I am 67 years old. I was a firm disciple of Saint Nyquist. I worked in Data Networking. When I started in the early '70s, Baudot code was still wide spread though 8 level was gaining favor. I remember reading early papers on "the WorldWide Web" and scoffing at the idea because bandwidth limitations would not allow reasonable transmission times. When one of my Grandmothers was born (1896), Electric lights were not even widespread. She was still alive when I got my first (300 Baud) MoDem. I was working for a now bankrupt manufacturer when they exhibited a 10 gigabit switch prototype. In short, I HELPED BUILD THE FUTURE, and can barely comprehend it.
@2150dalek
6 ай бұрын
Good analysis. I worked in Motorola in assembly, then technician work keeping machines going I didn't totally understand. Even after looking at schematics ...but they work.... I'll bet an honest Doctor will say the same thing.
@realmstupid-on8df
3 ай бұрын
You are the man, man!!!
@miinyoo
Жыл бұрын
My first reaction was "This guy is either from Easter Island re-animated or from space, can't be both." Adam is very fun to listen to. His lectures are fantastic. Awesome ideas. Great guest, Fraser. By the by, your questions were phenomenal. I can tell you have a ton of experience talking to really interesting people. Shines like a beacon. The whole discussion makes me think of; what is the path of least resistance? If you can identify that path with measured precision, you win the prize when it comes to space faring.
@tactileslut
7 ай бұрын
Yeah, the mismatch between the wide angle upward facing foreground camera and the less wide straight back view of the backdrop is jarring, especially when he moves forward and back.
@chrishorne4016
6 ай бұрын
Are you talking about the rocinante interior shot?
@olorin4317
Жыл бұрын
You're a realist and you get very serious about it at times. Then at other times you can be very enthusiastically hopeful. I've appreciated it for more than a decade. Don't worry about people, most of us are ridiculous.
@kayakMike1000
8 ай бұрын
Wouldn't it be a kick in the pants that we find out we are actually the von Neumann probes?
@67comet
Жыл бұрын
Great conversation, good balance of "realistic" and "wouldn't this be awesome" :) ... He's a good interviewee also, perfect amount of off topic as well, made it fun and easy to listen to .. Whoop! Off to check on some Kim Stanley Robinson books :) .
@PsyllyCymon
Жыл бұрын
2:53 _"The idea has been floating around for a while"_ (not even a grimace, what a legend!)
@frasercain
Жыл бұрын
So many space puns, all the time. I'm numb at this point.
@ea9988
Жыл бұрын
Great discussion and great chemistry. You two should cohost a podcast or something
@pazitor
Жыл бұрын
Mobile space habitats are a good, very long-term solution to the many challenges that are to come, including an expanding then contracting Sun.
@00dfm00
Жыл бұрын
Interesting. Perhaps building large subterranean cities would also be an effective option. Although, I'm sure in 4-5 billion years from now, we'll be able to convert our consciousness into energy and into statis for long term trips to other worlds where we'll be able to create customized bodies and other life suitable for any planet of the many planets we'll be settling by then.
@pazitor
Жыл бұрын
@@00dfm00 Closest to that might be uploading you brain to a robot in which you can then underclock or overclock your brain for hibernation or heavy computing.
@00dfm00
Жыл бұрын
@@pazitor If we're talking about the journey to another system, I'd rather go to sleep and let AI handle the day to day. Interstellar travel would be boring af. It's the destination that's interesting. At the rate we're advancing in our understanding of life, how it forms and how the brain works, I'm sure we could do much better in millions of years than anything we consider robots today.
@rikk319
Жыл бұрын
@@00dfm00 "I'm sure in 4-5 billion years from now," " I'm sure we could do much better in millions of years" I'm NOT sure, 100 years, or one billion years. That's the whole thing about the future. We discover some things we never expected we could do (internet), but we learn other things are impossible due to physics (faster than light travel). And "uploading" or "transferring" your consciousness isn't a thing in reality. You'd be making a copy of your personality, not moving some "soul" within you to another human or android body. What make you, you, would still be in your original body until you die. Sure, a copy of you would go on living, and could copy itself numerous times, but for the original you, that's not the key to immortality.
@00dfm00
Жыл бұрын
@@rikk319 While uploading or transferring may not be a thing now, it's reasonable to think we could completely understand how our brains work and replicate it in the future. And no, I'm not suggesting a soul or anything supernatural as that's far more fetched than replicating our neural activity. Also, outside of your brain, there are no original cells left in your body since everything is replaced several times in your life, so the concept of 'original you' is dubious.
@jeffmosesjr
7 ай бұрын
This is why I love your show sir. Two people I would love to talk to about everything in one show. Nice job, even your "distractions" were my favorite parts. Your guest today was one of us, the computer geek, the science nerd, a passion for sci-fi and technology. I can relate, and I love it. Keep doing what you are doing.
@hodor3024
Жыл бұрын
Hey Fraser, a common theme of these megastructures is "carbon fiber" or even "carbon nanotubes" and while possible in theory, it skips the problem of getting a huge amount of carbon fiber to the asteroid. I know high strength fiber can also be made of molten basalt. Could a similar fiber be made in situ from an asteroid itself and how large could a structure made of asteroid fiber theoretically be?
@olawlor
Жыл бұрын
Basalt fiber could definitely be made from asteroid rock. Typical tensile strength for basalt fiber is about 1000 MPa, which is much stronger than Dr. Frank's paper suggests is needed for even a 3km radius hab (not considering atmosphere pressure).
@hodor3024
Жыл бұрын
@@olawlor Cool, thx! So a solar-powered, basalt fiber producing robot (if that's feasible) could convert one rubble pile after the other into cylinders.
@olawlor
Жыл бұрын
@@hodor3024 I've melted basalt into (neat black) glass with a 0.4 x 0.6 meter solar concentrator, so it sounds plausible to me! The hardest part is making the autonomous robotic control system reliable, especially given the unknown geology and abrasive dust.
@ralboraggins9564
2 ай бұрын
It seems to me that almost everything needed would have to be brought there for the first iterations. Maybe it's better to attempt to program drones to do all the construction.
@istiles1
Жыл бұрын
I think a variation on your theme would be to also utilize John Ringo's molten asteroid concept in conjunction with Adam's; find a rubble pile asteroid, weave a carbon fiber mesh around the pile while using specially placed rockets to decelerate the rotation of the pile into just one vector of rotation. Once this is accomplished, emplace additional rockets to speed up the rotation until it achieves full expansion of the rubble pile into cylindrical form constrained by the mesh. Then, maintain this rotation while using a host of satellites in heliocentric orbit near the asteroid to either concentrate solar radiation on the surface to gradually raise it to melting temperature, which should provide a casement with carbon filaments running through it. Once this is cooled, place another mesh net around the cylinder & increase the rotation until it is 33% earth gravity. Of course there are many variations on this theme - use different material for the netting, use solar electric lasers, etc. Then you'd need to place lasers around the colony cylinder to be able to eliminate or at least deflect on-coming debris which could damage it. It still wouldn't guarantee safety from CMEs but aside from the most powerful cosmic rays the colony's population would be as safe as living anywhere else in the solar system aside from the earth.
@jamess.2599
Жыл бұрын
I just found your show and its amazing! Thanks for all the hard work.
@Edward-om8mz
7 ай бұрын
Professor A. Frank is nicest, beautifully and smarter scientist ever. THANKS so much 4 this interview 😊
@EnneaIsInterested
Жыл бұрын
I don't know, basic processing of those stony asteroids using solar mirrors, what are essentially giant vacuum machines and orbital solar furnaces seems a lot easier than dealing with carbon nanofibres and similar.
@ralboraggins9564
2 ай бұрын
We just need millions of people here on earth weaving by hand. and it all gets shipped up there to make giant baskets.
@catjudo1
Жыл бұрын
Greg Bear wrote Eon and Eternity (title?) featuring a hollowed asteroid as a setting. Neat stuff.
@TanyaLairdCivil
Жыл бұрын
I'm curious how this concept would work for some more near-term realistic materials. What about using something like kevlar, but with a much smaller diameter asteroid? You probably can't get up to the 10's of kilometer-size with materials like this, but it should allow something a few hundred meters across. That's still an amazing size for a space station.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
Жыл бұрын
The cost "savings" in using Kevlar could be lost in increased launch costs to lift more of it. I haven't checked but I'm guessing latest CT designs are about 10x - 20x stronger than Kevlar. I could be wrong there..just illustrating a point lifting costs are a factor as well as simple cost of material.
@TanyaLairdCivil
Жыл бұрын
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i It's not about cost savings, it's about simple tensile strength and materials that exist. Sure, a carbon-nanotube filament could allow you to make giant space cities, but we're many decades away from being able to create such materials at scale, if ever. It's a fundamental consequence of rotation and mechanics that the larger the diameter of a spinning object, the greater the tensile strength needed to hold it together. Thus, while these future materials may allow multi-km scale objects, I'm more interested in what we can do with materials that already exist. Maybe we can't build something the size of a city, but something the size of a stadium in Earth orbit would still be pretty neat. Moreover, as was noted in the video, asteroid distributions are logarithmic, with smaller objects being much greater in number. What I'm imagining is something a bit more near-term. Think using a small existing near-Earth asteroid, bagging it and spinning it up into a station the size of a stadium. If the target object were chosen correctly, it could be placed into Earth orbit with only a small expenditure of delta v. Now we have a massive industrial hub in orbit, with lots of raw materials and space to build out manufacturing facilities. I'm considering this as a way to jump up a few rungs on the space industrialization ladder, not as a habit for millions to live on.
@steverobbins4872
Жыл бұрын
How about this: Find two asteroids that are orbiting each other and roughly equal masses; bag each on separately; tie them together with a tether; and slowly reel them in toward each other until you have the desired spin rate. (Sci Fi idea: over time, the two settlements become hostile towards each other, and extremists sever the tether.)
@rikk319
Жыл бұрын
A lot of asteroids are just loose agglomerations of rubble--they'd have to be tested first to be sure they're solid, so a tether would actually hold on to them.
@steverobbins4872
Жыл бұрын
@@rikk319 No, I said "bag each". The tether connects the bags together. Rubble inside each bag.
@GoCoyote
Жыл бұрын
This would solve the issue of the energy required to rotate the mass to a speed fast enough to create at least partial gravitational force equivalent. The energy required to create spin in millions of tons of material is just incredible. So much easier if it is already embodied in the system. While being drawn together, the material in the bags could be spread out to either side of the tether along the orbital plane with new tethers until a ring is formed that rotates at the desired speeds. A big question is the number of binary asteroid systems available with the needed compositions to make it work.
@Wordsmiths
Жыл бұрын
Love this idea.
@chipblood
Жыл бұрын
This was an awesome interview. Adam would be so cool to have a dinner with and just have a conversation like this. One of my favorites' of yours so far. Thank you for bring it to us.
@chrisoconnell8432
Жыл бұрын
Great interview! Except you missed the one question I wanted to know, "how do you cap the ends of the astroid cylinder?" You wouldn't need to if you're just mining it, but if you wanted a habitat, then you'd want to cap the ends of the cylinder and fill the interior with air. Wish you would of asked about that but still an enjoyable conversation.
@jackesioto
Жыл бұрын
Alternatively, the habitable portion could be roofed. The roof would form a secondary ring, and thus would form a Stanford torus
@peterb9038
Жыл бұрын
Good interview, there are loads of ideas here, you wouldn't need one third earth gravity to get the asteroid to come apart, you can do a very slow spin at first to fill out the bag , then cerment the exterior wall or melt and cool it to form a skin until it's the required thickness for strength , before spinning up to the required rate You wouldn't need future advance materials for that bag. We can do this today with the avaliable material technology we have. Also reef rhe bag, so once the exterior wall skin is finished, open the reef and expanded the bag , slip it off and reuse for the next asteroid.
@FaxanaduJohn
Жыл бұрын
Great chemistry between these two. I could have watched double the length.
@MacTrom1
Жыл бұрын
In my lifetime, we have gone from rudimentary jets to heavy lift rockets, to moon landings, to interstellar probes. What might be in another 100-150 years.
@tmhood
8 ай бұрын
Interstellar probes?
@bazoo513
Жыл бұрын
The idea of hollowing an asteroid and spinning it would, of course, not work because the tensile strength of asteroid material is not sufficient - it would fly apart. But putting it in a kind of "bag" to contain it would probably work, if we have material similar to that needed for space elevators tethers. Actually, the larger an asteroid, sooner it would fly apart. To get meaningful centrifugal ("outward") acceleration in the central hollow, on the surface it would be enormous. So, it turns out that the tensile strength of covalent C-C bond suffices?
@Juttutin
Жыл бұрын
There's this emerging technology of mm-wave cyclotron rock drilling for deep geothermal that glassifies/anneals the rock wall as it goes. I.e. we probably will have the tech to anneal the inner and outer surfaces of an expanded rubble asteroid into very thin but re-solidified rock layers.
@Wordsmiths
Жыл бұрын
A similar technology (albeit more of a brute-force approach) was developed back in the 1950s-1970s, using white-hot tungsten "drill faces" instead of spinning tunnel-boring bits. It was powered by a compact nuclear reactor in its first iterations, but later smaller commercial applications used umbilical power cables to connect to any handy (and high-amp) power source. Can't remember the name of that technology right now, but there's a funny story about how the public funding was provided for it... I'll try to look it up
@oneoveralpha
Жыл бұрын
If we go to Mars, we get a planet. If we go to the asteroids, we get the galaxy.
@serg3y
Жыл бұрын
Did they consider air pressure? That adds additional and very large forces for a large volume.. it could be used to help form the cylinder, as apposed to a hoop. I think a *torus* balloon is a better shape then a spherical balloon.
@dadsonworldwide3238
Жыл бұрын
We are entering a 100 years of the transistor age that wouldve allowed this zoom youtube calls in the 1950s but they needed mechanical trial and error to get here with the same tech. The horse and buggy age lasted a long time idk that the transistor won't be it. It very well could be.
@patrickdejoseph8174
10 ай бұрын
I am 76 years old and when I was a boy, during the late 1950s, scientists envisioned building stations in space or on a planet using glass. I mean really thick glass constructed from regolith. I always thought that it would be an excellent idea to shield humans from the radiation.
@notlessgrossman163
Жыл бұрын
Wow awesome vlog, Ringworld engineering level stuff.. love it. What comes to mind here is how would nanotube fabrics be manufactured at that scale? Nanotechnology is the way at different scales
@HankHillspimphand
Жыл бұрын
What about a heavy metal netting around the asteroid then using its rotation to use a cable then a ship at the end. Couldn’t the wire length determine the g feeling?
@jackesioto
Жыл бұрын
Sounds like a great idea! Though i would suggest enclosing the habitable portion to immure the air. Perhaps thick glass could be used in at least some areas of the roof to allow natural light in and maybe give a veiw.
@JeroenvanGutsem-u7e
9 ай бұрын
translucent aluminum
@jammin8300
Жыл бұрын
What if you had one of ur rotating bags trailing in the wake of an impact like say the dart Misson , would it collect up the material from trail???
@tallaganda83
Жыл бұрын
Love it, The Expanse is the greatest show I’ve seen and this stuff fascinates me.
@John_Weiss
6 ай бұрын
22:03 "Gravity wells are for suckers." The inhabitants of the Orion's Arm Universe Project would agree with you. [I'd include a link, especially to their Bishop Ring entry, but alas, KZitem doesn't allow links in comments anymore.]
@Smo1k
Жыл бұрын
27:29 Exponential Growth We are in a situation where: The exponential growth of what we can do in a lifetime is exponentially growing. The science we do does not rot, it just waits to find use, and with every find, the half-life of our exponential growth is shortened. We're living in three orders of stacked, exponential growth: We apply our learning for a longer time today than yesterday, to tools that are better every day, and there's more of us applying that knowledge to better tools every day... The hallmark of imagination is impatience, but soon we'll run out of it 😉
@JohnSostrom
Жыл бұрын
This idea was first posited in a SiFi books called Ring Worlds.
@JFrazer4303
Жыл бұрын
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky mentioned it before 1910. Noordung sketched a wheel station in the '30s. Von Braun in the early '50s. The NASA Ames / Stanford studies and Gerard O'Neill laid out hard numbers nuts & bolts studies that showed that no new inventions are needed to mine asteroids and moons and to build for virtually Earth like conditions anywhere in space. "Ringworld" is space-tech fantasy.
@tsmspace
Жыл бұрын
my open source story project would go well in one of these big stations. "ace racers sp tsmspace" , but in my story,, the spin station must be periodically de-spun for maintenance. At times, the station must have large objects docked to the ring itself, which would give it a wobble if other material isn't moved around for balance. During this maintenance period,, there is no gravity on the station, resulting in a big party for zero-g sports. And of course the focus of my story is racing small cold-gas FPV drones. So while normally they must be raced around the docks or other obstacles,, they can be raced around rubble piles and landforms on the inside of the ring,, so like the mountains in popular space games. (being so small as drones, it doesn't take that large of a pile to be like a mountain) ... The pilots can have that space game experience of mountains and valleys in real life (with no gravity or air friction,, or sometimes even WITH air friction)
@mariokajin
Жыл бұрын
One question, what is the resistance of carbon nano filaments/fabric against UV, X-ray, micro meteorites etc.?
@grantsiemensma4978
Жыл бұрын
The red Mars book series is awesome. I'm Dyslexic and I managed to understand and enjoy it. BTW really enjoying the show.
@Tiaintherain
Жыл бұрын
I had a similar idea except instead of habitation. To Separate it’s components by centrifugal force.
@tiagotiagot
Жыл бұрын
How would they ensure the distribution of mass is kept even enough that the cylinder doesn't end up in a runaway redistribution of matter where it either bows out in middle and goes banana (before potentially breaking) or just starts getting more and more sideways shooting the matter towards both ends of the cylinder, or possibly some other more squiggly mode?
@HebaruSan
Жыл бұрын
Does it collapse back down if you arrest the spin? Or does the concrete-like property he mentioned keep it in shape?
@JROD082384
Жыл бұрын
You wouldn’t want to arrest the spin, because that is what generates an artificial “gravitational” force that’s really centrifugal forces that “sticks” objects to the inside of the cylinder.
@replica1052
Жыл бұрын
to collect asteroids before they vanish into the sun is a mission - send solar sails to alter their orbits little by little for a bigger and bigger mars moon for stronger and stronger tidal forces (in an infinite universe it makes sense to catch solar wind )
@shayanirenberg3294
Жыл бұрын
Why not do something small with existing tech like using a weather balloon and spin it up real slow, then wrap them up with fibers and cement to strengthen them and spin them up to high gravity?
@BeowulfNode
Жыл бұрын
While I do agree that current mass production tech would surely have something strong/light enough to make a first go of it worthwhile, I don't think latex or neoprene (weather balloon material) would be enough. Something like Kevlar seems much more likely as an option. Having a too small asteroid will result in one or more of the issues: of not enough gravity to stave off permanent physiological issues, or too small a diameter resulting in Coriolis effects that humans can't handle, or too thin a crust providing insufficient radiation shielding, or too small an area to have it be worthwhile.
@Grandremone
Жыл бұрын
😂
@alexjband
Жыл бұрын
2312 was a great future-tech book too!
@stuartcarter7053
Жыл бұрын
Love this interview - kind of frustrated I won't see it my lifetime! One thing I didn't understand was if the 'bag' was a tube - how would the ends be plugged?
@alvermillioncranky8360
Жыл бұрын
If memory serves, asteroid living was written about in science fiction back in the thirty's and forty's in things like monthly magazines.
@DeadeyeJim327
Жыл бұрын
Since we don’t yet have graphene sheets yet, how about a large inflatable bag of lesser strength material capable of containing the asteroid spun up just above its escape velocity? It would allow clearing the center of debris while containing all material. A minimal level of rotational gravity might allow automated processing of the asteroid material within. By targeting a metal-rich asteroid first, robots could extrude girders, plates, and cables to reinforce and support the bag from the outside. With this reinforcement, the station spin may be increased to allow for human safe gravity.
@owenwilson25
Жыл бұрын
Whatever material you use has to be suitable for space, withstand the temperature range and dehydration of space as well as hazards such as uv, gamma-ray and micrometeorites.
@Peace2051
Жыл бұрын
Absolutely amazing that this discussion didn't even acknowledge the Ecological Overshoot Unraveling. No worries, just imagine all of their projected "stations" built as earth sheltered habitat in an ever warming planet per centuries if not millennia per the IPCC reports. Yes, the Climate Emergency is a thing.
@DataSmithy
Жыл бұрын
The hardest part of that carbon nanotube bag idea sounds like it would be: how to get an even distribution of materials as the spin-up progresses. otherwise you'll have off-center mass causing serious issues.
@DominikJaniec
Жыл бұрын
thank you, my question is: how far is a safe space from solid rocket boosters flame or other engine types, for an astronaut in their outer-space suit
@bikerfirefarter7280
Жыл бұрын
Stop it, get some help.
@Wordsmiths
Жыл бұрын
It depends on the solid rocket motor or the liquid-fuel rocket engine you're talking about, and where exactly the spacesuited crew member is, and their relative velocity compared to the rocket. Oh, it also depends on whether this "close encounter" takes place in an atmosphere or in the vacuum of space (since I suppose a crew member could don a space suit on Earth or Mars, hoping it will protect them from a nearby exhaust plume) Scenario A: the rocket nozzle is pointed directly at the astronaut. Answer: Hella far away. Far AF. Especially in a vacuum, where there's no atmosphere to slow down and cool down the superheated exhaust particles that are being blasted at the astronaut at [insert specific impulse of the rocket here]. But even in an atmosphere, the rocket plume will create a pressure wave powerful enough to pulverize concrete. The exact answer depends on the size and the thrust of the rocket motor or rocket engine, but if it were me in that space suit, I would be unhappy and nervous about standing in the path of the exhaust plume when a rocket engine lit off if I was any less than three miles away. The further the better. Scenario B: the rocket nozzle is pointed slightly away from the astronaut, enough so that the direct exhaust plume will miss them, and the astronaut and the rocket are stationary relative to one another (sharing the same orbit, or the rocket is on a test stand and the astronaut is standing to one side nearby, etc.) Answer: again, the exact answer depends on the size and power of the rocket, but if you're in the vacuum of space, you're probably going to be fine. Unless the radiant heat from the passing plume or from the bell nozzle begins to cook you, if you're close enough and the rocket is powerful enough for that to happen. Scenario C: the rocket is firing and the spacesuited astronaut passes through the rocket plume momentarily. Answer: again, it depends on the size and power of the rocket, how close the astronaut is to the combustion chamber/bell-and also on how fast the astronaut is moving. Think of the old children's game of passing your finger through the flame of a candle: as long as you are moving your finger at a certain speed, or faster, you feel nothing, or maybe just a bit of warmth. But dawdle in that candle flame and you'll be crying for your mama pretty quick. Same situation here but the stakes are much much higher. Outlier variables: If by "other engine types" you want to include electric ion thrusters, you could probably hold your bare hand right in front of them for half a minute before you felt any pain, maybe longer (and the pain would be from ionization not actual heat-more like a sunburn than an actual flame against your hand). But if by "other engine types" you want to include nuclear salt-water reactor rockets, I'm not sure there is a "safe space" for that astronaut anywhere in the detectable plume of that rocket. Rather than superheated water vapor (from H2/O2 and methalox rocket engines) or heavier superheated carbon-compound molecules and particles (from solid rocket motors), you'll be blasted with super-superheated radioactive salts possibly mixed with microscopic depleted-uranium droplets, traveling at three times the speed (iSP) of most rocket exhausts. Remember, it isn't just the visible flame and immediate heat of a rocket plume that can do damage. The pressure wave is tremendous too, compared to the size of the rocket motor: ask yourself how much mass that rocket motor is able to push, and how fast that rocket motor can accelerate it. If it's a cold-gas reaction thruster that is meant to gradually turn a modest little space capsule or satellite, that's one thing. But if it's a main engine for a big orbital-class rocket, either first or second (or even third!) stage, it imparts a hell of a kick to a very heavy payload-and sends an equally powerful kick in the opposite direction, in the form of an exhaust plume. The content of the exhaust plume matters, too. If it is composed of tiny cold xenon atoms, even if they are accelerated to insanely high speeds by an ion thruster's magnetic fields, they are just xenon atoms. Individually they don't have enough mass to penetrate your spacesuit or even your skin, even if they are expelled from an ion thruster. A good ion thruster will offer about the same thrust as one hummingbird. The ionization of the xenon atoms, not their speed or mass or toxicity, is what you need to worry about. On the opposite end of the exhaust plume scale you have solid rocket motors and concepts like the NSWR. Those emerge at insanely high temperatures and velocities, and many of the exhaust particles have a lot more mass than mere xenon atoms. And the particles themselves can be toxic: bits of unburned solid rocket fuel, flinty flecks of carbonized fuel, and in the case of the NSWR, it's all insanely radioactive too, and only some of the uranium is "depleted" or transformed into less-radioactive heavy metal particles in the combustion chamber. Enough to sustain the combustion chamber's criticality of course, and that's enough to give you a bad day a mile away. Or ten miles away, if you're in outer space where nothing is slowing those exhaust particles down, and they are cooling off more slowly too.
@paulwollenzein-zn1lh
5 ай бұрын
Larry Niven has his Belt society used the semi simple idea of hollowed out, and then you place some water in bags in the center. Spin it on its axis. Place solar reflectors to shine on it. Wait until the bags of water start to boil. And as it spins, it is being heated up from the outside to the inside. And when it reaches the critical point when the water starts to boil. When it reaches the point you have, hopefully, calculated properly the bags of water burst, causing it to expand dramatically, but under controlled circumstances. As it expands it changes into a cylinder, possibly more or less than one. But if you combine this idea, if possible, you can get more control over the final shape!
@paulwollenzein-zn1lh
5 ай бұрын
z"a semi simple idea of hollowed out ASTEROID, and then ?
@ModelLights
Жыл бұрын
Had this in mind for ages, and as others have said no doubt there are stories with similar ideas long before mine.. 60 or 70 percent iron asteroid, 1/2 mile diameter. Take it by another larger asteroid, for gravity assist. Interplanetary superhighway to around the Sun, heat up and rotocast it into a 1 mile diameter shell. Ends up about 100 feet thick. Let it cool until the iron has most of its strength, then insulate the outside to retain heat. Insulate the inside, fill with dirt, animals, people, etc. Heat kept in the shell should be the power source for generations. Keep it near melting temp so it's hot and easy to cut, shell the shell and make 20 or 50 thinner bubbles instead of just one. Should be relatively easy to take a million or few people and go out to Saturn and Jupiter for a while. It's definitely a resource to be used, it's already out of the deep gravity wells so you're halfway done before you start.
@bananenasphalt2172
Жыл бұрын
WOW - that really really inspires me! Thank you!
@johnambro7181
Жыл бұрын
Interesting conversation. A space elevator would be a start, capture an Asteroid and then the fun begins. Fusion drive, artificial gravity get those down and then your cooking. How do you determine a high probability destination? Would this be a one way adventure, or would multiple stops be better. Cheers.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
Жыл бұрын
For ethical reasons generation ships will be banned. People would riot and cause a mutiny all the time. Instead the ships will be loaded with embryos stored inside birthing pods, ready for growing on arrival at the colony.
@GoCoyote
Жыл бұрын
Most likely high probability destinations will first be explored with robotic micro ships. It will take an enormous amount of earths resources to get to another solar system, so we would need to be sure of a place to live when we get there.
@YodaWhat
Жыл бұрын
Another great idea to enthuse about: *A Realistic Way to Make Space Habitats From Asteroids* Too bad it is only a half-baked idea. They are basically talking about making a flywheel explode by spinning it faster and faster until it flies to pieces. That does not have gentle results. The pieces become shrapnel, and will shred the bag meant to contain the pieces, unless the bag is vastly stronger than the average load in the dreamt-of final configuration. *What you actually want to do* is de-spin the asteroid, which can be done without rockets, using long tethers and some of the rubble. Then put a bag around the outside, and an inflatable bag down the center of the rubble pile and gently inflate it. That will push the pieces of astrorubble out to the diameter of the container bag (cylindrical or spherical), with the rubble trapped between the inner and outer bags. Then and only then do you think to spin up the structure to generate your artificial gravity. If you still don't want to use inefficient rocket propulsion, that's fine. Use some of the rubble as reaction mass, in a Mass Driver, or vaporize it in efficient electric rocket engines. Also, think about bringing two such baggedsteroids together, linking them with a framework and bearings, then spin them up in opposite directions... each serving as *conserved* reaction mass for the other.
@GoCoyote
Жыл бұрын
You are thinking in terms of the force of a high speed centrifuge providing much more than one g of force. Your bed requires very little structural strength to overcome earths gravity, and a rotating space habitat does not have to be very strong to provide earths gravity equivalent, let alone less than earths gravity. This type of system is more like how a rope on a swing provides more than enough strength to support your weight against gravity, or a how the cable on a crane can lift tons of material against gravity. Just take that same rope or cable, and make it into a giant loop where it can support that same force all along its length. Likely a bigger challenge is stabilizing the habitat to prevent harmonic imbalances that might cause catastrophic flexing leading to its destruction.
@YodaWhat
Жыл бұрын
@@GoCoyote- I agree about imbalance, but it would never get to that point. The large boulders in the rubble pile would hit the mesh with a lot of force, on opposite sides and other random places, almost all at once, producing a lot of large *shock loads*. High RPM is not required in order to get those devastating blows. It is a function of the high-ish speed needed to overcome mutual attraction when all the boulders are close together, compared to the much lower speed needed when they are no longer in contact with each other. BUT the boulders will still have most of the higher speed when they reach the mesh, IF the plan discussed in the video is carried out. Your analogies do not involve shock loads, so they do not really apply here.
@you2tooyou2too
8 ай бұрын
The mass of the CNT pig-skin, and the energy needed to convert enough available carbon to weave it, are fairly simple but essential calculations needed to make or break the practicality of 'spun-up' asteroids.
@chamamemestre
Жыл бұрын
04:49 Its already been done (the videogame). An amazing old school RTS called Fragile Allegiance. Hard as balls too. One of those endless games.
@frasercain
Жыл бұрын
I never played that. You could actually spin up an asteroid and turn it into a habitat
@tracemiller9924
Жыл бұрын
That rumble spin up, will be a mining operation, as well. I don't how much metal is out, but eventually you will need to go get it.
@emmettobrian1874
Жыл бұрын
Could you spin an asteroid up to a lower gravity, use only steel mesh or Kevlar as your bag, then reinforce the mesh (possibly with materials from the asteroid) and spin it up to your goal acceleration?
@BeowulfNode
Жыл бұрын
For a first go, I think this is the sort of idea we'll have to use. There will likely be a trade off for launch costs vs how quickly you can get something useful out of the asteroid. Balancing the costs of running the operation, particularly if/when humans are going there.
@robertkercher1980
Жыл бұрын
one of the issues with centripetal force is the diameter of the object as the closer you get to the center of the rotating object the less you experience gravity (simulated). a somewhat exaggerated example would be an object that is 20 meters across versus an object 1oo meters across, spin them bot up to about 1 G rotation and the people in the smaller object will be more prone to motion sickness as well as there being a higher variation of simulated gravity over a smaller space. gravity would be experienced at the feet and as you move toward the head you would get less simulated gravity which i am certain would be uncomfortable and probably not very healthy. If you take a hollow cylinder with a hundred meter diameter and spin up to about 1 G you would experience a much reduced version of vertigo, you would overall have fewer rotations per minute, and a lower gravitational variation from the feet to the head.
@Enceos
Жыл бұрын
Perfect survival video game )) 'Oxygen Not Included' immediately popped up in my head when I heard it.
@lonetree1941
Жыл бұрын
This Prof Adam Frank sets the record for “you know,” “right,” “and like” which detracted from his observations.😮
@brettselph7591
Жыл бұрын
Actually, there is no need for graphene/carbon nanotubes, which is good because Unobtainium tends to keep things in the realm of science fiction. We have three problems: cosmic ray shielding, gravity replacement, and atmosphere retention. Separate the shielding problem from the other two, the Herculean physics problem almost disappears, and the cost goes down drastically. Separating all three problems makes it even better (incrementally buildable), as explained below. 1. Shielding with rubble retained by a "bag" or sleeve does NOT require that the rubble be spinning very fast. Cosmic rays don't care how fast the rubble is spinning, just how thick it is. Indeed, the "rubble sleeve" could be spinning so slowly that the self-gravitation of the rubble is almost in equilibrium with the centrifugal force. You're only trying to get it to "stay" in the desired shape, not maintain a simulated 1/3 g that the rubble ITSELF experiences. Much more ordinary materials, such as fiberglass or basalt fiber (which is stronger than glass fiber) would be sufficient. Depending on the composition of the asteroid, "basalt fiber" or some asteroidy-equivalent might even be a "local" material mined from the asteroid. 2. Gravity replacement only requires that something INSIDE the rubble-sleeve be spinning at a faster rate. Visualize a tetherball, and you get the idea. Since it's only a habitation module rotating about a central axle (a balanced pair of modules, initially), we can manufacture modular habitation units on the moon (for convenience and quality assurance) and send them to the asteroid on the ion drive slowboat. Since it spins INSIDE the rubble sleeve, (coaxially with the rubble-sleeve spin axis), the assemblage of modules can spin at whatever rate you like. Full earth gravity, if desired. The "axle" from which modules "dangle" is a stiff tube mounted on "pylons" anchored radially outward into the inner surface of the rubble sleeve. Gotta keep some clearance from the rubble or everybody dies, but that's just a length adjustment. The initial "dumbbell pair" can be added to incrementally. Three modules would have a 120° angle between them. Adjusting the length of the suspension cables, or moving a dead weight up or down along the cables to adjust the dynamic balance, would accommodate sight differences in mass distribution, which would inevitably arise with workers and material moving about. 3. The prefab habitation module is obviously air tight. The amount of material needed to enclose the required quantity of air and life support is tiny compared to the full volume of the rubble sleeve, but starting small and working incrementally (adding modules as needed) makes the project usable from nearly the beginning The eventual design might seek to maximize the usable volume of the rubble sleeve, replacing the individual "dangling modules" with several large cylinders, effectively a vast cylinder partitioned into "bulkheads". But that's a later stage of development. Please see the article in Wikipedia on basalt fiber to find out just how amazing this material is (three times stronger than steel). And yes, I have devised a way to make it in space. The earth process requires gravity and gas pressure. But there's a way around that. I promise. This comment is long enough 😝. If anyone is interested, just ask, and I'll detail in a follow-up comment, how to make basalt fiber in a vacuum, in zero-G, robotically. Also some other details about the axles and the pylons, such as making the axles and suspension links as rigid air-filled tubes that link up the modules, allowing workers to move among and between them without suiting up or losing precious air to airlock activity. ...Vaguely like Jeffries tubes (named after Matt Jefferies, prop and set designer of the original Star Trek). Will they call them Brettsky tubes after my childhood nick? Prolly not!
@spacingguild
Жыл бұрын
I wonder if there is a way to detect tech signatures around other stars by figuring out if a bunch of objects are spinning at similar speeds.
@101perspective
7 ай бұрын
12:29... Wouldn't the expandable bag quickly become unstable? I mean, how do you ensure equal distribution of the material?
@TimelineDunkley
Жыл бұрын
That's your gravity right there. You can turn it into a space station you can walk around and stuff like that because now you have gravity. That's a good idea, also the asteroid might have hydrogen in it, you can get oxygen and water. And maybe you could be a power source. I think that's a good idea 💡
@brick6347
Жыл бұрын
8:03 so a bit longer than a transatlantic liner back in the day, and that's sort of how I imagine that playing out. Lots of space liners competing for clients. Some probably very luxurious, some probably very grotty, and some probably ending in horrible tragedy. Have you ever seen an Ocean Liner up close? There's not many about now, but when you see the size of them it blows the mind. The QM2 is a couple of city blocks long. I can only imagine what something like in space would be like. You'd probably have to park it around the moon to avoid blocking out the sun and have some sort of tender.
@zombieshoot4318
Жыл бұрын
I don't think such a thing would be so large as to be able to block out the sun if it was in orbit around the Earth.
@brick6347
Жыл бұрын
@@zombieshoot4318 I don't mean completely, or for long. More akin something like Phobos eclipsing the sun on Mars. But if it were pretty big, and in LEO... and there were a lot of them. Well, I could see that being a potential nuisance.
@yapdog
8 ай бұрын
These discussions are always great. The optimism in contagious. However, we're not sociologically advanced enough to achieve the kinds of expansions into space our kind tend to dream about. In fact, we appear to be devolving into an era where truth is relative and belief trumps fact.
@TraditionalAnglican
Жыл бұрын
Robert Zubrin has said the ideal transit time to Mars is 6 months, and that is easily doable with chemical propulsion. No one is talking about doing interstellar travel using anything that isn’t at least 5 km in diameter * 30 km long & contains fewer than 50,000 people living, working & breeding together. ATST, most interstellar colonization will be done using fleets of 100 - 1000 of these vessels.
@ToxisLT
Жыл бұрын
next time you are getting a beer together, please bring a camera ;) this was awesome!
@rJaune
Жыл бұрын
Since even near "room temperature" superconductivity is really cold, would it make any sense to run these experiments in space? Or, even just use superconductivity in space missions?
@strangebike1
8 ай бұрын
The use of a rubble pile asteroid would be an interesting starting point but could we use the sun to melt or at least sinter the rubble into a harder shell?
@mattgrinder7859
Жыл бұрын
Assuming carbon fiber is too hard to build, what can be done with steel?
@djblackprincecdn
Жыл бұрын
The Mars Trilogy is my favorite sci-fi series still to this day. Kim Stanley Robinson did a great job.
@kindlin
Жыл бұрын
Really? I love reading, and I love scifi, but I can hardly read those books. I made it through 1 and 2, and I'll read 3 at some point in the next year or 2, but man, they are so dry. The LoTR is my favorite book, and people often complain about how boring that is to read, well LoTR seem to me to have 10x the plot and suspense and page turning than did either of the first 2 mars books.
@djblackprincecdn
Жыл бұрын
@@kindlin i mean youre entitled to think that my friend. I love the trilogy and re-read it every few years just like i do with LOTR and The Hobbit.
@kindlin
Жыл бұрын
@@djblackprincecdn Actually, and this is kind of funny now that I think of it, I initially hated the LoTR when I first read it, and it wasn't until my second reading years later that I actually enjoyed it, and then it became my favorite book; but, it started as my least favorite book.
@chrishorne4016
6 ай бұрын
I read LOTR first in 1968 when the trilogy came out in a single volume paperback. I still have that book, I used to read it every. Couple of years but lately it's been about every 5 years. Another brilliant series is EE doc Smith's Lensman series. The fictional generators that could nullify mass and therefore inertia made Interstellar travel a piece of cake?
@SpaceEngines
Жыл бұрын
Could a space debris cause a rupture in the nanofiber bag holding the spinning asteroid with its residents together? I would imagine a damaged nanofiber structure could heal itself in some way, but if the damage is too great... it would cause the asteroid rubble town to literally explode outwards in all directions!
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
Жыл бұрын
If a big rock was headed towards it that would trigger an evacuation into the PANTS (Personnel Anti-collision Notification Transport System)
@igoromelchenko3482
Жыл бұрын
Curious, will defusion transform the result material? And what would happen to it in ten years of open space. Would love to know.
@deant6361
Жыл бұрын
I really enjoyed this one thanks for sharing
@bazoo513
Жыл бұрын
~ 21:00 - Iain M. Banks' "Culture" (speaking of superb SciFi) doesn't need planets, either. Of course, they have for all practical purposes magical materials and "force fields" to make "orbitals" . rings several thousand kilometers wide and million or so kilometers in diameter (so that they can provide ~1g of gravity on the inner surface with one day rotation period - natural sunlight, no energy expenditure for gravity generators (of course they have gravity generators, but they use them only on ships))
@mikeharrington5593
Жыл бұрын
Thinking outside the box does produce a mixed bag, but it can also herald new progress
@PhysicsPolice
Жыл бұрын
20:00 Aurora was a good story idea, but it was full of plot holes and unsatisfyingly unanswered mysteries.
@MikeJones-wn5mu
Жыл бұрын
Good stuff. Something that I don't think was addressed in this conversation is: How do you "spin-up" a rubble pile? You can't just contain it in a cylinder, and spin the cylinder. You would also need some kind of sweeping structures that will apply the spinning force to all of the rubble pieces.
@norml.hugh-mann
Жыл бұрын
You place thrust generation at points that compliment each other to induce a spin instead of moving it Ina direction.
@nomdeguerre7265
6 ай бұрын
If I had to venture a guess as to when we'll inhabit space, my guess would be 'never'. As far as your journalism goes, you do good solid work. You're honest, but you still have dreams. Dreams are part of being human. As long as they're understood to be dreams they're very good. My guess would be that it's possible something might get to the stars, but it won't be us, and we can't imagine what it will be, or how it will be created. But it could happen..... The real question is whether we'll last long enough for it to happen. My feeling is not, but that's simply because we're a mono-species apex predator, which has become essentially a mono-culture too. I'm not too optimistic about that combination.
@dialecticcoma
Жыл бұрын
how popular is the idea of building underground on moons/planets?
@arnaudgerard1971
Жыл бұрын
Wouldn't you rotate it, look where they are too weak, reinforce it, and then spin it up slowly?
@GlennJTison
Жыл бұрын
Take a chunk of nickle iron asteroid and heat it with mirrors to melt, inject it with super heated steam and blow it up like blowing glass. Then shape as desired. Give it a spin and you get a oblate sphere, with 2 flattened pole areas, and after it hardens, an equaterial re gion that can be spun up for centrifugal gravity. As with glass, other shapes are possible.
@johnedwards1968
Жыл бұрын
The Aurora series is fantastic
@mishkosimonovski23
Жыл бұрын
I have idea: how about encasing the asteroids in steel, then drill metal poles inside the asteroids to stabilise the ruble and finally dig the core out to place a cylinder? I know, too much work.
@ralboraggins9564
2 ай бұрын
It seems to me they would need to start the spin gradually and also drill or cut in the right places to make sure that there is an even distribution of asteroid material along the walls of the cylinder. Otherwise depending on the size and shape of the objects in the asteroid, and how stuck together they are, you would get uneven application.
@denijane89
Жыл бұрын
Erm, 7eves? (on the question of hard sci fi). But very interesting conversation. Though honestly, for a pile of rubble, it doesn't matter if the gold is on the outside or in the inside, since it's much more likely to be on molecules or very small pieces. And do we know what percentage of asteroids is just a pile of rubble?
@boboblio4002
Жыл бұрын
Talk about large asteroids and venus, I was curious : what size of mass would it take to change venus' very slow rotation? Is this possible?
@arthill2310
Жыл бұрын
The amount of raw energy you are talking about would ether take thousands of years, or would liquify the planet.
@bikerfirefarter7280
Жыл бұрын
@@arthill2310 Its a curious thing why/how Venus is rotating so slow now anyway. hmmm :-/
@kenmacallister
Жыл бұрын
A challenge with this idea is keeping the material evenly distributed mass-wise. Imagine if you started refining metal from material in one spot in the ring, concentrating mass or removing mass in one area would cause the ring to wobble because the centre of mass would become offset. So you would need to do everything at three or more points simultaneously (two points could stretch the ring oblate) -evenly spaced around the ring, so that each point has the same equipment and does the same things in processing materials there, and the centre of mass remains stable relative to the ring.
@frasercain
Жыл бұрын
I guess as you start the rotation it'll start balancing itself out. But you might have to push a few rocks around.
@maxpeterson8616
6 ай бұрын
The issue is, gravity wells is where all the matter is. That's all the interesting, useful, and necessary stuff.
@chrisgriffith1573
Жыл бұрын
Rubble pile asteroids... hum. If you "spin one up" and it is pulled out into a giant centrifuge, there will need for there to be a way to manage the size and distribution of the rubble in order to avoid the debris from destabilizing the cylinder's balance. Wobbling offset center of mass would tear the structure apart. We would need to crush all of the larger boulders into smaller parts at the very least, not to mention determine the average weight of each boulder as well, to prevent one side or another from being too heavy. I can't see this working unless you just crush the pile bit by bit and equalize the mass via random distribution and evenly adding to the centrifuge gravel sized rocks over a conveyer. Slowly building the cylinder, keeping it balanced all along, making sure the mass is even and balanced. otherwise the thing is offset, wobbly, problematic, and you may end up with one side less shielded than the other... terrible to fix after the fact and very inefficient. You'd also need to keep covering the outermost surface with some kind of epoxy or super strong layer to hold up against micro meteors and impacts as they age the "bag", because you don't want the debris to fly out and leak. It's better to just mine the asteroid than try this rodeo cowboy stuff. I can see a station that is purpose built to find an asteroid and convert it into these cylinders, but not the way this guy thinks it would happen. The other aspect of this idea is how to balance the actual environment for the longer term, making a self sustaining ecology which will support us. Just like the "gene pool" there probably is a minimum size for which will do this, and we need to know that before we consider the type of requirements that are necessary in order to make one.
@saumyacow4435
Жыл бұрын
One of the things I was taught in Engineering was the Law of Conservation of difficulty. In other words, no matter how you try to refactor the problem, every solution will simply result in difficulty of a different form. Now, what I see in these spinning asteroids is another example of the LofCofD. Or put another way, what's the difference in terms of difficulty between building a big carbon nanofiber structure around an asteroid and spinning it or else simply dong the same scale of engineering to build a "hull" and then transfer into that hull the mass of a "rubble pile" asteroid. After all, what you're doing here is using the asteroid as building material for a shield. And that then boils down to how you're going to build the machines to manufacture the megatons of carbon nanofibers. And the vast fusion power plants to power all of this. And once you've done all of this you still need megatons of materials to build the living spaces within - no real difference here to the problem of building a massive space vehicle. And then of course you need all the consumables. The water, the air.. etc etc.. And a massive fleet to transport all of that. And yet more power sources.. and you end up having the supporting infrastructure, mining, transport being far more complex and costly than the structure you intended to build. So then, if you really were absolutely determined to have lots of humans living in space then just simply build yourself a big regular cylinder. Mass produce metal structure and assemble them in larger and larger blocks, just like ship building. Then weave your carbon nanofibers around the structure. Then slowly add disintegrated asteroids and very gradually spin up the whole structure. Now you've got yourself a world ship - just in a more predictable and controllable way. And it must be said, again, that there is a distinction between things that can be done and things that should be done. In the end you have to step back and ask if any of these human beings on such a structure are in fact any better off than they would have been if they remained on Earth. A rational analysis would say no. It can be done, but it doesn't achieve anything worthwhile.
@JFrazer4303
Жыл бұрын
Ending scarcity of energy, resources, and room for growth on Earthy isn't "nothing gained". Proving the way to growth for affluent living conditions for the human population of ~12 billion which some projections say we'll have, while removing heavy, polluting, primary resources and energy production from within the biosphere, isn't nothing. Enriching the global (near inner-Solar system) human civilization (with no new inventi0ons needed) to set to work terraforming and repairing the damage to the biosphere of the Earth and not only survive but thrive during +6 degree C warming, or an ice age, or Yellowstone, isn't nothing gained. Many say that we shouldn't be hoping or planning to survive for so many people. Some even come out and say that things would be better off if we had a mass species-wide die-off to lower the population, but I never hear from those who say so who've also had themselves made incapable of reproducing, or who've "led by example" in other ways. Many say that we're all going to die, so we might as well just lie down and take it.
@saumyacow4435
Жыл бұрын
@@JFrazer4303 Umm... Populating rubble piles in space doesn't lead to endless energy. It wastes resources. Also, please explain how 'growth' (population) is a good in itself. We have abundant energy and resources on Earth to provide everyone with a high quality of life. The problem isn't an engineering one.
@JFrazer4303
Жыл бұрын
Populating space, in colony habitats built from resources gotten from rubble piles is just habitation for the workers. The endless energy is from the Sun, via satellite solar power systems. Allowing for growth is allowing freedom of growth of the infrastructure for survival, without polluting more of Earth and hoarding of the resources which can be economically gotten down here. Allowing growth so that all humans have an adequate lifestyle to enjoy freedoms, is n engineering problem. We can't do it with the engineering we've ben doing, with fossil fuels and disregarding leaving a good natural environment round us. We can't provide for the 12-15 billion people we're likely to have, just down here, with the infrastructure for survival and growth we've been using. It's not likely we can grow to providing everyone with a good standard of living while transitioning to friendly systems which don't harm the environment, just from down here.
@belmiris1371
Жыл бұрын
Won't this be a race between space habitats that spin and artificial limbs that won't deteriorate in space?
@dragontdc
Жыл бұрын
There's an interesting way to mine heavy precious metals from asteroids... wrap the asteroid in laters of progressively finer mesh, with the "solid" bag on the outside. The meshes act as classifiers like when panning for gold. Then maybe run some shock waves through to break up the asteroid more finely, and spin it up. Heavier material works its way to the outside where it can be collected.
@maxpeterson8616
6 ай бұрын
"You're not my therapist, but..." Scary words to hear in most cases.
@JonathanDLynch
Жыл бұрын
Regarding O'Neill cylinders. It seems to me that we don't need to build them directly. Rather, we need to focus on building robots that can mine asteroids and build cylinders mostly on their own.
@uktenatsila9168
Жыл бұрын
The "Rocinante" is from the Rush song Cygnus-x1. Perhaps there is an earlier use of the name.
@nomdeguerre7265
6 ай бұрын
🤣
@ocoro174
Жыл бұрын
damn Fraser only 37 minutes? could've asked about how he plans to cover the sides of the cylinder or what if the material tears like it's getting blasted by radiation and debris it's gonna tear right 😳 anyway good video 🥰
Пікірлер: 546