The truth is more important than the facts. Access to productive information is what we all need to become successful in life. To possibly create wealth good enough to retire, proficiency is indeed necessary; causing most affluent entrepreneurs to acquire the synergy of wealth managers that offers high-net-worth operations that encompasses all parts of a person’s financial life. Get yourself an aid
Our perceptions of your approach influence how we interpret, understand, and act on the truth. It’s so true that rich individuals seek the knowledge and skills of professionals and claim to achieve their success without any prior help
@Elizabeth Green To achieve your goals, proficiency makes your plans a reality. I engage in compound interest and leveraging and as well operate exclusive packages with a body of a wealth management firm and so far I’ve attained good ROI (amount is confidential)
As to get more details on the wealth manager, easily do quick internet research; (Genevieve Glen Rogers) where I believe you can easily approach her from, do your research with her full names mentioned.
This is a shocker seeing Genevieve Glen Rogers being mentioned here. I always had mixed feelings about hiring a lnvestment advisor. For the record, I started working with Genevieve in 2018, and she manages about 70% of my lnvestments, while I manage the other 30%. My philosophy is that I care more about my own money than anyone else, but she made me accept that they have wealth of information on current conditions and future trends
@@Tounguepunchfartbox Except they aren't... There are a few other space companies, that you haven't heard about because they aren't owned by billionaires, that are substantially ahead of Bezos' and Brandson's companies. Currently SpaceX is the "Usain Bolt" of space companies, if you will, beating all the competition by tremendous margins. Bezo's and Brandson's companies are maybe around 5th to 7th place in the "race", probably lower.
then you dont understand secret space program military industrial complexand why nasa was always a straight answer space x and more is just to privatize moon and space for elite
Yes but Mars is a pr stunt. I think Elon knows the Moon has to be the first to be colonized. 1 second communication delay, has useful resources, good testbed, lots of science to be done (including huge telescopes), lots of people interested - way more would pay for a vacation on the moon over moving permanently to Mars. At least not until there is infrastructure on Mars. Early stage of colonization will be hardcore.. far worse than working on south pole.
@@harvirdhindsa3244 I would call it the most expensive and useless fireworks ever. The only use they have is to fool retarded people to believe we can go to the moon.
@@汤圆-y7f Billionaires don't worry much of Food. Bezos, Gates, Musk all love Rockets so expect to see Rockets. I didn't invent it, but I shall enjoy watching the new Space Race. Neural Link is interesting too. I give to Charity and help the Poor. I also enjoy watching New Technology and the benefits it provides. Neural Link may enable paralyzed people to function. Space Exploration may have many, yet unknown benefits such as the devices we are using now which had much of their Origins in 1980s Space Program Technology Development such as Telecommunication Satellites and Computing
......... You are indeed correct -- AND Chelsea Delaney has a voice so clear, so soothing to listen to -- a delight to ones ears ......... and DW presents a truly very informative content !!!
Correction, it is a playground for Bezos and Branson, both made a point to have a seat on their first joy ride. Edit: yippee ki-yay Kármán line touch and back. Musk is about hard business. Not that tourism isn't a business, but SpaceX actually has a business of actual orbital launching, and Musk didn't get to behave as an adrenalin junkie. SpaceX's first all-private orbital mission, Inspiration4, was actually about science and St. Jude's cancer hospital charity. A far cry from joy rides.
We need to develop technologies that enable us to see usable elements on other worlds and in space that we can mine. Profit is the biggest motivator for action on this planet.
@@samsonsoturian6013 It doesn't. Branson has no goal apart from space tourism (and maybe making money, eventually). Bezos want's to build factories in Earth orbit while Musk wants to settle Mars. Three very different objectives.
Video starts out referencing Falcon 9's reusable booster capability, while showing video of Starship prototype tests. Ugh. Typical of DW. I couldn't watch the rest.
The huge advantage of SpaceX´s Starlink is, that the satellites can reenter earth atmosphere without any remaining debris. The problem with debris is that it could increase exponentially, as every part hitting a satellite can split in more parts, the parts will become smaller and smaller but nonetheless, even a 1 cm particle can cause some serious damage to a satellite.
I get what you are saying but most (not all) satellites burn up when they reenter the atmosphere, heck most things do unless they are made not too or are really big. Most modern satellites are even designed to deorbit themselves when they get too old, run out of propellant, are damaged, or reach the end of their life. I do applaud SpaceX's goal of trying to keep LEO clear of debris from their satellites. Their design and plans are obviously doing well at that so far. Which is a good thing, because there is going to be like 30,000 of them up there.
I could be totally wrong. But all LEO satellites get the re-enter burn-up feature for free? They so so close to Earth that they get atmosphere drag. They carry some fuels to occasionally pop them up. When the fuel is used up, they will just fall and burn up. If they go farther out to avoid the drag, that are in MEO or GEO.
dont worry, communication and internet exist because of Server, W-iSP tower, base transceivers tower, WACS, and Fiber optic cable connected around the continent
@@uswwt Yes you are right. Many problems with that "free feature", though. If you are nearest to Earth, lowest orbit, de-orbit is simple. Just save enough propulsion for manoeuvring falling over open ocean. Orbits are about altitude and vectors, like 3-D car lanes if you will, the higher the faster, but also direction and profile, how perfectly round orbit or elipsoidal it is. De-orbit means spend fuel to decelerate and to do it in the right direction and angle. You have to invest on that feature to do it safe and precise. Old space race artifacts are still up there and we have no way to predict where and when they will fall 😕 Edit: The higher you go, less drag, sure, GEO has no discernible drag, but no orbit is perfectly stable. There are gravitational perturbations that, cumulatively, will significantly change the orbit, you have to have propulsion to account for it and correct the orbit whenever needed. The perturbations, drag included, will make the orbit more and more an elipse. One of the dangers is that changing lanes that come with apogee and perigee, highest and lowest altitude, lowest and highest speeds. Without attitude control (the control of vector of movement), even the lowest orbit can be a mess.
SpaceX is very different than BO and Virgin. They actually sent humans to real space, send cargo to outer space and a working high-power rocket engine. The other 2 are mainly for tourists and tiny cargo to very low orbit.
I bet the first people to see steel-hulled ships vs. wooden masted ships of the line, or automobiles vs. horse-drawn carriages for that matter would have said the same, with similar pride..
Very well put together. You touched on many different topics that all feed into answering the questions with how this is different from the first space race. The nation(s) that lead in this area will be the leading superpower(s) for the next century to come, in a big way. This was a great top level discussion that has many areas that can be expanded on. Please keep up the good work!
This is a dream…Modern civilisation will be well and truly over by “the next century” because of energy descent, ecological devastation, pollution of seas , oceans and rivers, water shortages, loss of arable soils, climate change and the increasing likelihood of nuclear war. The Fermi Paradox will apply to us.
I don't know about bureaucracy, but Ariane is a very good launch system, and ESA doesn't have the same volume of military payloads funding them like US or China
@@MrTaxiRob SpaceX is mopping the floor with everyone because they have partially reusable rockets. And they are working feverishly on the largest rocket ever built - which will be 100% reusable. Ariane is not reusable at all. Of course Europe will keep the program alive because we want to have our own access to space. But Ariane really can't compete at this point. The only reason anyone will buy in at all is because SpaceX keeps its prices high to fund further development. If they wanted to they could lower launch prices considerably and drive everyone else out of the market.
@@harmless6813 reusability is a red herring that you've all fallen victim to. And no, they CAN'T lower launch prices any further, I don't know where you get that nonsense from.
12:10 that's the reason why space telescopes are way more important than ground based telescope in the midterm future. Additionaly space telescopes are better than groundbased telescopes because they don't need to look through the atmosphere
@DW You're going to have to have follow-ups on these topics. Please cover all aspects of these topics. Cleaning up Space Debris, old satellites, how far/close builds can be developed, international space laws, acceptable social behaviors, design, Living quality, safety requirements, speed limits, minimum/max life of builds.
while this report is full of good information, I think a big driver in space exploration and development has been driven by military interests of governments. I wish the report could have put that into the perspective of past space efforts and for the future.
Yes, for the benefit of all mankind is a great ideal. At the same time, SpaceX, for example, is not just trying to make money but to provide high speed internet access to everyone around the world, which is a benefit for all mankind. Individual countries or international bodies were never going to achieve this, because first they would have to achieve reusable rockets and so on. Sure, we can ask what happens when other nations or companies become capable of doing what SpaceX can do now, is it fair for SpaceX to get the LEO space instead of them just because they are first. The alternative is that everyone who has poor or no access to the internet has to wait for these others though, I think SpaceX should get the LEO orbit because they are both first and using it in a way that benefits humanity.
it's a Land grab in space.. given money and technology is not an issue.. what is the best orbit to occupy? there only so many orbit that is available for maximum value. It's first come first served.. the understanding of space is for all mankind be damned... kessler syndrome ? till it happen I'll earn my millions first..
That's just your opinion, man. LOL. Now that China has a great firewall for their "internet". Do you think China will allow StarLink to operate there? GPS is also widely used globally. Why do you think other countries still sending their own GPS satellites up there? Many countries will want their own solution for independence. So others will for sure send their own satellites to crowd up LEO. Pretty soon satellites probably will have to be armed with collision avoidance systems. LOL.
The US, and it's not even close the only conversation is between the various US companies(in which case Space X and ULA... Rocketlab might be catching up soon too.. they're a US/NZ company so they're at least 1 partially international player in competition with the all American giants)
I want to correct some misleading statements in this video. 1) nobody serious has advocated “escaping” earth or leaving it behind. People have advocated EXPANDING humanity beyond earth. Big difference. 2) the pie chart showing the number of active satellites gives a misleading picture of the threat of collisions and impacts. Based on just that graph, one would conclude the US is most responsible for creating space congestion and collision danger. In fact, the greatest threat comes from two sources. The first is the THOUSANDS of dead satellites and spent rocket bodies still floating up there that were launched by the Soviet Union. Look up the statistics on rocket launches in the decades of the 60s-80s. The Soviet Union dwarfs all other countries. All that metal they launched is still up there, inactive and tumbling uncontrolled. The second danger comes from the two giant clouds of debris created by anti-satellite tests conducted by China (2007) and Russia (2021). The US & India have also conducted such tests in the past but they were conducted at much lower altitude and the debris generated has entirely (in the US case) or mostly (in India’s case) reentered the atmosphere and burned up. The debris from the Chinese test is STILL up there and the international space station has to perform collision avoidance maneuver due to that debris on a regular basis. In short, all these new megaconstellations are not the real problem. The real problem is... surprise surprise China and Soviet Union/Russia. What a shocker.
@@AB-fi5jt Do you know how to read? My entire point is that the US does NOT “have the most junk” in orbit. Active satellites that can perform collision avoidance maneuvers and a proper deorbit at the end of its life are not junk, by definition. Are fully functioning cars driving on the highway junk? No. Are fully functioning ships sailing on the oceans junk? No. Dead satellites that can’t be controlled or deorbited are junk. Abandoned rocket stages uselessly circling above for decades are junk. Russia/Soviet Union are responsible for the majority of them. Clouds of shrapnel from satellites destroyed by anti-sat weapons are also junk. China and Russia are responsible for the majority of the shrapnel that’s still up there today. These are facts. Facts matter. Objects can be divided into 1) useful, functioning objects 2) broken/damaged/non-functioning objects. We call this second category “junk”. This is how words work. Words matter.
We need to put together an X prize to inspire people to develop a space debris cleanup scheme. As usual, we are waiting until too late to try to solve a serious problem. We need to get on it now! It's only gonna get worse.
@@seandepagnier no it's not. We have plenty of satellites including a space station orbiting just fine, only needing to make occasional adjustments to avoid collision. We can still launch vehicles out of orbit and off to other places. It's not too late.
@@theobserver9131 it is too late, because once there are a few collisions there will be a chain reaction. After, this space cannot be used for hundreds to thousands of years. There are already far too many satellites.
I feel like the privatization of space shows pretty clearly that the government is disgustingly wasteful, and that capitalism does (indirectly) generate wealth. Where there's incentive, there's innovation, innovation leads to demand, and distribution of the lion's share of the wealth generated in the production of that innovation is spread throughout the system.
02:58 Yes, we should move all heavy polluting industry to space where nothing bad will happen. Where chemicals will hang out for a thousand years reacting with everything that comes in contact with them (like rockets, space stations, satellites, space suits, ozone layer, ...) and also eject bigger pollutants that will maintain a ferocious velocity forever (unless it comes back down to earth) making space a toxic sandblaster. What could possibly go wrong?
If you try to be a serious youtube channel then get your sound right. The s is so terrible it broke my glass in front of the computer and there are changes in sound constantly. Don't you know that audio is the most important part of video? :)
Why would aliens have waited all this time, till now, when we're on the verge of living on another planet, to 'sweep us away'? They had plenty of time in history to 'sweep'. I think they're just curious and observing...kinda like Star Trek and its Prime Directive. Observe but don't interfere, even if there's a threat to the planet.
did you mean, building more 5 gen w-isp tower? High NA faster fiber optic hardware? getting new computer servers that have faster computing and rendering capabilities? more terabytes hard drives? faster wi-fi hardware? i should have known that earlier pffft 🤭
Two points: 1) Optical interference from LEO is a problem in the morning and evening. There are some research areas where you might need those hours for observations, but at least mention this fact. 2) There seems to be a distinctly naive flavor to this discussion. Governments are poor resource allocators and might never be able to generate more goods and services than they consume in the pursuit of the benefits from these newer space applications. Some businesses are very good at resource allocation but will only pursue these activities if they have the possibility of a return on investment that matches the risks.
9:25 eactly what happen with that subject? i ask that because of starlink. but what happen if Europe tomorow want make another starlink web? or China or Rusia we end up with milions of satelite make the same thing. i think this most be treated like internation water or even an update laws. for example mining a close asteroid to my actual mining asteroid. and this mus be signed by China and Rusia. Dont sign dont mean you can arrive there and get it. I say that because LUNA. China dont sigh the international agrement where all outerspace cant be claime as teritorial of one country. So if China put a man tomorow on the moon can say this land of part of it is our. But USA arrived first and put a flag there, but they agree the territory is unclaimable but China dont singup. In teory moon is territory of USA if dont sign the internationa agrement.
That's all good and all, but what makes you even think that Xi and The CCP will actually follow any of the rules/laws regarding Space that all other Countries will agree upon?
It is inevitable that earth based telescopes will loose effectivity with time. It is happening sooner then was expected, but it is inevitable. It is also inevitable that the moon will some day not look as it always has. At some point, fairly soon, it will have an atmosphere of dust that will make it eventually look like a grey blur. This is a good time to talk about it. It is a good time to maybe delay the inevitable. But delay is all we can do.
There is still a race? We have not even been back to the moon in 50 years. More people on earth were not bore during the last moon landing than are alive to remember it.
The first race was little more than to show off whose ICBM could travel the furthest. A complete waste of taxpayers money. This second race is about commercialization and actual space colonization. Paid for by those billionaires.
Uuummm . . . Define "Space" *first* before deciding on who owns/controls it ?!! . . . it's IN FACT a virtually INFINITE resource from LEO to edge of Universe !!
There are 2,000 satellites in orbit for SpaceX. The plan is for a many as 40,000 eventually. An enemy would need an extraordinary number of rockets that can reach Low Earth Orbit to target all of those satellites spread out all over Low Earth Orbit, and the cost for the enemy of doing that would far exceed any possible benefits.
@@tribalypredisposed he wasn’t talking about targeting each one with a rocket per say, it’s a question of vulnerability of satellite ecosystem to sabotage, debris dispersion system could be a cascading problem. Rockets that eject bb’s maybe.
@@boxcutter0 but any nation with the technology to attack satellites will also have their own satellites in the same orbits, right? So I don't see bb attacks working, and really blowing up the SpaceX satellites would have a similar effect of spreading dangerous debris all over.
@@tribalypredisposed It would be reckless & a shame to have it done, but in times of war some countries might believe satellite communications give countries like the US, or China, or Russia advantages & dependencies that they aren’t as vulnerable to. North Korea would suffer less from satellite mayhem, but could lash out in such a way that doesn’t directly kill other people & escalate in traditional sense… just some possibilities to consider.
@@tribalypredisposed plus we likely need to come to the realization that exponential growth in technology & openly accessible research… many threats will be easier for more people/nations to duplicate… nuclear proliferation esp with Ukraine fiasco, rockets, biological/chemical advances & capacity of small scale “basement” labs. Another reason better global cooperation is needed, and rogue mischievous countries can be so problematic…
Does the constitution apply in Space? Would you want to work for the world economic forum in Space? Would you own your DNA or even your labor in their lifeboat?
I think there is a lot to clarify and bring into better focus here: 1. You bring up Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson. Elon Musk has a space company with orbital class, partially reusable rockets and is working on a fully reusable rocket. Jeff Bezos has a sham company with a low performance rocket that just barely makes it straight up to the Karman Line, coasting up to it as its fuel reserves run low and so has to shut off the engine. Its basically an overblown firecracker. Richard Branson has a little rocket plane that gets dropped from a jet that can't even make it to the Karman Line. So it is an even smaller firecracker than what Jeff Bezos has. I mean look at the delta-v budget. SpaceX rockets have so much delta-v capability that it can make orbit and recover whole rocket stages. Please consider getting the delta-v budget to make orbit at all with chemical propulsion is really hard, so having this surplus to recover is quite an achievement. Blue Origin has maybe 1/10th the delta-v capability of SpaceX. Virgin Galactic has about 1/3rd the delta-v budget of Blue Origin on their rocket plane. There is no comparison between these 3. I don't even know why you mention the other 2. 2. This talk of recovering the 1st stage is nothing new. Warnher von Braun, the German father of rocketry and the man who led the American program that landed man on the Moon, talked about this during the Apollo program. Rocket equations dictate that it is inherently easier to recover a 1st stage than it is a second stage. For one a 1st stage does not go up to orbital speed. The sooner the 1st stage cuts off and thus the slower it is going, the less recovery hardware and fuel on it affects the final amount of payload to make it into orbit. For SpaceX they intentionally picked the cutoff to be just above the atmosphere so that it would be easy to separate a second stage stacked on top from the first stage. The universally agreed upon number is every 7 kg of recovery hardware and propellant on the 1st stage reduces the payload to orbit mass by 1 kg due to this effect. At this the 1st stage is still by far the largest and most expensive part of the rocket with the Falcon 9 having 9 engines on its first stage and just 1 engine on the second stage, so that is a really good thing to recover. Another problem is re-entry as heating is a cubic factor with speed. So say the second stage re-enters at 7x the speed of the first stage. That would be 7*7*7 = 343x the heating, granted orbital re-entry vehicles tend to be shaped to create a bow shock that directs most of this super-heated plasma around the re-entry vehicle as well as use an ablative heat shield that creates an additional buffer as the heat shield turns to a gas, thus ablating away. However you want to recover a 1st stage, so much easier. The main problem is the angle of re-entry of a first stage tends to be steep and you hit a 'wall' of air, which is why the Falcon 9 booster re-lights 3 of its engines to slow down as it reaches this denser part of the atmosphere rapidly in order to not hit this 'wall' so hard, which would shatter the rocket stage otherwise from extreme g-loading as it would slam into it at hypersonic speeds. The thing is when you look at the Falcon 9, ~1.4% of the starting mass is used to land a Falcon 9 first stage on an ocean platform doing a ballistic trajectory, no boost back as that takes away even more payload capacity. You may think 1.4% is small, but the total mass to orbit capability is 4%, which is basically unheard of 'high' efficiency for an orbital class rocket, especially one that burns RP-1, which is far from the most energetic fuel out there, but is is a physically dense fuel allowing a lighter rocket to carry it than say the relatively huge and heavy rocket needed to hold the equivalent liquid hydrogen. So yeah, you go from 4% to 2.6% or something like that. With other rockets you were looking at 1.6% to 3% could make LEO and it was thought recovery would take a few % off the top, essentially leading to a sub-orbital rocket as say your calculation comes up to -1% budget, Earth's gravity pulls you back to Earth; you hit the atmosphere and burn up. 3. This talk of second stage recovery is pretty interesting. The Raptor engine and the density of liquid methane and the temperature of it in liquid state would allow a disposable optimized rocket to get around 7% of its starting mass into LEO as payload, maybe 8% with Raptor 2 as these rockets will leap into orbit with Raptor 2, lowering hang time pushing directly against Earth's gravity, which burns precious propellant to do. You have something like 8% margin and use 1.4% of that to recover the 1st stage, that leaves 6.6% left for payload and recovery hardware on the 2nd stage. This way the second stage has to be big though, the combination of economies of scale where the surface area and thus heat shielded mass of the rocket is a square factor while the propellant volume inside is a cubic factor as well as the sheer size of the rocket stage allows a cylinder to create a bow shock far enough away from the surface of the rocket in order to allow much of that extremely hot plasma created during re-entry to go around the rocket instead of into the rocket surface. This along with a high temperature capability stainless steal structure opens the possibility of using non-ablative heat shielding as in instead of vaporizing the heat shield, it soaks up the heat and a heat pulse can go through it and hit the stainless steal structure without melting it. Aluminum would melt with this kind of heat pulse and so is unsuitable for the task. Apparently 9m wide is where these economies meet up to allow this to be possible where with a smaller rocket you would at least have to use an ablative heat shield and likely would not have the mass budget for the heat shielding; you would run out of heat shield and burn up before you could slow down enough or at least have a sub-orbital rocket defeating the point. 4. A clarification needed are these satellite mega-constellations will not and cannot replace fiber-optic communication. Even with thousands of satellites, each one has to cover thousands of km^2 as Earth has 510,072,000 km^2 of surface area. Say one of these satellites is over Tokyo, a city with 37 million people crammed into a space of 2,000 km^2. Now say you have 10,000 satellites. Each will need to cover 50,000 km^2 of surface area, which is much bigger than the area used by Tokyo. Do you really think that satellite over Tokyo is going to handle all of those people? Even if say 5 satellites are in view over Tokyo at any given time, that is still millions of potential users per satellite if you ditched fiber-optics. And how do you free up enough radio spectrum for all of this? The goal of a constellation like Starlink is up to what density of a customer base can you serve? Even with say 10,000 satellites in orbit, the density is just not that high. However there are a tonne of uses for the density Starlink is aiming for. 5. Talking about communication, something I think should have been brought up is the manufacturing of ZBLAN fiber. ZBLAN fiber allows ~10x the transmission distance and a whole lot more optical channels over the same fiber. This can be a real game changer if you can ramp up production in space as we only know how to make this hair thin fiber in 0G. Hair thin fiber is light, so each Starship launch to a manufacturing facility in space also hauled up by Starship could allow for a whole bunch of it to be made. If you have giant and low cost Starship rockets going into LEO, mass production of ZBLAN fiber is a no brainer. I can just see undersea cables shifting from a small handful of fibers that need frequent reboosting of the signal with inline Raman amplifiers powered by the thick, expensive cable to hundreds or even thousands of strands in a cheap to make undersea cable and then just have a couple of undersea amplifier pressure vessel stations powered by ocean currents and/or floating wind turbines to allow high bandwidth communication between continents.
6. Now that we know how to make fold up telescopes like JWST and SpaceX is working on the giant Starship rocket and we know optical telescopes work a whole lot better in space than trying to peer through Earth's turbulent and obstructive atmosphere, we really should get on the ball and start making a new fleet of space base observatories. Something like Starship can allow for orbital servicing, even way out at the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point where the JWST calls home, so we can build these observatories faster with the understanding they will be serviced over time in order to complete their full mission instead of having to do everything and do it perfectly up front or bust. That latter deal with JWST can lead to endless delay and cost overruns where getting closer to how ground based observatories are built and managed can slash costs and allow the observatory to go up much faster. It is just historically to get into space it was so expensive, the one off wonder that took forever and cost and arm and a leg was the only viable model. Howeve, with Starship we can pivot away from that model enough and increase the size and raw capability enough to usher in the next era of discovery and have it happen on the order of a few to several years using the same sort of budget where JWST took decades for just that one instrument to get built and tested on the ground before launch. I mean if we want to say discover life on other planets, while JWST might just be able to pull this off, a new generation of giant observatories would definitely pull this off if it exists. If we find good enough planets to look at, we may even use a platform like Starship to send up the engine tech that will allow us to get out to the Sun's natural focal point and use gravitational lensing to say get an up close and personal view of a planet that shows signs in its atmosphere of having intelligent life on it. This would actually be a many probe mission sent in waves over time out to the focal point to make this image, which is even more reason why a completely reusable rocket is so important in order to make the mission cost effective and the payoff would be huge. I mean could you imagine if massive orbital observatories in say the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point were just good enough to detect the signatures across a wide spectrum at the edge of their capability and then we did this secondary mission to the Sun's focal point and saw another Earth complete with definitive marks of an advanced civilization on it? Granted we may just barely make out the marks in visible light that the naked eye would see on the composed image from these swarms of probes, but that would be quite something to see and the scientific analysis of the data coming back from this would tell us reams of what this planet and civilization is.
Some other thoughts to add are: 1. With the right advanced space engine tech and a big rocket to get it into space, we could catch up to Oumuamua and see what it really is and even have enough power budget left to send back high resolution photos of it. Finally put that debate on whether it is alien tech or not to rest. 2. The right space only engine tech is really important to making colonizing space practical. 3. What Jeff Bezos talks about with space based manufacturing to send back to Earth would only make sense if you built a literal maglev railway to and from space orbital launch ring style. 4. Starship could revolutionize planetary exploration. No longer are you mass constrained to a little probe that can't do very much, but instead have the mass budget to do a lot of really cool stuff.
We are certainly going to have issues with the first come first serve setup. We can't even agree on the Arctic. Example would be China claiming to be a near Arctic power which is just a nice way of saying I have no border with the Arctic, but I do now because I want some resources. I can see conflict breaking out in space especially if countries start finding ways to get resources from other planets.
Yep, this will be just like during the Age of Exploration, when European powers scrambled to get some territories/colonies in the then recently discovered Americas. The first to arrive will naturally have the ability to choose the best locations and claim the largest territory. SpaceX might became the new EIC or VOC.
@@ajaykumarsingh702 Lol. Maybe. Time will tell. The Chinese used to be the leader during the Age of Exploration too, when admiral Zheng He's treasure ship explore the Southern Seas. But we know how, in the end, private corporations (e.g. EIC, VOC, Virginia Company, Hudson Bay company, etc) overtook nation states and became the winners of that period.
@@ihl0700677525 Those companies got the lead because they turned from explorers to colonists. That was not the case with China. But this rise in space technology is serious because China is actually militarizing it.
@@ajaykumarsingh702 What is not the case? As for space, why do you think China is leading? the media may not show it but that is not the only way to get information. Matter of fact, Chinese experts themselves have been pushing for more funding as they say the Americans are pushing the lead. Space X, Virgin, private industry has made massive strides in recent years even NASA is changing course. The Chinese have made huge leaps but they are still far behind the leaders in space. I am curios, what research or article etc did you read to think that? Is it the Chinese space station? Just to give you an idea, the US accounts for 1/3 of all space exploration at the moment. I personally was hoping Europe would get on board but it they will join the yanks.
I wish I could be alive when it’s normal for a human to drive out of their garage and straight into space to visit their friends/family on the moon (or to Mars in minutes.) Basically Star Wars, but just a bunch of chill Mandalorians.
you are so optimistic about the space industry, about the conquest of the moon and so on, and if the additional costs of food, fuel and electricity in the world increase two or three times. how are you going to fly to the moon? today reconnaissance satellites and satellites for remote sensing of the Earth, as well as navigation satellites, will be relevant. and in the near future we can expect military satellites that will carry weapons and will have to destroy enemy satellites.
Who gets to define and enforce policy is the point, isn't it? In many countries we see unbundling policies, when the traditional telecom incumbent is forced to share its infrastructure. Bcs it was the first to deployed the copper wires, it would have an unfair advantage over newcomers. Who will unbundle orbits and asteroids and moon mines, for the benefit of humankind customers?
I think Bezos is seriously interested in advancing space exploration too. He just hasn't had all that much success yet. Maybe Blue Origin will eventually get New Glenn into space. But by then SpaceX is probably flying Starship regularly.
12:05 even the biggest man-made object on orbit, the ISS wouldn't disturb a rational astronomer. Any meaningful image would be made using shutter speeds and apareture, that neglects the tiny sattelites. Imagine also the opposite, as if you wanted to take a photo of the ocean from LEO and suddenly a ship appears on it, ruining the shot. How likely would this be? In my oppinion it is highly improbable to catch a sattelite during your observation, so concerns have no real base.
The truth is more important than the facts. Access to productive information is what we all need to become successful in life. To possibly create wealth good enough to retire, proficiency is indeed necessary; causing most affluent entrepreneurs to acquire the synergy of wealth managers that offers high-net-worth operations that encompasses all parts of a person’s financial life. Get yourself an aid
Our perceptions of your approach influence how we interpret, understand, and act on the truth.
It’s so true that rich individuals seek the knowledge and skills of professionals and claim to achieve their success without any prior help
@Elizabeth Green To achieve your goals, proficiency makes your plans a reality. I engage in compound interest and leveraging and as well operate exclusive packages with a body of a wealth management firm and so far I’ve attained good ROI (amount is confidential)
As to get more details on the wealth manager, easily do quick internet research; (Genevieve Glen Rogers) where I believe you can easily approach her from, do your research with her full names mentioned.
This is a shocker seeing Genevieve Glen Rogers being mentioned here. I always had mixed feelings about hiring a lnvestment advisor. For the record, I started working with Genevieve in 2018, and she manages about 70% of my lnvestments, while I manage the other 30%. My philosophy is that I care more about my own money than anyone else, but she made me accept that they have wealth of information on current conditions and future trends
Musk is the only one of those 3 who has actually got rockets and people into space
But those other two are already so far ahead of the rest.
@@Tounguepunchfartbox Except they aren't... There are a few other space companies, that you haven't heard about because they aren't owned by billionaires, that are substantially ahead of Bezos' and Brandson's companies.
Currently SpaceX is the "Usain Bolt" of space companies, if you will, beating all the competition by tremendous margins. Bezo's and Brandson's companies are maybe around 5th to 7th place in the "race", probably lower.
And the only seat that can potentionally be affordable to regular people is Virgin, even if its not technically space.
then you dont understand secret space program military industrial complexand why nasa was always a straight answer space x and more is just to privatize moon and space for elite
Well, technically New Shepard is a rocket and pokes into space.
SpaceX has a huge lead over all the others. They're not the first to bring tourists, but they are aiming far higher than the rest.
Imaginary tourists at this point.
Billionaires taking selfies in space the exception.
Talking about bubbles what about a bubble about something that dont even exists? LOL
Yes but Mars is a pr stunt. I think Elon knows the Moon has to be the first to be colonized. 1 second communication delay, has useful resources, good testbed, lots of science to be done (including huge telescopes), lots of people interested - way more would pay for a vacation on the moon over moving permanently to Mars. At least not until there is infrastructure on Mars. Early stage of colonization will be hardcore.. far worse than working on south pole.
SpaceX is taking on a very specific role as a launch provider. They are not encompassing all of Space economy related opportunities.
@@harvirdhindsa3244 I would call it the most expensive and useless fireworks ever. The only use they have is to fool retarded people to believe we can go to the moon.
A good topic. We are seeing so much diversity and innovation in this field now. Competition seems to be driving a great deal of novelty.
There most likely will be a food shortage soon, why on earth is anyone worrying about space competition?
@@汤圆-y7f Billionaires don't worry much of Food. Bezos, Gates, Musk all love Rockets so expect to see Rockets. I didn't invent it, but I shall enjoy watching the new Space Race. Neural Link is interesting too. I give to Charity and help the Poor. I also enjoy watching New Technology and the benefits it provides. Neural Link may enable paralyzed people to function. Space Exploration may have many, yet unknown benefits such as the devices we are using now which had much of their Origins in 1980s Space Program Technology Development such as Telecommunication Satellites and Computing
Chelsea Delaney is excellent, and DW is excellent! Great content, as always! 🙂
......... You are indeed correct -- AND Chelsea Delaney has a voice so clear, so soothing to listen to -- a delight to ones ears ......... and DW presents a truly very informative content !!!
I hope a ''Global Space-Industrial Complex'' is established soon :-))
Correction, it is a playground for Bezos and Branson, both made a point to have a seat on their first joy ride. Edit: yippee ki-yay Kármán line touch and back.
Musk is about hard business.
Not that tourism isn't a business, but SpaceX actually has a business of actual orbital launching, and Musk didn't get to behave as an adrenalin junkie.
SpaceX's first all-private orbital mission, Inspiration4, was actually about science and St. Jude's cancer hospital charity. A far cry from joy rides.
Totally agreed!
We need to develop technologies that enable us to see usable elements on other worlds and in space that we can mine.
Profit is the biggest motivator for action on this planet.
Its hard to compare SpaceX and the two tourist companies tbh... it kinda botches the thesis.
The tech has the same objective.
@@samsonsoturian6013 It doesn't. Branson has no goal apart from space tourism (and maybe making money, eventually).
Bezos want's to build factories in Earth orbit while Musk wants to settle Mars.
Three very different objectives.
It's not gonna be Russia...
Video starts out referencing Falcon 9's reusable booster capability, while showing video of Starship prototype tests. Ugh. Typical of DW.
I couldn't watch the rest.
i like your content
The huge advantage of SpaceX´s Starlink is, that the satellites can reenter earth atmosphere without any remaining debris. The problem with debris is that it could increase exponentially, as every part hitting a satellite can split in more parts, the parts will become smaller and smaller but nonetheless, even a 1 cm particle can cause some serious damage to a satellite.
I get what you are saying but most (not all) satellites burn up when they reenter the atmosphere, heck most things do unless they are made not too or are really big. Most modern satellites are even designed to deorbit themselves when they get too old, run out of propellant, are damaged, or reach the end of their life.
I do applaud SpaceX's goal of trying to keep LEO clear of debris from their satellites. Their design and plans are obviously doing well at that so far. Which is a good thing, because there is going to be like 30,000 of them up there.
I could be totally wrong. But all LEO satellites get the re-enter burn-up feature for free? They so so close to Earth that they get atmosphere drag. They carry some fuels to occasionally pop them up. When the fuel is used up, they will just fall and burn up. If they go farther out to avoid the drag, that are in MEO or GEO.
dont worry, communication and internet exist because of Server, W-iSP tower, base transceivers tower, WACS, and Fiber optic cable connected around the continent
@@uswwt Yes you are right. Many problems with that "free feature", though.
If you are nearest to Earth, lowest orbit, de-orbit is simple. Just save enough propulsion for manoeuvring falling over open ocean.
Orbits are about altitude and vectors, like 3-D car lanes if you will, the higher the faster, but also direction and profile, how perfectly round orbit or elipsoidal it is.
De-orbit means spend fuel to decelerate and to do it in the right direction and angle. You have to invest on that feature to do it safe and precise.
Old space race artifacts are still up there and we have no way to predict where and when they will fall 😕
Edit: The higher you go, less drag, sure, GEO has no discernible drag, but no orbit is perfectly stable. There are gravitational perturbations that, cumulatively, will significantly change the orbit, you have to have propulsion to account for it and correct the orbit whenever needed. The perturbations, drag included, will make the orbit more and more an elipse. One of the dangers is that changing lanes that come with apogee and perigee, highest and lowest altitude, lowest and highest speeds. Without attitude control (the control of vector of movement), even the lowest orbit can be a mess.
@@isa_L land line phone FTW LOL
SpaceX is very different than BO and Virgin. They actually sent humans to real space, send cargo to outer space and a working high-power rocket engine. The other 2 are mainly for tourists and tiny cargo to very low orbit.
BO brings nothing to orbit, Virgin Galactic brings nothing to orbit. Virgin orbit brings satelites to orbit.
AMAZING 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
thank you
*I HAVE THE HIGH GROUND* 💡🤔
The world better start searching for win-win scenarios or there won't be any winners.
You´re wrong. The present day framework is the best way for there to be one or a few big winners, and it is perfect as it is.
@@andresmorales5807 You're absolutely bot. Adios.
The writer of this piece draws a picture that vastly understates SpaceX's lead in this "race"..
Soyuz is the most successful launch system in history
@@MrTaxiRob legit who asked not even kidding
@@alpineiii7933 what race is SpaceX winning? How much mass have they launched? Legit why are you such a bootlicker not even kidding
I bet the first people to see steel-hulled ships vs. wooden masted ships of the line, or automobiles vs. horse-drawn carriages for that matter would have said the same, with similar pride..
@@MrTaxiRob what, im not even boot licking
Wall Street sends the Bubble to space !
Lol
@@ibrahimdiiriye2180 I in a flash too many things I've
Very well put together. You touched on many different topics that all feed into answering the questions with how this is different from the first space race. The nation(s) that lead in this area will be the leading superpower(s) for the next century to come, in a big way. This was a great top level discussion that has many areas that can be expanded on. Please keep up the good work!
This is a dream…Modern civilisation will be well and truly over by “the next century” because of energy descent, ecological devastation, pollution of seas , oceans and rivers, water shortages, loss of arable soils, climate change and the increasing likelihood of nuclear war.
The Fermi Paradox will apply to us.
DW is osmmmmm
only thing we'll know for sure, its not going to be europe.. esa is so ponderous and bureaucratic
ESA is doing significantly more beneficial activities for the whole of humanity than all other space agencies. It just doesn't have a good PR.
I don't know about bureaucracy, but Ariane is a very good launch system, and ESA doesn't have the same volume of military payloads funding them like US or China
@@MrTaxiRob SpaceX is mopping the floor with everyone because they have partially reusable rockets. And they are working feverishly on the largest rocket ever built - which will be 100% reusable.
Ariane is not reusable at all. Of course Europe will keep the program alive because we want to have our own access to space. But Ariane really can't compete at this point. The only reason anyone will buy in at all is because SpaceX keeps its prices high to fund further development. If they wanted to they could lower launch prices considerably and drive everyone else out of the market.
@@harmless6813 reusability is a red herring that you've all fallen victim to. And no, they CAN'T lower launch prices any further, I don't know where you get that nonsense from.
@@MrTaxiRob You have mentioned exactly zero arguments for your claims.
I'm a fan here in the Philippines 🌴😁💗
12:10 that's the reason why space telescopes are way more important than ground based telescope in the midterm future. Additionaly space telescopes are better than groundbased telescopes because they don't need to look through the atmosphere
We need several on the surface of Moon too.
@@ajaykumarsingh702 yeah, the moon is somewhat ideal for telescopes but i think at some point the moon orbits are going to get crowded too.
While that would be ideal, some telescope systems can only be ground-based at the moment, for both technical and economical reasons.
Nice work!
Space belongs to whoever can take it
@DW You're going to have to have follow-ups on these topics. Please cover all aspects of these topics. Cleaning up Space Debris, old satellites, how far/close builds can be developed, international space laws, acceptable social behaviors, design, Living quality, safety requirements, speed limits, minimum/max life of builds.
The concept is great. "All countries should have equal opportunity in space." But, putting that into practice is all but impossible.
It would be beneficial to present a primer on space utilization as it currently stands and why it is used this way.
while this report is full of good information, I think a big driver in space exploration and development has been driven by military interests of governments. I wish the report could have put that into the perspective of past space efforts and for the future.
16:04 At least one of those people cannot be held at their word...
TIME TO #MARS 🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌
Yes, for the benefit of all mankind is a great ideal. At the same time, SpaceX, for example, is not just trying to make money but to provide high speed internet access to everyone around the world, which is a benefit for all mankind. Individual countries or international bodies were never going to achieve this, because first they would have to achieve reusable rockets and so on. Sure, we can ask what happens when other nations or companies become capable of doing what SpaceX can do now, is it fair for SpaceX to get the LEO space instead of them just because they are first. The alternative is that everyone who has poor or no access to the internet has to wait for these others though, I think SpaceX should get the LEO orbit because they are both first and using it in a way that benefits humanity.
it's a Land grab in space.. given money and technology is not an issue.. what is the best orbit to occupy? there only so many orbit that is available for maximum value. It's first come first served.. the understanding of space is for all mankind be damned... kessler syndrome ? till it happen I'll earn my millions first..
That's just your opinion, man. LOL. Now that China has a great firewall for their "internet". Do you think China will allow StarLink to operate there? GPS is also widely used globally. Why do you think other countries still sending their own GPS satellites up there? Many countries will want their own solution for independence. So others will for sure send their own satellites to crowd up LEO. Pretty soon satellites probably will have to be armed with collision avoidance systems. LOL.
@@uswwt maybe you Shd find out why SpaceX chose that orbit ..
The US, and it's not even close the only conversation is between the various US companies(in which case Space X and ULA... Rocketlab might be catching up soon too.. they're a US/NZ company so they're at least 1 partially international player in competition with the all American giants)
Agreed doing a more in depth report on the space industry would have been more professional.
It's disappointing to see everyone fighting over a future that should be the entire humanity's future as a collective, not as nations
go tell Russia and China and their allies that and see what they have to say.
@@thanhleusacuocsongmy8168 So it's ok if it's the Europeans?
Soyuz is the most successful launch system in history
it is competition. And it is good to see. Competition gave the modern world basically everything. F.e. the electronic devices we watch this video on.
Competition demands necessity and necessity is the mother of invention. This is good for the future of space innovation.
I want to correct some misleading statements in this video.
1) nobody serious has advocated “escaping” earth or leaving it behind. People have advocated EXPANDING humanity beyond earth. Big difference.
2) the pie chart showing the number of active satellites gives a misleading picture of the threat of collisions and impacts. Based on just that graph, one would conclude the US is most responsible for creating space congestion and collision danger. In fact, the greatest threat comes from two sources. The first is the THOUSANDS of dead satellites and spent rocket bodies still floating up there that were launched by the Soviet Union. Look up the statistics on rocket launches in the decades of the 60s-80s. The Soviet Union dwarfs all other countries. All that metal they launched is still up there, inactive and tumbling uncontrolled. The second danger comes from the two giant clouds of debris created by anti-satellite tests conducted by China (2007) and Russia (2021). The US & India have also conducted such tests in the past but they were conducted at much lower altitude and the debris generated has entirely (in the US case) or mostly (in India’s case) reentered the atmosphere and burned up. The debris from the Chinese test is STILL up there and the international space station has to perform collision avoidance maneuver due to that debris on a regular basis.
In short, all these new megaconstellations are not the real problem. The real problem is... surprise surprise China and Soviet Union/Russia. What a shocker.
We evolved to flouish on Earth. Magnetic fields, gravity... things I can't understand. Living other places... it'd suck.
@@Zonker66 Most likely we will be able to engineer solutions.
How interesting that you left out the most important data, US has the most space junks comparing to china and Russia。
@@AB-fi5jt Do you know how to read? My entire point is that the US does NOT “have the most junk” in orbit.
Active satellites that can perform collision avoidance maneuvers and a proper deorbit at the end of its life are not junk, by definition. Are fully functioning cars driving on the highway junk? No. Are fully functioning ships sailing on the oceans junk? No. Dead satellites that can’t be controlled or deorbited are junk. Abandoned rocket stages uselessly circling above for decades are junk. Russia/Soviet Union are responsible for the majority of them.
Clouds of shrapnel from satellites destroyed by anti-sat weapons are also junk. China and Russia are responsible for the majority of the shrapnel that’s still up there today. These are facts. Facts matter. Objects can be divided into 1) useful, functioning objects 2) broken/damaged/non-functioning objects. We call this second category “junk”. This is how words work. Words matter.
@@regolith1350 Not only I can read your misleading point but also see your political agenda as well.
We need to put together an X prize to inspire people to develop a space debris cleanup scheme. As usual, we are waiting until too late to try to solve a serious problem. We need to get on it now! It's only gonna get worse.
its already too late
@@seandepagnier no it's not. We have plenty of satellites including a space station orbiting just fine, only needing to make occasional adjustments to avoid collision. We can still launch vehicles out of orbit and off to other places. It's not too late.
@@theobserver9131 it is too late, because once there are a few collisions there will be a chain reaction. After, this space cannot be used for hundreds to thousands of years. There are already far too many satellites.
COOL 😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
Why should entities that did not assume any cost or risk whatsoever, benefit from the effort of the ones that did?
Network effects.
@@p-j-y-d what do you mean?
Excellent. Thank you.
I feel like the privatization of space shows pretty clearly that the government is disgustingly wasteful, and that capitalism does (indirectly) generate wealth. Where there's incentive, there's innovation, innovation leads to demand, and distribution of the lion's share of the wealth generated in the production of that innovation is spread throughout the system.
02:58 Yes, we should move all heavy polluting industry to space where nothing bad will happen. Where chemicals will hang out for a thousand years reacting with everything that comes in contact with them (like rockets, space stations, satellites, space suits, ozone layer, ...) and also eject bigger pollutants that will maintain a ferocious velocity forever (unless it comes back down to earth) making space a toxic sandblaster. What could possibly go wrong?
If we do not come up with a common ground set up for space it will be the next battlefield
Chelsey Delaney 💜💜😊
If you try to be a serious youtube channel then get your sound right. The s is so terrible it broke my glass in front of the computer and there are changes in sound constantly. Don't you know that audio is the most important part of video? :)
Wait for the aliens to sweep everyone away.
Why would aliens have waited all this time, till now, when we're on the verge of living on another planet, to 'sweep us away'? They had plenty of time in history to 'sweep'. I think they're just curious and observing...kinda like Star Trek and its Prime Directive. Observe but don't interfere, even if there's a threat to the planet.
That's the morse code blinking lady from the pandemic days
The economy is your drive to go and space but there are no deep thoughts
Those are all certainly words
I would say we have re-usability when the cost to launch drops x10. Don't believe the hype
Ukraine is thankful for you Mr musk thank you
What a coincidence NASA is also going to the Moon again called Artemis.
did you mean,
building more 5 gen w-isp tower?
High NA faster fiber optic hardware? getting new computer servers that have faster computing and rendering capabilities? more terabytes hard drives? faster wi-fi hardware?
i should have known that earlier
pffft 🤭
Two points:
1) Optical interference from LEO is a problem in the morning and evening. There are some research areas where you might need those hours for observations, but at least mention this fact.
2) There seems to be a distinctly naive flavor to this discussion. Governments are poor resource allocators and might never be able to generate more goods and services than they consume in the pursuit of the benefits from these newer space applications. Some businesses are very good at resource allocation but will only pursue these activities if they have the possibility of a return on investment that matches the risks.
9:25 eactly what happen with that subject? i ask that because of starlink. but what happen if Europe tomorow want make another starlink web? or China or Rusia we end up with milions of satelite make the same thing.
i think this most be treated like internation water or even an update laws. for example mining a close asteroid to my actual mining asteroid. and this mus be signed by China and Rusia. Dont sign dont mean you can arrive there and get it. I say that because LUNA. China dont sigh the international agrement where all outerspace cant be claime as teritorial of one country. So if China put a man tomorow on the moon can say this land of part of it is our. But USA arrived first and put a flag there, but they agree the territory is unclaimable but China dont singup.
In teory moon is territory of USA if dont sign the internationa agrement.
US will just make another Mars landing video and declare itself winner. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I have a idea what about space hospitals.
more chelsea delaney please.
Screw anyone's sovereignty. The frontier is first come first serve. It doesn't matter if it's a government, corporation, or international agency.
We have come a long way from laying on blankets in our front yards as we watched Sputnik going across the night sky.
That's all good and all, but what makes you even think that Xi and The CCP will actually follow any of the rules/laws regarding Space that all other Countries will agree upon?
i have been watching Chelsey all this episode 😛
It is inevitable that earth based telescopes will loose effectivity with time. It is happening sooner then was expected, but it is inevitable. It is also inevitable that the moon will some day not look as it always has. At some point, fairly soon, it will have an atmosphere of dust that will make it eventually look like a grey blur. This is a good time to talk about it. It is a good time to maybe delay the inevitable. But delay is all we can do.
I'm Chinese. I hope you will continue to keep your ideas. ha-ha
There is still a race?
We have not even been back to the moon in 50 years.
More people on earth were not bore during the last moon landing than are alive to remember it.
One man is racing, the others pretend to participate.
@@harmless6813 and you pretend to pay attention
@@samsonsoturian6013 Do you have a point to make? Then please do so.
The first race was little more than to show off whose ICBM could travel the furthest. A complete waste of taxpayers money.
This second race is about commercialization and actual space colonization. Paid for by those billionaires.
Uuummm . . . Define "Space" *first* before deciding on who owns/controls it ?!! . . . it's IN FACT a virtually INFINITE resource from LEO to edge of Universe !!
At the expense of everyone
I was wondering, what if during a confrontation, an enemy causes a high quantity of debris in Starlink's orbits. Can he destroy the whole thing?
There are 2,000 satellites in orbit for SpaceX. The plan is for a many as 40,000 eventually. An enemy would need an extraordinary number of rockets that can reach Low Earth Orbit to target all of those satellites spread out all over Low Earth Orbit, and the cost for the enemy of doing that would far exceed any possible benefits.
@@tribalypredisposed he wasn’t talking about targeting each one with a rocket per say, it’s a question of vulnerability of satellite ecosystem to sabotage, debris dispersion system could be a cascading problem. Rockets that eject bb’s maybe.
@@boxcutter0 but any nation with the technology to attack satellites will also have their own satellites in the same orbits, right? So I don't see bb attacks working, and really blowing up the SpaceX satellites would have a similar effect of spreading dangerous debris all over.
@@tribalypredisposed It would be reckless & a shame to have it done, but in times of war some countries might believe satellite communications give countries like the US, or China, or Russia advantages & dependencies that they aren’t as vulnerable to. North Korea would suffer less from satellite mayhem, but could lash out in such a way that doesn’t directly kill other people & escalate in traditional sense… just some possibilities to consider.
@@tribalypredisposed plus we likely need to come to the realization that exponential growth in technology & openly accessible research… many threats will be easier for more people/nations to duplicate… nuclear proliferation esp with Ukraine fiasco, rockets, biological/chemical advances & capacity of small scale “basement” labs. Another reason better global cooperation is needed, and rogue mischievous countries can be so problematic…
Only 1 real player. SpaceX
Does the constitution apply in Space? Would you want to work for the world economic forum in Space? Would you own your DNA or even your labor in their lifeboat?
I think there is a lot to clarify and bring into better focus here:
1. You bring up Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson. Elon Musk has a space company with orbital class, partially reusable rockets and is working on a fully reusable rocket. Jeff Bezos has a sham company with a low performance rocket that just barely makes it straight up to the Karman Line, coasting up to it as its fuel reserves run low and so has to shut off the engine. Its basically an overblown firecracker. Richard Branson has a little rocket plane that gets dropped from a jet that can't even make it to the Karman Line. So it is an even smaller firecracker than what Jeff Bezos has. I mean look at the delta-v budget. SpaceX rockets have so much delta-v capability that it can make orbit and recover whole rocket stages. Please consider getting the delta-v budget to make orbit at all with chemical propulsion is really hard, so having this surplus to recover is quite an achievement. Blue Origin has maybe 1/10th the delta-v capability of SpaceX. Virgin Galactic has about 1/3rd the delta-v budget of Blue Origin on their rocket plane. There is no comparison between these 3. I don't even know why you mention the other 2.
2. This talk of recovering the 1st stage is nothing new. Warnher von Braun, the German father of rocketry and the man who led the American program that landed man on the Moon, talked about this during the Apollo program. Rocket equations dictate that it is inherently easier to recover a 1st stage than it is a second stage. For one a 1st stage does not go up to orbital speed. The sooner the 1st stage cuts off and thus the slower it is going, the less recovery hardware and fuel on it affects the final amount of payload to make it into orbit. For SpaceX they intentionally picked the cutoff to be just above the atmosphere so that it would be easy to separate a second stage stacked on top from the first stage. The universally agreed upon number is every 7 kg of recovery hardware and propellant on the 1st stage reduces the payload to orbit mass by 1 kg due to this effect. At this the 1st stage is still by far the largest and most expensive part of the rocket with the Falcon 9 having 9 engines on its first stage and just 1 engine on the second stage, so that is a really good thing to recover. Another problem is re-entry as heating is a cubic factor with speed. So say the second stage re-enters at 7x the speed of the first stage. That would be 7*7*7 = 343x the heating, granted orbital re-entry vehicles tend to be shaped to create a bow shock that directs most of this super-heated plasma around the re-entry vehicle as well as use an ablative heat shield that creates an additional buffer as the heat shield turns to a gas, thus ablating away. However you want to recover a 1st stage, so much easier. The main problem is the angle of re-entry of a first stage tends to be steep and you hit a 'wall' of air, which is why the Falcon 9 booster re-lights 3 of its engines to slow down as it reaches this denser part of the atmosphere rapidly in order to not hit this 'wall' so hard, which would shatter the rocket stage otherwise from extreme g-loading as it would slam into it at hypersonic speeds. The thing is when you look at the Falcon 9, ~1.4% of the starting mass is used to land a Falcon 9 first stage on an ocean platform doing a ballistic trajectory, no boost back as that takes away even more payload capacity. You may think 1.4% is small, but the total mass to orbit capability is 4%, which is basically unheard of 'high' efficiency for an orbital class rocket, especially one that burns RP-1, which is far from the most energetic fuel out there, but is is a physically dense fuel allowing a lighter rocket to carry it than say the relatively huge and heavy rocket needed to hold the equivalent liquid hydrogen. So yeah, you go from 4% to 2.6% or something like that. With other rockets you were looking at 1.6% to 3% could make LEO and it was thought recovery would take a few % off the top, essentially leading to a sub-orbital rocket as say your calculation comes up to -1% budget, Earth's gravity pulls you back to Earth; you hit the atmosphere and burn up.
3. This talk of second stage recovery is pretty interesting. The Raptor engine and the density of liquid methane and the temperature of it in liquid state would allow a disposable optimized rocket to get around 7% of its starting mass into LEO as payload, maybe 8% with Raptor 2 as these rockets will leap into orbit with Raptor 2, lowering hang time pushing directly against Earth's gravity, which burns precious propellant to do. You have something like 8% margin and use 1.4% of that to recover the 1st stage, that leaves 6.6% left for payload and recovery hardware on the 2nd stage. This way the second stage has to be big though, the combination of economies of scale where the surface area and thus heat shielded mass of the rocket is a square factor while the propellant volume inside is a cubic factor as well as the sheer size of the rocket stage allows a cylinder to create a bow shock far enough away from the surface of the rocket in order to allow much of that extremely hot plasma created during re-entry to go around the rocket instead of into the rocket surface. This along with a high temperature capability stainless steal structure opens the possibility of using non-ablative heat shielding as in instead of vaporizing the heat shield, it soaks up the heat and a heat pulse can go through it and hit the stainless steal structure without melting it. Aluminum would melt with this kind of heat pulse and so is unsuitable for the task. Apparently 9m wide is where these economies meet up to allow this to be possible where with a smaller rocket you would at least have to use an ablative heat shield and likely would not have the mass budget for the heat shielding; you would run out of heat shield and burn up before you could slow down enough or at least have a sub-orbital rocket defeating the point.
4. A clarification needed are these satellite mega-constellations will not and cannot replace fiber-optic communication. Even with thousands of satellites, each one has to cover thousands of km^2 as Earth has 510,072,000 km^2 of surface area. Say one of these satellites is over Tokyo, a city with 37 million people crammed into a space of 2,000 km^2. Now say you have 10,000 satellites. Each will need to cover 50,000 km^2 of surface area, which is much bigger than the area used by Tokyo. Do you really think that satellite over Tokyo is going to handle all of those people? Even if say 5 satellites are in view over Tokyo at any given time, that is still millions of potential users per satellite if you ditched fiber-optics. And how do you free up enough radio spectrum for all of this? The goal of a constellation like Starlink is up to what density of a customer base can you serve? Even with say 10,000 satellites in orbit, the density is just not that high. However there are a tonne of uses for the density Starlink is aiming for.
5. Talking about communication, something I think should have been brought up is the manufacturing of ZBLAN fiber. ZBLAN fiber allows ~10x the transmission distance and a whole lot more optical channels over the same fiber. This can be a real game changer if you can ramp up production in space as we only know how to make this hair thin fiber in 0G. Hair thin fiber is light, so each Starship launch to a manufacturing facility in space also hauled up by Starship could allow for a whole bunch of it to be made. If you have giant and low cost Starship rockets going into LEO, mass production of ZBLAN fiber is a no brainer. I can just see undersea cables shifting from a small handful of fibers that need frequent reboosting of the signal with inline Raman amplifiers powered by the thick, expensive cable to hundreds or even thousands of strands in a cheap to make undersea cable and then just have a couple of undersea amplifier pressure vessel stations powered by ocean currents and/or floating wind turbines to allow high bandwidth communication between continents.
6. Now that we know how to make fold up telescopes like JWST and SpaceX is working on the giant Starship rocket and we know optical telescopes work a whole lot better in space than trying to peer through Earth's turbulent and obstructive atmosphere, we really should get on the ball and start making a new fleet of space base observatories. Something like Starship can allow for orbital servicing, even way out at the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point where the JWST calls home, so we can build these observatories faster with the understanding they will be serviced over time in order to complete their full mission instead of having to do everything and do it perfectly up front or bust. That latter deal with JWST can lead to endless delay and cost overruns where getting closer to how ground based observatories are built and managed can slash costs and allow the observatory to go up much faster. It is just historically to get into space it was so expensive, the one off wonder that took forever and cost and arm and a leg was the only viable model. Howeve, with Starship we can pivot away from that model enough and increase the size and raw capability enough to usher in the next era of discovery and have it happen on the order of a few to several years using the same sort of budget where JWST took decades for just that one instrument to get built and tested on the ground before launch. I mean if we want to say discover life on other planets, while JWST might just be able to pull this off, a new generation of giant observatories would definitely pull this off if it exists. If we find good enough planets to look at, we may even use a platform like Starship to send up the engine tech that will allow us to get out to the Sun's natural focal point and use gravitational lensing to say get an up close and personal view of a planet that shows signs in its atmosphere of having intelligent life on it. This would actually be a many probe mission sent in waves over time out to the focal point to make this image, which is even more reason why a completely reusable rocket is so important in order to make the mission cost effective and the payoff would be huge. I mean could you imagine if massive orbital observatories in say the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point were just good enough to detect the signatures across a wide spectrum at the edge of their capability and then we did this secondary mission to the Sun's focal point and saw another Earth complete with definitive marks of an advanced civilization on it? Granted we may just barely make out the marks in visible light that the naked eye would see on the composed image from these swarms of probes, but that would be quite something to see and the scientific analysis of the data coming back from this would tell us reams of what this planet and civilization is.
Some other thoughts to add are:
1. With the right advanced space engine tech and a big rocket to get it into space, we could catch up to Oumuamua and see what it really is and even have enough power budget left to send back high resolution photos of it. Finally put that debate on whether it is alien tech or not to rest.
2. The right space only engine tech is really important to making colonizing space practical.
3. What Jeff Bezos talks about with space based manufacturing to send back to Earth would only make sense if you built a literal maglev railway to and from space orbital launch ring style.
4. Starship could revolutionize planetary exploration. No longer are you mass constrained to a little probe that can't do very much, but instead have the mass budget to do a lot of really cool stuff.
It's sad that Russia will no longer contribute to anything space anymore.
As a citizen Ihave less than $5.00. Can same one take me to the space, pls?
Ah, ground-based telescopes are a bad investment. Sorry. Horses were nice too.
We are certainly going to have issues with the first come first serve setup. We can't even agree on the Arctic. Example would be China claiming to be a near Arctic power which is just a nice way of saying I have no border with the Arctic, but I do now because I want some resources. I can see conflict breaking out in space especially if countries start finding ways to get resources from other planets.
Yep, this will be just like during the Age of Exploration, when European powers scrambled to get some territories/colonies in the then recently discovered Americas.
The first to arrive will naturally have the ability to choose the best locations and claim the largest territory. SpaceX might became the new EIC or VOC.
@@ihl0700677525
Actually that would be China.
They are leading in space technology right now. It's just Western media doesn't show it.
@@ajaykumarsingh702 Lol. Maybe. Time will tell.
The Chinese used to be the leader during the Age of Exploration too, when admiral Zheng He's treasure ship explore the Southern Seas.
But we know how, in the end, private corporations (e.g. EIC, VOC, Virginia Company, Hudson Bay company, etc) overtook nation states and became the winners of that period.
@@ihl0700677525
Those companies got the lead because they turned from explorers to colonists.
That was not the case with China.
But this rise in space technology is serious because China is actually militarizing it.
@@ajaykumarsingh702 What is not the case? As for space, why do you think China is leading? the media may not show it but that is not the only way to get information. Matter of fact, Chinese experts themselves have been pushing for more funding as they say the Americans are pushing the lead. Space X, Virgin, private industry has made massive strides in recent years even NASA is changing course. The Chinese have made huge leaps but they are still far behind the leaders in space. I am curios, what research or article etc did you read to think that? Is it the Chinese space station? Just to give you an idea, the US accounts for 1/3 of all space exploration at the moment. I personally was hoping Europe would get on board but it they will join the yanks.
I wish I could be alive when it’s normal for a human to drive out of their garage and straight into space to visit their friends/family on the moon (or to Mars in minutes.) Basically Star Wars, but just a bunch of chill Mandalorians.
Elon Musk???
Miki mouse win end of the day
13:16 in a post cold war world she said....
you are so optimistic about the space industry, about the conquest of the moon and so on, and if the additional costs of food, fuel and electricity in the world increase two or three times. how are you going to fly to the moon? today reconnaissance satellites and satellites for remote sensing of the Earth, as well as navigation satellites, will be relevant. and in the near future we can expect military satellites that will carry weapons and will have to destroy enemy satellites.
as a socialist you don't need to profit off of space you just need to be sustainable
Ah, the international waters is an obvious precedent.
DW News: Who is winning the new space race?
Me: Wait, where is the end of the line?
And who will die first in space?
Who gets to define and enforce policy is the point, isn't it?
In many countries we see unbundling policies, when the traditional telecom incumbent is forced to share its infrastructure.
Bcs it was the first to deployed the copper wires, it would have an unfair advantage over newcomers.
Who will unbundle orbits and asteroids and moon mines, for the benefit of humankind customers?
We fortunately do not need to worry about the Russians.
SpaceX.
lets spend trilions while people still die of hunger great job!!! go space
Hope Rocket Lab $RKLB Neutron Rocket will be ready soon!
Damnit
8:14..." Provence of @ll mankind "
Mechanical enginnering, attracative. German and Mr. Musk understood. Appreciated.
NORMAN LEAR IS STILL ALIVE 101 OLD JUDY COLLINS STEVE STILLS ALBUM
Musk he does it with passion the others are just boring rich people ;)
I think Bezos is seriously interested in advancing space exploration too. He just hasn't had all that much success yet. Maybe Blue Origin will eventually get New Glenn into space. But by then SpaceX is probably flying Starship regularly.
Space won't be worth anything when the planet fries!
Jeff who? Richard who?
What if we sent up a giant electro magnet to divert tiny fragments toward earth
So the same people can profit from it and everyone else gets 0. Don't buy the regulation game.
12:05 even the biggest man-made object on orbit, the ISS wouldn't disturb a rational astronomer. Any meaningful image would be made using shutter speeds and apareture, that neglects the tiny sattelites. Imagine also the opposite, as if you wanted to take a photo of the ocean from LEO and suddenly a ship appears on it, ruining the shot. How likely would this be? In my oppinion it is highly improbable to catch a sattelite during your observation, so concerns have no real base.
No conspiracy comments, whats wrong with this world??