Tatooine! About Faraday cages, all you need is to put your most important data in a pendrive and keep it inside your microwave oven. But remember to remove it from there before heating your meal. 😬 Thanks, Fraser! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
If instead of a light sail one could gather the plasma and magnetic fields and turn them around from near light speed away from the sun to near light speed towards it, would you not have "free" acceleration without a loss of mass? As we have learned having mass to push behind you is more precious than the energy to push it. There have been a lot of discoveries since the Buzzard Drive was proposed and perhaps a new look is warranted.
If you look at the 'Pale blue dot' image, all you see is a Pale blue dot and that's within our solar system so you ain't seeing no lights (or Ferrets) on proxima with a pixel...
'Those are all the questions that we had this week' makes it sound like you answer all the questions asked. What proportion of questions posed each week do you answer?
I would think so. I wonder if one needed component for them to be viable would be some sort of self repair ability. Tiny robots maybe.though even that would not be able to hold entropy at bay indefinitely.
Re "How small can a rocket be" (Kamino, 17:45), and whether such a rocket could reach hobbyist level: Check out Copenhagen Suborbitals. They're a bunch of enthusiasts currently building a rocket in their spare time that seems to be reasonably close to (if not larger than) the mentioned SS-520. While their planned mission profile is suborbital (as the name suggests), their envisioned payload is comparatively ambitious (a capsule for a human passenger no less), so I wouldn't be surprised if yeeting a small satellite into a stable orbit would be within reach for them if they put their effort to it.
Another really good and thought provoking video. A question I don't hear about the concept of the Dyson sphere is whether it could be stable due to gravitational interactions , orbiting planets etc. What do you think?
Professor Becky's recent video has a topic related to the first ice question. Discussing which and when first elements came about in the early universe. As related to the JWST latest observations data.
Electrician here: All grid connections, including homes, are hooked up to the grid in parallel, not series. There are very few series loads connected to grid power, and the ones that are in series are generally items like heating elements or old fashioned fairy (or Christmas) lights (the kind that if one lamp goes out, all the rest don't work until you find and replace the bad one). Series loads require all of the loads to be almost exactly match each other at all times. That would not be practical for grid connected loads, since each customer had different loads that are on at different times.
You are probably thinking about light bulbs etc, but Fraser are referring to the power grid and the possibility to feed energy through another part of the grid if something happens, most probably we find all kind of combinations of grids, depending on geography, money and philosophy, but in general I think the best expression would have been a "star" or "spoke" structure, if you are running your business out on one of the spokes and you loose the power, nothing will be routed to you via another source
@@doncarlodivargas5497 I was referring to the grid, since the term "series" and "parallel" have very specific electrical meanings, and no grid is connected in "series" between multiple sources or loads. The best way to think of the grid is like a large spider web made up of multiple smaller spider webs connected to each other by a few primary anchor points. If a fly lands on one of the webs, only a small area of that web is effected. If enough of the smaller webs anchor points are damaged, the smaller web will fail, and if enough anchor points between webs are damaged, the entire web will fail. But like electrical grids, each web has multiple anchor points that must be damaged before failure occurs. The reason it is called a "grid" is that it is literally laid out like one, with power being able to be sent to a source from multiple directions, and one area can be taken offline for maintenance or repair in order to localize outages while the rest of the grid remains energized. The "grid" is generally composed of networks of high voltage high tension lines feeding substations where it will be locally distributed by networks of medium voltage lines, with most networked in a grid, and some not. There will generally be "end of the line" areas within local distribution networks that are not fed from multiple directions. But these areas are generally feeding rural areas with limited customers, so fewer people are effected when failures occur on the local grid level. Failures of the high voltage/ high tension line or equipment on the primary distribution grid will have larger effects than failures in local grids.
@@GoCoyote - I think this is a matter of economy, because such grid structure is very expensive, in a system like a star, or spokes you simply put in fuses in one end and put on power, while in a grid everything must be managed and the must be a control of the energy flow, I think that is what Fraser was referring to, how it is in practice
@@doncarlodivargas5497 But in practice, the grid is a mix between the two, with it usually being more of a “web/grid than a hub and spoke system. This is why you can have a tree land on a local power line and the system still functions. The power lines have much more sophisticated controls than simple fuses that monitor power flow through the system to control power production and use, and to find faults in the grid. The faults will be automatically isolated in most cases, and crews dispatched to the general area even before the exact location of the fault is known. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! My feeling is that power lines need to be like public roads that are paid for both by power producers and users, but any power producer or user can have access. Ownership and maintenance should be publicly controlled with levels of funding and system requirements ensured by strong oversight. No system is perfect, but we certainly can do better, or we could be a lot worse.
Electrician here: Yes, a Faraday cage (or possibly some ferret cages :) and just about any metal box will protect most electronics from solar flares if they are disconnected from grid power. The bigger issue that gives electricians nightmares is the induced voltages on power lines that will effect connected transformers without overvoltage protection when the high voltage breaks down the insulation between conductors within the transformers, allowing short circuits to form. This will cause the transformers to fail catastrophically if in service, or require the transformer to be replaced before power is restored. If the transformer is within a metallic enclosure, and is disconnected from the exterior conductors during a solar event, then it has a good chance of surviving. The big issue is having hundreds of millions of transformers being destroyed world wide all at once, including billions of the small transformers in power supplies for everyday objects like computers and other electrical equipment, plus all unprotected computers even if they are able to be unplugged. One only needs to look to Texas to see what can happen when the grid is not protected against certain types of natural phenomena, and to major computer hacking events to see what happens when society loses its computers. It adds expense to design electrical systems and electronics to survive large solar events, sort of similar to the way the US military builds their systems to survive EMPs from nuclear blasts. While lighting and nuclear EMPs only last a couple of seconds, large solar events can last from a few seconds to hours, and even days. Hardening infrastructure to protect against such events requires a coordinated effort from utilities, regulators, governments, education, and the public to accomplish, along with a lot of money.
Hoth: the power grid HAS to be in series and not parallel or you will get loop currents and it will explode. Its not poor design, just the opposite in fact.
Yes - any emission lines coming from the planet that are absent from any nearby star would imply an active light source on the planet. Whether that source was artificial or some local natural process would be the logical followup question.
@@sherrillshaffer579 Most artificial lights produce distinct spectra. There shouldn't be any neon light coming from a lifeless planet. But it would be so tiny...
I read a lot, and I mean A LOT of Sci Fi, many had solar sails. I remember Revenger (Alastair Reynolds) , never anyone explained to me how a spaceship navigate to lower and higher orbits from the Sun and you made it sooo simple! Thanks
I basically live in a Faraday cage, it's a dome made of steel mesh and concrete embedded into granite. The grid? I don't have any of that fancy grid power up here, i've got solar panels and wind generators and such. I'd imagine a CME strong enough to fry generator windings and cook solar panels would present more immediate survival concerns than not having power.
Wondering about ‘Cheap Domes’ and whether accumulated exposure to solar & cosmic rays on Mars would eventually flatten the fecundity of the formerly frisky colonists over progressive generations; So if your parents couldn’t produce any offspring is there a 100% certainty that you won’t either? 🤔
I suspect that the black body radiation curve drops rather rapidly above the max intensity for PC b maybe a high pass filter would help especially if the lights they use are like our mercury or sodium vapor lamps that have very spiky spectra. Low pressure sodium for example emits almost all it radiation in the double D line pair at about 589 nm. That of course presumes that PC b has a low sodium content. Amazingly it just occurred to me this afternoon for the first time that might be possible. Deja vu? Edit. Maybe mercury would be better because many of its major lines are at much shorter wavelengths.
OK, so I have a small simple question. Astronomers have been looking for a substance they call 'dark matter' to explain the rotation of the outer solar systems in the galaxy. Perhaps we should start with a simpler question. How much mass is there in the Oort cloud?
For a typical spiral to Mars the pitch angle of the solar sail is closer to 35 degrees than 45 degrees. See the text by Colin R. McInnes, pages 132-134.
Solar flares and CME's really only have a negligible effect on household-sized devices so it's not really necessary to place them on Faraday cages. The induced currents by flares are cumulative and only become significant over long distances so it's really the large-scale systems that are the most affected, unless you're on a receiving end like those telegraph operators back then.
Love your channel, first time asking a question. Say there are two stars traveling in opposite directions. Both stars are approximately one solar mass and have a planetary system of similar mass and diameter to ours. The planets of each star are close to the same cosmic plane as they pass. How close could those two stars pass each other without disturbing the orbits of their respective planets?
Why do we not see evidence of an Oort cloud around other stars? On the whole they must block some light. Do we have to compensate in calculations of exoplanets, spectrographs or any other way for the existence of an Oort cloud? Is there a cloud that stretches to other stars or is the Oort cloud a ball of rocks around each star. Could an Oort cloud be so dense it blocks as much light as a planet or all light from a star?
Tatooin. Really got me thinking. Always asked myself how far could a sail take a ship. But I guess sailing ships can sail into the wind. Am I right in thinking that's along the same lines. Maybe 🏴🤩
Mr Cain. Enjoy your videos and talks very much. Thank you. Pretty new to your channel. So, if I heard you correctly you'll answer astronomy questions from viewers if you can. I am a subscriber but unfortunately not a patron. I'll try to in the future. Ok, here's my question. It's pretty remedial so hope you don't mind. How fast does our solar system fly around in the Orion spur of our Milky Way galaxy? Thank you Al Massoli Fayetteville Tn.
Oh don't worry about being a patron or asking remedial, beginner, or any other sorts of questions on this channel. People who want to learn are *all welcome here,* ask away. Plus I thought yours was a pretty darn great question!! So welcome, I'm glad you found the place 🪐
A ferret cage is a terrific solution to protect your sensitive electronics Not only from a coronation (are those still a thing?) But from intrusive marauders Feisty little fellas!
Are there any plans to test another tether system in the near future? Has anyone given any thoughts to using a tether system to transfer momentum to the ISS when astronauts or garbage returns to Earth? Raise it's orbit without additional fuel..
One more vote for Tatooine. I had no idea solar sails were so capable! My mental model was more like a tumbleweed, carried wherever the (solar) wind blows.
Why is the half moons phase always pictured by NASA with the lit and dark sides top and bottom? In the north like Canada the moon doesn't look like this. The half moons dark and lit sides are split vertically. How can the moon have such a different orientation in the sky from a relatively close distance like Vancouver to Mexico? In the same night? Standing in Vancouver the split is vertical but landing after a 5hr flight in Mexico you look up and it's split is horizontal. Just like it's pictured by NASA pictures. I'm even still in the same time zone. Can you make a visual diagram and explanation to show why the moon does this? How it does it? It's really bothered me that no space related place to ask questions has never answered. Do they not know what I'm talking about? Have they never noticed the moon looks different up north? Does it have the opposite orientation if you are in the southern hemisphere? Lit on the top and dark on the bottom? I tried watching the moon on one flight to see if I could see the orientation changing but nope. I've tried a couple of balls of various sizes and a lamp to see if i could demonstrate it to myself how this works. It just doesn't make sense. It's been years of coming across places to ask and asking. I really want to know why this happens and why so few seem to notice. Thanks.
Great observation! This is one more proof of a not-flat Earth: the day/night terminator on the Moon matches the Earth's, so when one is near the poles, the terminator appears primarily north-south ("up and down" with slight variation from dawn to dusk). However, nearer to the equator the line is more parallel to the horizon at dawn and dusk, with the light & dark halves slowly "flipping over" as the day progresses, with the lit portion always pointing towards the Sun. And yes, the "up" and "down" do appear flipped in the southern hemisphere when compared to the northern hemisphere when observed at the same time.
@@R.Instro That makes sense but Still don't know how this works.. I need to see it in 3d in my head to understand what is going on or I can't grasp the mechanism that makes this happen. I'm kind of thick sometimes. No matter the ball and lamp demonstration I come up with it doesn't work. Which I've done many times. This has been like an unreachable itch for many years trying to understand it.
@@Mr.Unacceptable I totally get that. =) The best suggestion I can make is to imagine yourself as a tiny insect/microbe on the surface of a basketball (the Earth), while a tennis ball (the Moon) goes around the equator a couple of meters away. If you stand at the pole of the basketball, the Moon will always be near your local horizon and the line between light & dark will always appear to be generally "up & down" from your perspective. Meanwhile, at the equator, instead of proceeding around in front of you as it does at the poles, the tennis ball Moon will appear to rise in the East with the terminator parallel to the horizon, and then go straight overhead where the line will appear to have gradually tilted into a N-S ("up & down") orientation,
Hello Fraser! Would it be possible for the ISS to intercept the Hubble Space Telescope and with the Canada Arm, the astronauts could then upgrade the systems on it and then maybe use SpaceX to boost it back to a stable orbit? Love your vids!!!
Hubble is on an orbit 120km higher than, and inclined 22 degrees off of the ISS orbit. ISS orbit is lower to minimize radiation exposure for the astronauts. And changing orbital planes is very fuel intensive. It would be far cheaper and more efficient to launch a dedicted mission directly to the Hubbles orbit.
That would be a neat idea, I like the thought. The trouble is that the two spacecraft are in entirely different orbits, and there's no practical way to make them match up well enough for the Arm to have a chance. (details below) ISS orbit = inclination: 51.6434° | perigee height: 412 km | apogee height: 419 km HST orbit = inclination: 28.4706° | perigee height: 529 km | apogee height: 532 km As you can see instantly, we would need to raise/lower one or both craft by over 110 km in altitude ... a HUGE expenditure of fuel compared to what either carries onboard. The ISS could theoretically be sent numerous extra Soyuz & Dragon spacecraft for the express purpose of providing maneuvering fuel for this task, and so eventually it MIGHT be able to reach the right altitude. However, even if all the ISS partners agreed to this huge expense, we would then have to change the inclination of one or both craft by a large amount as well just to make the orbits lineup, instead of colliding at a few km/sec at a roughly 23 degree angle. This requires even MORE copious amounts of fuel, and if we did try to use the plan above, that would change the orbit of ISS such that Soyuz and Progress modules would no longer be able to easily reach the ISS from their usual launch site in Kazakhstan. Since it's more efficient to change inclination WHILE you're raising the altitude, chances are (I haven't done the exact calculations) your changes in inclination would probably end making it too hard to reach the ISS with your later fuel shipments before the ISS altitude gets anywhere near the HST's. The best, most cost-effective bet for a mission like this is to just spend the money on a new crewed Dragon (or what have you) mission, with all the brand new purpose-built tech needed to do this servicing mission on board, which would then launch straight to the HST's orbit. Then, your only question becomes, "Is the risk/expense to maintain and update the Hubble worth it?" To this point, the answer has been "Nope!" because in all practicality, launching an entirely new instrument (ground- or space-based) will give you better science for the same/less investment, and without the risk to a live astronaut crew.
Yes, there's an excess amount of antimatter annihilation coming from the center of the Milky Way. Astronomers aren't entirely sure why, but it has something to do with the supermassive black hole.
Isn't the theory of a Dyson sphere that you'd have to deconstruct all the planets in the solar system to make it, so the earth wouldn't be there anymore to be inhospitable! I'm guessing the power would be used to turn life into some sort of simulation with uploaded consciousness or something.
“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe Welcome to the simulation. I mean, how else do you explain the stability of our planetary system and lack of nearby supernovas?
The most sensible would be Mercury. Mercury is metal-rich and if the goal is energy collection then its materials are already decently close to the sun. Its been calculated that a concerted effort to mine Mercury and feedback the energy into more mining it would only take about 30 years to dismantle Mercury entirely.
Hi Fraser, love your content 🙂 I have a question: Could you work out which way was statistically north in the universe by looking at the polarisation of light across many galaxies?
Some of those Population III stars are thought to have ranged in size from hundreds to thousands of solar masses, sizes the current universe would be unable to support during formation. Since even the hottest & biggest O-type stars we see in our "neighborhood" today can seemingly burn through their fuel in a few tens of millions of years, it seems reasonable to expect that many Population III stars would have done the same. =)
You could also use solar sails to change the inclination of an orbit. Launch near the equator, at the lowest possible inclination to maximize payload. Then deploy a solar sail to change the inclination to polar, sun-synchronous or something like that. As long as the gain from launching it economically isn't outweighed by the need for a higher initial orbit to avoid atmospheric drag.
I learn more here than on any other science show out there. Very happy that Anton @ What the Math suggested you. My question. How many elements on the periodic table are needed to make a human? Not to make life possible but actual ingredients in our list of parts
Aucun Éléments.... désolé l'humain est loin d'être une création naturelle de la vie ???? L'homme ne descent pas du singe 😂😂😂 😂.... Un singe ne détruit pas par pure méchanceté.... Qui évolue ici sur la zone Terre ??? L'intelligence humaine ou l'intelligence artificielle ???? REP : ni un .. ni l'autre.... Qui va gagner la Bataille de la Survie???? L'humain ou les animaux ??? Ça cherche de la vie ailleurs, en détruisant celle d'ici.. ... hahahaha Qui gagne ??? La vie ou un pays ??? Réfléchissons ? .. La vie ou l'argent le plus important ??? Un beau bb mignon tout neuf 😊 wow C beau le miracles de la vie 😇😇 STOP NON ...DIEU DIT :: Tu as pas d'argent pour moi ? $$ petit connard d'humain de merde. ... Crevé , Pas d'argent pour les Miracles 😂😂😂😂
Hi Frasier, A Question for you,... How is it possible that our entire observable universe isn't actually within a black hole, with all it's mass destined to collapse to a singularity? The Schwarzschild radius (475 Gly) of all the mass-energy (baryonic, dark matter, dark energy) in OUR visible region of the universe (13.7Gy old) far far exceeds "current" radius of that region (46.3 Gly). Even counting JUST the baryonic mass 10^53kg, that has a Schwarzschild radius of 23.5Gly, and was confined within 1m radius just after inflation and within 13.7Gly radius after 300,000y (i.e. in this region "space" itself was expanding superluminally at both instants but slowing). Surely any matter well inside it's Schwarzschild radius is by definition inside a black hole and only has one future, the singularity? (for ONLY our observable region within a probably much larger, possibly infinite universe) Side Note: knee-jerk answers may be 1) "inflation did it!" or 2) "space is expanding faster than light" however; 1) after inflation the universe was only around 3cm to 3m in diameter, so basically zero. i.e. inflation effects can't be blamed for massively diluting the density as everything even after inflation is still far within the limits of a black hole. 2) sure between t=10^-32 (end of inflation) and 300,000 yr old when the most distant light began it's journey to us, the space in this region was expanding VERY superluminally on average (0-13.7 Gly in 300,000 yr = 45667x light!). And between that moment (300,000y) until "now" it has expanded from 13.7 Gly to 46.3 Gly (in 13.7 Gy), so 2.37x light speed on average. So yes, OUR observable region of the space inside this 475Gly radius "black hole" was expanding superluminally but it has been slowing, a lot!. If this expansion ever slowed below light speed, surely then all matter inside this region is DOOMED to collapse to a singularity? Is this where dark energy (conveniently) throws a spanner in the works (keeping the space in this region forever expanding superluminally)?
13:45: WRONG!!!! You could, but it would have to be wholly artificial using active support structures! You could MAYBE possibly also make one using large envelopes of Hydrogen Gas and use different densities to make a planet oblongish......
no dyson sphere why? collaborative works among star civilization[s]° and so probability of meltdown averted ---- so as we earth human tier 1 civilization on similar tenets respect also care FFR so forth [REN] [RET] ---- °earth populace aspire to be
"Gross Domestic Product of Humanity" is much better stated (per Kim Stanley Robinson and probably others) as "Gross World Product," at least when you're talking in terms of Dyson Spheres and Kardashev levels.
15:28 Mount Everest's peak is 8.8km high yet it is ~4km tall. There's a reason we have different terms. Height for the vast majority of things on Earth refers to distance from mean sea level; tall refers to base to top. I'm 6' tall, not 6' high. If I was on the top of Everest, I'd still be 6' tall yet 8.8km high. Mauna Kea (Hawaii) is 10.2km tall, easily surpassing Mt Everest; yet, it's height is less than half of Everest's at only 4.2km.
"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." ― Douglas Adams
Hmmmm... Speaking of Dyson Sphere. How would solar flares/CMEs affect the possibility of even having one. I feel the sun is just too active to cover in satellites and not worry about the danger from outbursts(of which, most are larger than our planet) is this something that is being studied?
Being snide about the ferret cage doesn't educate the public. It was an obvious malapropism / Dogberryism, e mistaken use of an incorrect word in place of a word with a similar sound,. It was obviously a Faraday cage from the context. Granted it's a naive question, but mocking him was a bit of a dick move.
Coruscant is my favorite answer. I've always been fascinated by Dyson "spheres" or swarms. I envision them as a cloud of O'Neill Cylinders housing a trillion people. That will still leave room for the Earth to maintain its climate. Concerning the freezing temperature of water mentioned in Mustafar, it depends on the content of that water. If it were sea ice, like the Arctic sea on Earth, then the freezing temperature would be -2 Celsius (28.4 Fahrenheit) for ocean water instead of 0 (32 F) for fresh water. That would be due to the salt content of the water. Water on other planets might have salt content or other elements that can affect its freezing temperature.
11:42 That is probably merely the latest instance where auto-correct ran-amok again and insistently substituted its own guess for what the person who already typed a full word out manually, supposedly "actually" would have meant "instead--.". Those apps need to go back to minding their own business and stop second-guessing us or making us look confused, even when we're not. Sorry. Thank you.
Solar sails have to be balanced against ion rockets. Sails have the complexity of unfurling and promise only minuscule thrust. Very large sails will get peppered by micrometeorites just as JWST is demonstrating. The current bottleneck of mission weight may favour ion thrusters over sails.
Tatooine. And I have additional questions. Is light absorbed and then reradiated from a reflective surface? And with no force applied during the absorption? Your explanation involving (+ or -) 45 degrees seems to require this in order to have the force be 90 degrees to the sun along the plane of the orbit. Does absorption of light not apply any force at all? I've seen explanations of the physics of solar sails that talked of the two most useful orientations of the sail being edge on to the sun (no solar force) and flat side to the sun (maximum solar force.) To leave the earth, the spacecraft would increase its orbit's apogee by facing the sun on the half of its earth-orbit going away from the sun and being edge-on when going toward the sun, stretching the ellipse by stages until the apogee was far enough that the earth's gravity was negligible. Then it could spiral away from the sun by staying face-on to the sun until it reached a distance that would allow it to approach its target world's orbit with further angle changes. The physics of reflection used in this explanation seemed to assume that light applied its force to the sail in the same way that a ball bouncing off a surface would do. According to my understanding at the time, if it approached at 45 deg and reflected at 45 deg, then the vector of acceleration would split the difference, as if the ball (or the photon) had come in at 22.5 deg. To increase speed in orbit (or to decrease it in order to drop closer to the sun) the vector at 22.5 deg is about as good as you could do, and 45 deg to the sun would get you that. That made sense to me. My physics classes never addressed a difference between MASSLESS photons and other particles or objects that do have MASS when reflecting from a surface. Is that the distinction I missed?
Q: In regard to sending a satellite to Mars using solar sails. Could the solar sails be made out of flexible photovoltaic cells? Thus, the electric power produced could then be used to power the satellite. Or power an ion drive, to boost the speed of the satellite. How far in space could a satellite travel? I assume it would also depend at what distance from the sun would pv cells lose efficiency. Any thoughts?
I have a serious physics question that I've emailed to professors and they can't answer it. I just wanna know if it's possible. Can Hawking radiation cause a cyclical universe by lowering a black hole's mass to a point where it's mass alone can no longer maintain a singularity with infinite density? If the singularity warps space and time infinitely and suddenly loses the ability to do so, wouldn't the warped space-time come hurling outward from the singularity? And since space is not limited by the speed of light, couldn't this "ultranova" cause a shockwave made of infinite space-time traveling almost infinitely fast like the big bang? And could this compress all the universal fields and all energy contained within causing an explosion of new matter creating a new universe. Thus at the end of the universe is the creation of a new universe.
You said that our moon pulls itself into a sphere. That may be true, however it is a myth that our moon is perfectly spherical. It is a bit oblate (like a typical egg) with the fat side facing us. (Possibly because of tidal forces and maybe an uneven mass ditribution as well). I love your very interesting videos, thank you!
My question is about space voids, dark matter and Matrioshka brain. Could, for example, the Bootes Void or the Local Void etc be a matrioshka brain? The Matrioshka brain continues to build outer shells until it can't emit anymore heat radiation, so we might not detect the Matrioshka brain because it isn't radiating much or any heat. if so, could this account for Dark matter? Hoth!
Hello Fraiser, thanks for the constantly great content! Here's my question: Gravitational waves are extremely weak and hard to detect here on Earth. But would they be able to rip you or a spacecraft apart, if you were close to a neutron star merger or a black hole merger? Thanks for your answer!
Hey Fraser, how would civilians travel across space in the near future? I’m guessing the best way is under military-like control, that is the only preventive way to control political affiliation and discipline. Depriving man of certain rights is necessary for a well running machine under extreme conditions, how can a private company achieve this?
I like Kamino. I had never thought of the lower limits of a rocket. Most focus goes to the upper limits. What are the limiting factors when talking about the smallest rocket that could reach orbit? I'd assume total weight and weight of the propellant. I used to build model rockets as a kid that had the solid fuel cartridge that you could ignite and send up... maybe 500 or so feet, it would pop a parachute when the fuel reached the end we'd recover, load another fuel cartridge in and repeat. I always wanted to just strap a bunch of fuel cells together and see what would happen. My dad just said, NO.
About previous use of solar sails: In February 1995, the Sojourney deployed succefully two solar sails on their race to Mars agains Russia and Helios. It was named Operation Jolly Roger if I'm not mistaken.
Would it make sense to make an array of telescopes encircling the moon, since the moon has no atmosphere? By arranging them in a giant circle, couldn't you get effectively a space telescope with a mirror size almost as large as the diameter of the moon? Bespin for me. (I asked asked a similar question last week, but I certainly understand that you can't answer all of the questions.)
Hi Fraser, this question is about blackholes and their interiors. Isn't the fact that when you add mass to black holes, it increases the size of the event horizon implies that the mass is staying at the center. This should dispute the wild theiories about it disappearing through to different dimensions, universes or worm holes. Also when the blackhole forms, it is shaped like a ball 360 degree, and not as a cone that sometimes diagrams iwrongly indicate. Therefore, tne event horizon is also 360 degree. Your comments please!
Why not a several Tesla super electromagnet in Mars Lagrange point. Power it through focused solar and super cooled similar JW. Except also use this movement of fluid to possibly create a superfluid radiator to add protection from flairs
Sometimes I think it would be better to talk about increasing or decreasing the 'total orbital energy' of a craft, rather than it's orbital speed. Increase the total energy to enlarge the orbit; decrease to shrink it. The *relative* orbital speeds are important when making rendezvous with another craft or with an orbiting body, but not otherwise. Orbital speed changes at every point in any non-perfectly-circular orbit, anyhow: fastest at periapsis, slowest at apoapsis.
Oh..... The planet names are not on the live broadcast they're on this broadcast I've been looking over his shoulder at 5 p.m. on Mondays and not seeing anything it just figuring it was my senior impediment to its technology.
Coruscant: Oh no, we can't take Mercury apart! We'll need it to dump some of the excess mass of the Sun while we are solar lifting it, to increase its lifespan!
Why are planets, stars and many large moons round? One word, gravity. If a celestial body is massive enough, its gravity will pull it into a spherical shape
Coruscant Has anyone calculated how much time it would take for change to Venus’ atmosphere if a fleet of satellites was placed on Venus’ L1 to block some light from the sun?
Is a space based telescope significantly or moderately better than a ground based telescope? Let's say you compare the results of the Extremely Large Telescope on the ground to an equivalent in space.
HOTH…. if the theory that black holes gives birth to baby Universes, could it be possible that the dark energy in our universe is relative to the activity, and matter absorbed by the black hole that birthed ours. Could that be why it doesn’t seem to have remained constant, and why it is so hard to figure out, that because the parent blackhole is varying in its matter absorption, or perhaps even the matter ii it’s accretion disc.?
