 Jamie Higginbotham and welcome to tomorrow. I am joined today, we've got a Jared Head, a Ryan Caton, and a Dada. Ooh, oh, I am very close. And, you know, a lot of news has happened in this last week or so, and I wanted to start off by talking about Project Hyper, which is in the title and the thumbnail and everything that you guys saw, because it's kind of exciting. It's new and different. Well, is it new and different? Or is it like, you know what? It's potential final competition for SpaceX. So, as you may or may not remember, SpaceX did a Tin Tin A and B in 2018, followed by the first launches of Starlink in 2019. Someone correct my dates. Project Hyper, today, what they just launched, was it yesterday or two days ago? What they just launched this last week was the equivalent to Tin Tin A and B, meaning it's kind of their test satellites to understand how all of this is going to look and work in space. And it went up on a Atlas rocket out of Cape Canaveral at Slick 41. And, you know, interesting, because if you didn't know, Project Hyper is effectively a direct competitor to Starlink. And Project Hyper will be, much like Starlink originally was going to be, like 30, anyone have the exact numbers, like 3,300 satellites, 3,500 satellites, something like that. It's a low earth orbit constellation covering the planet. I love that if you watch CNN or Fox News or anyone, they're like, it's covering it at Wi-Fi. It's like, mm, that's not how that works. But yeah, that's Project Hyper. So, this is an Amazon project, not a Blue Origin one, which means a couple of things. First, it might actually get done on time. Like, they may actually... Well, like, you know, they launch something, right? They actually, they have something that's out in the wild. So, you know, that part's good. But then... Blue Origin needs to sign up for Prime. Yeah, hardware. Yeah, you know, as Bennett says, Hyper has the strong competition is coming vibes, exactly, right? Like, up until now, who's really been able to successfully compete against SpaceX in anything that SpaceX does? And, you know, they, you know, Project... How do I word this? You know, these are test satellites. This isn't a real constellation yet. This is, again, the equivalent of tinting A and B. So it's not like this whole big thing just yet. But, you know, if they follow the timeline that they're talking about, I believe Project Hyper, they were always supposed to launch in the middle of 2023. Now, I would argue we're in the end of 2023, but when it comes to aerospace, we're in family, right? Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So then, there's supposed to be... Plus or minus six months, right? That's how aerospace works. So then, if, let's just say that they basically made... You could argue we're still in the middle, you know, we're in the last quarter. We're at the end of the middle. The middle's a bit of a stretch. We're really at the beginning of the end of the year, but whatever. You know, they were targeting, they're still targeting a 2024, late 2024, early 2025 initial deployment for customers. Well, that's kind of in the same timeline as to what SpaceX originally did, right? Tin Tin A and B went up in 2018. Starlink First Train went up in 2019. First customers, you know, what was it, 2020? Anyone remember when first customers were? I don't. They're about 2020. Yeah, so like, these timelines seem very SpaceX-y. So, to the community, to my fellow panelists, question. Is this, do we think this could be potentially real competition to SpaceX's Starlink? We'll start there. Do we think this could be potentially real competition to SpaceX's Starlink? I don't know. I guess it is higher. Whose orbit is higher? I don't know the answer to that. Like, one, they can't be at the same plane, right? Because otherwise that would be very, very bad. Yeah. No, no, no. You would want the lower orbit when you think about it, right? Well, it's a trade. It's a, all of engineering's a trade, right? So the lower your orbit, the less time it takes for the signal to go up and come back down. So the better potential performance you're going to have. The more satellites you're going to need though, so it's gonna cost you more. And the shorter lifespan, theoretically, your satellites would have because they're gonna be starting to dip into atmosphere and really getting tugged on Earth's gravitational well. So, I would assume, maybe incorrectly, that Amazon is gonna be at a higher altitude than SpaceX, right? And is there a chance then of dropouts as a Starlink goes between Earth and a Kuiper satellite? I feel like that's unlikely. Like the, you know, we see all of these maps of space that show like, you know, space debris and everything and like none of it's to scale. And as soon as you do it to scale, you can't see any of it, you know? Space is huge. The Earth is huge. So I would be surprised if that was an actual problem. Oh, this is water. That's a correct call on the water, by the way. Topochiko is so good. I know. This is not a sponsor, but oh my God, it's so good. I got introduced, because I share this, whenever I'm not in Starbase, I'm in Starbase right now. So whenever I'm not in Starbase, I've got a unit down here that I stay at because I'm here all the freaking time. And so whenever I'm not in my unit, I'm like, all right, other members of my team can stay here. And so they'll put, I put things in the fridge, they put things in the fridge and they had one of the previous people that brought this. I'm like, oh, that sounds interesting. I'll try one. Sold, hard sold. Okay, anyhow, sorry. Yeah, so, yeah. So I wanted to mention some folks in the chat who were talking about Kuiper sort of being like the primary customer of it being AWS, which makes sense to me that it would almost be different than Starlink, which is looking at trying to hit that regular folks kind of market, not necessarily the business market that you'll see. So I almost feel like there's a deliberate attempt to not have overlap initially, but that doesn't mean that it won't get opened up or be allowed at some or, allow regular folks to come in for satellite as it is. But it just seems like that emphasis is really gonna lean probably pretty hard in AWS simply because that's just the services we provided already. So why not just do it through satellites? Yeah, and my hope is that it does, I think direct to consumer kind of a service is kind of what this kind of market needs because Starlink at the moment is the only company that will provide this service direct to a consumer at those speeds. So I really want, as someone who uses Starlink, I really want Khyper to give Starlink like solid competition, either make it less expensive or give better speeds for like an equivalent price. So I really, I think it would be nice for Starlink to have somebody right next to them saying I'm doing it better. And then I think that market would respond quite well either we can have better Starlink packages or Starlink will bring down the price for the hardware or whatever because even thinking of one web, they've thrown satellites into space on Falcons and Indian rockets and Soyuzes and such. But they're only going, they're only providing their services at the moment to internet service providers, pre-existing ISPs, which kind of isn't sending it directly to the consumer. Now they have showcased their own technology that would allow them to throw into that direct to consumer, but it isn't out there yet. So it's not an actual competitor to what Starlink at the moment can provide. And Jared, to Ryan's point, I had heard not that it was about AWS or B2B Business to Business, but it was actually, Khyper is designed for direct to consumer and they've got three different sized dishes or three different user terminals that you can get access to. One is like 100 megabits squared, one is 400 megabits or 500 megabits squared and one is a gigabit squared. I think it's squared, I'm not sure. But like 100, 401 gig service and it sounded like that. Their intent was to bring bandwidth. They state that their intent is to bring bandwidth to the underutilized portions of the world where they don't have a lot of bandwidth, right? And that screams to me not AWS, not Business to Business, but Business to Consumer. Can't they do both at the same time? Yeah, I mean, they totally could. Absolutely, says the voice. Yeah, I would piggyback on what Dada said, which is that they're definitely gonna be doing both at the same time, but AWS is an absolute monster of a force where it is. So because of that, I imagine that they're probably gonna start their foundation, their beta work, if you will, probably relying on AWS with those initial customers. That's my guess, at least. I mean, what do I know about business? Like I'm just a racket scientist, so it's just kind of how things go, right? So we'll have to see how Kuiper ends up doing it. But that is an interesting take because I'd never considered the idea of putting compute nodes on these satellites, right? Like using the satellites as AWS nodes around the planet isn't something, I had not read that maybe the chat room knows. Like is that part of their business plan? Is that somewhere in there? Like all of the stuff I was reading, I never read that. But it kind of makes sense, but it also kind of doesn't because what if you need to get to a compute node that's on the opposite side of the planet, right? Or maybe they move the compute nodes? Like I'm not sure how that would, right. Yeah, and I was gonna say Nick Trier in the chat room noting that AWS can massively cut those third-party data costs, which is pretty important if you're trying to make things work. So yeah, it's, you know, Eduardo's mentioning that World Satellite Business Week, the director of Project Kuiper said that they're targeting private customers, but he did talk about AWS saying that it's going to be a secondary application case that they're still developing. But I would be very surprised if they go after private customers first just because they have such a market with AWS as it is. They have such an established base there. But also like if they go after private customers, that makes sense too. So that's when everybody's gonna want to go after, right? That's where everybody wants to attack at this point, if you will, so. So then that brings up the next kind of thing of like, okay, now we've got two, at least two giga constellations. They're bigger than mega constellations. These are thousands and thousands of satellites. You know, you look at one of these constellations. If you ignore these low Earth satellite constellations in their entirety and you just look at the rest of our satellites, everything else that's orbiting Earth, just one of these constellations is more than the rest of it combined, right? And now we're gonna have two of these things. And who says we're stopping at two? That space science and AWS, China's gonna want theirs, right? India might want theirs. Boeing wants one. Russia, Boeing wants one. We're talking about 20, 30, 50, 100,000 satellites in space. Astronomers were already whining and moaning about the small starling trains that existed in the beginning. What happens at 20 or 30,000? Yeah. Well. I'll turn that one to Jared. Yeah, yeah, that one's for you, Jared. I was gonna say, I'll speak to this a little bit, which is that I, you know, credit where credit is due, SpaceX has been working with the astronomical community to actually do it. You know, the astronomers came knocking at everybody's doors and said, hey, we'd like to work with you to try to mitigate the effects of what your satellites are gonna be capable of doing. Went to SpaceX for Starlink, went to Amazon for Project Kuiper, went to OneWeb and everybody else. OneWeb didn't really end up having to worry about that because of the size and the orbital altitude. So they're not too particularly bad. Starlink was great because SpaceX responded and has gone through a multitude of solutions to try to figure it out significantly more than SpaceX has any right to have to do to try to satisfy astronomers. So a big shout out to SpaceX for doing such a fantastic job at trying to cater to what astronomers would like Kuiper has been absolutely quiet. That's why, you know, it's kind of, it's been very blue-origenish where they're just not talking to anybody on that front about it. But it is still going to be a major issue simply because no matter how much you try to mitigate a satellite and how it reflects light, it is still going to be a problem to try to look through these constellations and be able to get the data that we want as astronomers from it. The big issue is the fact that it takes, is that we can get rid of these streaks and other things. And actually, I'm gonna just go ahead and pull up some of the images that always get shared of these because, you know, this ruins your data. Whatever you're trying to take imagery of, this is specifically from a ground-based telescope performing research, you know, every streak in that is just ruined data. There's like nothing that we can do about fixing that. It's one of those things where the observation timings have to be considered, but also at the same time, we kind of can't like change around how those times are observed, right? Like, I can't tell like certain nebulars, certain galaxies in the sky that, hey, I need you to be here at this time. I need you to be five minutes late for me, you know? Because you have to observe at certain times. And that doesn't necessarily mean that you're gonna end up having a time where, say, a Starlink or a Kuiper satellite isn't gonna disrupt your observations. And I just wanna point out, everybody says, we'll just put it in space, put the telescopes in space. I was literally just thinking that, Jared. I was just like, the very next words out of my mouth are gonna be, make a space observation satellite. Yeah, yeah. That's where you go, that's where you mentally go. No, here's Hubble, by the way. This is a Starlink zipping through a Hubble image. So no, putting a spacecraft into space, specifically if you're gonna at least put it into low Earth orbit, which is significantly easier and significantly cheaper than putting it somewhere like L1 or L2, the Lagrange points of the Earth and the Sun like we have with J-Dub, it's just, it's not the same. Because you're not gonna be looking out directly the entire time with your space telescope. You're gonna be focused on a target. And that means there will be times where you get low to the horizon relative to where you're at. Also, you may deploy a space telescope at an orbital altitude that's actually lower than where Starlinks are gonna be at. So yeah, no, this is all Hubble right here and you can see that even with Hubble, it's a major problem with Starlink. So it just never ends. I'm not understanding, so the visual example was perfect but forgive my brain on this one, like Hubble is substantially higher than Starlink is. Like it's altitude is significantly further out in the space. If the target that Hubble is looking at is close to the horizon of the Earth, as it makes its orbit, it has to point at the same space in order to get a long exposure. And during the time where the target is close to the horizon, you have the potential for satellites to be between the target and Hubble. We're zipping along in space. And like, all you have to do is wait for an opportune time when you won't be sneaking up against the horizon of Earth, no? Yeah, but your- It's a timing question. Hubble is orbiting as well. And so if the target that you're looking at requires five minutes of exposure, if the duration between when your target comes into view on the horizon and as you approach it going around the Earth, you have to keep your focus there. And then as you go around the other side of the Earth and the target disappears over the other horizon, if that exposure time isn't significant enough for you to be able to do the research that you're doing, you can't shorten that because you're not getting the exposures that you want. All right. I guess I would have to better understand the, I mean, clearly it happened. So just the fact that I don't understand doesn't mean anything. Like I do understand the issue. It's just, Aravail said Hubble's about 525, I assume this is nautical miles above, I assume this is miles, isn't Starlink 550-ish. I thought Starlink was lower than Hubble, but I actually don't know. And Josh says, go ahead. I was going to say, several of the Starlink groups are at altitudes that are higher than Hubble. So, because that's not nautical miles, that's kilometers. So, and that's right around. It has a periapsis of 537 and an apoapsis of 540.9. It actually goes quite a bit further out than I thought. All right, all right, fair enough. Yeah, but you've got Starlink's at 540, 550, 560, 570. Yeah, they're up there. And the limitation on Hubble's orbit was STS having to put it in orbit and being able to service it. Yeah, and also very important to remember too that every single second that Hubble can observe, it is observing. So it's not like this is something where you can just like, oh, okay, we're going to stop it for three minutes. Like, time on Hubble is priceless. You cannot put a cost on a single second of operation on Hubble because there's just no amount of money that can compensate that properly. So, you don't want to lose any time whatsoever on Hubble. So, this is why if you look at how Hubble observes, the same thing with JDUB as well, they're going to be looking at targets that are pretty much right next to each other. So, you'll have seasons of what targets in the sky you can actually look at. And yeah, if you lose those couple of seconds of data, sorry, it's gone, you know? It's a problem that we have here with ground-based telescopes on Earth, except it used to be just weather that would do that to you. Weather or equipment failures. It wasn't satellites blocking your view. Now you get to have that similar problem like weather with satellites blocking your view, but in orbit now. Bennett says, can Starlink just buy more Hubble's from the NRO? Oh man, I would love that. I would love that to happen. But I do think that speaks to something really important, which is that space telescopes are bespoke. They are one of one. They are highly specialized beyond belief to do a specific task and to do that specific task significantly better than a ground-based telescope. It would be really nice if we could figure out a way to develop some sort of modular system that would act as like a, you know, in the 80s and 90s JPL had a program called Mariner Mark II where they were going to build modular spacecraft to explore the solar system. It'd be really cool if we could have the sort of Mariner Mark II for space telescopes. And I guess just waiting for somebody to step up and do it, it'd be pretty great. But again, those are solutions for people much smarter than me. But I mean, that's how the industry's moving. Is it not Jared? Like we look at even something like Starlink Constellations or anything like that, or just like CubeSats. And, you know, you're totally right. Back in the day, everything was bespoke. Everything was a one-off design because that's what it needed to be in order to get the job done. But as processing power gets better and as things miniaturize, like, do we really need to do it that way anymore? Like, you look at it like even a rocket, just a rocket of like, you know, yeah, you're gonna lose performance when you bring the rocket back. So yeah, you're gonna lose performance on these satellites. But if you can make a lot of them and you can actually, you know, get more data because you can use a lot of them, we're not talking about Starlink at this point. I know this would be, you know, observational satellites. Isn't that a net gain, a net win? Yes, it would if the industry, if essentially the industry of space telescopes could actually keep up with how the industry of satellite internet is moving forward. Yeah, Josh just taking the words right out of my mouth right there. The industry is still ignoring the core fundamentals aspect while moving forward. So there's a lot of, there's a lot of we're gonna do it and then we'll see what the consequences are afterwards here. It's sort of, it must be deployed. We must deploy it before everyone else does because when we get it deployed, it will begin faster than anyone else. Not necessarily thinking about the effects of it around it. So that's where folks like the FCC kind of came in to make sure that the constellations were gonna be putting a certain amount and certain orbits and things like that. But also there is no like official authority of astronomy that can show up and tell, you know, a company this is, you know, like you need to make sure that your satellites don't exceed magnitude 15 of brightness or something like that, you know. It's the wild wild west. There really are no rules in terms of how can a satellite constellation affect astronomy. All we can do is knock on the door. All we can do is knock on the door and ask and say, hey, do you mind? And so far only one group has and that's SpaceX. But it's not gonna matter. Exactly. That's exactly the point. It's not gonna matter because like, okay, Amazon's launching their thing, but like, oh great. Let's just say that Amazon does ask. Those are two U.S. companies. You know who's not gonna ask? China's not gonna ask. China. Absolutely not. They're gonna launch a bunch of stuff. We have no say over that. You can get angry as angry as you want, but like don't think for a minute they're not gonna do this too. Yeah. Right? And I'm hoping that one makes the other one right, but at least one of them's trying. I hope you'll notice that. At least over the last four years, I'm not angry really about it anymore. I've reached this level of acceptance where it's just gonna happen. Like whether I want it to or not. And one of the things that has helped is the fact that SpaceX, which is gonna have probably the biggest constellation by far, who would have essentially been the biggest problem, actually did step in and help with that. And then is sort of being, attempting to be as good a steward as they can at the moment. Really setting a good example of what companies can do if they'd like to. So, that was unexpected from all of us. Like we were not expecting anybody. We were expecting everybody to just be like, eh, pound sand about it. Go do, you could go have fun with your little telescopes kids. Like why don't you just get the funding in order to get the technology to fix the problem like we did. And of course that's like not how it is. In astronomy, you are getting funding to just barely survive at this point without things are. But yeah, it's been a big surprise with SpaceX coming in and saying, okay, well, we want to sit down. We want to help you out with this and we want to provide the solutions to everybody. But we got to check it out. So, the future is gonna be particularly difficult, especially since we have some telescopes that are going to be doing wide fields, very big chunks of the sky all at once. Things like asteroid surveys. So basically, you know, like making sure that we're tracking all the rocks that could potentially hit the earth. They are gonna be infinitely more difficult now that we have, that you're gonna have hundreds, if not at times thousands of things crisscrossing the sky in motion all at once. So, and even in the middle of the night, even in the middle of the night when it is not lit by the sun, they are still going to technically be bright enough that our telescopes will be able to detect them. So, just letting you know, even though you can't see it with your own eyes, it's still there. So. Does this not create opportunities for algorithms or AI to be able to improve the quality of the imagery and- AI solves everything. Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm just, I know that there's not a solution at the moment, but is it possible that that could be a potential solution to eliminating the traces or tracks from the sky and still maintaining the accuracy of the imagery that is gathered? Yes, so actually, algorithms are how they're starting currently in order to be able to do that. It requires super computing levels of processing because we're working with a lot of data here. We're working with tens of terabytes and beyond in a nightly session of observation. So, like, there's a lot of data going on here. A really good example of this was, you know, like how much data are we having to sift through in order to pull these things off? Well, the Event Horizon Telescope, which took the image of the black hole in M87, it generated so much data that they actually couldn't pipe it through the internet. They had to do a sneaker net. They literally had to physically take the hard drives on aircraft from around the world to the computing center because there's so much data. If they had piped it in through the internet, it would have taken decades for all that data to arrive. That's how much data we're working with in observation. That is a tremendous amount of computing power that you need to sift through and work with all of that data. One of the things that they want to do is they actually want to take some of the technology that is onboard a J-dub right now, the micro shutters. So basically, this ability to put thousands of little itty bitty individual tiny flaps over your imaging system. And then you have those flaps open to be taking in the data. And then we figure out where, yeah. We figure out where exactly is the satellite's path going to be across the imaging sensor? And as that satellite comes, we close the flaps so that the light from the satellite doesn't touch the imaging sensor and then we open those flaps back up. But as you can imagine, for J-dub, it was very expensive. And that was to work in a, what we would consider, relatively easier environment. Here on Earth, we've got to deal with things like dust and other stuff in the atmosphere. So it actually is harder to design micro shutters to work on a ground-based telescope than there's a space-based telescope. So we'll have to see, they're working on it. But the problem is funding. It's all, you know, no bucks, no buck Rogers, no dollars, no observations. We gotta work on that one so we can figure out how to get more money for that jingle. But, yeah. All right, I have two. One is a comment from Aravail. Says, Jared has progressed through the five stages of due to constellation grief. Yeah. Right, isn't that great? Brilliant. Sorry, that's why my finger went up. I love that one. Thank you, Aravail. You're great. Also, Apple needs to not put the camera here on an iPad. It needs to go up top. I hate the camera orientation on iPads. Okay, the second one is, you know, there are five, we'll call 5,000 satellites on one of these giga constellations. Not quite yet, but we'll say it's 5,000, right? Or maybe it's more, I don't know. Well, I mean, SpaceX is at 4,800, so. Sure, call it 5,000, right? Nice round number. So those are pointing down towards the Earth, right? Why couldn't someone partner up with SpaceX or Amazon or China or whomever and have visual and sensor assets pointing away from Earth? Instead of having one satellite or one telescope, you could have 5,000 sensors pointing away from the planet, constantly churning out information. It's got a very large pipe coming back down to Earth. Couldn't you theoretically get phenomenal? Like, wouldn't that just be a complete and total game changer if you had 5,000 objects orbiting the Earth, taking pictures and sensor data and all of the things? Wouldn't that be a huge win? Dutta, do you wanna take that? Because I saw you, I don't know if you were doing that related to the question Jamie was just asking, but I literally saw Dutta just do this. You could. You've got, you have a higher internet and digital platform. I just don't know if you're tired or not. No, what I was thinking about was, anytime you have a constellation of satellites doing imaging, say the very large array or something like that, they know what their position is relative to each other to a very precise degree. And therefore they can then aim and target all the same object at the same time. And then that makes the collection of their data useful. Trying to envision a system where all of the Starlink satellites or all of the Kuiper satellites that are all trying to image and focus on the same object very far away. And understanding the relative position to each other with a sufficient accuracy I think would be more difficult. They've got crazy accuracy. All of these satellites have crazy accuracy. They have to, right? So, I just wanna highlight the comment of El Desar. Hang on, hang on, hang on. How do you point a laser from one satellite to another if you don't know where they are without crazy accuracy? I mean absurd accuracy. Just saying. Magic. Magic, that is true. It has to be magic. I'm sorry, you were saying Jared? Ta-da. So, El Desar in our chat room has a really good, I feel like, thing with it, which is that you can't just throw six meter lenses on the Starlinks and still fit them in the launcher. Like, look at J-Dub. No one said that. Look at J-Dub. No one said that. I'm not saying that at all. Look, you can even, look. Yeah, I also wanna point something out to you. I'm not saying this is great, but like. No. We've shrunk down. Yeah, go ahead, go ahead. No, no, no. You have to have a big mirror because big mirrors allow, no. Listen, this ain't technology. This is physics. Like, this is the universe itself. You can't get around this. Nature cannot be fooled. Like, good luck on this front if you wanna try to do it. Jared, if you combine you like this and you spread the pixels out, you're building a big mirror. Oh, my God. You're cheating. If you wanna attempt to do optical interferometry, God speed to you. Like, that is the whole, that is one of the holy grails of astronomy is interferometry. Radio is the only thing that we can really do interferometry with right now. And oh, my God, it is complicated to take multiple radio telescopes far away from each other, combine the data, and make it like it's one radio telescope. So. Is it complicated or impossible? Complicated, not impossible. But money, this all comes down to money, and that's just something that astronomy doesn't have much of. Unless somebody's gonna be charitable, then this thing happens. What I'm saying is this is solvable by the very platform. Okay, we're gonna go around in circles on this one. Leave your comments below. Leave your comments below. Tell me how wrong I am. I like, look, I have the mentality that, you know what? You can't land a rocket until you can. You can't have a constellation of 5,000 satellites until you can. Anything's impossible until it isn't, right? It's not impossible. I think the point that Jared is driving at is that you need the large surface areas in order to be able to collect the amount of light to be able to see the dark things in the dark places. Yes. And you can't do that at a micro scale. No, well. And I'm gonna suffix that by saying yet, because nobody's figured out how to do it. But to his point, the fun. It's a photon capturing device, right? It's sensitive to photons. And so you're, no, right? That's what we're talking about here, right? Sensitivity. Come on, Jared. She is a photon empress. Give her some credit. It's also a photon focusing device as well, because if you're taking a photo with your phone, which is something that you offered up, by the way, live on air, you offered up a phone. I did. I was gonna, hang on. I was gonna cite this as an example. I was gonna, wait, wait, wait. I was not saying we should put these in space. I was gonna cite this as an example. I was about to say, if we're putting, look, if we're making these into what we're gonna use for space telescopes on Starlink, then we're replacing all of the Falcon 9 video cameras with GoPro's. So that will be my deal. So. Hey, hey, you all like the new Stage 2 cameras, so like, blah. This, the photo, hang on. I just had a really rude thought. I'll keep it to, I'm sorry. The photo you can take on this surpasses today the type of photo you arguably surpasses today or at least walks up to today. The type of photo you could take with a full camera rig, we'll call it 30 years ago, right? This, literally the sensor with horrible, horrible glass. Like this glass is not even glass, it's plastic, right? This is awful, right? This awfulness is now just as good as the thing that was epic 30 years ago, right? We figured that out here. So the best camera you have is the one that's on you. Why can't we figure that out again? Is it really physics or are we just like, again, just not figuring out how to manipulate the photons in a way we want? Like, this is what we're used to doing. We were, I remember personally when the iPhone came out and they had these, actually, it's not even 30 years. It's 10, not even that. I remember when the iPhone first came out, I'm like, I'm never gonna use that. I'm gonna stay with my DSLR cameras. You know what I don't own a single one of anymore? As a DSLR camera, I always use this. It's possible. Like being like, oh, it's impossible. I don't buy that. I absolutely do not buy that. Especially when we're talking about a, you know, 50, I'm sorry, 5,000 individual sensing objects around the planet. You're telling me you can't do something clever with that? Yeah, it might be hard. It might be expensive. You're telling me it's impossible, though? So the problem is that if you wanna do it, if it's gonna be expensive, and you're just basically gonna be getting the same results as what you're getting right now, why are you doing it? Because why? Why, you know, it's the big question in research and development, you know. If you are not improving upon what you're working on, you're just trying to do it a different way and it's gonna be even more expensive than the current way, then you're gonna have a really hard time getting anybody to take that seriously. Or anybody wanting to do it. Not impossible. You could definitely find somebody out there who will probably give you the money to do it. But we need a big telescope because one, like Donna said, it captures the light, captures significantly more photons than a very small, than even a bajillion small CCDs all around each other. But really the big, really the reason you have to have those massive mirrors is because they can take in a large quantity of light from a single point, from single areas over very large swaths. That allows them to provide the resolution that you need to do astronomy properly. You will not be able to get that with an anybody. I'm sorry, it's, that's just, you can't get around it, I wish we could. Hang on, Jared, you're totally right. You also, it's impossible to land a rocket as well. It'll never work. You won't have enough payload mass to get it to orbit. You're absolutely right. These are two facts that are true in the universe. I, you know what? You and I are not going to agree on this one. I'm gonna back Jamie on this for a second, Jared. And Jared, hear me out. I think there's an uncanny valley between what we know now and what is possible in the future. For sure. Like landing rockets or whatever, there's a period of time where no, you can't do it, it's impossible, it's impossible, it's impossible. And then you start making performance gains and improve your calculations, improve your models, improve your simulations. You test and you test and you test and you figure out what doesn't work and your ability to do it goes down. And then all of a sudden you hit this ramp where your ability to do it goes back up and comes back to being in line or better than what was previously available and possible. So I'm not saying that it's not possible, but I think there's a big gap and what I think Jared would be against is spending that time losing the ability to do radio telemetry or radio telescopy and photograph space and all that research. We're losing that time, but if it's acceptable to lose that time to get better and still have all of these mega constellations, is that a gain? Yeah, so I think, I'm attacking this as is, look, these constellations are happening. Complain about it, don't complain about it, they're happening, right? So we can talk about how you need a big piece of glass to focus a photon onto a sensor, which by the way, like that, no, that's what you're talking about, right? You need a big piece of glass to focus the photons, right? Because the sensor is not sensitive enough. That's the end of the day because it's a two component thing. The glass and it's, God, that stupid new feature. Wait, hang on. What? Sorry, I upgraded iOS 17 and so now like balloons. I lost my point with the balloons. I lost my point with the balloons. We're gonna go around in circles. We've spent 43 minutes talking about this. I hope you guys have had a good time. Jared, I'm gonna let you get the last word in and then we're gonna send it over to Ryan. Okay, I'm gonna say that it is, it's not impossible, it is possible. Please, somebody please help us. We need help. Oh my God, send money to station, attention station 204, large sums of cash and we'll make modular space telescopes a thing. And I want it so bad and actually all of us want it so bad. So again, I agree, it is not impossible whatsoever but yeah, it's just the priorities aren't there and I wish that they were, so. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm not saying the priorities are there. I'm just saying that like it just took one person to figure out how to land rockets and make it a priority. It's just gonna take one person to figure this out and make it a priority. One person can change the world truly. Now, there's an army behind that person but you just need that person driving it and being like, we are going to come hell or high water. We are going to make this happen, right? You need that individual, well you could be that individual, Jared, anyhow. All right, I did say I was gonna give you the last word and then I stepped in and I took the last word anyhow. It was a good last word so don't worry about it. All right, Ryan, Ryan, you've sat there silently for 44 minutes. What do you have for us this week? I just wanna add another opinion onto the whole. Oh yeah. Satellite constellation shenanigans. My personal opinion is the reason Starlink is so popular as it is, is because ground-based ISPs have failed to provide a good enough service to what consumers desire so they've had to go for the satellite internet option. The only reason I have Starlink is because it's the fastest internet option I have. Like full stop, my ground-based ISP can only go up to 40 down and nine up which is someone who works with high quality video as their job is ridiculously slow. So that's the only reason I use Starlink. If I had better ground-based alternatives, I wouldn't use Starlink because they'd be faster but I feel like that, I feel like my situation could be similar across the world. The only reason people are using Starlink is because the internet they can get on the ground just isn't good enough and I'm not living like in the middle of nowhere, I'm three miles from a city, what we call in the UK or how we class it in the UK. Like I'm not in the middle of nowhere. So I don't know, I feel like my situation could be shared by many people across the world but it is just my situation. The chat room is absolutely agreeing with you right now Ryan. Like everyone's like, yep, nope, ground-based systems have effectively failed us. So like absolutely. And I think competition is just going to be good here but then also to your point Ryan, there are places on the planet that have no internet that where you would want internet, right? Like out in the middle of the ocean. Services like this can save human lives. Hard stop, right? So. Yeah and those like in the middle of the ocean on a plane in the middle of nowhere that literally you're in the middle of nowhere and there's no infrastructure. This is where this technology really comes into use but like if you're three miles from a city you shouldn't need to use this technology, right? That's my point. But you do, the reality is you do today. I have to. And you are not alone. Yeah. Leasing on. Don of Clarity says, agree with Ryan. UK ISPs are pants. I don't know what that means but okay. Our pants are good or bad. I assume they're bad. Rubbish, rubbish. Rubbish, all right. Okay, cool. All right, cool. So on that note would you like to, what's your? Now we've learned about sending things into space. Okay, now we've learned about sending things into space. Let's get excited about things getting sent into space. Psyche, it's been encapsulated into its fairing which means that if anything goes wrong now it's SpaceX's fault and I can blame them. There was some speculation after seeing the fairing moving around. It looks a little dirty and people are on the internet. So like, have they put Psyche in a reused fairing? Well, no they haven't because Lydia Elkins-Stanton, the mission director for Psyche, replied to one of these comments flying around the internet saying no, NASA doesn't get us reused fairing. So this is a brand new pair of fairings. They're not reused. They're brand new. I don't know why they're dirty. I don't know, I don't have an answer for you. But it is inside of there and it has been rolled to 39A to be integrated on top of the Falcon Heavy which static fired the other week without the payload fairing on top. So everything so far looking good for a launch on October 12th. Going back to last week, they had to scrub the mission on the fifth and move it to the 12th because they had to verify some numbers or sensors or something on the thrusters which are going to spacecraft to move once it's in space. So now they've actually got it inside the fairing. I think October 12th is a much more kind of, I'm not gonna say set in stone because no rocket launch has ever set in stone but it's like something catastrophic has to go wrong now or the weather has to get in the way in some really bad way for this to not go on the 12th because the payload is finally on top of the rocket. We've waited like over a year of delays now, it's on top of the rocket, it just needs to go in this launch window and they only have a couple of weeks to do it. When are you flying to Florida? When is your flight? I leave on Tuesday. Okay, what day is Tuesday? Like the 11th? Not tomorrow but the tomorrow after tomorrow. What day is that? 10th, 10th. You're flying out the 10th. It's going to fly the 12th. I hope your flight's not delayed. It won't be. No, I've been checking flight radar that on average I've only been delayed 30 to 60 minutes over the last week or so. So I'm optimistic. Okay, all right. Cutting that one close but okay, go rock rock on with your bad side. Are you excited? Yeah, I'm looking forward to it finally. After August last year is tight, it's time has come so better launch if not I'm going to be thoroughly disappointed. All right. It's had a year. We don't want to really disappoint Ryan. No, no we don't. Well, I'm not going to stick in. A little bit of me kind of does. I think it would be a little bit hilarious if like you're in the air and they're like, oh sorry engine failure, you've got to turn around. Well, okay, maybe not that. That's a bad one. I don't wish that on anybody Jamie. Yeah, I know that was a bad one. You know what I mean. Like, oh no, sorry, we have to turn around. You don't get to go today. Or oh no, sorry, like bad weather. You don't get to go today. And it's like, oh no, oh is Ryan going to get to see it? I feel like there would be like, we would 24 hours stream that at that point of like will Ryan get to see Psyche sort of thing? Yeah, I think it'd be funnier if it's some like absurd reason like a whole like like a cargo pallet of crabs burst open and they're all over the inside of the plane and they got to figure it out. It's like crabs on a plane or something, you know, like they got to work with it somehow. So that's much closer to what I was actually trying to get towards like, I went into engine failure and you went into crabs on a plane. Why do you have, Ryan, have you ever seen any rocket launches in person? Yeah, yes, I saw one leave a runway. That's my phone on the floor. I saw one leave a runway, hold on to me. Were you not able to see the flame? No, no, it was very far away. I was. You know, it was on a plane. So it flew and went like far away. So it wasn't near anything. It was kind of, you know, the point of the system. I don't know if you're familiar at all with what version of what we're doing data, but they had to fly it quite far away. So you couldn't actually see the rocket launch happened. Yeah, I saw it happen. I saw a flame out the window. I had a light in my face as well. So I don't know if that was, you know, kind of annoying. That sucks. You should have been on the mission control level. Looking out the window. I just want you two to keep going. This is probably the best show we've had in a long time. This is fantastic. It's gonna be Ryan versus Dada. So wait, you're telling me they put a rocket on a plane and they drop it from the air? Yeah, they did. They did. That's absurd. Nobody's telling me that. This rocket fried this rice? Oh my God. All right. I'm excited for Psyche as well. I'm gonna miss it unfortunately. I'm not gonna be able to see it in person, which makes me sad, because I believe that it's a dual RTLS, right? Yeah. Both boosters. They're getting rid of the center core. No one cares about center cores anymore. They haven't recovered a single Falcon Heavy center core. They don't care about them. Just throw them in the ocean. That no one cares. Bring back the boosters. That's all anybody cares about. I just sincerely hope that Ryan doesn't travel 5,000 miles across a country for a launch in October, and it doesn't happen until February. I don't know. His point isn't encapsulated. It's encapsulated, so like. Yeah, I know how that works. Hopefully they don't have to detank and get cracked stringers or some dumb thing. Well, hang on. I don't think that's gonna be the problem. October. You're right. There's no ground to build an umbilical carrier plate on the Falcon Heavy. Oh my God. October's stormy season. Is it not at the Cape? Like I've seen, remember, I was like, you start getting those showers and those more severe thunderstorms. They're not gonna launch, just. That's not what the advert said, so I don't believe you. All the adverts of sunshine in them. Oh, interesting, good to know. Good to know. It's the Sunshine State, right? It's the Lightning Capital of the US, right? Let's put a launch pad there with a giant metal rocket filled with fuel. All right. That's Orlando. That's nowhere near. Whatever, whatever. Jared, take us out. Sure, I just wanna remind everybody that if you're in North America, Central America, or South America, you have the opportunity to catch either a partial or a annular eclipse. Kinda take your pick as to where you wanna go. You can definitely look up that path of annularity and see if you may be able to get to it or if there is a reasonable means by which for you to get to it. But if you do, you are gonna see the moon block out the sun, but the moon is too far away for it to completely cover the sun this Saturday, October 14th. So unfortunately, it's gonna be an annular eclipse. I guess unfortunately, I don't know. I think it's still pretty cool that we're getting that, but you're gonna be getting what they call it, Ring of Fire. You cannot observe this safely with the naked eye. So even if you are in that narrow path of annularity where the moon will fully cover the sun like this, you still can't look up at it even when it's like this. You need to have some sort of eclipse glasses on our solar filters to allow you to see it like this. If you just can't be like, if you just don't wanna go out to it or anything, Griffith Observatory, we're gonna be streaming it. And this is the time, place and location and what it's gonna look like for all of us down here at Griffith. So we're actually gonna be starting our stream at eight AM Pacific time, which I'm having to convert quickly. That's gonna be 1500 UTC and we're gonna go to 11 AM, which is going to be 1800 UTC. So a nice three hour stream there for you all and we'll be covering the eclipse the whole time and it should be a really fun one. I'm looking forward to it because at least here in Los Angeles, we're gonna get enough coverage of the sun that there will actually be things that we will notice. We'll notice the temperature drop, we'll notice a lack of sharpening on shadows, we'll notice a relative dimming, more a reddening of the light coming down. So it should be a very good time. So just a reminder, if you're in North America, Central America or Northern South America, you should be able to see either a partial solar eclipse or a full on annular eclipse this Saturday, October 14th. So get your appropriate equipment to safely look at it, welder's glass, not appropriate. It does not block out some of the specific wavelengths of light from the sun that you need to. You need to get those eclipse glasses, find them at a retailer somewhere. If you're in LA, we got them at Griffiths. But yeah, I'm super excited about it. Anytime we get to do some astronomical viewing without really having to go anywhere, it's a good time. Is that eclipse-like material, or is that like a Roscoe blue gel that you're holding? Get one of these, and then you won't be blinded by the sun. Binoculars, good or bad? Oh, binoculars? Instant Lasik, instant Lasik, yeah. But not precise, so bad, so. Not precise, so bad. All right, awesome. I think that's our show. I hope you all enjoyed it. Please leave your comments below. I'd love to know what you think about all of the things that we chatted about today. I'd also like to thank all of the, there I am. There we are. All of the members, it could have just been my preview. All of the members who have helped to make this show happen, you know, and when we're done here, we're gonna probably continue this somewhat sporty debate. Often our members-only show, it's supposed to start in like two minutes. And so hopefully you enjoyed the new pre-show graphic thingy thingy with the music in the whole thing, right? I'm still trying to figure out how to bring back space news in a sane way. I'm enjoying these live shows anytime I have an opportunity to join in with you. So I hope you enjoyed it as well. Consider becoming a member over at YouTube.com slash TMRO slash join, and join us in the post show where we talk about, maybe we'll talk about space. Maybe we'll talk about space telescopes. Maybe we'll talk about whatever. Disney, it could be anything. So yeah, for those of you- I was gonna say, I have a pretty funny revelation that I'll bring up in the post show, so. I'm excited for funny revelations. For those of you who are members, if you look in the description, you're going to see the link to the member show. I think there's an automatic tweet that I think just went out that should have a link. We'll see how close and accurate that was. First time I did one of those, I hope it worked. Oh wait, I'll get a thumbs up on the screen. Not whatever, it's out there. Ah, it's off the screen. All right, thank you everyone so much for watching. Members, we'll see you in a couple minutes. Bye.