The Hard Part About Getting To Orbit Isn't The Height
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 жов 2024
- tomscott.com - @tomscott - (UA-cam ate this first time around, so I've reuploaded it.) From the flame trench of Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Centre, under the pad from which the Apollo astronauts went to the moon, here's the reason that orbit is so damn hard to get to.
If Kerbal Space Program has taught me anything it's that sidewaysness is more important than upness.
+AndorianBlues It will always be relative. going straight up on the moon at the right place could mean going sideways to Kerbin. because the Mün's gravity is so low you can actually kinda ignore the Mün's gravity, not try to get sideways and instead point straight to the retrograde relative to Kerbin. Even if it's straight up.
AndorianBlues same
AndorianBlues I
If you're in orbit, you're halfway to anywhere!
youluvana eh? I just like killing jeb..
Tom, I just love how absurdly happy and excited you are about being somewhere like this.
wouldnt you be?
Been there, I was like a kid at a space launch.
Orbiting is just falling and missing the ground
and flying is throwing yourself at the ground and missing. subtle difference, but important
+Joe Catton flying is just falling with style :P
All of the references will be had (:
truuu! next week during physics class I'm gonna say that :D
That's it!
KSP players _would_ know this.
+TristanBomb i was just thinking the same thing
+TristanBomb Just after a few days of Kerbal Space Program one learns more about orbital mechanics than in all of school physics.
+DasIllu true
+DasIllu true
+TristanBomb
I knew this
You learned it through physics
I learned it through blowing up Ker... I mean through *safely* *experimenting* with Kerbals
sometimes parachutes are too expensive :)
High Five to all KSP players!
😄✋
That last shot was hilarious.
I love that almost every comment is about KSP
And the reason for this problem is: Gravity does not magically become non-existent just a few hundred kilometers above the surface of the planet.
In fact it's about the same strength as ground level, the difference - single digit percentages.
Well, that's what keeps the moon in place, after all.
@@gwenynorisu6883 But Moon is like ten thousand times further away
"To get into space you have to go up.
To get into orbit you have to go up and then sideways really, really fast."
-EA
"and that's that shot gone" 😂
Where's Scott Manley when you need him?
+Erik the God Eating Penguin Tom Scott Manley
Tom Scott Manley?
teed Tom's name is Tom Scott.
He's a youtube who make Kerbal Space Program videos. And is probably the closest thing gamers have to an astronaut
This is a crossover. A better title may have been "Tom Scott Manley"
This actually includes something that most people definitely don't know. You can do a descent from space without burning up. Sci-fi rp on discord and most people automatically assume that stuff burns up on re-entry.
I love how this is the video where Scott shows the most emotion
Love the enthusiasm Tom! It's brilliant
Even with the kid, to walk on that gangway is pretty epic. Hope you're enjoying your trip.
"something you might not have known"
...unless you play KSP.
The key is *MIGHT*.
I knew this. But then I've played Kerbal Space Program :P
This is the first "Things You Might Not Know" that I actually knew.
Unfortunately, we all know this. Kerbal Space Program exists.
I have it!
My thoughts entirely.
Here's something you might not have known. In KSP, the surface gravity and atmospheric characteristics are similar to what they are on Earth, but Kerbin's orbital velocity is 3.2 times lower. This means that sounding rockets (which go suborbital) are almost as easy on Earth as they are on Kerbin, but getting into an Earth orbit is 3.2 times harder than getting into a Kerbin orbit.
Except that the stock model sucks. Install FAR and you're fine.
Thanks for +42, guys!
Tom seems so damn exited in this episode
As I play Kerbal Space Program I knew that but that slow walk is worth it :D
It must be so humbling and awesome to stand in that place where the enormous Saturn V blasted off. Those of us old enough to have watched it live on television spent the rest of our lives thinking about how cool it was and learning as much about it as we could.
DO NOT WORRY, I AM DOING MY BEST TO REVIVE THE SATURN V.
JUST GIVE ME UNTIL THE 2040S, I MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING GOING.
A bit of extra information to add onto this would be that they actually start turning for early in the launch. The time in which they do depends on their thrust to weight ratio. But the reason why they do it this way is to save on delta-V that the space craft has. They do a gradual turn instead of a sudden turn is for one, it takes a lot of delta-V to make it into orbit as Tom has mentioned in the video, and you do not want to reach the peak of your orbit, also known as your apoapsis (yes that is how it is spelled, despite spell checker). If you do, then you are wasting energy, because you have to thrust even more to circularize your orbit to bring your orbit up to match your apoapsis. You can see this being done when you see rockets during flight, some time after liftoff, they will start turning over.
cool
For some reason people think that as soon as you reach space than suddenly there's no gravity, they have no idea what they're talking about
Anyone who's gone through the trouble of installing Real Scale Solar System and Realism Overhaul to Kerbal Space Program knows this all too well. Also, plane change maneuvers take an insane amount of fuel, which has been the main reason I've yet to make to the Moon yet. I think once I managed to do a flyby, but that memory is quite foggy at best. *shrugs*
God RO sounds like hell
_returns to flying SSTO in stock_
My solution is simple. If it don't work, add more rocket. It'll work eventually.
Even in stock, you get a good sense of the concepts behind orbit once your big rocket falls into the ocean a few times
@@keiyakins and rss/ro gives you the sense of head pain
Why change planes if you're going to the moon? If you launch due east when the moon crosses the 90°-270° line on the navball you'll launch into the orbital plane of the moon and now you only have to burn prograde
aw gee, look at you geeking out over space travel! that was kind of adorable, haha
unless you play Kerbal Space Program, did physics or watch a lot of nasa videos/documentaries.
Your excitement level in this video was a little unsettling.
***** He's talking about arguably humankind's greatest accomplishment. Anyone who understands the history of space programs would be excited.
Thanks to Kerbal Space Program for this knowledge
Now I have "It's a Small World" in my head and see bars.. Thanks Tom!
Playing KSP as i'm watching this XD
THAT IS JUST THE FRICKIN COOLESlikeIknewthesciencebitbutT OH MY GOSH YOUR ENTHUSIASM TOO
Most of the energy released as heat when something burns up on re-entry isn't actually because of friction with the air scraping up against the thing as it falls. Because the meteor or rocket booster is traveling faster than the speed of sound in an atmosphere, it's actually caused by _compression_ - the air underneath the falling object is too slow to get out of the way, and it collects underneath the object. Highly compressed air is extremely hot, so it burns up. And _that_, is something you might not have known.
The little-known “Tom on Speed” vidéo
That's awesome you were there. I have always known how orbit works, but it's cool to see that place much closer than usual.
just use more SRBs
True to form
moar boosters
Moar Boosteeeeers!!!
You are Awesome Tom. Love your videos.
finally something i knew
Oh the times when Tom Scott's outros weren't as perfectly timed as now. Nowadays the rocket would launch exactly when Tom pointed at it.
With that level of excitement, I have expected a rocket to launch at the end of the video.
the epic outro :'D
Indeed! I saw a space shuttle launch once in person, and one thing I didn’t expect is that I never raised my head more than … 30ish … degrees. Why? Because it didn’t go up very much compared to how much it went down-range.
This video is about rockets, over which Tom Scott has a nerdgasm. Frankly, I don't blame you!!!!
I hope you're enjoying Florida. You really can't beat the weather there this time of year.
You're standing in an honest-to-goodness spaceport. I'm so jealous!
first 'things you might not know' that i knew.
I am really proud of myself that I learned this from a videogame Kerbal Space Program!
well I knew that stuff.. and this might be the only thing I knew earlier in the "THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW" series
The trick to flying isn't going up, but falling and missing the ground.
Great video series. Keep 'em coming!
And just a few days ago, the historic Falcon Heavy launch lifted off from this very pad.
You can't escape gravity, you can just fall fast enough that you constantly miss earth
If you go really far away, you will escape Earth's gravity
Found your channel via SourceFed.
You sir have one new subscriber.
Flying, or as I like to call it, "falling artistically"
First thing in these vids I actually knew.
I think this is the only thing I already knew in this series
I was expecting Tom to scream "ONE TAKE!" at the end of this video;
it feels like one of those videos where he just spontaneously started talking, and managed to get it right instantly.
this is ground control to major tom....
Tom here is very excited to be standing on the scorched concrete of heroes.
Atitude in aerospace is about where your ship is pointing. Burns are about moving stuff. It would be interesting to talk why a bad attitude leads to nowhere... the best way not to reach your target... just like in daily life...
Ah Tom the typical space nerd reaction to being near where the space missions to thr moon took place
I love how animated you are here
The heat is not caused only by friction but by the compression of the air as well, and the hyper-sonic shock-waves from re-entry that turn the air to plasma.
+Aaron Harmon Almost all of the heat is shock heating in fact, very little is caused by friction
Actually the heat is caused by pressure not friction
So what causes friction?
Friction is causes by things sliding past eachother, like your hands if you rub them together or the air sliding past a space shuttle. I think this should produce some heat. However, the vast majority of the heat the space shuttle (or anything going fast enough through the atmosphere) experiences is compression heating: the air in front of the shuttle is compressed and heated by compression before it has a chance to slip past your spacecraft and induce friction. This is the reverse effect of an aerosol can becoming colder when you decrease the pressure by releasing the paint, deodorant, whipped cream, etc... from it.
Ok, if that is the case does that mean the vapor trail left by high velocity bullets is caused by the same factors?
I would guess the vapour trail is condensed humidity in the air in the cold pocket left behind a bullet that absorbed some amount of the compression heat, leaving a trail of colder air.
Flimzes Fascinating thank you
Flying an SSTO in Kerbal while watching this
And now it belongs to spaceX!
39 had two pads, A and B. One of them was converted for Orion/SLS.
B was converted, A is rented to SpaceX
You need to be going 17,500 MPH to orbit, NOT 15,000 MPH stated. Going at that speed will make you do that which you're trying to avoid, coming back down to Earth.
+joeguitargod It actually depends on your orbit height for example geo stationary orbit is less than 7000mph, as far out as the moon and it's under 2500 mph
And thats another shot gone..
Well, I mean, I would say the hardest part of getting to orbit is the atmosphere. If there was no atmosphere, then it would be SO much easier to get to orbit, because there wouldn't be any air resistance, meaning you wouldn't have to launch up before turning sideways. Instead, you would be able to launch sideways, without gravity pushing against your upward acceleration. That's a big reason as to why astronauts didn't have to carry the entirety of Saturn V to the moon to return. They could return launching sideways, only using their small fuel tank in the Lander to get back up to the Orbiter. Of course, without any atmosphere, there wouldn't be a rocket in the first place...
You were mixing together atmosphere and gravity there! Considering your comparison with a moon-launch, it's gravity which makes it so easy to lift off the moon. You have to defy gravity with an enormous speed (like said in this video: 25,000 kph). Less gravity -> less speed needed -> less fuel needed. But you're right, atmospheric drag is still a thing which slows down an ascending rocket. But it's also incredibly useful for slowing down a descending module.
TheTornado121 Yes, I concede: of course the lower gravity makes it easier to launch back off of the moon; however, the atmosphere on earth accounts for 1200-1700 m/s of delta-v lost, versus around 6,000 m/s to get to the speed necessary to reach Low Earth Orbit and 9,300 m/s of delta-v in total. That's 1/6 of your fuel lost from the atmosphere. (Mostly due to having to launch straight up and go against the force of gravity before turning sideways- only a tiny bit due to atmospheric drag, as you mentioned, if you don't launch too quickly- usually 100 m/s or so) As for mentioning the moon, I was simply hypothesizing the effect an earth sized atmosphere would have on the amount of fuel needed to launch back off of the moon (and slightly exaggerating at that, because of the moon's lesser mass) As to the usefulness of the atmosphere in slowing stuff down, most dead satellites don't return to earth at the end of their lives but instead ascend to a higher so-called "graveyard" orbit, and many satellites also do not use the atmosphere for aerobraking as it causes much unwanted heat and could possibly even rip components off if their trajectories are slightly off.
And if there was no atmosphere, it would also be SO much harder to slow down and land safely!
New Sub here Tom, i like your concept of might not know and its well made.
finally the video loaded
The hardest part about getting to orbit is the $$$.
'Nuff said.
Yay it works!
Rocket lift is fascinating and I can't imagine all the calculations that are put in the trajectories.
The calculation of orbital mechanics and general rocketry are actually pretty simple. The trouble is the magnitudes and design margins on the engineering involved - enormous energies involved and very thin design margins on how to achieve them, given the current state of technology.
Ever played KSP?
That was actually the first thing I did know ^^
Stephen Fry was right. There's a lot of gravity in space- low Earth orbit. Freefall is exactly what is says on the label.
LaGrange points sound interesting.
LaGrange points are very interesting. Good place to put a telescope...
Tom really looks happy here
Straight back down in a ballistic sort of curve.
SpaceX have finished modifying that pad and are launching from there today!
Tom's at 39. I am now officially jealous.
39A looks much better today.
Dude, you are like all over the place! How do you get around so much!?
I did know. I have an exam on this in two days. I didn't want to be reminded
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to admit that I'm mad envious that Tom gets to visit places like this, but with that hairstyle, I'm not sure slo-mo walking shots are going to work well. :)
I was just here over Christmas a very cool place :D
I learned this stuff from Kerbal space program.
here from "tom scott introducing places"
Well I guess I'm getting Kerbal Space Program than...
a space elevator would massively streamline the process
I think it needs more funding to find a stronger material.
I feel that Space Shuttle deorbit burn, entry interface, s-turns and TAEM are things people might not know about.
Sorry to say, but the actual speed necessary is 17,500 miles per hour or 24, 28,160 Kilometers per hour (I'm American).
I'm just going through all the comments and upvoting any one that has a mentions of KSP
btw: low earth satellite like radarsat go 7 km per second, which is not far off what you say.
That’s LC39A, Apollo 10 launched from LC39B
Although it wouldn't be practical but would be very expensive could you use fuel to slow down outside of the atmosphere and not need heat reflector things to avoid burning up on re-entry
Flying is just throwing yourself at the ground and missing
A thought. If the problem with reentry is the fact that the objects doing it are entering at stupid-high speeds thanks to needing that to maintain orbit, would someone jumping off a space elevator (assuming one is possible and gets built) not turn to ash and be able to actually parachute their way down?
By the time you actually reached the atmosphere you would have sped up a lot so I'm not sure.
Hmmmmmm I wonder why this just hit my suggestions lmao
Miles an hour...