
@@trevinom69 The lunar surface includes 37.9 million square kilometers. 100 ping pong ball sized impacts a day on that much surface area makes any single location an improbable target. The installation would need to be exceedingly unlucky.
@@AdrianBoyko 1 impact for every 1178 square kilometers sounds like very good odds, even if the station occupies an entire hectare.
Great interview.!
Could we do large-scale cold experiments with the PSR craters? It would seem like a great test area.
Moon base alpha and Starship will make it happen! Outrageously large telescopes on the moon are #1
Often they name these things by size: Square Kilometer Array, Very Large Array, Very Large Telescope, Large Binocular Telescope. I think you have come up with the next name. The Outrageously Large Telescope it is!
Let skip sending the moon on an odyssey part for the moonbase though. 😅
Thanks for another interesting interview. Question: About the separate seismic detectors for detecting gravitational waves - you still need measure their deflection in relation to each other, no? Isn't the idea of a gravitational wave that you can't just feel it pass thru you at one point, no matter how sensitive your device?
About Starship and side-bets. I wouldn't be surprised if people were queuing up now to load up Starship in this ironing-out phase. A "success is not guaranteed" discount price might be very attractive.
Absolutely
Considering that launch costs are but a very small fraction of the total price tag for launching these instruments you probably couldn't pay them enough to take that risk.
I'd just like to say that my housemate and myself both thoroughly enjoyed this video. Thanks! The only issue I can think of is the (slightly?) higher risk of impacts due to the Moon's gravity well, as compared to a free-orbiting telescope.
17:30 Our BIG BANG🎉
Two very like-minded men inventing new ideas. Keep it up
Q: could heat tiles on Starship be used on sensitive sections of the launch tower to protect it from immense heat upon takeoff?
Starship is expected to carry 150t to the lunar surface. There's a lot of radio antenna you can fit in 150t
Fair points.
Thanks for the excellent video. I really did find it enjoyable and informative. Based on the current, positive progress that the SpaceX Super Heavy/Starship program is making, I can see in my own limited way of it evolving into three or four different variants. There would be the basic Super Heavy/Starship reusable stack for launching satellites and bringing astronauts to the ISS and other space stations in low earth orbit. The next would be the Starship HLS currently in development for NASA’s Artemis program. There’s the Starship interplanetary/deep space version that’s in development to put humans on Mars, but it could also be used for other crewed deep space missions to, say, Venus or the asteroid belt. A fourth version would be a Starship heavy cargo launcher in both reusable and expendable versions that can put large payloads into space, such as a next-generation telescope or something ambitious such as service or retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope. The possibilities would be endless if SpaceX continues to keep the Super Heavy/Starship program as apparently affordable as it is now.
Your comment is comical to say the least.
@salland12 The fact that your last visible comment was 'Starship isn't going anywhere' and it literally just landed back on Earth after being in space, is comical.
Also, if you want to seem respectable in any way shape or form, don't say 'u' instead of 'you'. Half the time you pretend to be intelligent, the other half you let your window licking childlike self out for everyone to see. Embarassing lmao.
@@salland12After checking out your account, I feel even more second hand embarrassment. Hide your own comment history in the future. It'll save you some shame.
5:24 “…peaks of eternal light…” That’s some of the most valuable real estate off Earth. You’re going to have to build an exceptional reason for using it over all the other space-colonizing, space-unlocking uses.
setting up power generation is exactly the space-unlocking use you want from these places
Build a case? You're thinking too far within the bureaucracy. Get there first. Be number one.
Question: With the upcoming planned deorbiting of the ISS and subsequent plans for an axiom station soon after, how long are we going to keep using the ISS orbital path? Is there anything special about that orbit?
Interesting calligraphy in the background.
Great interview!!?
Bray Falls from Star Front Remote Observatory should be thinking of Star Front 2 on the Moon. But I think the monthly pier rates would be slightly higher than they are in Texas.
Thanks, Fraser .
Recommended UA-cam (following your past request for suggestions): Jason Kendall
Yep. Nothing's gonna stop us now!
🚀🌔
Could you mount a couple dozen Hubbles on the far side of the moon? Maybe spread around the moon. Exactly like the one in orbit but probably bigger solar panels and batteries to last the 14 days of night, but you wouldn't need gyros to steer it, you could have hydraulic pistons to change it's position. Put them reasonably close to the base so that astronauts can go and perform maintenance and upgrade instruments as needed. The mirrors could be made on the moon as could much of the body of the telescope (which you would sill need to stop dust from coating the mirrors) from native materials with just the science instruments needing to be shipped from earth. Hell, you could start with Hubble sized telescopes and then as they learn how to make them better, make bigger and bigger ones until you have mirrors larger than the ELT. Making the bulk of them out of local materials negates the issue of delivering everything from Earth, and the lower gravity means you can make bigger structures with less material.
PS: I like how refering to the far side as the dark side in radio caught Dr. Martin's interest.
Only a matter of time before there is a Starlink constilation around the moon
Sounds great, I am a bit more sceptical about starship though. To get to the heavy lifting it needs to do a lot of refueling. Starship will need a far degree of fast reusability to have that making economic sense. Falcon 9 did not lower the cost of launch really that much. Don't get me wrong, even if starship achieves less than promised, it may still be a huge win. But we're still years from being certain the refurbishment needed after every launch will have low costs. The almost complete destruction of the flap was a great lightshow, but work needs to be done.
How about the issues of moon dust and the landing of a huge precise telescope.
This was good
at around 9:00 , he says people couldn't service james webb because of the radiation out there is too strong? really? further away from the sun is bad? what about the astronauts who circled the moon, and what about people going to mars?
JW is the same distance from the earth as the earth is from the sun. or 2 au, or a few million football fields. The earth and also the moon somewhat is protected by the magnetosphere. out there(4-5 times further than the moon) hardly any protection.
Question: is there any way we could know how a distant galaxy 13.8b years ago might have evolved/look like in actual time?
My understanding is that the light we are seeing has been travelling for 13.8b years and so we see the object as it was back then.
Maybe some of these galaxies have grown so massive that they are pulling younger galaxies towards them but we just can’t see it.
If we could accelerate the photons coming towards us, would we be able to see these galaxies change?
I can see a near future (in the next 400 years) where astronomy grad & post grad students attend their studies at stations in the Kuiper Belt, where most of the unhindered observations are able to be made of the greater universe once the inner and outer system are bursting with economic activity. Giant spin stations that can house hundreds of people, and parked close (within 1/10th of an AU) to much larger and more sensitive instruments than JWST or Chandra.
Out in the Oort Cloud may be the best place to put HUGE space built tools for Interferometry. Tools that can be built on site by students, instructors and researchers alike.
What, if there is any pattern, usually is “caught” in our LeGrange points?
If lunar surface has advantages over L2, for space-based observatories, should future space-probe telescopes be pushed much farther out, in orbital distance? For example, getting even better parallex measures, when the probe's orbital diameter is asteroidal, or farther out.
Starship is cool but having it go to the moon once is a massively tall order; for every starship going to the moon it would need between 14 and 18 launches. This is based entirely on the need and ability for starship to do orbital refueling.
Don't forget that Musk is promising to turn these things out at the rate of one every day. If that's true, this is a major paradigm shift.
Musk and his promises.. how is that working out the past years....
@@salland12You get upset about Elon Musk. You click on a video with starship on, to cry about Elon Musk. You go scrolling on the comments to let show everyone how upset you are. Pathetic.
I'm convinced it's easier to conduct astronomy in the place we have been . Not in outer space, but low earth orbit. Protection from harmful radiation by the magnetosphere and much much lower costs to service the telescope if it gets built with the wrong mirror or has other issues.
Power. You need continuous power, especially when it’s dark when the viewing is best.
Build more Pylons!
Batteries & cables
Interferometry thought experiment:
Imagine a cube inside the moon where the corners deliniate eight points on the surface. Each plane of the cube has four points (front, back, left, right, up and down) where obsevatories could be placed to work together. Take the cube and rotate it 45 degrees and rotate it again on an perpendicular axis so that each point is in the middle of the original points. Now you have the poles, nearest and farthest point from earth, and finaly the leftmost and rightmost points on the moon.
Build a VLA of Arecibo class dishes on the far side, Build a ELT array on the poles similar to the VLT at Atacama Build a earth observatory the closest point and build a radar facility on the left and right sides for near earth asteroid detection and tracking.
It's fascinating how the politics and proposal landscape drives the pace of these proposals.
This man is fascinating to listen to, by the way. Thank you for that interview.
Did you say Bog of Eternal Stench?
Someone put a candle in there, it smells quite nice now.
Sandlewood.
I wonder if a large space-based (not lunar) radio telescope could use solar sails to achieve slow rotational control authority.
What is written in Chinese on that white poster ?
Higher orbit for Star-ship: Build a second stage out of the thrusting parts of an old Star-ship. Space-X does think that bigger is better, right?
I am curios. Where do like minds shop?
I want to look like yall
We should put a smaller radio telescope on the moon first. We will need a satellite designed to communicate w/ these things. Maybe they can use light based communication instead of radio?
What is the heaviest part of building moon-astronomy?
A tube in a tube sounds good but couldn't we just put the mirror straight into startschip itself if we go non reusable?
I would imagine there would be moon launch sites on the dark side of the moon so it would be difficult to keep it clear for these type of Observatorys unfortunately.
Regards lunar dust: Could the more mountainous far side have less dust, or a differently behaving dust?
My deepest apologies I’m always watching your channel and I haven’t subscribed. I just became a subscriber.😂
Hah, welcome aboard
8 views in 17 hours. Can’t be right 😮
At least I’m the first to comment 😀 hey Fraser!
It's only been released to the Patrons.
@@frasercain figured it was something like this 👍🏻
@@Robbadobbsoldier Actually he was kiddnaped and time traveled back 2 days : P
@@Leafbinderis this true?
Great discussion. You convinced me, too. Thanks!
I mean why not use all this new rocket testing and sending supplies to build telescopes and different tools to build a moon base to understand our universe more. I love it
I think it’s because NASA feel they have to justify all the money on the pointy head stuff by headlining something everyone can understand with no effort: people walking about. Plus the politicians see the mileage in the moonwalk.
Harpoon takes core from impact and sends it back in projectile
I believe that we can protect people from radiation by putting them in bunkers. Work outside could done with teleprecense controlled drones. By physically being close to the drone we solve the problem with light lag delaying the control of the drones. Only occasionally would people in spacesuits have to do things manually.
We could also make use of elderly pioneers out there. Cancer take time to develop after all. So if a 70 year old astronaut get exposed to radiation it may not really matter that much. One last adventure to enjoy.
Likewise, the first to go to Mars should be elderly --- with the deliberate plan to be buried on Mars. We all die -- but to die helping create a new civilization on a new planet... I'd pick a crude Martian shelter over a pampered Earth side hospital bed any day of the week. Many of us in our 70's & older could handle a one way trip to either the moon or Mars.
Instead of thinking we would need a 200km diameter antenna, how about making a 200km or more virtual antenna as us currently being used in different applications?
I haven't got an hour to spare. Could we have a summary please!
Does Dr Elvis play the guitar? (re. left thumbnail)
It will always cost much more to construct anything on the surface of the Moon than in Space. The delta-V to deliver something to the lunar surface is higher than that to place something in a halo orbit around either the Earth-Moon L2 point or the Sun-Earth L2 point. In space you can set up an enormous constellation of instruments thousands of km across as a phased array.
Proposals to build observatories ON the Moon are examples of Planet-centric thinking.
... assuming that the Moon hasn't got an industrial base of its own.
Lunar industry means that space gets a lot cheaper. Escape velocity, which is related to the delta-v you are talking about, is lower from the Lunar surface.