To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/PaulSutter. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
You hit the nail on the head with the public perception of nuclear reactors. We did design and operate space power reactors back in the 1960s, and designs like SP-100 design was completed in the 1970s. We also have advanced nuclear space tugs on the drawing board. That leaves someone like me scratching my head on how to teach reactor control using the delayed neutron fraction and its way to build safety into control systems. Without a basic understanding of calculus, even my best friends and past wives' eyes glazed over, and they tuned me out. We former nuclear scientists are just odd or completely mad!
“Step 4: navigation”… pulsar tracking for galactic navigation. Pulsars are regular enough that they are nearly as good as GPS atomic clocks that would allow positioning accuracy of around 100m. Not good enough for terrestrial navigation but plenty good enough for interplanetary. Like GPS, pulsars allow cold-start navigation as opposed to continuous monitoring required of inertial navigation.
Finally, a short, substantive summary of most of the problems that we will have to face if we want to dream of marking our presence in the nearest space area. A very refreshing dose of information (as usual with humor and wit ) instead of the BS spacehype. Thanks, Dr. Sutter )))
Number one should be finding out in great detail what long term low g does to us. If we can't survive a year or more on Mars without damage, then we need a solution for that, too.
There's no other solution coming from a magic box: the only way to tackle the 5 challenges is to integrate as best as possible AI; machine learning; nuclear power systems and autonomous robotics.
I believe this was looked into, but kicking up dust off the ground when trying to use what is essentially an oversized fan could cause more problems, not just covering the solar cells but possibly getting into the electronics of the rovers. Also, atmospheric pressure on Mars is incredibly low, which is why the rotors on Ingenuity were quite large compared to a drone we use here on Earth. That, and unfortunately Ingenuity has broken one of its propellers and can no longer fly as of a few days ago
Geothermal moon base. Launch Boring machine, horizontal for habitation, down vertical for geothermal stability. Use mining dregs for mineral extraction and to bury and shield the first surface bases. Use the deep vertical for heat energy manufacturing. Lunar communications satellite array should be easy. One Starship should function well enough and pez dispenser. Land a few reflectors as hard anchors to maintain stable relative positioning akin to USGS markers on mountains. Power? 1st launch nuclear reactor. Then parabolic array to generate heat sinks (battery) and manufacture glass for low tech insitu solar array manufacturing for power. Girdle the moon slowly. Use molten iron and magnetic batteries. Sterling motors, casmir effect generators, etc. Lots of real estate for very low tech solutions to achieve economies of scale. Use molten Aluminum for manufacturing structures and Aluminum wiring as an ideal first-generation solution for lunar power grids. The cold makes an ideal environment for YBCO superconducting (imported from earth) grids.
@ Yes. 5 meter finished tunnels for habitation, geothermal depth, and resource extraction. TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) from Boring company, Herrenknecht, Terratec, or Robbins/Caterpiller. There are solutions that fit constrains in both volume and weight for the current SpaceX ships. And more possibilities in the next 20 years as solutions.
@@lyledal especially if the TBMs are adjacent to existing lava tunnels for larger volumes that are shielded from radiation and micro-meteorites. The larger natural volumes would be nice to use. The TBM tunnels would be the more secure/shielded areas for pressure locks. The larger volumes might have eventual solutions for minimal pressure (considering cracks and ceiling collapse). Larger lava tubes would probably be mostly used as a shielded/protected manufacturing volume. Adjacent TBM tunnels could also be used as pressurized volumes for manufacturing where terrestrial functions are better served (welding, etc.).
There is a feature that elevates the quality of story telling that seems to be universal, whether its movies like 'the Martian' or 'Photon', or Dr. Paul M Sutter on youtube.... Attention to Detail. His work is very interesting and scientifically sound, which i believe goes against the Dr.'s own belief system... to paraphrase { " if its boring, its good science"}
My perception is that NASA goes out of its way to debunk claims of alien life, and support the military. It should have a more independent, independent lens.
We need NASA to be forthright about the cost of chemical rocket technology versus time. It is not dropping at a useful rate. Obsoleting all-chemical-rocket launch by replacing it with something far better should be NASA's #1 priority.
Right now there is absolutely nothing that can launch from the surface except chemical rockets. There are many people working on alternatives. Stay tuned for an episode on that
Biggest challenge... Not being gutted and having funding rerouted to SpaceX. True space exploration will end up on hold again for another decade or so.
Over more than 10 years, Project Apollo involved 400,000 people working at major contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, Rocketdyne, Grumman Aircraft Corporation, IBM, Motorola, MIT and 20,000 other subcontractors.
The list is Idiotic, Myopic . You can boil a lot of it down to, more mass for power systems, heat rejection and shielding. So the only KPI that matters is the price of mass to orbit. It's rocket science because you care about making it work within an anemic mass budget. The computing problem is really either lack of shielding or power plus redundant computers. Navigation? Launch more conventional moon position satellites. Heat issues, more radiators. Power? More solar or more batteries. a Lot of smart people looked at small parts of the problem and found workable but specialized solution. Exactly doing what they said is the problem in the first place. They are optimizing too soon. Make a clunky life support that weighs 10 times as much but is bulletproof. a 5 ton instead of 500kg rover that just works and will for decades. Too expensive? Work on the $/kg launch cost first. Develop a refuellable space tug that can go to the moon. Make it reusable. Launch as many as possible to amortize development costs and use it for commercial projects as well Honestly the list was not that bad till number one, that highlighted the over specialized nature of the other 4.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/PaulSutter. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
You hit the nail on the head with the public perception of nuclear reactors. We did design and operate space power reactors back in the 1960s, and designs like SP-100 design was completed in the 1970s. We also have advanced nuclear space tugs on the drawing board. That leaves someone like me scratching my head on how to teach reactor control using the delayed neutron fraction and its way to build safety into control systems. Without a basic understanding of calculus, even my best friends and past wives' eyes glazed over, and they tuned me out. We former nuclear scientists are just odd or completely mad!
Great show Paul great to see you have a great holiday and new year
Thank you, you too!
“Step 4: navigation”… pulsar tracking for galactic navigation. Pulsars are regular enough that they are nearly as good as GPS atomic clocks that would allow positioning accuracy of around 100m. Not good enough for terrestrial navigation but plenty good enough for interplanetary.
Like GPS, pulsars allow cold-start navigation as opposed to continuous monitoring required of inertial navigation.
Thanks, for your desire to educate and teach
This was such a sorely needed change of direction. Now, regardless of who's in charge, it's always forward on the same path. Brilliant.
Finally, a short, substantive summary of most of the problems that we will have to face if we want to dream of marking our presence in the nearest space area. A very refreshing dose of information (as usual with humor and wit ) instead of the BS spacehype. Thanks, Dr. Sutter )))
Thank you, I'm glad you liked it!
📸What's the framed picture on the wall behind his head? Anybody know?
It's called "the Padre's arrival" and it's one of my favorite photographs.
Convincing the public to trust the experts that reactors are, in fact, safe? Good luck with that!
Definitely a huge challenge
Especially if NASA continues to use irresponsible and ignorant people like Musk 🙄🙄🙄🙏🏴🇬🇧
Number one should be finding out in great detail what long term low g does to us. If we can't survive a year or more on Mars without damage, then we need a solution for that, too.
There's no other solution coming from a magic box: the only way to tackle the 5 challenges is to integrate as best as possible AI; machine learning; nuclear power systems and autonomous robotics.
You're right, there is no single solution. Just a lot of hard work
Right now, Empower Starship to do all the rest.
Unfortunately more lift capacity doesn't solve any of these issues
Lmao did you listen to one second of the video?
great video! needs way more likes!
U can use the helicopter on mars to blow the panels on the rover ,should have had me on the TEAM 😅
I believe this was looked into, but kicking up dust off the ground when trying to use what is essentially an oversized fan could cause more problems, not just covering the solar cells but possibly getting into the electronics of the rovers. Also, atmospheric pressure on Mars is incredibly low, which is why the rotors on Ingenuity were quite large compared to a drone we use here on Earth.
That, and unfortunately Ingenuity has broken one of its propellers and can no longer fly as of a few days ago
Geothermal moon base.
Launch Boring machine, horizontal for habitation, down vertical for geothermal stability. Use mining dregs for mineral extraction and to bury and shield the first surface bases. Use the deep vertical for heat energy manufacturing.
Lunar communications satellite array should be easy. One Starship should function well enough and pez dispenser.
Land a few reflectors as hard anchors to maintain stable relative positioning akin to USGS markers on mountains.
Power? 1st launch nuclear reactor. Then parabolic array to generate heat sinks (battery) and manufacture glass for low tech insitu solar array manufacturing for power. Girdle the moon slowly. Use molten iron and magnetic batteries. Sterling motors, casmir effect generators, etc. Lots of real estate for very low tech solutions to achieve economies of scale.
Use molten Aluminum for manufacturing structures and Aluminum wiring as an ideal first-generation solution for lunar power grids. The cold makes an ideal environment for YBCO superconducting (imported from earth) grids.
Boring as in Boring company? Alrighty.
@ Yes. 5 meter finished tunnels for habitation, geothermal depth, and resource extraction. TBMs (Tunnel Boring Machines) from Boring company, Herrenknecht, Terratec, or Robbins/Caterpiller. There are solutions that fit constrains in both volume and weight for the current SpaceX ships. And more possibilities in the next 20 years as solutions.
@@lyledal especially if the TBMs are adjacent to existing lava tunnels for larger volumes that are shielded from radiation and micro-meteorites.
The larger natural volumes would be nice to use. The TBM tunnels would be the more secure/shielded areas for pressure locks. The larger volumes might have eventual solutions for minimal pressure (considering cracks and ceiling collapse). Larger lava tubes would probably be mostly used as a shielded/protected manufacturing volume.
Adjacent TBM tunnels could also be used as pressurized volumes for manufacturing where terrestrial functions are better served (welding, etc.).
Igneous rock is far harder to drill through than sedimentary rock.
There is a feature that elevates the quality of story telling that seems to be universal, whether its movies like 'the Martian' or 'Photon', or Dr. Paul M Sutter on youtube.... Attention to Detail. His work is very interesting and scientifically sound, which i believe goes against the Dr.'s own belief system... to paraphrase { " if its boring, its good science"}
Thank you, and I'm glad you like my work. Real science may be "boring" but it sure is fun...
My perception is that NASA goes out of its way to debunk claims of alien life, and support the military. It should have a more independent, independent lens.
What's stopping the (new) space age? I'd say: gravity. Or gravity wells.
We need NASA to be forthright about the cost of chemical rocket technology versus time. It is not dropping at a useful rate. Obsoleting all-chemical-rocket launch by replacing it with something far better should be NASA's #1 priority.
Right now there is absolutely nothing that can launch from the surface except chemical rockets. There are many people working on alternatives. Stay tuned for an episode on that
My question is what will the next admin do with NASA.
Yup, time of the year to put the olive tree inside.
Every live tree I've put in that corner dies so ol' Olly is a fake
Maybe Nasa can send a satellite into low orbit and identify all the foreign drones all over the U.S. ?
How to get rid of the orange rocket without anyone noticing.
Prioritization of what gets funded is where self serving politics reigns supreme
Nuclear , nuclear thermal....so I guess the solution is uranium
Being Honest!
from HOTU
Biggest challenge... Not being gutted and having funding rerouted to SpaceX. True space exploration will end up on hold again for another decade or so.
Number One: DO NOT use private businesses to help with anything to do with these five objectives. Make America ‘Decent’ Again 👍🙏🏴🇬🇧
The majority of the work that NASA/ESA does is done by industry. The agencies themselves are essentially a bunch of contract managers.
Over more than 10 years, Project Apollo involved 400,000 people working at major contractors such as Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, Rocketdyne, Grumman Aircraft Corporation, IBM, Motorola, MIT and 20,000 other subcontractors.
You do realize JPL is a mix of private and govt employees, right? That will hurt.
Why do you say private businesses shouldn’t be involved?
The list is Idiotic, Myopic .
You can boil a lot of it down to, more mass for power systems, heat rejection and shielding.
So the only KPI that matters is the price of mass to orbit.
It's rocket science because you care about making it work within an anemic mass budget.
The computing problem is really either lack of shielding or power plus redundant computers.
Navigation? Launch more conventional moon position satellites.
Heat issues, more radiators.
Power? More solar or more batteries.
a Lot of smart people looked at small parts of the problem and found workable but specialized solution.
Exactly doing what they said is the problem in the first place.
They are optimizing too soon. Make a clunky life support that weighs 10 times as much but is bulletproof.
a 5 ton instead of 500kg rover that just works and will for decades.
Too expensive? Work on the $/kg launch cost first. Develop a refuellable space tug that can go to the moon.
Make it reusable.
Launch as many as possible to amortize development costs and use it for commercial projects as well
Honestly the list was not that bad till number one, that highlighted the over specialized nature of the other 4.