NASA Talk - Escaping Earth's Gravity: Space Launch System
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- The Space Technology and Exploration Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center presented a five-part lecture series on “The Future of America’s Space Exploration Program” on the campus of Christopher Newport University. Each 75-minute lecture took place at the Yoder Barn Theatre in Newport News, Virginia and explores the ins and outs of America’s vision for deep space exploration.
Lecture 1: Path to Mars and Asteroid Redirect Mission: The First Step
Lecture 2: The Next Human Spacecraft: Orion and the Launch Abort System
Lecture 3: Escaping Earth’s Gravity: Space Launch System
Lecture 4: Mars Entry, Descent and Landing with Humans
Lecture 5: Spacecraft, Habitats and Radiation Protection - Наука та технологія
Watching this today, 16th of November, 2022. The same day when the SLS launched successfully on the first Artemis mission.
5 years later than predicted, and billions of dollars above budget, yet still a great day for the future of humanity.
Errata: I misspoke by saying we landed 24 people on the Moon. It's 12 (or 2 per mission). Sorry about that.
Jeremy Pinier is nasa actively exploring other methods of escaping earth's gravity at this time?
theXb0yz there arnt any other realistic options right now, definitely in the future though, we need a bigger power grid then we could possibly use lasers.
Jesse Jensen how would the laser be utilized? i haven't really looked too far into this subject, bc of what you said, there doesn't seem to be any realistic options right now. but, i feel like the elevator option is actually pretty reasonable if we were able to create a material strong enough in large enough quantities.
+Jeremy Pinier But you have launched 24 people to the Moon, 3 of them twice. Poor Jim Lovell, gone to the Moon twice but never got the chance to land.
It's ok by the way thanks for this video sir.
Great Information
We did it in 10 yrs with Apollo,if congress would just fund NASA sufficently ,we could do it again! Think of all the billions we wasted on the Iraq war!
trillions actually
Sorry but that whole "fund NASA sufficently" is just part of the corporate pantomime. It doesn't matter how much you give. Companies like LM and Boeing will just eat it up while their prepared excuses and orchestrated delays will continue.
2.5 to 4 trillion. Estimates vary but that's the range I've seen.
We just cut spending again.. and the man actually said he wants boots on the moon.. cut spending. Even after the gigantic Obama Administrations cuts..
Every administration is culpable... remember, Obama spent 800 billion on the "stimulus" - basically a make-work welfare program that accomplished very little economically. Considering the technological spin-off industries that were spawned by the Apollo program, applying the stimulus package to the space program and other research areas would have rewarded us far better than fixing roads and highway overpasses. And add to that the cancelled Super-conducting Super Collider that was proposed to be even more powerful than the LHC. The funding for that was a drop in a bucket compared to the failed stimulus.
56:58 NASA: these commercial companies are only capable of producing 1/100 of what we're building.
Elon Musk 2020: we're going to Mars, b****!
hokey companies and private funding are no match for NASA by your side kid.
You don't really know how NASA is working for not only America but also it is contributing to whole world.
And their level of science and engineering they're doing is really very hard than spacex.
Musk talks a lot about going to Mars, but SpaceX does low earth orbit. he is a bit of a hype artist...
@@kapa1611 bet
@@citizenblue didn't he claim that he will send people to Mars by 2024?! if anybody is gonna send people to Mars, it's gonna be NASA first. maybe 40y later SpaceX can do it (kind of like what happened with low earth orbit)
Also note -- you can escape earth gravity by going at any speed (even very slow speed) , just have steady thrust until you arrive at a Lagrangian point (or a point where gravity attraction from another object such as the Moon or another planet takes over, thus canceling out Earth's gravitational pull).
If your spacecraft was very light, you may even be able to hitch a ride on a nearby asteroid or satellite of some kind. The ability of light spacecraft to have efficient steady thrust, would allow for low cost space visits, especially when the return to earth can be glider like and you are able to re-use the craft.
I suppose the main problem here is getting the small spacecraft (or just a spacesuit) light enough and still have ability to carry some kind of reliable steady thrust / power system).
Great lecture! Please check slide showing Voyage’s speed. Voyager 1 = 38,027mph and Voyager 2 = 34,391mph. Source: NASA’s Voyager Mission Status website
Brilliant lecture series, need more of these!
25:30 Space Launch System.
Sir, few questions. 1. The atmosphere is exerting drag only for 30 km distance and that is only a fraction of the total journey. So is that so important?
2. According to Newton's first law of motion, an object will continue its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted up on by an external force. In space there is no drag or external force. Once the rocket is given enough thrust after escaping earth's gravitational field, why more thrust is required ? Won't the force initially generated suffice for a long duration ? Once the vehicle I as about to enter Marcian atmosphere, infact a deceleration will be required?
I'm not an astro physicist but astro physics and orbital mechanics are a fascination of mine so I'll try to explain as best as I can.
1) It's very important. A weird way of describing air resistance is that it acts like cornstarch (or ooblek) where the more force you apply, the more resistance you experience. for example, If you walk when there is no wind, you don't really feel any air flowing past your skin. However, if you stick your head out of a car window travelling at speed, you certainly do feel the air resistance. The same principle applies to rockets. A rocket is designed to experience something called "Max-Q" which is maximum dynamic drag, or the point where the rocket is experiencing the most air resistance and will undergo the greatest amount of stress on the structure. Because of this, the hardest part of rocketry is its aerodynamic and structural design. A number of rockets have failed due to minor errors which cause the rocket to suffer a catastrophic failure.
2) Newton's first law is exactly as you said. However, you have forgotten that gravity is an external force. It's not a dragging force, it is a pulling force on the craft. That is why we have satellites and space stations in orbit. orbit isn't the absence of gravity, but is in fact, a ship that is traveling as fast horizontally, as it is vertically. a side note worth mentioning is that you cannot truly escape the gravitational influence of all bodies of mass in space. You are always influenced by one body or another which is why you can orbit the earth, the moon, mars, or any other body of mass.
3) As for entering the martian atmosphere, you're correct, a deceleration will be required. Although parachutes are able to slow the descent to a reasonable speed, the atmosphere is too thin to enter with parachutes like we do on earth. the likelihood is that the landing will be a combination of parachutes higher up (like entering earths lower atmosphere) and then landing with rocket propulsion (like we do on the moon).
Feel free to ask any further questions!
They moved south in order to be closer to the Ecuator also they need to launch close to the sea to protect people in the case of any malfunction
Awesome video Jeremy! very educational for us amateurs. I am just a business jet pilot but have always dreamt of spaceflight.
Educational? This is propaganda for a future mission.... He is after your money, don´t you understand that? Is it really that sad that you gays can´t think of something better to spend your tax money on? What about a wall, I mean a real big one! LOL
Corbin Kennedy hahaha keep dreaming! This guy has his DREAM job because space could very well be a big fucking hoax:( I know sad)
It is all about a space based propulsion system and radiation protection plus gravity.
It is said that if you can get your ship into orbit, you are half way to anywhere.
The ISS was taken up in parts over multiple launches. Could a Mars mission not be handled the same way?
You could have huge DeltaV to burn from orbit, rather than trying to push it all up through the atmosphere at once.
Yes, we can assemble a spaceship on the orbit, but nowadays most people like iPhones, selfies, Instagram, etc. They are not interested in space exploration. It's said but true.
That is one way of constructing a manned Mars craft. And, indeed, it may very well be the way the first manned mission to Mars will be conducted.
Simply six verses a half dozen. You still need to get the total payload to escape velocity, whether that is one big burn or multiple small launches with a rest and assembly at orbital velocity it is the same energy, although one big launch has fewer complications and far less extremely expensive space-labor.
It takes about 9.4 km/s of delta V to reach from the surface of Earth to low Earth orbit. From that point, to escape the solar system entirely, it requires a further 8.75 km/s of delta V. You literally are halfway to everywhere when you reach low Earth orbit.
They have lied to us, the earth is flat. Just think of a sundial, its operation is not possible depending on the model, and yet it works. A sphere that rotates on its axis tilted 23º from its axis and that rotates from that to the west could not give the hours, only 3 and 9 o'clock.
Another thing is, for example, the observations, the distances to the sun and polaris... which are simple..
it's amazing program about the space !!! I'm thinkin very soon we going to mars and beyond.
Thanks for the awesome speaker!!
Fantastic video!
Question:
Why do we need to reach the escape velocity, why not just keep going in a relatively slow, yet steady velocity away from gravity?
Good question. The reason is you have to overcome the force of gravity. If you don't reach escape velocity, you will fall back toward Earth. It's just like when you throw a rock. You'd have to throw that rock really really fast for it to not fall back on the ground. If you could throw it hard enough, it would keep falling but follow the Earth's surface and come back around, that's called orbital speed (~17,000 mph for Low Earth Orbit). Any object in Earth orbit is actually constantly falling toward Earth but has enough tangential speed that it never does hit Earth. For an object to escape Earth's gravity field and keep going in space you'd have to throw it even faster, ~25,000 mph. Hope this helps.
Rodrigo, Jeremy's answer was not accurate. There is nothing stopping something escaping Earth's gravity in just the way you describe. The reason we don't do that is simply because it is not very fuel efficient. Jeremy's thrown rock example was accurate, but we are not throwing rocks into space; we are shooting rockets...that have fuel...so a source of power. The idea of "escape velocity" assumes that the only power the projectile has is the instantaneous velocity given to it at launch. It's a theoretical concept. For example, the escape velocity of Earth is 11.2 km/s. This does NOT mean that you have to reach 11.2 km/s to escape the Earth's gravity. It means that _from the surface of Earth,_ a projectile would need to be launched at 11.2 km/s, and this 11.2 km/s would need to be given instantaneously, and ignoring drag, and assuming it is given no further propulsion of any kind (only affected by Earth gravity), it will escape. If you have enough fuel, there's nothing stopping you from escaping Earth at a constant 1 m/s. It's just not efficient. You DO need to reach escape velocity to escape the Earth, but the thing is, escape velocity is not a constant. It depends on where you are in the gravitational field. The farther away you go, the lower the escape velocity from that point will be. So, if you were riding a rocket at 1 m/s, you would eventually be so far away from Earth that the escape velocity would be .99 m/s, and you would then be exceeding it, and could then turn off your engines and you would escape - having never gone any faster than 1 m/s.
Thanks, Willoughby, your answer makes much more sense to me. ;)
No problem!
Rodrigo Castilho With a slower speed, You would have to run the engines all the time and That’s impossible.
Where in this video explain how rocket escape orbital? I know he mentioned about speed that need but I think we need more in-deep explanation on what force acting on rocket, how we win it over and such. Most of this lecture is only cover history.
manned spaceflight or staffed?
How much thrust does the statue of liberty have?
3 pounds of thrust
Christian Morales Nah, 3 pounds is its value.
450000 lbf, but only when in ground effect.
@@dsdy1205 She's alive, she's alive .......I told you she was real! I know because she produces lots of thrust. Ho ho!
@10:40. Earth is already in orbit around the sun, so we have 71% of the sun's escape speed given to us.
U r on r8 track, plus these feminized men don't know that ESCAPE VELOCITY IS TERM ONLY FOR (UNPOWERED PROJECTILE)
But for powered rocket u can burn fuel as your speed begin to stall ...
Just like u can force object away from magnet in 1 go using escape velocity or gradually pull it apart using constant stable force
Politics, lack of funding, and budget is conspiring to make NASA into little more than a jobs program. :(
Good thing the robots still get launched
sooooo, can I get a job?
NASA is a complete fraud and theft from the American people.
At 19:17....correction not 24 humans on the moon ...12 humans.
good video - Does the rocket need to reach escape velocity to leave earth ??
This is what I've been trying to figure out for the last 40 mins by watching videos. Some say the rockets orbit first, others say the rocket has to hit thousands of miles per hour from the earth. Muy confused.
yes
Short answer yes.
They have lied to us, the earth is flat. Just think of a sundial, its operation is not possible depending on the model, and yet it works. A sphere that rotates on its axis tilted 23º from its axis and that rotates from that to the west could not give the hours, only 3 and 9 o'clock.
Another thing is, for example, the observations, the distances to the sun and polaris... which are simple..
I had no idea NASA measures their payload weight in elephants! I feel like I learned so much today...
Elephant units are better than inches and ounces. 😂
is it possible to simulate another planet's atmosphere here on earth?
Look up scientists simulate alien atmospheres on Earth
next time give the people asking question a mike so we here the questions
Gary Lewis You can turn on subtitles and read the questions.
If drag is proportional to v^2 why is power proportional to v^3? Isn’t power proportional to drag?
Good question. I would surmise that is what's needed to overcome the equilibrium and maintain acceleration to reach the escape velocity.
We fly through a viable fuel all the way to space. Why can't we build engines that suck in nitrogen/oxygen as we go, and burn it, relieving us of 90% of the lift load? I'm sure u know, but for those who don't, in Star Trek, they are called ram scoops. Is anyone working on that?
My personal belief about going to Mars, coming from a guy who went to FIT (Florida Tech) when the Apollo missions were at their peak, has an opinion that some may care about and others may not give two hoots about. I personally believe that spending all the money putting people on Mars would be an extreme expense which may not give us a reasonable return on our investment. I would rather spend a fraction of the money, and send robotic machines to the moons of Jupiter, where there are oceans of frozen water.
Underneath those oceans are volcanos, like here on Earth, where we can see the spray of water into the outer atmosphere of the moons. We should land a rover type craft onto the frozen moon, drill a deep hole into the water ocean below it, and send a fiber optic camera way down deep and see what swims there. That is how we will find life. If you want to land on Mars to find life, simply go to "death valley" and see what you can find under the ground. Yeah, you might find some microbes, but is that a "success" worth all the money? JMHO.
daffidavit They are very interested in sending more devices to Jupiter's moons, they seem very promising for harboring life
its the same they did to earth. most people are empty inside. on earth, they had to chop down the whole forest, build railroads to go everywhere and see everything. all for nothing. to try to fill a void in their empty souls...
its a big waste. Mars is a dead rock and their ancestors killed it the same way then came and stole earth from my kind... now they want to jump ship again that they ruined this place in plastic and debauchery
Had they patience, they could enjoy life, knowing some day their descendants would find a better way... waiting for jets to fly over the forest for example. now, they are horny to build a railroad to mars
@@mlasko74 humans will kill life they can not exploit.
A helium balloon shaped like a donut with a rocket ship suspended in the middle could take a roket to the edge of the atmosphere 200 000 ft., saving fuel lost by drag... once up the fire up the engine shoot through the donut hole .. The luanch platform could be reused and piloted back to the surface
Luc Jacques i think thats an idea that should be looked at. there was a canadian entry into the Xprise that lifted the rocket to high altatude saving fuel and drag
Dont be a dough nut
incrível maravilhoso top parabéns pelo trabalho !
19:16 24? only 12 man landed on moon.
do we travel through space? or do we travel with space?
space travels through you and you are all alone
Getting to space is hard? We went there a lot in the 1960s and 70's. Was it easier then? Less gravity? 50 years you stand up there and say getting to space is hard?
This talk started nicely and was very interesting, but ended on a sour note with all that bragging about private investment in spaceflight.
It's NOT a great sign of national engagement in science when some private companies have to carry the weight not only to keep the US commitment to an international endeavor, but also to carry all hope for any foreseeable advancement, and that not for achievements or knowledge, but only greed and tourists cash.
Not even the idea of company owned stations is elevating, since it's hard enough to keep an eye on their actions on ground - in space they would be factual above the law and business opportunities like bioweapons are obvious.
This all out acceptance of greed as prime motivation for humanity is quite disgusting; and to think that our hopes have to rest on the small chance that most of the Musks and Bezos are far better man than we give them credit for (and as their decisions up and until now indicate) is not something to promote easy rest.
Escaping earth’s gravity? -the SLS will never do that! 😂
Somehow we need to negate gravity and barrier our crafts from the effects of time to go really far.
Alguém assistindo??🍇🍇🍇
How could a journey to any other body, benefit from rendezvousing with the ISS? There's no non political reason for it. Any "pitstop" cargo would have to be launched up to the ISS anyway, soooooo.... why not just have a second launch meet up with the soon to be LEO-departing spacecraft? Then you could maximize the potential additional payload one could take on, before breaking earth orbit. Depending on the mission. Some of it could be fuel and or cargo.
The ISS doesn't really produce or export much of anything except science of course. Yet media keeps acting as if a 'pitstop' to the ISS on the way to the moon or mars is a logical necessity and it's just not, in any practical sense of such physical mission requirements.
Julie They are constantly running out of hot pockets and skittles on the iss, hence always having to stop off there first
They have lied to us, the earth is flat. Just think of a sundial, its operation is not possible depending on the model, and yet it works. A sphere that rotates on its axis tilted 23º from its axis and that rotates from that to the west could not give the hours, only 3 and 9 o'clock.
Another thing is, for example, the observations, the distances to the sun and polaris... which are simple..
why using imperial units? i hate them
+lastpokemon Because it;s America.
ByteMe bunch of peepoos
Why use metrics when imperials make far more common sense? I love them.
First this is a free country, nobody dictates what units I use and I use both as convenient. The very notion that some abstract non-sentient construct called the USA could simply covert as an entity is absurd.
Most engineers work with the industrial standards of their field to make use of economic mass produced parts and avoid mistakes with unnecessary conversions and incompatibility. Whether the arbitrary base unit of the standard was an inch or a meter is of little consequence. In practice a base unit of reasonable size is chosen and that unit is used to the final product converting from one unit to another is actually quite rare to the point of being inconsequential, for example if I'm working with cubic inches I don't care about gallons and the ease or difficulty of converting is pure novelty.
A full conversion of machines and tooling for this continent just to appease some pseudo-intellectuals would be tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars in waste.
For the same reasons that the usa uses inches ISO standard plumbing is all inch based; nearly all structural plumbing worldwide is either American inch or British inch sizing. (why Iso went with the British standard is purely political, it uses a ridiculous Witworth thread form while American pipe uses the standard 60deg thread form used on all other ISO threads.)
As for the popular everyday US unit system (imperial is not the same, eg 16 vs 20 ounces in a pint) it is generally base 12 or base 2 depending on what you are doing, both of which are better for everyday use where you need to divide whole items by 2,3,4,6,8...
Base ten is really a piss poor numeral system, only divisible by two small primes. If you need fingers to count base twelve is still superior, I can get to twelve on one hand and a gross with two hands. However most people are infused with base ten from a young age and most math uses it including engineering calculations but it is no more difficult to multiply 3.7*2.3 inches than it is 105*66.3mm; the unit suffix doesn't change the basic math operations.
Addressing the specific questions:
Pounds are a unit of force [thrust], a Kg is a unit of mass [payload]. If you are going to evangelize for a unit system as least try to know something about the subject.
(a pound is 4.4 newtons, a Kg on earth exerts approximately 9.8 newtons on a balance depending on local gravity variations)
A nautical mile is one minute of a degree of latitude.(approx. 6000+ feet depending on location)
A surveyors rod or pole is about as long as can be handled in the field and is 16.5 feet a chain is 4 rods 66feet. a surveyors mile is actually eight furlongs, a furlong is ten chains. An acre is one chain by one furlong. A furlong gets its name from 'furrow length' which was about how far a horse could plow without a rest and why land is measured in acres. (the one-chain width chosen was because plows are directional left or right and so wider areas waste more transit time and effort at the ends.
128 oz per gallon? Base 2 just like your computer. tablespoons, ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons, are very convenient for imprecise human scale stuff like cooking. Large volumes use either cubic feet, cu.yards, or acre-feet (reservoir-lakes and irrigation) engineers tend to use cubic inches rather than ounces for smaller volumes.
We learn both.. you can too, it isnt going to kill you. All scientific measurements are made in Metric, Comparatively we use Standard.
Camera on a chip nasa invented. We all have one in our phones
Landed 24 humans on the moon, with 6 landing? Were any hidden in the cargo bays?
He let slip the secret post-apollo 17 missions.
Since you're down here in the comments you surely saw his comment admitting that he misspoke and meant to say 12.
if all taxpayers in all rich countries gave $1 a year I bet we'd be taking holidays on Mars in ten years
Good point
Fire a laser or energy weapon in front of the rocket to make a vacuum to fly through. Sound pulses to push the air aside.
+Voltion99 not sure, I don't know how quickly atmospheric drag diminishes if it even matters
+Voltion99 ha-ha space elevator would be nice, someone would probably try to destroy it in the name of some book
+Jacob David C. Cunningham sigh, where do i start... push the air aside... please be trolling.
Well explain, don't pull the "I'm smart but I say nothing to back it up" routine.
Somewhat related, I think I saw an article a few years back (like when I was in highschool) of using this technique:
sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/abstracts/12/sbir/phase1/SBIR-12-1-A3.04-8470.html
regarding the sound, ultrasound can be used for tactile-feedback "solid objects" and levitate water droplets which yeah, doesn't apply in this case for the amount of air but hey you know, taking the victim position and low-self esteem here, failed as a physics/engineering student, works shitty job, I'm your textbook definition of a failure. Boohoo whoa is me (I bought that domain, or a variation of it, waste of money). Excuse me for expressing my opinion. Why do I feed the fire? Every keystroke just adds to my pile of shame.
I'm getting the feeling that this is all just a make work program for engineers, while the working class get hosed. And please stop calling the companies that survive solely off of government/taxpayer funding "private.."
12% thurst improvement within 50 years?! It's a joke. Back then, in less than 10 years, USA moved from 10min parabolic flight in space flight to landing man on the moon. If NASA does not speed up I doubt we will send a human to the moon by 2030.
I hope we do it all but who's gonna pay for it? Back during Apollo there was a massive middle class and wealthy people had a much higher tax rate so we could afford going to the moon and going into Vietnam at the same time. I don't see congress funding this as much as it needs to be in the foreseeable future. Not with paying for wars and hurricanes and everything else. I hope I'm wrong.
NASA - SEANIE NEEDS DELIVERY OF HIS ICONIC 2022 WHITE SUV JEEP COMPASS TRAIL HAWK. BUT LET ME KNOW THE FUTURE DESIGN OF TRANSPORT MODELLED ON THE JEEP COMPASS I.E THE TESLAR SUV ETC
THE NAME IS UP@45-EYES
In college when I took Astronomy I noticed that my professor and TA gave off a weird vibe. People in Nasa videos seem squirelly and give off an odd vibe, like they are hiding something.
Like, if you are leading people to the cutting edge, OUTER SPACE, the frontier of frontiers, wouldnt you not be socially awkward, but rather someone who appears to have their s*** together. These guys seem super creepy and weird
Remember, they're scientists, not public speakers. They're trained in specific fields of science and are in space to conduct experiments in their respective fields. Not to give lectures. beyond their general social awkwardness, I wouldn't say there's anything "off" with how they act, they're just very passionate about their work and not so passionate with public speaking. I know I can seem somewhat awkward when I'm working (I'm a developer), my mind is elsewhere, the astronauts are on a whole other level of focused.
i watched this talk, the one about radiation and the one about Entry Descent and Landing, and i thought they are very likable people!
As opposed to those very well behaved and totally not awkward people in the pseudoscience conspiracy world, like Alex Jones or David Icke, right...
You know NASA really makes me a little upset with their whole outlook on space travel.
Obviously, we can't explore deep space using rockets and to be sure deep space isn't exploring our solar system, which is only a very minute part of the cosmos.
So, what should we be exploring in terms of technology for space travel?
I would think that in order to travel deep space we should just look at what is beneath our feet. The earth flys through space and is protected by its own electromagnetic energy.
The core of the earth is NOT a molten ball of iron! I'm sorry it's just not and I won't get into on how I came to understand it but, I will give you a hint, Aurora borealis.
We can't conquer space until we conquer our own consciousness and to start thinking correctly.
Then, when that happens we will find that its not conquer space, it's being in harmony.
Light speed isn't fast enough for deep space. It is for our solar system but, to explore the cosmos it's going take time travel to get to where we want to go in this vast cosmos.
Basically you need a drive system that includes 3 systems. One to lift you off the "ground" because the second drive system will be grounded out. Once it's lifted off the ground you fire up the the second drive. Which is your light speed drive or to but it simply, the electromagnetic plasma pulse drive. Then the third drive for space. Which is your tachyon drive. However, this drive should be used cautiously and far away from the solar system. This is because if the tachyon drive is used to close to a planet it could suck the planet in behind it and create a huge planet sized comet.
Creation has put all we need to know right in front of our eyes. So, I don't know if NASA is just a front to keep the real technology hidden from the public or what. To me it's a bunch of hog wash and propaganda.
IDK, maybe I'm a little before my time but I will tell you one thing though, as more things come into the light the more we see that things are very different from what the mainstream has been telling us.
you should try inverting the polarity. It's so crazy it just might work
Andrew Craig Well said but too highbrow for NASA. You need a sledgehammer not subtlety really, to get through that pig-farmer's thick skin and to find that small puny brain.
What a bunch of techno-babble. You said a whole lot of nonsense.
UP@45-EYE
UP@45-EYES
Us Russia will experience the space but in India only politics no development of technology guys only politics
You know that India has a space program right? If not, then it might be worth noting that they've launched a probe to the moon (chandrayaan-1). They also have a probe orbiting Mars (Mangalyaan). Assuming you're instead referring to India sending their Satellites on Russian or American rockets, then you're ignoring the ethos of space exploration where countries are working together to explore. The US sends astronauts up to the ISS on Soyuz rockets (Russian made).
In fact, most major economies (and some smaller) have a space program of some form or other.
why? why do we need to go so fast, to leave earth’s gravity in a SELF-PROPELLED ROCKET?? the rocket can move at very low speeds, and still break gravitational pull.. as is evident at LIFT-OFF.. where it is fighting the strongest gravitational pull with zero momentum... and still lifting off!!!! after that, it could only get easier, as gravity is getting weaker, momentum is building and helping the push, atmospheric drag is decreasing by the second, fuel weight is decreasing rapidly, etc, etc, etc...
that “escape velocity” and “fighting earth’s gravitational pull” bs, only works for THROWN ROCKS.. not SELF-PROPELLED ROCKETS...
You're right and wrong with the same words. Here's why:
What you're thinking of when a rocket lifts off at 10-20m/s is effectively what's called "thrust-to-weight ratio" (TWR) a rocket with a TWR of 1 will hover and its velocity relative to the earth's surface is 0 m/s. As the fuel burns, the weight of the rocket decreases, and so the TWR increases respectively. This is where the rockets velocity increases at an accelerating rate.
Where I think you're getting confused is why can't we just travel vertically at 20 m/s until we're in space and then boom, we;re in orbit right? No. You're in space, sure. But you'll fall back down to earth the moment the engines shut off. To orbit earth, you need to travel horizontally to the earths surface as fast as you're 'falling' back to earth. That is what Orbit is, just very fast free fall see 55:15 of this video for a brief description. To orbit at the same altitude as the ISS, you need to be traveling horizontally at a speed of 7660 m/s. That requires a lot of output from the rocket (also known as Delta-V). Delta V is the amount of speed a rocket can achieve by burning all of its fuel. The Delta-V of a rocket varies depending on whether you're within an atmosphere or in a vacuum as a rocket won't have to fight against the atmosphere in space, and so won't lose any Delta-V to air resistance.
Your final point about how escape velocity and fighting earth's gravitational pull is all bs, is incorrect for a multitude of reasons. The first one being that what you're calling escape velocity is (I'm assuming here) actually the speed required to escape the Earths atmosphere (Escape velocity is the speed required to escape a bodies gravitational influence such as transitioning from orbit of the earth to orbiting the sun.
Now that I got the nit picky bit out the way, your thought process seems to be that self-propelled objects don't need to travel at a specific speed to escape the earth's atmosphere which is correct. However, you're negating the fact that a rocket has a finite supply of fuel. Therefore, they can't burn indefinitely to remain above the earth's atmosphere. As a result, to shut off the engines and not fall back to earth, the rocket needs to be travelling at orbital velocity to be able to orbit the earth without requiring rocket propulsion. This is a commonly misunderstood factor and is well explained at 56:55 when he is discussing the difference between putting a rocket into space, versus putting a rocket into orbit.
Take a look at some videos by a you tuber named "Scott Manley". He explains orbital mechanics flawlessly and also plays a game which simulates orbital mechanics perfectly called "Kerbal Space Program". He's a great teacher for this stuff and is well worth a watch. He explains it far better than I can!
As a race we have been sending people into space for over 60 years, the principals have not changed. What makes it more difficult today is the NASA bureaucracy, diversity quotas and soft administrators.
The rockets have an exit chute through which the actornauts are launched and escape before the launch, thus avoiding an accident since no one goes to space. The rockets go to the sea.
going to space really hard? It is impossible.
I do not agree
Yeah it is very hard so not possible... does anyone see something wrong with this? Without the space race we wouldn't have the Internet or gps so the fact that you are using the Internet proves you wrong.
Emerson Heartlove imposiball!
Care to elaborate on that? How did you come to this conclusion?
Chris Shaw No Chris I don't care to share how I came into this conclusion. And I am willing share with you if you ask if I'm willing for sharing.
DOES NASA HAVE ITS OWN FINANCE BANK
EYE AM NOT WHAT YOU SAY EYE AM - BUT WHAT WE ARE NOT ALREADY / UP IS DOWN & BLACK IS RIGHT. NOT INSULT BUT TRULY THE CRITICAL COMPLIMENT 4 WISDOMS NOT EGO-MANIA
Pretty poor presentation.......
Get better public speakers. 60 million a day. Come on
i loved the talk
@@kapa1611. Pathetic standard.
Lol 6 years later and the SLS still doesn't launch
It's all a lie, bro
#liars
+Emerson Heartlove #CalmDownThere
Genesis 1:1-31
[1]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2]And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[3]And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[4]And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[5]And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
[6]And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[7]And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
[8]And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[9]And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
[10]And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
[11]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[12]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[13]And the evening and the morning were the third day.
[14]And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15]And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16]And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17]And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18]And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19]And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
[20]And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
[21]And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[22]And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
[23]And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
[24]And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
[25]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[26]And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27]So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
[28]And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
[29]And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
[30]And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
[31]And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Boooooooo!
FAKE
ICELAND THE ATLANTIS PROJECT THE CENTRE POINT FOR FUTURE SEAN FAMILY
NASA measures speed in mph? WTF?
no, it doesn't. what they say in talks in not indicative of what they do in engineering and calculations.
SEANIE WANTS TWO MARRY THE YOUNG DANCER ALTA
They have lied to us, the earth is flat. Just think of a sundial, its operation is not possible depending on the model, and yet it works. A sphere that rotates on its axis tilted 23º from its axis and that rotates from that to the west could not give the hours, only 3 and 9 o'clock.
Another thing is, for example, the observations, the distances to the sun and polaris... which are simple.
Oh! Yeah! There is no space... no one in... no one out... that's why 99% of our communication goes by underwater cables and land towers... no satellites!
DEiA MALLORCA THE NEW JERUSALEM - THE SEAT OF GOO
THE AMERICAN FIRST LADY IS ~ ALTA QUEEN OF THE BRITISH MONARCHY WITH SEANIE THE ICELANDIC LOCK-KEY THE PERSON THAT DOES NOT EXIST EXCEPT IN A COMPUTER PROBLEM 🟡