That was my thoughts too. In that case it would be what we see as a lunar eclipse. Earth would be larger in the sky compared to the Moon from our perspective, and the Earth has an atmosphere, so it would not look the same as a solar eclipse on Earth. But still pretty spectacular I imagine.

I was thinking the same thing. He did say a solar eclipse, which means something passes in front of the sun. On the moon, it would be the Earth. Or a terran eclipse. It might be spectacular.

You might be right!. A solar eclipse from the Moon is a lunar eclipse from our point of view here on Earth. So, Unlike solar eclipses, a total lunar eclipse lasts a few hours, with totality itself usually averaging anywhere from about 30 minutes to over an hour. This is due to the large relative size of Earth over the Moon (the Moon's diameter is about 1/4 of Earth's), therefore casting a larger shadow on the Moon. From the moon you could probably appreciate some features of Earth atmosphere that you usually don't spot from the windows of your lunar home!

Whoa. Would be so dark. We need a simulation of totality while on the moon. Better have lots of energy storage for those missing sum rays.

Yes indeed! 😅 I concur my question wasn't very clear! I hope they get to do take 2 of answering the question!

Dobsonian refers to the mount - which is an alt-az - not the optical part. But yes all dobsonian are Newtonian optical design

Priorities kiddo ;)

more useful than school anyway

at least you not posting your ass on tick tock. Keep watching kid!

No problem , keep up the good work!

Хэллоу, Эндрю с ченнела Козмос Элементари 😅 🌍🟰📀

@@frasercain I definitely will!

Q q​@@odd_bird

Somebody is probably working on that.

Weight limitations. And limitations on size. Landing legs main purpose is to absorb shock of landing. Also that are as stable as it gets so they should be wide. Most of legs are expandable. MAIN reason of tipping those Landers is horizontal velocity. It's hard to assess low horizontal velocity without points of orientation, and GPS. Apollo astronauts got very good instrument for that called eyeball 1.0. but there is problem with current algorithms for robotic missions to assess this speed in many cases. "Off the shelf" solutions like Doppler radars etc are simply expensive AND heavy. So companies are trying to figure it out without this equipment, as in place of this hardware, that can take another experiment. They will figure this out, or Starship will make that obsolete as will greatly reduce weight/size limitations

They did that for one of the Mars landers. It was surrounded by inflated bladders with hexagonal covers. After bouncing and rolling to a stop, it would open the covers and deflate the bladders in a particular order, such that it would end up right side up.

@@just_archan I agree. weight and space limitations of the launch rocket. Cost vs benefit - More weight to science experiments or landing mechanics and the novel apporatice like @charleslivingston2256 mentions or bigger launch rocket for the larger lander size

I member seeing a number of shows aboot making the mirrors. I think a sky at night episode showed it. Rubbing 2 piece's of material together will make both the convex and concave mirror's at the same time.

Thanks a lot, I'm glad you're enjoying it all.

I would guess the simple answer would be -- We don't know yet -- I think that was 1 of Juno's missions too try and map the internal structure of Jupiter by studying the gravity and magnetic field

I also have reservations aboot it. At the worse case it could be ditched because it's taking too long and/or cost too much, 1 of the drawbacks of private for profit company's. A pet peeve I have about that is when the technologies and advancements are usually locked away in Copyrights and patents even thou public tax money payed for the R&D.

@@RectalRooter Newsflash: StarShip development (all $10B up till now) is paid for by SpaceX, not NASA. SpaceX got $3B for developing the HLS version of Starship, that's all. Don't believe me? Google it. It's all there. Starship is a cool way for NASA to hitch a ride with SpaceX, which has Mars as the ultimate goal.

I don't think it would take much to build a version of Starship that has a more traditional fairing, or that opens in a way that maximizes the available space.

@@arnelilleseter4755 It could compromise the structural integrity at reentry. As additional weight due to structural reinforcements.

@@RectalRooterElon Musk and Space X are paying for the bulk of the R&D.

I agree. Talking aboot science and technology get's people minds brewing with ideas

Wow That sounds pretty cool.. Go big or go Home 👍

Hah, yeah, but the mount isn't that expensive compared to the gear you already have. :-)

The journals blocking access is by many considered more of a problem really, it's undesirable really as the scientists themselves have to pay to get their articles in a journal as well. This is why a number of new journals got started that are open access and paid entirely once again by scientist contributions, rather then this very deleterious profit seeking big publishers have made of it. One can also get many perhaps not entirely polished articles for free via arxiv, that holds many pre-print articles these days. And of course there is the potentially more questionable legal approach, though I suspect many scientists would be fine with people using that to get the knowledge that should really be free to all. Beyond that, I'm not sure who those who look down on 'uneducated' scientists even are. Truthfully the statement doesn't really make sense as you'd have to have educated yourself in some way to be able to do anything. Be this working from the ground up from scratch, or finding the material and reading it yourself. Perhaps you mean the difference between scientists and amateur scientists? And I guess on average it is expected that amateur scientists do less well, but a fair few have succeeded as well with their discoveries incorporated in the general knowledge, because well in the end what matters in actual results. Status is for people who play social games after all and knowledge is just knowledge. Now admittedly my answer here is on the idealistic side, and I am aware there are probably a fair few... more elitist types out there that have more problematic views. But I personally view them as more of the ones who are actually falling short of what a scientists should be. People who are curious and trying to learn and discover is just what science really is about really.

You can find lots of preprints of papers which are published behind a paywall, freely available in the ArXiv.

That's pretty much the gist of what I was suggesting. An 8m newtonian-type telescope inside a 9m fairing. Get bigger and more complicated in the future.

1 of the funnies on the live chat was aboot Fraser being in the pocket of Big Dob hahaha

Do you mean the Event Horizon Telescope used for the blackhole images -- But in Space ? Radio interferometry

Optical/IR interferometry is much harder than radio. Radio interferometry combines signals digitally (by recording them on individual telescopes and processing them by large specialized computers). It's infeasible for visible/IR (~1000 times higer frequency means 1000 times more data) and I think we can't even record signal's phase in optical/IR, only the amplitude, so we lose the information needed for digital interferometry. Optical/IR interferometry can only be done "in analog", combining the actual signals (not their recordings). This requires exceptional precision in positioning and many mirrors in optical paths, which leads to loss of more than 90% of the signal.

Yeah, I really like this. Keep it simple and reliable and get big mirrors into space. Dobsonian space telescopes. :-)

Oh, you see the Earth pass in front of the Sun. At totality, everything turns red around you and you see a red ring around the Earth. You're seeing sunsets from the entire Earth.

Or retrieve them and upgrade and maintain them on Earth.

Somebody gets it and there are other "incentives" for what gets published, gatekeepers did c0vfefe, right!? 🤷

@@p0tatobiden250 There's tremendous "gatekeeping" by endowments and billionaire donors to private "Ivy" universities, including who gets tenure and is allowed to do research in the first place. Anyone claiming there isn't "gatekeeping" in academia has never done cutting edge research or tried to fund research that someone else couldn't figure out how to profit off. The U.S. acedemic institutions are an absolute mess, funded by billionaires with ideological agendas who care more about their ideology than science or discovery.

Do you mean something like how Skylab was the upper stage of the Saturn V