Answering Your Questions - Episode #2

Vitenskap og teknologi

Another session working through questions from my patrons over at Patreon. I'm trying to do this in sequence so it'll take me a couple of months to get through the current backlog, but I'm enjoying trying to answer these without having to do a ton of research first.


  • David M.
    David M.12 timer siden

    re: Fermi - we don't even need VR, just reading comments & going down the YT webbit hole can interfere with 'otta do' life...

  • Gellért Párniczky
    Gellért Párniczky18 dager siden

    6:30 Yes, you actually did say it wrong, but I have to say you came remarkably close for someone, who doesn't speak hungarian. Kudos for not butchering it

  • Andrew Foss
    Andrew Foss26 dager siden

    "...[J]ust making the rocket hold together and not flex; That is non-trivial..." One might even say it's rocket science.

  • Alexander Sannikov
    Alexander Sannikov28 dager siden

    > if you're 170 kilograms might be the most concealed mom joke :D

  • André Fagerlid
    André Fagerlid28 dager siden

    Cant wait for the 3 iteration and hopefully a guide to books worth to read, I love your content. If you look to winward and study the surface detail of the bookshelf, the use of weapons, a state of the art piece of work seems to have met a feersum endjin against a dark background. Coincidence or an excession of the player of games? Oh, and first but not least, consider Phlebas.

  • markiangooley
    markiangooleyMåned siden

    75 kg used to be a standard adult American male’s weight. We’re fatter now but...

  • TheNasaDude
    TheNasaDudeMåned siden

    Taking thick panels and making them thin with a milling machine is not very fast, easy, or efficient It gives very strong, light and precise results though

  • Peter Klamser
    Peter KlamserMåned siden

    de Laval nozzle Wikipedia...

  • AMGwtfBBQsauce
    AMGwtfBBQsauceMåned siden

    Should also mention that electrons are not the antimatter equivalent to protons. Electrons Positrons Protons Anti-protons

  • Ye Olde Glory Days
    Ye Olde Glory DaysMåned siden

    So uh .. speaking of vidyogames.. When will you return to playing those and making videos out of those?

  • Vikki McDonough
    Vikki McDonoughMåned siden

    11:37 - Cheaper-but-less-durable solution: duct-taped onto the inside.

  • falconelsu
    falconelsuMåned siden

    I would be very interested in a video about star navigation (in space)

  • Suzy Turquoise Blue
    Suzy Turquoise BlueMåned siden

    I think it's because they don't travel in a straight line to the moon. They are in orbit and slowly move that orbit outwards to meet the moon. Same as how spacecraft get to Mars.

  • David Sonnenberg
    David SonnenbergMåned siden

    You didn’t answer the first question... you made an assumption that he didn’t understand free fall around earth and spent your time explaining that...

  • NNA
    NNAMåned siden

    Mystery Structure....(?) Part of a ‘flip simulator’.... .... perhaps suspended from crane, Maybe air bladders inflated around hull to secure within the frame, yet allow easy swap out of various parts of Starship for similar testing. (May not be easy to do computer simulation, or maybe a test rig to confirm a computer simulation.) To test various header tank and lox and/or fuel plumbing designs? Just a guess... Stay Well...

  • Loderunner
    LoderunnerMåned siden

    What if the answer to the Fermi paradox is that it is just not possible? Even if/when we learn everything there is to learn about physics, space is just too damn big?

  • thrice1888
    thrice1888Måned siden

    The booster on Starship will land more like Falcon 9

  • bu kwok
    bu kwokMåned siden

    about spacex starship landing,vertical landing just so cool , but just so sketchy , so easy to go wrong,make me so nervous every time ,im not a space guy, know nothing about aerospace, that thing just too long, when exhaust gas hit the landing pad , those high speed exhaust gas mess up something human eyes cant see, just looks so unpredictable and too easy to fail, i always thinking why not landing like a aeroplane , maybe add some little in the front ,hide some wheels into fin, they can flip the rocket back to vertical in short time right before landing, so flip back to horizontal or hovering 45 degree and slowly fall back to ground, even no need runway . i always think elon musk very good at marketing , if give him plan And plan B to pick, plan A straight forward, easy to done, nothings special , plan B way harder ,so unusual and bold , but eyes catching , he will pick plan B. im not a technical guy, more people like elon musk,it make things less boring.

  • Herbert Miller
    Herbert MillerMåned siden

    Regarding zero G and orbits. Another way to think of 0 gravity in the spacecraft in orbit around the Earth is that the gravity of the planet is pulling you down with the same amount of force that the centrical effect is trying to fling you away from the planet (from The reference frame of an object In orbit from the reference frame of an outside observer you are trying to travel in straight line) and the 2 perfectly balance out along the centerline of your orbit. If you had a long spacecraft with one end pointing towards the center of the Earth and the other end directly away from the centre of the planet by moving away from the centre line you would begin to experience a pull towards whichever end of the spacecraft you move towards. This doesn't change when you're on the way to the moon your just in a different orbit. Technically no matter where you go you're under the Gravitational influence of some object no matter how distant. The mathematics work out to always balance the 2 forces out along the centerline of whatever orbit you happen to be in.

  • Mert Koçoğulları
    Mert KoçoğullarıMåned siden

    I think you should've left the explanation of matter antimatter to someone else because you likely forgot what you know and caused misrepresentation.

  • Matthew Sikora
    Matthew SikoraMåned siden

    Why didn't Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins not see any stars on the Apollo 11 mission?

  • Scott Manley

    Scott Manley

    Måned siden

    @Matthew Sikora You can see in the onboard transcripts discussion of the star sightings for alignment - start at page 7 and read their own words talking about seeing stars So perhaps you're misunderstanding the context in the press conference, selective quoting will do that to you.

  • Matthew Sikora

    Matthew Sikora

    Måned siden

    @Scott Manley then why in his press conference he didn't recall seeing any? Same with Neil... During trans lunar travel... Never saw stars. Also according to ISS astronauts, you can see stars in the "day"

  • Scott Manley

    Scott Manley

    Måned siden

    @Matthew Sikora ok amateur, while flying in space they regularly had to look at stars with the spacecraft’s sextant to align the navigation platform. So he saw plenty.

  • Matthew Sikora

    Matthew Sikora

    Måned siden

    @Scott Manley michael collins orbited the moon on to the night side. Nice try sellout

  • Scott Manley

    Scott Manley

    Måned siden

    Because it was daylight

  • John Ellenberg
    John EllenbergMåned siden

    Fermi paradox is a question of allocation of energy, not of the value of energy

  • Harald Carlsson
    Harald CarlssonMåned siden

    VR can never show you what is actually out there though, if you haven't made a survey first. So I would at least expect space to be littered with satellites and communication arrays if there is/was an old technological advanced civ in the galaxy. Possibly even in a neighboring galaxy. Though I suppose they could all have died, even though they ought to be self servicing. And finding them would obviously be very hard unless the comm arrays are enormous.

  • Roger Stone
    Roger StoneMåned siden

    The Fermi Paradox question: nobody seems to consider WHY intelligent technological space-travelling beings would want to go exploring unknown worlds. It might look like you'd want to, because of the stage we're at just now; but look at what we actually DO. Imagine there's an ant-nest in the Russian tundra somewhere which achieves enlightened intelligence and asks itself the same question. "Is there other intelligent life on Earth? If there is, why hasn't it already arrived here and discovered us?" Well, there is, but it's too busy living in cities, having economic crises, fighting wars and stuff like that. Who is going to go out checking ants' nests 500 miles from anywhere, to see if they've become intelligent? Take a ride along any orbit on Google Earth, just cruising in a straight line, starting anywhere, going any direction, cruising about 250 metres up, and sit and watch for an hour. See how much human infrastructure you pass over, compared to open land where the nest of intelligent ants would simply go unnoticed. Even on farmland, would they be noticed? - and most of the planet is just wilderness. At some random point, 'ping', there's your ant nest. They make signals to the outside world in every way they can think of. Big radiating scent-trails, reaching out for huge distances, maybe 20 or even 30 yards from the nest. Nothing. They hold mass rallies when a million ants all get together and wave antennae in a coordinated pattern. Result? No reaction. They would, I'm sure, conclude that they are alone as the only intelligent colony on Earth. And yet we consider the Earth to be really densely infested with humans. The universe could be many orders of magnitude less densely populated with aliens, than our Earth is with humans, and they could be engaged in all manner of different-priority activities we can't imagine. Our weakly-radiating radio signals are of no more interest to them than the ants' scent patterns are to us.

  • Charonupthekuiper
    CharonupthekuiperMåned siden

    My boring answer to the Fermi paradox is we are alone. Life might be common wherever the conditions allow, but not all earth like planets will have a line of creatures capable of thinking like we do. Of all the human civilisations only recently did we invent radio, it’s not an obvious thing to invent and we can thank James Clerk Maxwell for that.

  • Max K.
    Max K.Måned siden

    so, this answer to the fermi paradox basically is the other side of the Lebowski paradox, stating that no intelligence will ever surpass sufficient intelligence to hack its own reward function. If we have a perfectly satisfying virtual reality, why bother with reality?

  • Death Valley Dazed
    Death Valley DazedMåned siden

    Why watch a Scott Manley video when I can just dream up one to watch and the content is holographic? 😜 Just kidding, Scott’s irreplaceable! 🚀

  • Chris Schierer
    Chris SchiererMåned siden

    Scott's mundane gratification prevents him from producing videos for our mundane gratification. (Is it mundane if you learn a lot, but about things you probably don't really need to know?)

  • Ethan Forsyth
    Ethan ForsythMåned siden

    Quick tip only climb ladders 69 km high in ksp

  • JoelleEmmily
    JoelleEmmilyMåned siden

    I don't really like Scott's answer regarding gravity. The fact is, on the way to the moon, you ARE experiencing gravity, but so is the craft, you are both decelerating, or accelerating, at the same rate, because gravity is affecting both you and the craft at the same time, and almost at the same strength. Take a cup of water, and throw it straight up in the air, it'd help if a GoPro was attached. You will notice that the cup slows in relation to the ground, and once it reaches it's peak height of the throw, if you let go of the cup smoothly smoothly, you will notice the water begins to fall at the same time as the cup, because it wasn't being held in the glass by acceleration, it was moving with the glass do to momentum. Both the cup and the water lose the energy imparted to them by your throw, at the same time...both "drifted" up together, and both "drift" down together.

  • JoelleEmmily


    Måned siden

    @juzores1 When an object in within a gravity well, the well pulls them toward the center at a specific strength in relation to the distance from the center of the well. If the object is also traveling at a 90 degree angle to that well, and if the velocity is equal to the strength gravity pulls, the object will circle the well like ball shucked around the rim of a roulette table. Because space has almost no friction, this balance of moving forward while being pulled down, can be maintained almost forever. To adjust orbit, the object needs to apply a force to itself, like firing a thruster... the thrust level however is usually so weak, that a person onboard that object, will barely notice that the ship is moving around them... until they bump into the wall, at which time, the craft imparts momentum to the passenger accelerating or decelerating them into the new orbit with the craft. Because of the relative size and density difference, only a slight nudge from any of the interior surfaces is required to get the passenger up to speed. If the craft applies a lot of force, and the passenger is not strapped down, the movement of the walls around them could become enough to splat them like a bug. Being balanced perfectly between two gravity wells, is about as impossible as balancing a ball on a sharp spiked point... rather, it's a balance of "flying away from" gravity, as gravity pulls you down. I put flying away from in quotes, because you don't need to apply more thrust, in a sense you're gliding.

  • JoelleEmmily


    Måned siden

    @juzores1 No, centrifuge forces never enters the equation when dealing with obits. The most basic explanation is that the craft, and everything inside it, or near it, are moving at the same velocity... Gravity is not gone, it's still acting on all the objects, but acting equally on every atom of every object involved simultaneously. In the case of the international space station, every atom is moving in roughly the same direction in a prograde obit at about 7.6km/s, gravity is pulling on all those atoms roughly equally. Now this IS over simplified, and at an atomic level, other forces are involved, but at a very basic level, that's it, everything has the same momentum(at least on the atomic scale) in the same direction, so an observer will perceive weightlessness, but they're only weightless relative to the space station... Here's an experiment, take a pencil and throw it as straight as you can, at the same time, drop another pencil from the same high, you'll notice that both pencils hit the ground at about the same time. This is because the forward momentum you impart on the throw will be insignificant compared to the downward acceleration being applied by gravity. In space, there is almost nothing to decelerate an object, so it maintains it's momentum, anything inside that object, is traveling at the same velocity, but it's momentum is not coupled to the first object, in relation to each other, they are floating with respect to each other... but lets say you were at the same altitude of the space station, except with no momentum, dead still and not in orbit, and you threw a pencil, you and the pencil would burn up in the earth's atmosphere at about the same time, again, because you could not throw the pencil hard enough to send it into orbit, and the few meters per second you could impart to the pencil, would be insignificant compared to the acceleration gravity would apply to both of you.

  • juzores1


    Måned siden

    Ok ,this is a better explanation, but the craft with the astronauts are falling free in the orbit too ? and how they correct their position in the orbit ?or they are floating because they are caught between two forces gravity and centrifuge expulsion velocity .(everytime someone answer question about this topic confuses me more ).

  • Nivola 1953
    Nivola 1953Måned siden

    Maybe the solution to the Fermi paradox is just distance and therefore also volume dilution of signals. The closest star is > 4 LY away and there are only 63 stars with 5 parsecs (> 16 LY) within a volume of about 500 pc^3. LGM will have to point a powerful radio beam in the right place at the right time, to communicate. Why aren’t we trying to communicate with “them”? This is in the SETI article in Wikipedia “A significant problem is the vastness of space. Despite piggybacking on the world's most sensitive radio telescope, Charles Stuart Bowyer said, the instrument could not detect random radio noise emanating from a civilization like ours, which has been leaking radio and TV signals for less than 100 years.” That also implies that LGM outside 100 LY haven’t received our signals yet.

  • Dustin King
    Dustin KingMåned siden

    It would only take one civilization or group within a civilization to decide not to disappear into VR, and they could still colonize the galaxy.

  • James Faulkner II
    James Faulkner IIMåned siden

    On gravity, didn't Einstein already cover the concept?

  • naidanac1
    naidanac1Måned siden

    The fascinating closing question/answer delves deep into things like philosophy and outlook - I'm all for these types of discussions, and hope Scott can get into that stuff more!

  • Viki
    VikiMåned siden

    Here is a question i can't wrap my head around: If two perfectly opposite waves cancel each other out. where does the energy go?

  • fewwiggle


    Måned siden

    @Viki Actually, I was giving you the "naive" (aka "wrong") answer. My smoothing only works for opposite waves that originate at the same point and going in the same direction. But, then there would be nothing coming from that source, so its hard to say anything actually happened. However, if continuous waves come at (and continuously pass "through") each other from opposite directions, you would actually get an "interference pattern" that would emanate from the initial collision point and it would have double the amplitude.

  • fewwiggle


    Måned siden

    @Viki The energy is converted (say we are talking about water) from up and down to the calming/dampening of that motion. The new calm is the dog that doesn't bark. Absence of motion is proof that energy was used to stop motion.

  • Viki


    Måned siden

    @fewwiggle but energy cant be destroyed, both waves when cancelling each other out - will loose their energy by becoming waves of 0 amplitude, but since energy cant be destroyed - that "dissipated" energy still has to go somewhere or get converted to something? Or am i thinking something wrong here?

  • fewwiggle


    Måned siden

    The energy of one wave dissipates its energy in "blocking" the energy of the other wave from propagating past it.

  • Lasse Holmstrom
    Lasse HolmstromMåned siden

    Jesus Scott, stop giving me headache .. :-)

  • Fada Te
    Fada TeMåned siden

    Scott, I have an engineering concern. TL;DR, I usually follow the events that SpaceX is involved in, I always admired all that ambition to return a rocket back to the landing platform like it was always depicted in the funny cartoons of the 80s and eventually let the passengers out. Of course, I'm talking about Falcon 9 first stage. Now, the Starship is about to do the same: fly, return back and stick on its tail flawlessly. That would be a huge success in engineering, and a giant leap in share market. But. There is a 'but'. And I'm pretty sure I cannot reach Elon Musk or any of the engineers out there, so here it is. In my opinion we shouldn't focus on a *giant* ship that'd be capable of lifting off and landing back. We had the Space Shuttle, that in my opinion is the best Earth - orbit - Earth vehicle *idea* we can use. The propulsion system, with those finicky giant boosters - not so much. The Shuttle was so reliable I'm surprised it was shelved. I know, expenses, tax payers, etc. We should have a giant mothership that's meant to be built in orbit, engaged in space navigation from planet to planet (or other object), but never to be landed on the planets. Only the surface to orbit vehicle should dock with it and use it like a spacecraft carrier. Kinda like an aircraft carrier, kept always at sea, never to be docked to a port. Why that? Because of the huge fuel and complementary tech requirement for all those travels. The scale of the structure would not allow it to be captured by the planet gravitation, it would crumble under its own weight. Lets face it, Starship is too flimsy for the huge loads of taking off and landing and every unexpected shock that _you won't avoid for ever_ is going to damage it beyond repair. It works withing a very thin line of safety and structural load. That's not the way a mothership should work, it's not enough. I'm even tempted to say we could take into consideration building an assembly base on a safe orbit (on the Moon ? how radical would be ?) and not have to worry it would come crashing down to Earth. The point is, we cannot travel such dangerous expanses of nothing in a ship that HAS to work perfectly. Every time. Nothing works perfectly, nothing works for ever, and we should take every space threat into account. Flying a tech demo is one thing, an ambitious and extraordinary one, flying humans for decades on end is not even close. LE. I hope it's more clear now.

  • Fada Te

    Fada Te

    Måned siden

    ​@Roger Stone ISS was not meant to freely navigate on its own. The Starship has navigation as main goal.

  • Roger Stone

    Roger Stone

    Måned siden

    I'm sure you're right. Build another cobbled-together bunch of habitats like the ISS, but with bigger rocket drives; get used to living and working in it without actually going anywhere; then keep delivering fuel, food, and have it set off, using close to Hohman transfer orbits, so low power but long duration trips, to visit wherever you fancy. Mars would do, but it looks pretty boring. We've got better rocky beaches than that on Earth.

  • Bob Hopeldorf
    Bob HopeldorfMåned siden

    vr is a terrible fermi paradox. tur not going to heaven or some parallel universe. ur computers exist in the real and need electricity and maintenance. now if u have the automation necessary to drop out of reality without all ur infrastructure crumbling on top of u then u have the automation needed to make self-replicating deconstruction fleets to go grab the rest of ur local supercluster to power ur virches

  • Whirled Peaz
    Whirled PeazMåned siden

    Sword Art Online as a solution to the Fermi Paradox, Sign my sorry nerd ass up for that.

  • Big Knoxy
    Big KnoxyMåned siden

    What does rocket fuel smell like? Before it's used and while it's burning?

  • Michael Kincaid
    Michael KincaidMåned siden

    Can we just kill the use of the term "microgravity"? I think it just adds another layer of confusion to this. It feels cruel to jump straight from the free-fall explanation to explaining the effects of tiny differences in orbits

  • HylanderSB
    HylanderSBMåned siden

    I agree with Scott’s “answer” to the Fermi paradox. I think the most advanced civilizations would also be the most “quiet” as they have developed the most efficient means of energy use for their purposes. What kind of communications is more efficient, for example? Something that radiates in all directions or is focused towards one destination? Which is easier to detect if you aren’t the intended target? Would their communication network even involve energy traveling at distance? Though now that I think of it, shouldn’t there be civilizations like us, in transition? Yeah, it’s not like the only ones we could find are the most advanced. We’re findable if you’re listening in the radio frequencies and we’re just learning what “advanced” could be.

  • William Hastie
    William HastieMåned siden

    I loved seeing Scott working out the math in his head. He was getting quite animated! Brilliant Scott. 👍🚀

  • FectacularSpail
    FectacularSpailMåned siden

    I love your answer to the Fermi Paradox/Great Filter question, because there's a book I like called Restricted Fantasies, by Kevin Kneupper that goes in the same direction. It's maybe a dozen or so short stories, all mostly based around the idea of humans developing basically Matrix level simulation technology. In one story, humans have finally gotten out into the galaxy and explored other star systems, and they've discovered several advanced civilizations, but haven't actually made "contact" with any of them, because what they find is just the abandoned remnants of a technological society, but all of the aliens are just being kept alive by machines inside their individual simulation pods.

  • Drew Smith
    Drew SmithMåned siden

    "I will spend a very long time playing video games when I'm supposed to be..." *Everyone felt that.*

  • Sebastian Rubi
    Sebastian RubiMåned siden

    Hi scott, I was watching yesterday afternoon at my daily park walk the sun and moon opposite eachother with an unobstructed line of sight at about the same angle from the earth. What rose my curiosity is that only the upper half of the moon circle shows highlighted or if you want yo call it (illuminated), which got me wondering why? Because I really not see a good enough explanation for that. Perhaps you know the answer?

  • Danny Forrest
    Danny ForrestMåned siden

    Dont patreonize me.

  • Connection Lost
    Connection LostMåned siden

    Mike Rowe gravity

  • theoriginalstoney
    theoriginalstoneyMåned siden

    If you’re 170kg, ....?

  • Mao Tseovich
    Mao TseovichMåned siden

    Scott's answer for Fermi's paradox is my top pick for probable but not horrific. I fear the more likely best explanation is people keep wiping themselves out with mis-programmed super AI.

  • Michael Hendsbee
    Michael HendsbeeMåned siden

    The book mentioned at 2:16... I'VE READ IT super obscure, really entertaining book.

  • Apor Tamás
    Apor TamásMåned siden

    You are the nerdiest nerd Scott. (it is a compliment)

  • Brian Haygood
    Brian HaygoodMåned siden

    "I will spend a very long time playing video games when I'm supposed to be..." making distractions for other people to get lost in. Yeah, pretty good bet that will have something to do with our destruction. The US, in particular, seems to devote most of its efforts toward serving each other and entertaining each other in mundane ways with less and less in the way of actual production of necessary goods for export.

  • one planeteer
    one planeteerMåned siden

    Great to hear a Niven reference

  • Calvin Maclure
    Calvin MaclureMåned siden

    "playing video games when I'm supposed to be making videos for you guys" aayyy! Ain't that the truth! I know that struggle!

  • CardBoardBoxProcessor Creations
    CardBoardBoxProcessor CreationsMåned siden

    Hold up. Can you just straight see Orion Nebula with your bare eyes on the ISS? On earth it is just barely out of out dynamic range but in space can you see it or still need a camera to expose for 3 seconds or so? That picture shows it with little motion blur and ISs moves pretty quick over earth but the exposure time seems super low.

  • GabrielSin_YT
    GabrielSin_YTMåned siden

    Can rocket engine use ethanol of fuel pls choose me for a video idea

  • TraditionalAnglican


    Måned siden

    The German V-2 used 75% ethyl alcohol & Liquid Oxygen for fuel.

  • frank karr
    frank karrMåned siden

    Scott love your videos. I have maybe a stupid question but I have always had trouble to understand mass and wieght. How are they the same? How are they different?

  • David M.

    David M.

    14 timer siden

    @frank karr Mass is property (of matter) Weight is a force (acceleration acting on matter) - better or worse? ;-)

  • Redondo Rita
    Redondo RitaMåned siden

    I had a job where I was a contractor who changed out air filters. One of our facilities that I had to work at was at was the McDonnell Douglas facility in Huntington Beach CA. I would be required to go through the machining area where they were matching the the panels to be made later for the rocket boosters. It was for me very interesting to see the machining process going on at that time.

  • Niels Daemen
    Niels DaemenMåned siden

    *Gravity is not a force, the force you are feeling is the normal force of the ground below you, pushing you up!*

  • Scorpion
    ScorpionMåned siden

    I don't always understand what you are talking about but I'm addicted to your videos. Still learning at 73, so thanks.

  • Anthoney King
    Anthoney KingMåned siden

    Awesome Vlog Scott loved it Thank you

  • Mike DeMarco
    Mike DeMarcoMåned siden

    So, even on a trip to the Moon, you are in a specific Earth orbit at any given moment, until you fire your engines, and enter another Earth orbit. Apollo 13 survived because they were in a free-return trajectory (an EARTH ORBIT) before the explosion wiped out the Service Module.

  • Loanword Eggcorn
    Loanword EggcornMåned siden

    Other great filter: they're all watching their version of NOprojects.

  • Stefano Caiazza
    Stefano CaiazzaMåned siden

    @Scott Manley as a particle physicist, I would tell you that your explanation is a bit confusing. It's not just that the quantum number should cancel out. The easiest answer is that each particle has a matching antiparticle and that pair can interact through the electromagnetic interaction transforming that pair in a pair of gamma photons which doesn't have mass so it carries all the mass-energy of the particle-antiparticle pair has energy of the photons. When you have baryons, which interacts through the strong force, you may end up with more complex final states but, as you said, that's a much more complicated issue to explain in half a minute

  • Starhopper
    StarhopperMåned siden

    "It's march 6th" I'm not even gonna bother

  • martin aakervik
    martin aakervikMåned siden

    Impressive on top of your head answers

  • Joey D
    Joey DMåned siden

    Your description at the end of the video sounds a lot like Talos 4.

  • Clay Kress
    Clay KressMåned siden

    Speaking of video games, any chance we could gat more ksp or any other video game series? I miss ksp videos.

  • ItMadeMeSignUp
    ItMadeMeSignUpMåned siden

    Here is a bad question, Scott - would it be possible to survive reentry if supposedly you jumped into reentry with only a supposedly fire resistant/fire immune blanket and a parachute, assuming you had enough oxygen etc?

  • Biomirth
    BiomirthMåned siden

    Aw, I loved the way you answered the last question on the Fermi Paradox. I mean, not only is it a good answer, but it is generously realistic and reflective.

  • kindlin
    kindlinMåned siden

    Your PAY-trons at PAT-rion?

  • nitestryker7
    nitestryker7Måned siden

    Ah yes. The mesons. Obviously.

  • Physics Human
    Physics HumanMåned siden

    1:17 they are not accelerating through space-time they’re following a straight path in curve space time and so they’re not accelerating and so experience zero net force note the frame fourth is equal to the mass of the object multiplied it by the acceleration of the frame

  • Anthony
    AnthonyMåned siden

    Holy moly this video is crammed full of knowledge. Please turn this into a habit, Scott!

  • Fromage Frizzbizz
    Fromage FrizzbizzMåned siden

    Perhaps the best way to explain tidal forces, part of microgravity in one object swinging by another (especially in a stable orbit) is to note that the true zero gravity is at the centre of mass. Anything "below" the centre of mass is travelling a bit too slowly to remain in orbit at that altitude, and anything above the centre of mass, is travelling too fast for orbit at that altitude. Which means that the former is trying to fall down towards the other body, and the latter is trying to fall *up* away from the other body- a gradient of gravitational forces, with zero at the centre of mass.. The consequence is that if you tried to orbit something long and thin like a crowbar or a dumbbell, eventually the object will orient itself so that it's perpendicular to the orbit, rotating exactly in sync with the orbital period. In Larry Niven's Neutron star, the first attempt to perform a close-in pass to a neutron star was done by a pair (a husband and wife), in an indestructable space ship (A General Products #2 hull - long and skinny, sold to humans by Pierson Puppeteers - you have to read the "Known Space" series to learn more). The first attempt resulted in the ship returning with nothing remaining of the pilots but a bloody smear at one end of the ship. The intrepid volunteer to the second attempt started to to see the ship irresistably re-orienting to vertical, and some objects whizziing either direction and smashing into the ends. He abruptly realized what was happening, and managed to wedge himself into the ship at the exact centre of gravity for the closest part of the pass. He was narrating thruout, estimating that the effective gravity at either end was possibly 10000 Gs or more in opposite directions, and practically passed out because *he* was being stretched too by several gravities in either direction. One of Niven's friends was a highly renowned gravitational physicist -Dr. Robert L Forward. Amongst many things that Forward did in his career was build the first attempt to detect gravitational waves - he died in the 1970s, but his work culminated in LIGO. Forward influenced much of Niven's work, and you can damn betcha that all of Niven's work involving orbits had gravitational math behind them that was perfect, not just in concept, but equation-wise too. If you want to understand gravity outside of the equations and understand its implications, there's nothing better than Niven's "Descent of Anansi", and "Smoke Ring". Real mind-benders. But the math *works*. If you understand *those* in your gut, you know gravity. Dr. Forward wrote a number of SciFi books himself. Hard SciFi, where the physics arewas *perfect*. Maybe not in other things - I mean, hell, is it even remotely possible for sentient creatures to live on a Neutron Star? But, hey, they're great stories.

  • Paul Meyer
    Paul MeyerMåned siden

    How most real time lightning detection works: “"" is a lightning detection network for locating electromagnetic discharges in the atmosphere (lightning discharges) with VLF receivers based on the time of arrival (TOA) and time of group arrival (TOGA) method. We are a community of station operators who send their data to the computing servers, programmers who develop and/or implement algorithms for locating and visualizing of sferic positions, and people who assist in any way to keep the system running. There is no restriction on membership. All people who keep the network in operation are volunteers. There are no fees, terms and conditions, and no contracts. If a station stops pooling its data, the server stops providing the access to the raw data for the user of that station.”

  • Tyler Anderson
    Tyler AndersonMåned siden

    Paytrons from Pat-reon

  • Brian Hiles
    Brian HilesMåned siden

    Those within the ISS experience 90% of Earth´s gravitation, but forces of “gravity“ are the most noticeable when the ISS´s vernier thrusters are used (and fairly frequently) to side-step known space debris hazards.

  • Charles Manning
    Charles ManningMåned siden

    The great filter that explains the Fermi paradox is as civilizations advance in their knowledge of the universe the reality of how pointless it all is becomes undyeable. Why go through tedious

  • Radio Active
    Radio ActiveMåned siden

    Was anyone else watching the screensaver on the laptop over Scott's left shoulder?😁

  • Wez Tuppeny
    Wez TuppenyMåned siden

    Amazing informative videos as always Scott. Keep up the Amazing work

  • Bo Zo
    Bo ZoMåned siden

    Fermi Paradox solution: One interstellar colony provides zero or near-zero benefit to the home system, and additional colony systems provide even less. Large interstellar empires have no value or purpose, so there aren't any.

  • MrVipitis
    MrVipitisMåned siden

    Re structure: some rockets have interstages are just are just scaffolding. Like when the N1

  • clavo
    clavoMåned siden

    Scott; you are a fun guy to listen to. You deserve one of those "Most interesting guy" beer commercials!

  • Interdimensional
    InterdimensionalMåned siden

    Planetary scale shut-ins: NEET the Extra-Terrestrial

  • Ryan Hebron
    Ryan HebronMåned siden

    I would love to see a video about the history of navigation by stars, how to navigate by stars on land, and how that navigation works in space.

  • Ronald Leckfor
    Ronald LeckforMåned siden

    Riley Adamson I have a more definitive answer to your Lightning question the Power Companies use gated Magnetic Direction Finders to determine the relative angles from where the magnetic disturbances of s cloud to ground strike causes, then they time out the Time of arrival to further pin down the location. The data is shared via a satellite hub and calculations are made. Read on.... .

  • mVm MotoVlogMusic
    mVm MotoVlogMusicMåned siden

    Completely enjoyable.

  • Eric Todd
    Eric ToddMåned siden

    Lightning maps; ground based radio receivers with two ferro coils at 90 degrees with n/s and e/w orientation. They send the signals via internet and are triangulate. Just run the map with lines visible.

  • Lord Zephyros
    Lord ZephyrosMåned siden

    Scott ... Would like to know what's your favorite boardgame

  • Bigtrees
    BigtreesMåned siden

    blah blah blah 6:39

  • skuzlebut82
    skuzlebut82Måned siden

    Actually, Little Boy only converted about 700 milligrams in to energy.

  • WimsicleStranger
    WimsicleStrangerMåned siden

    Question for everyone: What are your opinions on Elon trying to make a modern 'company town' and buying out a little neighborhood and threatening the people that didn't sell out that he would acquire their property with eminent domain? Looking forward to selling my soul and the 'Starbase' company store!

  • Danielle Riley
    Danielle RileyMåned siden

    8:45. SpaceX flip manoeuvre. The simple answer is it doesn’t really matter for reliability of the manoeuvre working as the current failures can’t be solved with altitude. The real answer is that the entire belly flop and flip manoeuvre is required for Mars and since the drag is proportional to velocity and atmospheric density then to still get drag at lower velocities you need more air so every cm lower in the atmosphere is mor time for more drag to affect the velocity and there is more air available to increase that effect. Remember the proposed landing zones for the initial flight are at the lowest points on Mars squeezing every bit of atmospheric density available out of the planet. It’s a computer controlled manoeuvre. The height it’s initiated at doesn’t effect it’s outcome, well there is a min altitude. So once it’s figured out and the right equipment is set up the right way and all being run by the right computer program, that’s what this test program is figuring out amongst other things, then the StarShip will flip as low as possible to get the most opportunity to use the minimal drag available on Mars.

  • zapfanzapfan
    zapfanzapfanMåned siden

    HiRise has a 50 cm mirror. I think the Long Range Camera on New Horizons is 20 cm.

  • Hypernova
    HypernovaMåned siden

    Scott: "I play video games when I should be making videos for you guys" Also Scott: *Has made tons of videos of him playing videogames for us guys* Problem both lol

  • Barry
    BarryMåned siden

    Ready Player 2 has a pretty good Fermi paradox theory.

  • Jon Papai
    Jon PapaiMåned siden

    Neutron Tide by Arthur C. Clarke (May 1970, Galaxy Magazine) was a story about spaghettification by neutron stars with a clever punch line. Now available in the Collected stories of Arthur C. Clarke.

  • WWeronko
    WWeronkoMåned siden

    My favorite Fermi Paradox solution is the universe is made up with herbivorous civilizations that are cautious and maintain a low profile (Dyson Sphere). Stars seem to vanish with regularity. The herbivores are on a constant look out for carnivorous species developing technology that they would snuff out (Dinosaurs) before they became a threat. In this scenario omnivorous humans are being watched carefully and our fate is being decided as we develop.