Outdated Tech in Space, Control Over the Moon, Optimism for China's Space Program | Q&A 371

Was James Webb already outdated by the time it launched? Who will control the moon when we get to lunar bases? Why am I optimistic about China's space program? In Q&A plus, if Earth had rings, what would be the best place to observe them? All this and more in this question show. It's time for the question show. Your questions, my answers, as always, wherever you are across my channel. If a question pops in your brain, just write it down. I'll gather them up and I will answer them here. All right, let's get into the questions. Grumpy British Bean. We know space missions can take years and years to develop and some even longer to reach their destination. How old is the technology in some missions compared to today? Is James Web already out of date? So there are missions that are operating that are almost 50 years old, right? Look at the Voyagers. So you know the technology that was developed for the Voyagers which launched in 1977. So it was probably developed in the '60s and it's still operational. So that's kind of amazing. Is James Web out of date? So not exactly. The the way this works is that when computers go into space um they are susceptible to cosmic rays and the cosmic rays can do damage. They can flip bits on RAM. they can sort of fry components and they're more susceptible the the thinner the transistor size. So on our modern phones, computers and stuff, we're down to like 3 nanome and those are very fragile in space. So instead you want to go with older technology, stuff that is in like 10 nanometers, 12 nanometers, uh, and that a lot of this stuff has been proven to work in space. Now it is not as advanced like James Web has less computing power than your phone probably. Um, but if you sent your phone to space, it wouldn't work very reliably for very long. And so people who are working on space missions are less concerned with the latest and greatest, the hottest technology. They're concerned is is this thing going to work for the duration of my mission to fulfill the instruments that are attached to it. It's more about the size of the LCD that's attached to the telescope. Is the computer fast enough to be able to handle that? Now, the largest camera ever made is on the Ver Rubin telescope, and it's a brand new telescope, right? It's a gigapixel camera. Uh, no one's got a camera that big on their phone or on their computer today. Maybe they will in 10 years. I don't know. But, but no. So, in general, it's sort of like a it doesn't make sense to ask if the technology is outdated. The technology is is space hardened, is reli proven to be reliable in space, and that that's what people are looking for. Now, there's other stuff like Cubat, smaller satellites that are designed to only work for like 6 months, a year, and in some cases, they actually use repurposed cell phone components to be able to do that. So, um, but like in general, the thing that's most important is the reliability of the computer. Sid Vicious, I noticed you're more optimistic about the Chinese space program recently. Why is that? Is that a result of the US government budget cuts in space exploration? I don't think I've been more or less optimistic about the Chinese space program recently. I would have to go back and look at my my reporting, but my experience with the Chinese space agency is they have a long-term plan. In some cases, they have a decadesl long plan and they have a bunch of milestones and they hit their milestones. It's kind of boring, right? That they built the Chonga series that was going to the moon. They retrieved samples from the surface of the moon. They retrieve samples from the far side of the moon. There's going to be Tonga 7, Tonga 8. Tonga 8 is going to do u 3D printing and institute resource utilization on the moon. They've got Tenwin. They've got to Mars as well as now to an asteroid. They've got their space station. And now they're preparing their plans to bring humans to the moon by 2030. And they've got two new versions of the Long March rocket. They've got their lander and they've got a crew capsule. And both of those are now in testing. So everything is proceeding according to plan. Um, which has been laid out. Like you can go to various Chinese websites and Chinese state-run websites and you can download their their long-term plans for sending missions to the moon and they just hit their milestones. So that is completely independent from what's happening from the United States. And it's it's not like what's happening in the United States is changing what's happening in China. China is just following their plan. Um and the United States is in a state of um uncertainty right now. Um and it's a totally different thing. They are independent vectors. They are they are not related to each other. Now, I think that they're going to become more related to each other as obviously people are getting concerned that China is going to get to the moon before the US returns to the moon if there's some problem with the Aremis 3 mission. But that's like an artificially engineered space race that where none exists. The space race was already won. The US got to the moon 50 years ago first, put the flags, put the you know kept, you know, had the footprints that is over. So, uh, there is no new space race, uh, to the moon with China. So, no, I I don't think my reporting has changed at all. New Takqui, I've seen a lot of creators saying that the first country to establish a base on the north pole of the moon will essentially control the moon from a resource extraction perspective. That's not true at all. Um, you know, if you set up a base on the moon, you've got one tiny little base on the moon and then anyone else can come and set up another base on the moon and extract resources. It's like you can defend the moon from your little base on the moon. And if you do try to defend your base on the moon, you're going to have to deal with the real world implications down here on Earth for you being a jerk over on the moon, right? like as long as a country has obligations and interactions here on planet Earth, it is beholden to the international community and so it can't just act like a jerk and expect to get away with it forever. So, uh, no, no, absolutely not. And even if you did get to the moon and even if you did extract resources, uh, you'd be doing that losing enormous amounts of money for a very long period of time. So, uh, no, we have nothing to worry about from somebody planting a flag on the moon and saying, "I own the moon." The the outer space treaty, which all of the nations that are relevant have signed, says you can't own the moon. So they are violating the outer space treaty and that is a treaty signed by them here on planet earth and that there is an international community that will hold them accountable especially if they are a military threat or are running away with some economic discovery on the moon. As long as they have banks, as long as they have imports, exports, as long as they have trading partners, then the countries of the earth have all the leverage they need to turn the screws to get them back in line. It's time to shout out all the new $5 patrons and above. Andreas GW, Brain, Joseph, Keith Trinka, Ducen, Malatic, Russ Shank, John Reinhardt, Bolt Vanderhuge, TVK380, and Tom Grant. Join our club at patreon.com/universe today. Mr. Proxster, when the sun sets on the moon, is it almost instant darkness? Yeah, that's a great question. Um, this is the first time I've ever had that question. Um but yeah, so you can imagine you're standing on the moon and the you're seeing the sun in the sky and the sun is not only, you know, illuminating your eyes, but then it's bouncing off of the ground, it's bouncing off all of the mountains around you and so you're getting this reflected light and so everything is very bright. But then as the sun goes below the horizon, then everything gets much darker. But you're still going to have some sunlight on the peaks on the mountains that are around you. And then you're going to get the reflected light from that that's going to keep things bright. But then the sun will go so far below the horizon that even the mountain peaks are no longer illuminated and then everything will get super dark. And it is it is very quick. So, I talked to an astronaut one time about a repair mission they were doing on the International Space Station, and they were in sunlight, but the space station takes 90 minutes to orbit around the Earth. And so, it goes into the Earth's shadow every 45 minutes. And they warn the astronauts every time that this is about to happen because it is a very quick experience. You're running hot. You're in full sunlight. Your radiators are running full bore to try and keep your spacuit cooled. And then you go into the shadow of the Earth. And now it's extremely dark. You need all of the lights that are on on the outside of the station, your lights on your camera, and you're plunged into this cold coldness. And suddenly the the the heater kicks in on your spacuit and now it's trying to keep you very warm. and he was describing it that it's just it's such a bizarre experience that you're toasty, you're too hot and you're sweating and then suddenly you're chilly and it's just it's it's just like a light switch when you go from sunside to darkness ending soon. I think your perpetual out that you are only a journalist is unbecoming. Journalists about politics don't say I could not possibly have an opinion of my own. So, I think you're super wrong. Um, and that is that I that I think that, you know, what you see on the internet with journalists exposing opinions uh is often done badly. It's, you know, I think that I think like obviously as a journalist we have opinions, right? And especially when we have opinions about things that we are required to participate in for democracy, right? Like as a Canadian citizen, I have to vote for my government. And so it's my job to build up a level of expertise in the policies of the various parties in my country so that I can form an opinion, so that I can have a vote. But a lot of what you see on say talk TV and things like that is punditry. People just spouting their minds to fill airtime to make uh advertising revenue for the network and they're not actually bringing any value. You know, it's very lowgrade quality. The value is brought when somebody in as impartial a way as possible evaluates the facts uses reason and attempts to try and uncover truths about reality and that you know that is not as exciting, not as entertaining. It's not as gotcha. uh it is you know in some cases frustrating when the information contradicts other information and you don't kind of know which thing to believe but you trust in the scientific process and things move forward and so when you look at the various things that I address right I talk about planetary science space exploration I talk about astronomy astrophysics black holes neutron stars neutrinos particle physics like it goes on and on and on cosmology uh inflation comets asteroids Mars Saturn. I probably cover a hundred different topics and and that the new information the where the the cutting edge of all of this stuff is is each one of those things, right? Why did plate tectonic shut down on Venus? What is the uh interior structure of Jupiter? uh what is the compelling evidence that inflation is a reasonable explanation for what drove the big bang you know and on and on and on that that people who have dedicated their lives to this subject who have gotten their bachelor's degree gotten their master's degree gotten their PhD done work posttock and then researched for decades using some of the most powerful instruments and observatories that humanity has ever created they're the ones who are right at the bleeding edge of every single one of these topics and that they are making progress in those things and that they are and this is going to be the controversial thing. They are the ones who are qualified to have an opinion because they did the work that they went to school that they use the tools that they are being peer-reviewed by other scientists in this thunderdome of scientific academia and that for me I am a generalist I am a journalist I am just reporting on what things people have found and so that if I go and expose an opinion about string theory or multiple dimensions or uh anything like that then I am sort of foolishly taking on the mantle of saying even though I haven't done all of the work I know as much as they do and that's ridiculous right like that's bonkers to think that you that that you haven't done the work and yet you know as much as they do or even have an original opinion that goes above and beyond what they've done that the that the very least you can do is match the work that they've done in in whatever specific field. If I want to have opinion about exoplanets, I've got to go and get my PhD in exoplanets. If I want to have an opinion about cosmology, about which theory I think is the one that's best, I need to actually be able to do the math and look at what the math is telling me to be able to understand the consensus opinion. And that to jump right to I don't really know very much, but I have an opinion is very short-term thinking. And this is what's got us into this problem, this situation. And so, uh, yeah, I think it's perfectly fine. It is not unbecoming of me. I think that it is a standard that I wish more people would hold themselves to is to say, "Hey, I don't know very much about that. So I am going to withhold judgment and instead my shortcut is I'm going to trust the scientific consensus. I'm going to I'm going to assume that the people who have dedicated their lives to studying this thing who battle and fight with each other who are watching for anyone to make a mistake so that they can pounce upon it and highlight it. they are probably the ones best to listen to for this opinion and that the thing that I should do is spend the time to understand their opinion so that I can communicate it and I can and I can participate in it, right? But not to think that I have a better idea. It's crazy. And you know, I think we all have expertise in various fields. And you like, I don't know what you're good at, but my guess is that you're the best in the world at a few things, you know, like it could be speedrunning a video game, it could be doing some kind of craft project, it could be cooking something, whatever it is. It could be knowing your town. Um, and that anyone who comes who who is like on the other side of the internet is playing geogesser and is looking at pictures of your town and is expousing opinions about your town, you're going to go, "That's ridiculous. You have no idea what you're talking about cuz you haven't experienced what I've experienced and formed the opinions that I have through expert practice." And so no, I think I would place a lot of our current crisis in uh people not trusting experts, distrust of authority uh on no not distrust of authority to hell with authority, right? Let me be clear. expertise. The sort of attack on expertise is uh coming from people who have decided that they're an expert at something without actually doing the work to become an expert. So, no, I 100% completely disagree with you. Did you know that you can watch the same video with no ads and get a bonus question over on Patreon completely for free? We call it Q&A Plus. And this week's bonus question, if Earth had rings, what would be the best place to observe them? And I will put a link in the show notes. All right, those are all the questions that we had this episode. Thank you everyone who put your questions into the YouTube comments, everybody who joined me for the live show. Now, as I mentioned earlier this week, the live show time is going to be sort of up in the air while I'm on the road, but I plan to keep doing this from on the road. That's like the I need to be able to continue doing my job even though I am traveling. So, uh, yeah, we will, uh, have that coming up at some point. Now, I'm going to chat about a new show that I am already pretty obsessed with. Uh, but first, I'd like to thank our patrons. Thanks to Abe Kingston, Barely Griffin, Brian Bod, Carwin, Chuck Hawkins, Commander Beck, Sin Nelson, Darkfinger, Dave Verbuff, David Gilman, David Matz, Evan Pro, Greg Bey, James Clark, Jeremy Madden, Jim Burke, Jordan Young, Josh Schultz, Marcel Smith, Michael Purcell, Nordspace, One Step for Animals.org, Porroach, Ren, Kaidu, Richard Williams, John Sergeant, Steven Fer, Munley, Team49, Telescopes Canada, and Wolfgang Clots who support us at the master of the universe level and all our patrons. All your support means the universe to us. So, there's a new show on Apple TV and I am really enjoying it and it's called Pluribus. And this is a new show created by Vince Gilligan. And Vince Gilligan, you might recognize his name. He was the creator of Breaking Bad, creator of Better Call Saul. And you might not know, but he actually worked with the XFiles. And so he kind of has this more science fiction background as well. And that's exactly right for the new show that is on Apple TV called Plurbus. Now, I'm going to give some mild spoilers. So, if you just like want to go into it sight unseen, which is what happened to me, uh then just stop watching now, go about your business. Uh but if you want to get the gist, if you want me to give you the pitch on why I think this is a great show, continue on. So the gist of the show is that there is like a piece of DNA code that is transmitted to Earth by aliens. And when humanity runs the code, uh it creates a virus that connects all of humanity into a single hive mind. And the main character of the show, Ria Seenhorn, she's from uh Better Call Saul. Uh she is not connected and there's like another 10 people in the world who are not connected as well. And so they're kind of having to interact with this hive mind that is in the process of reshaping the planet to its new needs. And it is very kind and very easy to work with and it just wants you to be happy. And yet it is this alien entity now that has consumed all of the minds and the personalities of everybody that she ever knew. Uh and it's a it's a very interesting like I you know like maybe Futurama dealt with this once. Um uh and and you know I'm sure it's it was in Rick and Morty but but just in general I've never seen sort of like a nice sci-fi treatment of this of this idea and you know it has this sort of these kind of existential questions about is it okay for a new version of humanity and I think you know as we move into this time of artificial intelligence and we're dealing with you know the rapidly growing capability of this sort of alien entity that we're growing here on planet Earth and we're having to interact with it. What does that mean? What does it mean to interact with a new life form and so so far there's only two episodes at the time that I'm recording this. Uh it is quickly become my favorite show of the of the year. Uh if you have like if you like the good place and sort of like watch a television show with things happening but also there's like existential philosophical conversations to be had. I think you'll really enjoy Plurabus. So, uh, check that out on Apple TV.