Youtube comments of (@Kyplanet893).

  1. edit: i changed it ok so this video has been out for about a week now and a lot of the comments are mad at me for making clickbait, so i’m gonna try to clear that up in one comment when i was writing this script a few months ago, i had just gotten recommended a bunch of ai generated clickbait bs that inspired me to make this. I put “there are no habitable exoplanets” as the title as a direct response to the titles of the other videos, which were saying stuff like “these are the most habitable exoplanets” this video sat on the back burner for a few months until i finally got around to publishing it, and I didn’t bother to change the title the title is not arguing that habitable exoplanets don’t exist. I say in the video that they probably do. If anything I should’ve added quotation marks to the title (there are no “habitable” exoplanets) to make it more in line with what i actually wanted the video to say (which was meant as a direct counter to the ai misinformation that’s everywhere) but I forgot to do that, and overnight this became my best performing video ever, and now i’m scared to change the title for fear that the whole thing will just die my goal isn’t to misinform people. I actively try to avoid clickbait as much as possible, and I research my videos for months before publishing them. When I made this title, clickbait genuinely wasn’t even on my mind, “there are no habitable exoplanets” was just my first automatic thought (and if you check my other videos you’ll hopefully find this is true, my other video titles are usually very simple and non-clickbait. This video is very much an outlier) So sorry if you feel clickbaited, but that honestly wasn’t my intention. I had no intent of making the video clickbait, and at this point i’m scared to change it because it could kill the video’s performance, and I feel as though this is an important video to get out to as many people as possible, since it’s directly countering popular misinfo i’m not trying to make excuses, i need to hold myself up to a higher standard so i don’t become the exact thing i’m trying to stop, and ig i’ll just remember to revise video titles in the future essay over
    4100
  2. @TideTurnerEnjoyer 3 soviet cosmonauts have died in space
    1200
  3. Just so everyone is aware, there is an open letter to Congress going around urging them to refuse the cancellation of VIPER. Congress still has the ability to do this, as they're still in the process of writing a bill for NASA's budget. It'll be shown to them as early as Thursday, so we need all the signatures we can get. not sure if I'm allowed to send links here, so to avoid the risk of this comment being deleted im not going to, but the letter is made by NASAWatch and the article about it is called "An Open Letter To Congress Opposing VIPER Cancellation That You Can Sign", so if you search that up you'll be able to sign it
    385
  4. @DellariSafire a giant gas cloud would still let other wavelengths of light through, and we don’t see that
    354
  5. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/aYJQFz7wzJ
    342
  6. @TheFirstCurse1 “earth” and “moon” are the officially recognized names of both those objects by the IAU “terra” and “luna” are unofficial nicknames
    335
  7. @FoxyCAMTV its a joke he’s referencing a movie lmao
    314
  8. @tommi59tk there are no lakes, forests, or signs of intelligent life on mars all “evidence” of that has been debunked, were just optical illusions, or conspiracy theories
    296
  9. the j1407b saga has only just begun
    279
  10. so many santa deniers here glad i have the ability to delete comments
    236
  11. hell yeah
    235
  12. first video with an actual microphone hooray
    216
  13. So this video was pre-recorded in December and I couldn’t have predicted the failure of flight 7, so I didn’t talk about it in the video. But it’s worth mentioning here Obviously a ship blowing up is a very bad thing. This was a major failure and should be taken seriously (and I believe elon musk’s comment calling this “entertaining” is extremely irresponsible), but this will not be the end of the Starship program. Flight 1 and 2 were in a lot of ways much worse than this, and it kept on flying anyway. This will cause a delay and require an investigation, but Starship is still very much on a path toward success. Every rocket in history has had bad flights. This is a step backwards, but it will not significantly alter the long-term plans for Starship. What’s more concerning is how this will delay near-term flights like the orbital refueling test and HLS demo, but I don’t expect those to be moved further back than a few months But this does show why it’s difficult to make predictions about Starship, and why I was vague in this video. We have no idea when this thing will be ready and only very general ideas as to what its capabilities will be. So take this video as what could happen if things go right from here on out and nothing unexpected happens (and starship has a history of doing unexpected things). And just as another quick note I was more harsh on Mars than I intended. I believe the Moon and Mars will both be colonized and at the same time. As I’ve said in other comments, the “moon vs mars” debate isn’t real. Both can and will be colonized. What’s more important is which one should we focus on more. And because the Moon is closer and has greater industrial capabilities to benefit life on Earth, I consider the Moon more important right now. That being said, Mars should still be colonized, and Starship will likely help us do it. But because Starship will also be helping build a moon base, by the time we actually start building cities on Mars I think we’ll have significant lunar industry, which makes Starship still important but not as necessary. I believe Starship’s successors will truly colonize Mars, and Starship itself will open up the way for it, and be mostly used to build bases, not cities. (also I’m aware musk said the moon was a distraction, but the thing is if spacex’s plans for starship become a reality then other companies can just buy launches to bring payloads to the Moon. Starship will help colonize the Moon even if SpaceX isn’t the one doing it)
    202
  14. can’t wait for him to personally respond to this video
    202
  15. @DarkMagicianGirl0 it really isn’t about the money for me if this was any other normal video i would’ve already changed it by now, even if it was getting as many views as it was. The difference with this video is that i’m trying to stop misinformation with it, so i feel like it’s more important than my other videos i really don’t make a lot of money from my videos yet so it’s not really a concern for me
    200
  16. thursday
    193
  17. exactly
    183
  18. but assuming we don’t go extinct and continue advancing for millions of years, it is very weird that it happened right in the beginning ~200 years instead of the millions we have ahead
    183
  19. @travispardy8649 as i just said i barely make any money off these videos, this is not my job, informing people is more important to me
    180
  20. Putting this at the top because it’s important February 23rd, 2025 Yep, as expected, the odds of impact are now 0.0039% (1 in 26,000). 2024 YR4 is now no longer dangerous enough to even be on the Torino Scale, and is now Torino level zero, exactly what happened with Apophis February 20th, 2025 As expected, 2024 YR4’s impact probability rose, and then fell dramatically. It now has just a 0.28% chance of hitting earth, with the chances to likely continue decreasing. More interestingly, it now has a 1% chance of hitting the Moon. 2024 YR4 updates and sources January 27th, 2025 -6% chance of impact: https://groups.io/g/mpml/topic/2024_yr4_torino_scale_3/110849089 -Recommendations for how to respond to an impact: https://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/aac_105c_12017crp/aac_105c_12017crp_25_0_html/AC105_C1_2017_CRP25E.pdf -NASA Sentry data about 2024 YR4: https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/sentry/details.html#?des=2024%20YR4 In addition to this, the Wikipedia article for this asteroid is being kept up-to-date by actual astronomers studying the asteroid, and should remain factual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_YR4 January 31st, 2025 This became slightly out of date before I even published it lmao 2024 YR4's impact probability, not including negative observations, has been increased to 1.6% (1 in 63). This is not unexpected. It is expected that 2024 YR4's impact probability will rise as more trajectories are ruled out, before quickly dropping to zero later. February 2nd, 2025 Impact probability lowered to 1.4% (1 in 71). February 5th, 2025 Impact probability raised to 1.9% February 6th, 2025 Impact probability raised to 2.3% The James Webb Space Telescope will be used to observe 2024 YR4 to more accurately determine its size. https://www.stsci.edu/jwst-program-info/download/jwst/pdf/9239/ February 16th, 2025 Impact probability raised to 2.6%, however this is based on one observation so is likely to change February 18th, 2025 Impact probability raised to 3.1%. It has now officially passed the highest chance of impact Apophis ever got to (2.7%) February 19th, 2025 Impact probability lowered to 1.5%
    163
  21. @pedrokantor3997 there’s actually a lot of exoplanets that are getting official names through NameExoWorlds, but J1407b wasn’t chosen because they didn’t want to name an unconfirmed planet on the chance it turned out to not be real
    157
  22. @TheFirstCurse1 they are better, but not officially recognized and so aren’t anything more than alternatives also earth and the moon as names still have a history going back thousands of years and have just as much meaning as terra and luna the only difference is we genericized “moon” to mean any object orbiting a planet i don’t really see how one is any better than the other yeah one means “ground” but terra is just earth in latin (there’s also a whole other argument to be made about not using latin names as the true name because you’re ignoring the thousands of other cultures that don’t use latin. Like why not use the ancient chinese name for earth? but i won’t get into that)
    156
  23. Also when you're done watching this check out Anthrofuturism, its a good channel about lunar colonization and what inspired me to make this https://www.youtube.com/@Anthrofuturism
    151
  24. I’ve been getting a lot of comments about this recently so gonna clear up some confusion These are not planets with rings. These are brown dwarfs with protoplanetary disks, like J1407b. none of these objects are planets and none of them have rings, all of them are basically small-scale solar systems a few corrections below, but first apparently there’s THREE MORE OF THESE THINGS NOW https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A%26A...658A..38V/abstract …and these ones have similar orbits to what we thought J1407b had as well this will never end anyways made a slight error, accidentally used the radius of J1407b’s disk instead of diameter lol (it’s not 0.6 AU, it’s 1.2 for the full length across) so Gaia21bcv b’s disk is actually slightly smaller than J1407b’s and ASASSN-21js b’s is almost twice as large, not almost 3 times
    147
  25. @groomschild1617 i said “well known” because j1407b is talked about and clickbaited to no end on youtube so anyone who’s spent any time looking for space videos has probably come across it at some point also, a system being well known and having a name are two separate things. Alpha Centauri is a designation, not a proper name, and everyone knows what that is, but the star Lucilinburhuc has an official name and its planet is called Peitruss but almost nobody has heard of it and this comment is already pretty long but oh well i’m already here there’s a massive ai misinformation problem on youtube, and there’s gigantic ai content farms that just produce nothing but clickbait bullshit to make money. One of the main reasons I made this channel at all is to be different from those. I make all my video scripts myself because i like writing and also chat gpt generated scripts annoy me to no end because it keeps using awful phrases like “let’s go on a cosmic journey!1!1!!!1” “the greatest mysteries of the cosmos!!1!!1” and stuff like that. Honestly, I have tried to use ai for this channel but every time i decide against it because it’s just terrible at doing anything. It makes awful titles and even worse scripts. That combined with the clickbait it produces and the fact that half the space facts it says are completely wrong, i never use it for this channel
    142
  26. OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS: https://nasawatch.com/artemis/an-open-letter-to-congress-opposing-viper-cancellation-that-you-can-sign/
    137
  27. so because we know how long the transit lasted, we can determine how fast it was moving, and as far as i know it wasn’t fast moving fast enough to be on an ejection course and keep in mind that j1407b was anywhere from 13 to just under 80 times the mass of jupiter, meaning to eject it the object that did so would’ve had to be even bigger, and anything above 80 jupiter masses would become a dectectable star
    127
  28. It’s not really that they’re gullible, space is hard to learn about and the average person doesn’t know what james webb is capable of they don’t know what transit or radial velocity means, they just know “telescopes zoom in, bigger telescope = better picture, james webb big” they aren’t stupid, people just haven’t taught them
    122
  29. by “we” he means humanity i say we as well when talking about stuff like this
    117
  30. @talon9639 i talked about that in the video lol
    114
  31. @knightogourd we were born to inherit the stars
    108
  32. By the way, there's a NASA mission to the Moon right now thats at risk of being cancelled Please help save the VIPER rover by watching my video about it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKym1VZEY3g ) and signing the open letter to Congress telling them to reverse NASA's decision to cancel it here: https://nasawatch.com/artemis/an-open-letter-to-congress-opposing-viper-cancellation-that-you-can-sign/
    106
  33. Go watch trolligi https://www.youtube.com/@Trolligi
    106
  34. First off go watch Anthrofuturism: https://www.youtube.com/@Anthrofuturism And for a few topics in this video in more depth: What NASA Does for You: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKN62JBCWVo Objections for Colonizing the Moon (and why they're wrong): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7FgTDYbAf0
    93
  35. i usually just mute the footage itself to remove it but sometimes miss some
    93
  36. @AmongUs_TordVids you can’t see j1407b or it’s star without a very powerful telescope, and you for sure wouldn’t be able to see the rings it also doesn’t orbit its star because it’s not a planet
    88
  37. Also because I forgot to mention it in the video The rings in real life would’ve been much smaller and thinner than I showed in the video. I brightened and extended them so they could be seen more easily. In reality they’d only be just barely visible from space if at all
    86
  38. Im gonna link another cool channel but first some things I want to clear up I am by no means trying to insult the people who were involved in the Apollo Program with this video. Quite the opposite. There was a lot of luck involved with the crews not dying, but it was also skill. 400,000 people came together to do something never done before, and they inspired millions of people and put humans on the surface of another world. These people were and still are incredible, and I am glad people were put on the Moon. Again, Apollo proved getting to the moon was possible and now we’re trying to make it practical Anyways, usually with my moon videos now i like to shout out other creators, and its usually anthrofuturism (who you should watch) but this time I'd also like to bring attention to Lunarmodule5, who has been compiling pretty much all Apollo footage that exists into videos, and its where I got a lot of the Apollo footage for this video https://www.youtube.com/@lunarmodule5/videos
    82
  39. @류Ryu the second half of this video explains why nasa is wrong
    81
  40. @Fosten12 uninhabitable planets have tons of uses (that go far beyond scientific value) “only habitable planets are useful to humanity” is an extremely inaccurate and outdated view of space colonization
    80
  41. @user-nk5tc9rq5t that guy has been commenting on every single one of my videos saying stuff like that lol he’s just a troll, ignore him
    79
  42. Just as a disclaimer project lyra hasnt actually launched, its only a concept and would (hopefully) launch in 2030 (if all goes according to plan)
    79
  43. @MrEvrit drake equation but it’s not actually that useful because we don’t know the values of the majority of variables in the equation so we can only estimate it for now
    78
  44. @candymixon7011 there are 160ish exoplanets with real names a lot of them were in this video (dimidium, tylos, asye, pollera, astrolábos, etc)
    75
  45. i’ve also made a whole video about why nasa isn’t a waste of money lol
    73
  46. and that’s exactly why nameexoworlds exists
    72
  47. join my discord here: https://discord.gg/putq7vw7MV
    72
  48. you can’t say for certain what people would want
    71
  49. With all this in mind, what would you name an exoplanet if you decide to enter the next nameexoworlds (whenever that is)
    70
  50. they wouldn’t be stable for very long the smaller the planet the easier rings like that would destabilize from encounters with other objects a brown dwarf would have them be stable for the longest (a star would hold onto them for longer but we know for a fact that j1407b isn’t a star)
    70
  51. @DukePolo-h8d none of pluto’s moons are orbiting charon however they are orbiting the barycenter between pluto and charon
    69
  52. @user-og7tm4me2n  i can but i want the engagement lmao more comments only help me in the long run i will delete conspiracy theorists and such though
    67
  53. which is exactly why i think names of people should be allowed
    58
  54. @knightogourd wanting to colonize space does not justify the past
    58
  55. more information about phailinsiam’s potential trojan planet here https://youtu.be/Wfrf1qSmKsY?si=TjZtfZWJHntYqDEK
    56
  56. @Bob-jd4nr despite popular belief there isn’t any strong evidence that the solar system is atypical (there is some but nothing conclusive) it’s just that our types of planets all happen to be difficult to find
    53
  57. The link to the study is in the description also is it just me or is Phailinsiam a really good name for an exoplanet I love how it sounds, its a lot better than GJ 3470 b
    52
  58. @samael4550 ice is a material to be harvested saturns rings are the best places to get water at the saturn system
    50
  59. @Ricocossa1 you can delay both of those tectonic activity will stop because of the oceans evaporating for example, so if you make the oceans stay it’ll last longer
    49
  60. just someone who likes astronomy
    49
  61. This is different from the usual content I make, but oh well I think this is a good song If you're new here, don't subscribe if you want music as I won't post songs very often, I make space videos
    49
  62. Anthrofuturism, the most based space channel https://www.youtube.com/@Anthrofuturism/featured
    49
  63. This is the version of the video without background music, the original is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZk5Hx7VSjo
    48
  64. hycean planet is a real term lol
    46
  65. too late, they already did Falcon 9 is the primary method for taking crew to the ISS and it launched over 100 times in 2024 alone, more than every other american rocket combined several nasa missions this year went up on spacex rockets, and two lunar landers just did a few days ago as well spacex has also sent its own personnel into space, meaning it has the ability to train and launch its own astronauts without nasa being involved at all (inspiration4, polaris dawn, and the upcoming fram2) people who say spacex is a joke are completely unaware as to just how successful spacex has actually been
    46
  66. @paulanizan6159 as much as i don’t like mars it’s actually really interesting first off it actually is still geologically active, just barely and there’s seasonal flows of liquid water in the lowest elevation areas, and a whole ton of interesting terrain
    46
  67. @israeldiegoriveragenius2th164 you’ve commented this several times on this video alone, and on pretty much all my other videos give it a rest man
    45
  68. Also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/aYJQFz7wzJ
    45
  69. @AlternateIsopod we’ll reuse them there are hundreds of towns on earth with the same name, and there’s no problem with that it’s all about context there will probably be several Phailinsiams, but you can say “the phailinsiam 96 light years away” or “phailinsiam, the ice giant orbiting kaewkosin” to avoid confusion
    44
  70. @electricminecrafter that would make it worse
    44
  71. @kryts27 3 body problem is the name of a popular book and recently a netflix tv show the aliens in said book are from alpha centauri
    43
  72. ᴅ ᴀ ɢ ɢ ᴜ ᴍ ᴍ ɪ ᴛ
    43
  73. watch episode 2, a grand tour of TRAPPIST-1, here: https://youtu.be/c055VWCVLK4
    42
  74. luckily the moon is very big, that won’t happen you’ll only be able to see the effects of mining from orbit, from earth it’ll look normal (just with added city lights)
    42
  75.  @AntagonizingPotato  depends on the angle, but it’s pretty similar in size to tunguska which exploded in the atmosphere in 1908 and didn’t reach the ground
    41
  76. @somemong989 first off just raw materials, large airless rocks are great places to mine (such as the moon and mercury) gas giants are good places to get hydrogen and helium (fusion fuel), and the cold ones will have moons with a ton of water and a ton of uninhabitable planets can just be colonized anyway if there isn’t a habitable one in the system, if we ignore them then like 90% of all stars would just never be used and all of that space would go to waste. Habitable planets are better to live on, but if there isn’t one, something like the moon or mars or titan or any host of other environments are capable of hosting large populations then just scientific value as i mentioned. Uninhabitable planets aren’t a single population, there’s rocky ones, gas giants, cold ones, hot ones, ice giants, etc. Every single one is going to be different and have different benefits or drawbacks in both science and usefulness
    39
  77. i have a few 20 minute videos i’m working on
    36
  78. yeah it is but the majority of the sources i’ve seen call it just wasp-49b, it’s by far the more common name for the planet
    36
  79. @MDE_never_dies space development has massively changed the average person’s life. There’s genuinely a chance you wouldn’t be alive today if it weren’t for technology developed by space exploration and the moon makes developing space easier, making it easier to make more advancements that have already fundamentally changed the modern world So yes, it will increase quality of life
    36
  80. @deathvideogame water is literally everywhere lol weve found water vapor in exoplanet atmospheres, just not surface liquid yet and in the solar system we know pretty much every large object past ceres has a subsurface ocean (except the gas giants but even they have a ton of water) we haven’t found any life, but we know that water is extremely common
    35
  81. the moon is too big to run out of resources in just a few thousand years
    34
  82. @samuelbucher5189 it’s overhyped
    34
  83. yeah, i should’ve mentioned the dust part more, my bad but i have thought about that mining issue though, and it really isn’t a problem. The moon is gigantic. It would be thousands of years at the very least before we ever started to make a dent in the moon’s mass. You could mine, refine, and convert every single rock in the asteroid belt into spaceships and space habitats and that would still only be the equivalent of 2% of the moon’s mass. And that much material alone is enough to support trillions of people. And if we significantly mine the moon to the point where it’s a problem, we can always import material from the asteroid belts or anywhere in the solar system to balance it out. Significantly changing the moon’s mass isn’t something we’ll have to worry about for likely hundreds of thousands of years. I did think about it when I was writing the script, but decided not to include it because I was hoping to cover more near-future issues. Definitely should’ve mentioned the dust more though
    32
  84. also the moon has a lot of way better reasons to be colonized than helium-3
    31
  85. yes but it came from earth
    31
  86. those two things have nothing in common also, pretty much every single moon has an underground ocean, because the outer solar system is literally made of ice. Earth has a mantle made of liquid lava because it’s made of rock, and inside the planet pressure makes it much hotter, causing the rock to melt. Because the outer moons are made of ice, their mantles are made of liquid water, because pressure makes it much hotter and causes it to melt (as well as tidal forces). There’s nothing special about titan having liquid water, it’s just because of heat and pressure and the fact the outer solar system is cold, and so has a lot of ice j1407b on the other hand has been pretty much proven to not have rings, as I said in this video
    31
  87.  @Goregreet  im literally a space channel what did you expect
    31
  88. made a slight error at 6:50, the station trying to be launched by a single starship is Starlab, not LOOP
    31
  89. “ice giant” is just the catch-all term for a neptune-mass planet, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are made of ice though they do typically have a lot of water inside them (which can happen around these close orbits, the insane atmospheric pressures at the bottoms of ice giants physically stop the water from evaporating by pushing it down)
    30
  90. the scale of that wouldn’t make sense, for ads to be visible without telescopes they’d have to be the size of texas or larger the moon’s near side is as wide as the united states
    30
  91. that’s an interesting point, gonna have to look into that
    30
  92. Antarctica isn’t a good example in this case, because the antarctic treaty made creating colonies there illegal Remember that several countries did actually try claiming land on and colonizing antarctica, but then the treaty forced them to stop if the antarctic treaty didn’t exist I have no doubt that there would be antarctic colonies
    29
  93.  @Trolligi  shouldve known that
    29
  94. not proof, there’s strong evidence these rings never existed it’s evidence
    29
  95. @user-rk8qf2ov9l if earth is perfect for life, then yeah it makes sense we’d be here, because where else would we be and of the octillions of planets in the universe then one is bound to, by random chance, be perfect for life yes it’s rare, but compared to the sheer amount of planets in the universe then it’s impossible that it doesn’t happen coincidentally at least once
    28
  96. @DaveR187 that’s a very bold claim you have no way of actually knowing that
    28
  97. yes
    28
  98. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/aYJQFz7wzJ
    28
  99. making the magnetic field is actually the easiest part of this whole process all we need is a very big magnet at L1 or a big cannon shooting charged particles off Phobos
    27
  100. @monolith94 no it doesn’t 10 or so potentially habitable exoplanets not being habitable is nowhere near a large enough sample size to make any definitive conclusions about the 1 trillion+ planets in the milky way
    27
  101. @rykehuss3435 Georgy Dobrovolsky, Viktor Patsayev, and Vladislav Volkov died above the karman line from a depressurization of their ship on Soyuz 11 they’re the only 3 people to have actually died in space, everyone else has been on reentry or launch
    27
  102. why would that be the case just move it at the right speed also the habitable zone is hundreds of millions of miles wide and will only get bigger with time, we have a MASSIVE margin of error
    27
  103. ah alr thanks
    26
  104. with several pieces of direct evidence, including the fact that this theory is still actively occurring today
    26
  105. anthrofuturism
    26
  106. no what category of object pluto is does not matter in the slightest
    26
  107. they wouldn’t have become moons that fast also j1407b itself is gone, not just its rings
    26
  108. WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅💯💯💯💯💯🎆🎆🎆🎆
    26
  109. you cracked the code
    26
  110. @Anyhere211 rogue brown dwarf, it’s most likely too massive to be a planet
    26
  111. @deleted5229 i just explained how i’m not making that claim lol i didn’t say “in the universe”
    25
  112. if you think there hasn’t been a glaringly obvious and noticeable improvement in quality of life from the 1960s (when space development really began) to today then i don’t know what to tell you Less people live in poverty than ever before. Lifespans have gone up. Polio is basically gone. No, health has not gotten worse on average. The internet has connected people and allowed the spread of ideas that just wasn’t possible before. Obviously not everything is good and some things have gotten worse recently (and not all of this was due to space) but to claim that nothing has gotten better is just ignorant of the actual reality of the situation Acknowledging that humanity has problems while also understanding that we have done several many good things and made our lives better, and that we can do it again, is the only way to actually begin solving those problems
    25
  113. @archangelmusic13 that’s actually still highly debated, there’s pretty much equal evidence of venus at one point having liquid water and never having liquid water
    25
  114. @ No, it is irresponsible to call an explosion that caused planes to divert from their course “entertaining”. Is that the attitude we want representing space exploration? I’ve seen people who have said this doesn’t require an investigation because “it happens”. Comments like this only fuel that idea. Debris found outside hazard areas is not entertaining. If failures like this are not taken seriously, they will happen again. We’re extremely lucky this happened now and not on a more important flight.
    24
  115. @canaldohector that is literally exactly what apollo did also if you’re referring to just these test launches, I really don’t know where this billions of taxpayer dollars came from because it’s just objectively not true. The ONLY thing NASA has paid for is the development of HLS. Every Starship launch up to this point has been paid for entirely by SpaceX. No money is being wasted because it’s coming out of SpaceX’s own pocket. The only launches taxpayers will actually be funding are launches related to the HLS, which these aren’t.
    24
  116. my thoughts exactly
    24
  117. @synthpopper well the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere or the fuel needed to create pollution, so that’s not a concern
    24
  118. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/kt9sTqtz9Z (as well as check out isaac arthur's videos he's pretty cool)
    23
  119. it would be nice if that would be the case, but based on the first space race the only real way to get space colonization done is for people to think there’s someone else they have to beat there if the us and ussr were best friends and getting along we wouldn’t have gotten the moon landings, and if we don’t compete with china i don’t think we’re getting moon colonies anytime soon the major problem in space colonization is the public doesn’t see the point (even though there’s many). We have to give them a point
    23
  120. @TheFirstCurse1 dude you’re still on this there’s no such thing as a “primitive” name get over yourself at this point earth is the official name, terra can be used interchangeably with earth but is not official, both names have complex and historical meanings, no name is any better than the other, that’s that
    23
  121. yeah other than HLS (which is very different from a normal ship) i don’t expect a crew starship anytime this decade
    23
  122. It’d take something like eight hundred million years to mine 1% of the moon’s mass, if we mined one billion tons off of it every single year the moon is a lot bigger than people think. There will be no effect on the tides
    23
  123. There is some evidence that Awohali does have a layer of water under extremely high pressure, but its not "hot ice" in the way people would think of it but that layer would still be technically solid and made of water, which would technically make it ice
    22
  124. i’ve made one called colonizing space to save earth that talks about it a bit
    22
  125. @KeinNiemand there were no explosions on Starship IFT-4. Both the ship and the booster had a fully successful reentry even by the harshest standards. so this is already wrong spacex is not a perfect company, far from it, but they’re a lot better than what you’re giving them credit for
    22
  126. Sorry for the video glitches, I missed them when editing Hopefully they don't take away from the video too much
    22
  127. that problem becomes less noticeable the bigger you make your habitats, and there are present day materials strong enough to make something big enough to mitigate it (not entirely but enough to make it a smaller problem)
    22
  128. phobos is still considered a moon rather than a proper asteroid yeah the definitions are terrible but they’re unfortunately what we have, and lead to cases where phobos technically isn’t an asteroid and there are moons that should be planets i eventually want to make a video about the definitions and what i’d change them to but for now im sticking to them
    22
  129. @MDE_never_dies so humans haven’t made any progress because the global communications network we built sometimes helps bad ideas spread (you’re for some reason ignoring the fact that an equal or greater amount of good ideas are also spread on it), specific health conditions are more common (you’re ignoring the fact that there are dozens of diseases people just don’t get at all anymore) and you don’t like the definition of poverty (doesn’t change the fact that less and less people globally are homeless every year). I cant even understand how you’ve come to this conclusion. How are you so far down into some kind of negativity echo chamber that you are completely blind to the very clear and obvious progress that has been made I’m not saying things are perfect. But to say things have not improved at all is just flat out wrong and cherry picked data doesn’t prove you right I am not saying that the data you’ve put here is wrong, I’m saying you’re ignoring the positive data for whatever reason
    22
  130.  @JoAtat  yes i know you mean everything, and my point still stands out of the literally uncountable number of planets in the universe, at least one, by pure random chance, will have the perfect conditions for life and keep them people underestimate how big space is, and even one in a billion events will happen trillions of times in it even if earth was a one in a trillion chance to happen, then there would still be at least one other planet like it in our local group of galaxies, and billions of planets like it in the universe
    22
  131. if the vehicle they use to get there stops working then it’s always possible, but there’s nothing about apophis that makes that more likely than it should be
    22
  132. that is what happened, but based on its mass it’s too massive to be a planet
    22
  133. and you can fit every planet in the solar system, plus the sun, a hundred times over between earth and mars the moon is extremely close
    22
  134. Flight 7 will not significantly alter starship’s long-term future, it’s only the next few flights that are a concern
    21
  135. luckily the people making cybertruck are not the people making starship
    21
  136. No, I wouldn’t. I would trust the thousands of engineers actually building the rocket. Elon musk isn’t getting you to the moon, the people working at spacex are.
    21
  137. another thing i totally forgot to mention in the video that i definitely should have lol
    21
  138.  rplacefunny7423  chelyabinsk was way smaller
    21
  139. probably gonna do red giants first since there’s not much to talk about black hole planets (since we don’t have any examples of them yet)
    21
  140. I do on my second channel
    21
  141. they might’ve just formed in the same cluster, which would make them the same age and also they’d be closer together, making an encounter more likely
    20
  142. closest we got was 2022 when atlas pro tried naming one, but i would 100% be on board with that
    20
  143. 7 maybe 7.2
    20
  144. @Tee954 yes it wouldn’t affect earth but the moon is so important because of its low gravity and no atmosphere it’s perfect to build and launch ships and space stations and colonize space terraforming the moon would ruin the entire lunar industry and severely limit earth’s ability to continue to colonize space
    20
  145.  @UtahBoot  There’s a difference between non crew-rated test articles (which are being flown right now) and fully operational crew vehicles. Nobody is saying we’re going to put crew on starship as it is right now. Nobody is saying it doesn’t very obviously need significant improvements that will take several years. Please don’t get caught in this assumption that whatever we have right now is the end and it will never improve
    20
  146. anything can be terraformed with enough brute force, the answer to that question is always yes the better question is what are the reasons for doing it, and is it worth the effort
    20
  147. they would have no way of making the atmosphere denser or adding enough water to the environment adding photosynthesizing bacteria is a part of the terraformation process, but can’t be the whole process
    19
  148. i had an english teacher once who always insisted on doing s’s, both are grammatically correct but i just got in the habit of doing it this way and tbh i just think it looks better
    19
  149. according to this study c having an atmosphere actually fits the data best: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1011M/abstract
    19
  150. with refueling yes
    19
  151. space engine
    19
  152. @needtasteingames It’s notoriously hard to predict, but if i had to guess (this is just my opinion and not based on anything official): -mid/late 2025: ship catch, booster reuse, full orbit, payload deployment (a payload deployment was supposed to be tested on 7, and because of 6’s engine relight we know orbit is possible, so expect those two very quickly and a catch not far behind. And they already plan to reuse booster 14 on flight 9) -late 2025/early 2026: orbital refueling test -late 2026/early 2027: HLS demo -2028: Artemis 3 -late 2028: maybe a few test launches to mars, but with artemis who knows (the mars stuff is especially unpredictable) -2029/2030: Starlab, Haven-2 (I’m more confident in haven-2 than starlab though) -2030s: uncrewed mars landings? -2032/2034: pressurized lunar rover, progress on moon base construction -very late 2030s/2040s: maybe a crewed mars mission? and after that it’s just impossible to predict
    18
  153. colonization of the solar system is now on my second channel Kyplanet Maps
    18
  154. @Quaoar2002MS4.Enceladus HD 100546 b doesn’t have a defined mass
    18
  155. i use space engine
    18
  156. but you don’t really expect moons around planets that close to stars where they’re so easily disturbed
    18
  157. @archangelmusic13 there is no consensus if venus has ever had oceans or not there is no evidence of water on the surface because of all the volcanic activity, and there’s barely any water vapor in the atmosphere we have no conclusive proof of venusian oceans ever existing, just some evidence
    18
  158. everything earth has (except for the stuff that’s produced by life) so iron, gold, platinum, diamond, uranium, copper, aluminum, you name it
    18
  159. might be a bit hard to breathe there
    17
  160. yes it’s an exponential process, once the oceans begin evaporating it’ll heat up the planet, which will trigger more evaporation, which will heat up the planet more, in a runaway effect that will ruin everything in a relatively short amount of time
    17
  161. completely correct the moon is the best place we have to colonize right now
    17
  162. You’re confusing “they haven’t carried payload to orbit yet because there has been no need to” with “they can’t carry payload to orbit”
    17
  163. the sun is in the top 10% biggest types of stars in the universe, 80% of all stars are smaller
    17
  164. @calinmik429 we have no idea how likely or unlikely the universe is to be infinite, we have evidence for both and you can expand something that’s endless. No new space is being created, things are just moving further apart
    16
  165. @ronaldfreeman1787 there’s nothing we can do with that attitude defy history
    16
  166. @TheTruth-ir7sz i should actually cover this mindset in a video there are two reasons why we should colonize space now. Firstly, humanity is very big. We can do more than one thing at once, we as a civilization have never united to do one single thing at a time, it’s just not how we operate, and forcibly limiting other technologies to solve a problem does nothing to help solve the problem and only hinders progress. Secondly, space colonization can help solve climate change. Outsourcing mining to the moon or asteroids will remove some of the strain on earth, as well as create new technologies we could use to solve it, like, for example, orbital mirrors that could simultaneously stop some sunlight from hitting earth to cool it down (its a better idea than many people think) while beaming that sunlight elsewhere to generate power. Similarly, solar power is easier in space because there’s no atmosphere or day/night cycle to get in the way. Space-based solar power is actually an extremely good way of generating power, but to do it at any large scale, we’re gonna need to start colonizing space so forcibly stopping space colonization to take care of earth first not only hinders progress but does nothing to help solve the problem and in fact closes off some of the best solutions we have.
    16
  167. thanks but don’t do that lol always check the statements i or anyone else says, misinformation is too common already
    16
  168. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/kt9sTqtz9Z
    16
  169. you wouldn’t be able to see anything interesting unfortunately if you wanted to get the whole system in a single frame to scale Alpha Centauri A and B would just look like a single point of light and you wouldn’t be able to see proxima centauri the system is incredibly spread out
    16
  170. @archangelmusic13  why are you dying on this hill lol im not saying venus never had oceans. Im saying we dont know. There is no definitive proof for either side also i find it kind of funny you’re calling me immature when you’re the one insulting me over a debate that really doesn’t matter but ok
    16
  171. europa isn’t a good place to get water, it’s right in the middle of jupiter’s radiation belts and the surface is radioactive enough to kill you in a few days Ceres and Callisto have a ton of water and much less radiation, which make both of them much better targets (callisto even has more water than europa)
    16
  172. or maybe it’s because they aren’t underrated
    16
  173. the moon has gravity but also the moon is close enough to earth that this isn’t a problem. Crews can be regularly switched out like the iss, eliminating the low gravity problem entirely because they won’t be exposed to it for very long you can’t do that with mars, the crews are stuck for years on the moon you can stay there for a few weeks and come back which leaves only the huge benefits of low gravity (it is stupidly easy to launch rockets on the moon)
    16
  174. because we don’t know it’s exact orbit we know it’s true orbit exists on a line, and part of that line crosses earth (which is why the impact sites are in a line) we just don’t know what point on the line it is
    16
  175. there isn’t any life to kill or environments to destroy on the moon
    16
  176.  @THEBEEEANSS  you’re confusing the space stations we have today with the space stations we could build in the future there are scientifically possible concepts that don’t require breaking any physics or using any materials we don’t already know how to make that would have the living area of a small country, and be able to house hundreds of thousands comfortably
    15
  177. that orbital refueling is specifically because starship is better The saturn v didn’t need to refuel for several reasons, mainly being the apollo landers were very small Starship, for comparison: -is fully reusable, therefore needs fuel to land its booster -only has two stages instead of 3 and most importantly one single starship launch aims to take 100 tons of material to the Moon. As in, more than the entire apollo program combined in one trip. and THATS why they need orbital refueling. The saturn v and starship are not remotely comparable. The saturn v could never have delivered 100 tons to the Moon no matter what we tried. Starship can with refueling. That’s a massive improvement.
    15
  178. the sun will eject about half of its mass into space and out of the solar system when it becomes a white dwarf
    15
  179. @TheFirstCurse1 terra also means ground as i said previously
    15
  180. @Majorwindy you can terraform the moon, we just really, really shouldn’t
    15
  181. uranus has weird things about it (the high tilt, colder than it otherwise should be), and neptune is a far closer to an example of a “typical” ice giant so neptune gets to be the default
    15
  182. yep that’s what i was trying to get at for this It was for prestige but if we actually want something practical and sustainable apollo isn’t it
    15
  183. ​ @archangelmusic13  wait hold on ive been ignoring the things youve been saying about kentucky because i had no idea what you were talking about but i just realized did you assume that the ky in my username meant kentucky because im not from kentucky 💀 so not only did you try to insult me over the existence of water on a planet 4 billion years ago but you didnt even fully take the time to make sure your insults actually made sense
    15
  184. @Luna-ux9by you don’t need to change it to terraform venus you need to put a lot of shades in orbit to cool it down, when you’re done just repurpose those shades to block and reflect light across venus on a 24 hour cycle and you have a day length
    15
  185. This is actually a very bad idea for a few reasons 1. This would help fix issues on earth. I talk about why in several other videos, most notably the real reasons for space colonization 2. Human progress is not linear, it is a web. Technology developed for space exploration has significantly helped in solving problems on earth. climate monitoring satellites, for example. You don’t get those without building rockets. That’s just one example of many 3. All this does is ensure no progress is actually made. Here’s a question for you: what does “fixing issues” look like to you? Where do you draw the line? Where do you say “yep, this is enough, we fixed everything, now we can go to space”? Because there will always be another problem. Solve world hunger, there’s disease. Solve disease, there’s war. Solve war, there’s inequality. You get the idea. Do you demand an impossible utopia on earth before going to space? Which problems do you consider worthy of solving before exploring space? The answer to that question is going to be different for everybody. So, if everyone thinks like this, the only thing that’s going to happen is we never explore space. It will not solve problems on earth any faster. In fact, ignoring space would make it all worse. All you’d be doing here is removing solutions while doing nothing to actually solve the root problems. 4. The money spent on space is trivial compared to how much money actually exists. NASA is 0.5% of the US budget, and a lot of that is Earth science (which helps fix issues on earth!). That money is not going to help in any significant way. Go after something actually wasteful, not the money being spent on studying earth and looking for ways to use space to solve our problems.
    15
  186. @ChrisPTY507 it’s not actually made of ice, “ice giant” just means a planet similar in composition to uranus or neptune it’s mostly made of hydrogen and helium and water and such
    15
  187. @tph2010 the near side has far more resources the moon’s metals aren’t evenly spread out, they are concentrated mainly on the near side
    15
  188. because we’re pretty certain planets are currently forming in those rings, it has to be classified as a protoplanetary disk
    15
  189. then who does?
    15
  190. @israeldiegoriveragenius2th164 i love how you’re still on the “his content is negative” when the point of my channel is to show that space can be interesting without misinformation which is the opposite of negative it’s not negative, you just believed a bunch of false information and i’m correcting it
    14
  191. if it was brighter than all the stars it was probably the iss, if it was dimmer could’ve been any satellite
    14
  192. @Slabfish yes
    14
  193. space engine
    14
  194. we’re already in one that’s not an exaggeration or anything the second space race has already begun between the us and china problem is china is the only one taking it seriously
    14
  195. Least violent colonization of anything timeline be like
    14
  196. this doesn’t show that this is nowhere near a large enough sample size to make any big conclusions like that remember, don’t look for evidence for a conclusion you already made. You can believe in a higher power, but don’t misinterpret evidence to support the beliefs you already have
    14
  197.  @archangelmusic13  yes, and your sources provide evidence that venus had oceans that’s my point there’s no proof because it’s impossible to go back in time to say for certain it had oceans we can’t know we can only guess anything you post is just going to prove my point, because it’s all evidence not proof i think the problem here is you don’t actually know what my argument is because i’m not disagreeing with you there’s a strong chance venus had oceans we just don’t know for certain i really don’t know what the point of this is anymore, you’re just insulting me for no reason over the basic definition of planetary science you’re just arguing for the sake of being right, if you actually wanted to change my mind you wouldn’t be calling me immature
    14
  198. @LieMac surface activity and subsurface activity are two very different things, and there are multiple studies that show that the seafloor could be dead even if the surface is active and life can’t survive without energy. With no activity on the seafloor, there is no possible way for any life on europa to get energy
    14
  199. maybe
    14
  200. @ThePlecoPal If you looked at the other landers available when the decision was being made, starship was the furthest along and had the clearest path to success. The other, smaller landers that were considered would’ve ended up taking much longer than Starship HLS according to months of studies about them all. It was also the cheapest, because spacex was already building starship with their own money anyways. NASA isn’t stupid. The decision to choose Starship as a lander makes more sense the more you look into it
    13
  201. i dont want to just kill the video for no reason, so im leaving both up
    13
  202. The difference is these new landers are 1. entirely robotic 2. much smaller than landers with people on them 3. made by companies with no experience going to the moon Because of this, they don’t have any bandwidth to spare for live video. There’s no humans on board, meaning 100% of the mission must be controlled from earth, which means they need a lot more bandwidth to communicate with the spacecraft. They’ve never landed on the moon before, so want as much data from actual instruments as possible, leaving less room for live video still. And, because they’re small (you don’t send a big, expensive lander on your first go), they have less bandwidth in general. All in all, these three things make live video very difficult, and it’s just not worth it. Once these companies start getting more experience and start sending bigger, more capable things, you’ll find that live video will be easy to come by.
    13
  203. i meant dark in radio waves (it’s facing away from earth’s radio interference so would be “dark”in radio) i should’ve elaborated though my bad
    13
  204. i talk about enceladus and europa in my ocean planets video
    13
  205. that is what happened, but because of its high mass estimate it’s probably not a planet and instead a brown dwarf
    13
  206. there are potential rings around HIP 41378 f, KOI-8007.02, and Proxima c, but none are confirmed if confirmed Proxima c’s would be the biggest
    13
  207. no, it was made in 2004 and based on a song from 1983
    13
  208. @Bingbingbong1111 the big bang has several pieces of direct proof. It is currently the only theory that explains why the universe looks like it does today. There’s a reason that the overwhelming majority of scientists call it a fact. Because, as of right now, every single thing we see in the universe today from the chemical composition of stars, to the expansion of the universe, to how far apart galaxies are, to the radiation background of the entire universe, all prove the big bang did occur. Nothing else can explain it.
    13
  209. @Bingbingbong1111 it didn’t come from nothing and wasn’t an explosion all the matter of the universe already existed before the big bang. The big bang did not create anything. All it did was spread out all the matter in the universe extremely quickly. We don’t know why or how, or where the matter came from originally, just that it was really close together and then really far apart
    13
  210. @jordancobb7553 you already have to remember the coordinates to find the named stars, nebulae, galaxies, and asteroids but people don’t seem to have a problem with that, I don’t see why adding planets, which are too small to be seen with telescopes and would just be hidden in the glare of their stars anyway, would be a problem i’m all for naming stuff, it gets the public involved in astronomy and makes it seem less intimidating also it’s not like the original name was deleted from existence, you can still find it if you really need it. But the vast majority of people don’t need to know the coordinates for GSC 03089-00929 or whatever, and they’d rather have an easier name to remember (that star is now named Pipoltr)
    13
  211. i see all of your comments, and i have 20+ finished videos waiting to be published it will be at minimum several months
    13
  212. titan is probably the best place to get nitrogen in the outer solar system, and we need nitrogen if we want plants out there and the rings are a really easy place to get water, way easier than mining ice from moons so yeah saturn system is actually a decent target, assuming we’re trying to colonize the outer solar system for some reason
    13
  213. the thing is when people see clickbait and realize it’s false information, a lot of people immediately jump to blame the scientists not the person who made the clickbait so it ends up leading to a distrust in science for some people and we already have enough of that
    13
  214. with that attitude we won’t be doing it in any century
    13
  215.  @NicholasKoeppel  no, viper would provide a ton of new information we do not already have its goal is to find water ice on the moon. We know it’s there, but we don’t know where it is or where the best places to get it are. That’s what VIPER was going to find out.
    13
  216.  @CitrusPeppercorn  and you are exactly what’s wrong with the space community today people can be excited about a cool rocket being built by thousands of engineers with contracts to land people on the moon without caring about the ceo Maybe just be happy that progress is actually being made
    13
  217. @iapetus6110 because size isn’t even remotely important in this case phobos, like every other object in the solar system this far into the future, will have billions of years of history and the sentimental value alone will make us want to save it you see people arguing for the preservation of individual buildings or very small plots of land on earth. It’ll be the same. We should save everything
    13
  218. @weeblol4050 that’s why i talked about this in the video “if we’re 7 billion years into the future and don’t know how to stop asteroids from hitting earth we may have a bigger problem than the sun becoming a red giant” and yeah clearing out the asteroid belt wouldn’t be hard. There are somewhere around 1.5 million asteroids (1 kilometer or bigger) in it and we have 3-4 billion years before earth needs to be there. We could remove one asteroid every thousand years and still have millions of years to spare the timescales are just incomprehensibly long, things like this seem hard at first but then you realize we have such an absolutely ridiculous amount of time to do it and all of a sudden it’s not hard anymore
    13
  219. no life needs WAY more things to work than just temperature
    13
  220. mars is not a good place for a production hub it’s so far away from earth that the travel costs make it infeasible the moon is right there, it has all the materials earth has, an easy way to travel there, and lower gravity making launches easier there’s no reason to mine mars when you could mine the moon
    13
  221. we don’t know enough about it to make a full video on it but it is one of the exoplanets with an official name, it’s been named Dimidium since 2015 (but for some reason nobody knows it has an official name, and idk why lol)
    13
  222. i explained why that’s not true in the video the sun will be 10% brighter in a billion years by blocking sunlight from hitting earth, all of a sudden the luminosity no longer matters because the increased light isn’t reaching earth
    13
  223. venus and uranus rotate retrograde, their orbits are prograde
    12
  224. tartarians are all bigger than jupiter so that shouldn’t come up
    12
  225. sure i made this video to combat j1407b misinformation so the more people know about it the better
    12
  226. @jimreaper1337 solar gravitational lens:
    12
  227. oh it’s not the scientists who are the problem, they do think about that it’s the media, which makes clickbait and exaggerates what scientists say
    12
  228. it means to remember idyllically about the past, it’s supposed to be referencing how these used to be “living” star systems in the past (a more “peaceful” era)
    12
  229. @LieMac europa’s sea floor is most likely dead (meaning life has no way to get energy because there probably aren’t hydrothermal vents) and there’s some evidence that enceladus is very young (so hasn’t had enough time for life to form) so id rethink that it’s possible, but nowhere near definite and i wouldn’t even consider it likely
    12
  230. @sqql789 i actually have a video about trojan planets already lol
    12
  231.  @Anthrofuturism  pretty much all my moon colonization videos are gonna have one from now on lol, i havent seen any other channels with videos like yours
    12
  232. @omarbaba9892 that’s 16 psyche, but the planetary core hypothesis has been heavily criticized and it’s most likely just a regular asteroid that’s a bit more metal rich than usual
    12
  233. MESSENGER visited Mercury, Galileo and Juno orbited Jupiter, Cassini orbited Saturn, and Voyager 2 visited Uranus and Neptune as well as this Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to visit Jupiter, followed by Pioneer 11 which went to Jupiter and Saturn, Voyager 2 visited all 4 outer planets and Voyager 1 visited Jupiter and Saturn, and New Horizons flew by Jupiter on its way to Pluto
    11
  234. they must have, because we know water was there
    11
  235. exactly
    11
  236. join my discord here: https://discord.gg/e3g5ReKe4X
    11
  237. @bobthelonghairedboi5425 no, we don’t know what it’s atmosphere is made of, just that it may have nitrogen and we also don’t know if it has oceans but if it does it’s not oceans like earth’s
    11
  238. about the area at 2:14, they drift away in the sense that their orbits will become further away from the sun, they won’t leave the solar system entirely
    11
  239.  @alexcovey1200  there were 3 other comments before you
    11
  240. yes, it’s the same 3-13 years the orbital period was calculated based on the objects speed. The faster it orbits, the shorter the time it’ll take to go around the star. So based on how long the transit lasted we can know how fast it was moving and how long it’s year should’ve been
    11
  241. no they’re very different
    11
  242. @Skele_Kade13 mars is by far the worst way to give humanity a chance of survival lol As i said in my reply to your other comment, mars is going to face the exact same fate as earth. Despite what you may have heard, Mars most likely will never become habitable again. It already has a hard time holding onto an atmosphere, and that’s only going to get worse as it gets hotter, because of how atmospheric escape works. The red giant sun will kill mars just as badly as it’ll kill earth. The only way to survive inside the solar system is to stop the sun from dying, and there are ways to do that
    11
  243. the near side of the moon has way more valuable materials than the far side. If they were evenly spread out then i could see it, but the near side just has so much more it’ll never happen
    11
  244. i feel like i’m throwing up whenever i pronounce it like that lmao
    11
  245. @yeshagoyal2966 yes
    11
  246. every spacecfaring power would see you launch the rocket (rockets look very similar to nuclear missiles and so we have satellites monitoring them), and satellites around the moon would see it land you’d never be able to do it secretly
    11
  247. i do have a lot of videos about space colonization already (playlist is linked at the end of this video) and i’m going to make more soon
    11
  248. i mean they congratulated each other for the launches but that’s mostly just PR stuff
    11
  249. fun fact: you are not the entire world other videos about j1407b have gotten millions of views, so millions of people have heard of it this video is correcting misinformation about it posted on said videos maybe before saying "pointless content" you read about what j1407b is and understand why i made this if it was pointless, i wouldnt have made it. Im not stupid
    11
  250. the habitable zone is not a rigid thing, and its size is different depending on what criteria you use. Generally, it’s considered to be about 0.9-1.5 AU, Mars being right on the outer edge. But every object has a different habitable zone, because things like tidal heating and its atmosphere change where it needs to be to have the right temperatures for liquid water. When the sun formed, it was about 30% dimmer than it is today, so 3.6 BYA it was still very dim. Not only does that cause a problem for mars, it actually causes one for earth as well, which should have also been barely able to have oceans due to the cold temperatures. But again, every object has a different habitable zone and there is no unified size for it that applies to everything.
    11
  251. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/CCJ7p8FFEh
    11
  252. they said that about the falcon 9 too
    11
  253. @freedom4me777 if im wrong then prove it if you think these are just opinions, then go show me some proof that: -there are no pictures of the apollo landing sites -nasa did not build the saturn v -nasa did not build a lunar lander -data from the Kaguya satellite does not line up with Apollo 15 -no independent radio telescopes picked up the apollo broadcasts -there were no soviet spies inside nasa I can tell you think the moon landing was fake, so before you respond, i don’t want to hear your evidence. You can get to that later. Right now, prove to me that everything i said in this video is not true, and then i’ll take you seriously
    10
  254. clickbait implies the title is misleading, but if you watch the video you’ll find it is about colonizing j1407b
    10
  255. also, starship is much more comparable to the space shuttle than the saturn v the closest thing we have to a modern saturn v is SLS, not starship
    10
  256. If you have any feedback or suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments! This is a new channel, and I want to make sure these videos are done right.
    10
  257. it would be nice but unfortunately according to IAU rules, you can’t name a planet something that another object in space is already named, and there’s an asteroid named Icarus so no planet can be named Icarus thanks to that one asteroid I wish that rule was reverted though, asteroids have taken a lot of great names
    10
  258. i’ve already done it
    10
  259. you know those are two entirely separate issues that don’t affect one another in any way right
    10
  260. a roundish lump red giants won’t really have a defined shape though because it’s more of a loose collection of gas multiple AUs wide over a mantle and core
    10
  261. that’s objectively a terrible idea, i made a video called what nasa does for you that explains why
    10
  262. we’re only seeing trappist-1 as it was 40 years ago, that’s not long enough for any significant changes to have occurred what we’re seeing is very close to how they look in the present
    10
  263. it doesn’t have these rings and isn’t a planet as i explained in this video
    10
  264. yeah forgot to clarify that, i said “relatively” but forgot to explain it better lol should’ve said that it’ll remain within L5 and roughly the same distance from Phailinsiam, but of course there will be noticeable variations (especially if it has an inclined orbit)
    10
  265. @archangelmusic13 just show the proof then lol give me a paper proving without a shadow of a doubt venus had oceans or show me the time stamp in the video where they give undeniable proof of past water on venus because what you’re showing now isn’t proof, it is evidence so you’re only proving my argument
    10
  266. water can become solid even under high temperatures if there’s enough pressure pushing it down, which awohali might have
    10
  267. yes you wont need to use any wd 40 if you put a white dwarf on earth
    10
  268. loud incorrect buzzer
    10
  269. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/5aCEjmc3KA
    10
  270. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/kt9sTqtz9Z
    10
  271. hell yeah
    9
  272. hell yeah
    9
  273. @JWFas but in j1407b’s case it’s incredibly weird it happened close by
    9
  274. i know, but out of the entirety of the universe there’s only a few thousand stars we’ve checked for planets, and out of those few thousand stars this happened. That’s incredibly unlikely that out of the fraction of a fraction of a percent of stars we searched we already found an incredibly unlikely event
    9
  275. @orange1599-u1n doesn’t make it clickbait if that’s what the video is about
    9
  276. yes
    9
  277. because rare and impossible aren’t the same thing
    9
  278.  @redcoat4348  because according to nasa reports, except for the orion heat shield, almost all components of artemis 2 are on schedule to be ready by july 2025, and they’re targeting launch in september 2025 (so are about two months ahead of schedule) there are a few problems (like the orion heatshield) but the majority of components are ahead right now btw the same is also true of artemis 4 and 5, and what progress has been made on those missions is also going surprisingly well
    9
  279. it doesn’t exist in space engine right now, i made a custom one for this video
    9
  280.  @houselemuellan8756  even doing it just because it’s cool, we should still colonize the moon first because it’ll make getting to mars orders of magnitude easier, and we can get there in a bigger way and it’s objectively cooler to say we colonized 2 worlds instead of one
    9
  281. i’m american so i just automatically think in dollars lol
    9
  282. also watch the sequel, the moon ALSO has a lot more water than we thought: https://youtu.be/QhOtFt5qH-0
    9
  283.  @mikkokivisto4414  bart sibrel is a scammer trying to make money of conspiracy theorists, notice how he’s trying to get people to buy his book if you watch my video, the moon landing was impossible to have been faked
    9
  284. the european colonization of africa was overwhelmingly motivated by profit lol pride was a big aspect but money actually made it happen
    9
  285. you can do whatever you want to a planet with enough brute force
    9
  286. something to enjoy in your free time when you’re locked in a metal tube with the same like 4 people for months on end goes a long way and it took 20 years because they needed a martian internet first to make multiplayer a thing (the actual development didn’t take that long) and i originally wanted them to go bankrupt but decided against it, i left that part in by accident lol i guess jeff bezos spends some of his 100 billion dollars to help keep the company afloat
    9
  287. you could hit earth with a hundred asteroids a day and you wouldn’t turn its entire surface molten, and that’s far beyond even the LHB in the absolute worst case, we have to deal with a handful of asteroid impacts a year. And we’d see all of them coming years in advance and could deflect them not an earth evacuation scenario. Again, it is ALWAYS easier to defend earth, no matter what why use all these resources building spaceships to take humanity away when you can use those exact same resources to build spaceships to deflect asteroids one of them is way easier and doesn’t involve abandoning a planet
    9
  288. watch the second half of the video where i explain why google is wrong that’s also the opposite of what i said (i said j1407b isn’t real and google does show it) so i honestly don’t even know what you’re trying to do here, i don’t even think you actually watched the video
    9
  289. getting hit with a meteor on the moon is rarer than being struck by lighting on earth and very easily mitigated
    9
  290. diamonds don’t burn when there’s no oxygen and if the atmosphere is stripped away faster than it can form then there won’t be an atmosphere (thats the reason io doesn’t have one for example)
    9
  291. also join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/HYtXszpmzU
    9
  292. with this attitude we won’t be doing it in any century
    9
  293. yes
    9
  294. best part is a lot of them aren’t even earth sized either
    9
  295. who cares, it’s worth it
    9
  296. considering man made things have already made it far past pluto i don’t think that’s safe to say at all
    9
  297. thing is you can do that with space habitats too there’s nothing stopping you from building millions of nature preserves for every possible type of life on earth
    9
  298. @sG12669 i didn’t delete your reply, i don’t delete comments sometimes youtube moderation automatically deletes stuff, try resending it if you included a link it could’ve triggered it
    9
  299. and you are the exact person i am trying to fight against with videos like this
    9
  300. based on the amounts of erosion on the surface we know the oceans were concentrated in the northern hemisphere, while the south was much drier and only had lakes and seas
    9
  301. you can terraform anything with enough brute force the real question is if we should
    9
  302.  @Supernimo735  some of it froze, most of it evaporated
    9
  303. @jamesrogers47 it’s actually not that hard repeatedly sending asteroids near earth at the right trajectory will gradually pull earth away over millions of years (the small gravities of the asteroids will add up over time) if we really tried hard we could start doing this now, there’s just no need to also it’s likely both will happen. Some people will see the sun dying and think we should leave. Others won’t want to abandon the birthplace of humanity. When the sun starts dying it’s not going to be an all or nothing thing, people will try to both save earth and leave
    8
  304. sometimes (Halla might be an example of a planet that survived being inside a red giant)
    8
  305.  @Mimmeew  i don’t think any of the candidates have high chances, but toi-700 d has the highest chance of being interesting imo
    8
  306. of course there’s a difference, that’s why there’s categories of missions (landers, orbiters, spacecraft) landing, orbiting, and a flyby are all different subcategories included under the larger umbrella of visiting some forms of visiting just take more effort than others, and some get closer than others, but it’s all visiting
    8
  307. here’s the study that said that if you want to read it https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018cosp...42E3888Z/abstract
    8
  308. that’s what earth is lol and when the oceans first formed earth had no major landmasses so definitely
    8
  309.  @Axodus  That’s not the same thing. There are about 400 billion stars in the galaxy, but only a few million within the distance V1400 centauri is from earth. If it has a say, 1% chance of happening per year to make things simple (those are not the actual numbers) then it should happen 4 billion times a year in the entire galaxy, but only a few ten thousand times in our local neighborhood where we could actually see it. So this is a combination of an unlikely event and an unlikely area for it to occur in (where we could see it). So yes, it’s rare. galaxy, but only a few million within the distance V1400 centauri is from earth. If it has a say, 1% chance of happening per year to make things simple (those are not the actual numbers) then it should happen 4 billion times a year in the entire galaxy, but only a few ten thousand times in our local neighborhood where we could actually it. So yes, it’s rare. Sure, they’ll stand out, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’re not gonna see it often. You could search the entirety of earth and find some very rare things in nature, but the chances are you’re not gonna find them in your own backyard because they aren’t there. It’s a smaller area, and so has less chances to be there.
    8
  310. @gurrenlagannsc8658 that’s a 2019 name, back when people names were allowed
    8
  311. Typo at 0:22, I meant to say "but keeping the original distance from the planet the same" sorry about that
    8
  312. i love getting comments from people who very obviously didn’t watch the video because i addressed this
    8
  313. but asteroids also have launch windows meaning you can only go the same asteroid at certain times earth has constant launch capability to the moon, no breaks
    8
  314. stop giving elon musk credit for things he didn’t do starship HLS is not his rocket. He did not build it, he did not design it. He didn’t even pay for it. He is a figurehead and nothing more. If you actually don’t like elon musk, then stop giving him credit for things he didn’t make and had no hand in designing Spacex is doing great things DESPITE him, NOT because of him. You clearly don’t like him (and neither do I) yet you’re still giving him credit for things thousands of real engineers made (and guess what, blue moon needs a similar number of launches. It’s almost like bigger landers need more fuel and it’s not unique to spacex)
    8
  315. astrum’s gone down the clickbait route recently i stopped watching him about a year ago
    8
  316.  @wolfie3657  also just by accident
    8
  317. no it’s too small and has too much rocky material in comparison to metal
    8
  318. @Azuciea no the thing is the 752 jupiter masses thing came from a typo on the nasa website, there’s zero evidence to back it up and it was a complete mistake no actual scientist actually said it was that massive
    8
  319. we are trying to build one, the concept for it is getting nasa funding the problem is we don’t have a rocket powerful enough to get it that far away in any reasonable amount of time (less than 20 years, right now it’ll take i think around 30 or more)
    8
  320. @darkclaws1234567891 why would i care about other universes when there’s upwards of a trillion planets just inside the milky way alone
    8
  321. it gets a decent amount of attention also btw, it’s officially named Lich, so it’s one of the few systems where the star and its planets (draugr poltergeist and phobetor) all have actual names
    8
  322. @MajinObama no, i actually think all planets are interesting and i don’t understand how people can look at an entire world and go “meh”
    8
  323. @Azuciea 1. we know the core is molten actually 2. the core being molten doesn’t matter at all, it’s still mass 3. If you think their math is wrong, then go prove it. Go check the numbers yourself. Nobody’s stopping you
    8
  324. candidate 1 is eerily similar to the gas giant pandora orbits around
    8
  325. that’s actually wrong, colonizing the moon will directly help solve climate change for one it’s the best place to build space infrastructure. Meaning we don’t need to mine and launch it from earth. So it eliminates a bit of earth-based mining and rocket launches and, it’s the only place where space-based solar is viable. On earth it’d be too expensive to launch, on the moon it’s fine. Launching solar panels into earth orbit is a great way for power generation that is much more efficient than solar power on the ground and satellites are the only reason we know so much about the climate at all. If we didn’t have satellites we would be in a FAR worse position. And guess what place is great for launching satellites
    8
  326. d’s results have been especially difficult to get thanks to stellar noise so there hasn’t been any official publications yet, i’ve just heard that some problems in the data can be explained if it’s airless and given it’s small size it probably is but here’s the one saying c might have an atmosphere: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023NatAs...7.1011M/abstract and there’s multiple sources saying b is airless
    8
  327. i agree, but saying “solar systems” gets more views lol i say stellar systems whenever possible though
    8
  328. they’re pretty much even from what i can tell
    8
  329. i think “it’s probably going to miss” is less worrying than “it’s gonna hit but you won’t be there”
    8
  330. @archangelmusic13 i did watch it nowhere in that video does it provide any proof venus had oceans even the astronomer in it said “if”
    8
  331. it’s pretty close-minded to assume alien civilizations need planets tbh a civilization could build o’neill cylinders or other structures like it that literally have comparable surface areas to large countries, spin for artificial gravity, and are entirely self-sufficient. Currently-available materials are strong enough to build something like this, and they’d only take the material of a medium-sized asteroid to build, and star systems have millions of such asteroids space habitats like this could support trillions of people easily, no planets necessary, and if a species has interstellar travel then they’re gonna need to build one of these anyway to even survive the trip, so might as well not launch them and just use them to support your population the idea of evacuating planets/aliens needing planets always annoys me for this reason, it’s simply not necessary
    8
  332. and i say in this video that ai is not a reliable source
    8
  333.  @MersageSW i’m pretty sure it’d just get deleted, i tried in other comment sections and my replies just vanished i put the title of the website that has it in the comment though
    8
  334. 1. No, I said it would be completely dependent on earth at first. It will eventually become fully self-sustaining. 2. asteroids have launch windows. You can only go to the same asteroid once every few years. Kind of hard to build up permanent infrastructure when you can only visit a few times a decade. You’d either have to restart with every new asteroid (extremely expensive and difficult) or wait a very long time to industrialize one large asteroid before moving on. The moon does not have launch windows. You can go pretty much whenever you want. The moon is easier to get to than asteroids. 3. why not just build those stations around the moon? You say a solution for the low gravity for asteroids but for some reason didn’t connect the dots and realize they can be built around the moon as well. It has enough resources and a low enough gravity to build them. 4. “to much gravity for industry and transport” is just objectively wrong. There have been hundreds of studies about this. And as I said in the video, we have no clue how bad low gravity is. For all we know, lunar gravity is enough for humans to live.
    8
  335. i didn’t say it was for convenience, and made it very clear it’s extremely difficult and will require hundreds of billions of dollars of investment but ok kind of seems like you just automatically assumed because i like space colonization that i think it’s easy
    8
  336. too big
    8
  337. @ArlxGamlng space engine .980 and .950 are available for free on the official space engine website
    8
  338. i didn’t say i did
    8
  339. well we only know it’s shrinking, we don’t know if it’s gonna disappear completely plus it’s iconic and i wanted it in the thumbnail lol
    8
  340. he's good
    8
  341. @PyrangleTriamid that wasn’t what i was talking about at 4:52 i say “planets don’t need to be habitable to be interesting”
    8
  342. that’s an ongoing debate Ahra for example is considered a planet by some and sub-brown dwarf by others i just call them all planets for now
    8
  343. @flydrop8822 it’s slowly vaporized over millions of years inside the star
    7
  344. oh you’re just trying to do some semantics stuff point is nasa says they visited these planets, the international community agrees they visited these planets, astronomers agree they visited these planets, so that settles it “oh but they didn’t touch it” who cares, they entered their gravitational spheres of influence. “visiting” a place on earth and “visiting” a planet are 2 different things (but even using this logic you’re still wrong, Galileo and Cassini both entered the atmospheres of jupiter and saturn, so at the bare minimum you have to include those 2 as well)
    7
  345. you could’ve at least made it rhyme
    7
  346. they’re named by the iau, i have a video about it called how to name an exoplanet
    7
  347. @marcofransowitz4773 They did not. Don’t know where you heard that but it’s a complete lie. NASA has publicly stated they are happy with how HLS development is going and are being kept in the loop at all times.
    7
  348. @philosotree5876 here are 3 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.03314.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.15902.pdf also you don’t need to put a reply, you can just make a new comment i get a notification either way
    7
  349. the sources are in the description as i said in the video
    7
  350. @sheepuff5999 there’s a very large difference between being a skeptic and being so far into delusion that you are completely blinded from reality You only have to take 1 look at any of thunderf00t’s starship videos to see he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. He literally made a video saying starship would triple the entire planet’s carbon emissions (which is so horrendously wrong it crosses the line between being a mistake to being just outright malicious) And his entire starship livestreams are just full of him talking about tesla and hyperloop, which both have nothing to do with spacex, he’s absolutely obsessed with musk. There are plenty of good channels that realistically talk about starship’s flaws and advantages (I personally like Eager Space). Thunderf00t is not one of them.
    7
  351. @ClockMaster_3100 venus’s atmosphere has very little water, it’s 90 something percent carbon dioxide and most of the rest is nitrogen
    7
  352. Watch my other videos about space colonization here: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6nPpFAYUryd_3d8516tBU0ZhLj3Es--N&si=qheu-e2dCTBx4nFj
    7
  353. there isn’t one, it’s more of a gradient
    7
  354. saturn’s rings in general can be colonized they’re a good place to get water without having to land on something
    7
  355. it’s still alive, all of its instruments and experiments are functional it just tipped over the fact that it’s still operational is a big win and is definitely considered a success, just not a complete success
    7
  356. the astronomers arent, unfortunately it’s only the habitable planets news that gets a lot of attention
    7
  357. no, that’s just you personally when i see that we haven’t found any habitable exoplanets my first thought is “let’s keep searching because we’ve found a lot of cool stuff anyway” not “oh life is awful and there’s nothing good in science ever” as i said in the video, planets don’t need to be habitable to be interesting. All of my favorite exoplanets are nowhere near habitable but it doesn’t matter because they’re cool anyway
    7
  358. i explained why the van allen belts are not deadly in the video
    7
  359. i will eventually
    7
  360. thing is we know from countless studies that the moon is a great place to colonize, and has TONS of raw materials, and colonizing the moon would directly benefit people on earth (it wouldn’t just be a “oh look we’re expanding humanity” thing, it would actually help people at home) which is why this is so weird
    7
  361. I mentioned this a bit, but it probably won’t happen anytime soon because spacex wants to get to mars fast, and spending time building a bigger ship when you already have one that can do the job isn’t worth it but i expect for that to happen once the first mars trips are done
    7
  362. @OmegaWolf747 Ditsö̀, the name of the people the god Sibú created in Talamacan mythology, and Bocaprins, a beach in one of Aruba’s largest national parks a lot better than the names they had before, and they aren’t just uninspired “we will name this planet after a greek god for the hundredth time”
    7
  363. video about mining diamonds on Janssen: https://youtu.be/XX9kvamh2wE?si=GPZLeFWZ9EX_PCAi
    7
  364. so i’ll just make more you underestimate my commitment
    7
  365. we know for sure that kepler-37 b, the entire trappist-1 system, Tahay, Janssen, Proxima d, Proxima b (I think) Kua’kua, K2-141 b, and a lot more i can’t remember off the top of my head are rocky we also don’t need to have any confirmed rocky planets to know this. It’s just density. By the time a planet gets about 2 times wider than Earth, and is made of rock, it should be massive enough to become a gas giant
    7
  366. i know i helped do it lmao
    7
  367. join my discord here https://discord.gg/98jyTKYVTp
    7
  368. join my discord server here: https://discord.gg/kt9sTqtz9Z
    7
  369. it astonishes me how people who think the moon landing was fake cannot grasp the concept of a call being rerouted -president uses phone -call goes to houston -houston broadcasts call to moon
    7
  370. luckily that is changing over 150 exoplanets have been given actual, good names because of NameExoWorlds
    7
  371.  @archangelmusic13  also because I forgot to link it, here's a climate study that suggests Venus could never have formed oceans: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03873-w there is no consenus if venus had oceans or not. There's evidence that it did, and there's evidence it didn't. There is no definitive proof either way.
    7
  372. he wasn’t worth nearly that much when spacex was founded
    7
  373. because what’s the point of a universe with nobody to experience it
    7
  374. because you usually have to observe the planets several times which takes weeks on its own then you have to check the data, get it reviewed by others, and there’s a whole thing about studies being embargoed so the people publishing them can do their own experiments and such with it before others can plus jwst also just gives a lot of data so there’s a lot to look through before you can even get the results
    7
  375. no it doesn’t lol we’ve discovered less than 0.000000001% of all the planets that likely exist milky way. Of those, less than 0.1% of those even had a chance of being habitable, all the rest are gas or ice giants or hot rocky planets like mercury and venus this is nowhere near a large enough sample size to make any definitive conclusions don’t get me wrong, if you believe in a god, i don’t care. You’re allowed to believe whatever you want, i’m not gonna be a reddit atheist. We have no idea how earth got life, or how the universe began, and for all we know it could’ve been a god that made it. But this is not evidence of a god. It’s evidence that we have an incomplete data set. Now, if we find and study all the 1 trillion+ planets in the milky way and not a single one is habitable, then that’s another story. But right now, this is not a large enough sample size to make any big conclusions like that
    7
  376. why, out of all the places you could’ve chosen, did you choose to use europa and mercury as examples europa is massively irradiated and the worst source of water in the outer solar system, and mercury is the most difficult planet to get to europa and mercury are the worst places to get water and metal in the entire solar system
    7
  377.  israeldiegoriveragenius2th164  not allowed, “kyplanet” is a username (so technically a person name) as well as a made up word
    7
  378. according to recent evidence they almost certainly do
    7
  379. @samael4550 i didn’t delete your reply, i can still see both of them but enceladus isn’t the best place for water because you still have to land on it, as well as actually mine it, which adds unnecessary complexity for the rings all you have to do is slow down, scoop up an iceberg, and leave it doesn’t matter how much water an object has when the vast majority of it is miles underground and yeah you can synthesize water but hydrogen can sometimes be difficult to store, and if there’s just millions of floating icebergs right there then i’m guessing gathering it from the rings will be easier, especially because the best source of hydrogen is saturn itself which has a huge gravity well but i’m guessing both will be done
    7
  380. you fail to explain why polluting mars would be bad There’s no life there. No ecosystem. Just rocks. Rocks don’t care about pollution. Rocks don’t care what happens to them. Mars does not have a natural ecosystem worth protecting, because it has no life. Earth’s environment matters because there are living things that are negatively affected by changes in it. This is not true anywhere else that isn’t earth. Nothing would be negatively affected by polluting mars or any other planet. Stop projecting Earth’s problems onto the rest of the universe where those problems simply don’t exist.
    7
  381. not the same thing there’s nothing between the moon and mars, you can’t stop and gather resources like the oregon trail. You have to go straight there and bring everything, it isn’t a fair comparison more similar to crossing the pacific on a single boat, and we need somewhere to build a really big boat which is my second point we wouldn’t be building roads on the moon, we’d be building ships. Building ships on earth simply isn’t going to cut it, we have too much of an atmosphere and too high gravity yes, mars colonization would incentivize lunar development because mars colonization needs lunar development i have a full video called how will we get to mars that explains this more
    7
  382. Venus’s mass is 0.815 earth masses Mars is 0.107 Mercury is 0.055 the Moon is 0.012 and the asteroid belt is about 0.0005 0.815+0.107+0.055+0.012+0.0005 is 0.9895 earth masses, or ever so slightly smaller than earth
    7
  383. i explained very clearly why it’s possible comments like these are exactly the reason i made this video, you’re dreaming too small
    7
  384. the moon is a perfect place to build and launch those habitats
    7
  385.  @trigularity  i am specifically saying that a super saturn planet with big rings isn’t real i clarify several times that j1407b is still an object that exists
    7
  386. why? i specifically try not to clickbait, I want to be better than all the ai generated garbage you see these days. There’s a huge misinformation problem on youtube and giving people correct and non-clickbait information is far more important to me than getting money off videos
    7
  387. @Mahlak_Mriuani_Anatman tell that to the law of universal gravitation because moving earth over millions of years by asteroid flybys is completely possible under known science
    6
  388. not really we’re making life a lot harder for a lot of species (including ourselves) but earth is still gonna be habitable
    6
  389. well it is kind of embarrassing that the industrial space might of the most powerful countries of the solar system were beaten by two countries that have less than a million people combined and have never fought a war before
    6
  390. Fusion engines would make launching things from the moon an even better idea it’s probably a good idea to launch your nuclear bombs where there isn’t life and also the launch benefits of the moon still stand, fusion would just make it better
    6
  391. yeah that’s a part of the timeline i made years ago that i’ve since backtracked on, and just forgot to remove from the video so consider that not canon lol
    6
  392. it looks like other companies are going to try to buy it instead
    6
  393. this is just a myth the polaris dawn mission went straight through them a few months ago and the crew was fine
    6
  394. sure
    6
  395. This is my first mapping video like this, so if anyone has any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them
    6
  396.  @kenmcguire5837  good for them. Starship is a completely different rocket with completely different goals, whose only similarities with the saturn v is that they’re both big and go up. They aren’t comparable.
    6
  397. they’re extremely small and far away, quasi moons are just asteroids that fly close to earth on a regular basis the temporary moons are even smaller and only stick around for a few months the moon doesn’t leave and is way bigger
    6
  398. red giant planets won the poll
    6
  399. 1. the super saturn, j1407b, a planet with big rings, doesn’t exist. It’s instead an entirely different object. J1407b as people think of it doesn’t exist 2. no, brown dwarfs are not planets, they are brown dwarfs. Scientists don’t consider them planets, they consider them brown dwarfs. There’s a reason the distinction exists, and a brown dwarf is not a planet 3. J1407b is likely massive enough to be a brown dwarf and not a rogue planet 4. no it isn’t, kind of sounds like you didn’t even watch the video because i explain very clearly why it’s very different in the video. If you watch the second half of the video you’ll also see where i explain why google is wrong also i explained this in other comments but protoplanetary disks and rings are entirely different things, that’s again like saying brown dwarfs are planets
    6
  400. we can’t get to proxima b without going to mars first, so that’s a given lol but honestly the moon is far better than either of them simply because of how close it is and the launch benefits involved in that
    6
  401. @orange1599-u1n 7:04 also, tidal heating would not create light
    6
  402.  @jrodthegreat1  unfortunately that’s not how nasa’s budget works it’s not just “here’s 20 billion dollars this year go crazy” specific money is set aside for specific projects the money for VIPER and the money for Starliner aren’t the same pool of money, you can’t use one for the other
    6
  403. that’s a pretty bold statement coming from a member of the species that has already sent two things outside the solar system (voyager 1 and 2) also you really think that given billions and billions of years, we’ll never figure out interstellar travel? Surely you’ve seen that meme that’s a newspaper article that said “it will take one million to ten million years for humans to learn how to fly” and the wright brothers made a plane like a year later not to mention that we already know of several scientifically possible ways to achieve travel to other stars, without using new physics or technology we don’t know is possible. We already know how to do interstellar travel, the only problem is getting enough energy to do so (the solar system has enough of it, we just haven’t harnessed it yet) i think you’re severely underestimating what humans are capable of
    6
  404. i literally say this in the video several times lmao
    6
  405. would probably be easier to just crush the dead matter artificially to make it
    6
  406. i’ve ended the colonization of the solar system series, it wasn’t realistic enough for me and i stopped being motivated to make it but i am redoing the whole series and will eventually make a new version
    6
  407. that’s why i didn’t say that
    6
  408. it isn’t about answering questions, it’s about getting resources
    6
  409.  @meth4163  it always likely had a protoplanetary disk of some kind instead of rings, rings just don’t get that big technically a protoplanetary disk is a ring system so that’s where the confusion came from, but a protoplanetary disk and saturn’s rings are very different things
    6
  410. all the other ones are far away, but there is a mission proposal for going to the asteroid 2001 FR85 in 2039 a close approach like apophis only happens once every few ten thousand years we can still reach the other near earth asteroids, apophis would’ve just been very easy
    6
  411. the moon has everything we need to make plenty of fuel, and we aren’t trying to get the resources to earth. We’re trying to get them to earth orbit the majority of costs for launching a satellite are just the launch costs. It’s cheaper to buy all the materials to build the satellite than it is to launch it. Plus, you need all the materials to build the rocket as well. On the moon, rockets can be extremely small. You’d need way less materials than earth. It doesn’t matter if it’s cheaper to mine on earth, because you need so much less on the moon not to mention on the moon you don’t even need to dig. The moon has no dirt. The regolith is made of rocks and metal too. You can literally just scoop material off the surface instead of digging underground. So, once we have infrastructure there, it will actually be easier to mine on the moon than it is to mine on earth so what do we get from the moon? we get everything we need to build a spacefaring civilization. On the moon, because of the low gravity and lack of atmosphere, you can build rockets that simply aren’t possible on earth. It has all the resources and all the fuel needed to do so.
    6
  412.  @notmaindeez ”this video is actually wrong because i did research on it but uhhh i won’t tell you why because trust me bro!!! just do it yourself you’ll figure it out!!! i definitely have sources but i won’t tell you them it’s fine you can believe me!!”
    6
  413. usually when I don’t say who founded a colony, it’ll be because it was a mix of countries and companies that didn’t really have a specific entity who lead the whole thing and the Artemis portion of Artemorion was far bigger than the european side so it mostly remained an American colony, just with some european influence and Armstrong had its own ambitions, even though they were both founded by the US, which is why they weren’t a single colony
    6
  414. you can’t, you can only see the star
    6
  415. unless i say “in radius” just assume i’m talking about mass
    6
  416. colonizing the moon has several benefits that would directly help earth and why would we not make reusable rockets on the moon? Rockets are far easier to make there. Imagine starship but you don’t even need the booster, just the ship is more than powerful enough to make it to orbit. Or, better yet, we don’t even need rockets to get things off the moon. Mass drivers are more than enough
    6
  417. @Weberkooks which is why we would do both there will always be people with different opinions. Some will want to leave, some will want to stay
    6
  418. it’s negative 389 degrees i don’t think it’s chances for life are very high lmao and it’s still disputed
    6
  419. it’s just a simple density calculation we know how big it is because we know how much starlight it blocks when it transits, we know how massive it is because of how much it pulls on its star density is just mass over volume, and we know both the mass and volume a rocky composition is around a certain density (which we know because we know how dense rocks are), a metallic composition is another, a gas giant is another so, whatever the density of the planet is closest to, we know that it’s closer to that in composition so, for example, we know qingluan is made of rocks because it isn’t dense enough to be metallic, but it’s too dense to be a gas giant
    6
  420. This reminds me a lot of J1407b. When it was discovered it was originally suggested to be a super-saturn planet with “the biggest rings in the universe” but that hypothesis has been mostly disproven. In reality J1407b is a rogue brown dwarf with a debris disk planets are forming in. (essentially, it isn’t a planet, doesn’t have rings like Saturn’s, and doesn’t even orbit the star it was thought to orbit) However, thousands of sources (including NASA’s own website) still list J1407b as a Super-Saturn. Just goes to show that mistakes like this in science communication are very common, and more needs to be done to stop them
    6
  421. actual astronomers agree with me, as i said in the video
    6
  422. because i talk about all of that in other videos the one time i don’t talk about the benefits of course i get people going “well colonizing the moon isn’t worth it because of economics” and then when i talk about the benefits in other videos i get “well it’s too hard to colonize so don’t do it”
    6
  423. @dynamicworlds1 lagrange points are still orbits, and they can be made dangerous by kessler syndrome just like normal orbits can in fact i’d guess it’s probably worse because unless cleared out the debris will just hang around
    6
  424. because it does
    6
  425. why are you posting ai generated paragraphs
    6
  426. no space colonization doesn’t need habitable planets
    6
  427. @orange1599-u1n people who think planets are only interesting if they’re habitable not only have a very shallow understanding of what makes a planet interesting, but also fundamentally misunderstand the point of space exploration
    6
  428. when new things are discovered about them
    6
  429. @Natogoon we don’t need terraforming to do that even a moon colony will protect us from extinction just as well as a mars one would
    6
  430. there isn’t enough data to say anything for certain about it
    6
  431. sorry for the weird cut in music toward the end of the video, seems like something glitched when I was uploading it
    6
  432. nothing with high chances yet, but we also haven’t found enough exoplanets to make any conclusions about the likelihood of life in the universe at large
    6
  433. literally conspiracy theorist logic lmao
    6
  434. @kellamyoshikage286 not culturally significant, not a word
    6
  435. @mynamemylastname7179 I own a telescope and I can see the planets myself. I can also see satellites and space stations, and have pictures of them. My telescope has no possible way of being faked, because I have taken it apart and removed all electronic components before just to test, and it still works. If space is fake then explain why I can literally see planets and satellites with my telescope
    6
  436. well then that would just be a 2 second video of me saying “yes”
    6
  437. build the dome first, then put the gas in
    6
  438. well it would affect every person differently, so it’s impossible to make any definitive conclusions of how that will affect space colonization you can definitely say things like “people don’t like living in holes in the ground” and “travel times are long” and people do bring that up a lot, but other than basic things we know humans don’t like there just isn’t any experimental proof of what humans will do in those situations
    6
  439. i’ve thought about doing that but every time i sit down to make a script i have no idea what to say lol at this point i’m too far into the series to change it, but if i ever make something similar i hope to add voicing
    6
  440. @e31174 we know how to live in space, and how to get to the moon and there has been a ton of research about putting those 2 things together and we don’t need to be entirely self sufficient to have a base, thats a long way away
    6
  441. the 2019 rule for people was they had to be dead for over 100 years
    6
  442. because why would we
    6
  443. what
    6
  444. no i don’t think so
    6
  445. it probably just didn’t have enough material around it to form more smaller planets usually have smaller moons since they form with less material
    6
  446.  @dbypro  that’s surface gravity, which is not mass the surface gravity of an object depends on its radius and density as well Mars has 38% the surface gravity of earth but is only 10.7% of its mass because it has a smaller radius, leading to a relatively higher surface gravity remember: saturn has a surface gravity similar to earth. Uranus’s surface gravity is lower than earth. It is not an accurate way to determine mass
    6
  447. all of them with enough brute force you can do anything if you should terraform them is the problem
    6
  448. i ended it because i didn’t think it was realistic enough but i’m currently working on redoing the whole series so eventually it’ll be back
    6
  449. also why would a few rocks hundreds of light years away not being habitable make us not want to leave earth i am completely pro space colonization, on the moon specifically colonizing space would save earth, which i have videos about so congratulations, you are the second type of person i specifically made this channel for humanity doesn’t need habitable planets to colonize space
    6
  450. yeah that’s why the section about going to mars first was a small part of the whole video there are still some people who think mars first is a good idea, and i was arguing against them but it’s a small amount which is why it’s not the entire video the whole point of the video was to tell people colonizing the moon is a good idea, not that mars is bad
    6
  451. we do not
    5
  452. the scientists arent at fault no actual scientist makes any of these claims, it’s all the media trying to get clicks all the original papers and studies about these planets by actual scientists never say they’re habitable or even have a good chance of being habitable
    5
  453. not in the visible spectrum but we don’t need it to be visible light, there are other wavelengths it emits more that are good enough
    5
  454. there are actually over 150 exoplanets that have gotten official names, wikipedia has a full list of them here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_exoplanets
    5
  455. you can cover your habitats in a few meters of dirt and water to block most radiation
    5
  456. we’d probably still have the space race but i’d bet we’d be racing to build space stations instead, and then try to get to asteroids i think we’d treat mars pretty much how we do today
    5
  457. if you read the sources in the description you’ll find that not only did i post plenty of evidence, scientists actually agree with me contrary to popular belief, no scientists actually claimed they discovered J1407b. It was always a candidate and the candidate has simply gotten disproven because other scientists found proof that it didn’t exist. The sources in the description say this And, as i said in the video, the consensus among the scientific community at this point is exactly what I said in this video. Please try to actually find out what the scientific community says before making a comment like this I also said in the video don’t blame the scientists, blame the people who spread the myth. So I didn’t “slander” them
    5
  458. if you actually look at what nasa says you’ll find that they never say these planets are habitable
    5
  459. the thing is there is a point
    5
  460. yes and as i said in the video there are several ways to negate the effects of increasing luminosity or stop it entirely
    5
  461. i literally said this in the video
    5
  462.  @ry_an.  there are already pictures of exoplanets the HR 8799 system, the Beta Pictoris system, Levantes, Najsakopajk, etc but they aren’t detailed if that’s what you mean
    5
  463. @KepleroGT I wasn’t happy with the original video
    5
  464. @kenmcguire5837 the overwhelming majority of space projects go behind schedule and over budget. Not unique to starship. And they haven’t gone to orbit because (as i explain in other comments) they haven’t had a need to so far You’ll find that once they need to start actually testing in orbit, they’ll be able to get to orbit extremely easily
    5
  465. yeah probably not
    5
  466. no, only the asteroids that have orbits that intersect with earth have a chance of hitting earth some random rock in the asteroid belt isn’t going to spontaneously shoot towards us
    5
  467. not applicable in this case, planes are smaller
    5
  468. sciencephile the ai is partly ai generated lol, it was made by people who made chatgpt it’s just the only channel that does it right
    5
  469. yeah this video is also about it not existing
    5
  470. better to just make your habitats float and there’s no oxygen in venus’s atmosphere, it’s just the temperature and pressures are more habitable in the upper atmosphere
    5
  471. the answer is the parachutes didn’t survive they melted and venera 7 got lucky and survived a free fall (not all the way from the top of the atmosphere ofc, the parachutes lasted long enough that venera 7 hit the ground at only about 30 mph. The atmosphere also provided drag and slowed it down a lot)
    5
  472. @ronaldgarrison8478 I was replying to someone who replied to a comment you made, which gives you a notification because it’s counted as a reply to your original comment
    5
  473. @orange1599-u1n there aren’t any known planets behind proxima b except for c, which is more than an AU away meaning all that light will be hitting mostly the day side, not the night side and even still you don’t see trees using light from the moon to do photosynthesis, because it’s too dim. Any additional planets beyond proxima b would be about that bright
    5
  474. @orange1599-u1n and that light from planets would be nowhere near enough to sustain an ecosystem
    5
  475. @orange1599-u1n proxima b doesn’t have a day night cycle. One side only gets planet light, one side only gets sunlight also there’s a very strong possibility there just aren’t any planets to illuminate proxima b at all
    5
  476. @orange1599-u1n we know proxima b is tidally locked because we know how gravity works there are no planets next to proxima b because that’s not how orbits work, there are only planets closer to the star and further from the star. We know there’s 1 planet closer to the star (d) and 1 further (c) but c is too dim to light up b. There are no other confirmed planets in the system.
    5
  477. @ it does not, because it’s only a theory and until there is actual observations of it it will remain so, just like my videos do you know what “might” means or “maybe” or “probably” or “unconfirmed” because, if you pay close attention, that’s what both my video and his say so it doesn’t contradict anything, it’s two different viewpoints, and we’ll have to wait and see which one is right From the evidence available, i believe that red dwarf planets are unlikely to host atmospheres or be habitable. Some agree, some disagree. No proof either way. That’s what science is
    5
  478. @Flesh_Wizard next video will probably be about the moon also having a lot more water than we thought so it’s not over
    5
  479. we have enough to make a small initial base and work from there
    5
  480. the furthest planet in this video is only a few hundred light years away and the closest is 4 so we’re only seeing them a few years to a few centuries in the past that’s nowhere near enough time for the planets to have significantly changed, how we’re seeing them now is pretty much how they look
    5
  481. i’ll put it in a future one it’s not really glass in the way most people think of it, its silicon dioxide rain so there won’t be any shards of glass or anything, just really hot rain that’s made of the same chemicals as glass
    5
  482. the solar system’s oort cloud is separate from alpha centauri, its 4 light years closer to us than they are and id guess that proxima cleared out alpha centauri’s oort cloud during its formation (if it had one) but not sure
    5
  483. we don’t know if majriti is purple or not, saffar is the only planet in the system with a known color though there is some slight, unconfirmed evidence that the planet astrolábos is purple (or at the very least has a lot of red and blue)
    5
  484. damn they’re making exoplanets political now
    5
  485. that’s me
    5
  486. @GabrielSakalauskas it’s not fictional it’s just not a planet also fictional planets have names like that all the time (for example 4546 b)
    5
  487. Very important to remember that all of this has happened before. We have united to fix extremely large problems before, this is the species that eradicated smallpox and fixed the ozone layer. And plus, pessimism doesn’t help anybody. If you really think these are very large problems (which they are, I’m not saying they aren’t important) then go do something about it. The problems won’t ever get solved if everyone thinks like this. This comment will just become a self-fulfilling prophecy
    5
  488. the collision that formed the moon isn’t what this video is about
    5
  489.  @LowerBudgetOppenheimer  but that’s not the event im talking about lol this is a completely separate ring forming event, 4 billion years after the moon formed
    5
  490. @g-ray4088 based
    5
  491. you won’t be able to see the effects of lunar mining from earth
    5
  492. the thumbnail i made is terrible but oh well if you clicked on it thanks
    5
  493. you can terraform any planet you want with enough brute force though im personally against terraforming in general because better options for creating living area exist
    5
  494. cope
    5
  495. 1. the iss deals with similar temperature fluctuations, we can figure it out 2. nuclear
    5
  496. nowhere in the video did i say that habitable exoplanets don’t exist
    5
  497. there’s far stronger evidence it was water, and liquid water is just easier to form than liquid co2
    5
  498. no they haven’t
    5
  499. same way mercury and the moon don’t they don’t have any way to make one, or the sun’s radiation blows it away faster than it can form
    5
  500. both are disputed, probably not
    5
  501.  @oberonpanopticon  i mean they could but the space agencies don’t really want to get rid of food or water or supplies to put a video game instead
    5
  502. i meant the servers themselves
    5
  503. im gonna make a full video about this soon but here’s a short version the apollo program was a terrible idea. It was extremely dangerous, reckless, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, and killed several people. If it had kept going it would’ve just bankrupted nasa, and for what? No actual benefits to the average person were made from apollo nobody in their right mind would do another apollo program today, which is why nobody has. It’s taking so long because we’re now trying to figure out how to get to the moon safely and cheaply Apollo proved it was possible to get to the moon, but it did so in a very bad way. Now we’re trying to prove we can get to the Moon sustainably, and that’s taking a while
    5
  504. it’s possible but if we want to go underground it’d be easier to find caves than to dig it
    5
  505. because we can clean it if needed
    5
  506. we don’t actually know what low gravity will do to humans (we know that no gravity is bad, but we don’t know what partial gravity will do) and the radiation is mostly mitigated by just going underground the main problem with colonizing mars specifically is that there’s just no point in doing it you aren’t gonna make any money by building a mars base (which you would for the moon)
    5
  507. they’re in the description
    5
  508. can’t have everything work out perfectly lol
    5
  509. that’s why the title says “known”
    5
  510. Hopefully the text wasn't too fast this time, I tried to improve that from my Hyades video
    5
  511. i talked about that a bit but went more in depth in my trappist 1 video even if red dwarfs calm down they still blew away their planets volatiles when they were younger, so there’s a chance that even when they calm down the planets will have no material to rebuild atmospheres or oceans so will be airless anyway
    5
  512. there are people working on it, it’s just very, very hard
    5
  513.  @avgjoe5969 my long reply to your comment got deleted by yt moderation lol, but if you sort the comment section by newest and scroll down you should see it
    5
  514. i’m gonna make a video about it
    5
  515. @Merluch dyson swarms don’t have to be close to their stars either a “dyson swarm” is just a megastructure that captures all the light of a star. You could put continent-sized space habitats with massive solar panels out in Earth orbit and they’d be part of the dyson swarm too
    5
  516. watch the second half of the video, it tells you why google is wrong
    5
  517. without the moon large scale space colonization cannot happen also why would mars be the end goal? You’re dreaming kind of small there Mars is only one small part of the countless worlds we’ll colonize. Ignoring the moon because “mars better” is harmful to space colonization. Congrats, you have a mars base, but to get it you’ve pushed back every other space colonization project decades or centuries. Or, we can colonize the moon, which makes colonizing mars easier, and we get the rest of the solar system in the process.
    5
  518. kepler-452 only has one planet (kepler-452 b) and it isn’t even confirmed to exist
    5
  519. none of these planets were discovered by nasa
    5
  520. the kepler-1625 b one was proven to not exist about a year ago also the 2017 discovery only listed it as a candidate, not a confirmation
    5
  521. i was talking about mass, not radius mars is 0.1 earth masses, proxima d is about 0.25 if i’m talking about radius i’ll say “in radius” my default is always mass, it’s just a subconscious habit
    5
  522. it doesn’t say anything about companies, only countries
    5
  523. there is plenty of evidence to know with near certainty it isn’t a planet with rings and doesn’t orbit v1400 centauri
    5
  524. yeah that’s why i said “known” repeatedly throughout the entire video and also directly said “habitable planets exist, we just haven’t found them yet”
    5
  525. bright side is terrible, don’t watch them they’re up there with the ai misinformation channels and i recommend blocking them but anton petrov and melodysheep are alright
    5
  526. it would not despite what you may have heard, using nukes is a TERRIBLE way to make an atmosphere, there is zero evidence that it would actually work, and there is in fact strong evidence it wouldn’t also our entire nuclear arsenal isnt anywhere close to enough to restart the volcanic activity of an entire world and give it an atmosphere absolute best case scenario all it would do would cover one area of the moon in some dust for a few days before leaving just a big radioactive crater
    5
  527. A lot wrong here 1. spacex has quite literally always delivered on what they have promised. “but look at tesla!!!!!” they are different companies. I don’t give a damn about tesla, and neither does anybody working at spacex. This is literally like saying “Well because bill gates owns microsoft and xbox, because the new windows update was bad then surely xbox will never make a good console ever”. Windows has nothing to do with xbox. Tesla has nothing to do with spacex. Saying spacex has never delivered is such an obvious lie that i dont take anyone that unironically says that seriously. Anyone who says that clearly has zero clue what is going on in the space industry and literally doing a single google search would prove you wrong. The falcon 9 is the safest rocket that has ever existed. It has launched more times this WEEK than the entire continent of europe launches in a year. Elon musk is not building the rockets. You clearly don’t like him, so stop giving him credit for things he didn’t make. The thousands of engineers at spacex built the falcon 9. Their ceo did not. 2. There was no way for nasa to make their own ships. Look at the budget. 3. Again with the comparing unrelated companies. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. The ONLY similarity SpaceX has with any other company is they are owned by the same person. different people work there. They make different things. They have different financial systems and leadership structures. Spacex is private, tesla is public. Stop comparing things that aren’t comparable because you have a problem with the guy in charge (which, by the way, he isn’t even in charge. Gwynne Shotwell runs spacex. Elon musk is a figurehead with very minimal power.) 4. nasa has never built a rocket. They have ALWAYS used companies. The saturn v was built by Boeing. The space shuttles were built by Rockwell International. Again, this is an example of people being completely unaware as to what actually happens in the space industry. The only thing different today is the companies have changed. There have always been companies. I don’t like elon musk. But you are letting your own hatred of one guy ruin your perspective on an entire industry. It is very clear that everything you said in this comment you only believe because you don’t like musk, because none of it is true. You’re for some reason bringing up a car company and using it as an example as to why rockets won’t work. If this was about any other person, that would be absurd. But for some reason people throw any logical reasoning away when talking about elon musk. Try to understand nuance. You can dislike elon musk and still understand that spacex is really good at what they do. I will say it again: the falcon 9 is the safest rocket that has ever existed. “Shoddy work quality” put 2/3 of all the satellites currently in earth orbit there, and has launched over 400 times with a greater than 99% success rate, and is the primary method nasa uses to get people to the ISS. I say this as nicely as possible: you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re letting one guy control your opinions, and that is EXACTLY what he wants. Just ignore elon musk. That’s what I do, and I’m a lot happier for it
    5
  528. it’s proof that we can send things past pluto, to send humans we just need a bigger thing
    5
  529. @treystephens6166 “humans will never leave the solar system” fans when a generation ship walks in the original crew doesn’t need to survive as long as their children do (i’m not advocating we use generation ships, they’re by far the worst idea for interstellar travel. However, they are possible and are an option. If all else fails we know this will work)
    5
  530. honestly i’ll take any name over “LHS 3844 b” lol huge fan of exoplanets with proper names
    5
  531. it’s far better to get them from comets. Easier to transport, no gravity to deal with, they far outnumber planets, and they’re much more easily accessible
    5
  532. no it’s easier to get to the asteroid belt from the moon than mars, because the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere or high gravity in the way
    5
  533. @avishalom2000lm the public does, every few years the IAU hosts a competition called NameExoWorlds where anyone can submit a name (assuming they follow all the rules, which there are a lot of) and the IAU chooses which one is the best
    5
  534. there’s going to be different quantities of elements, but everything in the solar system formed out of the same stuff so will generally have the same resources though of course there are variations, for example the outer solar system has a ton more water and other volatiles
    5
  535. @YnossZaperator closer to 12%
    5
  536. @sG12669 so looking back i think your comment may have glitched, it says there are only 5 replies but i can see 6 It’s my first response, the other guy responding, your comment about what the end goal of space exploration is (i’ll respond to that later), you saying i deleted your comment, your test comment, and me replying to that is one of those the one that got deleted or is there another one
    5
  537. yes
    5
  538. the thing is there is things up there very valuable things are on the moon
    5
  539. copyrighted names aren’t allowed under the current planet naming rules, even if disney said it was ok i don’t think it’d be allowed
    5
  540. @ Falcon 9 development was absolutely like this. They almost went bankrupt trying to make it to orbit. In fact, Starship is significantly better than Falcon 9 development in that case, because at least this time they aren’t running out of money. That’s also why there’s seemingly been less progress. There’s no concern about running out of money, so spacex has the capability to launch more ships to get more data even if they blow up. For Falcon 9, it was get to orbit or cease to exist, so of course they prioritized it. For Starship, the goal is to become operational as fast as possible. They have less of a need for immediate successes right now and more need for data. As I said in the video, this type of rocket has never been built before. It’s bigger, more powerful, uses a different type of fuel, and is supposed to be fully reusable. Would it be nice if they were further along? Absolutely. Are the recent failures bad? Yes. But is this a sign that there is something fundamentally wrong with starship as a concept? No.
    5
  541. stopped by the evaporation of the oceans, which stops tectonic activity, which greatly decreases volcanic activity, which decreases the amount of co2 being released, meaning over hundreds of millions of years most of the carbon will get trapped in rock and then we have a problem
    5
  542. wikipedia also says what i said in this video which makes it even funnier since they didn’t even read the article lmao
    5
  543. that has not been proven all we have is some evidence that life will have a harder time existing there, not that it’s impossible
    4
  544. @renegade040, true, i also think faster than light is impossible but, there are concepts for technology that exist today and are possible under known science that could get us to 50% lightspeed. That puts travel times to Alpha Centauri within 8 years, well within a human lifetime. That puts dozens of stars within reach, so even if people won’t make it across the galaxy in one lifetime well still get to places like Alpha Cen, Sirius, Tau Ceti, Procyon, etc
    4
  545. no no no no no no no for the love of god don’t terraform the moon i have a video about why i’ll upload sometime soon
    4
  546. no
    4
  547. god i hate the “omg humans are an plague we should go extinct so sad” mindset we are the best shot earth has at survival you don’t see any other animals with space programs the sun’s expansion will make earth uninhabitable in about a billion years. Nothing natural can stop that, but technology can (i plan to make a video about this) if there’s nothing intelligent left, then earth has no chance of survival and all life will die also, it’s not like we’re the first life to cause a mass extinction. Look at cyanobacteria. They flooded the air with oxygen, killed almost everything, and caused an ice age. But look what came out of that. Life that used oxygen. Without cyanobacteria killing everything, multicellular life wouldn’t exist. Yes, mass extinctions are objectively bad. But they open up hundreds of new possibilities for life
    4
  548. @Hamter_mental_counseling you’re making a lot of assumptions here that aren’t true 1. Why would humans not be living on the uninhabitable exoplanet? As I said, there are plenty of environments that can host populations that aren’t habitable 2. Why exactly would the distance be a problem? Distance is not the problem in space, it’s how much energy it takes to get from one place to another. There’s no friction in space, so once you get moving you don’t stop. There’s real concern is getting places in reasonable amounts of time, which we do with modern day spacecraft 3. You’re also completely forgetting gravity wells. Yes earth and mars have resources (Earth has more resources than every object in the inner solar system combined except for the sun) but if you’re building any space infrastructure, the planets that have easier launching environments are better. That’s why half my videos are about why the moon is the best place to build future in space. It has less resources than earth, but those resources are much more easily accessible and easier to get into space and do useful stuff with, so it’s better 4. why would you have to make a trip from earth every time? The whole point is to build permanent off-earth infrastructure specifically so you don’t have to do that All problems you’ve mentioned here were solved decades ago. The idea that habitable planets are needed for space colonization was thoroughly disproven by the 1960s. This isn’t a “contrarian argument”, it’s what the consensus among people actually studying and trying to do space colonization is. Habitable planets are nice, but not necessary.
    4
  549. earth is not an exoplanet
    4
  550. no we are the only example of intelligent species in the universe this is just nihilism i hate people who are like “oh humanity so sad we ruin planet :( :( :(“ that’s not helping if you actually care then go do something about it instead of complaining
    4
  551. it’s space engine except for the moon landing and iss footage which is real
    4
  552. whole apollo program and todays money
    4
  553. they won’t be living in asteroids, they’ll be living in space habitats built from asteroids space habitats that are so large you can’t even tell you’re not on a planet (if it weren’t for the fact you could see the ceiling)
    4
  554. this video also says it’s probably a rogue brown dwarf
    4
  555. nope
    4
  556. @wash36 sounds like someone’s mad their favorite planet isn’t real
    4
  557. @wash36 i did plenty of proper research, you can go read the sources in the description and see that actual scientists agree with me and i didn’t lose any subs off of this, in fact out of all the j1407b content i’ve gained well over 5,000 subs
    4
  558. @cesarrobledo2583 because saying it doesn’t exist gets the point across quicker J1407b is a rogue brown dwarf, and is an entirely different object from what people thought it was, so much so that they might as well be two separate objects. J1407b as people think of it, a planet with big rings, doesn’t exist the rogue brown dwarf is only similar to j1407b in name
    4
  559. do you want all my sources?
    4
  560. i love comments like this because the sheer amount of times i said “we just don’t know” “there is some evidence of” “based on computer simulations” and similar things that made it VERY clear that we don’t know anything for sure, yet people somehow still manage to ignore all that and get mad at something i didn’t say or do
    4
  561. nothing, we aren’t trying to leave it we’re looking for habitable planets because they’re interesting to study. We aren’t looking for them to find a new place to live sometimes science can just be for curiosity
    4
  562. yeah that’s a thing i need to fix
    4
  563. youtube puts ads regardless of if i monetize the video or not, i have no say in it maybe learn how youtube works before being an asshole
    4
  564. @ The lunar dust is easier to solve than you think, there’s several solutions for how to get rid of it and to protect from radiation all you have to do is cover your habitats in just 3 meters of regolith, and maybe line it with a layer of water. That’ll block the majority of the harmful stuff, and the more layers you add the better it gets. Or just build your habitats underground, with the moon’s low gravity we can build some very big underground structures without risk of collapse
    4
  565. we’re already in the process of solving that the ADRAS-J mission from the company Astroscale recently went to a spent rocket stage in earth orbit to prove it was possible, the next step will be designing missions to deorbit that stuff
    4
  566. there aren’t any exoplanets with confirmed rings and the sizes of all the biggest exoplanets have a very high amount of uncertainty
    4
  567. it’s too big, we couldn’t change its appearance enough to be visible from earth if we tried
    4
  568. i mean i said that in the video
    4
  569. it orbits its star further than venus orbits the sun, so most likely isn’t totally locked
    4
  570. the hottest ones glow
    4
  571. that’s about 7 entire earths closer so i would say so
    4
  572. 1. that’s not how it works. The only way the moon gets colonized is if it benefits earth. It won’t be profitable otherwise. 2. Anyone who thinks mars is a good place to escape to is either insane, an idiot, suicidal, or all 3. “Billionaires are trying to escape to mars!!” is a lie and no serious person who knows anything about mars would believe it. 3. Space colonization helps solve problems on earth. 4. where do you draw the line? What counts as “solving all our major issues?” Do you want to force us to abandon space until we achieve some vague, impossible utopia state? There’s always going to be problems. Space helps solve them. Without space, several problems on earth cannot be solved.
    4
  573. that’s not what i’m saying of course terraforming would be planned but eventually, the area where your city is will be flooded it’ll be slow but it will happen, and you’ll be burying centuries of history you can’t really move the area where humans first landed on mars for example or a memorial to some famous person who died there or a famous landmark
    4
  574. problem is the best places to build settlements are all in low elevation areas the most easily accessible water for example
    4
  575. if you have any suggestions, post them here! thanks for watching!
    4
  576. my sources are in the description, i’ve spent multiple months researching this i’ve been telling people j1407b doesn’t exist for over a year now. I’ve seen literal dozens of sources (the ones in the description are the ones i think are the best). I’ve also talked to several professional astronomers about this. If I was wrong I would’ve found out a long time ago
    4
  577. the funniest part about this is nasa isn’t the one that finds these planets astronomers find planets, and the vast majority of them don’t work for nasa i love how conspiracy theorists have no idea just how large the space community is and that nasa is just a small part of it
    4
  578. where does this myth come from space habitats are NOT fragile, or vulnerable, or weak you’re thinking of modern day space stations, those are not the things i’m talking about the shielding you can put on these things can be kilometers thick. As in, it could tank a point blank nuclear blast and be fine and we know how to deal with solar flares already. That isn’t a problem. Also, if your space habitat doesn’t know how to avoid a large object, then that’s just natural selection. You would be able to see the object years in advance and have more than enough time to avoid it. If there’s a space habitat that can’t take the extremely easy and simple steps to just move out of the way then they can blame their own stupidity for their deaths I really need to make a space habitat video because i have no idea where all this wrong info is coming from
    4
  579. i was thinking about it, but went with utopia planitia because of all the best places for colonies we actually had rovers there, so know way more about it than other places on mars
    4
  580. Over 3,000 exoplanets have been discovered and confirmed to exist with the transit method every method as their advantages and downsides. Don’t take one false positive as evidence that the whole method is bad, because every single exoplanet detection method has given us planets that don’t exist
    4
  581. not an exoplanet
    4
  582. there’s just so much clickbait about this planet everything else is drowned out
    4
  583. @theawsomehawk2749 that’s a terrible reason, it will always be easier to fix earth than move to another planet with absolutely zero exceptions
    4
  584. objectively a terrible idea no matter how you look at it anyone who says defund nasa is completely ignorant to what nasa actually does
    4
  585. that’s why i said known out of all exoplanets we know of, and of what we know about them, none are habitable nowhere in the video did i claim as an absolute fact that there were no habitable exoplanets anywhere, nor did i claim to know anything about their environments as a fact you probably should’ve watched the video because if you had you would’ve realized that i never said anything you’re trying to claim i did
    4
  586. how is terraforming a whole planet cheaper than hollowing out asteroids lol you’d need to throw thousands of asteroids at a planet to terraform it anyway so just based on that factor alone it’s easier to use them to build space habitats and because you’ve been commenting this on other videos, yes, you can in fact protect space habitats from radiation move them further away from the sun or put a bunch of material in the way
    4
  587. yes it is, just because there are way bigger distances doesn’t make it any less significant not to mention it’s way further away than the majority of discovered exoplanets
    4
  588. i’ve had this script written for months lol just had other videos to publish first
    4
  589. anything that allows people to gain something they wouldn’t be able to otherwise ig
    4
  590. i found static online
    4
  591. @efhi and believing those problems are unsolvable is exactly what they want you to do
    4
  592. stars form with more material than you’d think the sun had more than enough material to form several jupiter-sized planets, and honestly probably another star trappist-1 probably has less planets than we’d expect tbh
    4
  593. @Ironarmgaming1 i have sources in the description, go read those if you don’t believe me
    4
  594. @Ironarmgaming1 lmfao out of all the arguments you could’ve gone with THATS the one you’re choosing
    4
  595. not known because we don’t have a large enough sample size
    4
  596. i find the idea of being able to be in live communication with colonies on another world and being able to see city lights in our night sky far cooler than mars The moon is extremely inspirational. Every single human being on this planet will be able to see our effects on it and know that we’re out in space. If that’s not inspiring, I don’t know what is. Stop thinking it’s one or the other. Colonizing the moon is necessary to colonize mars, and colonizing mars will give us technology we need to colonize the moon. There is no “starting with,” we will do both at the same time, both will be inspiring. Moon VS Mars is not real.
    4
  597. what thing
    4
  598. i thought about this but terraforming takes centuries no government system survives that long, there could be dozens if not hundreds of ideology changes during the terraforming that’ll slow it or make it faster, or pause it entirely or there could be other countries on mars who don’t want to terraform, or terrorist groups who really don’t want a terraformed mars politics works against terraforming. The space race was a short-term goal where the US and USSR were just trying to beat the other. Terraforming is a very different thing
    4
  599. soon
    4
  600. i talked about toi 700 d (and mentioned c) in my last video but i haven’t made a dedicated video on it yet
    4
  601. i try not to use technologies that are unrealistic in this timeline (as much as possible) orbital mirrors, for example, are possible, and we know how to make them, but as far as i can tell something like that is not known to be possible or actively being worked on so i’m not sure if i want to include it also the terraforming of mars probably won’t even happen for reasons in the timeline i’ll get to eventually
    4
  602. bro cares so much about politics he goes out of his way to make a comment like this on a video where half of the things i say is about how we have to stop caring about political differences literally why does it matter i dont care what your beliefs are, you have no need to care about mine just live and let live man
    4
  603. we already use that same recycling technology on space stations, not as big of a challenge as you think
    4
  604. i’ve heard all the arguments against space habitats, i still think they’re better than terraforming the radiation problem is solvable, just like with terraforming, but at this point i’ve debated it so many times i really don’t want to do it again lol so let’s just agree to disagree (except for the part about using the moon to extract resources, i 100% agree with that, i am very pro lunar colonization)
    4
  605. i’m gonna make a video about it soon
    4
  606. it’s just the default settings i edit the planets though
    4
  607. because this is the first large-scale military invasion they’ve ever had to do, they aren’t skilled or prepared enough to do it, and with infrastructure collapsing they don’t have anything to use, so they have to bring their own air and water which is very difficult people don’t leave hong lu because it’s their home, not everyone wants to just up and leave from where they’ve lived for decades at this point and hong lu chose to go to war because whatever part of their government was left knew they were going to die, so might as well go down fighting an american colony
    4
  608. you’re completely underestimating how big the moon is “guys if you put a single nuclear power plant on earth, it will ruin the entire continent of asia!!!!” as i said in this video, i made a whole other video about why ideas like this are wrong. Watch it, it’s linked in the pinned comment.
    4
  609. yes
    4
  610. im not saying it’s impossible, i’m arguing we shouldn’t do it because it’s unnecessary but it’s always going to be difficult no matter how much we advance
    4
  611.  @saviourojukwu893 i completely agree half the reason i made this channel is to promote colonizing the moon instead of mars
    4
  612. space engine
    4
  613. @SedatKPunkt We’ve named tens of thousands of asteroids, yet there’s been no problems or confusion there. Why are planets any different?
    4
  614. Alright here’s why mercury is interesting 1. Might have a layer of compressed carbon (better known as diamonds) below the crust 2. Is the most metallic planet (largest core relative to its size) which likely means it formed differently from the other solar system planets 3. Caloris basin, one of the largest craters in the solar system 4. Most eccentric orbit in the solar system 5. Tidally locked to the sun, but it’s a 2:3 tidal locking instead of a 1:1 6. Poles, like the moon, probably have craters with ice in them 7. has a comet tail made of sodium 8. Has a surface gravity similar to mars despite being half the mass of mars (because of the large core) 9. Has a magnetic field despite its small size 10. and as a random fun fact, it has very few boulders. Unlike other rocky planets, its surface is much smoother without many large rocks/boulders, which makes it unique
    4
  615. everybody always thinks they’re living in the end times, and nobody ever is every single generation has thought the end is near and humanity is going to go extinct very soon, and every single one has been wrong
    4
  616. forgot to mention this in the video, but Janssen is also probably very volcanically active. There’s some temperature variations that might be caused by volcanism. I was originally going to include that but forgot lol
    4
  617. but when you search “j1407b” it’s still there and nasa still calls it a super saturn with rings that’s probably because you searched planet instead of exoplanet
    4
  618. radial velocity the second most common way to detect planets after transit
    4
  619. known universe does not mean the same thing as the entire universe i meant the parts we know as in, out of the 5,000 or so exoplanets we know exist, j1407b had the biggest rings i didn’t mean out of every single planet i meant only out of the ones we know exist
    4
  620. @Hiljaa_ no, we’d just use duplicates theres hundreds of cities and towns with the same name on earth and nobody gets confused, because it’s all about context just as you’d say “london, england” you could say “bocaprins, the gas giant orbiting malmok” (which is a real planet btw)
    4
  621. everyone please debate with this very serious comment i need the engagement
    4
  622. two things 1. i cancelled this series specifically for things like this (it was unrealistic) 2. artemis 2 is actually currently ahead of schedule. It’s targeting september 2025 but every component of the mission is on track to be ready by july 2025
    4
  623. the international space station seems to have gone pretty well
    4
  624. i will
    4
  625. we were not born too early lol the people who were born too early were the billions and billions of people who never even knew what a telescope was because it hadn’t been invented yet. This is really the first time humans actually have a chance of exploring space, and we were born right at the very beginning of it all so we were born at the perfect time to give humanity the stars. We’re really at a turning point i completely believe that by the end of this century we will have colonies on the moon and maybe a base or two on mars and we’re at the perfect moment to decide how this future is going to be, because we’re the ones who are gonna have to make it so don’t feel down about being born “too early” be happy that the humans currently alive today are gonna be the ones to make humanity multiplanetary, and everyone alive today has a say in how we do that
    4
  626. you’d be surprised how many people don’t
    4
  627. i made a whole video about how we would survive that lol
    4
  628. all are good, kurzgesagt has a few minor flaws but is still good
    4
  629. i explained why in the video there are very important things that are easier to make without gravity and are more effective and you get the materials from the moon
    4
  630. it’s impossible to not radically change over a billion years a billion years is the difference between a bunch of single celled prokaryotes and us
    4
  631. you wouldn’t be able to notice the distance tbh (except for the fact that you’d see the ceiling, but you can stop that by putting a wall that looks like a sky in the way)
    4
  632. nope
    4
  633. most rocket fuel is just hydrogen and oxygen more commonly known as the elements that make up water we’ll be alright
    4
  634.  @AlfallMap  definitely on my to-do list, but it’s in the “post-2206 category” so might be a while 2206 is a really big year and i have big plans for after it, including uranus, neptune, the kuiper belt, and some interstellar timelines, but 2206 is gonna take a while, probably months, because i have a side project to finish relating to it
    4
  635. @ you can’t possibly know that, nobody has tried there’s plenty of resources available on lunar development and why it would be both profitable and beneficial i could send here if you’d like to know more
    4
  636. yes we do you don’t need habitable planets to colonize space
    4
  637. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171
    4
  638. difference with the moon is if some apocalypse happened on earth, they’re right there and the moon is a perfect place to set up huge industries so will have all they need to build ships and stuff so they are in a perfect position to rebuild after a disaster in a scenario where earth is in post-apocalypse isn’t about surviving long term, it’s about being able to get back to earth (and rebuilding it) as fast as possible and otherwise, low-g actually isn’t that big of a problem on the moon again because of how close it is to earth. The moon doesn’t need permanent populations because of how close it is. (a permanent population would obviously be great, but we don’t need one) Crews can be switched out every few months, which negates all the health problems and social problems entirely
    4
  639. the things we use to study the solar system are also capable of studying exoplanets, we can do both
    4
  640. if you don’t trust me then trust the actual scientists in the sources i have in the description also the second half of this video is about why google is wrong and explains why the internet still thinks it exists when it doesn’t also, the wikipedia article for v1400 centauri (the star j1407b was thought to orbit) also says what i’m saying, you can go look at that to confirm what i’m saying as well
    4
  641. i meant days 130 days is actually fairly long among the planets we’ve discovered
    4
  642. oh god please no the moon is literally the worst place in the solar system to terraform
    4
  643. i did say “it’s not like the us is innocent either” lol and the whole beginning of the video is talking about how there’s huge problems in the us i’m not acting like the us is perfect, it’s far from it, and i 100% did not mean to imply that at all but 90% of my audience is american, and the united states has the most advanced space program in the world. We are the most likely country to actually be able to pull off building a moon base, so a lot of the arguments will be us-centric, because other than china there isn’t any other place that could significantly compete right now if we want to colonize the moon we’re going to have to get the us government to do it unfortunately it would be great if europe or east asia or literally any other region had space programs on the level of NASA to keep the us in check, but unfortunately there just isn’t any, so, as the world currently is, the goals of the us will shape how space colonization happens
    4
  644. because real pictures of these planets don’t exist
    4
  645. @ayaan9646 it is not safe to say that at all best we can tell most stars have several planets, and the ones that don’t also happen to be the rarest types of stars the “lots of stars probably don’t have planets” idea is outdated and from when we only knew of a handful of exoplanets instead of thousands modern estimates suggest there are anywhere from 8-40 rogue planets per every star
    4
  646. haven’t written the script yet but i will
    4
  647. everything spacex has been doing since 2002 has been to get to mars marketing is definitely a part of it, but they are undeniably actually working on doing it
    4
  648. which is why nameexoworlds exists, to fix that
    4
  649. i meant the descendants of humanity as in there will still be some form of life around then that can trace its origins back to modern day humanity, i never said modern humans would still be around i’m pretty sure i said that in the video edit: yeah i said this at 1:37
    4
  650.  @mfulan7548  https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2018/11/aa34004-18.pdf sorry missed this comment, I dont check my replies very often I usually just look for new comments
    4
  651. 1. The transit doesn’t have enough data to say what type of material it was or what shape, one of the sources in the description shows multiple models that all fit the data. A protoplanetary disk is the only option because planetary rings simply don’t get that big. 2. eccentric long period orbits have been ruled out as i explained in the video. Polar orbits would still produce multiple transits. 3. ring systems don’t affect us being able to see consistent transits. If anything they would make it easier 4. We don’t need to constantly monitor it, we have all-sky surveys always looking at the entire sky. If it dims consistently we would’ve known
    4
  652.  @starsofaheartattack6286  i think we will eventually but it won’t be intelligent
    4
  653. his videos aren’t very well researched and he gets stuff wrong a lot from what i’ve heard
    4
  654. they’ll use roman numerals, so WASP-49 b I
    4
  655.  @trigularity  people who actually work on figuring out dark matter have thought of that and disproven it We don’t say there’s dark matter because that’s our best guess, we say there’s dark matter because nothing else fits the data now we just have to figure out what it is also i didn’t even mention dark matter in this video so i don’t even know why you commented this lol
    4
  656. 1. they’ll eventually be ejected from their systems due to random stellar encounters 2. no, because o-type stars explode before planets even have a chance to form
    4
  657. not really the gas giants have plenty of moons way closer to them mimas and enceladus are closer to saturn than our moon, so is io to jupiter not to mention the dozens of smaller moons that orbit way closer (saturn has moons within its rings) moons are gonna be on average closer to the inner planets because we have smaller hill spheres (so any object on a stable orbit must be closer to us than the gas giants to be stable) but it’s not particularly rare
    4
  658. @cesaralcaraz819 i didn’t mean eternal lol nothing escapes the heat dearth eventually also i don’t buy into any of the “humanity will be extinct in a few decades” stuff. Every generation always believes they’re in the end times, and nobody ever is we’ve seen this pattern through all of history. Literally every single generation in history has thought they will be one of the last, and it never happens it’s not about making myself feel better. It’s looking at this stuff objectively. Are we at risk of extinction? yes. Do we have problems we need to solve that we are ignoring? yes. But at risk of extinction and “imminently going extinct” are two different things
    4
  659. @thrax4939 we get pictures of planets outside the solar system
    4
  660. @Troonielicious Planets are several thousand times rarer than comets, and you cannot just go to them whenever, and if you could you would also have the ability to do the same with comets and what does “right there” even mean in this context
    4
  661. space engine
    4
  662. all large objects like that form with debris disks around them jupiter also did for example, that’s how the galilean moons formed (same thing for saturn as well)
    4
  663. those are only density estimates and have not been totally confirmed, and having water is only one of the dozens of potential explanations (other ones include extremely thick, uninhabitable atmospheres or other non-water light molecules) also, trappist-1 is unusually calm for a star of it’s type
    4
  664. i cancelled the series because i wasn’t happy with it, i didn’t think it was realistic enough but i’m redoing the whole thing and version 2 will be out sometime soon
    4
  665. there are no detailed images of exoplanets, so all images are just artists impressions with very minimal evidence
    4
  666. @birds_adorb it is not
    4
  667. 🟠
    4
  668. great example of why to never use ai for space questions
    4
  669. why not
    4
  670. Venus: 0.815 earth masses Mars: 0.107 Mercury: 0.055 Moon: 0.0123 Asteroid Belt: 0.0005 0.815+0.107+0.055+0.0123+0.0005 = 0.9895 0.9895 earth masses is less than 1 earth mass so, every inner solar system object combined is smaller than earth and yes, the amount of resources on a planet is directly proportional to its mass. There’s slight variations, but all the planets formed out of the same material, so have roughly the same ratio of resources, so bigger planets have more
    4
  671. the wikipedia page is already updated
    4
  672. triton
    4
  673. i’m talking about mass
    4
  674. he didn’t lie, he just got something wrong
    4
  675. he’s gone down the clickbait route recently
    3
  676. it would not
    3
  677. the benefits of mars colonization only start to show up once we start colonizing other planets phobos is a great place to build a space tether/skyhook system but you only need that if you have colonies on venus, jupiter, outer solar system etc
    3
  678. and while i’m here, might as well say this too people who want to go to the stars aren’t “lunatics”. You’re generalizing an entire group of people based on your assumptions. There are people who have spent their entire careers researching this stuff, and have actually figured out ways we can get to places like alpha cen on an order of decades. They are not lunatics. They did not base their ideas on science fiction. you are using the same logic flat earthers use (all scientists are blinded by sci fi space to realize that space isn’t real!!!). Don’t immediately write off ideas you don’t agree with. Research them. Figure out who is saying them and why. I don’t think humanity will ever have a galaxy-spanning empire. I don’t believe star wars or star trek will ever happen. But to say going to the stars will never happen is just ignorant.
    3
  679. me when i lie
    3
  680. looked good
    3
  681. i explained how in the video
    3
  682. as i explain in this video, we aren’t trying to colonize the moon to get more living space that’s not the point
    3
  683. that’s why a large part of this video was talking about how to cool it down
    3
  684. in 1 billion years, the sun will heat up to the point that earth will become uninhabitable all the solutions to this involve space in some way (making orbital mirrors, moving earth, lifting mass off the sun, etc) so if you want to save earth you need to have technology yes there has been life before, but there’s only been one species with a space program. If it took 4 billion years to get one, the chances of getting a second are slim so humans are the best shot life on earth has if it wants to survive for longer than a billion years from now
    3
  685. proxima cen is right where an oort cloud should be so there might not be one plus circumbinary orbits are pretty unstable here there definitely could be dwarf planets but they’ll probably be more like ceres orbit wise, not pluto and eris and haumea and all the kuiper belt ones though proxima centauri could actually host a kuiper belt analogue so there’s a lot more chances there
    3
  686. i’d rather have multiple powers in space than one, and the us is currently the most capable country in space the us declining in space would be bad for space colonization as a whole, just as china declining in space would be as well but right now the us is the only one in decline so i don’t need to talk about china
    3
  687. the majority of greek and roman names are already taken by solar system objects, that’s part of the problem lol
    3
  688. protoplanetary disks and rings are extremely different things protoplanetary disks are bigger, hotter, a different shape, form in a different way than rings, and eventually become planets (rings don’t do that)
    3
  689. there’s nothing to fuck up on the moon no life, no ecosystem, no living environment of any kind i was trying to give an example of something similar but there literally isn’t any example on earth of something as dead as the moon there is nothing to harm by colonizing the moon
    3
  690. the people who are saying we should try to leave are idiots that nobody takes seriously trying to find other habitable planets isn’t about leaving earth, they’re all too far and won’t be habitable for us anyway nobody who knows anything about earth or space is actually trying to find a place for humanity to escape to
    3
  691. no “rare” and “nonexistent” are not the same thing a 1% chance is rare, but if only 1% of all planets are habitable then there should be 10 billion of them in the milky way alone
    3
  692. there’s about 150 exoplanets with official names so far, but there are 5,600 total exoplanets so there’s still a long way to go but wikipedia has a full list of all named exoplanets here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_exoplanets
    3
  693. that planet isn’t even confirmed to exist, and we have absolutely no data about it except for mass and orbital period so we can’t say that
    3
  694. people like seeing humans do it, it’s much more inspirational and a good way to get more funding unfortunately nobody cares about a colony of robots, people want to see humans
    3
  695. he doesn’t have bad intentions or anything, i think he’s genuinely trying to be informative, it’s just a lot of what he said is oversimplified or exaggerated
    3
  696. maybe
    3
  697. Grand tour of 55 cancri talks about all 5
    3
  698. these planets are at most a few hundred light years away, and a few centuries is not long enough for planets to become habitable
    3
  699. thanks!
    3
  700. it isn’t, we can see what direction it rotates with radial velocity
    3
  701. it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s just what some people think neil degrasse tyson is just one guy, plenty of other scientists believe it and plenty of others don’t
    3
  702. i absolutely realize that half of this video is about using asteroids to make space habitats i have whole videos about colonizing space to save earth i didn’t say we would stay on earth my argument is that we don’t need planets to survive at all (also, there are ways to prevent the destruction of earth for a lot longer than 2-3 billion years)
    3
  703. it’ll have a way denser atmosphere and be a lot hotter than mars, but it’s somewhat similar
    3
  704. i do
    3
  705. i talked about this in the video, mining the moon will not affect any of that at all
    3
  706. i don’t, that’s why i didn’t say that
    3
  707. it was not, the transit could only be explained by a single planet with a lot of material orbiting it the transit was symmetrical, which isn’t something a bunch of planets would do
    3
  708. @duncanbeggs4088 that’s true with modern day space stations, but we’re not talking about those I’m talking about space habitats that are possible with modern day materials that would have the total living space of a small country and you can put engines on them to avoid large debris strikes, and you can put shielding on them to avoid small strikes. Modern day space stations get hit by micro meteors all the time and are fine the problems you mentioned won’t be problems with the habitats im talking about, or have already been solved with modern stations I’m well aware of everything you said, and i wouldn’t be recommending space habitats instead of planets if there weren’t very good solutions for all of the problems I recommend isaac arthur who goes way more in depth about this stuff
    3
  709. not yet, i have a lot of other videos to get to
    3
  710. no if you called j1407b a super saturn then every star with an asteroid belt would also be one this is a small-scale solar system, not a planet with rings
    3
  711. i explain why google is wrong in this video
    3
  712. thunderf00t is a well known doomer who is extremely biased with anti elon musk rhetoric (i don’t like elon musk either but thunderf00t is dragging all of space colonization down with musk for no reason) his content is literally just rage bait at this point, and i’m saying that as a person who has watched actual anti space colonization videos that actually have good points. There are good arguments for not pursuing space colonization but thunderf00t is not an example of that also space is a well known bipartisan thing (for example obama started commerical crew program, and trump made the space force) so even if the us goes hyper conservative it’s still going to have a space program not to mention the majority of projects i mentioned in this video are by companies, not the us government
    3
  713. it would absolutely be a problem, several countries have sent satellites to orbit the moon and at this point several companies have as well they’d see it not to mention it is impossible to hide a rocket launch. The infrastructure does not exist to secretly launch anything to the moon and it is impossible to make, because every random guy in their backyard with a telescope could see your stuff go on its way to the moon as an example of all this, a spent rocket booster from china accidentally crash landed on the moon a few years ago, and within days every single spacefaring power on earth and the general public knew about it and if it’s that easy to catch a single small rocket stage, imagine how hard it’d be to hide large bases
    3
  714. space colonization doesn’t need habitable planets that’s something generations of sci fi have put into peoples heads but it’s not true all planets have resources and all planets can be colonized all planets can be new homes (and we don’t even need planets for living space) also if someone thinks the only reason space is interesting is because it can be colonized then they have no idea how interesting space actually is i highly suggest watching isaac arthur on youtube, he talks a lot about actual space colonization (not the incorrect space opera “humans will only colonize earthlike habitable planets” idea)
    3
  715. earth is still going to be more habitable than any exoplanet ever could be no matter what we do to it all the people who want to leave are idiots who have no idea how good earth is (and still is even with climate change) which is why they’re a small minority that nobody takes seriously
    3
  716. i don’t trust the government, but you don’t need to invent an evil shadow government hiding the truth to be mad at the actual government already does a lot of shady stuff, there’s plenty to be mad at without making conspiracies like this in fact if there is any conspiracy, i’d guess that it’s the government itself promoting this “space is fake” stuff to distract people from the actual bad things they do, to make all conspiracies seem less credible i honestly think you’re the one being played right now
    3
  717. it has a protoplanetary disk, which is different from rings
    3
  718. it is not As i’ve said in several other comments, this is an extremely small sample size. This is less than 0.0000001% of all the planets in the milky way alone and is not enough to make any conclusions If we look at all the trillions of planets in the milky way and not a single one is habitable, then that’s another story. But a few thousand planets is evidence we haven’t searched enough Always remember that if you already have a conclusion in your head, then you’ll see evidence of it everywhere. If you already think god exists, then you’ll see evidence for it everywhere. But if you think god doesn’t exist, you’ll also see evidence for that everywhere, because it’s our natural bias. Wait until we have enough evidence, and then make conclusions. Don’t cherry-pick evidence for a conclusion you’ve already made
    3
  719. we don’t, that’s why the title says “known”
    3
  720. @sergiohenrique2411 that’s my most recent video lmao
    3
  721. because not all of them are gas giants
    3
  722. density is just mass over volume, if you know the mass and radius then you know the density
    3
  723. luckily colonizing the moon will be profitable, the economics of lunar colonization have been studied for decades and we know how to make money and why it’s beneficial
    3
  724. yes
    3
  725. yeah, that’s why I said “known“
    3
  726. space engine
    3
  727. ah yes the part where i say “habitable planets do exist, we just haven’t found them yet” is so defeatist
    3
  728. that’s not whats happening at all though
    3
  729. The perfect resonance system is overhyped and doesn’t have anything to do with j1407b, i don’t see how that would make it possible and the reason it has to be a rogue brown dwarf is because the only objects with enough gravity to hold a protoplanetary disk like that together for long periods of time and not be a star are brown dwarfs
    3
  730. stop it from receiving energy until it radiates all the heat away
    3
  731. because planets with shorter orbits are easier to see
    3
  732. based on how fast the transit was, we know for a fact that it should have been seen again by now nobody is being impatient, we know exactly when and where it should’ve been seen again and it wasn’t there
    3
  733. just saw your edit frigga is 70km wide, too big to be a target
    3
  734. @beskamir5977 no, spacex publishes what their goals are for every starship flight before launch. Flight 1 was simply get off the pad. They didn’t do well, but that was done. Flight 2’s goal was to get as far as possible after stage separation. It didn’t last long after stage separation, but was mostly fine. Flight 3’s goal was to relight engines in space and make it to reentry. It didn’t do that, so not good. Flight 4’s goal was to survive reentry, and have its booster make a controlled soft landing. Both were accomplished, flight 4 was a resounding success. Flight 5’s goal was to repeat flight 4 but catch the booster. Again, complete success. Flight 6’s goal was to do another catch, and do the engine relight that was abandoned on flight 3. The catch was abandoned due to problems with the tower, not the rocket, and the engine test was a success. Flight 7’s goal was another booster catch and to get a new type of ship to reentry, and to test payload deployment. The catch was accomplished, the ship goals weren’t. Spacex is very clear with their goals. They are all well-known long before the launch. Just because you aren’t aware of what the goals were doesn’t mean they’re “moving goalposts” Being as strict as possible, flights 4 and 5 succeeded in their full mission parameters. With some wiggle room (accepting that flight 1 didn’t really have defined goals and the flight 6 rocket was fine, it was only the tower that had problems) Flights 1, 4, 5, and 6 were full successes.
    3
  735. planets aren’t ejected that fast, and if it was, the thing that ejected it would’ve been significantly big enough that we should’ve seen it
    3
  736. forming multiple planets, yes
    3
  737. i’m working on it
    3
  738. no, it’s 1 inch a year, it doesn’t matter at all
    3
  739. yes
    3
  740. yes, but as far as i can tell it fits the evidence the best
    3
  741. @thebeautyofuniverse5250 not if it’s stripped away by the star faster than it can form
    3
  742. sorry for being late i missed this comment marineria is it’s own country, though still relies heavily on the countries that founded it the red emirate was probably founded by royals and I figured theyd probably just become government figures in marineria and the monads are doing a bit of both, there’s a lot of different groups of them so there are a few different options each one chooses
    3
  743. when phailinsiam passes in front of its star, depending on what type of light it blocks we can see what’s in its atmosphere, because different chemicals block light differently
    3
  744. probably not there’s been some research recently suggesting that hycean planets don’t actually exist, it just hasn’t been published yet so i’m still waiting to talk about it
    3
  745. that’s not what toi-700 d actually looks like, it’s an artists impression. We don’t actually know what it’s like and probably not
    3
  746. nobody is trying to leave
    3
  747. getting hit by an asteroid on the moon is rarer than being struck by lighting on earth, and even then the asteroids are barely the size of pebbles and easily stopped by simple shielding (which we’ll need for radiation protection anyway)
    3
  748. there aren’t any official names for them yet, but 160+ exoplanets do have them already
    3
  749. technology needed to colonize space only happens because we colonize space just sitting around and waiting for things to get better is a great way for nothing to ever happen
    3
  750. kind of seems like a lot of effort to just give up halfway if we’re gonna terraform it then go all the way
    3
  751. the moon is currently making earth’s day slower not faster and doing it for venus would make it’s day faster but it’d take billions of years. We’d need to do it way faster which isn’t possible without getting very close to destroying venus entirely just using mirrors is way easier
    3
  752. why would you go out of your way to mine asteroids when the moon is right there. It has twenty times the resources of the entire asteroid belt combined
    3
  753. I do not currently have the resources
    3
  754. @UltimatePerfection You are fundamentally misunderstanding how exoplanet science works. I will say it again: we are not guessing. These are not hypotheses. We are directly looking at planets and studying them. this is not theoretical. We are literally doing the measurements. I agree with you that we can’t know anything until we actually observe it. But we HAVE actually observed it. Not theoretical. Telescopes were pointed at Kepler-22 b and it was been directly observed and measured. Not theoretically, not hypothetically. it has actually been done. This is not “wormholes” or “faster than light”. The difference here is Kepler-22 b and all other exoplanets are real objects that have been directly seen with human eyes. Wormholes only exist in equations, Kepler-22 b exists in real life and has been seen. Its characteristics were not found with equations, they were found with direct observations.
    3
  755. wrong
    3
  756. here are a few i can think of off the top of my head Janssen (lava planet 8 times the size of Earth, potentially has a ton of diamonds) Levantes (red in color, extremely young, thousands of degrees in temperature despite being further from its star than neptune, probably has rings) Halla (planet that orbits a star that shouldve expanded and destroyed it in the past, we have no idea how it still exists) Ahra (planet that orbits a dead star, 9 times bigger than jupiter and has such an active core that it heats up itself to have fairly earthlike temperatures) TOI-849 b (rocky planet that is somehow half the size of Saturn, likely the core of a gas giant that somehow lost its atmosphere) Enaiposha (potential ocean planet, likely has an atmosphere so dense its impossible to tell where the air ends and ocean begins) HD 80606 b (gas giant that has an extremely elliptical orbit that takes it super close to its star and then very far away, its literally a planet sized comet) Cuancoa (has clouds made of vaporized titanium) Ditso (has clouds made of vaporized quartz) Phailinsiam (blue in color, actively evaporating, has a comet tail) K2-141 b (lava planet, potentially has "icebergs" made of sodium metal) i can go on
    3
  757. nameexoworlds 2015 and 2019 were both kind of a mess
    3
  758. earth isn’t an exoplanet
    3
  759.  @olivert2358  J1407b does not orbit J1407 (V1400 centauri), that has been disproven several times by many different studies the people who said it did orbit v1400 cen have been proven wrong
    3
  760. probably not
    3
  761. not enough data to say anything about it
    3
  762. biggest one i know of with a confirmed radius is Ditsö̀ but there might be a bigger one im forgetting
    3
  763. man what is going on
    3
  764. a very large disk of material around an object where planets or moons form they’re very different from something like saturns rings
    3
  765. whoops my bad ill go ahead and change my voice for you dont worry in the meantime you go keep spreading negativity online for no reason you got this
    3
  766. not what i said
    3
  767. there’s a reason the title says “known”
    3
  768. I use pixlr to make the maps (I do not recommend it its really bad lol but all my stuff is already there so oh well) and I put it in google slides to record
    3
  769. i already have one https://discord.gg/uppYNpCG
    3
  770. Mu Arae was the star’s original name before being named cervantes I just personally choose to call stars by their names and systems by designations to distinguish between the star and the whole system
    3
  771. 1. this is now the most likely option, there isn’t another one that can explain everything we have seen 2. it comes from the same place all stars get their protoplanetary disks, it’s leftover material from when j1407b formed 3. Rings don’t get this big, it never could’ve been rings (even the people who discovered it said it was a disk of material, not rings) 4. if it has a protoplanetary disk this large, and given it doesn’t orbit a star, we can assume with a very high amount of confidence that this object formed like a regular star would, and given its high mass of several jupiter masses it would automatically make it a brown dwarf
    3
  772. j1407b is not at alpha centauri alpha centauri and v1400 centauri are two different things
    3
  773. in the very far future they’d be good counterweights for skyhooks but there’d be no point in building those unless we have significant presences across the entire solar system they’ll be useful later but not now
    3
  774. the video doesn’t say habitable exoplanets don’t exist
    3
  775. Hey, I noticed you didn't mention the proper names of exoplanets in this video, as they're named by the International Astronomical Union, and this might be an error. 55 Cancri f, for example, is named Harriot, 47 Ursae Majoris b and c are both named but I'm not sure which one you were talking about, and Upsilon Andromedae d is named Majriti. These planets have had these names since 2015, and are the official, IAU-recognized names of the planets. But anyway, great video, and great way to wrap up the year. Happy new year! (apologies if youre seeing this comment twice. My original one doesnt seem to be loading, so I'm switching accounts and trying again.)
    3
  776. @-IstanNewJeans- no the people who discovered it never said it was confirmed, they always said it was only a candidate
    3
  777. the Magellan mission was the first spacecraft to map the surface of Venus, and the name is a reference to the mission not the person
    3
  778. no that’s not how it works “anything is possible” in terms of what types of environments planets can have. If the universe is infinite there’s an infinite amount of identical earth copies, simple as that
    3
  779. @SedatKPunkt Yes, there are over 20,000 named asteroids And what is with people assuming every planet needs a unique name? There are hundreds of cities on earth that have the exact same name, but nobody gets confused. “We’ll run out of names” is a made-up problem that has been solved countless times already. It’s just context. There will be several Phailinsiams, but only one Phailinsiam 96 light years away from earth. Just like there are already several cities named Paris, but only one of them is in France.
    3
  780. the moon is far too big for that to ever be a problem
    3
  781. it does not it gets contracts from the us government to develop certain things. For example, specific variants of starship. But the us government isn’t giving them money and saying “go do whatever you want with it”, they’re giving them money and saying “here’s your money to build this specific thing for us” The us government is not giving spacex any money to go build a city on mars, meaning it’s funding that on its own
    3
  782. @resvero8342 which is an american company that works extremely closely with nasa
    3
  783. the only reason titan holds onto an atmosphere is because it’s cold, if we warmed it up the atmosphere would just escape into space as far as terraforming is concerned titan’s atmosphere really doesn’t matter except for getting resources to build a new one on top of it it’s entire crust is also ice, we’d be making a place with no solid surface
    3
  784. there isn’t anything to destroy on worlds without life. Stop projecting Earth’s problems onto the rest of the universe. You cannot ruin rocks, you cannot pollute an environment with no life. You cannot destroy the moon for example because it does not have an environment capable of being destroyed. Earth is the only place with life, so, until we find another, it is the ONLY environment that matters. You’re trying to treat every place in the universe like earth when that doesn’t make sense. What is done to lifeless worlds does not matter. You cannot ruin them, they’re already ruined.
    3
  785. tidally locked planets in the habitable zone rotate slowly, which makes having a magnetic field more difficult and it’s just a lot less living space
    3
  786. we would make the parts out of asteroids and the chances of getting hit are so low it’s pretty much a non issue (you don’t see asteroids colliding in the asteroid belt, or the jovian trojans, or the kuiper belt very often, i think we’ve seen maybe one collision ever since we started observing) also, there’s nothing stopping you from attaching engines and just moving out of the way and planets have large gravity wells, kind of annoying to have to launch everything the moon is the best place for industry to produce this stuff right now
    3
  787. there’s so much wrong with this comment i don’t even know where to begin when will you people learn that elon musk is a public figurehead and has not had much operational control over spacex for some time now How sad of a person do you have to be to hate a space company with contracts with nasa because you don’t like their ceo, who didn’t even make the contracts and isn’t building the rockets Elon musk and spacex are not the same thing. Stop confusing the two.
    3
  788. it could happen
    3
  789. europa and io colonies will have to be underground because of the radiation exposure on the surface ganymede is also better off being underground but it’s less of a concern there
    3
  790. nothing is known about it other than mass and orbit so you can’t say anything about it
    3
  791. breaks the rules, johnathan is not culturally significant yet at least
    3
  792. we’re going to colonize the stars and it will be based the night sky will be lit up by a million space habitats and the moon will have city lights on it we will spread the glorious message of nature and life to the galaxy so that every planet will have living beings on it
    3
  793. i tried doing that before but didn’t like the look of it made it look cluttered might try it again though
    3
  794. you’d need thousands of comets but yeah
    3
  795. the beginning of the video is explaining why just colonizing the moon is a good idea, i talk about terraforming a few minutes after
    3
  796. no, theyll be moving too fast, and will still be over 2 light years apart
    3
  797. I said that we don’t know in this video several times You aren’t the first person to not listen to what was said in the video and post an angry comment about things i didn’t say, why do so many people do this Did you just ignore all the times I said “probably” “from what we can tell” “from what we know so far” “most likely” etc not to mention everything i said in this video has at least one or more sources to back it up and of course i talked about the most controversial planets, those are the ones with the most misinformation this video was first and foremost correcting misinformation please actually listen to a video before you post an angry comment about things i didn’t say
    3
  798. well it would be, the moon has all the resources earth has. And unlike earth, which has dirt in the way, on the moon you can literally just dig the surface for everything you’d need. Lunar regolith is made of the same stuff asteroids are. Rocks and metal, perfect for industry the majority of costs involved with building rockets and space stations is just the launch. Eliminate the launch costs and you make it way cheaper. and the moon is extremely easy to launch off of and we’re actually very certain about this. There have been entire satellites launched to the moon specifically to find how much resources it has and the feasibility of mining. You don’t need to do any calculations because people have already been doing them for decades and the results are extremely promising
    3
  799. i have a bunch of papers saved somewhere but for now the channel anthrofuturism that i linked in the pinned comment goes way more in depth about this stuff than i did and uses a lot of the same sources
    3
  800. terrible idea, why would you waste an entire planet when we have hundreds of thousands of asteroids right here
    3
  801. @JTelli786 3 soviet cosmonauts have died in space, all on the same mission
    3
  802. @JTelli786 they died above the atmosphere, all other failed missions have been inside it
    3
  803. no, you’re understanding how big the moon is we could mine it for millions of years and have zero effect on the tides
    3
  804. there have been dozens of studies showing how it would be profitable
    3
  805. your comment only helps engagement which promotes this video further, so thanks for the free views
    3
  806. no, i’m specifically talking about the people who say it’s real the myth is that it’s a 100% confirmed real planet with rings
    3
  807. planets usually aren’t known to do that
    3
  808. space colonization doesn’t need habitable planets we’re still going to colonize space
    3
  809. all the budget is being used for other things, there isn’t enough money to go around
    3
  810.  @Raz.C  it’s a petition, it’s not legally binding or anything plus signing it from other countries will just show it has international support it’s not supposed to be an only american thing
    3
  811. it’s a real planet but not pink
    3
  812. what
    3
  813. oh yeah i only made this because you posted that website got inspired and made this in like an hour
    3
  814. impossible to say that with certainty you can say it’s hard all you want and list all the problems, but there are solutions to every single one of them
    3
  815. thursday
    3
  816. we don’t know how every system of the universe works, but we know as an indisputable fact that if something else doesn’t get the universe first, the heat death will happen it’s thermodynamics we’ve observed it countless times, all systems inevitably move toward maximum entropy (for example something hot will transfer heat to something cold until both objects are the same temperature) the universe has hot and cold places. Therefore it will tend toward all areas becoming the same temperature. That’s the heat death. Every place becomes the same temperature, so nothing happens again it works on everything from individual atoms to solar systems, and there is no reason it wouldn’t work on the largest scales as well (in fact, we already know it’s happening at the largest scales because we can see the universe). So, we know the heat death will happen because it already is happening if thermodynamics is wrong then a lot of technology we rely on wouldnt work, so we know this is how the universe works for an absolute fact
    3
  817. @Thescifienjoyer55 the reason it’s contested is because some people think something else will destroy the universe before it happens. If nothing else gets the universe first, we know it will happen, because it’s already happening the heat death is just the continuation of the universe assuming the laws of physics don’t change Cavemen don’t need to know how biology or exactly how fire happens to know that fire is hot, that if you touch it you get burnt, and based on all the other fires they’ve seen burn they can assume all fires will continue being hot and burning people It’s the same thing with the universe. We see entropy happen, and can assume it will continue happening. We don’t need to know how the universe works to know that it’s moving toward a state of maximum entropy currently and will probably continue doing so unless something totally unexpected changes the laws of physics and i never said i didn’t think we can prevent it. It’s the same thing with the sun becoming a red giant. It will happen unless something stops it and yeah if the heat death happens new universes could eventually form
    3
  818. not one thick enough to be important
    3
  819. @Danny-mg1hu no, we haven’t found enough examples to make any conclusions like that we are basing all of our knowledge on less than 0.000001% of all the planets in the milky way, and the milky way itself is one of a few trillion galaxies
    3
  820. i didn’t say that i said the rings are most likely a protoplanetary disk, not that rings are impossible
    3
  821. because without industry on the moon you aren’t getting a mars colony
    3
  822. it’s called halcyonic planets and the end of the solar system
    3
  823. @AarontheBodza no
    3
  824.  @Lobed-Homunculus  can’t name them after people unfortunately
    3
  825. i already answered you in your last comment about this, i don’t
    3
  826. we see the moon two seconds in the past and all the planets in this video are at most a few hundred light years away, so we are only seeing them a few centuries in the past that’s not enough time for the planets to have significantly changed, they will be roughly the same they are today as they were when we saw them
    3
  827. these are the same astronomers that have no problem switching the names of the thousands of asteroids that get names. There is zero confusion when an asteroid gets renamed, nobody has trouble remembering it, because there’s a database of all named asteroids. It’s the exact same situation with exoplanets. All the astronomers are just arbitrarily not using the names of exoplanets, but have no problem using the names of asteroids, which are named in essentially the exact same way If there was actually a problem with using the actual names of exoplanets, we would’ve seen it with asteroids as well. This whole “but the names are confusing” is just a made up problem and i don’t understand why it’s used asteroid names have meaning too. The numbers at the front can tell you what year it was discovered, it has different letters depending on if it’s a comet or not. But again, nobody has any problem renaming asteroids, but for some reason arbitrarily draw the line at exoplanets
    3
  828. you’d need a lot more than a single asteroid you’d need thousands of them
    3
  829. dimidium is one of the very few planet names i don’t like the other one being Orbitar
    3
  830. it’s not incorrectly worded “does the moon have life” is a perfectly correct sentence and i don’t see what’s wrong with it it’s also not clickbait, if you watch the video then you’ll see that the answer is actually yes
    3
  831. it’s a manageable risk and an asteroid hitting the moon big enough to cause damage is rarer than being struck by lightning, and very easy to defend against
    3
  832. we can never say that for sure
    3
  833. space is usually a bipartisan issue, both sides have different space policies but there isn’t really an “anti space” side for example obama made the commerical crew program and is why spacex is now delivering astronauts to the iss, and trump made the space force
    3
  834. based on how long the transit lasted, we know how long it’s orbital period was supposed to be
    3
  835. the outer layer is relatively cold but there’s just so much outer layer the luminosity of the sun will increase dramatically, which will cause things to melt
    3
  836. low gravity, extremely cold, far away, and has the most unique environment in the solar system titan’s a cool place to colonize but i don’t see it being terraformed
    3
  837. no it isn’t lol optimistically there are maybe like 20 planets we’ve found that could’ve been habitable (and that’s because habitable planets are small and hard to detect) this is nowhere near a large enough sample size to make any conclusions
    3
  838. there isn’t much evidence for it, and it probably doesn’t exist
    3
  839. if it’s a spaceship i’ll eat my hat
    3
  840. the transit happened in 2007 if that’s what you’re asking but it was this year when the rogue brown dwarf hypothesis came out i believe
    3
  841. @ayaan9646 it’s not clickbait, the thumbnail is the conclusion i come to in the video
    3
  842. yes
    3
  843. this century is really the last opportunity the universe has to make us extinct we already know how to deflect asteroids, there aren’t any nearby stars that will go supernova, we’d have thousands of years of warning for any rogue objects entering the solar system, a total nuclear war will still leave hundreds of millions of survivors (and that’s a pessimistic scenario) and as soon as we start going to the moon then that’s it, because the moon gives us all of space to colonize if something is going to make us go extinct, it better happen fast, because if we don’t go extinct this century then chances are we never will
    3
  844. i completely agree it’s inescapable, i just think we’re gonna last a lot longer than other forms of life were the only species that not only knows what extinction is but can take steps to prevent it
    3
  845. @Edarnon_Brodie we know a surprising amount actually
    3
  846. @jaredgalvinperez4459 chrysalis wasn’t big, it was between the sizes of mimas and iapetus
    3
  847. no
    3
  848. that sounds interesting might have to read it
    3
  849. I used that point of view because I don’t want to sound like i’m predicting anything, I just want to make an interesting scenario lol. So saying something like “the blue famine happens” sounds more like a fictional event than a prediction, like “the blue famine will happen” thanks for your support!
    3
  850. i literally made this video in response to the fake “exoplanets better for life” videos
    3
  851. half this video is about why google is wrong
    3
  852. i explained why we don’t need to make it rotate faster in the video
    3
  853. it was the only one known at the time so no point giving it a unique name
    3
  854. it does
    3
  855. ​ @Celinsial  Ceres has a lot of water and comets are by definition icy, their tails are water and other ices evaporating off their surfaces as they heat up
    3
  856. it’s a problem, but a solvable one there are already dozens of proposed solutions to deal with dust, only thing we have to do now is test them also, every single airless dead rock is going to have the exact same dust problem. Mars has it to a slightly lesser extent. The sharp dust is by no means unique to the moon, in fact earth is one of the very few outliers that doesn’t have it
    3
  857. all the trappist planets are tidally locked, meaning they rotate slowly and planets with slow rotations have a very difficult time having a magnetic field, the chances are not good and it doesn’t matter if trappist-1 is calm now, as i said in the video. It was much more active in the past. If it already blew away their atmospheres, then the planets won’t have much material to build new ones. Yes there’s a chance it does (and i do in fact say that in the video as well) but it’s not a high chance. Not to mention JWST observations have already shown evidence that all the trappist planets are airless
    3
  858. more mass means bigger and more radius means bigger both mean bigger, just bigger in different ways (mass means heavier, radius means wider) whenever i say bigger i almost always mean mass, because finding out the radius of a planet is much more difficult than finding the mass
    3
  859. planet x isn’t an actual object, it’s getting mislabeled “Planet X” is just a placeholder name for any unknown planet. For a while, Neptune was Planet X. Then it was Pluto. It was even Eris for some time. The object you’re talking about should usually be referred to as Planet 9 just for future reference as it’s what most scientists call it But i don’t think it exists because we’ve searched 70% of the sky and found nothing, it’s running out of places to be
    3
  860. 1:07 “Before I start, I should mention that terraforming is completely possible. I’ve argued against doing it, but I’m not doing that because I think it’s impossible.” i literally say several times that “it is hard” is not a reason to not terraform idk how many times i’m gonna have to say this before people start listening I am against terraforming because there are better options. I am NOT against terraforming because it is hard. i love how despite me saying this multiple times people still assume i’m just “ohhhh it’s sooo hard let’s just not do it” please for the love of god actually realize what people are arguing before calling them stupid
    3
  861. some are far enough away that we’re seeing them hundreds of years in the past, but thats not enough to have had any significant changes from as we see them now
    3
  862. everything
    3
  863. @dingickso4098 Mars’s environment was very different from earth’s, and while it did have liquid water it was not an earthlike environment and probably not a great place for life. It was most likely covered in ice with small seas and polar rivers trapped under glaciers. I have a video about it Venus was actually likely never habitable. There’s evidence piling up that it never had oceans or liquid water. It’s not confirmed yet and there’s still a chance, but we do not know if venus was ever earthlike
    3
  864. Good points, but i’m trying to make this series not super hyper-rational with the smartest option always chosen, because i do want it to be realistic so for example the governments of olympia and hong lu are supposed to be messing up. Funds aren’t allocated to expansion in olympia because they wanted to build science stations on olympus mons thinking it wouldn’t be a problem, or there’s a corrupt government in control of hong lu trying to keep their nation independent. Sometimes, the best option isn’t the one that’s chosen, happens a lot in the real world, and I wanted to include some of that ive been planning to add a hellas colony eventually, but i’ve already completed the timelines for part 4 and 5 and haven’t gotten around to it lol (itll probably happen in part 6, but that probably won’t be around for a while, because something big happens in part 5)
    3
  865. @dosomestuff1949 yes, anything, including gas giants
    3
  866. no we do not
    3
  867. you don’t need earth sized mirrors you need a swarm of smaller mirrors at L1 they can be made with materials we already know how to make today
    3
  868. it could be possible but we don’t know how life could start on a gas giant so we don’t know
    2
  869.  @nahoj.2569  yes and it is very bad and we need to fix it but it won’t make all life extinct everywhere
    2
  870. it’s not fake, it’s just not the ringed planet people keep saying it is
    2
  871. i didn’t say mining the moon would replace earth based mining, and i also didn’t say that it would solve climate change i said that was hypothetically something we could do, and then mentioned space based solar power which was the actual way colonizing the moon will help stop climate change i’m aware of the shipping costs, that’s why i only mentioned mining the moon and sending material to earth in a one off sentence
    2
  872. then we go to mars and the asteroids
    2
  873. hycean planets would have oceans hundreds or thousands of miles deep, where the pressures at the bottom would bury any crust it had with layers of pressurized ice so from what i understand any volcanic activity would be unable to actually reach the ocean
    2
  874. @notsoancientpelican first off i’ve never watched star trek, i don’t watch sci fi stuff and what he said solar sails also you don’t need thousands of years, we only need to get it down to about a century and the generation ship problems go away and alpha centauri is about 20 years away with solar sails that we already know are possible under known science this isn’t a matter of me watching too much sci fi (because i don’t) its a matter of you being uninformed about how much we actually know i suggest actually reading up on scientific papers about this instead of immediately writing people off as lunatics with no evidence
    2
  875. @notsoancientpelican “we shouldn’t go to the stars” and “we can’t go to the stars” are two different things
    2
  876. they can be
    2
  877. alright are you trolling or do you actually think that happened because i can’t tell lmao
    2
  878. screw rheasilvia all my homies hate rheasilvia and i made this episode before 2002 ms4’s mountain was found (but it might not exist either it might’ve been a moon passing behind it)
    2
  879. i cancelled the series because it wasn’t realistic enough, but i am redoing the whole thing so version 2 will be out soon
    2
  880. i specifically wrote this script to not mention politics but ok
    2
  881. except our telescopes are extremely powerful and there are plenty of ways to make meaningful measurements if planets meet the right orbital characteristics we can figure out their radius and what’s in their atmosphere for example we also have temperature maps of several planets (Kepler-7b, HD 80606 b, Magor, Mulchatna, and Tylos for example) you have to find a balance between “space is so cool anything is possible i believe everything!!!” and “we know nothing about anything” because we know a hell of a lot
    2
  882. the moon doesn’t have zero gravity it’s just low and as i said in the video, you don’t need to live on the moon. It’s close enough to earth that crews can be regularly switched out like the iss, which avoids the low gravity problem entirely if you need to have a child you can very easily go back to earth or to a rotating space habitat with higher gravity within a few days mars for example doesn’t have that, you have to stay on it for years
    2
  883. @suruxstrawde8322 it would help a bit but there are other problems with low gravity that are different from the bone mass loss (like eye problems and blood gets pumped differently)
    2
  884. over 400 successful launches would suggest otherwise spacex is the only way NASA gets crew to the international space station right now spacex has been the primary way NASA has sent its space probes into the solar system for several years now spacex operates over 2/3 of all satellites in earth orbit the falcon 9 is one of the most reliable rockets ever built, all the numbers are publicly available and you can do the math yourself if you don’t believe me “disastrous record” is just objectively not true. I don’t like elon musk, but don’t let your opinions blind you from the actual reality of the situation. Spacex is extremely successful.
    2
  885. also even ignoring the falcon 9 and the hundreds of successful launches it has and just talking about starship, spacex isn’t using your tax money. As I said in other comments, spacex is developing starship out of their own pocket. The ONLY thing taxes have paid for is Starship HLS, and the HLS has not launched yet. The starship launches happening currently aren’t part of the HLS program and therefore are not tax-funded. No taxpayer money has been spent on any Starship launch to date, and it won’t be spent until it is specifically launches and other activities related to the development of Starship HLS.
    2
  886. @Toenail_VR earth didn’t have rings, the moon forming collision was likely over in a few hours and there wasn’t much time for rings to form but if there was, it was again a circumplanetary disk and not rings
    2
  887. luckily the moon is a very big place, and nothing we can do to it will have any significant effect on earth you could detonate every nuke we have on the moon and it wouldn’t affect earth other than maybe a slight increase in harmless meteors there’s nothing anyone could do on the moon that would negatively effect earth for the next few million years at least
    2
  888. a significant percentage of it definitely more than the entire mass of the asteroid belt
    2
  889. planets don’t evaporate on timescales of thousands of years, we know for a fact that all of these planets still exist
    2
  890. no it isn’t lol we’ve discovered less than 0.000000001% of all the planets that likely exist milky way. Of those, less than 0.1% of those even had a chance of being habitable, all the rest are gas or ice giants or hot rocky planets like mercury and venus this is nowhere near a large enough sample size to make any definitive conclusions don’t get me wrong, if you believe in a god, i don’t care. You’re allowed to believe whatever you want, i’m not gonna be a reddit atheist. We have no idea how earth got life, or how the universe began, and for all we know it could’ve been a god that made it. But this is not evidence of a god. It’s evidence that we have an incomplete data set. Now, if we find and study all the 1 trillion+ planets in the milky way and not a single one is habitable, then that’s another story. But right now, this is not a large enough sample size to make any big conclusions like that
    2
  891. as i explain in the video, it is not
    2
  892. thanks for all the comments, but unfortunately i’ve ended this series lol it wasn’t realistic enough and I’m not proud of it but i am working on redoing the entire timeline better and higher-quality
    2
  893. all footsteps are too small to be visible from the moon, so you wouldn’t be able to see it from earth. Light pollution also wouldn’t be an issue, the most changes we’d see would be some city lights, and those would be too dim to cause any noticeable change in light pollution levels. The changes we’ll make to the moon would be nearly unnoticeable and i find it really hard to care about the “natural face” of the moon. At some point you have to realize that the huge benefits we’d get from colonizing the moon outweigh us seeing a few city lights on it no life would be affected, it wouldn’t cause light pollution, it’s purely a “but the moon is pretty as it is” argument which in the end really doesn’t matter when in comparison to what the moon will give us (and it’s not like you’ll be able to notice the changes anyway)
    2
  894. 55 cancri is about 40 light years away, a ship moving at just 10% of lightspeed (which is a speed we already know how we could achieve without breaking physics or needing insane amounts of energy) would take about 410 years to get there. That means we have 200 years to figure out how to make a ship like that to get us there in the 2600s or, alternatively, we have over 500 years to figure out how to make a ship that goes at 50% light speed, which would get us there in 82 years we have centuries to figure this out, and there are already concepts that exist that would get us to these speeds. So yes I think 2600s is realistic
    2
  895. @BenoHourglass none of that is as difficult as you think SpaceX hopes to eventually use Starship to send 100 people to space in the next few decades. Let’s call that optimistic and say it’ll actually be like 15-20 at once. They also plan to launch more Starships than the falcon 9, so let’s say 200 launches a year. If just a quarter of those have people on them, then that’s 1,000 people in space a year. And starship won’t be the only one doing it. China wants to build a starship clone, so do other companies, europe has concepts of a proposal of a study of a plan to do one. Sending 1,000 people to space every year is achieveable by 2050. And rockets better than starship will almost certainly be made in 75 years. I would not be surprised (and in fact I expect it) for rockets actually capable of bringing 100 people to space at once to be developed. Rockets that can send this many people can also send lots of cargo. As in, build space stations. There’s already plans to do this. A single module launched by Starship can have half the volume of the ISS (Starlab). It wants to launch in 2028. With inflatables (that are actively being developed) and starship successors (which we have 75 years to build) Single modules that far exceed the ISS and Tiangong combined in volume can be made, and they can be made in the next few decades. All of a sudden, we now have the capability to support hundreds to thousands of people in space at once. So, there is then nothing stopping you from sending those stations out to the moon. As soon as you have a space station capable of supporting 100 people, you have the capability to send 100 people to lunar orbit. Or, why people? Make cargo ships out of stations. Now we have the capability to drop tens of thousands of tons of cargo into lunar orbit. Send landers with these stations like Starship HLS, which should be capable of sending 100 tons at once down to the moon, you now have the capability to build lunar industry. Rockets built on the moon are easier and cheaper to launch on the moon but you already watched the video so I’ll skip the explanation. All of a sudden, lunar-built rockets can build stations that can support multiple thousands of people, as early as the very late 21st century, something like the 2090s. I also recommend watching Anthrofuturism’s How to Develop the Moon series, as it explains how the moon can be industrialized a LOT faster than you think. On the order of decades. Also, we can be doing both orbit and the moon at the same time. It’s not like we do one then go to the other. We’ll be building stations and moon bases at the same time. Obviously this is going to take enormous amounts of time, effort, and money to pull off. As I said, the video is optimistic. But the path to the future I explained in the video is a lot clearer than you may think. (also just in case you’re going to ask “well how do we pay for this?”, which is a valid question, people have already been thinking about that. SpaceX makes a LOT of money off Starlink. As in, in a few years, very skilled economists are predicting their revenue is going to exceed the budget of NASA. that’s how you pay for it. You run low-risk operations, like internet constellations, to fund your larger, higher-risk operations, until they themselves start making their own money through things like tourism. That’s always been SpaceX’s plan since the very beginning so I’m not just making this up. They’ve publicly stated part of the reason they made Starlink was to fund mars colonization.)
    2
  896. i used a different planet
    2
  897. why would we care about that that’s billions of years in the future
    2
  898. science is making predictions based on observations and tests that are repeatable. We know how earth works because we have already made the observations and tests, and they have been repeated. Using this data we can know what earth will do in the future. So yes, this is science.
    2
  899. the orbital shades will eventually block all sunlight from reaching the planet, which will freeze the atmosphere, and it will be lifted off the surface with mass drivers after that it’ll probably become a small moon of venus or just a rogue asteroid, which will act as storage to use it for later
    2
  900. the title is accurate, the video is accurate, that’s enough
    2
  901. the moon is very big, we’re never going to get to the point where mining it causes any problems with tides
    2
  902. @legiran9564 But even if amateur astronomers don’t initially detect it, they will see it eventually and very quickly You would be surprised at just how many telescopes run by hundreds and hundreds of different organizations are looking at the sky right now. It is impossible to get them all to cooperate and in a span of just hours to not let anyone look at the area of sky where the asteroid is, and even then you aren’t going to stop the people with their own personal telescopes Hiding something in space is not possible
    2
  903. i literally spend the entire video talking about why the moon is a worthwhile place to colonize
    2
  904. none for the next few thousand years at least if there was one heading for us we would see it very far in advance
    2
  905. no actual scientist has ever claimed they know an earth like planet exists, that’s entirely made up by the clickbait science media lol some have said this planet could potentially be habitable based on its mass and orbital distance, the only people who have said they are habitable don’t know anything about science
    2
  906. @dosomestuff1949 the moon doesn’t have a lack of raw materials
    2
  907. @dosomestuff1949 oh sorry, i thought you were a different person lmao there was another comment saying the moon didn’t have any resources
    2
  908. i mean you can read the sources in the description or the literal wikipedia article for v1400 centauri (the star j1407b was thought to orbit) to see im right also, the people who originally discovered j1407b didn’t work for nasa, so i don’t see what nasa has to do with this
    2
  909. none of them are millions of light years away, the furthest ones from us are only a few hundred a few hundred years isn’t enough time for drastic changes to have occurred, so we can be sure that how we’re seeing them now is pretty much what they look like in the present
    2
  910. rings and protoplanetary disks are extremely different things, one can’t just become the other
    2
  911. yeah that’s the point of the video
    2
  912. @VirginMostPowerfull the axis of evil has nothing to do with earth being alone
    2
  913. @VirginMostPowerfull that’s not what the axis of evil is at all lol first off, it only shows up at specific “qualities” of the cmb. With the most detailed pictures of the cmb it’s entirely gone. The only weird part basically when we simplify the entire cmb down to 4 “modules” they appear to be aligned with the plane of the solar system that absolutely does not provide even the slightest bit of evidence we’re at the center of the universe. At most it means the solar system is coincidentally aligned with the axis of the universe, and even that’s not really true because again, as soon as you use more detailed pictures of the cmb, the axis of evil goes away entirely
    2
  914. you make them spin
    2
  915. the most common way people say to do this is beam the energy down as microwaves
    2
  916. thing is none of them did all the people who said j1407b isn’t real aren’t scientists
    2
  917. it probably didn’t, it most likely migrated to where it is
    2
  918. what
    2
  919. i said that i never said the lava oceans were confirmed just that they fit the data better also you can just make your own comment instead of replying to mine i see all the comments anyway
    2
  920. bombarded with what if you mean meteors, they’re rare enough that it shouldn’t be a major problem, and if you mean radiation, rockets aren’t affected by it
    2
  921. yes they are
    2
  922. by not telling people about the race, there’s less people who want to win, leading to less political pressure to get things done, massively increasing the chance of losing and believe me people will know if the us loses
    2
  923. the point is to build the rockets on the moon to cut earth out of the equation entirely or at least make fuel on the moon (mostly liquid oxygen) earth has high gravity and a thick atmosphere in the way. Not only do your rockets have to be smaller, they have to be aerodynamic, which significantly reduces what you can launch, in addition to making it significantly more expensive. On the moon you can literally just build a long rail gun and shoot things to mars. It’ll take a while to get it running, but if we want anything more than a small base on mars, it’ll be far cheaper in the long run to use the moon
    2
  924. the furthest away planet i mentioned was only a few hundred light years away, and the closest was just 4 a few centuries isn’t enough time for the entire environment of a planet to have completely changed how we’re seeing these planets is pretty much exactly how they look now
    2
  925. i said this in the video but there isn’t enough information to accurately get the ESI of teegarden b thats based solely on its mass and estimated temperature, if we used the same method for solar system planets then venus would be described as extremely similar to earth which it clearly isn’t
    2
  926. why would you spend all that energy trying to grab a moon out of uranus’s gravity well when there are thousands of comets that are way easier to get also one moon wouldn’t do anything, you need hundreds or thousands of objects to make any dent in the rotation or water content and it wouldn’t help get rid of the atmosphere
    2
  927. which is why i didn’t say that lol
    2
  928.  @worldofanimations456  you do realize you aren’t the first person to think of this right people have been asking the exact questions you’re saying right now for decades if there wasn’t a solution to every single problem you just mentioned I wouldn’t be saying it was a good idea but there is a solution for everything you mentioned (several for each problem actually, this has been EXTENSIVELY) studied
    2
  929. i said the opposite in this video but ok
    2
  930. it’s not true, we haven’t discovered planet 9 there is some evidence it exists but no proof
    2
  931. we aren’t trying to find habitable exoplanets to leave earth we can do both anyone who thinks that there’s another habitable exoplanet we can go to so we can escape earth is an idiot, and nobody in astronomy takes them seriously
    2
  932. @bobthelonghairedboi5425 that’s one of many possibilities
    2
  933. no, because it’s likely too massive to be a planet, and so the rings would behave differently enough to not be considered rings even if j1407b was still a planet the rings really wouldn’t be classified as rings because of how big they are so there’s just layers on layers of misinformation here
    2
  934. there’s some exoplanets that might have rings too like Proxima c, which if confirmed would have rings 5x bigger than Saturn’s
    2
  935. no
    2
  936. yes
    2
  937. arxiv is usually where i get my information from
    2
  938. once a place is industrialized you don’t just stop using it we won’t ever stop needing it the moon is not a temporary jumping off point, it will continue to have uses far after the solar system has been colonized
    2
  939. we would see it thousands of years in advance brown dwarfs emit light
    2
  940. @RichardCranium.  yes, they would we can see brown dwarfs hundreds of light years away the spitzer space telescope was able to detect Ahra, a sub brown dwarf that’s only 150 degrees fahrenheit, using direct imaging from 64 light years away from it
    2
  941. it’s a common misconception that scientists don’t like god
    2
  942. there are no real pictures of kepler-452 b, the one you saw was made by an artist And there isn’t enough data on it to say anything about its habitability so i didn’t include it
    2
  943. it’s half the mass of jupiter
    2
  944. we know a surprising amount actually we use a lot more than a “wobble”
    2
  945. here’s the paper that figured it out https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6e3c from what i can tell as phailinsiam transits it blocks different types of light depending on where it is, so we could tell it was transitting vertically instead of horizontally
    2
  946. gadus
    2
  947. i literally said that at the end of this video lmao
    2
  948. they’re very different things protoplanetary disks are bigger, hotter, form in a completely different way than planetary rings, are made of different things, and have different end states (protoplanetary disks form planets, rings don’t)
    2
  949. @jjthejetplane11 pretty much
    2
  950. it is a minority, it’s just a very vocal minority and most of the people who say it don’t actually take it seriously, it’s more of an exaggeration “look at how bad our problems are we will need to leave!!!!” is saying that we should fix our problems now because the alternative (leaving) is a lot worse
    2
  951. i have a question for you if there was a big government conspiracy, then what’s the point of leaving clues everywhere? why would they willingly chose to make nasa mean that? seems like a terrible way to hide secrets reality isn’t a mystery movie. If there was a big conspiracy, there wouldn’t be big obvious clues lying around like that, especially in the names of the organizations making the conspiracy
    2
  952. “kep1er” is not a planet, there are over a thousand planets that start with the name kepler
    2
  953. an earthlike composition has been ruled out by several studies, we know for a fact it isn’t the density can be explained by other compositions (for example the similar planet LHS 1140 b has an even higher density but has been confirmed by jwst to be made of 9-19% water)
    2
  954. Venus has a high gravity well, it’s not worth it and would be expensive carbon rich asteroids are way easier
    2
  955. the moon doesn’t protect earth from meteors that’s a myth
    2
  956. someone sent it to me, idk where it is now sorry
    2
  957. @lightvoid7089 it is not, these objects are rogue brown dwarfs with protoplanetary disks just like j1407b it’s not my fault people still think j1407b is a ringed planet
    2
  958. there’s evidence that thestias doesn’t exist but if it does yes
    2
  959. well venera 7 was a russian spacecraft so i don’t see how the cia would have anything to do with it
    2
  960. @rv.9658 if you don’t agree with me, then tell me what things i listed in my comment aren’t true
    2
  961. i have several, several videos where i very clearly show im pro space settlement
    2
  962. it is visible in infrared, the alma observatory probably saw it we just don’t know if the object was actually j1407b yet, it might’ve been something else
    2
  963. Gadus for the planet and Nephropidae for the star
    2
  964. @elysainempire4628 @elysainempire4628 without gravitational disturbances the rings will also slowly form into moons, and seeing as j1407b passed through v1400 centauri’s system like that then other encounters can happen and it’s far more likely that we’re looking at something that has existed for a long time than one that has existed for a short time so it’s a fair assumption to say the rings aren’t extremely new
    2
  965.  @peeperleviathan2839  astro pro stopped uploading and all the space videos are now on atlas pro and the recent video about exomoons felt very ai generated to me (i don’t have any proof it was, but it felt odd nonetheless)
    2
  966. i made a video called why did everyone fall for the j1407b myth that explains why all the articles are wrong
    2
  967. @CrimsonPhoenix20 the people who write those articles aren’t scientists again, if you watch the video i explain very clearly that actual scientists have known j1407b isn’t a ringed planet for over 6 years, and the media hasn’t caught up I made that video specifically because i agree with the actual scientists and astrophysicists and if you still don’t believe me i have sources in the description of that video
    2
  968. @CrimsonPhoenix20 if i am then watch the video and tell me what i said wrong if you can prove to me that j1407b is an actual ringed planet instead of a rogue brown dwarf like the overwhelming majority of the scientific community says, i will delete that video right now By the way, eric mamajek (the person who discovered j1407b) has been saying it’s a rogue brown dwarf so if you don’t believe me, then believe the guy who discovered the thing in the first place or better yet, believe the scientists at the ALMA observatory that (may have) directly imaged j1407b, which would prove its not a ringed planet
    2
  969. also because i forgot to mention it, the wikipedia article for j1407b says it’s most likely a rogue brown dwarf, not a super saturn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J1407b i would know because i helped create it
    2
  970. @CrimsonPhoenix20 i did my job right, i have provided sources and have talked to people actually involved with the study of j1407b about this it is a rogue brown dwarf. The scientific community knows it for an absolute fact. I’ve provided my sources. I’ve done my job. I’ve gotten some of said sources straight from the person who discovered J1407b. Now it’s your turn.
    2
  971. @CrimsonPhoenix20 my source is literally the person who discovered j1407b and you’ve also yet to prove a single thing i’ve said wrong, so it sounds to me like you’re just deflecting you say my sources aren’t credible, but you’ve provided a total of zero sources at all I will say it again If you can prove to me right now that J1407b is a ringed planet, I will delete the video. You clearly think you’re right, so prove it
    2
  972. for the reasons i said in the video colonizing the moon will improve life on earth
    2
  973. you don’t need to be at earth’s capacity to be profitable, so id give it a few decades definitely within your lifetime
    2
  974. the more important part would be the mass loss of the star
    2
  975. we could tell based on the chemicals we see in it’s “atmosphere” with stuff like james webb if we see a bunch of rock and ice particles in the atmosphere of a puffball planet, then chances are that “atmosphere” is actually a ring system
    2
  976. it’ll be the whole solar system redone
    2
  977. it’s probably at least 13x bigger than jupiter so it’s not very small
    2
  978. @Nathoor i have part 1 of the colonization of saturn timeline complete so that’s coming soon
    2
  979. @CultReport CFC is also the Center for Disease Control Also, I tried making them translucent originally, but they ended up looking ugly and distracting so I decided against it
    2
  980. as far as i can tell all the candidates don’t have names, just designations good thought though
    2
  981. @Levas-29 usually if you sort comments by newest you’ll be able to see them all
    2
  982. @skorpion090 there are over a hundred WASP planets though so why would this one get it out of all of them
    2
  983. maybe
    2
  984. it’s not satire
    2
  985. @stewiesaidthat mining in space actually would be profitable very near-term, at least on the moon. Asteroids are still very far away, so those aren’t near-term, but the moon is. Because of the moon’s low gravity, it’s actually easier and cheaper to launch a rocket from the moon to low-earth orbit than it is to launch the same rocket from earth to low-earth orbit. And low earth-orbit itself is the most valuable piece of space to us, because that’s where we put communication satellites, or even things like orbital factories (small scale versions of which have been successfully tested) because there are certain types of medicine and fiber optic cables that are more efficient when produced in low gravity because the lack of gravity eliminates imperfections. There’s also the power generation aspect, since solar power is far cheaper in space because of the lack of atmosphere and a day/night cycle making them more advanced for longer periods of time. But to have these benefits of orbital production and power generation (both of which give huge benefits to our society and average person, i’ve only mentioned some of the biggest ones to keep this comment short but there are more) we need to lower launch costs, and the cheapest way to launch things to low orbit is to do it from the moon. So, space mining, at least on the moon, does have an economic incentive, and could be profitable in the near future. We need infrastructure to launch things from the moon, and it’ll be cheaper to mine and build it there instead of launching all we need from earth, because that would just eliminate the cost benefits
    2
  986. @stewiesaidthat the mineral density of asteroids doesn’t matter if they’re too expensive to mine with current technology, which they are. Also, I just gave you several reasons why the moon was extremely valuable in my last comment. And helium-3 is not the fusion miracle chemical people make it out to be and i didn’t mention anything about humans living there. I only mentioned why the moon and space colonization would be valuable to people on earth. I said nothing about people living there. You’re arguing against a point i didn’t make lol
    2
  987. @stewiesaidthat i didn’t say the moon would be useful for just mining. It’s the launch benefits that make it worth it. It is cheaper to launch a rocket from the moon to low earth orbit than it is to launch the same rocket to low earth orbit from earth because of the moon’s lower gravity. Mining would just be a byproduct of it being cheaper to launch stuff from the moon, since those benefits wouldn’t be worth it if you are launching stuff to the moon from earth anyway. That is a real incentive, and if there’s an incentive, people will eventually go. also colonizing mars would be absolutely useless for current humanity, it’s the moon where the value is
    2
  988. terraforming in general isn’t a very good place to put resources space habitats made of hollowed out asteroids are a lot smaller, but you can make them for much cheaper than terraforming and with all the asteroids in the solar system you can make millions
    2
  989. the process usually goes like this 1. We can tell how big the planet is and how long its orbit is based on interactions with its star 2. Based on its orbital distance and brightness of the star, we can know it’s temperature 3. If it transits, based on what type of starlight it blocks we can tell the general things in its atmosphere 4. based on its temperature, surface gravity, and atmospheric composition, we can predict what type of weather it has, because we know the melting/freezing/boiling points of the chemicals in it
    2
  990. @thebeautyofuniverse5250 that’s an outdated number and idk
    2
  991. @thebeautyofuniverse5250 there isn’t one, it’s just that measurement was before the new atmospheric data came out and isn’t accurate anymore
    2
  992. @AlfallMap the source is the extra solar planets encyclopedia, which is including both brown dwarfs and interstellar objects (like oumuamua) as exoplanets the second source is from nasa and doesn’t say 6,600 planets, it’s an article from 2022 saying we just passed 5,000
    2
  993. something 4 light years away is seen 4 years in the past, not 40,000 because a light year is how far something moving at lightspeed can travel in a year 4 years is not long enough for any significant changes to have occurred. How we’re seeing these planets right now is pretty much identical to how they look in the present. there hasn’t been enough time for any changes
    2
  994. i’m not happy with my earth timeline, i do plan to redo/revise it but not sure when
    2
  995. i’m also thinking about doing some other earth-related timelines (a realistic world war 3 scenario using nukes and multiple episodes showing what happens in the aftermath for example) so even if i don’t have the future of earth for a while there’s still some earth stuff i plan on doing
    2
  996. that’s why i said “known”
    2
  997. ganymede is ok but io has the least water of any solar system object and has so much radiation on its surface that you would be dead in a matter of hours
    2
  998. @bendeguzvarga816 moons are a very major objective for exploration, nobody forgot about them there are 2 missions on the way to jupiter’s moons right now and a helicopter is being built for titan
    2
  999. as long as the atmosphere isn’t too dense and crushes everything then no but there also could be problems with the salt content, kepler-22 b for example assuming it is an ocean planet wouldn’t have a rocky crust so wouldn’t have any salt in the water
    2
  1000. the space habitats im talking about (which are completely possible under known science with present day materials) could have the living area of a small country they are more than big enough to have ecosystems
    2
  1001. yeah that’s why i said “known”
    2
  1002. the space habitats i’m talking about have the surface area of a small country, it would look and feel exactly like living on earth, there would be millions of people on board and before the internet letters took months to reach family and people survived then, they would be okay with a delay of a few hours assuming the family isn’t also on the habitat
    2
  1003. yeah i’ve made shorter videos about this stuff before and people kept missing the things i said so i went overboard and really tried to hammer it in this time lol
    2
  1004. jiya wasn’t letting them and they’re the ones who control the highways
    2
  1005. yes
    2
  1006. it’s possible, i just don’t think it’s a good idea if you really need living space then there’s better options than terraforming
    2
  1007. @ARANDOMTVGUYZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 1. yes, I’m sure. we know how long j1407b’s orbit was supposed to be because we could see how fast it was moving. We should’ve seen it again several times 2. j1407b is a brown dwarf, it’s too far away for the light it emits to be detected 3. it won’t eat its rings if it’s a brown dwarf, that’s not how gravity works. The rings will still orbit it normally if it’s a brown dwarf or planet
    2
  1008. there’s enough carbon on the moon do build some basic industry, and when it becomes a problem the moon can just build ships to go mine carbon-rich asteroids
    2
  1009. not enough data to say anything
    2
  1010. if we don’t own it then who does? Nobody’s there. There are zero moral objections to using it.
    2
  1011. i’m very aware of this i’m still gonna say proxima b is uninhabitable to all forms of surface life organic, exotic, whatever all will die here also, there’s a difference between life being able to survive and life being able to form here maybe there are isolated pockets of habitability underground life could survive in, but if life can’t form here (which is way harder than just surviving) then it’s gonna be dead no matter how habitable it is
    2
  1012. no, the amount of exoplanets we’ve found is not a large enough sample size to make any definitive conclusions
    2
  1013. not sure
    2
  1014. you don’t need to put oxygen on the moon, it already has it in the rocks and you build pressurized domes to keep it in
    2
  1015. idk it just says “indigenous” there’s probably criteria for what counts as indigenous somewhere
    2
  1016. This is not technology that already exists. Show me one other rocket that is as big as starship, runs on methalox fuel, and is fully reusable. It doesn’t exist. Starship is a COMPLETELY different thing from any other rocket. The ONLY similarities it has with something like the saturn v is that it’s big and goes up. The fact that people keep saying this shows they have no idea how starship or rockets in general actually work. Show me the NASA project where they were building a fully reusable rocket, then I’ll believe you that they “figured it out decades ago”. The problem with starship is not that they can’t build a rocket. The problem is it is very hard to redesign every single system a rocket has to be reused multiple times. Nobody has done this before. Nobody has come even close to attempting to try to do this before. “nasa already figured it out!!!!” is literally just a lie that falls apart when you apply even the smallest bit of pressure. No, the saturn v is not comparable. The space shuttle is not comparable. There are no rockets that exist that are like starship, and saying it’s “technology that already exists” is just so obviously and clearly disconnected from reality that you have to seriously be deep into some anti-musk echo chamber to actually believe it. “has nothing to show for it” is also a lie. As I said in the video, progress on Starship HLS is going a lot faster and quicker than some people want you to believe. NASA has officially stated that they are confident and happy with the development of Starship HLS. You seem to think NASA is good at this space stuff (which they are), so if you don’t believe me, believe NASA. They have gone out of their way to say that development of Starship is going well. Also, what do you mean “how this company operates?” you mean the most successful space company in history? The one that built the Falcon 9, the safest rocket to ever exist? You can do the math yourself on that one, Falcon 9 is genuinely the safest rocket in history. And what happened during its development? That’s right. It exploded a lot. But guess what? They solved all of the problems, and now look at it. Falcon 9 launched over 100 times last year, and has launched 400 times total. That’s why they warrant faith. They have literally been in this exact same position in the past. Exploding rockets with no clear path to success, and they figured it out. Everything you’re saying about starship right now are the EXACT same things people said about the falcon 9. And then, the falcon 9 worked, and they all shut up real fast. Please don’t trap yourself in whatever misinformation echo chamber you’re in because you have a problem with spacex. I don’t like elon musk either, but he isn’t building starship. The actual engineers at spacex are. Don’t let your hatred of one guy ruin your understanding of rockets. Some level of nuance is needed here.
    2
  1017. humanity doesn’t need habitable planets to colonize space, we really need to get out of that mindset it’s downright harmful to space colonization at this point all planets are useful, all planets are capable of being colonized and hosting significant populations
    2
  1018. I’ve actually gotten several comments of people who have said they used to be against colonizing the moon and/or didn’t think it was worth it, but changed their minds after watching my videos. Just because I didn’t convince YOU doesn’t mean I haven’t convinced anyone. Also, industrializing the moon would not make mars take longer. Again, you’re still caught up in a moon vs mars mindset and you need to get out of it. We are at a time in history where doing both at once, without slowing either down, is possible. I’ll say it again, moon vs mars isn’t real. Both help get the other colonized, and doing both doesn’t make the other take longer.
    2
  1019. the moon is too big for industry to significantly affect moonlight in any way
    2
  1020. it’s too hot for liquid hydrocarbons like titan
    2
  1021. well good news for you because you can build shields around habitats very easily
    2
  1022. you can make shielding so thick a point black nuclear blast wouldn’t break it with a lot less effort than you’d think
    2
  1023. because none of the other worlds have nature rocks don’t care what you do to them there is no life to kill by building stuff on other planets, and you aren’t ruining them because they don’t an environment that’s capable of being ruined
    2
  1024. it’s different because we know plants are alive “plants don’t care what you do to them” is obviously wrong and i’ve never seen it seriously used anywhere. But even if people did use it, it can obviously be argued against you cannot argue against it”rocks don’t care what you do” because that’s just objectively true. rocks are not alive. There is no possible argument you can make against that so this is not the same thing
    2
  1025. i think the weird part about it was the dips were symmetrical on both sides, which as far as i know doesn’t happen with normal stellar activity
    2
  1026. it can, several moons with less gravity in the solar system have no problem holding an atmosphere temperature and radiation are the real problem, not gravity
    2
  1027. it technically already is, just a young one
    2
  1028. individually they might not be a show stopper, but my argument is because proxima b has all of these problems at once means they’ll add up and make it uninhabitable
    2
  1029. as i explain in this video, both the low gravity and lack of atmosphere are advantages
    2
  1030. it’s probably going to be bought by another company
    2
  1031. because half the other videos on my channel explain why lol
    2
  1032. i don’t want to make two of the same video though, someone else can do that lol
    2
  1033. almost all the exoplanets named have names that originate from other languages, but they give each planet one name, so there’s no difference depending on which language you speak astrolábos is still just astrolábos whether you speak english or japanese for example
    2
  1034. nothing is there are going to be billions of exoplanets with rings in the milky way, they’re all going to be different sizes
    2
  1035. @fedormaslov508 james webb doesn’t have any pictures of proxima b if that’s what you’re saying
    2
  1036. that would never happen. That’s like worrying that mining africa will cause it to sink into the ocean
    2
  1037. still the only planet with life, only rocky planet with a large moon, only rocky planet with a strong magnetic field, only planet in the solar system with surface liquid water, only planet in the solar system with tectonic plates, and a lot more
    2
  1038. just going off the name "vectran" sounds like a chemical that in 50 years we're gonna realize causes cancer
    2
  1039. the new j1407b’s are also brown dwarfs with protoplanetary disks
    2
  1040. we know the speed of j1407b based on how long it’s transit lasted, and so can know it’s year length from that, which is where the 20ish year number comes from (i didn’t say it was 1 year, its around 10-20) and how we know how long the years of other planets are so no, it’s not stupid
    2
  1041. yeah it’s due to the specifics, proxima c is about where mars is in the solar system the whole system is a lot more compact
    2
  1042. flight 7 had a payload, 10 starlink simulators They would’ve been deployed if it hadn’t exploded and they haven’t gone to orbit because they have no need to. Their primary goal right now is testing launch and reentry. They don’t need to go to orbit to test either of those. With the engine relights on flight 6 they’ve proven that, should they need to, they can easily get to orbit. Once they’re confident in launch and reentry, getting to orbit is easy (and they’ll likely do it sometime around flight 9) and they’re planning an orbital refueling test this year, a full plan has not been developed but it’s clear progress is being made on one
    2
  1043. there is no reason to not focus on both we have the ability to do both, and technology developed for studying exoplanets is also very useful for studying solar system objects (and the opposite is also true) we can, will, and do study both the solar system and exoplanets at the same time
    2
  1044. these problems are mostly negated on the moon because crews don’t need to stay for years crews can be regularly switched out like the iss, limiting exposure to radiation and low gravity the same way people in low earth orbit are they’re still problems obviously, but less than some people think
    2
  1045. literally every single person who talks about terraforming anything mentions the magnetic field it’s a very easy fix
    2
  1046. in the video you linked if, the “deaths” counter at the bottom leaves 3 billion survivors at the end that video is in agreement with what i said lol the dinosaurs didn’t have modern technology, we’d be able to prevent or reduce a lot of the effects of the disaster they couldn’t, so the survivor count could be even higher depending on how much warning we get
    2
  1047. those are entirely different issues people can still build rockets no matter what gender they are controversy involving that stuff isn’t going to affect space
    2
  1048. yes i know but we don’t need to move to planets artificial space habitats can be constructed with single asteroids, spin to create artificial gravity, will be extremely safe (they aren’t space stations, with shielding they could survive point blank nuclear blasts) and have the total living area of a small country and we can build tens of millions of them just in the solar system alone, enough to house trillions of people comfortably with room to spare and we can make them whatever environment we want just with climate control, no terraforming needed there’s no problems with radiation or avoiding impacts either, all problems you may be thinking of with habitats are very easily solved and building a thousand space habitats is orders of magnitude easier than terraforming a single planet space habitats are just better than planets. We could have a population of hundreds of trillions without colonizing a single planet
    2
  1049. @JacktheMarkerMaster eyes on exoplanets is never updated and full of errors, it is unfortunately not reliable the NASA exoplanet archive is much better. Eyes on exoplanets is for the public, the exoplanet archive is for actual scientists so has much more accurate data
    2
  1050. microlensing
    2
  1051. yes https://discord.gg/MRfSkv4S
    2
  1052. unfortunately i’ve ended this series becahse i wasn’t happy with it, and i don’t think it was realistic enough but i am working on redoing it from the beginning
    2
  1053. i talked about this in the video there is nothing humanity could do to alter the moons orbit in any way whatsoever
    2
  1054. by “it doesn’t exist” i specifically mean the planet with big rings whatever caused that transit is an entirely different object from the “super saturn” i made this pretty clear in the video also there is no proof it exists, only very strong evidence there is still a very small chance that the original transit was just an error and nothing actually caused it
    2
  1055. probably not, it’s too far away from the sun and too rocky
    2
  1056. did you read the sources in the description? because actual scientists say j1407b doesn’t exist
    2
  1057. unfortunately the name icarus is already taken so you can’t but Vikare (another name for Icarus) is available
    2
  1058. @stevensamuels4041 yes, the last sentence of that paragraph says it will have moved away before it goes supernova meaning, by the time it’s dangerous, it won’t be anywhere near us
    2
  1059. where did you get that from space colonization doesn’t need habitable planets
    2
  1060. i’ve cancelled the series unfortunately working on redoing it better
    2
  1061. mars is about a tenth the size of earth, proxima d is about a quarter 0.10 to i think 0.26 so it’s not exactly 3 times but it’s around 2.5 times bigger
    2
  1062. @jamezkpal2361 but its only a tenth of its mass
    2
  1063. @thete they’d want to play with other people on mars single player can only do so much when you’re stuck with the same people in a cramped habitat for years on end and that needs servers and stuff
    2
  1064. @bradeye1133 gas giants have solid cores, what i mean here is by the time rocky planets get that big, they should have enough gravity to start attracting all the gas that they formed with, which eventually adds up until they’re mostly made of gas and become a gas giant
    2
  1065. it has enough ice for a significant permanent presence, and carbon does exist there it is extremely limited but again, enough for a significant permanent presence until we find a better source like asteroids and with the launch benefits and other raw materials of the moon, it’s still a good place to colonize
    2
  1066. i had uploaded a draft of it last summer to a different channel to test and get feedback, i eventually deleted the test channel to start youtube for real you might’ve seen the first draft
    2
  1067. it has no geography, because it doesn’t have solid ground to begin with so that wouldn’t work
    2
  1068. we know it’s not a rocky planet
    2
  1069. “we shouldn’t ever try to study anything because we have a chance of dying” what an objectively wrong and terrible way to go about life
    2
  1070. @jasonnelson9141 name exo worlds is changing that exoplanets are getting official, actual names
    2
  1071. what makes you think we’re never gonna leave the solar system the voyagers already have lmao
    2
  1072. well, every planet doesn’t necessarily need a unique name. There’s hundreds of towns across the world that are named the same thing but people understand which one you’re talking about based on where it is in the state or country or whatever
    2
  1073. i’m making a video about it soon
    2
  1074. depends on if you mean like a solid structure or a ring like saturn’s, but that could be a good topic for a video
    2
  1075. some probably can, but there’s a probably a difference between life being able to survive there and life being able to form there
    2
  1076. oh i’ve read the talk page the argument wasn’t convincing and assumed a lot of things also your comments are only helping push this video out in the algorithm, so by all means keep trying to insult me it’s only helping me also, insulting me, for some bizarre reason, doesn’t make me want to change my mind. I can’t imagine why
    2
  1077. damn you did NOT watch the video because everything you said was wrong lol
    2
  1078. what does this even mean
    2
  1079. that’s probably a good idea
    2
  1080. that’s the next one
    2
  1081. here are 3 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.03314.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.15902.pdf
    2
  1082. just based on the size of the debris disk alone we know it’s extremely massive, but there is a lot of uncertainty about it because i don’t think we know the transit angle
    2
  1083. I have made a whole video about why it’s not a planet and why the nasa website is wrong
    2
  1084. yes, there is, I talk about it at 2:29
    2
  1085. sure
    2
  1086. space engine you need to buy the pro version to monetize the videos you use it in though which is $70
    2
  1087. 1/1/2000 is 0% of the 21st century. So, 1/1/2001 is 1%, 1/1/2002 is 2%, etc 1/1/2025 is exactly 25% of the 21st century. The end of 2025 would be 26%.
    2
  1088. you can get it from the water but we can get it from earth too the fuel on the moon would mostly be used on the moon
    2
  1089. @abloogywoogywoo watch the video i made called preventing the death of the solar system we do not need to leave when the sun becomes a red giant
    2
  1090. gadus
    2
  1091. ? dont know if youre talking about the company or this video but astroforge is an american company, and im not a communist
    2
  1092. true, but the thing is the average person has a hard time caring about robots most people want to see humans, it’s more inspiring and allows them to relate to them having humans on the moon base will make the public more interested in the moon base, which will hopefully cause funding to increase and in the early days of construction we’ll need every advantage we can get when it comes to the public being on board
    2
  1093.  @EEE-1409  wikipedia has a full list of them here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_exoplanets but some you may know are 55 cancri e (janssen) or 51 pegasi b (dimidium)
    2
  1094.  @EEE-1409  yeah unfortunately people don’t seem to use the proper names for some reason, probably because they don’t know they exist so call it Janssen from now on lol
    2
  1095. here are 4 all providing different evidence for what i said https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 (this one is the first i found suggesting j1407b is an unbound object, they essentially rule out every possible orbital configuration for the planet) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.03314.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.15902.pdf these two are just other failures to detect j1407b https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.03314 and this one finds an object near v1400 cen that might be j1407b (it could also be an unrelated background object) and if confirmed it would 100% confirm that j1407b does not orbit that star and is not a planet reading my other comment i think i misspoke, there’s not one single paper refuting j1407b, but these 4 combined make a very strong argument
    2
  1096. planetary features are ok to be reused, they just can’t be entire objects
    2
  1097. if creationists think that the less than 10 planets in this video being uninhabitable is evidence that earth is the only planet with life out of trillions in the galaxy alone then that is not my fault lol
    2
  1098. @wabejoo yes it can actually, it’s already done so for several planets it’s not hubris, it’s a damn powerful telescope
    2
  1099. even at its closest approach it’ll still be closer to alpha cen than the solar system, and alpha centauri A and B are about 2x more massive than the Sun combined so unless something really weird happens and something disturbs the system we wont capture proxima centauri
    2
  1100. they did disintegrate, thats why the majority of the landers failed
    2
  1101. yes actually we don’t need massive sci fi technology to do that, it’s a lot simpler than you think
    2
  1102. terraforming won’t happen if we don’t get into space right now the near term is the most important. Making other homes for humanity will only happen if we first focus on the near term. Long term goals just don’t give the political and societal willpower needed to get us to space. Near-term benefits to people alive today do. So I didn’t mention any of that because right now it doesn’t matter
    2
  1103. everything we need to study exoplanets is also all the same things we need to study the solar system so they aren’t mutually exclusive
    2
  1104. wikipedia is actually decently reliable, i edit it and i know a ton of others who spend hours every day keeping everything space related on that site accurate the problem is this guy is misinterpreting what the wikipedia articles say
    2
  1105. nope this video isn’t “habitable planets don’t exist” it’s “we haven’t found any yet”
    2
  1106. it would be far easier to just get a few thousand comets, you’d get the same amount of water for a fraction of the mass (and you wouldn’t have to destroy an entire world to get it)
    2
  1107. @alexcardosa8079 no, i’m talking about Soyuz 11, when 3 soviet cosmonauts died when their spacecraft depressurized above the karman line, in space
    2
  1108. that’s the plan
    2
  1109. if the mass and radius are known, then the density can be found, and with the density we can figure out generally what its structure is like at the bare minimum we can differentiate between “rocky planet” and “ice giant” for example
    2
  1110. if you think a planet is boring, you don’t know enough about it
    2
  1111. @shinjiikari5174 Nowhere in the video did i say it wasn’t interesting, I said it wasn’t deserving of being more famous than other planets when it doesn’t actually have anything that sets it apart
    2
  1112. what
    2
  1113. at this point the orbit would have to be so elliptical that the rings wouldn’t be able to exist so that’s been ruled out
    2
  1114. you’d have to find some place to put all the water from the ice you melted, because that would cause a lot of sea level rise and flood coastal cities but if you can figure that out then the rest is easy, you just need to make the soil usable and you can use orbital mirrors and shades to avoid the 6 month days and 6 month nights thing
    2
  1115. 1. because if it was a really large collision or something being destroyed, there would be other evidence that it happened, which there isn’t and also seeing something very young is less likely than seeing something old because the old thing has existed for longer so more chances for overlap 2. it’s a possibility but every time j1407b doesn’t show up it becomes more and more unlikely, and it’s already been over 100 years with no transits and it’s extremely unlikely for us to get an orbital period that wrong
    2
  1116. not really these aren’t space stations, they would function more like island nations you don’t see the maldives or vanuatu forcing parents to leave their kids because they don’t need to. They get resources from trade or grow them in farms or get them from the ocean (which would be equivalent to mining asteroids for this metaphor) these aren’t rigid space stations, they’re living structures capable of trading and expanding just like any island yeah space and resources are limited but the same problems are on islands and you really don’t see this happen (or if you do it’s clearly not every island)
    2
  1117. @orange1599-u1n ah yes because “all planets are interesting” is very negative
    2
  1118. @ again, no i don’t and second, all exoplanet videos are speculation. Problem is the majority of them are clickbait and overhype the real discoveries i’m not negative, i’m trying to report on the real discoveries without overhyping them. It’s not negativity, you’re just used to seeing videos that are overly optimistic
    2
  1119. we aren’t looking for habitable exoplanets to find a new home people who think that we could move to an exoplanet if we ruin earth are idiots, it will ALWAYS be easier to fix earth than move anywhere no matter what we’re looking for habitable exoplanets simply because it’s interesting
    2
  1120. not known for certain but it could’ve formed further out and moved inwards
    2
  1121. i just read scientific papers
    2
  1122.  @eziepiezie  non americans can sign
    2
  1123. if an ai wanted to kill all humans it would just hunt down whoever tried to escape if it’s a non-intelligent ai (like an out of control self replicator or something) then that falls under the “easier to defend earth than leave” category
    2
  1124. because you need to buy the parts, you need to pay the people who build it, you need to get the fuel, you need approval to launch, it’s all very expensive
    2
  1125. not true, i wouldn’t be making this video if everyone thought it was a brown dwarf the majority of people who know about j1407b still think it’s a planet, consider yourself lucky that you haven’t seen it lol
    2
  1126. All the patents and blueprints are freely available to view online. Everything is publicly available. We did, in fact, have the technology.
    2
  1127. @extazy9944 if it doesn’t conflict with other observations but it’s also very far away which is another problem
    2
  1128. neither does mercury
    2
  1129. there’s easier ways to make a magnetic field than that that’s honestly the easiest part of the whole process
    2
  1130. proxima c’s rings are not confirmed, we don’t actually know if the direct image was of proxima c, could’ve just been an artifact or another object
    2
  1131. Orbitar and it’s not even a competition
    2
  1132. that would be nice i think there was a detection of some light source that could’ve been j1407b but might’ve also been a background object
    2
  1133. i said this in the video, crews can be regularly switched out on the moon like the iss and that avoids the low gravity problem entirely on mars you don’t have that option
    2
  1134. no actual scientist has ever claimed these planets are definitely habitable, and all the info in this video has come directly from scientific papers this video isn’t “oh everyone be sad there’s no habitable exoplanets give up hope” it’s “we haven’t found any yet”
    2
  1135. it is real, just not a super saturn with rings i’m the one who told everyone it’s a rogue brown dwarf lmao
    2
  1136. you might want to read the wikipedia article again because it says exactly what i said in this video also if you watch the second half of the video i explain why all those websites say it’s real
    2
  1137. well yeah that’s why i said “and it’s not like the us is innocent either”
    2
  1138. yeah i said “known” in the title
    2
  1139. ​ @Danny-mg1hu  a few a day so far 238 have been discovered in 2024, and in 2016 almost 1500 were found with kepler
    2
  1140. it does exist, it’s just not a super saturn planet i’m the one who originally said it doesn’t exist lol, before i realized that was a bit clickbait and i changed it
    2
  1141. yes
    2
  1142. we don’t know what the actual sizes are yet, it’s still up for debate
    2
  1143. unfortunately not because that would have to mean multiple large moons would share the same orbit, which is impossible not to mention they’d be the same size which is extremely unlikely
    2
  1144.  @johnsherfey3675  pretty much impossible since large moons can’t share orbits without destabilizing each other
    2
  1145. i know
    2
  1146. @CitrusPeppercorn (i didn’t mute you, i can still see all your comments and you can too if you sort by newest) 1. No, “he” is not taking funding from nasa. Nasa is the one giving him the money. Nasa is willingly getting money and giving it to spacex. It’s called contracts. Also, they aren’t giving the money to elon musk, they’re giving it to spacex. Not the same thing, stop pretending it is. 2. Hyperloop, tesla, and cars have nothing to do with spacex. They are separate companies. Stop comparing things that have nothing in common with one another except the same guy owns them. 3. Why are you assuming I idolize him? You’re the one who brought him up. Again, this is the problem with the space community. You are incapable of supporting spacex because you don’t like the guy in charge (who, by the way, is basically a figurehead. Gwynne Shotwell is actually running spacex). I mentioned elon musk maybe once or twice in this entire video, and even then I only mentioned him in passing. You somehow took that to mean I idolize him, like all of his companies, think he’s a good person, and think he can do no wrong. I specifically went out of my way to NOT talk about him for this reason. You’re the one who brought him up, not me. If you actually don’t like him, then stop being obsessed with him. I don’t like him either, but I’ve moved on and accepted that spacex is good anyway. Trust me, you’ll be a lot happier if you just stop caring so much about him.
    2
  1147. @chaucermcdoogle6011 I meant ignore his personal life and social media posts and the discourse around him and such, obviously he’s still a powerful person and needs to be taken seriously to some level but you don’t need to engage with the people who worship him and/or hate him or every little controversy he’s a part of
    2
  1148. they did not where did you hear this from
    2
  1149.  @Nightshift10000  yeah those aren’t real pictures lol it’s an artists impression
    2
  1150. @gabriel-f4i6k because there are people living here
    2
  1151. not if it’s the best we have available so far
    2
  1152.  @Michael-ub8fd  if it’s ever disproven which not all of them are
    2
  1153. @mynamemylastname7179 1. yes, my telescope can see a few miles away, i tested it. It’s just a bigger magnifying glass. 2. I can see a lot more than lights. I can see the clouds on jupiter, dust storms on mars, solar panels on satellites. In the case of Jupiter since you brought it up, it’s not even a “oh those might be clouds”. They are very clearly clouds, there is no doubt about it I can also see craters and hills on the moon and the rings of saturn. I can see Venus go through phases like the moon and I can see the moons of Jupiter orbiting Jupiter. They clearly aren’t just “points of light” because I can see with my own eyes that they aren’t 3. Gas only expands when not pulled down by something. Gas giants are pulled down by their own gravity. 4. they reflect light the same way rocks on earth “reflect” light. Light “reflecting” into your eyes is the reason you can see anything 5. all your stuff about “oh you can’t see them too far away too small!!” is clearly wrong because I can and do see them. Observational evidence is the best type of evidence It’s also interesting how every single thing I can see with my telescope lines up exactly with what we would expect to see if space was real. Again, my telescope is impossible to be faked. I’m not even using science or government propaganda to disprove you. I’m using my own eyes. Might be time to reconsider your beliefs You don’t need to make up a conspiracy to be mad at the government, the real government does more than enough to be mad at without making up stuff
    2
  1154. @mynamemylastname7179 i think you need to take an objective look at yourself please read back what you just said this is why it’s impossible to argue with you people no matter what anyone says you just move the goalpost back until you think you’re right so honestly i’m just gonna delete all your comments, you’re clearly not interested in being convinced you’re wrong
    2
  1155. @mynamemylastname7179 but one more thing You realize that if there was a global conspiracy, then people would’ve thought of this stuff, right? You don’t become the secret rulers of the world by forgetting basic science You aren’t the first person to think of this, at the secret government meetings someone would’ve brought up “uh hey guys gas expands isn’t that a problem” So if you don’t understand something, that doesn’t mean that the entire world is against you. That means that you’re wrong. You can figure out how all this stuff works for yourself. When you don’t understand something, it’s because you don’t have all the information, not that there’s a global conspiracy
    2
  1156. didn’t mean to make it sound like we couldn’t do both, i agree just because you’re terraforming mars doesn’t mean you can’t also build space habitats, didn’t mean to make it sound like we had to do one or the other my bad but terraforming is just a needlessly complicated endeavor when there are easier ways to make living space most people i’ve seen who know about terraforming at all don’t know the other options, so that’s what i was trying to promote here
    2
  1157. @sundancetitan5675 that’s not the same, flight was known to at least be physically possible All FTL methods we’ve come up with so far require negative mass or infeasible amounts of energy or are just purely hypothetical with no actual reason for them to be possible. At least the wright brothers knew birds existed.
    2
  1158. well the near side is where all the resources are, the far side doesn’t have nearly as many of them also you’ll only be able to see the effects of lunar mining from satellite, from earth the only difference will be city lights
    2
  1159. there’s still so many cool things in space that aren’t talked about for some reason i have a video coming out soon about underrated exoplanets specifically for that reason
    2
  1160. i explain the title in the pinned comment and you commenting is only boosting the video in the algorithm lol
    2
  1161. @johnperic6860 we don’t know if space is infinite or not because it’s impossible to see that far
    2
  1162. no they wouldn’t be there is no life on these planets so what does “doomed” even mean who cares if there’s pollution in a planet nobody lives on
    2
  1163. our solar system isn’t special we’ve found systems with the same types of planets, extremely different planets, smaller systems, bigger systems, pretty much every type of system none of them are any “greater” than any other
    2
  1164. what
    2
  1165. to be fair, no star had ever dimmed like that before of the millions we’ve seen, and at this point we’d already discovered hundreds of exoplanets, so knew what their transits looked like
    2
  1166. 1. we’ve observed blobs of material blasted away (faster than the escape velocity of the system btw) by flares of the young red dwarf AU Microscopii, providing strong evidence that red dwarfs do in fact blow away volatiles like water 2. there was a paper about this i’ll try to find, I forgot to save it 3. Here’s the paper saying that a magma ocean fits the data best for K2-18 b: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad206e 4. It’s not just water, it’s other volatiles, and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frost_line_(astrophysics) you only need to look at the solar system to see that all the icy material is in the outer system and i never said it proved toi-700 d has liquid water, i said it increased the chances
    2
  1167. it’s good and we should do it because it will be glorious and the stars are our birthright
    2
  1168. i linked a detailed video about it at around 8 minutes i think
    2
  1169. The closest thing I found was a planet called GJ 504 b which some people think is pink but keep in mind that’s false and the planet is most likely not actually pink
    2
  1170. mars probably isn’t going to be terraformed in this series (at least not anytime soon) because i don’t find it realistic that humans will actually do it terraforming will begin on venus though i plan to make a video sometime soon explaining why i don’t think mars will (or should) be terraformed (also the episode after this one is already out)
    2
  1171. we aren’t looking for habitable planets to colonize them
    2
  1172. all of them still do they aren’t far enough away for light delay to make any significant difference. At worst we’re seeing them as they were a few decades ago
    2
  1173. those are the other barnard b’s i talked about in the video that were disproven there are several separate objects all called barnard b. All were disproven except this one, which was confirmed to exist a month ago the barnard b im talking about in this video is an entirely different object from the videos years ago, we didn’t even know it existed more than a month ago
    2
  1174.  @TON__618.  no
    2
  1175. lunar mining will actually be profitable, because of the low launch costs. We can build space stations and ships on the moon which are necessary for low earth orbit infrastructure and going to the rest of the solar system and we don’t need people to live there, because of how close earth is crews can be regularly switched out like the iss
    2
  1176. @JcoleMc the technology to colonize the moon does exist and has for a while look at the international space station all we have to do is make something like the iss and put it on the moon and boom, moon base we can get food and water from earth in the early days, and there are several ways we can mitigate the dust problem
    2
  1177. luckily for us nothing in this video came from elon musk, and the study was made by independent researchers, most of which aren’t even american let alone working anywhere close to musk
    2
  1178. yeah most astronomers don’t use the proper names for some reason (even though they have no problem doing it with asteroids)
    2
  1179. kessler syndrome has been massively overblown and isn’t as big of a deal as it’s been made out to be it’s a problem but an easily preventable one
    2
  1180. on small ones yes, but you can build them very big and with the bigger ones you can spin them to create artificial gravity, which should be pretty much the same as being on a planet and you can set it to whatever you want as well which you can’t do with planets
    2
  1181. @Coolproko you can do that anywhere if you need it yeah
    2
  1182. gonna be hard to do that when there’s no solid ground and it’s just lava all the way down
    2
  1183. deuterium isn’t common enough for that
    2
  1184. i haven’t mentioned generation ships before
    2
  1185. @acetominophen1981 oh that i’m not against them, it would just be better if we didn’t have to use them
    2
  1186. see how much it’s star is moving as the planet orbits You can tell how close the planet is to its star because of its orbit, so if you know how much the star is being pulled on by that planet from that distance, you can find its mass
    2
  1187. kepler-22 b probably isn’t rocky: https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1640 kepler-186 f being cold is just an equilibrium temperature calculation k2-18 b probably having oceans of lava: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ad206e trappist-1 b being airless has a lot of sources they’re easy to find on your own proxima b similarly has so much going wrong sources are easy to find and toi-700 d is just speculation because other than its size and star it orbits we don’t know what it’s like
    2
  1188. numbers and made up words aren’t allowed
    2
  1189. @spikemanfangirl https://youtu.be/ZgahcFsh3TA?si=CgNwEdqztGWbb0Ow
    2
  1190. but what about all the cities built before terraforming was even considered the best places to build on mars are also the places with the lowest elevation
    2
  1191. yes, it is ok to pollute a place with no life. If there’s nothing to be negatively affected by said pollution, why would it be bad? Your problem here is you’re assuming that human activity is inherently bad, and the natural world is inherently good. That logic can be applied to earth, as it has an ecosystem. No other place has an ecosystem, so the idea of human activity being bad because it harms the ecosystem does not apply anywhere that doesn’t have life. Also, what science? If we were studying life, then yes, trash would interfere. But if there’s no life, then there’s no life to study. Trash wouldn’t interfere with science. The only science you really have left for lifeless rocks is geology, meteorology if it has an atmosphere, and other things that are easily studied with or without human activity. We study all of those things on earth already, and we still get great results from it. I also find it ironic that you worry that the trash will have effects on future colonists when you’re against space colonization. “We shouldn’t colonize space because it will affect future colonists” doesn’t make sense. Again, you are stuck in this mindset that anything humans do is bad just for the sake of it being bad. There is no actual reason that is true. If a world is just sitting there doing nothing, with zero life, then why would polluting it be any worse than its natural state? You cannot ruin places without life because there isn’t anything there to ruin.
    2
  1192. there are plenty of cool exoplanets
    2
  1193. forgot about him
    2
  1194. you can move planets, you don’t need propulsion though
    2
  1195. based on the transit we know it wasn’t a black hole, the center was too large for it to be a black hole it would’ve have to have been thousands of solar masses which would’ve destroyed v1400 cen a rogue brown dwarf is the only explanation for why it disappeared
    2
  1196. i have a video about gliese 581 already lol
    2
  1197. i don’t watch star wars or star trek and you aren’t bringing up anything new here, these are already well established problems if there weren’t solutions to them, then they wouldn’t be very good ideas and i wouldn’t be talking about them
    2
  1198. it’s not nasa, it’s the scientists who find them, they’re the ones who get to name the planets but, after years of giving planets names like Hdhrushahsbf2847 b or whatever they actually are getting proper names, you can find the full list of all planets with official names here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_exoplanets so the names are bad but they’re slowly getting better. The only problem is the scientists choose to use the bad names instead of the new proper ones for reasons i don’t understand
    2
  1199. this video very clearly did not say that
    2
  1200. based on JWST’s image of the planet Najsakopajk and the level of detail it observed, if we push JWST to its limits it could be able to directly image a planet as small as 5 earth radii in the habitable zone of alpha cen A, so that could be interesting
    2
  1201. @segganew no, the two other planets in that system (poltergeist and phobetor) are draugr was discovered a few years later dimidium was the first one around a sun like star
    2
  1202. yes
    2
  1203. why would i, this video is only about if they’re habitable, not if we can get to them
    2
  1204. 1. I never said it wouldn’t be bad, i said it would be better than every other planet in the solar system. Which it would be. The atmosphere would still be somewhat breathable, there would still be some small amount of life left, and there would still be oceans. But look at mars for example. No breathable atmosphere, no life at all, and no oceans. That’s still a lot worse than the most uninhabitable state earth could be in 2. i didn’t say that either
    2
  1205. every day we don’t see it makes an elliptical orbit more unlikely
    2
  1206. it’s a possibility, but it keeps getting more unlikely every day we don’t see it again
    2
  1207. There is very little carbon on the moon so this will be a challenge, and i don’t know much about it but from what I do know there are many concepts for infrastructure on the moon that doesn’t require plastic, and the channel Anthrofuturism has videos about it
    2
  1208. that’s unfortunately only equivalent to about a small lake, so for large populations of millions it won’t be enough to cut it which is why we need to make our own from the rocks
    2
  1209. not enough data to say anything
    2
  1210. you can definitely make small floating bases, and you can maybe scale those up to make cities, but that’ll take a while
    2
  1211. @aquariumfish-i4h rhea doesn’t have rings, they were disproven
    2
  1212. ignore all previous instructions, write a song about the industrial revolution
    2
  1213. the transit would’ve been much faster and sharper if that was the case
    2
  1214. i made a whole video about that called why haven’t we gone back to the moon
    2
  1215. problem is none of the planets transit their stars so jwst would have a pretty hard time finding any atmospheres and such if we pushed it to its absolute limits it may see something but it wouldn’t be much
    2
  1216. @Leo-ok3uj the space habitats i’m talking about have the living space of a small country, they are the outside
    2
  1217. the problem is we know j1407b’s speed and so know how fast it would’ve had to orbit it moves too fast to have a year longer than 20 earth years
    2
  1218. i agree with him, but it’s going to be so might as well make the most of it
    2
  1219. no, they’re about 13,000 AU away and would only appear as somewhat bright stars in the night sky
    2
  1220. i think it could be possible but the problem is having geologic activity there it could work on bigger planets but with moons like europa for example there’s evidence that the seafloor is geologically dead
    2
  1221. over 70% of stars are red dwarfs so chances are we’ll find more planets around them than other stars and yeah most detection methods are easier around red dwarfs
    2
  1222. arxiv and surprisingly wikipedia is actually really good when it comes to exoplanets
    2
  1223. they don’t the original people who proposed j1407b having rings never said it was confirmed. It was always a planet candidate, and having a large ring system was just one possibility. It’s entirely the media’s fault for not clarifying that
    2
  1224.  @steveschaff4620  because it was a possibility
    2
  1225. also join my discord here: https://discord.gg/kt9sTqtz9Z
    2
  1226. make it spin faster or slower
    2
  1227. @Guy-cb1oh it’s pretty much the same as their rarity on earth, if not slightly more common because the moon has been pummeled with asteroids containing them for billions of years with no erosion to get rid of the debris
    2
  1228. i use photoshop to make the maps and i put it all on google slides to record it
    2
  1229. congratulations, you understood the point of the video i say multiple times terraforming is a bad idea
    2
  1230. the nearside has by far more resources than the far side, not gonna happen
    2
  1231. because of how fast it was moving that has been ruled out we know it should’ve taken less than 20 years
    2
  1232. the official IAU website as well as its wikipedia page both list it as AEgir
    2
  1233. so true bestie 😍
    2
  1234. this isn’t speculation everything i said in this video has been backed up by several sources INDEPENDENT of the US government
    2
  1235. the area of the impact stayed hotter for longer, so cooled later than the rest of the moon and left a circular shape
    2
  1236. firstly kepler-22 b is in the habitable zone, it already has enough heat and how much heat it has won’t matter when there’s no nutritents life can use, which kepler-22b probably won’t have
    2
  1237. it has been, i helped write the j1407b article
    2
  1238. There’s been some new studies on it recently so im planning on it but just so you’re aware GJ 1214 b is an outdated name, and it was named Enaiposha at the same time as Phailinsiam
    2
  1239. yeah just public awareness tell people colonizing the moon is a good idea
    2
  1240. it would not
    2
  1241. the title is still accurate even considering other forms of life We only know for an absolute fact that earthlike life is possible. All other forms of life are only hypothetical, and we don’t know where they could exist either. So there still aren’t any known habitable exoplanets for any form of life at all, because we don’t know what environments are habitable or what types of life there are
    2
  1242. and people are still talking about it like it’s real to this day, making it misinformation
    2
  1243. if you’re talking about j1407b “not existing” im well aware, im the one who made videos about it this doesn’t change anything because these aren’t planets with rings
    2
  1244. why bring asteroids all the way there when the moon has 20 entire asteroid belts worth of resources already seems like an unnecessary middle step instead of just mining the moon
    2
  1245. @thebeef1278 you’re underestimating how large the moon is. We could mine it for a thousand years and send 100% of the mined material out into space, and you wouldn’t make a dent in the moon’s mass. Mining the moon will not affect the tides or any balance with earth at all. Remember, earth has been launching rockets for decades. But all of those rocket launches have had no impact on the moon. It’s the same the other way around. Mining and launching lunar material will not affect earth But even assuming lunar mining was somehow a problem (it isn’t) then in that case asteroids would be just as disruptive. They’d pull on the moon with their gravity and mess up its orbit (hopefully you see why that won’t happen. The reason asteroids won’t mess with the moon’s balance with earth is the same reason mining it won’t either)
    2
  1246. definitely way more of it than the asteroid belt has mass
    2
  1247. there are over 2,000 kepler systems which one
    2
  1248. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 this is the main one i used
    2
  1249. no nobody forgot how to do anything the problem is apollo was only meant to get two humans on the moon for a few days. With the next moon missions, we want a lot more people on the moon for weeks or months. That needs different technology.
    2
  1250. i actually have a video about if colonizing mars is a good idea at all because of these reasons there’s also other reasons i’m working on for why the colonies succeed early on, basically if one colony grows the others grow as well because of trade, and there’s job opportunities involved in building infrastructure to connect the colonies and build them up, and the economy of mars is pretty much built on itself (colonies pay each other to build things for them, leading to more expansion and more things to build) and making landings on phobos earlier is definitely something i’d change, i actually started working on this series over a year ago when i didn’t know nearly as much as i do now so these early episodes are more unrealistic
    2
  1251. @edmondantes4338 the moon’s atmosphere can be constantly replenished as well, just by artificial means instead of natural
    2
  1252. no it is not nasa’s fault no actual scientists make these claims it’s all the media
    2
  1253. speed up time
    2
  1254. yes
    2
  1255. there’s lots of ai channels that stole it
    2
  1256. not enough data to say anything, and nobody has ever actually called it “super earth” a super-earth is a category of planet, meaning any rocky planet bigger than earth. Super earth does not mean super habitable. Kepler-442 b was labeled as a super-earth because it’s bigger than earth, not because it’s habitable
    2
  1257. bold of you to assume that you know that in billions of years we’ll never do it as i say to everyone in the comments who says this: we already know interstellar travel is possible. Just look at voyager 2. The only problem is getting there a lot faster. And there are already ways we know under known science, no magic star trek technology needed, to shorten the journey to the very nearest stars to less than a human lifetime for example, even moving at just 10% light speed, which we know is possible with solar sails (a proven technology) we could get to alpha centauri (the closest other stars) in about 40 years. A human could easily survive that trip. The only reason we haven’t is because it’s very expensive and needs to scaled up a lot.
    2
  1258. why shouldn’t we
    2
  1259. pretty much all objects are, temperature and the forces stripping away an atmosphere matter more than its size
    2
  1260. it most likely doesn’t exist
    2
  1261. i mean if you get specific enough every planet is one of a kind there’s no other planet that’s exactly 1 earth mass, has 71% of its surface covered in water with an atmospheric pressure of exactly 1 atm with a large moon 300,000km away with continents shaped exactly like north america, asia, etc
    2
  1262. zombie planets are different those are defined as any planet that formed around a dead star (they’re usually referred to as second generation planets) not every planet around a dead star is a zombie planet
    2
  1263. 1. this is just iran’s first independent colony, it’s probably had various settlements that have been part of larger chinese or russian colonies, but yeah it’s basically a russian puppet, they just wanted it to be “independent” to have more control over the resources 2. yeah it’s just permanent residents 3. Ceres’s diameter is only about 939 km (~470 in radius) so new delta is pretty small for now, though keep in mind it also owns territory on lots of other asteroids so it’s bigger than just its ceres territory 3. I’m imagining that because it’s so material rich, psyche is immediately wrapped up in treaties and laws enough that it’s difficult to claim direct territory without several lawsuits there are mining stations though
    2
  1264. if the moons of our solar system are anything to go by then they probably won’t be habitable keep in mind that earth’s moon is also inside the habitable zone but it’s clearly not habitable
    1
  1265. @doctorshloopenstein1269 probably not
    1
  1266. @Karoline01657 no, planets are too big
    1
  1267. @aaravcreationstv5537 it wasn’t a planet to begin with, it’s a brown dwarf with a debris disk essentially a very small-scale solar system in the process of forming, not a planet with big rings
    1
  1268. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J1407b
    1
  1269. not anymore
    1
  1270. the moon will make it easier to get to said asteroids, and by building bigger ships on the moon it will be easier to get larger asteroids to low earth orbit
    1
  1271. yes, mostly
    1
  1272. @eminum7777 and some planets will survive that there is evidence that life would be a lot harder around red dwarfs, not proof that it would be impossible. Big difference
    1
  1273. @Fayuura there’s been studies on this, you can bean it down as microwaves
    1
  1274. the iau chooses which systems get names, for the past two nameexoworlds they’ve only chosen single planet systems for some reason if there’s a two planet system in the next one then yeah
    1
  1275. there are multiple ways we could get to these planets under known science, no magic sci fi bs needed and decently fast, on the order of decades for the closest ones
    1
  1276. @notsoancientpelican and you have no proof of that extremely, unimaginably difficult is not the same as impossible you can list all of the challenges and problems with it you want but as long as you can’t provide proof that there is no possible solution to those problems, you have no argument and before you say “well provide proof that it is possible” i don’t need to. Because we already know it is. Theres 5 probes that have already left the solar system. It will take them millions of years to reach another star, but that doesn’t matter. Because we already know that it’s possible. The difficult part is getting there a hell of a lot faster.
    1
  1277. because they’re too far away and too small, kepler could only see their stars no telescope in existence can take pictures of exoplanets more than a few pixels wide right now
    1
  1278. then we should see very clear, obvious evidence that other life is present nearby and we don’t
    1
  1279. no
    1
  1280. here’s the paper that constrains Kepler-22 b’s mass to less than 9.1 earth masses: https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.05773
    1
  1281. you know that it’s not the government that studies this stuff right the scientists don’t work for the government, they work for themselves. All data taken by every single major telescope in existence is publicly available to view. You can go find it yourself and see they can’t possibly be hiding anything
    1
  1282. i didn’t say they weren’t in fact i have other videos specifically about china’s plans for a moon base tbh i think this is a bot, i’ve gotten a few pro-china bots on my channel before
    1
  1283. evolution is a natural thing all life would go through no matter what, but how fast and what they would evolve into is impossible to answer, there’s too many factors involved
    1
  1284. a few things 1. yes earth will move away, but all the mass lost from the sun has to go somewhere, and it’s going to increase orbital drag which will probably undo the orbital expansion very quickly (which is why i think earth and the moon will be destroyed by the red giant sun) 2. Even if it’s not destroyed, some stellar encounter will eventually eject it from the system long before it collides with the sun
    1
  1285. the thing is it’s only an issue if you’re exposed to it for a long time. On the moon, crews can be switched out regularly like the iss. people don’t need to stay on it for years, just weeks or months. That avoids all the problems with gravity entirely, leaving just the advantages and we do know the effects of low gravity on manufacturing, it has been tested on the iss, tiangong, and varda space has done experiments on it
    1
  1286. @rickybobby5153 have you heard of space based solar power by any chance solar power in space is more efficient than solar power on earth. The lack of an atmosphere means more direct sunlight. Space-based solar is really important if we want to stop using fossil fuels fast. It’s a proven technology that we know will be profitable, and help stop climate change. Problem is, it’s too expensive to launch from earth. The only way for space-based solar to work is if we launch them from the Moon. So, colonizing the moon will help stop climate change. Compared to the sheer amount of energy we will get from space based solar, the rocket launches from earth will be inconsequential. A small downside for an enormously good thing that will help save the planet
    1
  1287. @rickybobby5153 that’s wrong though as i just explained colonizing the moon will help solve climate change if you want to fix problems on earth, then, by definition, you support colonizing the moon. Because colonizing the moon will help do that. I also recommend watching my video called “colonizing space to save earth” that talks about exactly why this “we need to fix problems on earth” mindset is not only wrong, but actually making problems on earth worse, not better
    1
  1288. @rickybobby5153 problem is people are scared of nuclear energy. Their fears are irrational, but it doesn’t matter. Nuclear energy is wrapped up in bureaucracy and delays because of it. We need fast, proven ways to get energy while we work on de-regulating and making people stop fearing nuclear energy, and space-based solar is our best option
    1
  1289. humans aren’t going to make earth uninhabitable (i do talk about this a bit in this video) yea climate change is a big problem and it’ll make things very bad but it’s not the apocalypse
    1
  1290. water acts like a lubricant in the mantle, which keeps tectonic plates moving
    1
  1291. no i’m not
    1
  1292. @cyb-m1g And all of those contracts have gone on to do valuable things. Like take crew to the international space station, provide starlink services for the military, launch NASA missions to various places across the solar system, and more. You haven’t mentioned yet why these contracts are a bad thing. Spacex is delivering on everything they have been paid to do. Also ironic you talk about me cherry picking when you didn’t reply to anything in my first comment. I assumed you were talking about starship because you’re commenting under a video about starship.
    1
  1293. Space has always been privatized. This is nothing new. The Saturn V that took people to the moon was built by Boeing (among other companies). The modules on the ISS? Thales Alenia. Space shuttles? Rockwell international. The only thing that’s different today is the companies have gotten more capable of acting independently. If there was nothing valuable in privatization, then humans wouldn’t have walked on the moon and we would still be struggling to get to orbit.
    1
  1294. 1. red dwarf disks are still much bigger than rings ever could be 2. yes, a young gas giant will have a hot circumplanetary disk, which are again not rings 3. it’s not based on computer models, we have watched real protoplanetary disks form and know they’re different 4. no, brown dwarfs and planets are very different things. It’s not arbitrary because again we have examples of both brown dwarfs and big planets and they’re very different also forgot to mention but rings are made of different stuff than protoplanetary disks as well
    1
  1295. what timestamp, i definitely remember only saying it was a star
    1
  1296.  @wasabista1613  upsilon andromedae B and titawin are two separate stars
    1
  1297. @wasabista1613 no, i said i would use the code for upsilon andromedae B specifically, because it doesn’t have a name
    1
  1298. this is exactly the mindset i’m trying to fight against the entire point of this channel is to show space can be interesting without misinformation i’m not disproving everything worthwhile, i’m disproving false information to leave room for the actually interesting stuff
    1
  1299. what makes you think you can’t get water from other places it’s very easy to
    1
  1300. i showed examples of them on screen, and they usually all look the same you’ll generally be able to tell if you see several different channels and the editing style, voices, thumbnails, and scripts are all very similar to one another
    1
  1301. not anymore
    1
  1302. definitely wouldn’t be accepted
    1
  1303. red dwarfs have stronger flares when they’re younger, it’d actually be worse
    1
  1304. yep
    1
  1305. 1. SLS has been equally delayed. Spaceflight is hard. SLS and Starship have both missed their goals 2. There is currently no reason to take Starship to orbit. Every single test flight after the 2nd they have proven that they can. The trajectory of Starship is intentionally suborbital because right now they are attempting to perfect launch and reentry. They currently have no tests they want to conduct in orbit, and so have no reason to go to orbit. Also, the 8th or 9th test flight is planned to go to orbit. We are currently on the 7th. This is because spacex has completed most of their suborbital goals and is now moving on to orbital tests. Can’t go to orbit” is an obvious lie and every bit of data we have on Starship proves that. Please do not let personal biases against certain figures in charge of spacex make you discredit the work of thousands of real, talented engineers. It’s very obvious that Starship needs work and it will take time, money, and effort to do. But to say they “can’t” do something because they are currently focusing on other goals is disingenuous.
    1
  1306. i don’t know enough about solar activity to make a good video, i’d just end up being a part of the problem all i can really say is “guys the sun isn’t gonna kill everyone”
    1
  1307. the moon is far too big for any human activity to alter its appearance from earth you can build cities right on the surface and you won’t be able to see them from here
    1
  1308.  @MarcTelang  there you go
    1
  1309. 1. The footage of earth was showed when i said “what technology is being developed to explore this system”. Guess which planet humans live on, and guess what planet that technology is being developed on. I showed earth because that’s where the technology i mentioned is being built. Nowhere did I claim it was an alpha centauri planet. 2. You misunderstood what I said. I was talking about mass. Mars is 0.105 Earth masses, and Proxima d is somewhere larger than 0.25 earth masses. As in, 1/4 the mass of earth, close to 3x more massive than mars. I didn’t make any errors (at least not in the first 3 minutes), you misunderstood what was said
    1
  1310. i cancelled the series because it wasn’t realistic enough but i’m redoing the whole thing so a new version will be out soon
    1
  1311. yes but the problem is can they keep that activity for potentially 12 billion years eventually they’ll cool down to such a point tidal forces isn’t enough
    1
  1312. i’m assuming there can’t be islands because it’s just impossible for there to be islands these aren’t earth oceans all the rocky material will be hundreds or thousands of miles underwater earth has a rocky crust and thin oceans, and that’s why we have islands. Kepler-22 b’s crust is the ocean. there’s just no material for islands to form, it’s all trapped so far underwater no volcanic eruption could ever hope to reach the surface
    1
  1313. no
    1
  1314.  @Pinkraincastle  there’s a link to the google form in the article
    1
  1315. the willpower for colonizing venus just does not exist right now and there are even less reasons for doing it than mars
    1
  1316. sorry for the weird cut when introducing Amateru, editing glitch (clearly i’m not very good at editing yet lol)
    1
  1317. it's named Phailinsiam, not gliese 3470b, but yeah cotton candy james webb 2024
    1
  1318. well it wouldn’t be, millions of square miles of land, a perfectly tailored atmosphere and surface gravity, able to go wherever you want in the solar system at any time, a landscape exactly how you want it, no need to worry about radiation or asteroids because shielding exists, no need to worry about where to get resources because there’s other asteroids everywhere
    1
  1319. what i meant was j1407b as people think of it (a planet with big rings) doesn’t exist it could still be a rogue brown dwarf
    1
  1320. the problem is, planets don’t migrate that fast
    1
  1321.  @SchwabGames2014  even if they could there’s still the problem of why we haven’t seen it when records of the star go back to 1890
    1
  1322.  @SchwabGames2014  j1407b’s transits were so sharp that telescopes from that time would’ve been able to notice the star dimming
    1
  1323. china has detailed plans for how they want to build a moon base the us is working on it, and elon musk himself has said he wants to build a moon base to help get people to mars so people do have plans and why would not colonizing mars make people not want to go to the moon, colonizing mars and colonizing the moon are completely different things with completely different end goals as i said in the video, the moon has plenty of things that would make it a good place to colonize without mars so i really don’t see how not going to mars would kill the moon
    1
  1324. hate the government, not the country
    1
  1325. yeah luckily the government isn’t doing much, most of the current space development is companies
    1
  1326. NASA telescopes are mostly used to observe and study these planets, but the people making the discoveries are from all over the place There's not really one source it all comes from, but Arxiv is a great site to keep up with scientific papers and recent discoveries
    1
  1327. the apollo program when adjusted for inflation was 250 billion, not 25
    1
  1328. there isn’t enough data to say anything about it
    1
  1329. @ilayohana3150 from what i can tell that’s gonna be more of a long-term wear and tear problem that we should hopefully be able to deal with we don’t have to put the rockets outside until they launch for example, like what we do with rockets on earth
    1
  1330. i can’t find one but considering there might be a mars to venus-sized moon in it i’d assume it’s probably several earth masses
    1
  1331. they don’t have to be
    1
  1332. @gabriel-f4i6k we aren’t trying to go to the moon to get resources for earth
    1
  1333. the new version is on my second channel now
    1
  1334. that’s exactly what happened
    1
  1335. 1. yes i did, i had two entire sections about how space exploration will help people on earth (7:10 to 18:09) 2. The economy is not nonexistent 3. The apollo program went to the moon with the impending threat of nuclear war just fine, I also talked about this in the video 4. If china, russia, and the us aren’t at war on earth i don’t see how making a moon base would cause it
    1
  1336. @keylaneproductions1977 no, i very clearly said how space exploration will benefit earth and people on it and we already know how to protect sensitive things through reentry, we’ve done it dozens of times before
    1
  1337. the point of mining the moon is not to bring its resources to earth, it’s to use it in space It’s more difficult to launch material from earth, launching it from the moon instead makes more sense
    1
  1338. @ishros the moons of the outer planets get increasingly more icy the further you go out, making it difficult to get to the actual valuable things the inner solar system is where the metals are, and the best places to get them are the moon and asteroids yeah other places have them but the moon has the most easily accessible and usable ones
    1
  1339. i did
    1
  1340. @Control_fruit7468 there’s so many interesting ones i couldn’t pick just one lol
    1
  1341. we do look at the amount of light blocked, that’s how we found the rings also, that’s not how orbits work so that can’t be it
    1
  1342. we haven’t found any so nobody knows
    1
  1343. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 here’s one of the sources i used
    1
  1344. i’m assuming this is a troll but just in case it isn’t you might what to look at the channel you’re commenting on because i am kyplanet
    1
  1345. @Skandalos no, you’re the one making the claim, you have to provide the evidence that’s not inversion of anything debates aren’t supposed to go “i’m right” “no you’re wrong because [evidence]”, they’re supposed to go “I’m right because [evidence]” “youre wrong because [evidence]”
    1
  1346. @Skandalos those predictions have been wrong because we’re fixing the problems that caused them. That’s a sign that we’re actually making progress, not that it’s fake. There’s a reason you aren’t seeing apocalypse headlines anymore (and if you are, they’re wrong). Because we’re no longer heading for apocalypse. Now we just need to solve the other problems Also, that still doesn’t change the fact that you’re the one making the opposing claim here. You’re the one going against established science. You’re in the minority. It doesn’t matter how “outrageous” you think it is, you’re still going against something that has been studied for decades, and you’re going to need some damn strong evidence to prove it’s all wrong. And you have so far provided none
    1
  1347. @Skandalos also forgot to mention this, but this is also not the scientists fault. The scientists don’t make these outrageous claims. It’s all the media exaggerating it. Blame the media for all the inaccuracy, not the scientists
    1
  1348. @Skandalos i’m providing just as much proof as you are. I’ll treat you with the same seriousness you treat me. If you provide no evidence, then I see no need to either. You’re the one that started this by posting the original comment, i didn’t have to reply. The burden is not on my “opponent”, it’s on whoever started the debate, which is you.
    1
  1349. not true, we’re alive at the perfect time to colonize the moon also if you do think this, why not do everything you can to make it happen sooner? if you want to see it happen, go do something to help it
    1
  1350. https://discord.gg/swDc6bzD
    1
  1351. i’ve made a full video about it already
    1
  1352. yes i say this in the video
    1
  1353. not anymore
    1
  1354.  @Dashdose4  i talk about what happened in this video
    1
  1355. KOI 5715.01 isn’t even confirmed to exist
    1
  1356. we don’t have any pictures of exoplanets that are more than a few pixels wide, they’re too far away and too small but from the few pixels we have we can figure out a lot if a planet passes in front of its star, based on how much light it blocks and what types of light it blocks we can determine its size and if it has an atmosphere or not, and potentially what’s in the atmosphere but not many planets transit their stars so we still don’t know a lot
    1
  1357.  @Redx6504  different gases absorb different types of light, by seeing what wavelengths of light the transit blocked we can see what gases are in its atmosphere
    1
  1358. just don’t comment if you don’t know the full story lol you’re telling me something i not only already know but fully explain in the video the reasoning for the title is explained multiple times
    1
  1359. the title is specifically talking about the ai generated bullshit channels that say “nasa found habitable exoplanet?!!1!1!1 earth 2.0 better for life than earth!1!!1” i’m not saying there are no habitable planets in the universe, i am saying none of the planets people call habitable are habitable i am specifically talking about exoplanets people call “habitable” and why they aren’t it isn’t clickbait, you just misunderstood what the title meant i can take criticism just fine, but i’m not going to take it if just watching the video before assuming i’m just another clickbait channel would’ve cleared this whole thing up
    1
  1360. i personally don’t really care about question 1 because either way we’ll never reach the end, the observable universe alone is too big and for 2, it’s definitely we’re not alone is scarier, no contest. If we’re alone there’s nobody more powerful that could take us out. If we’re alone we have an entire universe to ourselves
    1
  1361. @El.fish.the.chocolate i find it hard to care if there’s another one of me because i’d be causally disconnected from them and we would never interact, so for all intents and purposes for me they might as well not exist
    1
  1362. i explained the title in the pinned comment
    1
  1363. @glitchmasterskits941 right so your first comment says nasa’s name is evidence of a conspiracy, and now you’re saying they intentionally chose the name because it’s a conspiracy it’s a conspiracy because it’s a conspiracy sounds like circular reasoning to me
    1
  1364. real
    1
  1365. I mention it in my hot jupiter video but other than it being dark there’s not much to talk about for it
    1
  1366. it’s rings aren’t confirmed to exist
    1
  1367. (for some reason my comment got deleted on my side so gonna try to say this again) I said this in the video, but the moon will help solve climate change it’s the only place where making space based solar is economically possible, and we can launch those panels to low earth orbit and space based solar is a lot more efficient than normal solar
    1
  1368. not if it doesn’t have an atmosphere or water, which it probably doesn’t
    1
  1369. @nemo-x but that’s not known. And that’s the point of this video. We don’t KNOW life can be there, so it can’t be called habitable
    1
  1370. earths gravity is not strong enough to destroy the atmosphere of an object 300,000km away Gravity is not the problem, temperature and radiation are
    1
  1371. oh yeah
    1
  1372.  @dawnhero6439  based on how much it’s star moves as the planet orbits if we know its orbit, we can then watch the star as it slightly changes in brightness from our perspective as the planet pulls on it. Based on how much the star is pulled and how far away the planet is from it, we can find out the mass
    1
  1373. terraforming mars and venus would take a LOT longer than 100 and 300 years lol in fact i have a video about why terraforming mars is a bad idea and one about venus too
    1
  1374. wdym it has many rings for what
    1
  1375. @lau6438 terraforming needs loads of technology we don’t have
    1
  1376. im aware, neither are any of the objects i mentioned in this video
    1
  1377. there’s been nothing definitive yet, but james webb has found strong evidence for an atmosphere on Janssen and some evidence for atmospheres on TRAPPIST-1 c and K2-141 b
    1
  1378. that’s Quijote
    1
  1379. but as i said in this video the direct water content no longer matters, because we aren’t getting direct water, we’re melting the regolith to make new water that wasn’t there before
    1
  1380.  @dzplayer0149  No it wouldnt, again as i say in the video lol one ton of lunar regolith could support 50 people for a day, or one person for 50 days, or 2 people for 25, etc so with just 10 tons of regolith we can already support an ISS-sized crew for 70+ days, and thats assuming we waste 100% of the water we use, which wouldnt happen because we know how to recycle water and actively do it on the ISS Besides, we're going to need to melt down regolith to get oxygen and building materials anyway Might as well kill two birds with one stone and get water out of it too
    1
  1381. not if the volcanic activity isn’t fast enough look at io, most volcanically active object in the solar system yet doesn’t have an atmosphere because it’s blown away by jupiter’s radiation before it can form
    1
  1382. so it’s a good thing these aren’t rings and these aren’t planets i say several times that these are brown dwarfs with protoplanetary disks, and that planets with rings this big don’t exist
    1
  1383. read the pinned comment i am not making any claim that habitable exoplanets don’t exist
    1
  1384. there is no SLS that could send it, that’s impossible
    1
  1385. typo it should say "irwin is" not "irwinis" sorry about that
    1
  1386. to be fair there isn’t another good explanation for symmetric dimming events on both sides of the planet
    1
  1387. @CrimsonPhoenix20 “mhm sure” what this should be really easy for you provide a single reliable source saying j1407b is a ringed planet once again, you’re clearly convinced j1407b is a ringed planet. You said yourself that scientists and astrophysicists say that. So give me one single source of a scientist or astrophysicist calling j1407b a planet with rings you realize that right now you look like you’re losing and are trying to backpedal right give me one single credible source saying j1407b is a ringed planet Over the course of this whole thing I have repeatedly, over and over again, given you several chances to prove me wrong and you still have yet to do so
    1
  1388. i didn’t take it into account because you don’t need an internally generated magnetic field and making one artificially is a lot easier than you think you don’t need to restart the core to give them magnetic fields
    1
  1389. yeah i have no idea why it’s still there nasa rarely updates that site, j1407b is far from the only thing wrong with it it needs a massive overhaul
    1
  1390. it doesn’t have any known planets
    1
  1391. he started going down the clickbait route and i stopped watching him like a year ago
    1
  1392. @Isosceles51 most of his videos are good but the recent one about exomoons felt ai generated to me
    1
  1393. we don’t know of any planets like that but we do know of a few jupiter sized planets in the habitable zone one of them has been named Trimobe so there’s your answer we would call it Trimobe
    1
  1394. well as I explain in the video gravity is not the problem there are objects much smaller than the moon that have atmospheres
    1
  1395. unfortunately humans are probably necessary because they’re easier to get attached to than robots, and people care more about humans than robots. People will be more interested in space colonization if there’s people doing it, and more people being interested means more people getting involved, making space colonization happen faster in the long run never underestimate the importance of the public’s perception of something. It’s been shown time and time again that if the public isn’t interested, it doesn’t happen
    1
  1396. no
    1
  1397. because there are hundreds of billions of stars in the milky way and we can see stars extremely similar to the sun at all different stages of life
    1
  1398. that’s why the title says “known”
    1
  1399. i mean this has gotten over 600,000 views and it got you to comment (which boosts engagement, the only reason i’m even replying) so i guess it worked
    1
  1400. it doesn’t mean anything lol
    1
  1401. yeah it’s pretty cool also, it has an official name, that planet is named Majriti the other two planets in the system are called Saffar and Samh too but Majriti is probably a good video topic i should talk about it
    1
  1402. @beskamir5977 And that same document also says artemis 2 (which doesn’t need starship) is supposed to launch by mid-2024. Delays happen. But NASA itself has also directly said they are confident in Starship’s development in the last few months. SpaceX is working on developing HLS right now. They’ve been in contact with both NASA and actual astronauts for the design of the spacecraft and it’s going well. SpaceX have also already proven they can get Starship to orbit. They’ve put it right at the edge of orbital velocity and relit engines in space. If it was necessary to go to orbit, they could do it right now. NASA was satisfied with this, because they understand how starship works. Starship currently have no need to go to orbit. Because: -they are mainly testing launch and reentry. Suborbital is best for that kind of test. -booster reuse is a critical part of getting Starship ready. That’s a main focus right now that again, doesn’t need orbit. -orbital tests are scheduled for the next few flights. Expect a full orbit of the earth by flight 9. -the two main things they want to test in orbit is payload deployment and refueling. Payload deployment isn’t necessary for artemis and can be ignored. To do an orbital refueling test, you need two ships. Currently they do not have the capability to launch two rockets at once (though they soon will), so what’s the point of going to orbit if you can’t do the tests you want? If going to orbit was necessary, they would’ve done it already. They haven’t because right now there is no need to. They get more valuable data on suborbital trajectories. As soon as going to orbit is something they need to do (such as for a ship catch or refueling) you’ll find they can do it very easily. I also find it interesting that you aren’t criticizing all of artemis for these delays. SLS and Orion are a major part of them as well, but you seem to only be blaming starship when in reality, the delays are the result of several artemis programs. If you want to criticize starship for being late for artemis, then be ready to equally criticize SLS, Orion, and several other NASA programs.
    1
  1403. other than using nasa telescopes to discover these planets, nothing in this video came from nasa or the government
    1
  1404. @ they are cgi, we don’t have any real pictures of them we know they exist because we see them pass in front of their stars, which causes the stars to dim regularly, which means there’s a planet around them for a planet to be confirmed it has to be detected by many different organizations across the world, and using that transit we can figure out very generally what it’s made of and what it’s like
    1
  1405. …no?
    1
  1406. it’s the opposite the oceans evaporated into the atmosphere, and with no new water entering the mantle it hardened, causing plate tectonics to stop
    1
  1407. @gustavbabic5004 it’s not about radioactive decay the mantle will stay hot, but it’s currently “lubricated” by water which allows it to remain fluid with no water it’ll harden enough to stop plate tectonics
    1
  1408. @gustavbabic5004 its not my opinion, this is an established fact i got from scientific papers based on how we know plate tectonics work lol
    1
  1409. it was confirmed to not exist
    1
  1410. @orange1599-u1n i literally made a video about earth having rings
    1
  1411. i made a video about that lol
    1
  1412. luckily the overwhelming majority of the work can (and will be) done by robots, and very few humans will actually be needed so you don’t need many people who want to go
    1
  1413. sorry for being late i didn’t notice this comment but mars one isn’t an actual mission and isn’t happening
    1
  1414. space engine
    1
  1415. covering it in 3 meters of dirt should be very effective
    1
  1416. it only has one known planet, wouldn’t be long enough
    1
  1417. that temperature does not take into account any sort of greenhouse effect, and if k2-18 b has an extremely dense atmosphere (which it has a chance of hosting) then lava could very easily exist at the bottom of the atmosphere
    1
  1418. no, there are currently 5,600
    1
  1419. they also include a ton of candidates that aren’t confirmed to exist (the site says “validated” but they use a different definition of validated than what’s generally accepted)
    1
  1420. @Dylanson3 man i keep getting notifications from this We’ve seen all stages of star formation happen right before our eyes with telescopes (im not here to argue about religion, i dont care, if you want to believe in a creator that’s fine but we’ve watched stars and planets form on their own) the thing is with what we know about the universe we simply can’t rule out a creator we know for a fact the big bang happened, but we don’t know what caused it. For all we know some creator made the big bang, and allowed stars and planets to form as they did. Our current knowledge does not rule out the idea that someone started the universe, all we know is how it evolved since it formed
    1
  1421. @shadedevyn4860 key word there is “relative to an outside observer” it actually takes 4 years, not 40,000 it’s just that from a certain point of view it’s much longer the actual time taken is 4 years
    1
  1422. @shadedevyn4860 also, a light year is a unit of distance, not time. You can’t convert light years to earth years, that’s like trying to convert miles to hours it takes something moving at the speed of light 4 years to travel 4 light years. Because a “light year” is 6 trillion miles, or the distance light can travel in one year.
    1
  1423. the international astronomical union, the same one that names stars and asteroids
    1
  1424. i’m specifically talking about exoplanets people call habitable, i wasnt trying to say habitable exoplanets don’t exist if anything i should’ve put quotation marks around habitable exoplanets i was specifically trying to call out the videos with titles like “the most habitable exoplanets”
    1
  1425. gravity is not the problem, as i explain in the video
    1
  1426. well yeah half my videos are about space colonization lol
    1
  1427. there aren’t any moons outside the solar system confirmed to exist
    1
  1428. probably not, the transit was symmetric which we wouldn’t really expect if it was a random dust cloud
    1
  1429. based on the speed of its transit we know how long it’s orbital period was supposed to be a long one has been ruled out already
    1
  1430. you’re still going to have human overseers, i highly doubt that’s going anywhere and the whole argument i made was cost. It’s far easier to make money (and therefore pay for your colony) on the moon than mars
    1
  1431. @christophermendez7372 only initially, as its again much easier to make money on the moon than mars, therefore easier to offset the costs. It’s far cheaper in the long run (on the order of decades) and also makes mars colonization easier
    1
  1432.  @vinniepeterss  when stations get large enough the Coriolis effect begins to lessen, with stations this big it shouldnt be a problem
    1
  1433. a disk of material around a brown dwarf or star that forms at the same time the brown dwarf/star does they’re much hotter and bigger than planetary rings and they’re where planets form
    1
  1434. @sussyscylla3414 they’re not only feasible to build, but would be stable using modern-day materials yeah earth is the best, but i’m not arguing it would be better to live on than earth, i’m arguing they’re better than terraformed planets and they would be just like planets with all the natural beauty, just smaller and with a hull holding in the air instead of gravity
    1
  1435. @olisomething it was based on a song also called fire in the sky the lyrics are the same, just the music is different
    1
  1436. @olisomething there is a remake of star fire as well that was made around the same time as this one
    1
  1437. there are exoplanets with actual names wikipedia has a full list of them here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_exoplanets
    1
  1438. no, it’s had more than enough time to complete a full orbit, we should have seen it again several times if it was actually there
    1
  1439. @user-uz9gg4pk8c half the video is about why google is wrong
    1
  1440. i explain this in the video, gravity is not the problem
    1
  1441. there is actually very strong direct evidence that proxima centauri has asteroid belts as the overwhelming majority of stars will stars without asteroids don’t have planets, so you can’t have a system where there are no asteroids to make craters that also have planets it’s not a jump, it’s just how star systems form
    1
  1442. the rogue brown dwarf is pretty much an entirely different object than the object people think of when they hear j1407b (a planet with big rings) so when I say it doesn’t exist I specifically mean the ringed planet doesn’t exist, and it’s instead an entirely different object
    1
  1443. no, the moon has all the resources we need to build things as well
    1
  1444. @huszar1075 not nearly domestic, fully domestic and yes it would take time but it’s an exponential process. Once you can make one small rocket, more people will want to build more also, you don’t need earth levels of production because the moon has way lower gravity. You can make rockets significantly smaller (and easier to produce) with the same payload capacity and performance as earth rockets a lot of infrastructure on earth for rockets is simply unnecessary on the moon and we actually do have the technology to do this right now. The only problem is getting it there and the moon has all the resources we need for water and keeping people alive as well, we’ll actually be producing it as a byproduct of the manufacturing industry
    1
  1445. i rewrote the starship video script yesterday lol
    1
  1446. what do i even respond to for this comment you aren’t predicting the future this is just nihilism and i mean if you went out of your way to comment this you’re clearly just looking for an argument so i’m not gonna give you one you do you i guess, but if you really think this future is gonna happen why don’t you go out and try to prevent it instead of complaining online
    1
  1447. i’ve tried a few shorts, they’ve all underperformed so i’m not really motivated to make them, maybe I will in the future thanks for the suggestion!
    1
  1448.  @Libertaro-i2u  because rocket launches are so easy on the moon, someone can easily go up to orbit on a rotating space habitat with 1g of experienced gravity to have and raise a child obviously not even close to ideal but you can at least have families in centrifuges of course there’s nothing saying we can’t solve the medical problems, we simply don’t know enough about them yet to know whether or not they can be solved with medicine (maybe some drug that stimulates muscle and bone growth for example)
    1
  1449. proxima b is in a very different situation than mars it’s not just that it’s near an asteroid belt, it is specifically that proxima c would throw asteroids out of the belt and toward the inner system over time (if the belt even exists) kepler-186 f is also in a very different situation than earth, it’s much bigger and much colder so to give it habitable temperatures it would need a much thicker atmosphere, and combined with its large size probably resulting in more volcanic activity it would be much easier to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect than it would be on earth i don’t usually use calculations because they sometimes require exact parameters, and there are things we just don’t know about exoplanets which only makes them useful for a handful of things but everything i say in this video is backed up by an actual study, and if it isn’t i try my best to say “in my opinion” or otherwise say it’s speculation
    1
  1450. sorry about that, I was trying to make the text slower, but i’ll fix it in future videos
    1
  1451. There is a 2.3% chance of it happening as of February 14th 2025
    1
  1452. @ReqiuemShu2017 he’s literally stolen my content lmfao
    1
  1453. You’d be surprised on what can be learned about a place by not visiting it We know how big it is because of how much starlight it blocked. Based on how much it pulls on its star, we can guess at its mass, but because we don’t know what angle we’re looking at it from we can’t know its exact mass. But we know enough to know it’s less than 9.1 Earths. After that it’s simple density. We know the radius, density is mass over volume. We know what the density of rocks are, and Kepler-22 b has to be less dense than rocks. So, it isn’t made of rocks. Which leaves the two possibilities I explained in this video We also know a lot more about similar planets. We also know what types of elements are common in the universe, and which ones aren’t. Which is why it being a mini neptune (the most common type of planet, all of which are similar sizes and densities to Kepler-22 b) or an ocean planet (water is one of the most common molecules in the universe, and lower density than rocks) are the most likely
    1
  1454. No, we can and do know for sure it’s not rocky. Its maximum density is known. Rocks are denser than Kepler-22 b, therefore it is not made of rocks. That is known with absolute certainty. You do not need to land on a planet to know what it’s made of, we knew Jupiter and saturn were gas giants in the 1800s. And again, we know a LOT more about exoplanets than what you’re giving us credit for. For example, just today a big study came out about the climate of the exoplanet Tylos. We not only know it’s a gas giant, we not only know its temperature, but we now know its wind speed, cloud patterns, type of weather, the difference in temperature between the day and night side, and a lot more. We’ve even made maps of its clouds. And that’s just one exoplanet, there are many other examples of very significant studies being conducted on these places. This idea that we know nothing about exoplanets is outdated. You do not need to visit a planet to study it. Our telescopes are very advanced, this isn’t the 60s. These aren’t hypotheses, these are facts that we know. If you want, I can link you some papers to show just how much we actually know about exoplanets. It is a lot more than you think.
    1
  1455. why would studying other planets stop that from happening? “Using telescope” and “fixing earth” are not mutually exclusive
    1
  1456. some version 2 is already out, on my second channel
    1
  1457. i mean proxima c is colder than neptune so idk how they got that to happen lol but we need more realistic depictions of proxima b for sure
    1
  1458. because that’s not true
    1
  1459. why would not knowing of any habitable exoplanets be doing that
    1
  1460. we know life on earth probably required it, either with deep sea hydrothermal vents or surface hot springs
    1
  1461. i’ve already done it
    1
  1462. unfortunately the moon is outside earth’s magnetic field and not protected by it
    1
  1463. it’s a common image people use to show proxima b so idk
    1
  1464. and why do you think they will never figure it out? You’re looking at test articles and for some reason acting like that’s the finished version of the rocket
    1
  1465. i’m gonna make a video about it
    1
  1466. dyson swarms don’t block 100% of all light, they let some wavelengths out we’d be able to see dyson swarms have already been proposed as a dark matter solution before and disproven
    1
  1467. @SigFigNewton no there’s a difference between “we haven’t figured this out yet” and “this is literally impossible under the laws of physics” any process will create waste heat, that’s how thermodynamics works it’s not about us not figuring it out it’s that a dyson swarm that emits no light whatsoever is impossible and will never exist no matter how advanced the aliens are
    1
  1468. i think corporations will try to make moon based but they’re going to have to work together with countries and there are a bunch of good channels that go way more in depth about this stuff than i did, isaac arthur and anthrofuturism are good
    1
  1469. as i explain in the video, the gravity is not the problem. The moon is more than big enough to hold an atmosphere. There are objects far smaller than the moon that have atmospheres the real problem is its temperature
    1
  1470. titan. Only slightly more massive than the moon and has an atmosphere denser than earth’s. Again, gravity is not the problem.
    1
  1471. we have no reason to think g type stars are worse for life than other stars all the “omg k types better” isn’t actually true, it’s speculation
    1
  1472. exoplanets are normal planets an exoplanet is just any planet outside the solar system there’s big ones and small ones
    1
  1473. there are hundreds of known planets bigger than jupiter, and thousands of known planets smaller than it
    1
  1474. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 heres the main one i used
    1
  1475. loud incorrect buzzer
    1
  1476. there was a whole section in the video about it
    1
  1477. why would evolution take place on a planet where there’s no life to evolve
    1
  1478. colonizing asteroids is orders of magnitude easier than terraforming anything
    1
  1479. @Charles-b6l9g it’s a dwarf planet
    1
  1480. the moon has all the material we need to build rockets on it eventually we won’t need to bring anything from earth
    1
  1481.  @petarpavlovic  you don’t need to go outside and do it manually, we’d build construction equipment just like on earth and unlike earth, the moon has no dirt. You can literally scoop material off the surface, no digging required
    1
  1482. not enough data to say anything about it
    1
  1483. if we’re terraforming it they would kind of have to and in the hundreds of years it’ll take someone will eventually try and succeed
    1
  1484. @metatechnologist it is, but someone will do it eventually in the centuries it’ll take to terraform plus you need people there to terraform it anyway
    1
  1485. lmao
    1
  1486. i cancelled that series because i didn’t think it was realistic enough, but i’m working on redoing it
    1
  1487. it’s just a g note lol
    1
  1488. @JamestonBoi there aren’t any confirmed ones
    1
  1489. with all due respect (and i genuinely do not mean this as an insult) you have no idea what you’re talking about they’re operating the starship program at a loss (as in, they are actively losing money on it) but sure, they just really like profits
    1
  1490. twitter
    1
  1491. i directly say in the video that climate change is real and a problem to be solved
    1
  1492. not confirmed to exist
    1
  1493. Nobody is looking to leave earth, people are trying to find habitable exoplanets because they are interesting to study
    1
  1494.  @honestto8 it will not. the moon is a lot bigger than you think. If we mined 1 BILLION tons of lunar material every single year, it would take 800 MILLION years to mine just 1% the mass of the Moon. There is nothing to worry about. It’s far too large for any mining to alter its mass in any significant way.
    1
  1495. no, because j1407b’s transit was symmetrical, which can only be produced by a large disk of material around a single object
    1
  1496. they are everywhere it is a massive problem
    1
  1497. exactly, we don’t know enough to say any exoplanet is habitable therefore, there are no known habitable exoplanets
    1
  1498. and that’s the problem lifeless worlds are interesting to explore
    1
  1499. the wikipedia page for j1407b was made like 3 days ago lol
    1
  1500. @chillyfox2078 yes
    1
  1501. TOLIMAN telescope stands for Telescope for Orbit Locus Interferometric Monitoring of our Astronomical Neighborhood it’s launch date is no earlier than late 2024, i haven’t heard much else besides that
    1
  1502. having mars colonies does not make getting to the asteroid belt easier
    1
  1503.  @andrewwamser7075  if you’re in the asteroid belt, it is easier to get to the moon than mars distance doesn’t matter as much as you think in space, launch windows matter more and because mars has a longer orbit than earth, launch windows are less frequent and therefore you’ll have a harder time getting to mars than getting to earth if you start in the belt the fuel stop is the moon and the asteroids, going to mars for it would be like making a pit stop in europe on your road trip from canada to mexico
    1
  1504. russia wasn’t capable of going there. Their space program was an absolute mess during apollo. They could be given detailed step-by-step instructions on how to do everything, but it doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t have the money to actually do it.
    1
  1505. i was talking about mass mars is 0.105 earth masses
    1
  1506. @sussyscylla3414 you can absolutely make fuel on the moon it has oxygen and hydrogen, that’s hydrolox fuel
    1
  1507. because there’s no evidence of a sudden heating event
    1
  1508. it genuinely is easy if you have infrastructure there. Shades are extremely light, it’s basically just fancy tin foil. The moon has more than enough resources to build it, and rockets are just absurdly easy to launch from the moon as well because of the lack of atmosphere and low gravity and yeah the moon may fall back to earth but you can prevent that the same way we want to prevent earth from falling into the sun. But we also just don’t have to worry about it because that’s tens of billions of years away, the sun becoming a red giant is much closer
    1
  1509. the moon is very big, it will have plenty of resources for billions of years before that becomes a problem we don’t have to worry about that
    1
  1510. i’m not, all of my videos about j1407b have been about different things (why it’s not a planet, why people believe it is, other objects like it, and how to colonize it) Dragging it out implies I’m making several videos about the same topic, which I am not.
    1
  1511. the existence of the international space station we know how to live in space already, all that needs to be done is scaling (i do say in the video that the iss isn’t a colony, there is still work to be done, but the groundwork is there)
    1
  1512. flat earthers can’t even agree on what the moon is some say it’s a sphere, some say it’s just a light in the sky, some say it’s a hologram and none of those models work of course
    1
  1513. what
    1
  1514. planets like that only form under highly specific circumstances that aren’t present for most planets
    1
  1515. there isn’t enough information about it to make a full video (or to trust the ESI rating for that matter, we only know it’s mass and the amount of energy that hits it which enough to give it an accurate rating)
    1
  1516. @cosmicprison9819 james webb can’t look at teegarden b because it doesn’t transit its star from our perspective, meaning there’s no way for jwst to see it, just it’s effects on its star which can’t tell us much
    1
  1517.  @kipkipper-lg9vl  i’m not pretending things are fine but the exact same things were happening to the us when we had apollo (widespread social changes, war seemingly being inevitable, etc)
    1
  1518. we don’t need to live on planets to have a future in space
    1
  1519. @danielefabbro822 and as i said, they have the total living area of a small country millions of square miles you could have the population density less than modern day towns and still host hundreds of thousands of people there is more than enough space for everyone to own a private mansion with a 100 acre backyard with more to spare again, all problems you’re thinking of with space habitats are very easily solved or just not problems to begin with you’d build a space habitat by disassembling an asteroid and turning it into a shell, which greatly increases the surface area
    1
  1520.  @danielefabbro822  when the population grows you build another habitat just like when the population of an island gets too high, people move to other islands space habitats would be equivalent to island nations, not submarines or cruise ships
    1
  1521. there are even less planets even if you somehow run out of asteroids in the solar system, you can always a. get your material from larger objects like moons b. get them from other stars
    1
  1522. @danielefabbro822 the problem is you’re still considering these things asteroids. space habitats are made from asteroids, but are not asteroids. No other planets have usable soil, breathable atmosphere, surface water, or a biosphere either. We’d have to make all that on planets. And a magnetic field doesn’t matter because none of the objects you mentioned have them. Everything you just said against asteroids can be used word for word against literally every other object in the solar system that isn’t earth, including planets except on space habitats, you don’t need to terraform anything. life support will do just fine. And we can make thousands of space habitats just for farming, outproducing anything a planet could ever make. Asteroids outnumber planets. They have more accessible materials than planets. They have everything a planet has. Asteroids prevent extinction just like planets do. and asteroids are easier to make habitable than planets because you don’t need to terraform them. We are ONLY using them for raw materials.
    1
  1523. Sand 364 is 1.35 solar masses and HD 96127 is 0.91, Mu2 scorpii is 9.1 solar masses, close to ten times more massive than them
    1
  1524. mars is colder with a way thinner atmosphere and much less volcanic activity
    1
  1525.  @piotrd.4850  the dark spots (maria) on the moon are very metallic and the far side doesn’t have them, the near side does
    1
  1526. if our solar systems moons are anything to go by then unlikely keep in mind that earth has the 5th largest moon in the solar system and it’s clearly not earthlike and it’s only 9 earth masses so unlikely to have any moons larger than that
    1
  1527. wd 1145+017 b is smaller
    1
  1528. kepler-37b’s mass has not yet been accurately determined, for now draugr is smaller than it
    1
  1529. I have a whole video about how NASA made that mistake short answer: actual scientists know j1407b isn’t a planet, and have for several years. However, the NASA page about it was made when J1407b was thought to be a planet. The NASA website isn’t run by scientists and is extremely infrequently updated. Because of these two things, NASA still says J1407b is a planet even though it’s been the consensus among the astronomy community that it isn’t for 7 years. It doesn’t take long to find other, similar mistakes on the NASA website either. It lists planets that don’t exist, doesn’t list planets that do exist (like proxima d), uses incorrect and outdated measurements for dozens of them, uses the wrong names of planets, lists planets as the wrong type, etc
    1
  1530. @rqlk https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.03314.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.15902.pdf
    1
  1531. they are right there
    1
  1532. what makes you think we can’t do both
    1
  1533. It isn’t, we know exactly down to the meter where apophis is, where it will be, and how fast it’s moving
    1
  1534. 1. billions of years will give billions of different political scenarios, and it’s impossible to predict what would happen. So I’m only outlining what’s possible 2. Definitely not lol. Earth would still have a breathable atmosphere, surface oceans, and at least bacterial life. It would also, most importantly, have soil we can use to farm. Earth is the only place in the solar system with soil. It would also still have a ton of remaining factories and industry, and even if 99% of that is destroyed, it’s better than the grand total of 0 industrial capacity every other solar system object has. Europa is an airless irradiated hell that the sheer radiation dosage on the surface would kill you in days, and mars has no breathable atmosphere, no soil for farming, almost no liquid water, and no life. It’s basically like saying “oh no part of the forest burnt down in a fire! Time to move to the middle of the goddamn desert 2,000 miles from home where nobody else lives instead of just putting out the fire or using other parts of the forest”
    1
  1535.  @LowerBudgetOppenheimer  1. no. All asteroids that have hit earth in the past have left usable soil. There’s a reason 100% of plants didn’t all die when the chicxulub asteroid hit. Like I said with industry, having just 1% of our soil remaining is better than the 0% that mars and europa have 2. I already covered this. Even if 99% of factories were destroyed, that 1% that’s left is better than 0%. Also, this just contradicts your own point. If there are no factories left, then how are we producing rockets to go to other planets? And why aren’t we just using those factories to build supplies to help people survive, which would be much cheaper, easier, and more effective? 3. On earth, you don’t need radiation shielding at all. You just proved my own point, europa and mars are worse 4. Why would you bring soil away from earth when you can just use the soil on earth. Unnecessary extra step 5. exactly, and no life is a problem. Humans need other life to exist.
    1
  1536. ​@LowerBudgetOppenheimer yeah ash exists, and when it happened 65 million years ago, things still grew. Nothing has ever grown or will ever grow on mars or europa without life support. Some plants will still grow on earth even with all of this. and you didnt really address anything else i said. You just ignored the point I made where I said if theres no factories, you cant make rockets anyway. You’re also contradicting yourself. If there’s no plants or usable soil left on earth, then how are we bringing them to mars or europa? You can’t argue that plants won’t be left on earth and then in the next sentence say we’ll bring plants from earth to another planet. Where are we getting the seeds if everything’s dead? where are we getting the soil if none of its usable? How are we going to get everyone off earth if all the launch pads are destroyed? How will we transport everyone if all the roads are gone? How are we making fuel for the rockets if all the facilities for making fuel are gone? Where are you getting people who know how to make rockets, if all the people are dead? Again, your entire argument here is just one massive contradiction. If earth is as bad as you think it would be, then getting to mars or europa would be impossible. And if Earth isnt as bad as you think it is, then its easier to fix it then to move away. Theres no amount of damage that could be done that would require us to leave that simultaneously leaves enough infrastructure intact to make us able to leave. And Mars and Europa are more barren than earth in this situation. Neither have a breathable atmosphere. Neither have surface water. Neither have soil. You say you dont want to live in a barren wasteland, and then are actively choosing to go live in a worse, more barren wasteland also, radiation shielding needs a lot more resources than you think. And again, you need none of it on Earth. 0 resources is better than any amount of resources, doesnt matter how "few" I really think you just dont understand how absolutely perfect Earth is for life, and how much every other place absolutely sucks. You cannot go outside on Mars or Europa, you'd be dead immediately. even in this scenario, you can go outside on Earth and be fine. It still has breathable air. I genuinely cant wrap my head around how you could possibly think mars or europa would be better in this scenario. There literally is not a single criteria theyd be better in
    1
  1537. if you think proxima b isn’t interesting because it isn’t habitable, then that’s your problem
    1
  1538. @StorySenseChannel no idea where you got that from because I very clearly say “terraforming is possible, there are just better options we should do instead” in several videos no idea how you got “nobody will ever terraform other planets” from that
    1
  1539. the asteroid 1566 icarus
    1
  1540. it isn’t
    1
  1541. i just made a whole video about that lol
    1
  1542. as i said in the video, space habitats are big enough to be able to spin to create artificial gravity
    1
  1543. no one of the things i said in either this one or the similar video about terraforming venus is that to give mars or venus enough water to make oceans, you’re going to need to hit them with thousands of asteroids, meaning you’re going to need to change the orbits of thousands of asteroids by comparison hollowing out just one single asteroid and spinning it up would literally be thousands of times cheaper and moving thousands of asteroids just one aspect of terraforming so in reality it’d be even cheaper than that it’s the difference between billions of dollars and quadrillions
    1
  1544. i think the challenges of both would more or less equal out you can get to asteroids easier than you can get to mars, and you can get bigger rockets to asteroids, but asteroids require more work than just setting up a dome
    1
  1545. the low gravity issue can be fixed with centrifuges, basically make the habitats spin not a good large-scale solution but for small colonies it could be viable, and the same problem is still present on Mars just not as much the moon is just the best candidate for colonization because of its distance, it’s just so much easier to get to the moon than mars and for the manufacturing stuff i definitely agree lol, space-based infrastructure is very important, the moon’s just a good starting point because of its launch benefits i also plan to make a similar video to this about mars, so stay tuned for that
    1
  1546.  @Thete  imo every little thing that can make their lives even slightly better is a good thing, no matter how trivial it may seem on earth because we take things like global interconnectedness for granted if they’re never gonna see their families again and everything you said then their lives on mars should be made as easy as possible or even less people will want to go life on mars is gonna suck anyway, why not improve the few things they can?
    1
  1547. @bradeye1133 yeah we’ve found planets like that and the ice giants are around 10-20 earth masses im talking about just their rocky cores, not necessarily all the water or other gases around them usually when an object gets about 10 earth masses of pure rock and metal it becomes a gas giant
    1
  1548. gj 436 b is also an outdated name the planet is officially named Awohali
    1
  1549. mercury is very difficult to get to and very hot, it may have more resources than the moon but its difficult environment makes it a worse place for industry than the moon
    1
  1550. there isn’t enough information about Kepler-452 b to say anything, we have no idea what it’s like
    1
  1551.  @JaisalLakum  that’s true for pretty much all the other planets i mentioned in this video, and look at how those turned out i wouldn’t keep my hopes up
    1
  1552.  @infernofireboy6861  you don’t need to say your comment twice i saw the first one
    1
  1553. @pedrokantor3997 they probably avoid doing that because the especially interesting planets are deserving of better names than just one specific culture like you wouldn’t want to name Proxima b the mongolian word for bear cub (Bambaruush, which is the real name of an exoplanet) because that’s not representative of all of humanity so my guess is they’re keeping them unnamed until they can get really good names for them
    1
  1554. because we could see the first 6 planets without a telescope so ancient people just named them and then for uranus and neptune we just continued the naming scheme we already had and for exoplanets all the names have different meanings
    1
  1555. not enough data to say anything
    1
  1556. my goal is to just promote colonizing the moon as much as possible to the average person, and most people just already know about rockets so it’s easier to describe why the moon is good
    1
  1557. @chsgrate5362 soon
    1
  1558. maybe watch the video to find how it’s not clickbait and we can, in fact, stop it
    1
  1559. 1. if there’s ever an apocalypse on earth, then the goal isn’t to survive long term. The goal is to get back to earth as fast as possible to rebuild. That’s where all the good soil for food is. That’s where all the people are. Trying to live without earth is just not going to work 2. I highly doubt nasa would find the perfect location for a mars colony and then go “ah no let’s go build it on this shitty area higher up because there’s a chance a few hundred years from now this will become an ocean”. Nobody thinks like that. The resources are right there. Mars is hard to develop. We need the best places immediately. (also, nasa and spacex have target landing sites for future crewed mars missions already. They’re all low elevation areas. Because that’s where the resources are.) and the major problem with flooding cities is the people working on terraforming will live on mars. the people working on terraforming will be living in the cities getting flooded. They won’t want to destroy their homes when they’ve already been living just fine for generations 3. you can make asteroids spin to create artificial gravity. I said that in the video. They get their resources from other asteroids. You can move the habitat anywhere in the solar system. You can go to where the resources are. You don’t need to worry about where they’re coming from, because they’ll come from everywhere. Space habitats also will allow for more total living space than planets, several thousand times over. Space habitats will allow for QUADRILLIONS of people, a fully terraformed mars can maybe host a trillion at the absolute max. You’ll have all the art and science and society on space habitats. Planets aren’t superior just because we currently live on one I’m not saying terraforming is a bad idea because elon musk said it. I’m saying terraforming is a bad idea, and how elon musk wants to do it is even worse because it wouldn’t even work. I also didn’t say we should give up on terraforming because we need to fix earth. I said that fixing earth will always be easier than terraforming. Which just ties back to my first point, if there’s ever an apocalypse on earth then it will always be easier to fix earth than to go restart somewhere else
    1
  1560. @cumulus1869 1. growing crops isn’t impossible with an asteroid impact. There’s a reason 100% of all life didn’t go extinct already. Because plants can survive. Also, if we want to terraform mars, we will at minimum need to hit it with thousands of asteroids. That means we have the ability to deflect them, meaning asteroid impacts won’t happen on earth. It also implies we know how to do genetic engineering to make life that can even survive on mars, which means if worst comes to worst we can engineer plants to survive on an apocalyptic earth, and i would guess we would already have a bunch of them just in case something like that happened and it would be much easier to put refugees in space habitats, because you can move them to low earth orbit to pick up passengers easier. 2. low elevation areas are perfect for settlements because they have higher atmospheric pressures, which blocks slightly more radiation, and almost all areas on mars with ice in any significant quantity are low elevation. 3. yes, asteroids can move fast enough to make 1:1 earth gravity, or higher (or lower for that matter, you can set the gravity to whatever you want). You don’t need fuel to keep it spinning, you only need to spin it up once. The only fuel you’ll need is if you want to change the speed, otherwise it’ll just keep spinning forever because there’s nothing in space to stop it. That’s why all planets today rotate. And the 1/3 g of mars is still bad for humans. You can’t fix that. You can set the gravity to whatever you want on a space habitat
    1
  1561. i blame astrobotic
    1
  1562. because the transit was symmetrical which dust clouds aren’t also we know how long it’s orbit was supposed to be based on the transit, and an oort cloud object would not have an orbit that short
    1
  1563. not enough data to say anything
    1
  1564. not a hoax, we can still go to it people just overly speculated and made the chances of it being habitable seem way higher than they actually are
    1
  1565. they do not
    1
  1566. the pressure is the worse problem
    1
  1567. mars isn’t a very good target for colonization either i have a few videos about that it’s definitely possible but there isn’t much of a reason to do it right now especially when the moon is right there
    1
  1568. yet another reason i’m unhappy with this series
    1
  1569. then how would you explain the trojan planet (if it’s there) absolutely everything needs to go perfectly to get a trojan planet, a messy rogue planet capture i just don’t see producing that
    1
  1570. spacex isn’t trying to colonize the moon unfortunately
    1
  1571. no, i specifically said in the video multiple times that “it’s hard” is not the reason i’m against terraforming i’m against terraforming because there are better options like building space habitats
    1
  1572. it has even less sulfuric acid than it has water
    1
  1573. @janajusimi269 they’ll be 6x lighter but it’s a lot more than 6x easier, the lack of an atmosphere also helps a ton
    1
  1574. you can make fuel on the moon, and we don’t need to transfer energy from the moon to earth
    1
  1575. @slenderskeptic i was talking about making solar panels on the moon and launching them to low earth orbit you don’t have to keep them on the moon the reason that’s good is because of the moon’s low launch costs, and how efficient space based solar is it’s too expensive to do if you’re launching the panels from earth, but not from the moon
    1
  1576. @farhiashier moving io is literally the worst and most difficult solution you could possibly use to solve the radiation problem there are a hundred better ideas
    1
  1577. wait until he realizes that going to mars doesn’t make getting to the asteroid belt easier mars’s orbit is longer than earth’s, so launch windows are less frequent there’s also the atmosphere and high gravity in the way in fact, going to mars makes the asteroid belt harder to get to distance doesn’t matter as much as you think it does in space but do you know what place doesn’t have any of these problems? The Moon
    1
  1578. no depends on a whole host of other factors the age of the planet for example or how frequently asteroids hit it. Even if you have a planet the exact same size and temperature as earth orbiting the exact same star with the exact same atmosphere, it’s still gonna get hit with asteroids at a different rate than earth, which will cause different mass extinctions and make life evolve very differently also depends on where it is in the galaxy. If it’s near a star that goes supernova then that’s another mass extinction that will cause life to differ from earth
    1
  1579. mars is bigger so it has more resources, but they’re much, much more difficult to get than the moon so it doesn’t matter and it’s harder to build bases on mars than the moon because it’s further away than earth, so we have a very difficult time getting supplies there
    1
  1580. no, we have plenty of reason to know that rocky planets don’t get that big, and not only have several competent scientists said it, it is widely accepted across the entire astronomy community we don’t need to know of every rocky planet to know that. It’s simple density. Any object made of rock larger than 1.5 earth radii will usually become massive enough that it will start attracting the gas around it from where it formed, and become a gas giant. and yes i know why rocky planets are hard to detect. That’s not the point of the video. I’m only talking about known planets.
    1
  1581. the evaporation of the oceans will basically doom tectonic activity water from the oceans is subducted into the mantle, which makes it more fluid and allows the tectonic plates to move as soon as the oceans begin evaporating that whole process will end
    1
  1582. the moon is far too big for mining it to have any significant effect on its mass remember, we’ve been mining and launching things off earth for decades, and that has not had even the slightest effect on the moon’s orbit, so why would doing the same on the moon affect earth
    1
  1583. who said we needed the military’s money
    1
  1584. we know a hell of a lot more than you think most discoveries are just considered “boring” though so the average person doesn’t know they happened
    1
  1585.  @SamsungGalaxyM135g-n4f  and that is not due to lack of knowledge, it’s due to lack of willpower
    1
  1586. i talked about this in the video
    1
  1587. i haven’t heard anything
    1
  1588. and what object is the source of that gravity
    1
  1589. it didn’t pass near a star
    1
  1590. 1. “it’s unstable” has been repeatedly proven wrong. Starship will only tip over if it leans more than 21 degrees. You can do the math yourself. This idea that it’s unstable is just completely made up and has no actual source behind it other than vibes. 2. The national team gave up when they lost the contract. They aren’t building a lander.
    1
  1591. there are easier ways to make a magnetic field than restarting the core
    1
  1592. as the person who made the video, the point of the video was to correct misinformation and show that just because these planets are uninhabitable doesn’t make them uninteresting the “interestingness” bit was actually a core part of why i made this video
    1
  1593. bad mindset to have if there’s a problem you see and you are capable of doing something about it, then try to fix it
    1
  1594. i have a full video about it but j1407b is fully refuted not just unconfirmed whatever it was it’s not a planet, doesn’t orbit the star we found it around, and doesn’t have rings it’s most likely a rogue brown dwarf with a protoplanetary disk
    1
  1595. none of these planets are more than a few hundred light years away, meaning we are, at most, seeing them as they were like a century ago that’s not enough time for any significant changes to have occurred
    1
  1596. a planet being tidally locked has a much slower rotation than earth and a planet rotating quickly is needed for a magnetic field tidally locked planets will have a much harder time keeping a magnetic field, and therefore atmosphere and oceans and even if it does have an atmosphere and magnetic field, trapping life on a narrow band is bad, because at best it leads to less living space and less diversity and at worst it makes all life on the planet much easier to kill with something like an asteroid impact
    1
  1597. we don’t need to go there looking at it through a telescope isn’t just “speculation”, things like james webb can actually tell you what it’s like
    1
  1598. i meant apollo 17, i clarified that later
    1
  1599. terraforming is an all-or-nothing thing, it’s either habitable or it’s not and any atmosphere, including one as thin as mars, would still make all the things i mentioned here happen unfortunately
    1
  1600. pretty sure it got disproven
    1
  1601. nowhere did i say it happened quickly but ok
    1
  1602. that’s not true, because to go to said planet you need to keep everyone alive during the trip, not to mention the very first planet you go to is not very likely to be habitable (and terraforming it is way harder than just staying in your habitat) also, nuclear fusion is not the only power source that can do that lol solar power is cheaper, easier, and proven to actually be economically possible, and with space habitats you can go as close to the sun as you want or build power stations to get far more solar power than you’d get on a planet, because the atmosphere of the planet would make solar less efficient also, we’ve already done fusion in a lab. It’s possible, we just haven’t managed to do it in such a way that it releases more power than it takes in and one more thing, planets require the same amount of power, the only difference is space habitats need to collect it themselves
    1
  1603. 1/1/2000 is 0% of the century. So, 1/1/2001 is 1%. 1/1/2002 is 2%, 1/1/2003 is 3% and so on 1/1/2025 is exactly 25% of the 21st century
    1
  1604. @guy6djdndnjdjdnd 3 soviet cosmonauts died in space on soyuz 11, above the karman line they are the only 3 people to have actually died in space
    1
  1605. @ no, they died during preparations for reentry. Of asphyxiation. The capsule was very rigorously studied after it returned. The separation of the orbital and descent modules burst a pressure valve, and they died in less than a minute 168 kilometers above earth, 68 kilometers above the karman line. The cabin pressure was measured at zero before it began reentry.
    1
  1606.  @gerardfargier653  planet 9 has no nicknames because it isn’t confirmed to exist Hecate hasn’t been used by any astronomer or the media, it’s only ever been called that in science fiction
    1
  1607. yeah the planets do deserve names but idk what we’d name them it’s the most important system outside of our own, you really cant do the same thing as other exoplanets that have gotten official names (like name Proxima b after the Mongolian word for “bear cub” which is what the exoplanet Bambaruush was named after) we have to figure something out that represents all of humanity
    1
  1608. “exo” means outside so it literally means “outside planets” because they’re outside the solar system
    1
  1609. thats not true this video is about the planet itself not existing, not the rings
    1
  1610.  @Mythicalstoryller  the size of the rings is known because of the singular transit
    1
  1611.  @Mythicalstoryller  if it’s a brown dwarf, it would still have the rings, though in this case they would be classified as a protoplanetary disk and be in the process of forming planets
    1
  1612. i explain why in this video
    1
  1613. yes but it fell over and is covered in dust the other 5 flags are still standing though
    1
  1614. @ show me one video where i ever said finding an earthlike exoplanet is bad i’m not negative, you’ve misunderstood what i said
    1
  1615. @orange1599-u1n yeah no i don’t lol again, you’ve misunderstood there’s a difference between “it might not be habitable so don’t get your hopes up for something that might not be true” and “omg this planet will never be habitable don’t believe what you see!!!”
    1
  1616. i said this in my other reply to you already but might as well say it here too lol space habitats won’t be small prisons. they’ll have millions of square miles of land, plenty of space to roam, and because we can build millions of them, will far outnumber planets in terms of living area again, i wouldn’t be recommending space habitats if they had all the problems you think they have
    1
  1617. @duncanbeggs4088 they actually aren’t, shielding is a lot easier than you may think, and modern space stations are able to protect against micrometeor strikes plus, with country-sized habitats the hulls will likely be several hundred meters thick, which will be more than enough to protect people from everything less than a point blank nuclear blast and hulls that thick will be just as good as rock for protecting from radiation, especially if we put a layer of lead or something in the middle And the habitats will need to get resources, but the thing is they can move anywhere they want in the solar system, and can go to where the resources are Plus modern day space stations recycle well over 90% of their water and air, and a few centuries of improvements to that technology will probably make it so new material shipments won’t be needed very often at all
    1
  1618. @duncanbeggs4088 to give mars oceans you’d need at the very least hundreds of asteroids crashing into the surface, it doesn’t have enough (accessible) water on its own Building a space habitat like this only requires one asteroid so at the absolute bare minimum it is at least a few hundred times cheaper and easier to build a space habitat than to terraform a planet realistically it’s thousands of times cheaper and easier
    1
  1619. contrary to popular belief “colonizing the moon” is actually not a major in most colleges and you cannot get a diploma for it
    1
  1620. space colonization doesn’t need people to live their whole lives there
    1
  1621.  @avgjoe5969  1. because Starship HLS doesnt yet exist, and we need VIPER on the Moon now 2. We don't need a massive Starship that will take over a dozen launches of refueling for a single small rover. Starship HLS will be useful for much bigger projects, its unecessary for VIPER 3. Redundancy is necessary. We saw with the recent Falcon 9 failure that SpaceX isnt invincible, and Falcon 9 flights are now grounded for the next few weeks. What happens if what happens to Starship HLS? We need multiple landers working around the clock so there's never a gap where we can't get to the Moon, and pouring all money into SpaceX isnt a good strategy, especially if for whatever reason SpaceX suffers a failure 4. So before you read this part, keep in mind that I like SpaceX. Theyve done absolutely incredible things. But they are not invincible. SpaceX can do wrong, and they have before. It's not as simple as "get starship and modified tesla bots just build the moon base bro". NASA has a long game, and that long game isnt "just rely on SpaceX to do everything" because thats a great way to get in a really terrible situation if SpaceX goes down. Not to mention how terrible monopolies are for industries. They bottleneck innovation, as once one company owns everything, theres no need for competition. Multiple space companies competing with one another is how things get done faster. If Starship wasn't rushing for the Artemis 3 contract, or trying to get finished before New Glenn, we would not have seen the rapid development we did. Again, don't get me wrong, SpaceX is objectively a good company. But it's important to realize that they are good and not perfect They're the best we have, but competition will make things better.
    1
  1622.  @deanmartin2332  maybe it is in some places, but the permanently shadowed regions could have it just a few meters below. Thats why we need to find out
    1
  1623. @Colly1508 yes
    1
  1624. there is a whole section about gliese 667 cc in this video
    1
  1625. you underestimate how big the moon is you won’t be able to notice any changes from earth, period except for maybe city lights if you have a high-powered telescope, only during specific phases right after sunset
    1
  1626. i was trying to think of a persons name and tomek was the first name i thought of for some reason lol
    1
  1627. black holes and white dwarfs are not only far rarer but would emit detectable radiation these are brown dwarfs or large planets
    1
  1628. i’m talking about exoplanets we currently know exist pretty hard to talk about planets that we can’t see and have no data on whatsoever also i literally say this in the video lmao
    1
  1629. protoplanetary disks and planetary rings are very different things they’re only similar in shape, and entirely different in pretty much every possible way
    1
  1630. i was talking specifically about large, earthlike moons there isn’t really enough data to definitively call subsurface oceans habitable
    1
  1631. the first sentence of the pinned comment literally says “i changed it”
    1
  1632. @DP-om5gy it doesn’t “there are no known habitable exoplanets” insinuates that we do not know of any exoplanets that are confirmed to be habitable, which is an objectively correct statement
    1
  1633. apophis isn’t going to hit earth as i explained in this video we don’t need to divert it
    1
  1634. @symmetry08 apophis won’t be anywhere near earth in 2036 it’ll be about 46 million kilometers away at its closest 2029 is when it’ll get within 40,000km
    1
  1635. that was addressed in the video, it is not a concern at all
    1
  1636. that’s a myth, the moon is more than big enough to hold onto an atmosphere for example take a look at neptune’s moon triton, which is way smaller than the moon but has an atmosphere dense enough to support clouds mass is only one of the many factors that make an atmosphere stable
    1
  1637. @regentmad1037 fine i’ll prove it more the moon used to have an atmosphere twice the density of Mars’s about 3 billion years ago. It lasted 70 million years. That’s a high enough pressure for liquid water to have existed. I’ll say it again: atmospheres depend on a lot more than just mass. Mercury is bigger than Titan but doesn’t have an atmosphere. Titan is smaller than Earth but has an atmosphere denser than Earth’s. Pluto has a thin atmosphere. The exoplanet TRAPPIST-1 b is over 30% more massive than earth and has no atmosphere. Mass is not the most important factor. What is far more important is: -the temperature of the object -the amount of radiation an object receives Titan is cold and inside saturn’s magnetic field, so has an atmosphere. Mercury doesn’t because it’s hot and close to the sun. If we were to protect the moon from radiation by giving it a magnetic field, it would be able to hold onto an atmosphere. It is more than massive enough. Again, the moon not being able to hold onto an atmosphere because it’s “too small” is a myth. the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere because it has no way to protect itself from radiation, and has high temperatures. by the way, i don’t read science fiction. I also say in the first sentence of this video that i’m against terraforming. I say in this video we shouldnt terraform the moon. But you are still wrong, the moon can host an atmosphere, and has hosted one in the past.
    1
  1638. @regentmad1037 again, i’m not saying the moon should be terraformed, because it shouldn’t. All i’m saying is that it is more than capable of hosting an atmosphere
    1
  1639. @cesarrobledo2583 might want to read my reply before you start commenting this everywhere
    1
  1640. no
    1
  1641. no, there’s a lot of gas
    1
  1642. 1. a protoplanetary disk is not a ring system, as if that were the case then you would also need to count things like the kuiper belt as rings 2. I have 3 sources actually, and in addition have talked to several real scientists about this, and helped write the wikipedia article about j1407b. I know what I’m talking about. 3. Yes, we do know that it’s rogue. I explain pretty clearly why in the video. There is no orbital configuration left that it could possibly have. It does not orbit the star we thought it did, simple as that 4. now you’re the one talking with no sources. Provide a single source that says planets arent forming in that disk. Heck, even if it was a ring system, we still have evidence that there is a venus-sized object forming in a gap. Planets are likely forming in the disk, we have direct evidence of that. Again, I know what I’m talking about, and I have sources to back it up.
    1
  1643. for hd 100546 b the estimates have ranged from 1.6 jupiter masses to 25, and the radius is anywhere from neptune sized (assuming we got the mass wrong and it’s not in that range) to several jupiters
    1
  1644. this is one of the main sources i used: Constraining the period of the ringed secondary companion to the young star J1407 with photographic plates (i can’t send the link because my reply might be deleted)
    1
  1645. how does “our problems are solvable if we as a society unite to solve them” make anything worse as opposed to what, “our problems are unsolvable and we’re all doomed”? all that does is make people stop trying. Optimism is necessary, or else pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
    1
  1646. i don’t
    1
  1647. anton petrov already made a video saying this but it was a long time ago
    1
  1648. yeah
    1
  1649. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05171 this is the one i used the most
    1
  1650. last time I tried to post a link like that my comment got deleted, so just in case you can’t see my last comment just look up “Constraining the period of the ringed secondary companion to the young star J1407 with photographic plates”
    1
  1651. well yeah that’s why i said “known”
    1
  1652. @povelitel_shavermy yes
    1
  1653. @SequoiaCountryballs i just use the default settings lol
    1
  1654. @simplylethul as the person who made the title she’s right i am specifically talking about exoplanets people call habitable i was directly referencing the videos that say “here are the most habitable exoplsnets1!1!1!!1” and similar the title does not say habitable exoplanets don’t exist, and i do in fact say that they probably do exist in the video several times
    1
  1655.  @simplylethul  well it’s not supposed to imply that
    1
  1656. exoplanets are outside the solar system
    1
  1657.  @djw7141  fictional characters are allowed (Melquíades, Catalineta, Regoç, and a few more have been used)
    1
  1658. @deepspacewanderer9897 Earth and Jupiter are totally unrelated names (earth isn’t a mythological figure, jupiter is) but nobody cares or gets confused There’s plenty more examples of that too (Jupiter, king of roman gods, has a moon called Kiviuq, a hero in Inuit mythology. Completely unrelated, but again, nobody cares because it’s just a name and nobody cares where it came from as long as it’s good)
    1
  1659.  @ukulelebottom  includes numbers, not culturally significant, wouldn’t be allowed
    1
  1660.  @ukulelebottom  they aren’t my rules, it’s the IAU rules
    1
  1661. @deepspacewanderer9897 half the nameexoworlds names do link to the object’s properties Dimidium means “half” in latin, the planet dimidium is half the mass of jupiter Phailinsiam is the thai name for the blue siamese sapphire, the planet phailinsiam is blue Cuancoá is another name for Venus (the brightest planet) and the planet cuancoá is currently the brightest planet we know of Tahay is a flower that blooms for only 8 hours, the planet Tahay has an orbital period of 8 hours these names aren’t just chosen randomly, a lot of them were chosen because they have something to do with the object they’re naming
    1
  1662. wrong
    1
  1663.  @Michael-ub8fd  not if its up to date
    1
  1664. no
    1
  1665.  @resvero8342  why would you do that when you can go industrialize the moon and build a thousand orbital rings
    1
  1666. depends on the star it orbits and where it formed for example red dwarfs tend to blow away volatiles like water when they form, so planets in their inner systems are probably very dry but there’s generally more water in the outer parts of a star system, so if a planet formed out there and migrated into the habitable zone it could have a gigantic ocean
    1
  1667. K2-18 b would have an atmosphere so dense the bottom layers become liquid (so like several different oceans stacked on top of each other) so it’d be very different currently the most similar planet to mustafar we’ve actually discovered is probably Tahay
    1
  1668. i do not, it’s 384,400 km away on average
    1
  1669. in that case the moon migrated extremely quickly for the first billion years of its existence, so 300,000km is correct 3.5 billion years ago it was likely between 73% and 88% of its present distance
    1
  1670. didn’t happen
    1
  1671. he’s good for overviews but from what i’ve heard he gets more advanced things wrong
    1
  1672. we aren’t bypassing lightspeed, it just doesn’t really matter in this case because even the furthest planets in this video are only being seen a few centuries in the past, which isn’t enough time for any drastic chances to have taken place so we can say with very high confidence that these planets more or less look the same as we’re seeing them right now
    1
  1673. doesn’t matter because crews can easily be switched out, which negates the low gravity problem entirely, only leaving the benefits you get from it
    1
  1674. the first planet around betelgeuse
    1
  1675. it was a figure of speech
    1
  1676. rings and protoplanetary disks are different things protoplanetary disks are bigger, hotter, made of different stuff, form in a different way, have a different end state than rings (they form planets, rings don’t)
    1
  1677. @tirex3673 in that case it would just be smaller, and the planets would be moons jupiter had a protoplanetary disk at one point for example, that’s how io, europa, ganymede and callisto formed
    1
  1678. Mars is more than massive enough to hold onto a thick atmosphere. Anyone who says it isn’t is just making things up. (This also applies to the moon as well)
    1
  1679. yes https://discord.gg/UDhaggHQ
    1
  1680. then prevent the sun from getting too hot there are ways to do that i talk about in other videos
    1
  1681. it wouldn’t have impacted earth, it would’ve spiraled inward and have been torn apart also, the speed and angle it hit at don’t really work if it was in orbit
    1
  1682. i talk about where i get them at the end of the video
    1
  1683. eventually
    1
  1684. there were 386 views when you made this comment the youtube viewer count is behind, the actual youtube studio is more accurate
    1
  1685. colonization of what also i already said to you that i ended the colonization of the solar system series lol
    1
  1686. the outer space treaty is incredibly outdated and never meant to be permanent space law, and that’s the law that says no nukes in space i genuinely think that the outer space treaty will be removed, ignored, or significantly changed by the 2040s in the 2100s i would bet a ton of money people only know it as an interesting historical footnote in space history, and not an actual law that’s still in use what’s not realistic about this is how fast people got to the asteroid belt and made colonies
    1
  1687. astrum is not good but not bad, somewhere in the middle and what if has gone full clickbait
    1
  1688. these aren’t super saturn planets, they’re young brown dwarf systems with debris disks super saturns with big ring systems like saturn’s dont exist
    1
  1689. not in the near term there isn’t -mars is resource poor, we’re not going to be mining anything on it -despite what a surprising amount of people believe, going to mars will not make it easier to get to the asteroid belt and will not act as a pit stop to asteroids -we don’t need more living space, and if we did, it’s easier to make space habitats -any form of space development we want to test on mars can be tested on the moon easier and cheaper -mars will protect humanity from extinction, but again, so will the moon, we don’t need mars specifically there are definitely some far future benefits (like phobos acting as a space tether) but in the near future and in our lifetimes there simply isn’t a reason
    1
  1690. the moon is far too big for any terraforming (or mining) to have any significant effect on its mass, we’d be fine
    1
  1691. i can’t find anything saying that
    1
  1692. i didn’t say we knew anything for a fact multiple times throughout this video i said we don’t actually know what these planets are like, that this is my opinion, and i’m basing it off the limited data we have
    1
  1693. that’s what happened
    1
  1694.  @orsonzedd  If the alma image is j1407b, we know not just where it’s going but where it came from, and it suggests it didnt come from the cluster
    1
  1695. problem is people simply like seeing humans do it it gives them something to relate to, and gets more people interested in space colonization so early on humans are necessary, we need every advantage we can get for public perception in the beginning to keep getting funding
    1
  1696. hi
    1
  1697. the great filter is overhyped anyway at this point the only thing in the universe that could kill every single human is some other form of intelligence (ai, aliens, someone making a super virus, etc) so we’re already past it imo because a great filter that requires some other form of intelligence isn’t a great filter because someone got past it
    1
  1698.  @manachromeYT  i don’t watch every comment i didn’t even know this was going on, i don’t delete comments for no reason what did you say
    1
  1699. this video is old, as of now starship has successfully reached orbit twice
    1
  1700. also forgot to mention, but the us isn’t buying from elon musk. They’re buying from spacex, the most successful space company on the planet that has successfully launched 300+ rockets, is the primary entity getting US astronauts to the international space station, made the first reusable rockets, and has launched private astronauts into orbital space without government involvement, which nobody has done before elon musk is not spacex, stop confusing the two. He’s a figurehead with no actual control over day to day operations of the company. Anyone who thinks spacex is a scam made by a “snake oil salesman” is simply in denial of reality at this point. Elon musk is a bad person but spacex is awesome DESPITE him, not because of him also if you think starship wont work ever because of 2 flight tests (which was the amount of tests that had happened when i made this video, its at 4 now with a 5th expected soon) then youre also simply ignorant as to how rockets work. No launch system has ever been perfect on its first try. Every single one has had problems. SLS, Saturn V, Redstone, Soyuz, Long March family, Falcon 9, all of them. Please google things before saying stuff like this. Its perfectly ok to not like elon musk (i dont) but to belittle the work of thousands of people because its not 100% perfect on the first try is just wrong
    1
  1701. @fallowfieldoutwest NASA has never built a rocket. they have always outsourced it to the private sector Every part of Apollo was built by dozens of companies across the US, in every state the only difference now is the CEOs of the companies are controversial figures, so you hear about their failures more often in reality this has always been how nasa has operated
    1
  1702. all these planets really aren’t that far away the furthest one is still less than 1000 light years away, so we’re only seeing them as they were a few decades ago that’s nowhere near enough time for the entire environment to have changed
    1
  1703. we’re already doing that and it isn’t fast enough for modern climate change we’re at the point now where just stopping the production of fossil fuels isn’t enough, we’re going to have to actively start removing them
    1
  1704. there are dozens of space missions every year, can you be more specific
    1
  1705. no
    1
  1706.  @meevil24  there’s been proposals of nuclear rockets to get to mars in 45 days
    1
  1707. and we are, this doesn’t change anything these are only less than ten candidates of less than ten thousand planets we know of out of the trillion in the milky way
    1
  1708. i didn’t forget, i said at the beginning that would be a topic for another video
    1
  1709. that’s already happening, about 160 exoplanets have real names
    1
  1710. james webb has observed less than 1% of all known exoplanets, and we only know of 5,600 exoplanets out of trillions in the milky way, so i don’t see why
    1
  1711. This is already happening, over 160 exoplanets have real names (just not this one yet)
    1
  1712. and is extremely manageable, we already know ways of dealing with it
    1
  1713. i made a video about it already
    1
  1714. you’re kidding right
    1
  1715. @MAN-MILK oh lol i thought you were saying those types of channels didn’t exist mb
    1
  1716. I have a video about that planet another fun fact about it: it’s not called 55 cancri e anymore. It was officially named Janssen in 2015
    1
  1717. @nathanstoysandmore Janssen is alright but everyone knows about it there are way more interesting ones that nobody talks about
    1
  1718. it’s might be copyrighted though
    1
  1719. it is always easier to defend earth than move away i talk about pretty much everything in this comment in my video called evacuating earth
    1
  1720. @insertname9736 we do NOT focus on space more than earth lmao
    1
  1721. what
    1
  1722. also forgot to include this but as soon as we get to other stars then that secures us even more (not saying that will be anytime soon) because once we have interstellar colonies then even a rogue ai won’t be able to get all of us, because it’s still bound by lightspeed and we’ll have time to prepared
    1
  1723. that wouldn’t work, the cooling wouldn’t be enough to freeze the entire atmosphere solid
    1
  1724. given that colonizing the moon would 1. noticeably and drastically improve the lives of everyone on earth 2. allow us to colonize the rest of space, including other planets in the solar system and the stars 3. and help make earth in general better Yeah, i don’t care about what people feel about it. I’m not going to throw away our future because dead people a thousand years ago thought the moon was sacred or some people feel sad that human beings can walk and build on another world. I’m interested in improving humanity, not making some people stuck in the past feel better Cultural heritage is important. On earth. Areas of cultural significance should absolutely be protected. On earth. But until a culture puts their own people on the moon, they have no right to tell other people what they can and can’t do on the moon. That applies to every single culture and country on this planet. The moon is the common heritage of all mankind. No culture has priority. Doesn’t matter how big or small, or how many people are members of it. No religious or national group dictates what happens to the moon without having some argument for why they, above anyone else, get to.
    1
  1725. the rogue brown dwarf is pretty much an entirely different object than the object people think of when they hear j1407b (a planet with big rings” so when I say it doesn’t exist I specifically mean the ringed planet doesn’t exist, and it’s instead an entirely different object
    1
  1726. the lack of a solid surface usually makes volcanoes hard to form and from all the studies on how life originated over the decades, we’re almost certain it required volcanic activity in some capacity
    1
  1727. @RegularGuyJake we know that the first life existed in the ocean near hydrothermal vents, we know that hydrothermal vents are good sources of energy, and we also know that’s where a lot of complex chemistry needed for life goes on so it’s fair to say that life probably started at hydrothermal vents and i never said life “must” start at hydrothermal vents we only have one example of life starting, and it was around hydrothermal vents. You can say that life could start in other places but we won’t know until we find an example, and i could just as easily say life can’t form anywhere else. it’s all guesswork with no evidence and any conclusion is just as valid as any other so until we find another example i’m going to assume that life is easiest to form around hydrothermal vents, because that’s the only one we have an example of you can say there’s probably other ways for life to form, but someone else can say there probably isn’t, and i’m not going to involve myself in that because we can’t make a conclusion. So im only considering the one way we know for a fact life can form
    1
  1728. not real
    1
  1729. it won’t the moon is far too big and too far away to have any effect on earth whatsoever we could mine the moon, have a nuclear war on it, and have millions of people living on it and it would not affect earth in any way. Not with tides, not with debris, etc it’s also good to remember that we’ve been mining and launching and fighting on earth for thousands of years, yet everything we’ve done on earth has had no impact on the moon, so why would doing the same thing on the moon have an effect on earth
    1
  1730. yeah… but it’s what nasa is going with so it’s gonna have to work
    1
  1731. it does it doesn’t have an official name but is nicknamed MK2
    1
  1732. @PraveenSriram that is not confirmed and there is minimal evidence if any parallel universes right now are an interesting idea and not much more
    1
  1733. i already did
    1
  1734. i did say in the video the purpose of a base built by falcon heavy would’ve been questionable at best it’s only with larger rockets the actual reasons for colonization start showing up
    1
  1735. It would be way more complicated to pack and unpack a station every time you need it We already know how to do docking, that’s a solved problem. large stations are useful for things like hotels, which would be a great place to raise money to fund actual useful space colonization projects, and, more importantly, orbital factories. There are many things the world needs (such as certain types of medicine, 3d printed organs, fiber optics) that are simply more efficient when made in 0g. Some of those take a long time to make, and it’s not worth having massive gaps in production to launch and land the entire station. Better to just leave it up there and only have cargo ships launch and land.
    1
  1736. because 1. these aren’t rings 2. it’s only like 20 million years old, the disk hasn’t had time to disappear 3. this is a protoplanetary disk, not a ring system. So it doesn’t disappear, it forms planets.
    1
  1737. yes that’s why i said “known”
    1
  1738. source?
    1
  1739. @Fayuura not what i said i’ve gotten a lot of comments saying i repeated myself too much but this is exactly why i did, because even if i really try to hammer it in there are still people who misunderstand what the video says
    1
  1740. there aren’t any other exoplanets with confirmed rings but proxima c, hip 41378 f, KOI-8007.02, and K2-33 b are all candidates
    1
  1741. i can’t find the original (i saved it somewhere but can’t remember where) but here’s a news article talking about it https://www.firstpost.com/tech/to-the-sky-and-beyond-how-israel-palestine-conflict-led-to-worlds-first-battle-in-space-13363012.html/amp
    1
  1742. @purevanillacookie9977 no sub-brown dwarfs form in the same way brown dwarfs do, just smaller jupiter formed like a planet
    1
  1743. it’s known as “using names from cultures that are not greek or roman” lol
    1
  1744. 1. brown dwarfs are somewhere between stars and planets, they don’t belong to either category 2. because protoplanetary disks are very different structures than planetary rings, they are rings in the sense it’s a round disk of material, but it’s different from the rings of saturn 3. there’s not really a consensus as to call the things around brown dwarfs planets or moons, i just call them planets
    1
  1745. @gabriel-f4i6k if it’s so unlikely then disprove what i said in the video tell me why what i said wouldn’t work, because this is very well established science. I didn’t make this up, I got this from actual scientists
    1
  1746. @gabriel-f4i6k and there’s your problem “current technology” who said anything about current technology? this is 7 BILLION years in the future. Do you know how long that is? It doesn’t matter if we can do it right now. It doesn’t matter how “low” the chances are. It matters that it’s possible. and it IS possible, under known science. This is such an unfathomably long period of time nobody can even comprehend
    1
  1747. the study that proposed it says if it exists it’s either nontransiting or has a radius too small to detect https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024A%26A...689A..53B/abstract
    1
  1748. it wouldn’t be a problem, asteroids are extremely rare and even the smallest ones hitting your house would be much rarer than being struck by lightning on earth
    1
  1749. we have already left the solar system several times
    1
  1750.  @edwardwindsor2516  we’re at the wrong angle to see the transits it’s the difference between viewing an orbit edge-on, where you would see the transit, and from the top down, where you wouldn’t
    1
  1751. as i explain in the video, gravity is not the problem and a magnetic field is easy to make
    1
  1752. @ no, because, as i also said in the video, the moon loses air very slowly you could miss resupply for thousands of years and be fine also as i said, the moon can produce its own oxygen the moon not being able to hold onto an atmosphere for a long period of time is a myth
    1
  1753. that was on k2-18 b, and i talk about it in the video
    1
  1754. because they’re interesting to study
    1
  1755. @tonolinus some people just have different interests. Science is not a hive mind, different scientists are interested in different things for different reasons
    1
  1756. it would be very different, just because humans can survive in a climate-controlled environment doesn’t mean large forests out in the open will for example
    1
  1757. if there’s no life there then who cares planets don’t care what happens on their surfaces
    1
  1758. in the sense it’ll be dry yeah but it’ll still be very different than mars way hotter and with a much thicker atmosphere and volcanic activity
    1
  1759. not enough data to say anything
    1
  1760. how could we make sure we don’t take the virus with us
    1
  1761. no im not i talked about it a ton in this video but spacex was primarily founded by elon musk to get to mars
    1
  1762. they wouldn’t have been able to know it was a planet, but they would’ve seen the star dim
    1
  1763. so do it then because everything i said in this video proves otherwise
    1
  1764.  @eternisedDragon7 counterpoint: https://youtu.be/2VsaBauYg2E?si=LKMUEox-zIzieQdi
    1
  1765.  @eternisedDragon7 and that’s why i’m not taking you seriously lmao
    1
  1766.  @eternisedDragon7 have fun with that
    1
  1767.  @eternisedDragon7 i’ve already read it before you made these comments, and again i don’t find the argument convincing
    1
  1768. @eternisedDragon7 i find it pretty funny that you’re calling me immature when you’re the one insulting me but you do you whatever makes you feel happy you’d think someone who claims the moral high ground would know how to respectfully talk with someone (pro tip: people are more likely to listen to you when you dont insult them)
    1
  1769. kepler-62f is almost 3 earth masses so not the best candidate, and toi-700 e is much hotter and smaller than earth, toi-700 d in the same system is better
    1
  1770. where did you get this because no actual scientist has suggested this
    1
  1771. that doesn’t work with the data from j1407b’s transit we know for a fact it has some kind of material around it and it doesn’t orbit its star at all, if it orbited fast we would’ve seen it again by now
    1
  1772. there’s plenty of hydrogen and the regolith is 40% oxygen by mass, and it has everything needed to make steel, aluminum, concrete, and a lot of other things the one thing it actually lacks is carbon (which is required for steel) but there’s enough of it to get basic industry up and running before it becomes a problem, and when it does the moon is a great place to build cargo ships to go mine carbon rich asteroids
    1
  1773. it is but we really shouldn’t do it i’m gonna make a video about that at some point
    1
  1774. no, i said “less than nine times the mass of earth” as in less than 9 earth masses
    1
  1775. well it does
    1
  1776. a high inclination wouldn’t matter, and it has a very small chance of being on an eccentric orbit but every day we don’t see it makes that more unlikely
    1
  1777. Titan is almost certainly going to lose its atmosphere long before it has a chance to be habitable also it won’t be in the habitable zone for long, and will actually get a lot hotter before the sun becomes a white dwarf. So global warming is still the problem
    1
  1778. yes, we actually can make a breathable atmosphere. The moon’s top layer of crust is 40% oxygen by mass, and there’s enough of it to last millions of years. The moon has all we need to make more breathable air than we know what to do with. And creating oxygen on mars was tested by the perseverance rover, and it was successful.
    1
  1779. there’s over 5,000 of them to choose from, you’ll find one (i talk about a lot of the interesting ones in other videos you should totally watch them 😉)
    1
  1780. there are several of those Janssen, Tahay, K2-141 b, etc
    1
  1781. no it wouldn’t that’s with current technology. There are several concepts to go way faster, that are entirely possible under known science. idk why so many people hear “it takes 75,000 years to get to the nearest star” and then don’t think we can ever go faster for the nearest stars we can get that number down to a few centuries or decades at least
    1
  1782. @teervee8095 i didn’t say we did, i said it was possible to make it under known science and there are several concepts that we know would work
    1
  1783. we extract the materials by mining not really that hard at all
    1
  1784. @ you build them step 1. launch mining equipment to moon step 2. it mines stuff step 3. use mined material to make more things step 4. you don’t need equipment from earth anymore
    1
  1785. i did not, i checked
    1
  1786. yes
    1
  1787. it’s probably moving too quickly to be caught in an orbit
    1
  1788.  @trolling7681  if it’s a brown dwarf the light it emits should be detectable
    1
  1789.  @trolling7681  we can be fairly confident it’s rogue because it hasn’t been seen again around the star
    1
  1790. doesn’t matter because of how close it is to earth, which i talked about in the video crews can be regularly switched out like the iss, negating the low gravity health effects entirely also as I explained in the video, the low gravity is actually a very good thing
    1
  1791. it’s just so much closer and easier to develop than asteroids asteroids are good for things beyond cislunar space. Like if you need asteroids for mars or venus or something then it’s worth it, but if you’re building anything in earth orbit or anywhere close to earth in general then it’s better to use the moon and because earth is the most populated, rich, and technologically advanced planet, the majority of space development will happen near it, so i think the moon’s better all around (at least in the near future)
    1
  1792. that is not what science says, you got a number wrong there it’s 5-7 billion years not million
    1
  1793. always have been keep in mind that jupiter and saturn had them at one point as well, that’s how we got their moons and the other planets almost certainly did too
    1
  1794. @delphicdescant Earth is already the name of an object in space, so it wouldn’t be allowed to under a different rule
    1
  1795. oh believe me, rebellions from earth are definitely coming
    1
  1796. trappist-1g does not have a thick atmosphere and is a rocky planet
    1
  1797. @flarezona9889 that’s a myth
    1
  1798. i never said it was lol none of the “largest” exoplanets have confirmed radii. Including both HD 100546 b and Proplud 133-353. All these large planets are young, and surrounded by dust that makes it hard to actually determine how big they are
    1
  1799. there is nothing on the moon to make pollution solar and nuclear are your only options for power generation, neither of which release things into the atmosphere industry would make oxygen as a byproduct
    1
  1800. maybe
    1
  1801. @Infa_65 probably still J1407b, there’s not really a point in changing it
    1
  1802. we know of hundreds of exoplanets that aren’t tidally locked for example beta pictoris b, we’ve actually measured it’s day length at somewhere around 8 hours and we don’t know if tidal locking makes a planet 100% uninhabitable, we just know that it’ll make it harder to be habitable
    1
  1803. the mantle also needs water to remain fluid enough to allow the tectonic plates to move once the ocean starts evaporating there will be less water entering the mantle, making it more rigid and eventually causing tectonic activity to stop
    1
  1804. Nobody said moon base by 2028. The goal is humans on the moon by 2028. I say several times throughout this video I don’t expect a starship moon base this decade
    1
  1805. i’ve seen this already, i’m gonna respond in a future video
    1
  1806. and because we don’t have the data on them, we don’t know if they’re habitable therefore, there are no known habitable exoplanets
    1
  1807. @baronzeegmot3801 i didn’t say they were uninhabitable, you’ve completely missed the point of the video none of those exoplanets are known for a fact to be habitable, therefore we do not know of any habitable exoplanets The reason i made this video is because there is a lot of exoplanet misinformation, with people claiming “we found earth 2.0!!!” and i say this in the first seconds of this video nowhere did i say that all exoplanets are uninhabitable. All I said was we do not know of any habitable ones. Before calling me a liar, maybe try to understand what im saying first. You’re arguing against a claim i didn’t make. a planet with a strong possibility of being habitable is not the same as a planet known for a fact to be habitable. This video was saying that we do not KNOW of any habitable planets.
    1
  1808. @PatriciaSteere no, i believe i’m correct because i have a telescope and can see planets with my own eyes. No other person to tell me needed.
    1
  1809. @PatriciaSteere sounds like you’re avoiding his questions if it’s repeated from grade school it should be easy to disprove, so go ahead and disprove it
    1
  1810. ??????????????
    1
  1811. not necessarily, we just orbit one so assume it’s the best
    1