Really enjoyed the video Frasier, thanks. One thing I wish you had mentioned when discussing using tethers for an artificial gravity system is that due to the compact storage and light weight of a tether system compared to a rigid structure the ability for tethers to extend the diameter of the rotating mass well beyond what is possible with a rigid mechanical structure makes a lot of sense. The reason extending the diameter is desirable is what that does to reduce the problems inherent in using rotation to simulate gravity. Rotation simulates gravity fairly well if the structure's diameter is several times the persons height and while the person is stationary within the structure, but when the subject moves strange things happen. There are several videos on this on youtube. Even throwing an object (a ball, etc.) in this situation causes the path of the ball to curve. The anomalies can bring on motion sickness and other issues. These effects are reduced by increasing the diameter of the rotating mass. Most hard structure rotating space stations proposed, even large ones, would suffer from these issues rather significantly. However when using tethers it's not out of the question to use diameters of more than a mile for example. This would make the environment much more tolerable and do a much better job of simulating earth-like gravity. One thing you have in space is, well, a lot of space. Why not take advantage of it?
I will admit the snarkiness was not very nice. But the question was earnest,...how do "they", whoever they is, determine so much information from a light dot on a slide? It's a legitimate question that believers of science dogma refuse to stop and ask. The scientific method requires empirical evidence that can be physically demonstrated. Hypothesizing what light dots are on a space telescope slide is NOT demonstrable evidence; therefore no scientific method has been used to determine the answer to the question.
@@stephaniemcguire I respectfully disagree. The first step of the Scientific Method is formulating a hypothesis (or a guess, as it were). The ones saying the dot breaks the big bang theory are in fact the ones not participating in the scientific process.
@@nandesu I've made no references to big bang at all. I'm referring to a description of a light dot hypothesized to be a planet with certain presumptions made about it as if they were real.
The goal when answering those types of questions aren’t to change their minds. It’s to explain what’s happening to those listening in who are unsure/undecided. It’s to educate those on the fence that genuinely wonder how things like this work, and to educate those who do trust the science but might not know how a specific things works.
Hoth. 1g doesn't seem too much in the short term. But, can you imagine the energy requirements in any real length of time? I thought you did a segment on this a while back where 1g approaches the speed of light... eventually. One G acceleration is a great sci fi topic. I like it.
@@filonin2 Then the acceleration would be reduced also the closer you approach (but don’t reach) the speed of light, due to more and more energy needed to keep accelerating the mass? Maybe I got this wrong, but this is how I understood the physics involved? Have a great day! Br
@@mhult5873 theoretically if there were no other matter in the universe and a had a hyper efficient rocket, you could keep experiencing that 1g acceleration indefinitely. Every time you dropped a marker off the side it would fall away at 1g. Practically, you would eventually run out of fuel, or length contraction would make the imperfect vacuum of space so dense that it would take more and more force to push through so you never reach c relative to the universal center of mass. At any rate, if you were to you reach the escape velocity of the local galaxies, metric expansion would eventually push you past c relative to the starting point
The problem with linear acceleration can be summarized simply as this. Accelerating at 1g for one year without lorenze correction is c. The rocket equation is dV = Ve * ln (Mi / Mf) where Ve = exhaust velocity, Mi = initial mass, Mf = final mass of fuel. if t = dV / 9.8 and Ve = ISP * 9.8 then t (@9.8) = ISP ln (Mi/Mf). Mi/Mf is typically 3 to 4 and so natural log (2.68) of this is roughly 1. But because the mass decreases acceleration increases to 3 or 4 g. If we take the simple average it comes out to be about 3 * ISP. 😅 ISPs range from about 200 for hyperglolics and 460 for SSME H2/O2. So for traditional fuels runtimes at one g are between 400 to 1500 seconds (25 minutes) For nuclear thermal rockets you could double or triple that. For Ion drives there is no limit to ISP (OK, limit is C/9.8), and this is good because it spares fuel mass, but theres a problem. And its going to go back to the initial summarization Suppose we wanted to accelerate for 1 year. So we want Ve in roughly the 1 x 10E8 meters per second. So lets say we want an ion drive to do this. Our ship weighs 10 tons. We need 9.8 m/s newtons. So 9.8 x 10,000 kg = 98,000 Newtons The ion drive equation is Force = Power x Efficeincy / Ve So 98000 = Power x 0.85 / 1E8 its something like 10 x 10E12 watts of power. Thats about the power needed to run an entire state. But thats only one problem 1. 15% inefficiency requires a huge mass for dissipating waste heat 2. There is nothing that can generate this level of electric power in space. Currently the ISS requires 14 kg per square meter of panel which deliver about 200 watts per meter. So the answer to the question is more like this, you can generate milli-g of constant force in space constantly (conserving mass with high ISP) but it would be very difficult to get into the integer range of acceleration. But if we think about the problem like this. If we could sustain a constant 1 g acceleration you could accelerate halfway to mars in a few hours, reverse acceleration and land in the same day. We would not need artificial gravity. The problem in space is this, where is the energy? If you dont have a great source of energy, you not going to be able to do alot of things.
Question: Assume you wanted to extend the life of the Voyagers and had the propulsion systems and resources to do so within half a decade; ignoring that those resources would likely be better spent on a completely new project, what updates, upgrades and additions would you suggest be done to them to keep them relevant for the next 50 years?
Aerodynamic Reynolds Number dictates that large aircraft are more fuel efficient than small ones, hence big jets. At low Reynolds Numbers, like for bees and birds different designs are required.
I am sure you will be intrigued by the mind-stretching novel by Robert Forward entitled "Dragon's Egg". It was published many years ago, but is still up-there in respect of credible science.
Question for the question show. Black Holes gravity are so strong that light can't escape and they actually bend the spacetime around them, and end at a singularity. Could it be possible that our universe could be inside a black hole, and each black hole is a different universe being we can't see into them and nothing can escape. Being our universe started at a singularity. What are your thoughts? Charles A.
Is gravity the same as constant acceleration? I am not a mathematician or a theoretical physicist but it seems to me that constant acceleration would only mimic gravity in the direction of the changing velocity? But gravity seems to affect objects in every direction?
Does gravitational lensing work with radio like it does with optical and IR? I mean, in the same way, by the same amount. Has anyone pointed a radio telescope at Stephan's Quintet? If we're able to make the Solar gravitational Observatory technology work, would a second one operating in radio frequencies be a good idea or does radio not bend in the same way other frequencies do?
Is the best form of artificial gravity accelerating at 1G? GR say they're indistinguishable. You probably mention this but I've not finished watching :)
so when are we to be seeing a book authored by Fraser Cain?? could be for presently known technology and programs and developments going on and the current history from the last 20 years to maybe get some of us up to speed?, just the first question i thought 🤷🏽♂ 👍🏽😁👍🏽
When NASA, ESA, or whoever contracts with a team to develop these amazing telescopes and probes…why do they mostly always only build one? Even if you go to the extreme and use JWEST as an example…it is so over-booked that most studies will never get done. Why don’t they build two of more models? The second JWST is FAR less expensive than the first, as you can split procurement and R & D out. If the JWST was 9B, I’d think the second one could be done for less than 5B…wouldn’t that be worth the investment?
Current theory says that after Big Bang matter and antimatter particles were created in almost equal quantities. They promptly annihilated and only one matter particle per billion prevailed. What happened to the energy from annihilations, billion times larger than the current mass in the universe? And shouldn't such ginormous amount of energy create a black hole?
@@frasercain sadly, compact fusion engines may not be possible either given the improbably efficient electromagnetic bottle containment that is needed for a start.
Regarding a mission to mars; I know that being able to seal the living area against the Martian atmosphere is paramount. Do you know if the designers are taking with them a way of making new seals on site or are they going to take the approach of having a warehouse stock of all membranes taken with them to the surface?
You say correctly that constant acceleration and gravity is impossible to tell apart and there's no physical difference between the two. But then you also insist that zero-g or microgravity are misnomers, even though freefall and no gravity are also the same thing. Given the internal reference frame of course. I think you should pick a lane, preferably the one that's compatible with physics. Like, I get what you're trying to say with "it's a misconception that there's no gravity in space" and that's all well and good and of course correct to point out... but the moment you're switching to the frame of reference of the freefalling spacecraft, you're in microgravity or if we're rounding somewhat generously, in zero-g.
Question: Is there a reason why a solar powered fan could not be used, occasionally, as needed, to blow dust off the solar panels of Mars rovers? I mean, it seems too obvious.
I think it would work better than nothing but Frasier did an interview with the researcher that was talking about using liquid nitrogen. He said that it was like pollen and blowing on it only removes like half the dust.
Bookstore. Did someone translate "Tőke Péter: A Nyevigák"? That was a top 70s sci-fi in hungarian, which is a language you would never learn. Hard as chinese, but with wisdom. (but you should, it is a brainstorm!) I'll check it up. Or I'll translate it.
Hoth Jet fighters do 1G everyday all day until they run out of fuel. A fast attack submarine has something like 25,000 Continuous Nuclear HP. I think that'll do, in a microgravity vacuum. I'll bet those small reactor designs made out of expensive and lighter materials and a thruster that could focus 90% of their output would do one G on a railroad track. Any takers on that bet, We don't need fusion to change everything.
I’ll take that bet… 1g acceleration is 0-60mph in 2.7s, plenty of sports cars beat that so sounds doable right? But you have to keep on accelerating getting 60mph faster the next 2.7s, and the next, and the next… After 35s you’ve past mach 1, after 19 minutes you’re at Earth escape velocity, after just over three hours you’re doing 250,000 mph - faster than the Parker Solar Probe and the new fastest ever human-made machine. At one day you’re travelling about 2 million mph and if your spaceship is the same mass as the 78 ton space shuttle orbiter your average power has been 434 million horsepower.
@@nastropc Yeah... I know! You realize of course that Fission reactors need to be refueled every ten years or so. I realize that a minivan could probably carry 20-30 years of fuel for a reactor like I mentioned. You don't accelerate closer to the speed of light past a point where your mass equals thrust but I believe you still experience the 1G. It's the rate at which your speed increases per hour that changes as your mass increases and this is what keeps you from achieving light speed.
@@kylegoldston You seemed to miss that he entirely demolished your idea. 434 million hp >>> 25,000 hp. Your numbers don't work. At all. Also, what sort of "thruster" could focus 90% of a reactors power into thrust? What fuel would it be using? Does it weigh anything? Further, you cannot make reactors lighter because they require shielding to keep the crew from melting. No help having 1g if all you're doing is keeping the soup that used to be your astronauts stuck to the bottom of the spacecraft insides.
Ha...30.34...is space exploration the domain of introverts? As a psychologist and an introvert I know we love working alone/in small groups...I know I would I be happy with a few years of limited interactions with others :)
I used to say no way, but since my life changed so drastically that I have no one that I would miss other than those I can just text and call like I do now, sure, I'd be fine with it. Only thing is, now I'm too old, and I'm disabled, so I'm out of luck. 😂 When I was young and in shape, I'd never be able to do it mentally & emotionally. Now that part won't affect me, but I'd never be able due to fitness and age. 🤷🏽♀️ Now that, as a really old satirical song said, means "if it weren't for bad luck, I'd have no luck at all!" 😂
From the calculations I've see a constant acceleration of 32-feet per second per second for about a month your ship would approach c -- the speed of light.
Yes, but you actually keep on accelerating at 1G forever. You'll never actually reach the speed of light but you'll experience more and more time dilation. You could travel billions of light years in a single human lifetime.
I was trying to hold off, but I’ll be that guy… acktually… From the perspective of a stationary observer, say anyone on Earth, a spacecraft continually accelerating at 1 G will get arbitrarily close to C. From Earth’s perspective the spacecraft will need a minimum of 4.24 years to get to Proxima Centauri. Subjectively the spacecraft could go well beyond C thanks to Lorenz Transformation. Time dilates to make it seem Earthlings are running at 2x or 10x or some-arbitraryX. Distances along the line of acceleration shrink so it won’t feel like Proxima is all that far away on top of getting faster. The downside is the time mismatch between the spacecraft and Earth. The spacecraft could get to Andromeda and back within the lifetime of the astronauts if they could get to 99.99% C. But Earth will be at least 10 million years older than when they left. If humanity hasn’t died out they will have long since forgotten about the astronauts. More likely the astronauts are coming home to a planet ruled by intelligent cockroaches or intelligent octopuses.
@@cancermcaids7688 The acceleration of Earth's gravity is 32-feet per second *squared.* First second is 32', next second 64', next second is 128', etc.
And also… after getting to 80%+ C any small atoms (even in rarified space) you hit are going to hit like hard gamma rays. Gonna need those Larry Niven magnetic monopoles to protect it.
Voyagers are at about 159 AU right now and it takes some impressive technology to even communicate bytes of information with them at that distance. We'd need communications improvements of several orders of magnitude to be able to download quality image data from a telescope at 500+ AU. I doubt we're anywhere near that right now. Perhaps we'd need some powerful relay probes every 100 AU to pull that off.
I wonder why we didn't launch a pair of voyagers every decade or so.... Could have used relays to extend mission life by multiples, I guess. Also data in depth.
@@dougselby7592 The 500 AU "Sun_lens" Einstein_ring, single_target, disposable telescopes will not slowdown or enter an orbit (they will work until they get too far away from the lens_focus). . Since observing exoplanets in detail requires time (seasonal changes in clouds, dust storms, ocean/forest coloration shifts, etc); multiple identical ones will be sent on regular series (maybe changing the cameras for fine tunning sensitivity to specific color/band absorpion); with the same shape, size & capabilities to constantly replace the previous one. . An RTG can keep the electronics & batteries warm, but to supercool the sensors and send data at high bitrate (compressed, encripted & re-sent multiple times for error correction); even using its replacements as relay in daisu chains... it NEEDS a nuclear reactor. -> Not much "fuel" is necesary (little extra mass for the fission reactor & anciliary batteries, no pumps if using passive dissipation and "pulsed" scheduled power production)
I think any improvements in tech we get will only let us detect their signals for longer, but maybe not improve the bitrate they're transmitting it at I wouldn't think
10:22 This is why Expanse is *the best* at hard sci-fi. When the ship is en route they spend half the time accelerating and half the time in decel flying "backwards" and therefore the ships are structured vertically like towers and not lengthwise like maritime vessels while for space stations they simply use spin gravity. And additionally, this is why LDSS Nauvoo looks like a barrel. It is essentially designed to be a space station tumbling through interstellar space at no acceleration through most of it 100 year journey, therefore it is designed to be spun up as it stops accelerating.
Replying to first paragraph - you don't need to read a lot of scifi to get that. In revelation space series, it's just that way by assumption. Like the author doesn't need to explain it he's like yeah of course that's how it works.
Yeah the Nauvoo is a typical cylindrical ship design, those go all the way back to rendezvous with rama like decades and decades ago. Probably before that.
@@ericv738 Neither does the Expanse (at least it's not emphasized), and whaddayaknow sadly many people, even fans, miss this fact. The difference is that the other ones are books and none of them had a popular and carefully crafted and engaging TV show made after it meaning this kind of sci-fi was "locked" to only dedicated sci-fi fans and bookworms, while Expanse started to introduce the hard sci-fi concept, in a very fluid and engaging manner, to the broader audience, which is a very good thing.
My problem with constant acceleration under rocket power is that it is described as being in the jaws of a terrier. Question: Is it a lot smoother once out of the atmosphere?
Glad you finally read Accelerando, it's in my top 5 favorites along with Diamond Age, Quantum Thief, Diaspora, and Incandescence. It was written in 2005 and the predictions would have been more accurate if the Dotcom bubble didn't happen and the optimistic early days of the internet continued to develop.
My question: How to decelerate from (near)lightspeed, if we ever be able to travel at lightspeed. The target can be overshoot very easily. And how to avoid collisions with whatever comes into collision with a lightspeed traveling object? You need lightspeed correction capability. BIg fan of your show! Thank you for sharing your content. Best regards from the Netherlands.
Speaking about telescopes I would enjoy knowing someone with a telescope that was happy to show me the night sky. The one evening I had the opportunity years ago viewing Saturn was brilliant. Something about seeing with your own eyes 🤘🇦🇺🌌
Hoth question was annoying. Gravity from rotational acceleration can totally work. In fact, it would be easier to build such a station than create a spaceship that can accelerate at constant 1 g. (haha, I jumped the gun and responded in similar way to Fraser)
Exactly, plus it's already been demonstrated with centrifuges and even the Gravitron carnival ride. It's like the guy doesn't understand that rotation is an acceleration. Has he never taken a corner in a car???
@@filonin2 The problem is that an object with three axes having inertial moments I1>I2>I3, rotating one will cause one of the others to flip end over head at some point. For a tidally locked space station, though, the problem would be reduced to an occasional wobble, like you see a spinning top do.
Fraser, I have a question about gravitational waves. If they distort both space and time, then why do we not use an array of atomic clocks to look for the time distortion as the waves pass? Instead, we use lasers to look for spacial distortion. Is it even possible?
Sorry, not sure how to ask a question to get it addressed during live podcasts...but, 5.50 shape/size of moon craters....my first question is, when was the most recent 'significant' asteroid collision on the moon that we can detect through modern observations, and second question, do we monitor for potential 'significant' asteroid collision with the moon, for the potential catastrophe being that the moon/its orbit/or debris has the potential to impact the earth?
Is the Aldrin Cycler a thing or is that sci fi? If it is a thing then why don't I hear people talk about it? Seems like the perfect way to travel to mars in a craft with walls as thick and heavy as you want, which would cut out the radiation problem.
It's a real concept, but it doesn't necessarily save on per-mission propellant. Also, the faster that the cycler "cycles", the more fuel you have to spend to reach it and come back from it, due to the steeper orbit it has to be on. It's one of those things that massively pays off if Musk gets his Mars colony built, but otherwise would just get built up over decades.
Aldrin Cyclers, the concept developed by the second man on the Moon Buzz Aldrin, is real. There is a huge up-front investment in building it and putting it on a cycler trajectory. It is slower than travelling on Hohmann transfer orbits but can be much more comfortable. Travellers would get to a cycler with a small craft, dock and spend a few years on the cycler. On the Mars leg they’d undock their small craft and make their way to Mars. The cycler would just merrily remain on its orbit, not expending any fuel to accelerate or decelerate. The only fuel expended is for the travellers’ small craft, the lion’s share of the scheme, the cycler, stays on its orbit. The up-front construction needs to include significant radiation and collision shielding, recycling life support, on-board farming. The systems would probably need a permanent population to keep it going.
Earth and Mars have significantly different orbital inclinations, and Mars' eccentricity is considerable. The cycler's orbit would have to be adjusted quite a bit every passage. That doesn't make it impossible, it just means it isn't quite as elegant a solution as it looks at first glance.
Hey Fraser could helicopters’ downdraught finally solve the dust on solar panels problem? Should NASA fly Ingenuity low over Perseverance to test how much dust is blown off the rover?
Hey Frazier. Your in my top 3 channels on RU-vid. Question has there ever been a real moon rock or rock from another rocky planet in human hands on earth. If so how would it be verified?
Sure, there are all the rocks brought back from the Moon during the Apollo missions. There are also chunks of Mars (about 300 found so far) that fell to Earth after being blasted off the planet millions of years ago by a meteor impact. How do they know? Obviously, the Apollo astronauts hand delivered the Moon samples. For the Mars meteorites, they slice them up and measure the gas inside to see that it matches the atmosphere of Mars when the rocks first formed.
The ion engines that NASA has used put out about the same force as the weight on Earth of a single sheet of paper. So take your own weight, divide by the weight of a single piece of paper, and that's similar to what you get. It's somewhere BELOW 1% of Earth gravity.
Q: I'm fascinated by the possible habitability of Teegarden b and c. Aren't they both likely to be tidally locked? If so, wouldn't optimistic scenarios mean a habitable rim near the terminator of Teegarden b's daylit side? And doesn't Teegarden c stand a chance as an eyeball world, potentially temperate where best lit?
My favourite book involves the first crewed lightsail from Earth to visit another star, The Flight of the Dragonfly by Robert L Forward. Have you read that one?
While I am absolutely not the right person for a Mars mission, I would exceed the requirements of being alone for a long time by far. I wouldn't mind "sitting in my tin can" for years. 😂
The starship test calls to question why SpaceX didn't just build a flame diverter. On 5/19, SpaceX posted a video of a raptor engine firing under a water cooled steel plate. How is this better than a flame diverter?
Oh, book recommendations! A favourite of mine is 'Chasing Venus: The Race to Measure the Heavens', by Andrea Wulf It's about the transit of Venus, but it's also about some of the explorers who were attempting to record the transit, and... it's great. Some of the journeys were absolutely mad. I can't recommend it enough. I've lent my copy out several times and I'm always a bit relieved when it eventually comes home 😁
Isnt it dangerous to do these high energy extreme experiments on the large hadron collider. From my limited knowledge, these experiments try to create these extreme conditions by colliding particles at extreme speeds to measure and discover unknown particles. What if in this process we create a particle that interacts with regular particles in a dangerous way . What if we create a small blackhole that doesnt behave like we thought and just eats up the earth from inside out. Im just speculating..but my point is , isnt there an inherent risk that we could create something in the LHC that could destroy humanity.
My idea so I get to name it! What I mean is, no one has claimed it so I'm officially calling, "dibs." Voyager 1 is now in Milky Way's interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." "V-ger's" message has sped up now that it's outside our suns time bubble or, "Terran Time." It will be faster still when "V-ger" sends a message from beyond the Milky Way's time bubble. Then there's Outside the Local Group time bubble. So on and so on until we get outside any influence and into the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." Or, "T.I..." ;-P Now that "V-ger" is in interstellar space, it's also in the Milky Way's STANDARD, faster moving, interstellar time or "Mikey's Time." This can be proven by turning off everything except its clock and transmitter. Have "V-ger" read time for as long as possible. They WILL show the flow of time speeds up the further away you get from any celestial bodies. Until you reach the Milky Way's time standard or "Mikey's Time." •Our sun's time bubble: "Terran Time" we know and have measured. •Milky Way's time bubble or "Mikey's Time." The rate/flow of TIME outside any influence but within the Milky Way: We just got there and are still figuring. Wild guess I'd say time will increase in speed, now and until V-ger is outside the Ort cloud .00007-.0007% faster, maybe. Just for reference. •Local Group's time bubble or the rate/flow of time outside of any influence but within the Local Group: Name still open and unknown. Wild guess .08% to a couple seconds faster, maybe. Used just for reference. •Outside any influence in the, "True Interstellar Time Standard." (or T.I...) ;-P This name is NOT up for grabs. The rate/flow of time is fastest here. (Time flows fastest here so it's best to use a motor boat and hold tight. Always applies when you're in T.I....) ;-P A minute is a minute in all. It's the rate/flow I'm talking about. Heck, rivers of time flowing differently might explain dark energy and dark matter. The Milky Way's Interstellar Time Standard will be known as, "Mikey's Time." Pass it on, please and thank you
- If the X Y, and Z axis changes in space..? What do you use as reference point? - Gyros in space and its benefits to Human space transport. - The difference in takeoff/landing between Earth and Mars? Even the Moon? I know there is a substantial +/- pull, push = apogee towards thrust, but how can that benefit humans? - What are some of experiments that have been completed on the ISS that have already helped humanity, along with Space Flight? Sorry for the question, just super curious. I have a ton more. Thanks for a great episode. - NOM
question: for artificial gravity, is there any advantage to a big wheel instead of having two capsules linked by a tether? the latter sounds easier to pull off and easier to scale up. i imagine for a Mars mission you could have two starships connected nose to nose by a tether, one for the crew and one with supplies needed on Mars
Hoth, at 11:20ish, got me thinking (dangerous, I know). Couldn't we design an airlock for delivery to the station as it's being constructed that would allow the transfer of a little bit of the incoming vehicle to the station, slowly spinning it up with every delivery? It would be easier, I'd wager, than starting a larger part, say the first wheel, spinning from a stop - and use less energy, too. Incoming ships always have to slow down to a stop to match the ISS, or Skylab, before it. This would just save them a bit of booster energy and save us on spin-up energy. Sounds like a win-win to me!
Why don't most constellations have normal English names like "big dipper". Most of them are -um -us. They are not even terribly scientific that would justify this aura of foreign unapproachability. If we had a space station with artificial gravity, would it have to deal with its own weight and avoid ripping itself apart? Currently we like to build structures in space from flimsy materials that are as light as possible.
You do not need a "big wheel" in space to create spin gravity. All you need is a "dumbbell". In other words a habitat on one end, a truss structure, and a counter-mass on the other end. It turns out that with a 150m truss we can get to 0.8gs at 3rpm. The counter mass could be made up of tankage. Oh, and you don't have to leave it sitting in Earth orbit. Instead, you could send the whole thing off to Mars, creating a transit vehicle with spin gravity. Nice, eh?
Hey Fraser, this is a two-part question regarding the ISS. What would you say are the top three discoveries made from the ISS? At this point, what was the last main discovery made from the ISS, basically, in your opinion, is it still worth us? Keep it around when that money can be allocated somewhere else? Thanks, Jason
Just on that topic of telescopes on the moon. It's the low gravity (0.16g) that suddenly makes it a whole lot easier to engineer the support structures. The problem with Earth based telescopes is that as you build larger and larger support structures, the mass goes up almost exponentially. On the moon it would be vastly easier to build a (say) 100m optical telescope whose support structure would look flimsy, if on Earth.
Hoth: Couldn't you on a regular basis switch the direction of gravity by switching between accelerating and decelerating (even to the point of switching directions)? I'd watch that movie XD. You wouldn't have to actually move continuously but could move back and forth "near" one spot, though you would also have to turn your spacecraft or you'd have to flip ceiling and floor whenever you switch the direction of simulated gravity. Or if near a source of gravity you could just hover in place over the source and match local gravity or constantly fire normal/anti-normal while in orbit and move your orbit of center but allowing for partial gravity.
De-orbiting the Space Station into the Pacific, as far away from anywhere else as possible? That would have dire consequences for the inhabitants of Pitcairn, I'm afraid. 😮
Its kinda funny. 1 or 2 years ago (maybe more idk) i was really looking forward to the prospect of the book club. But now im like... Eh. Im reading my own stuff right now, lol.
Mustafar: The ISS seems like an ideal platform to test Ion Drive technology, as it is purported to be efficient, as long as you have a gas and an electrical source. The ISS just got a new battery upgrade a few years ago, and generally needs to add energy over time. Furthermore, the first question, that you claimed was a troll, appeared to be a humble attempt to ask a perfectly valid question, and you dismissed it without even answering. I too am curious how a limited amount of information becomes a full presentation, over and over. The very process is harmful to science, as it clearly has "money me" written all over it, at the expense of integrity. Historically, this routine has resulted in punishing, or otherwise discouraging real science from nulling out science frauds, resulting in a non-stop string of debacles. In brushing the question off as a troll, you have done your part to encourage such abuse of valid scientific discovery.
Voyager 2 took 40 years to get only 130 astronomical units away. Why are we talking seriously about going 650 AU away for a gravitational lensing? Multiple generations will have passed before it ever reaches that point.
check out the plan from spacex….. probably 8-10 starships attached to a donut, then a shorter starship attached in the middle of the cross arms. side thrusters would start the centrifugal force shortly after starting the momentum towards the destination. parts could be shipped up to LEO via a modified starship with payload bay doors similar to The space shuttle and autonomous drones could build it extremely quickly or even have it 3-D printed with autonomous drones. A tubular design that could hold things like water or whatever is needed on the inside dock all the starships, start heading for your destination tell everybody to put your seat in the upright position and buckle up and start the sideways thrust equally from all the star ships so as not to make it go askew, having you ever seen them separate blood in a centrifuge? There’s nothing but microgravity created against the grain and against natural gravity by spinning. It’s ludicrous to say it’s not possible your idea of spending a few hours in the centrifuge is great, but how much room would it take when you could just spin a metric ton of starships, and think about that, you can send 100 people per star ship? That means easily 1000 people could go and it would be best if everyone except for the maintenance people stayed in their habitat because it’s going to get a little crazy when you get towards the center and you lose all the gravity and then the gravity changes direction on you as you go from ship to ship, the only other option is to create Corredor‘s further out on the star ships towards the middle or bottom which would help make it more rigid anyways so you could just walk from starship starship, was that you bring 1000 people in one or two of the starships I barber shops movie theaters Jenison racquetball court basketball courts jams swimming pools, I was just filling the pool after that centripetal force in Spanish devilish! Lol but there are many solutions to the supposedly impossibility, in fact you could leave the starship thruster at the back the same size and just make the entire thing a giant fuel tank and you have it all the time and miss lead dock and lock it think of the few you would have! We may not even have to refuel providing you can get up there with all that fuel it takes to get the fuel up there! And it would not take a lot of momentum from all of the side thrusters because you’re in a microgravity environment and all 10 or 12 of them are working together in tandem do achieve a common goal is kind a like it’s a lot easier to push a car with the people that it is by yourself is the exact same thing as to say it’s not possible is an engineering problem that’s what engineers do because they don’t come up with the concepts they make the concepts work and it is feasible and proven on earth they have brought people up to nine gees on earth even though one G is bowing down so yeah, it is totally possible and the centrifuge is a great idea you know for a couple hours, but there’s a lot of people and it would take a lot of weight and a lot of space to make sure everybody is getting that two hours where are you can mitigate all the risk to a human by just starting the momentum, once it’s spinning it is spinning because there’s nothing to stop it and object will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force, where there is no gravity there is no external force!
Let's crash Ceres into Venus such that it works like Theia did for Earth, making a moon, giving the planet oceans, plate tectonics, interior dynamo, magnetosphere, all that cool stuff.
That was what i quickly found out after i made a 15" dob scope. It really hard to find anything interesting beyond planets to find in the sky. I want to make discs that are marked for my latitude, marked by degrees so i can go to where something is in the sky without an hour of hunting.
oh yeah, and put a smaller booster on the front to help slow it when you get closer to Mars and reduce the speed at which expands on the centrifuge slowly over the last third of the trip so they match the Moorish and gravity when they get there. On the way back you gradually increase it so nobody has to be carded off in a gurney like people from the space station. I’m sure it takes some of the dignity from them not being able to walk when they get back although what they do it’s still very important to mankind and they are true heroes and brave brave souls and they should not feel like less, but I know after I fell the 50 feet and spent close to six months in the hospital I couldn’t walk and I was mortified being pushed out of the hospital in a wheelchair. I got home with the walker made it to the front door folded it up and threw it and never used it again. I could walk maybe 10 m the first day and I took one extra step each day and sometimes I had to crawl back but I did it. It was difficult because they broke 54 bones none of which vertebrae and all my spinal processes in my ribs collarbone shoulder blade and foot arm skull. So I had a rough way to go for a while but I built back and they said I never walk again because I told him I’d be back up climbing trees you know John and they laughed, but I was climbing trees in no time spent more time in the hospital than i did in rehab Which I get myself at home so I could be comfortable and push myself
If Im correct in my calculations acceleration at 1g would reach the speed of light within about 5.28 hours. Since the mass if the ship would increase as we approach the speed of light it would become increasingly more difficult to sustain a 1g acceleration. So for that reason alone it would be impossible to sustain 1g acceleration even on an interstellar flight. I don’t know the answer to something though. As the mass of the ship and its occupants increases would their gravitational attraction increase and provide some form of useful actual gravity
I highly recommend you not read 'Sun's End by Richard Lupoff'. That's a book you recommend to someone you want to troll because it is so good in the first half then suddenly it's like they got a child to finish the second half and it's just awful. Yet you finish reading it because the start was so good.
The earth is curved but flat earth within a black hole obelisk, box seems interesting considering accelerometers in combination with earthlike payload. the only problems remaining is to enact the correct forces pressurisation and random axis field of the standard model states throughout the expected operational area , those are NEO vomit ideas true but rotational excitation through light scattering to control like auroras and then pass it through a square box which obeys the lows of motion slightly differently to other centres of gravity of the line of travel. Drifting into a long orbit by assisted gravitating mass driving pendulum is also a little like floating on oceans. Even an intelligent hull would perhaps find it difficult to negate inertial calculous by near absolute zero filming. Close cycle methods and dry mass computation of translation of the craft around the box perhaps achieved through arc sine waves similar sweep radar, experiments oscillators and levitation which seems to defy the norm whenever or if ever it's created
Linear acceleration is not the same as rotational acceleration. Linear acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity. Not rotational. If you are in a box rotating to give you 1 g of acceleration, if you move in the direction of the motion (even if you do not know which direction that is) the force you feel will be more than 1 g. If you move against the motion (so your relative speed decreases) the force you feel will be less than 1 g.
