came here to say the same thing

You gotta hold it so we don’t stop and start, trust me my uncle was a firefighter in a different city two decades ago…

If you push the call button repeatedly, it'll sense your frustration and come faster

@@Ikbeneengeit _And_ if you keep clicking on a loading bar, you _just _*_know_* it'll come faster!

This is definitely one of my "must watch all videos" channels

Not to mention the positive messaging of humanities future. If more people caught on to the idea it does not need to be terrible, we would have more people moving in the right direction.

True. Also this is one of the few channels that will be resistant to the inverse square law. Adding more people will only skew the poll results at first, but I dont see Issac straying too far from the spirit of the channel no matter how many people flood in.

Tell us your other four!

What are your other Top 4?

But it kind of makes sense to take Earth's gravity into account when building a lunar space elevator.

@jackesioto Yes but it simply does not occur to most. Including me.

Happy birthday my friend :)

Happy birthday 🎂

I got Ringworld episode for my wedding...

Happy. Birth day

Thanks 😊

mars is so dumb as a first step. Grav wells are for suckers &, other than a small base, most people who live in the mars system will probably live on/in/near it's moons for the near to medium future(next several hundred years at least)

Darn, Did I accidentally say lunar L2?

@@isaacarthurSFIA You did, or you strongly implied it. I am heating up my kettle of tar and cutting open a feather pillow to deal with that now. ;)

Thanks!

​@@isaacarthurSFIAhi, are you interested in the new game Armored Core 6?

@@kuiper6948 Not enough hours in the day I'm afraid :)

Same! I NEVER struggle to understand him anymore. Probably his friends and family do not either. I wonder if he has become clearer, or we have become more attuned?

​@@donperegrine922you could tell quite easily by simply going back to an older video

I love his 'style' of talking; it's a banger, for sure!

Yep, they have amazing options, but I don't think you can do electrodynamuc tethering around the moon, not a good enough magnetosphere iirc

@@isaacarthurSFIA ~ It has been a while, I'm rusty, but I think you can do a pure kinetic rotivator right down to the moon surface and off it, as long as you balance the loads. You need as much going down as you have coming up, or you need some external thrust for your tether. You can't drive it by electro-magnetism either, as you say. If it gets a bit out of whack, you have to apply thrust to correct and you have to do it pretty fast. Like I said, it's like spinning plates. But unlike on Earth, you can operate the thing right down to stationary pick-up / drop-off right on the surface. On the down-side, if you get the sums wrong, imagine 5,ooo miles of the cables that hold up the Golden Gate, falling down across that city, first parts going fairly slowly, but the later parts moving at 34,ooo km/h or so .... Exactly how far along the surface that could spread out and wreck stuff, I don't know, but I think it would rival SFO's big Earthquake that's coming. You could do a mind-boggling amount of damage with that. Have you read DiskWorld, and the shade squares come down and so do their cables?

​@@Kneedragon1962cool blog bro

Me either!

Same!

Me too

Well I guess same. 😂

L1 isn't the anchor. It's better to think of it as the mid-point: you need a whole other tether beyond L1 to counter the weight of the mass of the tether between L1 and the moon. Same as you need the same weight of tether/anchor beyond GEO for a space elevator to Earth.

well clearly L1 moves as the lunar orbit isn't circular. I'm aware of the mass needed earthside of L1. I am surprised that there will be significant slack at periapsis that must be taken in at the base!

Yeah, it seems no worse than landing on an aircraft carrier. Higher speeds, but no crosswinds or waves to deal with.

Yes you can do that too

If you thought a regular space elevator's dynamics were hard to manage... That would be doable, but would be a pretty absurd megaproject. If you plan on moving vast quantities of material it is a great idea, and doesn't need any exotic materials. The issue is that it doesn't scale down particularly well. It really wants to be as close to symmetric around the planet as possible. Any failure to distribute the loads will result in flexing, and that would be bad. It really wants to have base stations distributed around the planet, and thousands of them. It is probably how you would go about dismantling an entire planet, but up to that point I don't see it having upsides that make up for the complications it brings. On the plus side, you might actually be able to build it without putting anything into space. Imagine you have a hyperloop setup that has a continuous ribbon of magnetic tape running through it, suspended by superconductors. You could accelerate this to ~20km/s, and then gradually raise the whole thing on tethers. If you can build a near enough frictionless pipe this could be extremely useful, because you stop caring about material properties at all. That makes it a viable structure even in the atmosphere of Jupiter (though then you are talking more like 200km/s, and having that much mass going at speeds where the speed of light becomes relevant means it could go very badly wrong, but it could work in theory with materials we have now!). While a space elevator is a megaproject because it requires a complete covering of a 1 dimensional line between the surface and geostationary, such a project does not really function without a complete covering of a 2 dimensional plane. It is vastly larger than project than a single elevator, though in theory much simpler. It would also fail even worse than an elevator; if it does the entire structure fails! That would be bad.

Higher gravity would likely decrease species size depending on food sources and overall calorie intake. If the calorie sources and oxidizers are similar to Earth they would have to be smaller or starve to death if they don't dedicate much more time to food. We can do space travel because we have 3% of our population concerned with food sourcing in our most developed countries. Also, too low a gravity and things like atmosphere start to disappear without either a Venus level magnetosphere or a very small and dense planet which would increase gravity. It's a sensitive balancing act when talking about planet size and life sustaining.

​@@aronlinde1723Hmm I hadn't thought about gravity impacting size in that way. Very interesting, so low gravity guys would be big, yet weak for their size. Yet low gravity specis would be small and compact but powerful? Thanks

A space elevator on a low gravity planet is feasible with the right materials on that said planet. Scientists even proposed on building a Space elevator on Mars using Kevlar, which is a known strong material. A alien civilization living on a low gravity planet would have an easier time to reach space faring capability due to less emphasis on using ... They could also use rockets as well since it would take it would less fuel to get to orbit. Spacecraft concepts like space planes are feasible in a low gravity world. Aliens living on a low gravity would infact be taller than on a normal 1g planet or a super earth. Gravity would put less stress on their bones and cardiovascular system. The brain wouldn't need to work hard to pump blood into the system. There are hypothetical depiction of what Martian humans will look like over the generations living there and one thing they point out is how tall they could be due to low g and environmental factors.

​@GiordanoBruno42 there are other factors as well. Everyone likes to think about large planets like ours, but we seem to be a bit of an anomaly in that area. I personally think moons are a better option, such as the ones around Saturn and Jupiter. They are also protected by the magnetosphere of the giant they orbit, the main problem with them tends to be radiation from said planets as well though. If the right conditions are met though, it could be viable.

You can, but it isn't optimal. Using aluminum limits decel speed by how much eddy current waste heat you can radiate away & the MP of aluminum. Also using a magnet, especially the superconducting variety, let's u do regenerative braking to recover almost all of the kknetic energy of the payload. Fine for a first go, but probably not what u stick with for any length of time

Depending on the setup, it doesn't seem any worse conceptually than landing on an aircraft carrier. That used to be dangerous, but is highly automated these days.

Oh yea!

Watch. Sci fi movies

A lot has been done already.

No, an L-1 elevator has the same requirement as an L-2 elevator. You need enough of a net counterweight Earthward of L-1 to tension an L-1 elevator, just as you need enough of a net counterweight outward of L-2 to tension an L-2 elevator. The engineering case of the L-1 elevator is tensioned by an overbalance of Earth gravity, whereas the L-2 case is tensioned by an overbalance of centrifugal force. The libration points are DEFINED as the balance points where the vector sums of both gravity fields and inertia allows a trajectory motionless with respect to the Moon. Inward (Earthward) from L-1 at the same radial velocity (Moon's "RPM" around the Earth) an object will immediately tend to bend it's trajectory toward the Earth more sharply than L-1s path, because inward from L-1 (the balance point between Earth gravity on the one hand and the sum of Moon gravity and centrifugal force on the other hand), the balance is tilted in favor of Earth gravity. It's not orbiting fast enough in that place to maintain a concentric trajectory with the Moon unless pulled Moonward by the rest of the structure anchored on the Moon, which it is in turn tensioning Earthward. An L-1 elevator is slightly EASIER, in fact, than an L-2 one because L-1 is close to the Moon than L-2, making a shorter construct for a given capacity.

It depends on whether you're building a compression/active support tower or a equator through GSO "beanstalk" in tension. The latter type of structure has to be built space down to maintain tension. A compression or active support structure has to be built bottom up to maintain support. You can't lay a course of brick top down because as soon as the mason releases the bricks they fall to the ground faster than he can lay the lower courses to connect it to the ground. Since a space tower is supposed to extend beyond the atmosphere, you could build the top in orbit, but it would be going sideways at orbital speed, so how do you connect it to the ground?

We discussed that option in moon mega city :)

Digging thru would take a lot longer to do than building a tower. You then have the problem of it only connects two points on the moon. Any other point you go to would require other means of transit. Where as a Tower also allows for movement off the Moon as well as direct flights to any other point on the Moon. So unless your starting point and ending point is those two points of the tunnel, you are not likely to be saving any time or effort with a tunnel thru the Moon.

I would be very carefull with that hype. Remember Jan Hendrick Schön had claimed the same 20 years ago and we all know how that went.

'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' like Carl Sagan said and we're very very far from that.

@@blub5117 NOPE!!! Actually extraordinary claims require a basic level of evidence no more or less than mundane claims, the problem is they invariably fail at even that. Please think a little prior to quoting people as most "famous" scholars are also infamous for getting at least one thing galactically wrong ..... even Einstein.

It's often a good idea with wild claims of "game changing" breakthroughs to make a definite effort to pull info from as many subject matter experts as possible, since in most case those content creators have a vested interest in providing sober and accurate analysis, along with a professional standing that can be damaged. Whilst the more "edutainment" orientated channels have a vested interest in pushing vacuous hype and clickbait, since they exist mostly to farm clicks as efficiently as possible. Academic scepticism on this claim is VERY high which should tell you a lot right out of the gate, also the material is a ceramic which would make it difficult/almost impossible to use it in a wide range of power deliver applications, even if it was legit. Which its seems highly unlikely.

@@Blowfeld20k I believe the idea is that before you resort to extraordinary claims you need to eliminate less extraordinary possibilities.

an OR is only useful if u have an atmosphere in the way. Othewise u just put mass drivers directly on the surface. Even if it wraps around the equator it doesn't need active support which is good cuz we still don't have that figured out

Yds

Yes it us

I wouldn't think they'd use a cable at all and have something move up a track instead.

@@TheEvilmooseofdoom I was wondering about wear and tear, and how would you effect repairs to a thousands miles long cable or ribbon that's continuously in use.

@@Cmdtheartist That's why I doubt they'd use a cable or ribbon and instead use a track system.

Isaac, Arthur is his surname.

@@seriousmaran9414 The error has been corrected. Now what do you think of the concept?

@victordelmastro8264 the building of a drum like station in moon orbit is useful. You could make a non rotating outer drum from regolith. Above is quite plausible. For mining though you need to be on the surface and below it. Extract minerals and ore with robotic machines, pass them up to the station where they are processed. Only time people need to be on the surface would be maintenence. Fix machines, back to orbit and 1G environment.

That just limits you to what's available as charged lunar dust. Which limits what you can harvest which makes it hard to justify the system.

This can be plausible if the charged particles are dense enough, but I think it is incredible thin. Like....thinner than the dust pollution of our atmosphere. Your idea has the benefit of spreading out a million times the coverage though. Additionally, depending on WHAT is charged, it could be a good pre-filtered stream of resources....imagine if GOLD were the dominant charged levitating particle! Your design can always be made better by having a snow-blower blast the regolith into the path of the orbiter, though. So, still a ground based miner