The scene was predominantly lit by the sun... astronomy & space related. It all occurred under the stars... astronomy & space. The ship, the canal, the people... all made from star dust... astronomy & space.
Yeah, "Lets travel to Mercury". I know your game Fraser. You just want to chop it up so that you can make the Dyson shell that will power your latest robot body.
If black holes have some structure inside, can we use gravitational waves to see it? Similarly as we study insides of planets by watching spacecrafts move through their gravity fields? Are the interior structures of two black holes orbiting each other imprinted into gravitational waves they produce?
Great questions! 11:00 One thing we could theoretically do is send the propulsing laser parts divided in many tiny (laser propelled) spacecrafts and once they reach 20% the speed of light, they gather together and assemble the laser in flight. Then turn on the assembled laser to slow down and leave the leaser in orbit around the destination to use it to slow down future spacecrafts. Voilà! ^_^
@nick b yeah, I imagine it would require at least a miniaturized fusion reactor for efficiency and everything should be able to work reliably for centuries. In my mind, the omega laser firing the laser in the direction of the destination for decades would be able to slow itself down. Photonic thrust... Which makes me ponder that if we used BLP to accelerate spacecraft , the laser itself would propulse itself out of its orbit. It would need two lasers pointing in opposite directions to cancel out. Maybe it will have to carry two missions in opposite directions at once ^_^
@nick b I understand photon rockets have a higher specific impulse. Theoretically, the specific impulse would be c. The catch, as you point out is getting to power them.
Re: things looking less impressive from space - the example that really sold it to me was the visual comparison of the Andromeda galaxy to the full moon. I always assumed that Andromeda's look in photographs was due to magnification, not light sensitivity. To find out that if our eyes were as sensitive as Hubble, Andromeda would be the size of three full moons across floored me. That the barely visible fuzzy blob we can see with the naked eye is just the core, rather than the whole thing unmagnified was astounding. Likewise, the thought of Andromeda "filling the sky" in a billion years as the Milky Way/Andromeda merger approaches - it would just become a slightly bigger fuzzy blob for the core, and just some extra visible stars. We already have a "sky-filling galaxy" - the Milky Way band that is near-invisible if you're anywhere with city lights! Andromeda would be similarly invisible with city lights its entire approach. I also was saddened to learn that the sci-fi look of nebula (where it looks more like a colorful glowing terrestrial fog) is completely incorrect. Then when I thought about it it seemed obvious - no nebula is going to be even a fraction the density of even Mars' thin atmosphere, or else it would have enough mass to form into planets. Obviously they'll be near-invisible when you get close to them.
Question: With quantum computing on the horizon, do you think the best / fastest way to explore a galaxy would be to just simulate a universe ourselves and see what phenomena and ultimately kinds of life it throws up?
One of the problems we face is in what inputs we give to the computer. And programming there's a phrase, garbage in garbage out. Right now we don't know all the laws of physics so we can't really simulate a universe. We need better input methods and better input knowledge.
Hi Fraser! What are your thoughts on the search for life comparing Europa to Enceladus? Do you think that Enceladus has more possibilities due to the vents and relatively thin ice crust? Are there any missions planned in the next decade to land on either moon?
Thank you for your videos - they are always interesting. In this one, there is something odd going on here when you're trying to "explain" how solar flares impact the earth. You say: when we know "this regime of particles" will impact the earth, then yes, absolutly we will "try to disconnect pieces of the grid, shut down special parts of satellites and try to be able to minimize the damage". HOW exactly will the particles they impact our grid? WHY exactly should we turn off some of the electrical assets? What will they do in the grid if we don't turn it off? Does this "regime" of particles just impact electric assets, or also electronic assets? If so, WHY both? Perhaps in another video you could explain these issues as well? I'm sure it would be much appreciated.
The robbing a bank on Mars question is very interesting and the answer even better. I wonder if we do start colonizing Mars how would the geographic locations be distributed? Would the first nations that arrive on Mars get to acquire locations permenently?
these couds are much larger than planet orbits around suns, so they likely share one spherical cloud around the shared center of mall. it may be a tiny metaball, too. those huge quite uniform low density clouds are hard to measure at all, we can barely measure our own. we just recently measured a cloud of thinly spread mars-atmoshpere, orbiting faster than mars-velocity-speed, all around mars,es orbit, and only coincidentally measured this. It seems that 2 non-binary stars may occasionaly pass by each other closely, but rarely ever pass through each others clouds, but still with a significant gravitational pull on each others clouds, which may trigger increased asteroid impacts not sooner than 2 million years later large distances, slow speed differences, long orbits). There seems to be some statistical significance, as all stars are in different ellyptic orbits within the galaxy, and the sum of many different ellypses forms a glowing spiral, that appears to rotate slowly, but really, it is simply the sum of countless DIFFERENT (and sometimes barely touching) ellypses. this seems to limit the diameter of these clouds (statistically significant?). it seems to be similar to the mathematical limits on rings and moons that a large gas Giant can (and can not) have, but with much more bodies in much longer orbits. [worldbuilding] channels on youtube give a nice overview on how to make up solar systems and moons, but with realistic constrains.
Planets orbit in light-minute distances to their star. dual system planet orbits are still reasonably measured in light-minutes, and not in light-days. single-star oord-clouds orbit in whole light-month(s) distnances to the star. I would be surprised, if anyone can show me a binary star-system (in a spiral galaxy), where 2 stars orbit with a distance between them, that is greater than 3 light-weeks. You might find this in non-spiral-galaxies, where stars are smaller, older, and the average densities are much lower.
"Smaller" as in smaller diameter? Do you know which stars they are? The version I heard is that, when looking from Earth without a telescope, the Sun is the third dimmest star. But I haven't been able to confirm it. Does anyone know?
@@timmcdaniel6193I don't know if that's the exact correct number, but it may be very close. Most of the stars that you can see without a telescope are far bigger and brighter than the sun. However, the sun is still a very big and bright star! Most stars are far far smaller than the Sun.
Sound waves that you can hear? Probably not something you would hear. The frequency would be really low. But the same kind of waves would exist which are longitudinal pressure density waves.
What you can do on Moon is to use a rotating pool of mercury as your mirror. You don't have to worry about supporting its shape because it will naturally settle into a parabolic shape, thanks to the centrifugal force when turning. Micrometeorite impact won't be a problem because the impactor material just settles on the bottom of the pool. Also, oxidation won't happen without an oxygen atmosphere.
I feel space panic conspiracies were actually way worse back in the 90s. I think mainstream media are giving much less time to that nonsense than they used back then.
You launch the giant rockets from the ocean so that the acoustic noise doesn't cause resonant frequencies back to your rocket ship and shake it all the pieces. It's the same reason that the shuttle had millions of gallons of water dumped underneath it when it launched. For even bigger rockets it's just easier to do from the water.
Hey Fraser, just wanted to say I love your videos! I always blow my girlfriend's mind with the knowledge I learn from your videos when we go stargazing.
Fraser answered the question on stars being special excellently. It's my understanding that there is at least one, possibly two red dwarf stars that are just about bright enough to see with the naked eye, albeit only just. Lacaille 8760 (AX Microscopii) and Lacaille 9352 (Gliese 887) are both M0 or M0.5 and close enough to just keep below +7.5 apparent magnitude. I hope Fraser does not mind but there is a video here that some may find interesting and explains this amongst other info on Red Dwarf Stars in general ua-cam.com/video/_eCgT1voEdQ/v-deo.html
@@anyportinastormqwert hey I have the utmost of respect for him. As a physics educator I think he does an excellent job. But all of us, and that includes me, can improve in the way we communicate. One of the ways to do that is to not repeat phrases like, "That's a really good question" over and over again. One thing you could do is acknowledge the person and thank them for asking the question. You can say something like "thank You Jane for such a thought provoking question". It's just simply a way to become a better communicator. I often recommend Frazier Crane videos to my students. He doesn't excellent job!
Now you've got me curious - how close would a red dwarf star have to be to be readily visible to the naked eye? How about to be as bright as "a bright star"? How about to be as bright as Mars (on a good-reflection day)? (Heck, how close would it have to be to be visible as more than a point-source to the naked eye?)
You could see a red dwarf looking like a bright star if that red dwarf were in the solar system. Think about how big Jupiter is and how small it looks to us from here on Earth. Red dwarf stars are not really that much bigger in diameter than Jupiter. They're in the same ballpark. For example, out by Pluto, the Sun looks like a really bright star. If you're standing on Pluto during noon when the sun is directly overhead, it would be about like standing around the Earth a half hour to 1 houror so after sunset. So a red door star would give off more light than the planets too, and so it would be bright, but it wouldn't look much bigger than say Jupiter does if it were out by Pluto.
In physics term, deceleration is the same thing as acceleration in the opposite direction. Any physical phenomenon that you can use to accelerate can also be used to accelerate, and vice versa. Even at non-relativistic speeds, this is part of what Relativity means. You don't have any intrinsic speed. You're movement is always in relation to something else.
There is, however, an interstellar medium that is more or less at rest relative to the motion of the local stars, which can be used to produce drag to slow a high velocity object down, but will be difficult to use to accelerate an object up to a high enough velocity for practical interstellar travel.
35:48 Mercury: "easier to get down to than, say Venus". True, once orbit is established. Slowing down enough from starting Helio-orbit to get into Mercury-orbit, not necessarily so "easy". Doable at low fuel expense using gravity assists ala Parker, but easy?
There should be a place somewhere in the twilight belt, where one could extend solar panels high enough into constant direct sunlight, while the rest is in shadow on the ground
@@LarsRyeJeppesen The true ones that aren't controversial we just call history. History is full of (sometimes large and elaborate) secret plots. Is it still a conspiracy theory to allege that the GWBush admin, the Pentagon, CIA et al., and the governments and intelligence services of several other nations, conspired together and with the media to "sex up the intelligence" (often from whole cloth) and manufacture a case for invading Iraq based entirely on their own lies, and to actively discredit experts and journalists who tried to contradict those lies? That was a popular conspiracy theory not so long ago, and AFAIK there's no reason anymore to doubt it was true.
Mercury is hard. First we need to somehow put a payload in a transfer orbit, I think about 16 km/s, but then we need to slow down at Mercury from something like 70 km/s!!! Only an ion thruster or solar sail could hack about 20 km/s of delta-V. Landing would take about 4-5 km/s.
Given that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," how will we know if Perseverance finds life - past or present - on Mars? Short of Martians coming out to say hello, what level of proof will NASA require? Will it hedge its bets and wait for the sample returns? At what point do we declare Mars dead?
Hi : ) Are we seeing less and less of the Universe as things falling behind our observable horizon because dark energy driven expansion OR are we seeing more and more of the Universe because every moment older and older light is reaching us? Is our observable Universe getting smaller or bigger?
Potentially both, there may be things moving towards us, whose light is just reaching us, there may be other things moving away who's light will never reach us because the expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light.
As the universe expands we will see less and less. A long time from now there will be nothing in the night sky except the Milky Way galaxy. Everything else will be too far away.
Hi Fraser, if NASA was tasked to build a telescope capable of imaging an interstellar planet at 32x32 pixels, could they do it, and what would it take to make it happen?
Question, if photons have no mass, how come gravitational lenses are a thing? Shouldn't a particle be immune to gravity if it has zero mass? Love everything you do. Greetings!
In the far future, once the expansion of the universe has made it so any future civilisations can only see stars in their home galaxy beacuase the rest of the universe has gone beyond their universal horizon, do you think they would be able to figure out how the universe began and what lies beyond their own galaxy?
Hi Fraser, first let me thank you for your content and for heads up on " The Expanse " been binging. What dictates the rotational speed of planets and why is Jupiters rotation so fast. Bob in BC
There are lots of things to consider concerning rotational velocities of planets. Probably initially the size of the rotating dust and rocks and debris field that caused it to form in the first place. Angular momentum must be conserved and so that matters a lot. However! after that, there are lots of things that can change the velocity such as collisions with other large objects. the largest planets formed from the largest debris clouds so they typically will have the largest velocities.
Fraser, I heard that billions of year ago, a collision event created the moon. What would the gravity of the earth be like had the moon not been created, but instead, all that mass formed a bigger earth? Would it be so great that rockets would never have made it into space?
The Moon is about 1% the mass of the Earth, so you're looking at something that's a little over 1% more massive than Earth, which is really not much difference.
I personally can't wait for #Foundation, though I am a little worried to be honest. I hope they haven't gone down the same road as #Discovery and flooded it with #Woke #PC #CancelCulture mentality.
So no gay characters, and all the black ones gotta be killed off by episode 3 at the latest right? Yeah no worries they took notes at your last clan meeting.
If you can't actually put into words what it is you disagree with regarding the writing or casting of Discovery without revealing the fact your a bigot then they're probably not valid criticisms. All those idea exist because you're looking for them. I've watched Discovery with a regular mindset, not looking for any of that stupid shit, and it's been pretty good.
The sun moves slightly faster than the moon across the sky. When the moon was closer to the earth, I assume it moved faster, it was also bigger in the sky. In the period where the sun and moon were moving at aproximately the same speed, was there ever an eclipse the lasted for days rther than minutes? If so, what is the longes an eclipse could have lasted?
Actually, the closer the Moon is and the slower it moves in the sky (but the faster it moves compared to the Sun). That's because the Moon's orbital motion cancels out a bit of the Earth's rotation, and if you pull it close enough you can get to a point where they both exactly cancel out and the Moon is immobile in the sky (that point is geostationary orbit).
So how would the metalicity be it new the mergered Andromeda/milky ways new stars that will be born -How is it Andromeda right now - more or less than Milky way ?
Maybe a person who has synesthesia can imagine what it's like to experience 4d....like being able to see smell or sound may be similar to seeing time. Maybe they can experience the beginning and end of our universe simultaneously.
Well if you had perfect power conversion then, yes you could do that. But perfect power conversion is kind of hard to come by. It's probably impossible except on the quantum realm.
The whole point of a solar sail is to be extremely light, and a powerful enough laser to slow down other light sails is the opposite of light. Though there are ideas to set up interplanetary or even interstellar 'highways' of stationed lasers for future light sails to use, but they would take a lot of time to set up.
What’s the distance from an event horizon where we could experience earth like gravity would this also be a universal distance from every black hole horizon
No that distance depends on the size of the black hole. For small black holes, gravity increases really fast and you would never get close to the event horizon. You would get ripped to shreds long before you get there. However, for extremely large black holes, like the ones at the center of galaxies, you could cross the event horizon and you really wouldn't even notice anything special happening. From your point of view everything would just be kind of the same, except one direction you looked would be completely black. And then you would never be able to turn around and go back out. Because there would be no other direction to turn around too. Every direction would lead down. This is an oversimplification but I hope it helps answer your question.
@@dankuchar6821 well not really because yeah the mass of the black hole would determine the size of the event horizon (the distance in which light cannot escape) because of the amount of mass so your saying it’s inconsistent through the universe opposed to at a set limit
@@Chumfin There is always a certain distance where a black hole exerts the same gravitational pull as what you feel on the surface of the Earth, but it is not useful or exploitable in any way: you'd feel weightless regardless, unless you had a giant pole coming out of the black hole and holding you in place, but such a thing is impossible to build.
And would need to withstand the ambient temperature of 900+ degrees. The sunlight isn't what makes it hot, it's the greenhouse gases trapping the heat. Mercury is closer to the sun, but cooler than venus for this reason.
@@bustedrav Mercury is ~airless. Your wheels would have to be able to take the heat. You'd have to deal with the heat that radiated from the surface below, and the heat that would conduct through the wheels into the rest of the rover. Not too difficult. The interior of the rover - shaded and insulated, with radiators facing the sky but not the sun - could be ~cold.
Hi, Fraser! You need to check Dr. Eric Berg channel. He may help with your allergies. Also Dr. Joseph Mercola, THOMAS DELAUER and FLAV CITY by Bobby Parrish, for products and recipes. I am trying the KETO diet with intermitent fasting, and a few supplements. I used to have allergic rhinitis, which also was gone after I bought a vacuum cleaner with HEPA filter.
Those little black blobs you see around nebulae star forming regions are stars in the process of forming. Every moment of every day there are stars turning on somewhere.
It seems that a long time before Starship will be human-rated; why isn't SpaceX converting the Crewed Dragons for interplanetary use. Humans could return to the Moon and get to Mars much quicker than having to wait for the development of these new rockets.
It's not that easy. You need huge giant rockets to get anywhere fast enough that you don't kill everybody on board during the trip. Some massive rockets and refueling rockets in space is probably necessary. Then you have to have a way, probably, to make fuel on Mars to use to get back home. The current rover on Mars has a little test experiment designed to check out the feasibility of making rocket fuel from the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere on Mars. People are working on it. But it's hard. Far harder than anything SpaceX can do. Remember SpaceX didn't invent reusable rockets, nor did they invent vertical landings of rockets. That was all done 10 to 20 years ago. It's just at the time it wasn't financially feasible to make it worthwhile because there wasn't enough launch business. Now that everybody wants to launch stuff, it's actually worth doing.
Hey Fraser, I have a serious question for once, "Can you ever see fusion technology advancing to Matter - Antimatter fusion powering Probes, ships which humans travel in?" I lie in bed sometimes at night using my mind and my physics knowledge to try to work out how to make new engines, I have one of those minds where I can close my eyes and imagine machines I have never seen before and see their workings. I forgot what that is called. Thanks for your videos, you are the Tupac Shakur of space information videos.
You have a mind where you can imagine new space engines but not able to remember their names? Giving stuff names are the easy part, leave this to us, we call them something with hyper something, you concentrate on the engines
They have very similar acceleration at their surface: they are both within 1% of 3.7 m/s², but that's a coincidence. Mercury is smaller than Mars but also denser, and they happen to cancel out.
Nah, forget Mercury , lets just land right on the sun. Do you have any idea how quickly you can roast a marshmallow on that thing? Just be sure to bring the extra long marshmallow sticks, nobody likes human in their smores. Well except for the tentacle beasts from omega sector.
Re conspiracies vs. science and UA-cam making it worse: I dare anyone here to find ten content creators talking about ancient Sumerian history without getting bombarded with ancient aliens tier conspiracists for the next month.
I guess will bungle the foundation novels or its precurser novels -It just depends -fast buck means bungle -politicial correct means bungle -the point is if thy make the main character a young handsome hollywood star -then we know its a bungle by default -since without such insight its pointless to watch -Noone of the characters in foundationevern were depicted beutiful so when we see perfect specimen we know its a bungle -I guess it will be heavily simplified and then rushed ,sorry to point out Hollywood faults but current H do this
Question, Not to be a buzz kill. But how is it humane and ethical to send a crew of humans to Mars, when they get radiated by the sun and cosmic rays for months if not years causing cognitive decline, significantly increase the chance of cancer and crew being isolated from their families and the rest of humanity. And to top it all there is a real risk of the mission killing the crew almost immediately at any stage of the mission.
Yes they will get more radiation. But not that much more. It's no different than flying in an airplane. Do you realize that when you fly in an airplane you get 10 to 15 times more radiation than you normally get? The question is will they get enough radiation to cause in case cancer risk. Nobody knows that. Yes radiation can cause increased cancer risk, but nobody knows exactly at what point that really happens. Why? Because we don't do tests on humans, and other animals don't live long enough for us to find out for sure. check out the animals that live by the Russian power plant that exploded called Chernobyl. They're all doing just fine even though they all have much higher levels of radioactivity than other animals do. The problem is, maybe they just don't live long enough to get cancer. We don't know. astronauts go to the space station and the moon I'll get more radiation. But interstellar space would definitely have somewhere. We would have to shield the spaceship some. Anybody who goes will have to know the risks and choose for themselves. Personally, I would probably choose to go because the cancer risks would be fairly small.
@@dankuchar6821 Animals and humans in Pripyat receive only slightly elevated amount of radiation, comparing those numbers to space flight makes little sense. Also yes you do get more radiation exposure when flying but it's a very tiny amount compared to what the crew on ISS receives. When flying above low Earth orbit the Mars crew would receive more radiation that the crew on ISS. ISS and other low earth orbit missions have some protection from galactic cosmic rays due to the Van Allan radiation belts. All lunar astronauts in total spent 12 days above low earth orbit. Anyone traveling to Mars will spend months if not years until they reach their destination. There's also the added risk of coronal mass ejections, which briefly increase the amount of radiation significantly.
1. How is it humane and ethical to... It's not your decision. Well, in a way it is, but only as it pertains to yourself. 2. About the Radiation... We have this stuff called Mass and can use it for Shielding. Also, the technology to generate artificial magnetic fields is readily available.
If you rob a bank on mars it is most probably the bank of elon musk, and all you get is doge coins, and they are worthless, so good luck, I would come up with a better plan, but that is me
Recorded before the Suez incident. The Moon helped it get free again so it's astronomy related :-)
That's brilliant. You're awesome!
The scene was predominantly lit by the sun... astronomy & space related. It all occurred under the stars... astronomy & space. The ship, the canal, the people... all made from star dust... astronomy & space.
Another way having 2 or moons would help/hinder mankind. Visually spectacular, fer sure...
Yeah, "Lets travel to Mercury". I know your game Fraser. You just want to chop it up so that you can make the Dyson shell that will power your latest robot body.
Hahahahaha
If black holes have some structure inside, can we use gravitational waves to see it? Similarly as we study insides of planets by watching spacecrafts move through their gravity fields? Are the interior structures of two black holes orbiting each other imprinted into gravitational waves they produce?
Nobody has said it, but the new camera looks great. Depth of field, quality, everything. +1
I noticed
Great questions! 11:00 One thing we could theoretically do is send the propulsing laser parts divided in many tiny (laser propelled) spacecrafts and once they reach 20% the speed of light, they gather together and assemble the laser in flight. Then turn on the assembled laser to slow down and leave the leaser in orbit around the destination to use it to slow down future spacecrafts. Voilà! ^_^
@nick b with the laser at the destination we can send stuff back to earth, or you say to slow down the laser?
@nick b yeah, I imagine it would require at least a miniaturized fusion reactor for efficiency and everything should be able to work reliably for centuries. In my mind, the omega laser firing the laser in the direction of the destination for decades would be able to slow itself down. Photonic thrust... Which makes me ponder that if we used BLP to accelerate spacecraft , the laser itself would propulse itself out of its orbit. It would need two lasers pointing in opposite directions to cancel out. Maybe it will have to carry two missions in opposite directions at once ^_^
@nick b I understand photon rockets have a higher specific impulse. Theoretically, the specific impulse would be c. The catch, as you point out is getting to power them.
Re: things looking less impressive from space - the example that really sold it to me was the visual comparison of the Andromeda galaxy to the full moon. I always assumed that Andromeda's look in photographs was due to magnification, not light sensitivity. To find out that if our eyes were as sensitive as Hubble, Andromeda would be the size of three full moons across floored me. That the barely visible fuzzy blob we can see with the naked eye is just the core, rather than the whole thing unmagnified was astounding.
Likewise, the thought of Andromeda "filling the sky" in a billion years as the Milky Way/Andromeda merger approaches - it would just become a slightly bigger fuzzy blob for the core, and just some extra visible stars. We already have a "sky-filling galaxy" - the Milky Way band that is near-invisible if you're anywhere with city lights! Andromeda would be similarly invisible with city lights its entire approach.
I also was saddened to learn that the sci-fi look of nebula (where it looks more like a colorful glowing terrestrial fog) is completely incorrect. Then when I thought about it it seemed obvious - no nebula is going to be even a fraction the density of even Mars' thin atmosphere, or else it would have enough mass to form into planets. Obviously they'll be near-invisible when you get close to them.
Question: With quantum computing on the horizon, do you think the best / fastest way to explore a galaxy would be to just simulate a universe ourselves and see what phenomena and ultimately kinds of life it throws up?
No
One of the problems we face is in what inputs we give to the computer. And programming there's a phrase, garbage in garbage out. Right now we don't know all the laws of physics so we can't really simulate a universe. We need better input methods and better input knowledge.
Such simulations would be pretty cool, and also might aid in the planning/designs for early interstellar ships.
Hi Fraser! What are your thoughts on the search for life comparing Europa to Enceladus? Do you think that Enceladus has more possibilities due to the vents and relatively thin ice crust? Are there any missions planned in the next decade to land on either moon?
The Big Man is back, Fraser Cain. He is a great guy, he brings us all education. Always been a Stan for this guy.
Agreed, and now with Panda eyes ;O)
@@Ubinnhad Yer he must of been drinking a lot of Panda Pops. (Google it)
Thank you for your videos - they are always interesting.
In this one, there is something odd going on here when you're trying to "explain" how solar flares impact the earth. You say: when we know "this regime of particles" will impact the earth, then yes, absolutly we will "try to disconnect pieces of the grid, shut down special parts of satellites and try to be able to minimize the damage".
HOW exactly will the particles they impact our grid? WHY exactly should we turn off some of the electrical assets? What will they do in the grid if we don't turn it off? Does this "regime" of particles just impact electric assets, or also electronic assets? If so, WHY both?
Perhaps in another video you could explain these issues as well? I'm sure it would be much appreciated.
The robbing a bank on Mars question is very interesting and the answer even better. I wonder if we do start colonizing Mars how would the geographic locations be distributed? Would the first nations that arrive on Mars get to acquire locations permenently?
Question! Do binary stars share an oort cloud or does each star have it's own oort cloud? Also, can we even detect other stars oort clouds?
these couds are much larger than planet orbits around suns, so they likely share one spherical cloud around the shared center of mall. it may be a tiny metaball, too.
those huge quite uniform low density clouds are hard to measure at all, we can barely measure our own. we just recently measured a cloud of thinly spread mars-atmoshpere, orbiting faster than mars-velocity-speed, all around mars,es orbit, and only coincidentally measured this.
It seems that 2 non-binary stars may occasionaly pass by each other closely, but rarely ever pass through each others clouds, but still with a significant gravitational pull on each others clouds, which may trigger increased asteroid impacts not sooner than 2 million years later large distances, slow speed differences, long orbits). There seems to be some statistical significance, as all stars are in different ellyptic orbits within the galaxy, and the sum of many different ellypses forms a glowing spiral, that appears to rotate slowly, but really, it is simply the sum of countless DIFFERENT (and sometimes barely touching) ellypses.
this seems to limit the diameter of these clouds (statistically significant?). it seems to be similar to the mathematical limits on rings and moons that a large gas Giant can (and can not) have, but with much more bodies in much longer orbits. [worldbuilding] channels on youtube give a nice overview on how to make up solar systems and moons, but with realistic constrains.
Planets orbit in light-minute distances to their star. dual system planet orbits are still reasonably measured in light-minutes, and not in light-days. single-star oord-clouds orbit in whole light-month(s) distnances to the star.
I would be surprised, if anyone can show me a binary star-system (in a spiral galaxy), where 2 stars orbit with a distance between them, that is greater than 3 light-weeks.
You might find this in non-spiral-galaxies, where stars are smaller, older, and the average densities are much lower.
There are roughly 8,000 stars that can be seen from Earth without a telescope.
Of these, only 7 are smaller than the Sun.
"Smaller" as in smaller diameter? Do you know which stars they are?
The version I heard is that, when looking from Earth without a telescope, the Sun is the third dimmest star. But I haven't been able to confirm it. Does anyone know?
@@timmcdaniel6193I don't know if that's the exact correct number, but it may be very close. Most of the stars that you can see without a telescope are far bigger and brighter than the sun. However, the sun is still a very big and bright star! Most stars are far far smaller than the Sun.
Is the gas around a forming star or within a accretion dense enough for sound to be possible within it?
No
Sound waves that you can hear? Probably not something you would hear. The frequency would be really low. But the same kind of waves would exist which are longitudinal pressure density waves.
What you can do on Moon is to use a rotating pool of mercury as your mirror. You don't have to worry about supporting its shape because it will naturally settle into a parabolic shape, thanks to the centrifugal force when turning. Micrometeorite impact won't be a problem because the impactor material just settles on the bottom of the pool. Also, oxidation won't happen without an oxygen atmosphere.
Could we use the Energizer Bunny and batteries as a power source for intergalactic exploration?
Fun Fact: fraser is actually played zordon from mighty morphin powerangers!
I feel space panic conspiracies were actually way worse back in the 90s. I think mainstream media are giving much less time to that nonsense than they used back then.
You launch the giant rockets from the ocean so that the acoustic noise doesn't cause resonant frequencies back to your rocket ship and shake it all the pieces. It's the same reason that the shuttle had millions of gallons of water dumped underneath it when it launched. For even bigger rockets it's just easier to do from the water.
Hey Fraser, just wanted to say I love your videos! I always blow my girlfriend's mind with the knowledge I learn from your videos when we go stargazing.
Tell about Chinese interstellar mission
Use the moon to manufacture all the space telescopes! 👍
Fraser answered the question on stars being special excellently. It's my understanding that there is at least one, possibly two red dwarf stars that are just about bright enough to see with the naked eye, albeit only just. Lacaille 8760 (AX Microscopii) and Lacaille 9352 (Gliese 887) are both M0 or M0.5 and close enough to just keep below +7.5 apparent magnitude.
I hope Fraser does not mind but there is a video here that some may find interesting and explains this amongst other info on Red Dwarf Stars in general ua-cam.com/video/_eCgT1voEdQ/v-deo.html
That's a great question
Yeah he really needs to stop saying that.
No he doesn't!
He should say anything he likes. I'm learning a lot from him. Much respect and love to him.
@@anyportinastormqwert hey I have the utmost of respect for him. As a physics educator I think he does an excellent job. But all of us, and that includes me, can improve in the way we communicate. One of the ways to do that is to not repeat phrases like, "That's a really good question" over and over again. One thing you could do is acknowledge the person and thank them for asking the question. You can say something like "thank You Jane for such a thought provoking question". It's just simply a way to become a better communicator.
I often recommend Frazier Crane videos to my students. He doesn't excellent job!
I think once we have infrastructure out in the kuiper belt for construction and refueling then we have a real shot at interstellar travel.
Now you've got me curious - how close would a red dwarf star have to be to be readily visible to the naked eye? How about to be as bright as "a bright star"? How about to be as bright as Mars (on a good-reflection day)?
(Heck, how close would it have to be to be visible as more than a point-source to the naked eye?)
You could see a red dwarf looking like a bright star if that red dwarf were in the solar system. Think about how big Jupiter is and how small it looks to us from here on Earth. Red dwarf stars are not really that much bigger in diameter than Jupiter. They're in the same ballpark.
For example, out by Pluto, the Sun looks like a really bright star. If you're standing on Pluto during noon when the sun is directly overhead, it would be about like standing around the Earth a half hour to 1 houror so after sunset.
So a red door star would give off more light than the planets too, and so it would be bright, but it wouldn't look much bigger than say Jupiter does if it were out by Pluto.
"F" Yeah, me too! GO Mercury!
How can we build a space elevator?
In physics term, deceleration is the same thing as acceleration in the opposite direction. Any physical phenomenon that you can use to accelerate can also be used to accelerate, and vice versa.
Even at non-relativistic speeds, this is part of what Relativity means. You don't have any intrinsic speed. You're movement is always in relation to something else.
There is, however, an interstellar medium that is more or less at rest relative to the motion of the local stars, which can be used to produce drag to slow a high velocity object down, but will be difficult to use to accelerate an object up to a high enough velocity for practical interstellar travel.
35:48 Mercury: "easier to get down to than, say Venus".
True, once orbit is established.
Slowing down enough from starting Helio-orbit to get into Mercury-orbit, not necessarily so "easy". Doable at low fuel expense using gravity assists ala Parker, but easy?
25:20 Ian Douglas wrote a good story with 4th dimensional beings in 'Altered Starscape'
I would love to hear about magnetic-reconnection propulsion.
There should be a place somewhere in the twilight belt, where one could extend solar panels high enough into constant direct sunlight, while the rest is in shadow on the ground
Yeah you could do that on the moon up near the polls.
You shouldn't classify fringe / pseudoscience theories as "conspiracy theories." Some conspiracy theories are true.
Is that a star? Because I can feel the burn from here! :-D
Example?
@@LarsRyeJeppesen The true ones that aren't controversial we just call history. History is full of (sometimes large and elaborate) secret plots.
Is it still a conspiracy theory to allege that the GWBush admin, the Pentagon, CIA et al., and the governments and intelligence services of several other nations, conspired together and with the media to "sex up the intelligence" (often from whole cloth) and manufacture a case for invading Iraq based entirely on their own lies, and to actively discredit experts and journalists who tried to contradict those lies? That was a popular conspiracy theory not so long ago, and AFAIK there's no reason anymore to doubt it was true.
@@LarsRyeJeppesen The assassination of Julius Caesar; the Gulf Of Tonkin incident; the Russian Revolution. There are oodles of them.
@@theradgegadgie6352 Lol ok. Anyone related to space?
Question: What ever happened to Mars One?
Mercury is hard. First we need to somehow put a payload in a transfer orbit, I think about 16 km/s, but then we need to slow down at Mercury from something like 70 km/s!!! Only an ion thruster or solar sail could hack about 20 km/s of delta-V. Landing would take about 4-5 km/s.
Given that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," how will we know if Perseverance finds life - past or present - on Mars? Short of Martians coming out to say hello, what level of proof will NASA require? Will it hedge its bets and wait for the sample returns? At what point do we declare Mars dead?
Hi : ) Are we seeing less and less of the Universe as things falling behind our observable horizon because dark energy driven expansion OR are we seeing more and more of the Universe because every moment older and older light is reaching us? Is our observable Universe getting smaller or bigger?
It is getting bigger in volume, but containing less an less matter.
Potentially both, there may be things moving towards us, whose light is just reaching us, there may be other things moving away who's light will never reach us because the expansion of the universe is faster than the speed of light.
As the universe expands we will see less and less. A long time from now there will be nothing in the night sky except the Milky Way galaxy. Everything else will be too far away.
Hi Fraser, if NASA was tasked to build a telescope capable of imaging an interstellar planet at 32x32 pixels, could they do it, and what would it take to make it happen?
New camera, damn! Works well.
Question, if photons have no mass, how come gravitational lenses are a thing? Shouldn't a particle be immune to gravity if it has zero mass? Love everything you do. Greetings!
Gravity is caused by the distortion of space-time, which affects the path of all objects regardless of their mass.
In the far future, once the expansion of the universe has made it so any future civilisations can only see stars in their home galaxy beacuase the rest of the universe has gone beyond their universal horizon, do you think they would be able to figure out how the universe began and what lies beyond their own galaxy?
Hi Fraser, first let me thank you for your content and for heads up on " The Expanse " been binging. What dictates the rotational speed of planets and why is Jupiters rotation so fast. Bob in BC
There are lots of things to consider concerning rotational velocities of planets. Probably initially the size of the rotating dust and rocks and debris field that caused it to form in the first place. Angular momentum must be conserved and so that matters a lot. However! after that, there are lots of things that can change the velocity such as collisions with other large objects.
the largest planets formed from the largest debris clouds so they typically will have the largest velocities.
27:00 but could we interact by gravity?
I think there's a Planet 9 but it's not coming near us, but who knows
Fraser, I heard that billions of year ago, a collision event created the moon. What would the gravity of the earth be like had the moon not been created, but instead, all that mass formed a bigger earth? Would it be so great that rockets would never have made it into space?
The Moon is about 1% the mass of the Earth, so you're looking at something that's a little over 1% more massive than Earth, which is really not much difference.
Yes, they may be the only stars that have ever been seen.
I personally can't wait for #Foundation, though I am a little worried to be honest.
I hope they haven't gone down the same road as #Discovery and flooded it with #Woke #PC #CancelCulture mentality.
So no gay characters, and all the black ones gotta be killed off by episode 3 at the latest right? Yeah no worries they took notes at your last clan meeting.
If you can't actually put into words what it is you disagree with regarding the writing or casting of Discovery without revealing the fact your a bigot then they're probably not valid criticisms. All those idea exist because you're looking for them. I've watched Discovery with a regular mindset, not looking for any of that stupid shit, and it's been pretty good.
How promising are rotating-detonation engines?
The sun moves slightly faster than the moon across the sky. When the moon was closer to the earth, I assume it moved faster, it was also bigger in the sky. In the period where the sun and moon were moving at aproximately the same speed, was there ever an eclipse the lasted for days rther than minutes? If so, what is the longes an eclipse could have lasted?
Actually, the closer the Moon is and the slower it moves in the sky (but the faster it moves compared to the Sun). That's because the Moon's orbital motion cancels out a bit of the Earth's rotation, and if you pull it close enough you can get to a point where they both exactly cancel out and the Moon is immobile in the sky (that point is geostationary orbit).
👍👍👍
So how would the metalicity be it new the mergered Andromeda/milky ways new stars that will be born -How is it Andromeda right now - more or less than Milky way ?
Maybe a person who has synesthesia can imagine what it's like to experience 4d....like being able to see smell or sound may be similar to seeing time. Maybe they can experience the beginning and end of our universe simultaneously.
Persons with synesthesia should make a UA-cam video about it, how the universe end I mean
If a magnetic sail can slow you down then it should have the power to give you the same amount of power to accelerate
Well if you had perfect power conversion then, yes you could do that. But perfect power conversion is kind of hard to come by. It's probably impossible except on the quantum realm.
I can do use of the lakes an osones to be a teleaspok
Why can’t we have the first solar sail in a series carry a laser to slow the ones behind it upon arrival at the destination?
The whole point of a solar sail is to be extremely light, and a powerful enough laser to slow down other light sails is the opposite of light. Though there are ideas to set up interplanetary or even interstellar 'highways' of stationed lasers for future light sails to use, but they would take a lot of time to set up.
If your going to wish apon a star. It's best it's not Betelgeuse just in case. :P
25:14 Isn't Fraser actually telling the story of Flatland? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
Fun movie.
Wouldn’t dust kicked up from landing spacecraft on the moon damage any infrastructure?
how can photons from a laser accelerate a ship if they have zero mass and therefore no inertial momentum?
What’s the distance from an event horizon where we could experience earth like gravity would this also be a universal distance from every black hole horizon
No that distance depends on the size of the black hole. For small black holes, gravity increases really fast and you would never get close to the event horizon. You would get ripped to shreds long before you get there. However, for extremely large black holes, like the ones at the center of galaxies, you could cross the event horizon and you really wouldn't even notice anything special happening. From your point of view everything would just be kind of the same, except one direction you looked would be completely black. And then you would never be able to turn around and go back out. Because there would be no other direction to turn around too. Every direction would lead down.
This is an oversimplification but I hope it helps answer your question.
@@dankuchar6821 well not really because yeah the mass of the black hole would determine the size of the event horizon (the distance in which light cannot escape) because of the amount of mass so your saying it’s inconsistent through the universe opposed to at a set limit
@@Chumfin There is always a certain distance where a black hole exerts the same gravitational pull as what you feel on the surface of the Earth, but it is not useful or exploitable in any way: you'd feel weightless regardless, unless you had a giant pole coming out of the black hole and holding you in place, but such a thing is impossible to build.
@@Релёкс84 agreed 100% now I’m thinking how to get 1g in a Lagrange point of something
@@Chumfin Lagrange points won't change anything: you're always in 0g unless you're on the surface of an object (or you have engines on).
I declare Martian Law!
I thought the 4th dimension was gravity? Would a four dimensional being have gravity?
Fraser never met a planet he didn't want to explore.
My question. What would happen if a dino killing sized lump of space rock hit the moon?
Nothing
It might blast a few rocks up from the lunar surface and into orbit that could possibly land on the Earth. It would be really cool to watch!
For a Mercury rover, rather than using solar panels in the hot sun, what if it used an RTG on the cool side? Can a rover handle the direct sunlight?
A Mercury rover would just need a sunshade. It could be a solar panel.
And would need to withstand the ambient temperature of 900+ degrees. The sunlight isn't what makes it hot, it's the greenhouse gases trapping the heat. Mercury is closer to the sun, but cooler than venus for this reason.
@@bustedrav Mercury is ~airless.
Your wheels would have to be able to take the heat. You'd have to deal with the heat that radiated from the surface below, and the heat that would conduct through the wheels into the rest of the rover. Not too difficult. The interior of the rover - shaded and insulated, with radiators facing the sky but not the sun - could be ~cold.
@@bozo5632 exactly, that's what I said, the atmosphere traps the heat, the sunlight isn't the problem.
@@bustedrav OP was talking about Mercury. Venus wasn't mentioned.
Hi, Fraser! You need to check Dr. Eric Berg channel. He may help with your allergies. Also Dr. Joseph Mercola, THOMAS DELAUER and FLAV CITY by Bobby Parrish, for products and recipes. I am trying the KETO diet with intermitent fasting, and a few supplements. I used to have allergic rhinitis, which also was gone after I bought a vacuum cleaner with HEPA filter.
Those little black blobs you see around nebulae star forming regions are stars in the process of forming. Every moment of every day there are stars turning on somewhere.
It seems that a long time before Starship will be human-rated; why isn't SpaceX converting the Crewed Dragons for interplanetary use. Humans could return to the Moon and get to Mars much quicker than having to wait for the development of these new rockets.
It's not that easy. You need huge giant rockets to get anywhere fast enough that you don't kill everybody on board during the trip. Some massive rockets and refueling rockets in space is probably necessary. Then you have to have a way, probably, to make fuel on Mars to use to get back home. The current rover on Mars has a little test experiment designed to check out the feasibility of making rocket fuel from the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere on Mars. People are working on it. But it's hard. Far harder than anything SpaceX can do.
Remember SpaceX didn't invent reusable rockets, nor did they invent vertical landings of rockets. That was all done 10 to 20 years ago. It's just at the time it wasn't financially feasible to make it worthwhile because there wasn't enough launch business. Now that everybody wants to launch stuff, it's actually worth doing.
Hey Fraser, I have a serious question for once, "Can you ever see fusion technology advancing to Matter - Antimatter fusion powering Probes, ships which humans travel in?" I lie in bed sometimes at night using my mind and my physics knowledge to try to work out how to make new engines, I have one of those minds where I can close my eyes and imagine machines I have never seen before and see their workings. I forgot what that is called. Thanks for your videos, you are the Tupac Shakur of space information videos.
You have a mind where you can imagine new space engines but not able to remember their names? Giving stuff names are the easy part, leave this to us, we call them something with hyper something, you concentrate on the engines
Wow that's a cool talent you have
@@doncarlodivargas5497 He didn't say he can't remember the names of his machines
@@doncarlodivargas5497 I think u are confused, :/
@@galaxia4709 I didn't even give them names, I just like seeing how they work in my mind, how the pieces go together
Yo baby, just missed you, much love from the uk
new camera?
Hi Fraser, how do we know that dark matter was present fromt he microwave background radiation 380,000 years after universe was born?
It's assumed based on the density and statistical distribution of the hot and cold spots in the microwave background radiation. It's complicated.
Is it true mercury and mars have the same level of gravity.
They have very similar acceleration at their surface: they are both within 1% of 3.7 m/s², but that's a coincidence. Mercury is smaller than Mars but also denser, and they happen to cancel out.
29:00 too loud for what.... turn down for what...
The earth orbits the sun without crashing, defying the sun's gravity. Isn't this a perpetual motion machine?
I absolutely love Asimov's Foundation and I probably not even gonna bother watching the tv show. Its gonna be crap like all of them are nowadays.
Nah, forget Mercury , lets just land right on the sun. Do you have any idea how quickly you can roast a marshmallow on that thing? Just be sure to bring the extra long marshmallow sticks, nobody likes human in their smores. Well except for the tentacle beasts from omega sector.
Just go at night! Duh That's way easier.
Re conspiracies vs. science and UA-cam making it worse: I dare anyone here to find ten content creators talking about ancient Sumerian history without getting bombarded with ancient aliens tier conspiracists for the next month.
I guess will bungle the foundation novels or its precurser novels -It just depends -fast buck means bungle -politicial correct means bungle -the point is if thy make the main character a young handsome hollywood star -then we know its a bungle by default -since without such insight its pointless to watch -Noone of the characters in foundationevern were depicted beutiful so when we see perfect specimen we know its a bungle -I guess it will be heavily simplified and then rushed ,sorry to point out Hollywood faults but current H do this
Hey Fraser. What is happening with Trump's Space Force now?
I am surprised that you answered the question 'If I rob a bank on Mars'!!
It's an interesting question, and show how unprepared the laws are for the future of space exploration
Question, Not to be a buzz kill. But how is it humane and ethical to send a crew of humans to Mars, when they get radiated by the sun and cosmic rays for months if not years causing cognitive decline, significantly increase the chance of cancer and crew being isolated from their families and the rest of humanity. And to top it all there is a real risk of the mission killing the crew almost immediately at any stage of the mission.
Yes they will get more radiation. But not that much more.
It's no different than flying in an airplane. Do you realize that when you fly in an airplane you get 10 to 15 times more radiation than you normally get? The question is will they get enough radiation to cause in case cancer risk. Nobody knows that. Yes radiation can cause increased cancer risk, but nobody knows exactly at what point that really happens. Why? Because we don't do tests on humans, and other animals don't live long enough for us to find out for sure.
check out the animals that live by the Russian power plant that exploded called Chernobyl. They're all doing just fine even though they all have much higher levels of radioactivity than other animals do. The problem is, maybe they just don't live long enough to get cancer. We don't know.
astronauts go to the space station and the moon I'll get more radiation. But interstellar space would definitely have somewhere. We would have to shield the spaceship some. Anybody who goes will have to know the risks and choose for themselves. Personally, I would probably choose to go because the cancer risks would be fairly small.
@@dankuchar6821 Animals and humans in Pripyat receive only slightly elevated amount of radiation, comparing those numbers to space flight makes little sense. Also yes you do get more radiation exposure when flying but it's a very tiny amount compared to what the crew on ISS receives. When flying above low Earth orbit the Mars crew would receive more radiation that the crew on ISS.
ISS and other low earth orbit missions have some protection from galactic cosmic rays due to the Van Allan radiation belts. All lunar astronauts in total spent 12 days above low earth orbit. Anyone traveling to Mars will spend months if not years until they reach their destination. There's also the added risk of coronal mass ejections, which briefly increase the amount of radiation significantly.
1. How is it humane and ethical to... It's not your decision. Well, in a way it is, but only as it pertains to yourself.
2. About the Radiation... We have this stuff called Mass and can use it for Shielding. Also, the technology to generate artificial magnetic fields is readily available.
Mars money will be electronic
Bars money will be crypto electronic hard to Rob or easy to rob from anywhere
If you rob a bank on mars it is most probably the bank of elon musk, and all you get is doge coins, and they are worthless, so good luck, I would come up with a better plan, but that is me
Planet X is kookoo science, but transhumanism is not - ha, ha, ha!
First!
You are first but there is a dislike so early? Not from you but somebody who hasn't even seen the episode 🥺