Fraser, Venus does have a rather actually a very habitable zone in the Venusian where atmospheric pressure is equal to the earths and the temperature is within the range of the Earth and the gravity is about the exactly the same so there is a layer in the atmosphere of Venus that you could walk out on a balcony suspended by a balloon with just a breath mask and maybe a winter coat or a summer jacket. Also, the Apollo applications program explored a 2 man Venus flyby when the moon missions were canceled.
hmm, right.. we could of course live like that on earth, just a bit lower down, but somehow we don't. I guess it is just too complicated even here. You'd need building materials, which are several km below you, you'd need agriculture and water tanks and oxigen production, all up in the clouds, and loads of high tech. I could imagine some research facility at best, where supplies would come frome somewhere else.
@@beastlysnippets "Oxigen" sounds like a cool name for an oxygen producing device. Feed carbon dioxide into your Oxigen and get oxygen out (as well as some small carbon bricks, every few weeks).
@ Other Dude Fraser has spoken about this quite a number of times in the past. Not about living there, mind you, but about the notion that there is a liveable zone in Venus' atmosphere. Or rather, there's an altitude at which humans and other mammals would feel quite comfortable, on Venus. It's also been speculated- on this channel- that there could be microbial life forms floating through those layers, wafting on thermal updrafts and such.
hey Fraser, question: If we could check inside a black hole, would we see that all matter is exactly where it hit the event horizon, because in relation to our time the time in there has stopped? Can it rotate if time is infinitely slow? And, it always sounded like we somehow believe there is a singularity in the middle, but how would that form if nothing ever arrives there?
Regarding your discussion of how bad it would be to land on Venus, I thought you might touch on avoiding landing and instead exploring the atmosphere from cloud-based platforms. It seems like there should be a gradient where the air pressure would be less punishing.
Fraser, you have mentioned previously that you would prefer to terraform the moon over mars. You have also said that the resulting atmosphere would need to be replenished every few thousand years because it would disappear into space. Did you calculate this using only the gravity of the moon or did you take the solar wind into account?
The Venus atmosphere at 50 kilometers elevation is the place for floating habitats; not the surface. At 50 kilometers you get almost 1 g , 1 atmosphere , and protection from cosmic rays.
About 10 year's ago NASA's Langley Research Center created a proposal called HAVOC that would send a crewed dirigible to Venus that would fly at ~50 to 60 km high. The creators of the proposal acknowledge that it's too early for a crewed mission. So, they say it would be preceded by robotic missions, which would be simpler and smaller than the crewed version. Anyway, here's the link to the video they made, which is really great: th-cam.com/video/0az7DEwG68A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MFfN0uiMsXHla8Gz
@@DrMackSplackem No need for a launch complex or Starship vessel. The return rocket would stay in orbit and only a habitat designed to float at 50 kilometers would leave orbit.
@seionne85, I do get the innuendo but when I saw that "Bigger body parts in space...." I was thinking, "For most living on the typical American diet, 'bigger body parts' are what we need less of...."😄
I hear ya - You're saying that we need to build a medium sized, interplanetary gas pipe, between Venus and Mars, so that we can thicken Mars' atmosphere and warm the place up, while cooling Venus, resulting in an accompanying decrease of atmospheric pressure. And you go on to say that we can use the planets different orbital speeds around the sun, to power a new type of generator that attaches directly to these gas pipes? Wonderful idea! I'm excited to see how it turns out...
Question!!!: I could calculate this myself, I suppose, but your note about delta-V to other planets made me wonder: What delta-V would you need to apply to a probe launched in July (Earth aphelion) to get a co-planar, circular, solar orbit, and how long would that orbit take?
When laying flat without a pillow to slightly elevate one’s head, I sometimes wonder if that head pressure feeling is similar to how one’s head might feel regardless of posture while in a low-gravity environment.
When a moon hits the Roche Limit, it breaks up. About 20% of the mass descends and the remainder rises and reforms a moon in a slightly higher orbit. This has occured numerous times resulting in a very small low orbit moon around Mars.
As a thought experiment, can the calculations be done to see the effect of covering the entire far side of the moon with solar sail so whenever the far side faces the sun it may reduce its orbit closer to earth, and maybe preventing or slowing its drift from earth.
The sails must be placed on the poles then, and constantly be moved for optimal effect, plus probably be equipped with some kind of self-destruct function in case the human race disappear, so the moon doesn't collide with earth?
@@doncarlodivargas5497 Not the poles. Being only on the poles would be a far too tiny of an area. I'm not concerned about constant exposure. During nearly half it's orbit the moons far side could provide some push to get a nudge towards Earth.
@zeuso.1947 like people can sail both with the wind and towards the wind, we could move the moon as sailboats move trough the water, we must just avoid the moon crashing in to the earth
@frasercain Question Sir: If refueling a rocket, like Starship, from low Earth orbit can enable it to continue to Mars, are there other scenarios not previously considered like refueling a returning Starship for powered reentry to Earth or even Mars? Granted, you would want the depot to be traveling in orbit at a speed that would closely match the speed of the incoming ship so that it would not require too much fuel to mate with the depot. What I'm trying to get at, is that space craft don't have remaining fuel to slow the craft for reentry and that's why there's a heat shield. If there was fuel for a powered reentry, could a fully fueled ship slow itself enough to eliminate the need for a heat shield?
@@MrT------5743 Previous systems had to incorporate the fuels needed from launch to landing. Now systems are being designed to use depots, so the cost variables are changing. Most heat shields are designed for reentry from low Earth orbit speeds. Heat shields returning from higher lunar orbital speeds are for small capsules. As we venture out further, returning will have to involve braking. If you had traveled to Jupiter and were traveling at 76,000 mph, you wouldn't want to reenter Earth's atmosphere at that speed. The various sizes of future ships, various speeds of travel, and new reentry trajectories are all going to play into the brainstorming of future space travel. If you were on an engineering team and were tasked to show all the options, you would probably make a chart showing all the cost factors including today's costs and future costs of heat shield vs refueling for reentry. Do you get where I'm going with this? I'm trying to think outside the box.
@@PC-nf3no yes obviously going back to earth feom deep space or like from Jupiter, yes there would need to be alternatives. But fuel is heavy. You need more fuel to get that fuel out of Jupiter's orbit and also get the remaining fuel to slow down and enter earth's orbit. Odds are they will do a series of reverse oberth maneuvers and make several aerobraking flybys the upper atmosphere.
@@MrT------5743 Elon has stated that the heat shield is the hardest part to develop for Starship. With that in mind, I was hoping to discuss some real alternatives to a heat shield by using exotic reentry trajectories and modifying the powered landing of Starship. Maybe someone will explore the subject in the future.
@PC-nf3no perhaps, but even with a heat shield being the hardest part to develop, it is still the better alternative to carrying way more fuel into and back out of space. I expect that trend will continue for a while. I heard it will take about 10+ starship launches just to refuel in earth orbit to make it to the moon, land, and back to earth. So fuel in space is a premium you don't really want to bring back.
Main problem with Venus - gravity. If there has been no issue with the hellish atmosphere we still need return rocket which should be much bigger than the martian one
If humans ever become the visiting aliens on other living worlds those beings need to be very alert because one of the first things we will ask is " What might be good to eat around here ? " ....
The other benefit Mars has over Venus is lower gravity. Even ignoring the atmospheric density, the ΔV to get off Venus is about the same as it is for Earth.
Friaser, Lots of us know the local group our own galactic neighborhood of galaxies. Do we know of other "Local Groups' near us and will we colide with any of them in the future?
So when the Earth and the Moon will eventually get tidally locked to each other, will the Moon stop moving away (providing that both survive the Sun's red giant phase)?
Thank you Fraser. Are there projects of an AI controlling some starships, travel for centuries and seed planets with our DNA? Would you like it? Would this make us an inter planetary species?
Binge watching DR STONE thanks to you. Not even with my 10 and 12 year old - just slightly too sexualised for my liking. Love the premise and storyline. Thanks (I think). 😂
Since Phobos is going to crash into mars anyways, couldn't we mine it for resources, stage them on Deimos, use spin launch to simultaneously launch the payloads to Deimos but also counter Phobos momentum, slowing it down to deliberately crash it into the planet to terraforming Mars?
Do you think a grand unifying theory will up-jump our technology exponentially or take us time to realize it's potential? And yeah take into account AI in our exploration of it.
I have always wondered if it was possible for life to exist and evolve naturally in space beyond influence of a solar systems or a galaxies force of gravity... I grew up watching sci-fi mainly Star Trek which had the greatest influence on me and inspired me to join the United States Navy...Science fiction almost always depicts these life forms to like marine jelly fish whale that sort of species...I mean remote places on our own planet that thought would never be able to support life is found not to be case and often support entire ecosystems and if these life forms I wonder what they would like?
@LJsReactions, thank you for your service! I have a loved one who is reporting to the Navy in the coming month! ^_^ I believe in the Biblical account of creation/existence. I also enjoy the ST series, I wasn't really big on the original but TNG and Voyager were my favorites. It's true there are places on Earth where environments seeme completely inhospitable to life however, life was found there! In general, fleshy biological organisms don't tend to do too well in extreme heat/cold but we know there are various creatures existing in both because they are suited to those environments. It was ages ago but I seem to recall reading about some form of aquatic life which lives happily near very HOT volcanic spouts, we're talking hundreds of degrees fahrenheit. We also know that deep in the ocean where it's very dark, there are sea creatures emitting their own light! From what we DO KNOW about space, it seems unimaginable that there are "zero other life forms anywhere in the vastness of the universe." However, except for conspiracy theories, we have ZERO evidence of any other such sentient civilizations out there which is crazy. When we consider the size of our own galaxy and the time it'd take for us to escape it with our current technology.... For example, the shortest route out of the Milky Way that I know of, would take millions of years even with a spacecraft traveling at ~400,000 mph which is to my knowledge the fastest spacecraft yet - Parker Solar Probe, as it reached it's orbit around the Sun. It'd take ~7,000 years at that speed to reach our next closest star Proxima Centauri which is only ~4.2 light years away. IIRC the nearest "exit" from our galaxy is ~24,000 light years.... Remember in ST Voyager they were said to have been hurled into the "Delta Quadrant ~70,000 light years from Earth" and Captain Janeway remarked that "even at maximum warp it'd take ~75 years to reach Earth" so most of them would be dead.... That suggests that their warp speed had to be almost a 1,000 times that of the speed of light which we know just 1 LY is ~5.9 trillion miles. They would be ~413 quadrillion miles from Earth so their warp speed would need to be ~933 times the speed of light to equal ~5.5 quadrillion miles per year times 75 years = 412.85 quadrillion or ~413 quadrillion miles. Anyway, it would be interesting to encounter FRIENDLY extraterrestrials but IF there are other such civilizations, imagine them saying the same and then finding us humans and some of the things we do to our own species on Earth.... Maybe they already did a flyby and said "NOPE!"😮😄
@@zenithperigee7442 I tried to the number for warp travel and finally gave up trying to convert the numbers lol...I always laughed because I would wander if there is no life out there thats a lot of waisted emptiness I think maybe going forward in the future humanity will have to redefine the definition what is life and after does confirm the existence of intelligent life beyond our tiny blue marble world...After God is a alien not of this earth and neither are the angels lol
I think the question the thumbbnail is supposed to answer, is does temporary bloodflow to body parts increase like when using a Viagra or Cialis. Is something bigger and/or does it stay that way longer? This needs to be studied.
A more complete answer re astronomy and alien life needs a longer base line, at least going back almost 150 years to the discovery of canals on Mars. On that timeline the 1960s and 1970s were a nadir that naturally came after the canals were deemed optical illusions from using telescopes at and beyond their limits. I suspect we won't be back at an early twentieth century level of acceptance of the search for other civilisations in astronomy until we have found, or been contacted by, alien life.
Imagine there is only earth and the moon and some of us were living on the moon. People on the earth will claim that moon is turning around the earth and the moon people will claim that the earth is turning around the moon, I say they are both correct, do you agree with me? Thank you for the video.
So could we treat a moon like we would a potentially threatening asteroid? say our moon got too far away in the future and it was having negative consequenses. Could we smack a rocket into it's tail pipe and give the moon a wee orbital boost?
the energy usage from 2000-2020 in the us didn't increase so it is quite misleading to think that it will actually increase exponentially. in the same way it would be misleading to say that humanity will use exponentially less energy in the future considering that technology either gets more efficient or more combined (like smartphones gaining tons of functions yet only using a few watts), the truth is somewhere in the middle but its not exponential
Wrong, 2000 to 2020 power usage has increased drastically. Server farms supporting AI had drastically increased the energy consumption. I heard something like each AI Google search uses something like 20 cents of electricity. So generating an AI picture or video definitely is using more power.
I WANT humanity to have a future in space, but theres no denying that it will only happen at scale for human societies or nations who can exhibit an incredible degree of stability, wealth generation and fairness. If not, then history tells us that 'petty' politics will undermine long-term visions. Conflict over access to resources of ALL kinds (especially water and rare earth metals) will see conflict both between nations and from within, especially if intergenerational inequities regarding stability of income, stability of employment and access to affordable dwellings continues to be sore points. We as 'fans' of space and these 'big questions' must always keep in mind that, by its very nature, this field hears almost exclusively from those comparatively small numbers of humans on this planet who are 'doing well', who have employment, who have stable housing, who don't have to eke our their existence. I don't want a subset of 'successful humanity', cloistered in white next-gen space suits and waiting excitedly in their launch couch; to be the sole emissaries of space - I want humanity as a whole to heal, for greater and fairer access to resources for all of us. Only THEN will we be in a position to say 'okay, we might be able to stick around for the truly long-term'.
Even if true, the issue there is nobody's returning from a trip to Venus. Mars's gravity is low enough for single-stage-to-orbit, while Venus's is nearly as high as Earth's. I don't know where all of the new romance for Venus is coming from, but the tyranny of the rocket equation confines all real human missions there to strictly one-way journeys.
@@DrMackSplackem , I'm not a "rocket Scientist" but I always thought that Venus was just a bit too "warm" to start with.... There were theories on "creating floating observatories" above Venus to conduct experiments etc. I just don't know how humans would expect to survive trying to live in ~800°F heat.
I don't get this 'swelling in space' thing, at all. Would not the same happen if you just lie down? Both your feet and your brain would be at the same level and therefore at the same blood pressure. And sure, if one sleeps for 14 hrs straight one does feel a little puffy in you face, but nothing approaching medical condition.
hi fraser!! i love your podcast and i’m a huge fan :). my question- if you can look into space and “see the past” due to galactic bodies/events being thousands-millions lightyears away, is there any possible way to do the opposite of that and see the future? any theoretical possibility connecting to black/white holes? i hope this makes sense lol. (also, how exactly does a la niña year work during solar maximum?)
There is no way to see the future. You can only see things that have occurred. If it didn't occur yet, you can't see it. Looking at the past is still just looking at the past. You can record past events or using the delayed speed of light see millions of years in the past by seeing things millions of light years away, but it all is in the past. It occurred and now we see it. Nothing in the future.
It's bad that we still have these tincan designs and non-rotating space stations. Some may think that the microgravity would go missing, but that is not correct. Along the axis of rotation will still be zero g, so a rotating station will always offer both, living in gravity and office in micro gravity. Waiting for the nuke motor. Without we shouldn't even go back to the Moon. Planned now for 2027, it was already done 1969. Early '70s we gave up our opportunity to bring it into orbit, along with everything else. Thats 60 years stagnation in which we also lost the trained specialists. There's more than enough reason to be pessimistic about our future. If we get our act together now, there will be cities on Mars and Moon before 2100. We must hope that the people who have to run government without guidance now are wise enough to give trump only fake nuke code. Nobody wants to land on Venus! Landing is easy, but the question is: how easy is it to land in the upper atmosphere? Floating cities would be in a much better environment. We'll have to see how SierraSpace continues to develope, but that will probably come after 2100. Again stations must get bigger, evtl where jobs go on 5 year contracts and the families even may come along. 🚀🏴☠️🎸
My money is on a spinning death star as a means for an extension of the existence of humanity and we will need to be cyborg like beings for our best chance.
The only answer humans are looking for to the question of are we alone is no. In a billion years if we havnt found anyone or anything else alive, we will still be looking and asking....
The oposite is true. All this search for radio waves is bs. They spread too much, meaning with distance they thin out, plus getting weaker, plus the time facter, which alltogether makes them useless. In interstellar distances radio waves become a hoax.
I'm cynical - I love the sciences, but I also suffer mental health challenges and life can be very difficult/painful and if you couple the inherent optimism with somethinglike space exploration with a historical awareness of human past acts and trends, it's not too hard to find oneself holding rather bleak and cynical views as to our trajectory. I'm speaking only for myself.
@DannyJoh;• very true statement, cuz if you let yourself down to the level of personal hatred, then they/you have you trapped exactly where they want you!
Sorry Fraser, but you have done too many interviews and stories where the message is "it can't be done" and when you breakdown why it can't be done, almost every single blocker is will, political, financial or social will. Very few of the blockers have been technical, but you keep making the same videos. So, why do we get the impression that you think we won't become interplanetary?
Thanks Fraser and team!
I'm liking the tongue in cheek humor in the thumbnails lately: Inside Uranus etc., etc.
Fraser,
Venus does have a rather actually a very habitable zone in the Venusian where atmospheric pressure is equal to the earths and the temperature is within the range of the Earth and the gravity is about the exactly the same so there is a layer in the atmosphere of Venus that you could walk out on a balcony suspended by a balloon with just a breath mask and maybe a winter coat or a summer jacket.
Also, the Apollo applications program explored a 2 man Venus flyby when the moon missions were canceled.
hmm, right.. we could of course live like that on earth, just a bit lower down, but somehow we don't. I guess it is just too complicated even here. You'd need building materials, which are several km below you, you'd need agriculture and water tanks and oxigen production, all up in the clouds, and loads of high tech. I could imagine some research facility at best, where supplies would come frome somewhere else.
@@beastlysnippets
"Oxigen" sounds like a cool name for an oxygen producing device.
Feed carbon dioxide into your Oxigen and get oxygen out (as well as some small carbon bricks, every few weeks).
@ Other Dude
Fraser has spoken about this quite a number of times in the past.
Not about living there, mind you, but about the notion that there is a liveable zone in Venus' atmosphere. Or rather, there's an altitude at which humans and other mammals would feel quite comfortable, on Venus. It's also been speculated- on this channel- that there could be microbial life forms floating through those layers, wafting on thermal updrafts and such.
hey Fraser, question: If we could check inside a black hole, would we see that all matter is exactly where it hit the event horizon, because in relation to our time the time in there has stopped? Can it rotate if time is infinitely slow? And, it always sounded like we somehow believe there is a singularity in the middle, but how would that form if nothing ever arrives there?
Regarding your discussion of how bad it would be to land on Venus, I thought you might touch on avoiding landing and instead exploring the atmosphere from cloud-based platforms. It seems like there should be a gradient where the air pressure would be less punishing.
Make sense. I mean we don’t live at the bottom of the ocean for a reason🥴
Thanks for mentioning me dude!
The person asking about does everything get bigger regarding the human body might have been hoping that one particular organ gets bigger 😂
Oh, I know
I don't want to go to space anymore :(
Fraser, you have mentioned previously that you would prefer to terraform the moon over mars. You have also said that the resulting atmosphere would need to be replenished every few thousand years because it would disappear into space. Did you calculate this using only the gravity of the moon or did you take the solar wind into account?
Great job you are doing, thank you very much.
The Venus atmosphere at 50 kilometers elevation is the place for floating habitats; not the surface. At 50 kilometers you get almost 1 g , 1 atmosphere , and protection from cosmic rays.
And you can even return to Earth, if we ever discover a launch complex, fuel factory and Starship-class vehicle and booster suspended in the clouds.
About 10 year's ago NASA's Langley Research Center created a proposal called HAVOC that would send a crewed dirigible to Venus that would fly at ~50 to 60 km high. The creators of the proposal acknowledge that it's too early for a crewed mission. So, they say it would be preceded by robotic missions, which would be simpler and smaller than the crewed version. Anyway, here's the link to the video they made, which is really great:
th-cam.com/video/0az7DEwG68A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MFfN0uiMsXHla8Gz
@@DrMackSplackem It would float with one atmosphere inside. No need for boosters to maintain elevation.
@@bbartky Thank you very much.
@@DrMackSplackem No need for a launch complex or Starship vessel.
The return rocket would stay in orbit and only a habitat designed to float at 50 kilometers would leave orbit.
Agree 100% about Titan as a favorite.
Yeah, Titan and Io are super outliers, really different places from other moons and Enceladus is intriguing.
Well that's one way to sell a few space tourism tickets. Great thumbnail 🤣
@seionne85, I do get the innuendo but when I saw that "Bigger body parts in space...." I was thinking, "For most living on the typical American diet, 'bigger body parts' are what we need less of...."😄
I hear ya -
You're saying that we need to build a medium sized, interplanetary gas pipe, between Venus and Mars, so that we can thicken Mars' atmosphere and warm the place up, while cooling Venus, resulting in an accompanying decrease of atmospheric pressure. And you go on to say that we can use the planets different orbital speeds around the sun, to power a new type of generator that attaches directly to these gas pipes?
Wonderful idea! I'm excited to see how it turns out...
Question: How does a gravity boost work? Wouldn’t any acceleration gained on the way toward the planet be negated on its way out?
No it doesn't equal because of the motion of the planet and the motion of the spacecraft.
Question!!!: I could calculate this myself, I suppose, but your note about delta-V to other planets made me wonder: What delta-V would you need to apply to a probe launched in July (Earth aphelion) to get a co-planar, circular, solar orbit, and how long would that orbit take?
Follow-up. I got too curious to wait for an answer. That orbit would take an extra 9 days (roughly). The delta-V would be quite small.
When laying flat without a pillow to slightly elevate one’s head, I sometimes wonder if that head pressure feeling is similar to how one’s head might feel regardless of posture while in a low-gravity environment.
When a moon hits the Roche Limit, it breaks up. About 20% of the mass descends and the remainder rises and reforms a moon in a slightly higher orbit. This has occured numerous times resulting in a very small low orbit moon around Mars.
Enceladus, Europa and Titan. Then Mars, Venus, Mercury, Pluto, Ceres
Happy new year 🥳
“I don’t pick favorites for anything” 13:54
There has to be an exception that proves the rule, is that not how it works?
Did a double take because of the thumbnail 😂
@3:52 Definately Uranus is bigger in space 😆
That's to facilitate orbital insertion by Klingons. Their vessels have special requirements.
Freely compressing to its largest size...
As a thought experiment, can the calculations be done to see the effect of covering the entire far side of the moon with solar sail so whenever the far side faces the sun it may reduce its orbit closer to earth, and maybe preventing or slowing its drift from earth.
The sails must be placed on the poles then, and constantly be moved for optimal effect, plus probably be equipped with some kind of self-destruct function in case the human race disappear, so the moon doesn't collide with earth?
@@doncarlodivargas5497
Not the poles. Being only on the poles would be a far too tiny of an area. I'm not concerned about constant exposure. During nearly half it's orbit the moons far side could provide some push to get a nudge towards Earth.
@zeuso.1947 like people can sail both with the wind and towards the wind, we could move the moon as sailboats move trough the water, we must just avoid the moon crashing in to the earth
Can we fix Venus? Can the atmosphere be fixed and or can we move the planet away from the sun as you talked about doing with earth?
@frasercain Question Sir: If refueling a rocket, like Starship, from low Earth orbit can enable it to continue to Mars, are there other scenarios not previously considered like refueling a returning Starship for powered reentry to Earth or even Mars? Granted, you would want the depot to be traveling in orbit at a speed that would closely match the speed of the incoming ship so that it would not require too much fuel to mate with the depot. What I'm trying to get at, is that space craft don't have remaining fuel to slow the craft for reentry and that's why there's a heat shield. If there was fuel for a powered reentry, could a fully fueled ship slow itself enough to eliminate the need for a heat shield?
A heat shield is way more cost effective in both cost of fuel and delta V costs than just using fuel to slow it enough to not need a heat shield.
@@MrT------5743 Previous systems had to incorporate the fuels needed from launch to landing. Now systems are being designed to use depots, so the cost variables are changing. Most heat shields are designed for reentry from low Earth orbit speeds. Heat shields returning from higher lunar orbital speeds are for small capsules. As we venture out further, returning will have to involve braking. If you had traveled to Jupiter and were traveling at 76,000 mph, you wouldn't want to reenter Earth's atmosphere at that speed. The various sizes of future ships, various speeds of travel, and new reentry trajectories are all going to play into the brainstorming of future space travel. If you were on an engineering team and were tasked to show all the options, you would probably make a chart showing all the cost factors including today's costs and future costs of heat shield vs refueling for reentry. Do you get where I'm going with this? I'm trying to think outside the box.
@@PC-nf3no yes obviously going back to earth feom deep space or like from Jupiter, yes there would need to be alternatives. But fuel is heavy. You need more fuel to get that fuel out of Jupiter's orbit and also get the remaining fuel to slow down and enter earth's orbit. Odds are they will do a series of reverse oberth maneuvers and make several aerobraking flybys the upper atmosphere.
@@MrT------5743 Elon has stated that the heat shield is the hardest part to develop for Starship. With that in mind, I was hoping to discuss some real alternatives to a heat shield by using exotic reentry trajectories and modifying the powered landing of Starship. Maybe someone will explore the subject in the future.
@PC-nf3no perhaps, but even with a heat shield being the hardest part to develop, it is still the better alternative to carrying way more fuel into and back out of space. I expect that trend will continue for a while. I heard it will take about 10+ starship launches just to refuel in earth orbit to make it to the moon, land, and back to earth. So fuel in space is a premium you don't really want to bring back.
Main problem with Venus - gravity. If there has been no issue with the hellish atmosphere we still need return rocket which should be much bigger than the martian one
Can we make space to comb solar radiation? Great content. God bless.
5:40 Have rubber suits been considered? Like tight rubber to press on the skin in certain places to push water elsewhere?
Very clever thumbnail Fraser 😂
That's all Anton (my editor). :-)
@frasercain Thanks for answering my question at the start of the video 👍
What if we made a sunshade for Venus?
Thanks Fraser and very best wishes to you for 2025. Happy New Year!
If humans ever become the visiting aliens on other living worlds those beings need to be very alert because one of the first things we will ask is " What might be good to eat around here ? " ....
And if they are not food, then they become subject to our religious wars.
The other benefit Mars has over Venus is lower gravity. Even ignoring the atmospheric density, the ΔV to get off Venus is about the same as it is for Earth.
Friaser,
Lots of us know the local group our own galactic neighborhood of galaxies. Do we know of other "Local Groups' near us and will we colide with any of them in the future?
So when the Earth and the Moon will eventually get tidally locked to each other, will the Moon stop moving away (providing that both survive the Sun's red giant phase)?
Thank you Fraser.
Are there projects of an AI controlling some starships, travel for centuries and seed planets with our DNA? Would you like it? Would this make us an inter planetary species?
Binge watching DR STONE thanks to you. Not even with my 10 and 12 year old - just slightly too sexualised for my liking. Love the premise and storyline. Thanks (I think). 😂
Since Phobos is going to crash into mars anyways, couldn't we mine it for resources, stage them on Deimos, use spin launch to simultaneously launch the payloads to Deimos but also counter Phobos momentum, slowing it down to deliberately crash it into the planet to terraforming Mars?
Lol excellent thumbnail
What would happen to the Earth Tides if we had no moon
They would be very damped down and all we would have is solar tides.
Francis Tony looks really familiar.
Do you think a grand unifying theory will up-jump our technology exponentially or take us time to realize it's potential? And yeah take into account AI in our exploration of it.
I have always wondered if it was possible for life to exist and evolve naturally in space beyond influence of a solar systems or a galaxies force of gravity... I grew up watching sci-fi mainly Star Trek which had the greatest influence on me and inspired me to join the United States Navy...Science fiction almost always depicts these life forms to like marine jelly fish whale that sort of species...I mean remote places on our own planet that thought would never be able to support life is found not to be case and often support entire ecosystems and if these life forms I wonder what they would like?
@LJsReactions, thank you for your service! I have a loved one who is reporting to the Navy in the coming month! ^_^ I believe in the Biblical account of creation/existence. I also enjoy the ST series, I wasn't really big on the original but TNG and Voyager were my favorites. It's true there are places on Earth where environments seeme completely inhospitable to life however, life was found there! In general, fleshy biological organisms don't tend to do too well in extreme heat/cold but we know there are various creatures existing in both because they are suited to those environments. It was ages ago but I seem to recall reading about some form of aquatic life which lives happily near very HOT volcanic spouts, we're talking hundreds of degrees fahrenheit. We also know that deep in the ocean where it's very dark, there are sea creatures emitting their own light!
From what we DO KNOW about space, it seems unimaginable that there are "zero other life forms anywhere in the vastness of the universe." However, except for conspiracy theories, we have ZERO evidence of any other such sentient civilizations out there which is crazy. When we consider the size of our own galaxy and the time it'd take for us to escape it with our current technology.... For example, the shortest route out of the Milky Way that I know of, would take millions of years even with a spacecraft traveling at ~400,000 mph which is to my knowledge the fastest spacecraft yet - Parker Solar Probe, as it reached it's orbit around the Sun. It'd take ~7,000 years at that speed to reach our next closest star Proxima Centauri which is only ~4.2 light years away. IIRC the nearest "exit" from our galaxy is ~24,000 light years....
Remember in ST Voyager they were said to have been hurled into the "Delta Quadrant ~70,000 light years from Earth" and Captain Janeway remarked that "even at maximum warp it'd take ~75 years to reach Earth" so most of them would be dead.... That suggests that their warp speed had to be almost a 1,000 times that of the speed of light which we know just 1 LY is ~5.9 trillion miles. They would be ~413 quadrillion miles from Earth so their warp speed would need to be ~933 times the speed of light to equal ~5.5 quadrillion miles per year times 75 years = 412.85 quadrillion or ~413 quadrillion miles.
Anyway, it would be interesting to encounter FRIENDLY extraterrestrials but IF there are other such civilizations, imagine them saying the same and then finding us humans and some of the things we do to our own species on Earth.... Maybe they already did a flyby and said "NOPE!"😮😄
@@zenithperigee7442 I tried to the number for warp travel and finally gave up trying to convert the numbers lol...I always laughed because I would wander if there is no life out there thats a lot of waisted emptiness I think maybe going forward in the future humanity will have to redefine the definition what is life and after does confirm the existence of intelligent life beyond our tiny blue marble world...After God is a alien not of this earth and neither are the angels lol
What effect will prolonged skin exposure to pressurised methane have on humans?
A video about: Helical Engine David M. Burns, Ph.D.1 NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama, 35812, USA ?
I think the question the thumbbnail is supposed to answer, is does temporary bloodflow to body parts increase like when using a Viagra or Cialis. Is something bigger and/or does it stay that way longer? This needs to be studied.
I knew what the question was. 😀
How many people make a small town, I think differently, Moon then Mars
A more complete answer re astronomy and alien life needs a longer base line, at least going back almost 150 years to the discovery of canals on Mars. On that timeline the 1960s and 1970s were a nadir that naturally came after the canals were deemed optical illusions from using telescopes at and beyond their limits. I suspect we won't be back at an early twentieth century level of acceptance of the search for other civilisations in astronomy until we have found, or been contacted by, alien life.
Imagine there is only earth and the moon and some of us were living on the moon. People on the earth will claim that moon is turning around the earth and the moon people will claim that the earth is turning around the moon, I say they are both correct, do you agree with me?
Thank you for the video.
How big is a Venus in space?
Great show. Happy New Year, Fraser! Looking forward to a million answers in 2025.
So could we treat a moon like we would a potentially threatening asteroid? say our moon got too far away in the future and it was having negative consequenses. Could we smack a rocket into it's tail pipe and give the moon a wee orbital boost?
or say phobos and ditch the moon into the surface?
or the other way
the energy usage from 2000-2020 in the us didn't increase so it is quite misleading to think that it will actually increase exponentially.
in the same way it would be misleading to say that humanity will use exponentially less energy in the future considering that technology either gets more efficient or more combined (like smartphones gaining tons of functions yet only using a few watts), the truth is somewhere in the middle but its not exponential
Wrong, 2000 to 2020 power usage has increased drastically. Server farms supporting AI had drastically increased the energy consumption.
I heard something like each AI Google search uses something like 20 cents of electricity. So generating an AI picture or video definitely is using more power.
7:55 if Venus could be swapped with Mars it would be pretty habitable with less atmospheric pressure and CO2 oceans
I WANT humanity to have a future in space, but theres no denying that it will only happen at scale for human societies or nations who can exhibit an incredible degree of stability, wealth generation and fairness. If not, then history tells us that 'petty' politics will undermine long-term visions. Conflict over access to resources of ALL kinds (especially water and rare earth metals) will see conflict both between nations and from within, especially if intergenerational inequities regarding stability of income, stability of employment and access to affordable dwellings continues to be sore points.
We as 'fans' of space and these 'big questions' must always keep in mind that, by its very nature, this field hears almost exclusively from those comparatively small numbers of humans on this planet who are 'doing well', who have employment, who have stable housing, who don't have to eke our their existence.
I don't want a subset of 'successful humanity', cloistered in white next-gen space suits and waiting excitedly in their launch couch; to be the sole emissaries of space - I want humanity as a whole to heal, for greater and fairer access to resources for all of us. Only THEN will we be in a position to say 'okay, we might be able to stick around for the truly long-term'.
Venus is better than Mars, no kidding 😊
Both deatly.
Even if true, the issue there is nobody's returning from a trip to Venus. Mars's gravity is low enough for single-stage-to-orbit, while Venus's is nearly as high as Earth's. I don't know where all of the new romance for Venus is coming from, but the tyranny of the rocket equation confines all real human missions there to strictly one-way journeys.
@@DrMackSplackem , I'm not a "rocket Scientist" but I always thought that Venus was just a bit too "warm" to start with.... There were theories on "creating floating observatories" above Venus to conduct experiments etc. I just don't know how humans would expect to survive trying to live in ~800°F heat.
Floating city in Venus' upper atmosphere is in a near Earth environment, and already near the hight of the 1st rocket stages burning end.
I don't get this 'swelling in space' thing, at all. Would not the same happen if you just lie down? Both your feet and your brain would be at the same level and therefore at the same blood pressure. And sure, if one sleeps for 14 hrs straight one does feel a little puffy in you face, but nothing approaching medical condition.
So, it's like sleeping for weeks and months on end.
hi fraser!! i love your podcast and i’m a huge fan :). my question- if you can look into space and “see the past” due to galactic bodies/events being thousands-millions lightyears away, is there any possible way to do the opposite of that and see the future? any theoretical possibility connecting to black/white holes? i hope this makes sense lol. (also, how exactly does a la niña year work during solar maximum?)
There is no way to see the future. You can only see things that have occurred. If it didn't occur yet, you can't see it.
Looking at the past is still just looking at the past. You can record past events or using the delayed speed of light see millions of years in the past by seeing things millions of light years away, but it all is in the past. It occurred and now we see it. Nothing in the future.
It's bad that we still have these tincan designs and non-rotating space stations. Some may think that the microgravity would go missing, but that is not correct. Along the axis of rotation will still be zero g, so a rotating station will always offer both, living in gravity and office in micro gravity.
Waiting for the nuke motor. Without we shouldn't even go back to the Moon. Planned now for 2027, it was already done 1969. Early '70s we gave up our opportunity to bring it into orbit, along with everything else. Thats 60 years stagnation in which we also lost the trained specialists. There's more than enough reason to be pessimistic about our future. If we get our act together now, there will be cities on Mars and Moon before 2100. We must hope that the people who have to run government without guidance now are wise enough to give trump only fake nuke code.
Nobody wants to land on Venus! Landing is easy, but the question is: how easy is it to land in the upper atmosphere? Floating cities would be in a much better environment. We'll have to see how SierraSpace continues to develope, but that will probably come after 2100. Again stations must get bigger, evtl where jobs go on 5 year contracts and the families even may come along.
🚀🏴☠️🎸
My money is on a spinning death star as a means for an extension of the existence of humanity and we will need to be cyborg like beings for our best chance.
The only answer humans are looking for to the question of are we alone is no. In a billion years if we havnt found anyone or anything else alive, we will still be looking and asking....
The oposite is true. All this search for radio waves is bs. They spread too much, meaning with distance they thin out, plus getting weaker, plus the time facter, which alltogether makes them useless. In interstellar distances radio waves become a hoax.
I thought there was a thing called “Space Viagra Effect”. Am I wrong?
🐸
It’s so sad that so many modern people are cynical, and nihilistic…
I wonder what makes them so. Is it an environment they live in (especially politics and economy)?..
I’m not! Nice to meet ya :)
I'm cynical - I love the sciences, but I also suffer mental health challenges and life can be very difficult/painful and if you couple the inherent optimism with somethinglike space exploration with a historical awareness of human past acts and trends, it's not too hard to find oneself holding rather bleak and cynical views as to our trajectory.
I'm speaking only for myself.
Don't hate the players, hate the game
@DannyJoh;• very true statement, cuz if you let yourself down to the level of personal hatred, then they/you have you trapped exactly where they want you!
Sorry Fraser, but you have done too many interviews and stories where the message is "it can't be done" and when you breakdown why it can't be done, almost every single blocker is will, political, financial or social will. Very few of the blockers have been technical, but you keep making the same videos. So, why do we get the impression that you think we won't become interplanetary?
Like I said, it’s a timeframe issue. There are 5000 satellites now, probably 50000 in a decade. It’s an exponential curve.
😂
What happened to body parts in Space? Lair!
I'll watch Roger Spurr.
Was it a past Moon that hit the Earth?
No. It was a mars-ish sized planet named Theia that likely shared a similar orbit to earth and chased it for several years.
Maybe.