Is it ethical to drive to work when any car could kill me? Is it ethical to stay home when an earthquake might collapse my house? Is it ethical to eat food which could be contaminated (like food infrequently is)? Theres risks in even the most mundane things. Life is for living. Surviving isnt living
Is it ethical to tell people what they can and can't do with their own lives in the pursuit of happiness? The original question itself was crab mentality. It literally never occurred to me because I'm not other people's nanny. It will be nice living on a planet with a population who would also never ask that question.
@@jtjames79 “...what they can and can not do...” It is ethical if everyone else is expected to pay to put you back together again when what you’re doing breaks you? So perfect freedom must come with total personal responsibility? Do whatever you want and bare the full cost if it goes wrong. But what if the thing you do comes with a reasonable expectation of being safe? Going for a walk... and get struck by a drunk driver. Walking should be a very low risk. Drinking can be safe. Driving can be safe. Drunk driving is really, really not safe. Perhaps we draw the line when whatever risky thing you do has a good chance of hurting someone else when it goes wrong for you. Climbing a building without ropes. You slip, you die... and a decent chance of killing someone when you hit the pavement. Going to Mars? Really good chance of dying directly from the effort but extremely low likelihood of hurting anyone else in the process. Depends a little on how you account for externalities. Pollution due to your launch. Millions of man-hours being devoted to get you to Mars instead of curing cancer or forging world peace.
@@CarFreeSegnitz ok. So please, stay home, we don't want to pay in case you have an accident or if you kill someone in the process. BTW, not all scientists and engineers has knowledge or want to work with the search for the cancer cure. Are you working somehow to help to find the cure? There are other subjects of humanity interest too. If we all work on the same direction we'll be pretty limited on the possibilities, including curing the cancer.
@@CarFreeSegnitz straw man, it also never occurred to me that you would somehow feel responsible. I never asked for your help, with friends like you I wouldn't need enemies. I prefer to keep my friends close, and my enemies on Earth. Dying on Mars would be glorious. Real men go out with their boots on.
It’s the degree of risk involved. If you’re likely to die on Mars, then the people who facilitate you going there are unethical. The entire point of going to Mars is “surviving” (colonisation 🙄) otherwise we can just send robots.
Fraser, your show is a multitasking marvel. Interactive live presentation, with the presenter simultaneously being the Director and with another part of the brain, the Editor, planning the content segments for post. Amazing.
>Is it ethical... Yes. Yes. And hell yes. Even if they die. In fact, they will die, no matter what. No man lives forever. At least on Mars they get to die achieving greatness. We should all strive for such a death.
It’s not for us to sit around determining what’s ‘ethical’- people WILL take chances and we love them for it- More of it I say, without it we wouldn’t have experienced the progress we have. Love the show as always.
I have to wonder how the first question asker got the idea that anyone, even Musk, was going to send people *with no radiation shielding* to Mars. While manned spaceflight is always risky, we do a lot to reduce those risks.
Question: Can the CMB be used to determine your absolute speed? if you really stand still, it will be basically equal in all directions. If you move, it will be blueshifted in the direction you're moving and redshifted towards the direction you came from, right?
I admire your diplomacy in handling questions like trying to apply a total lack of understanding of the definition of ethics to people who are willing to take risks, and wishing for a Carrington Event with complete ignorance of or lack of concern for the consequent breakdown of the economy and society of the world for years, if not decades, with the inevitable deaths of millions if not billions of people from starvation, lack of water, 18th century medicine, heat, cold, and no social media. Of course if your concerns are overpopulation and kids spending too much time on their smartphones...
Most of the pictures you see of nebulae are as fake as any other painting. A vast majority of space pictures are artist's renditions of something that looks fairly unimpressive on an actual photo. That being said, a nebula has a particle density of 10.000 molecules per cubic centimeter at maximum, some are as low as 100. That's about 10^24 less dense than the air you breathe. So what would be the difference compared to vacuum? Take a guess...
If the risks of journeying to the New World back in the 15th and 16th centuries were the same as humans going to Mars today, none of us here in the New World would be here discussing it on UA-cam.
Modular space observatories are being thought about now. As the ISS was built with multiple launches so too could an observatory. What I hope to see in the not-too-distant-future are observatories built in space with in-situ resources. Space development is currently bottle-necked by rocket launches. Our biggest rockets manage 30-40 tons to LEO. A pip-squeak asteroid like the Chelyabinsk meteor, just 19 metres in diameter, massed an estimated 12,000 tons. Of course the Chelyabinsk meteor was a dumb rock while things we launch are fully functional spacecraft. If we just started mining, refining and building from the materials in Ryugu, or Bennu, we’d have millions of tons of material to work with. It would completely blow the doors off of what we could build in space. Observatories with km-wide primary mirrors that don’t need staggering support structures in zero-g. Giant primary mirrors separated by millions of km and teamed up as interferometers to give image resolution of a few metres of objects lightyears away. Modest telescopes shot out well outside Pluto’s orbit in opposite directions to do parallax surveys with orders of magnitude more sensitivity.
I think the first question makes no sense. The astronauts voluntarily choose to go, even though it's dangerous for them. I can't see how voluntarily doing anything that only puts yourself in danger can ever be unethical. But great episode, Fraser!
4:01 Julian, that is almost like praying for a massive nuclear test in space. - Normally, in the adult world, we back our statements up with reasoning. All sorts of questions come to mind when I read a statement like yours. - Are you aware what would happen in such a case? - How old are you? - Are you praying for a doomsday event? etc...
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ I don't understand exactly what you're saying (re: cats/ dogs) there. Are you saying: Dogs are the best, which is why we chose them. Or Cats are the best. We love them far too much to send them on a dangerous mission like this. It seems like you could be advocating for either viewpoint.
At Copenhagen University's physics department there is a room named "|Rum|", meaning "absolute space", it's a reference to Newton's concept of absolute space which was abolished with relativity, but "absolute space" does exist, it's in Copenhagen, FYI.
Hi Fraser, when talking about the Carrington Event, CMEs in general, I'm surprised you don't talk about the 1989 event that blacked out your home country and the NE USA, or the 2012 near miss that was a Carrington+ level event that almost wiped out the world's electronics. Those are some recent events that could help people understand this is fairly common. Also, just as an aside, the UK (my pad) has been preparing for a CME of above the 1859 level and you should look into the preparation work that National Grid has been doing. It's interesting and should actually be able to keep the lights on even in the event of a large CME with an opposing magnetic field - even up to beyond a -1000 nano-Tesla DST.
Question: Why do you think we haven’t had spacecraft that create artificial gravity by using a tether between a capsule and a counterbalance weight, or 2 or more capsules spinning around a central hub? Wouldn’t this be a much cheaper and easier way to create spin gravity than a 2001-style solid ring? It seems that it would be especially useful on a trip to Mars and not too expensive or difficult to produce.
I can't recall the brand name, but there is a handheld device that you can talk into and it will repeat the message in any of several languages. Then the person you are talking to can speak into the device in his language and the device will repeat it in your language. I can do virtually the same thing with a translation app on my phone.
Technically, why did it take several days for your electrical system to come back on-line after going down? Could you do a video of how the northern electrical grid handles solar storms. I would like to know how our grid here in the far south will handle a CME.
Hi Fraser, You mentioned the Starship rocket that would be two stage and fully reusable. What about the old 1960s concept of the Sea Dragon? It was supposed to have been two stage and fully reusable. It's payload cost was to be $500 a kilogram with a capacity of up to 500 tons to low earth orbit.
You can't prove to me that the great attractor didn't drag off your original greenscreen (the one that looked exactly like your backyard, complete with backyard noises, and even had a bug land on your head that one time), forcing you to replace it with this costco, off-brand one that's somehow even more obvious.
you say ask any question. what do you think of this paper you must have read at some point years ago given your main interests in life: Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity Part II: Directionality and Source (and part 1 to) Anthony L. Peratt, Fellow, IEEE, John McGovern, Alfred H. Qöyawayma, Life Member, IEEE, Marinus Anthony Van der Sluijs, and Mathias G. Peratt, Member, IEEE thanks and do enjoy those dragons in the sky! :)
My main issue with the spacex "starship" is the flip maneuver for landing. I believe it's too inherently risky to rely on a liquid engine starting for the survival of the crew, especially a turbopumped one. I still believe it would be better to design it (or at least a variant of it) to have larger wings and landing gear to land on a runway with, both in terms of vehicle mass and safety.
@Coalsack Sector lol, Didn't mean to crush you so badly that all you have is childish insults. But no worries. I have an ignore list for trolls and you've earned a spot since you don't have anything of value to say.
Let's take the Lunar gateway idea one step up. We know that space elevators are unfeasible for Earth because, among other reasons, of its atmosphere and its relatively high gravity. But would it be possible for the Moon?
The expansion of the universe always blows my mind. Does the space in between galaxies grow larger like being pushed away or are they being pulled from the expansion of the outer boundary of the universe?
Hey Fraser, thanks for all these great shows. I have a question on wormholes and the bending of space. Let's assume wormholes could exist by bending space. People often use the image of folding a paper to show how they work. Would people on the edge of the flat region looking into the bend see everything normally or would they look into a great nothingness (as space would be folded away from it)? Or is the image of a folded paper just too oversimplified? Thanks in advance!
27:04 It's probably a balance act between the lower gravity and the less dense atmosphere of Mars. Less gravity causes less attraction but with a thinner atmosphere I would expect more of them to come through and impact on the ground.
The area of the planet is also much smaller, lessening the chance of impacts. I also suspect that larger impacts would be less of an issue as well due to the atmosphere being thinner. Would Tunguska sized impactors simply bury in a localized crater and cause less or no widespread area effects related to airbursts and the resulting shockwave. How well or poorly would the shockwave even propagate?
@@rustymustard7798 I think you are right. If it comes straight for you, being smaller helps to avoid a collision. Since Mars has a small atmosphere, there will be asteroids exploding in it and others hitting the ground. The ones hitting the ground will be much faster (less drag on Mars) and probably more devastating than on Earth. The ones exploding in the atmosphere could be less of a problem...??? The debris will still be a deadly proposal but the shock wave is definitely less problematic than on Earth.
I think the fact that Mars is literally next door neighbours to an asteroid belt, kind of increase the chances. Oh, and the two massive ones in orbit...
Hey Fraiser, Lucy is set to launch October 16th this year, I am beyond excited. After visiting 7 asteroids including 4 binary asteroids. Will the probe crash down into a asteroid or be sent off into deep space?
Good perspective, as always. But I think the Mars One approach of turning it into a reality show for funding while the world watches the colonists die on tv raised significant ethical questions.
22:30. Regarding "standing still." While there's no privileged frame of reference when you're applying the laws of physics, there is the comoving reference frame in which your motion with respect to the CMBR averages to zero. The sun is moving at about 500 km/sec with respect to that reference frame. I'm trying now to find out the Milky Way barycenter's velocity vector in the comoving reference frame.
From how I see It Roscosmos has all the necessary abilities in place and is furthest along in actual building of space infrastructure for manned missions.
I do want to see humans on Mars, but I don’t want to see the crew suffer. After a year of the crew spending time out of low earth orbit, we might see shells of a human beings on the mission. Not necessarily dead but just mentally and physically highly damaged humans whom we can’t help.
@@johnlittle8975 that’s because nothing about Mars can support humans. It’s a sci-fi fantasy that has somehow encroached on genuine intelligent discussion.
HI Fraser, still watching from here in the UK and still enjoying the content. A question I have is about a short time after the Big Bang where the Universe was so hot and dense photons could not escape. Now I have heard early photons could escape once things had cooled sufficiently....but where does the heat escape to...how do we think the cooling happened?
The only way sending people to Mars would be unethical would be if there was already an indigenous population there. And or if the risks involved were not properly communicated to those taking the voyage. I think even a one way trip to mars would be ethical if those involved understood what they were undertaking.
00:49 The question itself is wrong. You can't pose a wrong question and ask if this is ethical. The question would be correct if we still had slavery or if we sent prisoners or test animals for that matter then "is it ethical?" would be a valid argument. But that is not the case today. Everybody who is going to go to Mars, wants to go to Mars. We do not "send people to Mars", they are all volunteers, some will even pay to be allowed to go.
Should the starship ditch the propulsive landing in favor of parachutes for the next few launches; it seems that every launch started to go wrong many seconds before they actually blew up. Even though we learn things every time, we would learn more if the rocket didn't blow up.
I have much appreciation how nuanced your opinion about SpaceX and Starship is. I wasn't expecting a Dear Moon sunmission video from you and luckily i haven't seen one
Wouldn't the Earth's thicker atmosphere cause greater effects from asteroid impacts than on Mars? Would the 'airburst' effect be lessened by the thinner atmosphere and therefore have a lower probability of causing more widespread shockwave damage in the case of a Mars impact?
0:45 of course, as long as the people know about the risks and chose to do that on their own will. However explorer always risks their live, from Columbus that tried to reach india by going west, over the race of Amundson against Scott to the southpole, to the race to the moon between US and USSR. All those people who went there, know they could die in their missions. Without those explorers we wouldnt have gotton anywhere in the longterm. 2:10 what a bad example, if you're flying to the opposite of the earth nowadays, the most risky part to die, is the way to the airport
If an object falls into a gravity well to get an assist, how does it get out of it again without expending energy? How to understand this in simple terms?
Hyperbolic orbit. If you approach a gravitational body from infinite you’ll speed up as you trade potential energy for speed. Unless you hit the object, including its atmosphere, you get to keep the speed until it’s time to come out the other side of the gravity well. Then you get to trade speed back for potential energy. In an isolated system the encounter would just alter the trajectory of the spacecraft and planet. In our solar system everything is going around the sun, everything has angular momentum with respect to the sun. Gravity passes will exchange some angular momentum. The Voyager spacecraft stole a bunch of angular momentum from Jupiter and Saturn which sped up the spacecraft and slowed Jupiter and Saturn ever-so-slightly.
We should, eventually, be able to make spaceships that can cruise at 7% of the speed of light while having enough reserve fuel to decelerate again by that amount upon reaching its destination. We could thus colonize (probably by galaxy hopping) everything out to about 800 million light years. (I mean: everything that we can see by light that was emitted 800 million years ago; i.e., the separation of the other galaxy from the Milky Way was 777 million light years when the light was emitted, and its distance was 824 million light years when one of our astronomers observed the light. However, anything farther than that will be uncatchupwithable. This intergalactic colonization project would probably require about 16 billion years to complete. So let's get hoppin'. There are about three million galaxies in the volume we can reach, with a total, maybe, of one quintillion worlds to colonize. Wealth beyond measure. And if a single world gets its politics and society correctly figured out, it will justify the entire sixteen billion year long venture.
13:00 Not entirely true. Anything on Earth that you can see from Space, you can also see from the ground. It might be more expensive, but you could do most of it, if not all. There may be some upper atmosphere phenomena that you really need to look down to see; but even there, I think you could gather data from different altitudes in the Atmosphere and compare them to build a 3D picture. You could communicate by a combination of fiber optic cable and wireless links, at high speed, anywhere on the Globe. You can use accelerometers, laser interferometry, and triangulating ground-based signals, and so on, to do everything GPS does. Harder, but not impossible. What you cannot do without going to Space is to look outward and see as well as we can with space telescopes and interplanetary probes. And you cannot study how living things function in other than 1 G. For that, you must go to Space.
Hi Fraser, does red dwarf stars produce any visible light in addition to their dominant IR light? I mean if humans stand on a red dwarf star, can we see anything with our eyes in visible light?
I'm not convinced that the Lunar Gateway is superior to a lunar surface base for the first steps. I haven't yet heard any stated justification that points out what we gain versus a low earth orbit station or lunar surface base.
I love the emphasis on building up infrastructure. We need to start leaving water recycling equipment and other life support tools on or near the moon. I just don't see what we gain by having it in orbit vs on the ground. You want your farms near a source of water.
23:24 I would answer with a clear no! Nevertheless, there are some companies that are at least ambitious within their own market like Astra or Rocket Lab. ABL was just able (pun) to secure a huge contract and a big funding boost withing weeks (but it was after this Q&A). I would probably name Relativity and after that Firefly as the biggest possible contenders. And while not a real company Breakthrough Starshot comes to my mind. Someone will take those Lasers, or Microwaves to propel something else than the smallest possible spaceship. If in space rocketry also counts, I would name Momentus, they were very successful at gathering contracts during the last year.
Hi Fraser, I thought some of your answers on this episode were so good they deserved to be short clips in their own right; why not produce something like that, maybe with visuals added on top?
I'm glad you enjoyed it. We're trying to come up with a format that lets us release these shows as efficiently as possible. Also, the UA-cam algorithm prefers longer episodes.
@@frasercain Well, I'm suitably entertained and informed by what you produce anyway, so the more efficient you can make it and the more effectively you can utilize the tools youtube provides the better. Thanks!
I feel like the question "Is it ethical to send humans to Mars?" begs a separate, more important one: Is it ethical to *colonize* Mars? (Particularly given the possibility of contaminating a maybe-active biosphere and all the baggage that goes with the history of colonization?). Would love to hear your thoughts.
Speeding up and slowing down are each relative to the sun. And yes, gravity passes can and have been used to slow down too. Parker Solar Probe is using a series of passes by Venus to get closer to the sun than it could on its own. It depends entirely on whether the spacecraft passes behind or in front of the planet in its track around the sun. Passing behind the planet transfers angular momentum from the planet to the spacecraft, speeding up the spacecraft and slowing the planet ever-so-slightly. Passing in front of the planet on its track will slow the spacecraft relative to the sun.
Is it possible that dark matter is something else than 'matter'? Considering the strange ways it seems to (not) be interacting with other types of matter, what else could it be?
The Lunar Gateway only makes any sense if we have something reusable delivering fuel there so that a lander can land and come back there again and refuel. Maybe we will get it if Starships stop blowing up. With only single use or partially reusable delivery there it is a waste.
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ Then fuel deliveries from Earth can decrease but I expect that is a long time off. Maybe by that time Starships work well enough to just go there and land themselves.
Probability of a planet of being hit by a asteroid not dependent to much of how big is its gravity, what matters is how many asteroids intersected its orbital path and how big is planet diameter, when a asteroid make a fly-by isn't pulled into planet but gravity of the planet change orbit of asteroid, small asteroids come close than geostationary satellite of the earth almost each year and fly back in the interplanetary space.
Fraser, are we doing manned Mars exploration wrong? Instead of sending current astronauts shouldn't we send volunteers with terminal illnesses so as to not be hampered by the long term effects of radiation, gravity and any other dangers? Just enough training to complete simple tasks and provide a footprint for mankind. Supplies would only then need to be sent for them with no requirement for a return trip.
Lmao. Not a single person will be going to Mars who does not want to go there themselves and who is not aware of the risks. Pretty stupid question actually.
I think the real ethical question is, should we attempt to colonize Mars if there's life there? I don't think so. To quote Carl Sagan, "Mars belongs to the Martians, even if they are microscopic."
We shouldn't colonize Mars, even if there's no microscopic Martians. It doesn't make sense to claw your way out of one gravity well just to throw yourself down another.
@25:33 Oi! Blue Origin is "considering a response to starship",... New Glen. Sure they've been "considering" orbital rockets for 20 years without actualizing anything and sure their "consideration" so far is in the form of CGI renderings and empty hangers but hey, technically, in your words, they are "considering" stuff.
Have a guess what is more dangerous than someone exploring space, or even me (a too old nobody) exploring space. Someone laying down the law and telling me I cant do it for safety reasons. That's more brave than anything I could see myself doing. And then there's telling people what they can or cant spend their money on...creating the electric car industry, space vehicles, space tech. These people that think they have the right to have a say about what others spend their own personal wealth on would be the death of innovation and maybe even the human race if we remain a single-planet species, although until we get our ideologies/politics sorted out I feel we shouldn't be allowed to infect any other (safe?) space in the universe. By the way, if space exploration remains a personal choice rather than a forced one then why shouldn't the brave people do what the cowards are unwilling to do? The externalities of which you speak already have a huge range of laws in most countries...they are just ignored because business funds politics, politics creates and enforces laws, politics forms and directs gov agencies (example US have how many law enforcement agencies?) to police laws, and because politics know who the large wealthy entities (does not include the lowly taxpayer) are that pay them they ignore industries that break the law. Industry(ies) aren't going to pay for fixing everything they have had a hand in fouling up because governments will make the taxpayers pay for it...or use a crisis for political gains.
Lol, I'm playing Eve Online, and I look over @32:23 to see fan art of a "Catalyst" destroyer from Eve Online, and brain went "huh?" (one of my favourite Eve ships btw)
Why planets? Why not build spinning habitats? Gravity wells are for suckers. They’re a pain to get out of and dangerous to get into. Planets will always have day/night cycles that have to be contended with. If there is an atmosphere then it’s almost certainly not the right chemistry or pressure or temperature for living in. Thus living anywhere other than on Earth’s surface is going to demand living in a can. So if you’re going to have to live in a can anyway why not a can in free-space? Free-space can living (living in a rotating habitat) means: No gravity well to make departure or arrival difficult, no day/night cycle to hinder always-on solar energy collection, your choice of gravity regime by simply choosing the habitat’s spin rate. Habitats are highly relocatable while planets are definitely not. Pound for pound habitats in free-space can provide a million times more habitable space/volume than planets because of how much mass has to be wasted just to provide gravity.
@@CarFreeSegnitz ... Eventually, far far into the future, gonna run out of asteroids to mine to make the space habs. That could be one of many reasons for people to start settling planets. and Moons. And so on. For mining.
Is it ethical? We are grown men and women that can sacrifice our lives and health for whatever cause we deem worthy. Men go on dangerous hunts, sacrifice themselves in coal mines, go to fight wars. We don’t need mother government or any round table philosophers thinking about what is ethical for an adult
Much as I would prefer to have NASA handling more space stuff, Space X is funded by Elon Musk's money and by the services it does for the US and others for money, launching satellites, etc. IE, he is not spending US government money for private gain, he's spending Elon Musk money for his gain. (And, of course, NASA has *always* used private business to do the building, etc, anyway)
The Lunar Gateway doesn't do any of the things proponents claim it does. Why? Because it wasn't designed to do any of those things. The Lunar Gateway was invented purely so the SLS rocket and Orion capsule had a destination to go to. Because, you see, SLS is too weak to carry both the overweight Orion and a lunar lander all the way to the Moon. That's right, after 10-15 years of development at a cost of $40-50 BILLION (depending on how you count), SLS/Orion has no purpose and no destination unless we shell out another $10-20-30 (who knows?) billion to build the Lunar Orbiting Tollbooth. All the nonsense about magical "benefits" of Gateway are post-hoc rationalizations. Gateway is a boondoggle invented to cover up the shortcomings of another boondoggle. The argument that we should build the Gateway because it'll HELP us get to the Moon is patently absurd. If you want to go to the Moon... then go to the Moon. If you want large lunar infrastructure, then create infrastructure... on the Moon. If you want to incentivize people to keep returning to the Moon or staying for long periods, then build a large base... on the Moon. There is no good reason to spend the BILLIONS and the many years necessary constructing ISS Jr. in lunar ORBIT. It will not help us expand space capabilities or learn anything new valuable enough to justify the cost. It will siphon resources needed elsewhere, delay or even prevent surface operations, and we won't even occupy the damn thing on a continuous basis. The Artemis plan involves inhabiting the Gateway for maybe 30 days out of the year. THIRTY DAYS! As great as the ISS is, it kept us imprisoned in low earth orbit for decades. Let's not repeat that mistake and get stuck in lunar orbit, and only occasionally venturing down to the surface. What a colossal waste that would be. And I've never heard a good argument for the idiotic NRHO orbit either. It feels like an orbit invented by a committee of bureaucrats & congressional staffers. It's the worst of all worlds. The Gateway is useless enough as it is, but they didn't even have the decency to just put it in low/medium lunar orbit. No, they had to find this stupid, super elongated orbit that makes it actually MORE difficult to get to the surface because you can't just leave the gateway anytime you want. Departure has to be timed to specific points in its orbit or your transfer vehicle won't have enough energy to get to the surface or back to the Orbiting Tollbooth, so if something goes wrong and you miss your departure window, you have to wait an entire WEEK for another chance. Compare this to a normal orbit that provides multiple departure opportunities PER DAY. One of the justifications provided for this absurd orbit is so it could act as a communications relay between Earth and the lunar south pole. Instead of lobbing a few relatively cheap & easy comsats into lunar polar orbit to act as a relay, we're supposed to spend YEARS and BILLIONS creating a Boondoggle Tollbooth nobody asked for and put it into the most ridiculously counterproductive orbit possible. Both the Gateway & the NRHO orbit are worse than useless.
to extend your car analogy.. and it's taken maybe a century and a half to force those companies to adhere to half-decent and near-sensible safety standards which they still try to get around... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opinion on musk is two words and an emoji mate. - Boca Chica. 😡
I think 1G is possible,1/2g really possible . by moving Mass but the space ship don't ever lose the mass . the spacecraft never lose it's fuel and i know free energy .no joke .no playing games i know free energy. it based on known law's physics and it's based on regenerative. braking .it came power everything cars , home.to space ship. the mass moves towards the back of the spaceship pushing the spaceship forward right before the mass gets ready to leave the spaceship the force of the mass changes direction and uses that energy of the mass to propel the spaceship forward again in a round and around loop always pushing the spaceship 🚀 forward. by pushing the mass the spaceship goes forward if done right by stopping the mass it pushes the spaceship forwards and it can be done over and over
it is a mechanical drive I've done the math to me it sure looks possible 1G constant 1G on a spaceship while the crew sleeps it would be nice if they could pull two or three g's for 8hrs . 3g's for 8hrs a day ,hopefully sleeping 😴 hr's. a trip to alpha centauri on the crew would only take 3 years round trip for the crew time and if I'm not mistaken like 12 years on everybody else's. I even got a name for this it's called heavy sleeping. .
Well, that settles it, I keep hearing how good The Expanse is on your show, and I'm finally checking it out now. Off to a promising start! (but yeah the propulsion system is still magic, not science!)
Lets not deceive our selfs. Living on the Moon or Mars is almost the same in terms of human survival. You will need Earth base supplies. The best way for humans to become interplanetary, is to invest in powerful telescopes and intergalactic probes with Solar sails to explore other Solar systems.
Technology doesn't just pop out of nowhere. Having people on the Moon or Mars will encourage development of better, faster, safer space infrastructure. Also, how would interstellar probes help human survival and becoming interplanetary? Unless you want to send humans, in which case you definitely want to have practiced that with a more local destination - like the Moon or Mars.
The two are away from earth - That’s really the only similarity - - Mars has 37.6% earth gravity, while the moon has 16.3% of earth’s gravity, - Mars has a 24.6 hour day, while the moon has a 27 days & 7.7 hours, - Mars has liquid water & CO2 atmosphere, while moon has neither, - Martian regolith is fairly smooth, while lunar regolith is extremely sharp, and - Martian soil has more of the ingredients needed to grow food than lunar regolith. You become interplanetary by living and working on various planets, not by observing them through telescopes & sending probes using solar sails. And, Mars is potentially a great jumping off point for industrializing the Asteroid Belt & creating a “Belter Economy”. No one has suggested that Mars would be even close to self-sufficient on day one, but the kind of self-sufficiency where Mars supplies most of its own needs & many of the needs of those working in the belt, & trades with earth for some precision manufactured goods & pharmaceuticals, would happen within 20-30 years after the first colonists set foot on Mars.
Is it ethical to drive to work when any car could kill me?
Is it ethical to stay home when an earthquake might collapse my house?
Is it ethical to eat food which could be contaminated (like food infrequently is)?
Theres risks in even the most mundane things. Life is for living. Surviving isnt living
Is it ethical to tell people what they can and can't do with their own lives in the pursuit of happiness?
The original question itself was crab mentality. It literally never occurred to me because I'm not other people's nanny.
It will be nice living on a planet with a population who would also never ask that question.
@@jtjames79 “...what they can and can not do...” It is ethical if everyone else is expected to pay to put you back together again when what you’re doing breaks you?
So perfect freedom must come with total personal responsibility? Do whatever you want and bare the full cost if it goes wrong. But what if the thing you do comes with a reasonable expectation of being safe? Going for a walk... and get struck by a drunk driver. Walking should be a very low risk. Drinking can be safe. Driving can be safe. Drunk driving is really, really not safe.
Perhaps we draw the line when whatever risky thing you do has a good chance of hurting someone else when it goes wrong for you. Climbing a building without ropes. You slip, you die... and a decent chance of killing someone when you hit the pavement.
Going to Mars? Really good chance of dying directly from the effort but extremely low likelihood of hurting anyone else in the process. Depends a little on how you account for externalities. Pollution due to your launch. Millions of man-hours being devoted to get you to Mars instead of curing cancer or forging world peace.
@@CarFreeSegnitz ok. So please, stay home, we don't want to pay in case you have an accident or if you kill someone in the process. BTW, not all scientists and engineers has knowledge or want to work with the search for the cancer cure. Are you working somehow to help to find the cure? There are other subjects of humanity interest too. If we all work on the same direction we'll be pretty limited on the possibilities, including curing the cancer.
@@CarFreeSegnitz straw man, it also never occurred to me that you would somehow feel responsible. I never asked for your help, with friends like you I wouldn't need enemies.
I prefer to keep my friends close, and my enemies on Earth.
Dying on Mars would be glorious. Real men go out with their boots on.
It’s the degree of risk involved. If you’re likely to die on Mars, then the people who facilitate you going there are unethical.
The entire point of going to Mars is “surviving” (colonisation 🙄) otherwise we can just send robots.
Fraser, your show is a multitasking marvel. Interactive live presentation, with the presenter simultaneously being the Director and with another part of the brain, the Editor, planning the content segments for post. Amazing.
>Is it ethical...
Yes. Yes. And hell yes. Even if they die. In fact, they will die, no matter what. No man lives forever. At least on Mars they get to die achieving greatness. We should all strive for such a death.
It’s not for us to sit around determining what’s ‘ethical’- people WILL take chances and we love them for it- More of it I say, without it we wouldn’t have experienced the progress we have. Love the show as always.
Been disappointed with thunderfoot these past few years
I have to wonder how the first question asker got the idea that anyone, even Musk, was going to send people *with no radiation shielding* to Mars. While manned spaceflight is always risky, we do a lot to reduce those risks.
14:42 fully agree! Overlooked externalities are our current huge problem with how we develop our civilization :(
Sorry if you have answered this before - do we know if other stars have an oort cloud?
I’m so excited all of the Chinese space achievements. How much It’s going to inspire space community? Or is it just another space race?
Of course going to Mars is ethical, as long as the traveler volunteer's and is fully aware of the risks.
Question: Can the CMB be used to determine your absolute speed? if you really stand still, it will be basically equal in all directions. If you move, it will be blueshifted in the direction you're moving and redshifted towards the direction you came from, right?
I admire your diplomacy in handling questions like trying to apply a total lack of understanding of the definition of ethics to people who are willing to take risks, and wishing for a Carrington Event with complete ignorance of or lack of concern for the consequent breakdown of the economy and society of the world for years, if not decades, with the inevitable deaths of millions if not billions of people from starvation, lack of water, 18th century medicine, heat, cold, and no social media. Of course if your concerns are overpopulation and kids spending too much time on their smartphones...
Question: What would it be like to live inside a nebula? Or a star cluster?
Most of the pictures you see of nebulae are as fake as any other painting. A vast majority of space pictures are artist's renditions of something that looks fairly unimpressive on an actual photo. That being said, a nebula has a particle density of 10.000 molecules per cubic centimeter at maximum, some are as low as 100. That's about 10^24 less dense than the air you breathe. So what would be the difference compared to vacuum? Take a guess...
It is ethical to let people manage their own risk.
As long as they are fully informed, it’s their decision.
Just consider a trip to Mars as one-way.
If the risks of journeying to the New World back in the 15th and 16th centuries were the same as humans going to Mars today, none of us here in the New World would be here discussing it on UA-cam.
Could you build a space telescope adding one mirror at a time using cube sats? We could add a few each year and make it bigger and bigger?
That’s actually a really good idea.
Modular space observatories are being thought about now. As the ISS was built with multiple launches so too could an observatory.
What I hope to see in the not-too-distant-future are observatories built in space with in-situ resources. Space development is currently bottle-necked by rocket launches. Our biggest rockets manage 30-40 tons to LEO. A pip-squeak asteroid like the Chelyabinsk meteor, just 19 metres in diameter, massed an estimated 12,000 tons. Of course the Chelyabinsk meteor was a dumb rock while things we launch are fully functional spacecraft.
If we just started mining, refining and building from the materials in Ryugu, or Bennu, we’d have millions of tons of material to work with. It would completely blow the doors off of what we could build in space. Observatories with km-wide primary mirrors that don’t need staggering support structures in zero-g. Giant primary mirrors separated by millions of km and teamed up as interferometers to give image resolution of a few metres of objects lightyears away. Modest telescopes shot out well outside Pluto’s orbit in opposite directions to do parallax surveys with orders of magnitude more sensitivity.
I think the first question makes no sense. The astronauts voluntarily choose to go, even though it's dangerous for them. I can't see how voluntarily doing anything that only puts yourself in danger can ever be unethical.
But great episode, Fraser!
4:01 Julian, that is almost like praying for a massive nuclear test in space. - Normally, in the adult world, we back our statements up with reasoning.
All sorts of questions come to mind when I read a statement like yours.
- Are you aware what would happen in such a case?
- How old are you?
- Are you praying for a doomsday event?
etc...
Question: What is your favorite space mission already launched? And the worst, that you think should never have happened (ignoring failed missions)?
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _
I don't understand exactly what you're saying (re: cats/ dogs) there. Are you saying:
Dogs are the best, which is why we chose them. Or
Cats are the best. We love them far too much to send them on a dangerous mission like this.
It seems like you could be advocating for either viewpoint.
At Copenhagen University's physics department there is a room named "|Rum|", meaning "absolute space", it's a reference to Newton's concept of absolute space which was abolished with relativity, but "absolute space" does exist, it's in Copenhagen, FYI.
Hi Fraser, when talking about the Carrington Event, CMEs in general, I'm surprised you don't talk about the 1989 event that blacked out your home country and the NE USA, or the 2012 near miss that was a Carrington+ level event that almost wiped out the world's electronics. Those are some recent events that could help people understand this is fairly common. Also, just as an aside, the UK (my pad) has been preparing for a CME of above the 1859 level and you should look into the preparation work that National Grid has been doing. It's interesting and should actually be able to keep the lights on even in the event of a large CME with an opposing magnetic field - even up to beyond a -1000 nano-Tesla DST.
Question: Why do you think we haven’t had spacecraft that create artificial gravity by using a tether between a capsule and a counterbalance weight, or 2 or more capsules spinning around a central hub?
Wouldn’t this be a much cheaper and easier way to create spin gravity than a 2001-style solid ring? It seems that it would be especially useful on a trip to Mars and not too expensive or difficult to produce.
I can't recall the brand name, but there is a handheld device that you can talk into and it will repeat the message in any of several languages. Then the person you are talking to can speak into the device in his language and the device will repeat it in your language. I can do virtually the same thing with a translation app on my phone.
Technically, why did it take several days for your electrical system to come back on-line after going down? Could you do a video of how the northern electrical grid handles solar storms. I would like to know how our grid here in the far south will handle a CME.
Hi Fraser,
You mentioned the Starship rocket that would be two stage and fully reusable. What about the old 1960s concept of the Sea Dragon? It was supposed to have been two stage and fully reusable. It's payload cost was to be $500 a kilogram with a capacity of up to 500 tons to low earth orbit.
The resolution and focus on your video is incredible! Almost unreal. Next step is to project a holographic image to my desktop! Great video!!
Thanks for answering.
Any time!
Is it possible to turn the Voyager camera on, point it in a specific direction, take a picture, and send it to Earth?
great episode with surprising answers to good question!
I love this reference (with shadow-wink) at 33:14 ;)
You can't prove to me that the great attractor didn't drag off your original greenscreen (the one that looked exactly like your backyard, complete with backyard noises, and even had a bug land on your head that one time), forcing you to replace it with this costco, off-brand one that's somehow even more obvious.
you say ask any question.
what do you think of this paper you must have read at some point years ago given your main interests in life:
Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current
Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity Part II: Directionality and Source (and part 1 to)
Anthony L. Peratt, Fellow, IEEE, John McGovern, Alfred H. Qöyawayma, Life Member, IEEE,
Marinus Anthony Van der Sluijs, and Mathias G. Peratt, Member, IEEE
thanks and do enjoy those dragons in the sky! :)
My main issue with the spacex "starship" is the flip maneuver for landing. I believe it's too inherently risky to rely on a liquid engine starting for the survival of the crew, especially a turbopumped one. I still believe it would be better to design it (or at least a variant of it) to have larger wings and landing gear to land on a runway with, both in terms of vehicle mass and safety.
I think the main issue with starship is lack of an abort system. You’re not going to have “normal” people getting on a bomb with no chance of escape.
I had to give up on Thunderfoot because I couldn't take the hypocrisy in his arguments against Musk.
You mean Thunderf00t was right, and it went against your ideals of the Elon utopia?
@@EliteGeeks It's interesting just how many ways you can be wrong in just one sentence.
@@EliteGeeks which of thunderfoot's claims do you think is correct?
@Coalsack Sector Your off base. Look up hypocrisy. It has nothing to do with right, wrong, or idolize.
@Coalsack Sector lol, Didn't mean to crush you so badly that all you have is childish insults. But no worries. I have an ignore list for trolls and you've earned a spot since you don't have anything of value to say.
Let's take the Lunar gateway idea one step up. We know that space elevators are unfeasible for Earth because, among other reasons, of its atmosphere and its relatively high gravity. But would it be possible for the Moon?
Not that the engineers think Starship is easy it's that they think they can do it
Plenty of UA-cam and Facebook engineers think it’s easy...
The expansion of the universe always blows my mind. Does the space in between galaxies grow larger like being pushed away or are they being pulled from the expansion of the outer boundary of the universe?
Hi Fraser,
Just thought I'd ask, why are there Mars-quakes if the planet has no plate tectonics?
What's up with this Nuklon Space Tug (Transport and Energy Module (TEM)) concept from Roscosmos? Ive seen a few pictures, but that's it.
Hey Fraser,
thanks for all these great shows. I have a question on wormholes and the bending of space. Let's assume wormholes could exist by bending space. People often use the image of folding a paper to show how they work. Would people on the edge of the flat region looking into the bend see everything normally or would they look into a great nothingness (as space would be folded away from it)? Or is the image of a folded paper just too oversimplified? Thanks in advance!
27:04 It's probably a balance act between the lower gravity and the less dense atmosphere of Mars. Less gravity causes less attraction but with a thinner atmosphere I would expect more of them to come through and impact on the ground.
The area of the planet is also much smaller, lessening the chance of impacts. I also suspect that larger impacts would be less of an issue as well due to the atmosphere being thinner. Would Tunguska sized impactors simply bury in a localized crater and cause less or no widespread area effects related to airbursts and the resulting shockwave. How well or poorly would the shockwave even propagate?
@@rustymustard7798 I think you are right. If it comes straight for you, being smaller helps to avoid a collision.
Since Mars has a small atmosphere, there will be asteroids exploding in it and others hitting the ground.
The ones hitting the ground will be much faster (less drag on Mars) and probably more devastating than on Earth. The ones exploding in the atmosphere could be less of a problem...??? The debris will still be a deadly proposal but the shock wave is definitely less problematic than on Earth.
I think the fact that Mars is literally next door neighbours to an asteroid belt, kind of increase the chances. Oh, and the two massive ones in orbit...
Hey Fraiser, Lucy is set to launch October 16th this year, I am beyond excited. After visiting 7 asteroids including 4 binary asteroids. Will the probe crash down into a asteroid or be sent off into deep space?
Good perspective, as always. But I think the Mars One approach of turning it into a reality show for funding while the world watches the colonists die on tv raised significant ethical questions.
22:30. Regarding "standing still." While there's no privileged frame of reference when you're applying the laws of physics, there is the comoving reference frame in which your motion with respect to the CMBR averages to zero. The sun is moving at about 500 km/sec with respect to that reference frame. I'm trying now to find out the Milky Way barycenter's velocity vector in the comoving reference frame.
Yeah, I was going to mention that, but it's a whole other rabbit hole.
From how I see It Roscosmos has all the necessary abilities in place and is furthest along in actual building of space infrastructure for manned missions.
Some people really don't want humans on Mars
I do want to see humans on Mars, but I don’t want to see the crew suffer. After a year of the crew spending time out of low earth orbit, we might see shells of a human beings on the mission. Not necessarily dead but just mentally and physically highly damaged humans whom we can’t help.
I think we should be living on the moon before Mars. But if we don't go when it's hard we'll never learn how to make it easier
@@johnlittle8975 that’s because nothing about Mars can support humans. It’s a sci-fi fantasy that has somehow encroached on genuine intelligent discussion.
HI Fraser, still watching from here in the UK and still enjoying the content. A question I have is about a short time after the Big Bang where the Universe was so hot and dense photons could not escape. Now I have heard early photons could escape once things had cooled sufficiently....but where does the heat escape to...how do we think the cooling happened?
The only way sending people to Mars would be unethical would be if there was already an indigenous population there. And or if the risks involved were not properly communicated to those taking the voyage. I think even a one way trip to mars would be ethical if those involved understood what they were undertaking.
00:49 The question itself is wrong. You can't pose a wrong question and ask if this is ethical.
The question would be correct if we still had slavery or if we sent prisoners or test animals for that matter then "is it ethical?" would be a valid argument. But that is not the case today. Everybody who is going to go to Mars, wants to go to Mars. We do not "send people to Mars", they are all volunteers, some will even pay to be allowed to go.
Should the starship ditch the propulsive landing in favor of parachutes for the next few launches; it seems that every launch started to go wrong many seconds before they actually blew up. Even though we learn things every time, we would learn more if the rocket didn't blow up.
"Loud Happens," with a rocket launching in the background, needs to be on a T shirt.
I have much appreciation how nuanced your opinion about SpaceX and Starship is. I wasn't expecting a Dear Moon sunmission video from you and luckily i haven't seen one
Wouldn't the Earth's thicker atmosphere cause greater effects from asteroid impacts than on Mars? Would the 'airburst' effect be lessened by the thinner atmosphere and therefore have a lower probability of causing more widespread shockwave damage in the case of a Mars impact?
0:45 of course, as long as the people know about the risks and chose to do that on their own will. However explorer always risks their live, from Columbus that tried to reach india by going west, over the race of Amundson against Scott to the southpole, to the race to the moon between US and USSR. All those people who went there, know they could die in their missions. Without those explorers we wouldnt have gotton anywhere in the longterm.
2:10 what a bad example, if you're flying to the opposite of the earth nowadays, the most risky part to die, is the way to the airport
If an object falls into a gravity well to get an assist, how does it get out of it again without expending energy? How to understand this in simple terms?
Hyperbolic orbit. If you approach a gravitational body from infinite you’ll speed up as you trade potential energy for speed. Unless you hit the object, including its atmosphere, you get to keep the speed until it’s time to come out the other side of the gravity well. Then you get to trade speed back for potential energy.
In an isolated system the encounter would just alter the trajectory of the spacecraft and planet. In our solar system everything is going around the sun, everything has angular momentum with respect to the sun. Gravity passes will exchange some angular momentum. The Voyager spacecraft stole a bunch of angular momentum from Jupiter and Saturn which sped up the spacecraft and slowed Jupiter and Saturn ever-so-slightly.
Thank you.
We should, eventually, be able to make spaceships that can cruise at 7% of the speed of light while having enough reserve fuel to decelerate again by that amount upon reaching its destination. We could thus colonize (probably by galaxy hopping) everything out to about 800 million light years. (I mean: everything that we can see by light that was emitted 800 million years ago; i.e., the separation of the other galaxy from the Milky Way was 777 million light years when the light was emitted, and its distance was 824 million light years when one of our astronomers observed the light. However, anything farther than that will be uncatchupwithable. This intergalactic colonization project would probably require about 16 billion years to complete. So let's get hoppin'. There are about three million galaxies in the volume we can reach, with a total, maybe, of one quintillion worlds to colonize. Wealth beyond measure. And if a single world gets its politics and society correctly figured out, it will justify the entire sixteen billion year long venture.
13:00 Not entirely true. Anything on Earth that you can see from Space, you can also see from the ground. It might be more expensive, but you could do most of it, if not all. There may be some upper atmosphere phenomena that you really need to look down to see; but even there, I think you could gather data from different altitudes in the Atmosphere and compare them to build a 3D picture. You could communicate by a combination of fiber optic cable and wireless links, at high speed, anywhere on the Globe. You can use accelerometers, laser interferometry, and triangulating ground-based signals, and so on, to do everything GPS does. Harder, but not impossible.
What you cannot do without going to Space is to look outward and see as well as we can with space telescopes and interplanetary probes. And you cannot study how living things function in other than 1 G. For that, you must go to Space.
Hi Fraser, does red dwarf stars produce any visible light in addition to their dominant IR light? I mean if humans stand on a red dwarf star, can we see anything with our eyes in visible light?
I'm not convinced that the Lunar Gateway is superior to a lunar surface base for the first steps.
I haven't yet heard any stated justification that points out what we gain versus a low earth orbit station or lunar surface base.
I love the emphasis on building up infrastructure. We need to start leaving water recycling equipment and other life support tools on or near the moon. I just don't see what we gain by having it in orbit vs on the ground.
You want your farms near a source of water.
23:24 I would answer with a clear no! Nevertheless, there are some companies that are at least ambitious within their own market like Astra or Rocket Lab. ABL was just able (pun) to secure a huge contract and a big funding boost withing weeks (but it was after this Q&A). I would probably name Relativity and after that Firefly as the biggest possible contenders. And while not a real company Breakthrough Starshot comes to my mind. Someone will take those Lasers, or Microwaves to propel something else than the smallest possible spaceship. If in space rocketry also counts, I would name Momentus, they were very successful at gathering contracts during the last year.
Hi Fraser, I thought some of your answers on this episode were so good they deserved to be short clips in their own right; why not produce something like that, maybe with visuals added on top?
I'm glad you enjoyed it. We're trying to come up with a format that lets us release these shows as efficiently as possible. Also, the UA-cam algorithm prefers longer episodes.
@@frasercain Well, I'm suitably entertained and informed by what you produce anyway, so the more efficient you can make it and the more effectively you can utilize the tools youtube provides the better. Thanks!
I feel like the question "Is it ethical to send humans to Mars?" begs a separate, more important one: Is it ethical to *colonize* Mars? (Particularly given the possibility of contaminating a maybe-active biosphere and all the baggage that goes with the history of colonization?). Would love to hear your thoughts.
Wolters World! I love his videos
Can you do gravity assists to slow down?
Speeding up and slowing down are each relative to the sun. And yes, gravity passes can and have been used to slow down too. Parker Solar Probe is using a series of passes by Venus to get closer to the sun than it could on its own.
It depends entirely on whether the spacecraft passes behind or in front of the planet in its track around the sun. Passing behind the planet transfers angular momentum from the planet to the spacecraft, speeding up the spacecraft and slowing the planet ever-so-slightly. Passing in front of the planet on its track will slow the spacecraft relative to the sun.
Are there exoplanets large enough to have earth sized moons or super earth sized moons?
Is there a telescope has a camera built inside it that would connect to cell phone via usb cord?
Is it possible that dark matter is something else than 'matter'? Considering the strange ways it seems to (not) be interacting with other types of matter, what else could it be?
The Lunar Gateway only makes any sense if we have something reusable delivering fuel there so that a lander can land and come back there again and refuel. Maybe we will get it if Starships stop blowing up. With only single use or partially reusable delivery there it is a waste.
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ Then fuel deliveries from Earth can decrease but I expect that is a long time off. Maybe by that time Starships work well enough to just go there and land themselves.
What I hear when someone says “it can’t be done” is just, they themselves can’t do it. I feel sorry for the limits such people aspire to.
Probability of a planet of being hit by a asteroid not dependent to much of how big is its gravity, what matters is how many asteroids intersected its orbital path and how big is planet diameter, when a asteroid make a fly-by isn't pulled into planet but gravity of the planet change orbit of asteroid, small asteroids come close than geostationary satellite of the earth almost each year and fly back in the interplanetary space.
19:47 The small telescope question... you didn't mention the use of arrays of smaller telescopes. Isn't that a potential use?
Fraser, are we doing manned Mars exploration wrong? Instead of sending current astronauts shouldn't we send volunteers with terminal illnesses so as to not be hampered by the long term effects of radiation, gravity and any other dangers? Just enough training to complete simple tasks and provide a footprint for mankind. Supplies would only then need to be sent for them with no requirement for a return trip.
No,don't think like that.
Lmao. Not a single person will be going to Mars who does not want to go there themselves and who is not aware of the risks. Pretty stupid question actually.
It would not be as how the British colonized Australia by sending convicts against their will to colonise someone else homeland.
You can't measure the amount of beach front erosion without satellites? It may make for better pictures, but that is not the only way to measure this.
> _I can only see what the universe looks like today._
Not even this, except of the near structures.
Just follow the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition.
I think the real ethical question is, should we attempt to colonize Mars if there's life there? I don't think so. To quote Carl Sagan, "Mars belongs to the Martians, even if they are microscopic."
We shouldn't colonize Mars, even if there's no microscopic Martians. It doesn't make sense to claw your way out of one gravity well just to throw yourself down another.
We can’t colonise Mars.
quality is dope
Lately, SpaceX has been fishing the fairings from the ocean for reuse. Have they abandoned trying to catch it with the huge nets?
Yes, they’ve retired the ships with nets.
I think a manned flight of Starship would sort out the bugs
I'm from Scandinavia, auroras are nothing special to me. But ppl should see it at least once if interested in it, I think.
@25:33 Oi! Blue Origin is "considering a response to starship",... New Glen.
Sure they've been "considering" orbital rockets for 20 years without actualizing anything
and sure their "consideration" so far is in the form of CGI renderings and empty hangers
but hey, technically, in your words, they are "considering" stuff.
Have a guess what is more dangerous than someone exploring space, or even me (a too old nobody) exploring space.
Someone laying down the law and telling me I cant do it for safety reasons. That's more brave than anything I could see myself doing.
And then there's telling people what they can or cant spend their money on...creating the electric car industry, space vehicles, space tech. These people that think they have the right to have a say about what others spend their own personal wealth on would be the death of innovation and maybe even the human race if we remain a single-planet species, although until we get our ideologies/politics sorted out I feel we shouldn't be allowed to infect any other (safe?) space in the universe.
By the way, if space exploration remains a personal choice rather than a forced one then why shouldn't the brave people do what the cowards are unwilling to do?
The externalities of which you speak already have a huge range of laws in most countries...they are just ignored because business funds politics, politics creates and enforces laws, politics forms and directs gov agencies (example US have how many law enforcement agencies?) to police laws, and because politics know who the large wealthy entities (does not include the lowly taxpayer) are that pay them they ignore industries that break the law.
Industry(ies) aren't going to pay for fixing everything they have had a hand in fouling up because governments will make the taxpayers pay for it...or use a crisis for political gains.
Lol, I'm playing Eve Online, and I look over @32:23 to see fan art of a "Catalyst" destroyer from Eve Online, and brain went "huh?" (one of my favourite Eve ships btw)
Hi Fraser. Do you think the Perchlorates in the Martian soil will present health problems through exposure or ingestion if we make it to Mars?
It can be easily washed off.
@@BOTA099 it’s a carcinogen, and washes off where?
YES, it is. For the human race to survive, We must become a multi-planet species!!!
Why planets? Why not build spinning habitats?
Gravity wells are for suckers. They’re a pain to get out of and dangerous to get into.
Planets will always have day/night cycles that have to be contended with.
If there is an atmosphere then it’s almost certainly not the right chemistry or pressure or temperature for living in. Thus living anywhere other than on Earth’s surface is going to demand living in a can. So if you’re going to have to live in a can anyway why not a can in free-space?
Free-space can living (living in a rotating habitat) means: No gravity well to make departure or arrival difficult, no day/night cycle to hinder always-on solar energy collection, your choice of gravity regime by simply choosing the habitat’s spin rate.
Habitats are highly relocatable while planets are definitely not.
Pound for pound habitats in free-space can provide a million times more habitable space/volume than planets because of how much mass has to be wasted just to provide gravity.
@@CarFreeSegnitz ... Eventually, far far into the future, gonna run out of asteroids to mine to make the space habs.
That could be one of many reasons for people to start settling planets. and Moons. And so on. For mining.
Is it ethical? We are grown men and women that can sacrifice our lives and health for whatever cause we deem worthy. Men go on dangerous hunts, sacrifice themselves in coal mines, go to fight wars. We don’t need mother government or any round table philosophers thinking about what is ethical for an adult
Question:Will the voyagers also escape the galaxy?
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ I see, thanks.
yes, yes it is.
Much as I would prefer to have NASA handling more space stuff, Space X is funded by Elon Musk's money and by the services it does for the US and others for money, launching satellites, etc. IE, he is not spending US government money for private gain, he's spending Elon Musk money for his gain. (And, of course, NASA has *always* used private business to do the building, etc, anyway)
@ᴡɪɴᴛᴇʀᴍᴜᴛᴇ _ Elon Musk shows that you don't have to be Facebook, Microsoft, or Verizon to go to space...because SpaceX isn't a monopoly.
I love the acting at 6:15 xDDD
It's ethical to send ME to Mars, my safety word is "yes".
Uh, then... yes?
On March 30th, Elon Musk tweeted, "However, SN20+ vehicles will probably need many flight attempts to survive Mach 25 entry heating & land intact."
The Lunar Gateway doesn't do any of the things proponents claim it does. Why? Because it wasn't designed to do any of those things. The Lunar Gateway was invented purely so the SLS rocket and Orion capsule had a destination to go to. Because, you see, SLS is too weak to carry both the overweight Orion and a lunar lander all the way to the Moon. That's right, after 10-15 years of development at a cost of $40-50 BILLION (depending on how you count), SLS/Orion has no purpose and no destination unless we shell out another $10-20-30 (who knows?) billion to build the Lunar Orbiting Tollbooth. All the nonsense about magical "benefits" of Gateway are post-hoc rationalizations. Gateway is a boondoggle invented to cover up the shortcomings of another boondoggle.
The argument that we should build the Gateway because it'll HELP us get to the Moon is patently absurd. If you want to go to the Moon... then go to the Moon. If you want large lunar infrastructure, then create infrastructure... on the Moon. If you want to incentivize people to keep returning to the Moon or staying for long periods, then build a large base... on the Moon. There is no good reason to spend the BILLIONS and the many years necessary constructing ISS Jr. in lunar ORBIT. It will not help us expand space capabilities or learn anything new valuable enough to justify the cost. It will siphon resources needed elsewhere, delay or even prevent surface operations, and we won't even occupy the damn thing on a continuous basis. The Artemis plan involves inhabiting the Gateway for maybe 30 days out of the year. THIRTY DAYS! As great as the ISS is, it kept us imprisoned in low earth orbit for decades. Let's not repeat that mistake and get stuck in lunar orbit, and only occasionally venturing down to the surface. What a colossal waste that would be.
And I've never heard a good argument for the idiotic NRHO orbit either. It feels like an orbit invented by a committee of bureaucrats & congressional staffers. It's the worst of all worlds. The Gateway is useless enough as it is, but they didn't even have the decency to just put it in low/medium lunar orbit. No, they had to find this stupid, super elongated orbit that makes it actually MORE difficult to get to the surface because you can't just leave the gateway anytime you want. Departure has to be timed to specific points in its orbit or your transfer vehicle won't have enough energy to get to the surface or back to the Orbiting Tollbooth, so if something goes wrong and you miss your departure window, you have to wait an entire WEEK for another chance. Compare this to a normal orbit that provides multiple departure opportunities PER DAY. One of the justifications provided for this absurd orbit is so it could act as a communications relay between Earth and the lunar south pole. Instead of lobbing a few relatively cheap & easy comsats into lunar polar orbit to act as a relay, we're supposed to spend YEARS and BILLIONS creating a Boondoggle Tollbooth nobody asked for and put it into the most ridiculously counterproductive orbit possible. Both the Gateway & the NRHO orbit are worse than useless.
to extend your car analogy.. and it's taken maybe a century and a half to force those companies to adhere to half-decent and near-sensible safety standards which they still try to get around...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion on musk is two words and an emoji mate.
- Boca Chica. 😡
I think 1G is possible,1/2g really possible . by moving Mass but the space ship don't ever lose the mass . the spacecraft never lose it's fuel and i know free energy .no joke .no playing games i know free energy. it based on known law's physics and it's based on regenerative. braking .it came power everything cars , home.to space ship. the mass moves towards the back of the spaceship pushing the spaceship forward right before the mass gets ready to leave the spaceship the force of the mass changes direction and uses that energy of the mass to propel the spaceship forward again in a round and around loop always pushing the spaceship 🚀 forward. by pushing the mass the spaceship goes forward if done right by stopping the mass it pushes the spaceship forwards and it can be done over and over
it is a mechanical drive I've done the math to me it sure looks possible 1G constant 1G on a spaceship while the crew sleeps it would be nice if they could pull two or three g's for 8hrs . 3g's for 8hrs a day ,hopefully sleeping 😴 hr's. a trip to alpha centauri on the crew would only take 3 years round trip for the crew time and if I'm not mistaken like 12 years on everybody else's. I even got a name for this it's called heavy sleeping.
.
I wonder what the ancients thought about auroras?
Well, that settles it, I keep hearing how good The Expanse is on your show, and I'm finally checking it out now. Off to a promising start! (but yeah the propulsion system is still magic, not science!)
Season 4 is abit crap (u will understand when you see it) but overall a great show! Only 1 season left
Lets not deceive our selfs. Living on the Moon or Mars is almost the same in terms of human survival. You will need Earth base supplies. The best way for humans to become interplanetary, is to invest in powerful telescopes and intergalactic probes with Solar sails to explore other Solar systems.
Technology doesn't just pop out of nowhere. Having people on the Moon or Mars will encourage development of better, faster, safer space infrastructure.
Also, how would interstellar probes help human survival and becoming interplanetary? Unless you want to send humans, in which case you definitely want to have practiced that with a more local destination - like the Moon or Mars.
The two are away from earth - That’s really the only similarity -
- Mars has 37.6% earth gravity, while the moon has 16.3% of earth’s gravity,
- Mars has a 24.6 hour day, while the moon has a 27 days & 7.7 hours,
- Mars has liquid water & CO2 atmosphere, while moon has neither,
- Martian regolith is fairly smooth, while lunar regolith is extremely sharp, and
- Martian soil has more of the ingredients needed to grow food than lunar regolith.
You become interplanetary by living and working on various planets, not by observing them through telescopes & sending probes using solar sails. And, Mars is potentially a great jumping off point for industrializing the Asteroid Belt & creating a “Belter Economy”. No one has suggested that Mars would be even close to self-sufficient on day one, but the kind of self-sufficiency where Mars supplies most of its own needs & many of the needs of those working in the belt, & trades with earth for some precision manufactured goods & pharmaceuticals, would happen within 20-30 years after the first colonists set foot on Mars.
They are not being sent, they are all Volunteers, some may even pay.