We had an audio fix recorded, looks like it wasn’t added

Was supposed to be 2000 kg. I just read it wrong without realizing.

@@RealEngineering how can you read 2000 as 320 also 1 minute ago

​@@petterlarsson7257Can read 200 as 2000.

@@petterlarsson7257Daddy chill

A monstrous waste of money! Only two good Space endeavors so far: weather satellites, and detecting/deflecting asteroids heading towards Earth. All else is human hubris.

​@@gerryboudreaultboudreault2608 coronal mass ejections, exo planets, exo moons, study of supernovas, gamma ray busters, cosmic microwave background radiation, rogue planets, black holes. All pretty relevent to humanitys potential future extinction or survival..and worthy of study.

No. You didn't.

What if a single anchor fails to anchor? Will the entire crater been ruined? And what if the power source dies? There is a replacement planned? (like shooting a power cable so a future rover can plug into the cable, and feed energy to the telescope).

Must feel pretty awesome doing something that sounds like science fiction but isn't.

They are paid a *lot* extra!

😂😂😂😂😂😂

nasa art department is an amazing job

Cameraman always survives!

Exponential technological growth. Computers being pretty much the first widely applicable technology that can be used directly to improve future iterations of the technology.

Printed materials suck tho and they still need to be machined to tolerance after printing. Machined from solid block is more expensive, but still the way to go for precision high stress and wear parts that need to be made out of the thoughest alloys and with the best heat treatment possible. Like gears for example. Unless you talk about printed throw away plastic toys ofc, for those printing gets them from raw material into the trash bin much quicker then regular manufacturing methods :D

@@hernerweisenberg70523D printing is primarily for prototyping, but we are way past the era where 3D prints were inherently trash quality. They literally print working 3D rocket parts now, and one company (Relativity Space) even printed an entire rocket that achieved MaxQ on its first test (not a complete success, but better than a lot of conventionally built rockets have done on their first test launch). Also, a LOT of finished products use plastic gears and have long before 3D printing - notably including 2D printers. You use the material that makes the most sense for your product, and often that's plastic.

@@pyropulseIXXIyou wrong

@@hernerweisenberg7052 Most printers that regular people can afford print okay-ish to pretty good, but industrial 3D printers can hit some pretty tight tolerances and make very good/precise parts. I think its #1 application in industry is probably prototyping but that is changing as there are many final products with 3D printed components these days. Depending on the application its often good enough. I work at a particle physics facility and we have several types of filament that are radiation hardened. Its very useful for making small parts, like brackets or instrument holders, quickly and cheaply. Most plastics turn brittle when exposed to ionizing radiation and metal parts are relatively difficult, time-consuming and expensive to make, so being able to 3D print parts in kapton or PEEK plastic is a game changer. Both types are also suitable for use in vacuum though in practice, its almost impossible to print in such a way that there is no trapped air and we cant set up a printer inside a vacuum chamber (it overheats/a box big enough to hold the printer is impractical). Yes its best to use metal for the applications you mentioned, but so many applications don't need to be machined/CNCd where a 3D printed part is good enough and usually more precise/way cheaper than injection molding plastic parts.

Both are not feasible at all. Satellite on the moon is a ludicrous idea and the Mars plans are straight up retarded

Yes - or could instrument the moon so that asteroids can be detected earlier and destroyed/diverted.

@@msulemanfyou have a very limited section of the sky with this. This asteroid business can be done much easier. It just needs more funding.

You need almost the same delta v for Luna orbit as for Mars orbit. And Mars is for more habitable than Luna. It doesn't have razor sharp dust for one.

Yes, and once the moon has gotten it's own manufacturing industry, a lot of cool stuff could be constructed.

Pronouncing ESA as E.S.A…. also amazing….😅

Life imitates art. But, to be fair, this concept has been around for a long time, so I assume that's where the author got the idea. Art imitates life.

Yeah realistically sci-fi popularise the ideas but following along with real scientific ideas that are already well known.

I'm still mad the show "The Expanse" didn't cover the last books.

@@Z3t487 The time skip made it prohibitively expensive, but I've read in a few places that they might come back to it and that the main actors have hinted that they'd be down. We'll have to wait 5-10 years but I think that's fine in the name of accuracy.

@@booth403 It would be awesome! Thanks for your message.

Great short comment ! Visit the VLA in the rocket friendly state of New Mexico (NM)-call ahead for tour times... Also the First Radio Map of the galaxy was produced from an antenna in Wheaton, Illinois ! Timothy Lipinski

@TimothyLipinski yeah I work at the VLA lol.

We are living in the best time we could possibly be in. A dark past and a grim future, yet we were so lucky to be born in the perfect time.

​@@Litkeennope. AI is taking over jobs man. What's the use of living jobless.

@@xiaoshen194 If AI comes to a point where it can take a significant amount of jobs, then the government would block it's spread. Alternatively they will make UBI, so everyone will be entitled to free money for not working.

One small fold for man, one giant leap for Origami

​@@xiaoshen194 also creating new jobs, is the same history of all, of the new inventions

Just shows what happens when your break people's mind with lies. Ridiculous ideas that are fictional are seen as real.

Truly, I don't recall that word...outrageous...ever being used. For a century we've been slow and lazy. Should have had a starship by now.

​@@derrickcox7761 Should? You watch too many movies.

@@mgalluslies? such as?

@poindextertunes well that there was a live broadcast from the moon dispite with the tech the said they used lacked the power to do so. The film they used would have been destroyed due to the heat and cold of space not to mention the radiation that destroys the film. Buzz Aldren adimted that people watched movie magic and not them on the moon. Shall I go on?

May you fail incredibly 😊

You have my respect, and goodluck towards finding a great career that doesn't ask you to forget proven science because it offends somebody

​@@vice-108?

@@vice-108 just like you did in your life? and that's how you're always negative.

@@toheedh Lmfao gotem

And it should remain intact without maintenance for a whole lot longer because Luna has no air and minimal gravity - well played, NASA.

You can compensate for area with exposure time - 135% of area means the same amount of light collected in 74% of the time, or 135% as many "pictures" per lunar day, or however you want to look at it. A greater motivation for a larger telescope tends to be that the diameter drives its *resolution.* A 135% larger telescope can resolve features (stars, moons, sunspots, continents, dense spots in a hydrogen cloud, etc.) that are spaced 74% as far apart as the closest features that the smaller telescope could resolve. That's assuming all things being equal like the atmosphere or lack of, the receiver, the proper geometry of the reflector, and so on.

@@HowlingWolf518it gets bombarded by meteorites at a shocking rate. It has been hit on something like 100% of the surface. So much so that the ground material is pulverized into a uniquely structured material found only in extremely high energy collisions.

@@noahkolodziejski2427 Right, but that 100% was over billions of years. Apparently the chance of actually being hit by a lunar micrometeor is about 1 in 1 million per hour.

@@HowlingWolf518 But that’s for a single person, with less than 1 square meter of cross section. What’s the cross sectional area of the telescope? 1 year is 8700 hours, so in the smallest possible area you can pack ~120 humans (5 m x 5 m), a 45,000 mph rock will impact once per year. That’s a LOT. Look at what a 1/2 oz plastic did to aluminum armor at 15000 mph, then multiply the energy by 9.

It would be harder with astronauts, which is why they are doing robots.

@@waspsandwich6548 No, it would be significantly easier. It takes far more effort to design and build a single-purpose robot that comes close to the ability of a human than to have a human do it. The reason astronauts will not be involved is purely because supporting astronauts for a long-term mission is ridiculously expensive, to the point that it would be completely infeasible with NASA's current budget.

@none-ro9dz that's what I mean by harder. As in, in the broad scale of the entire mission it's harder for astronauts to do it than for robots to

Wikipedia says the apollo program cost the equivalent of 178 billion of today's US dollars. But that included 6 separate lunar landings, which means it was only 30 B$ per trip! I'm sure you can't count like that since they didn't start each mission from scratch. But on the other hand, this telescope project sounds so complicated that it would surely exceed its suggested 10B$ budget. So... what's the safer bet? Training a few astronauts and get them to the moon and back (something we have already done), or inventing a whole new yet reliable robotics system? Who knows.

@@none-ro9dz If only we stopped funding pointless wars and diverted those budgets to something actually meaningful. Such as space exploration.

No reason why it isn't an option except continuing to pretend HLS Starship doesn't exist. The second Starship test flight could launch within the next month pending FAA approval.

He mentioned that a crewed mission would be a few billion dollars more expensive than a single lander with projectile anchors. Yes, it's higher risk to not send a crew, but when you're having to spend billions more dollars to mitigate the risk, sometimes it's better to try and account for it in other ways.

@@drakedbz He didn't mention crew at all, because the JPL study didn't mention it because they can't even conceive of it. If the Artemis landers especially Starship HLS prove their worth then it makes sense to use them, we will have the landers and the EVA suits and possibly large cargo rovers like Astrolabs which will all have been tried and tested at the South Pole, so the risk would largely be retired, we'd no doubt have some sort of lunar relay by then too, so no reason not to try for both the first ever manned landing on the lunar far side and the first ever large scale construction project on the moon in the same mission/s

And there went your thesis?

Hardening electronics from radiation is something we're more than used to by now so it's hardly a concern that can't be accounted for. As for space debris/damage, we're going back to the moon. There will be people stationed there, future repairs are far more feasible for a moon based telescope than for the JWST (which is never going to be visited for a repair).

An estimated 33000 meteoroids hit the moon every year. The dish would have an area of 0.38 km^2 compared to the moon's total 38 million km^2. So a probability of 0.00033 that it would get hit during its first year of operation by something "pingpong ball sized or larger".

The telescope is a mesh not a solid mirror so most of the time small debris would fly right though it.

The dish will be a mesh with holes of several meters. There is more empty space than actual structure. The chance of something important getting hit is very small.

Moondust. It's all about moondust. This stuff is a nightmare for any mechanics or electronics. To my knowledge, we don't yet have a concept for a solution.

I scrolled for waaay too long to find someone mention this. When I heard that in the video, I immediately thought "What the hell is this guy talking about?". If anything, the CMB observations proved that it's is pretty uniform and the universe is flat.

Hey Tony two-times, go get your effin shine box!😂

Here for this reference 😅

If we choose to build this, hopefully we can do it without the cost overruns JWST suffered

​@@dx-ek4vr Good one.

How long has this been an idea?

debris*

As he said, the mesh step should be smaller then the wavelength, which 6.5 meters. So, if it is done with, lets say, 6m step, there is a pretty good chance that some random cosmic debree will simply miss.

I’m pretty sure that’s why they wanted to see early on if they can alter the trajectory of rouge asteroids

@@MSP_TechLab Yeah, but I'd imagine the center is a big and important target, would'nt be such an improbable target to hit. Especialy since the Moon has no atmosphere to burn down even the smallest debris which traveling at those speeds could cause a lot of damage (not even Flex Tape could fix that).

@@ColdyCZ I think, of course, probability will be higher. But danger of meteorites and space debris is over exaggerated by hollywood movies. So, I assume that much smarter people in NASA calculated such risk and decided that it is appropriate.

Me too.

Unfortunately, NASA doesn't fund anything. Congress does. 😕

Dream on dreamers

​@@Mr2twenty2if this ever gets announced I will respond to this with something whitty but for now you're right

Good luck Starshine.

You first. I'll buy you a freeze dried ice cream bar.

He probably meant 2000 kg

The correct answer would be 32 kg so, it's probably just a decimal error

He corrected himself in a comment, he meant 2000kg to 230kg

He meant to say 2000kg, rather than 200kg

The subtitles had 2000kg

Yes please!

ok. why

Was looking for this comment.. This whole project explanation is overly positive and sometimes a bit unrealistic. See alot of issues unsolved, so many room for errors as well. Alot more difficult than explained here and definitely not doable within a decade.

this will be either a spin off or extension to Artemis mission. If you never think through these possibilities, you never get them come true.

@@DenverianI'm not saying that we shouldn't do this. I believe that it's better for the world to invest money into space and medicine instead of weapon and war. Just wanted to note that this estimates are bullshit :)

Yeah, I heard it was a mistake and the fix never got added to the Final Cut

Check pinned comment.

with what money and what army?

Why even comparing, makes no sense.

with permanent extra-terrestrial colonies missions like this will become a lot easier. we can use humans to help build more complex scientific instruments.

Mars colony is the biggest waste of money ever. there's no reason to go there lmao. just a suicide mission. Moon base is like, better in every way.

Mars slavery

@@Litkeen unless Moon gravity is lethal and Mars gravity is livable. We don't really know where that cutoff point.

When he was explaining all the challenges in doing it all on its own, I thought, NASA is sending men to the moon to stay. Let’s just wait until they are there, and have them construct it.

The US government is trying to go to war with the Decepticons for the far side of the moon

And pointless?

no wind on the moon I think it's ok

In the construction phase, probably. But once the telescope is up and running, dust on the Moon shouldn't do much.

@@looknamman the moon has no atmosphere so all the space dust is still a problem, especially considering relative velocity

I don't know if dust covering the dish would actually have any impact. Is moon dust transparent at those wavelengths?

This was my first thought. Lunar regolith is an order of magnitude worse than something like terrestrial sand. It's sharp and incredibly abrasive as a result.

I don't know if you can accurately predict how much a unique construction project on a body we don't inhabit will cost. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful with our budget. It does mean that Isaac Arthur was exactly right a few weeks ago when he said (paraphrasing) that if NASA were the sole organization developing space, they'd just build more telescopes.

Yeah yeah besides all the things that make it difficult, it should be extremely easy

@@crackedemerald4930fr!

​@@crackedemerald4930 Naturally.

I counted...it's 13 people. Good luck.

It's all nonsense

SpaceX seems to have gotten pretty good at not missing the LZ. Of course there's no Lunar Positioning System or beacon on the moon... today.

Target sites, even extremely small ones, are a well understood problem, and many countries have had large arsenals of rockets ready to do it on earth for well over 50 years now. Doing it on the moon is entirely a question of practice.

Apollo 12 performed a precision landing.

@@Suppise152 I thought they had to manually handle the last part of the landing because of unforeseen boulders ?

@@SerBallister That's Apollo 11. Also onboard computers usually have hazard avoidance built into their landing procedures.

Now we only need to find a 4000km wide crater

Moon's only about 2000 km diameter. Need to build it on Venus! There's a lot of sulfuric acid, so don't use any metal. (Surprising, but NASA has not yet put me in charge of any major science programs🤓.)

​@@linecraftman3907lets make one

Maintaining a formation of satellites at a Lagrange Point is increadibly complicated. Thermal oscillations would still be a problem, since every Lunar Lagrange point is eventually directly in front of the Sun (with the exception of L1 which can't be used anyway because of noise coming from the Earth). Orbiting satellites have a lifespan dictated (among other things) by their propellant availability for orbital maneuvers. Maintaining a formation severily affects the fuel budget of satellites, and, at the moment we have no idea how to refuel a spacecraft. An orbiting formation telescope is not faster nor less expensive to build

Humanity never will conquer the stars, our civilization has reached its zenith already. Climate change is going to bring us back to the stone age.

Good luck waiting another 10000 years if not longer.

Sucks that we are much more likely to kill each other as we choke on the fumes of a dying economic system than conquer the stars.

@@Alphoric then maybe we don't deserve to colonize other celestial bodies.

@@vivi_75 we don’t, we also don’t need to. Why move to the Sahara desert when you live in a tropical paradise. I don’t know why you’d want to become alien invaders anyway

Guaranteed it will succeed.

Strange comment

Unknown? Where are you from? North Korea?

we've got a spinlaunch fan here

Get out of that basement! Quick!

Yes

Oh ok ok, you go ahead then

It's all nonsense fake bs