I’m very glad they brought sci show space back to the main channel. It’s all great sci show content and I don’t think as many people were watching it on the separate channel
Let's not forget all the Kerbal missions where reverse accelerating at full thrust in the lowest point in the atmosphere still results in the giant craft skipping off and heading into deep space because you rushed the trip and went way too fast.
1:17 "Before Mars, the only places we've ever landed spacecraft are the moon and Earth" Not quite - several of the Venera series of spacecraft landed on Venus in the 1970s. They were launched by the USSR and a few iterations successfully landed.
Think they lasted longer than seconds something like 42isj minutes I believe. I just know didn't send signals after an hour because it had degraded enough to where no longer could.
@@hithere5553 Venera 14 lasted for a full hour and actually even transmitted an image of the surface back! Along with lots of other useful data that we still reference today. According to an article that NASA has on it: "Although data from Venera 14 was beamed across the inner Solar System almost 40 years ago, digital processing and merging of Venera's unusual images continues even today."
Dang, I never would’ve thought the airbag pyramids were so terrifying. Imagine how freaky it’d be to see something like that bouncing across the surface of earth… reminds me of that one review for the giant beachball
the review, for reference and because funny: “We took this ball to the beach and after close to 2 hours to pump it up, we pushed it around for about 10 fun filled minutes. That was when the wind picked it up and sent it huddling down the beach at about 40 knots. It destroyed everything in its path. Children screamed in terror at the giant inflatable monster that crushed their sand castles. Grown men were knocked down trying to save their families. The faster we chased it, the faster it rolled. It was like it was mocking us. Eventually, we had to stop running after it because its path of injury and destruction was going to cost us a fortune in legal fees. Rumor has it that it can still be seen stalking innocent families on the Florida panhandle. We lost it in South Carolina, so there is something to be said about its durability.”
Unfortunately all native Martians are flat Marsers that believe our satellites and rovers are from other Martian nations. They also are extremely paranoid and shy so they hide from everything. Since they are flat Marsers they don't bother sending spacecraft up and out to their moons or other planets.
Russia got landers to the surface of Venus, which didnt last long but were able to transmit images. So, we, as in the US, had never landed on any other planet before Mars. But we, as a world people, or species, did reach Venus too. And we (much more recently) landed on Titan, moon of Saturn.
3:32 The parachutes used by Curiosity and future Mars missions are made from ultra lightweight fabric developed by a Devon, UK company near me. John Heathcote.
@@francislutz8027 I only ever had the paperback series, illustrated by whom I couldn't tell you, since I loaned them out to a 'friend' in 1982 and never saw them again.😒
The thing I've never understood and would love an episode on. Why do we believe we can "teraform" mars abd yet we're not using whatever tech that is to fix the damage we're causing here?
Well, for one thing, “Whatever tech that is” is what’s CAUSING the damage to earth. We’re pumping out billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere which heats up the planet. That sucks for earth, but it’s exactly what we’d need to make mars, which is cold and has a thin atmosphere, more earthlike. There’s also the fact that (as far as I’m aware) people who think we can terraform mars are assuming that by the time we tried to do that, we’d have technology at our disposal which we don’t currently, like something we could use to make an artificial magnetosphere. Even with the most optimistic theoretically possible technologies it’d probably still take well in excess of a human lifetime.
Those are basically opposite problems. To put it shortly and over simplify things. If the goal is to Terraform Mars, then you would want loads of more greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere and make the plant way hotter. While Earth the greenhouse gasses we are realising into our atmosphere and global warming is the issue. Still would be way way way easier to make sure Earth remains habitable for humans, then it would be to make Mars habitable for humans. And the problem with global warming isn’t so much that we don’t have a solution or don’t know what to do. But more that we have so far been unwilling or otherwised failed to make the changes that would be needed. Especially when it comes to politicians listening to scientists and implementing changes on a national and global scale. Because for more or less all countries, it seems like the issue again over simplified can boil down to, if your goal is to win the next election in maybe 3 years from now, or otherwise remain popular with key holders to make sure you are able to stay in power. Then implementing regulation that is inconvenient, expensive and / or limits economic growth now in the short term for the people that is able to keep you in power. For a problem of what we do now will mainly have major consequences multiple decades in the future. There isn’t a lot of incentives to do what’s clearly been outlined needs to be done. Expect for the whole super major longterm consequences with a bit of time delay. The theorised methods to terraform Mars isn’t really some magic atmosphere controlling sophisticated machine. More as a example one of the more extreme ideas, is to nuke the icecaps on the poles of Mars. That I believe is know to contain loads of CO2. As a way to basically kickstart giving Mars a atmosphere. So taking the technology / idea to nuke the poles to melt all the ice, and hope to realise more green house gases. Would not transfer well to help us with earth. And that is the case with basically all the theorised methods of terraforming Mars, it’s the opposite of what we would want to do. Anything involving terraforming Venus on the other hand. Would have more overlap with the climate change issues in earth. As Venus is basically what happens if you take green house gases and global warming and dial it to the max.
@@IQzminus2to oversimplify it, if the solution involves going back to the Stone Age and using horses again, not having the free will to eat meat because I want to eat meat, and half of the world freezing because gas boilers would be banned from heating homes, then frankly - let the planet burn as we simply aren’t compatible with Earth in that instance.
Thank you for posting, great to see Scishow in my feed again. :] I always think of Destiny 2 whenever Mars comes up in space news for any reason, hear the Escalation Protocol startup noise. Cant help it, whatsoever.
I don't know why, but all the prettiest colours in the world are just so dangerous. The beautiful blue glow of Cherenkov-radiation; the gorgeous pale green of the screaming Hall Effect thruster; the stunning patterns of aposematic colour on dangerous animals; the incandescent pulsing of red hot coals; the vibrant colour displays of volcanic acid pools... it's so pretty and yet - so, so bad for your health.
@SciShow I see in the comments that many people were confused and didn’t realize that this is a compilation video. I know you put it in the title, which is great, but not everyone will read that. It would be really helpful to say at the beginning that this is a compilation video of several previously-aired videos. Also, you should delete or edit outdated content. For example, when Reid talked about 2020 being in the future you should have deleted that or added text saying Perseverance successfully landed on Mars in 2020. And there are other options you should consider. For example, one commenter had a great idea and said you should just make a playlist of related videos.
Saying that half the probes that have gone to Mars have either crashed or disappeared is a little unfair... The vast majority of those failed missions were Russia just throwing garbage at Mars and hoping something will land safely.
From another comment: Several of the Venera series of spacecraft were launched by the USSR to land on Venus. Most of them were destroyed within minutes since it's hot enough to melt lead at the surface.
yes, we landed on Venus, earth & the moon before Mars If we send humans to venus, it will be to work/live 50kms up though, just like when we land on earth, we land at sea level (in the ocean traditionally), NOT the bottom of the Mariana trench, we'd do the same on Venus, so in terms of sucsessful missions to Venus, what is of relevence is what happens if we "land" where air filled bubbles float to naturally (50km up) & we've done that twice, transmission from those balloons to be picked up by a Haley's comet flyby, so balloon probes only had enough battery to last for 2 days. When the batteries failed after 2 days, the probes were still alive & well, with absolutely no sign they couldn't stay there for years. It's really silly to talk about the very first probes we sucessfully landed on another planet 50 years ago as only lasting for a short time, as if that means there's a problem with the planet! We couldn't even land on Mars with the same tech we had back then! Any probe sent to land or float on venus today would do as well, if not better than on Mars. In terms of landing, would be the same as landing at the bottom of the Mariana trench & we couldn't even reach Titanic when we last landed on venus! Today we have that tech available though, so easy to do & don't even need parachutes or anything, the thick, water like atmosphere slows the craft down & protects it from injury on landing
@@twinostrich8045 a pizza oven's hot enough to melt lead too, so what? You don't have anything you can put in a pizza oven that won't melt? Australian bushfires are hot enough to melt a LOT more than lead! They also melt bronze, copper, aluminium, tin, iron, zinc, silver, gold etc etc, being over double the temperature of the surface of venus, but people still manage to build houses out of materials that can withstand them
@@mehere8038 to my knowledge its very difficult to simultaneously protect electrical equipment and have it take readings. Put your phone actively recording video inside a steel box in an oven and let me know how well it goes Also, since most houses don't have asbestos anymore, they actually burn really fast.
So I'm curious, is the shoot and couch just left there on the planet like trash or is the first and most important mission to go collect our trash so we can bring it back?
Well first you have to use a gravity slingshot around the moon. Then you need to let the automatic joystick controls fly you through the valley and slow the descent till juuuust before you fall off the cliff. Badda bing badda boom welcome to mars and welcome to the astronaut core. Thanks Lt. Dan!
I'm sure somebody's already thought of it, but I wonder if the US Navy might be able to help make VASIMR practical. They've got decades of experience operating compact nuclear reactors safely.
I believe all of the Hall Thruster research has been on small versions that could fit on a space craft. If this is the case they should try to build a giant one. Disregard weight and dimensions. Create the highest thrust version possible. Maybe, instead of thrust equal to the weight of a piece of paper, a whole ream of paper. Obviously it would be useless on a space craft but I bet they'd learn so much from that research it would greatly enhance understanding and many things learned could be used on the smaller ones.
32:06 the satellite also accelerates in the opposite direction, right? I mean, conservation of momentum and all that. Maybe accelerates just a little compared to the solar sail, but it's greater than zero (i guess)
@@gloriouslumi Wrong. Photons have relativistic mass, and apply photon pressure. Also, they are not bouncy balls. When light is reflected, photons are absorbed, and new photons are emitted.
Well if we solve the problem of increasing the speed to getting to Mars in a few days, we will have a whole new problem on our hands, how to decelerate the spacecraft and how to stop it.
@16min how about a very long (like 50m)rotatable pole with a camera on top? wich can also be folded so it better fits in the rover and can be protected against sand storms?
When the landing systems were described, it was very much a moment of: "Yeah, I know that type of engineer". As in the vibes and attitudes are very much reflective of different approaches mechanical eng. have.
@@Forgan_Mreeman USSR did it, this is a US channel. They tend to ignore anything not done by the US. You are right though, before Mars we humans had landed on the moon, earth & venus
Mars is a hazy and dead world. We will never see Mars as a home for many millions of years yet. Once the sun expands, cooks our world, then we may be able to use it. Until then, we will be staying here.
The meaning of life is 42.. And the two wisest phrases are 1. "Knowing is half the battle!" (☝️There is either something we still do not know, or something we know but aren't confronting. Also possibly something we don't know that would whoop our azzaleas into a great red spot like the eye of Jupiter) "Choose a Nice one.. And not too expensive!" (🤔 Perhaps we have spent too much of everything developing space lasers.. 👉Just in general not the Jewish ones.. in particular.. reference.)
Ever see an autogyro or a pine seed falling to the ground? Excellent for soft landings. Hall thrusters/ion drives build speed slowly. So start at a higher speed. Near sonic jet launches escape velocity rocket pod carrying the ion drive craft. Long elliptical loop once around the Earth for gravity assist, refire the rockets, open the pod and release the Mars bound craft with enough momentum for the ion drive to catch up. -or- For repeating missions, use a solar sail connected to a cargo bay. Surely someone at NASA knows how to tac a sailboat in the wind. - or - Sit on 1960s technology another 40 years and launch the Centennial Series, to Low Earth Orbit and (maybe) Beyond.
@@maksphoto78 Okay, so why doesn't the new photon being created require just as much loss of energy as the old one being absorbed imparted? I'm just trying to see how we aren't getting something for nothing here.
@@CritterKeeper01 Photons have no mass, but they have momentum. In classical physics that momentum is described by p(photon momentum)=h/λ. In quantum physics it’s given by p=E/c. Imagine a photon as a perfectly elastic (but extremely tiny) billiard ball. Imagine the sail as a perfectly elastic billiard table rail. When the billiard ball hits the rail, it bounces back at the same speed but in the reflected direction. If perfectly perpendicular, it transfers 2x the kinetic energy it had to the billiard rail. If it was absorbed (stopped) it would transfer 1x it’s kinetic energy to the rail. This makes a black (absorptive) sail ½ as effective as a reflective sail.
would be cool to see multiple propultion systems one that uses electricity like the ones we have now for small adjustments. the laser sail thing for zooming, and back up chemical propellant that can be engaged for both main and minor propultion. so you can make the best choice for each situation
What got me is the "artists rendering" of what the drone copter "may" look like in 2020. Pretty sure I could have traced a real picture of it for them or something
We simply aren't there yet, and won't be until we achieve AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. Right now we only have AI, which is very good at completing very narrow tasks. It may be able to complete these tasks, but it doesn't have any **understanding** of what the task is, or why it is doing what it is doing. So when something outside of it's limited purview happens, it can't adjust because it doesn't actually understand the processes it's completing. I like to compare it to the human body vs the human brain. The body carries out innumerous functions all on its own, without consciously needing to control it. If the body is damaged, it automatically starts minimizing injury and repair damage all on its own. But the body doesn't know the nature of the damage. It doesn't know that you just cut your femoral artery and no amount of clotting is going to stop it. That's AI. Your brain, on the other hand, is capable of that understanding, and is able to respond appropriately to stop the bleeding or seek help. That's AGI.
I'm sure we're heading that way, though maybe not as sci-fi as you might think. It will look like increasingly sophisticated autopilots that can recognize features of interest and navigate obstacles with more autonomy.
Are we not able to send enough satellites around mars and either earth moons orbit to create an almost instantaneous relay that we can use whatever method of landing to be able to adjust to the variables on mars? We should be focusing on that if we want to minimize risk of the astronauts we plan to send there. Also we know the rotation on mars and should be able to get a rough estimate of the landing zone? Unless we haven't mapped all of the surfaces of mars? But it is safe to say that regardless you will be landing on an uneven surface on even the "flattest" part of mars. Regardless of a "soft" landing it seems the major issue is slowing down the speed of mass that we are sending there. With the retro rockets can't we adjust the chemicals in a way that maximizes the counter force according to mar's atmosphere rather than our own? I don't know the specifics but surely a chemist and liquid gas and or whatever is used professional create a "reverse rocket fuel" to boost the power of the retro rockets. Since there is a lot less oxygen in mar's atmosphere they should adjust accordingly? Bear in mind I have written out these questions before even watching 11 minutes of this. after the 15:30 timestamp my question is not to use earths conventual means of creating lift but adjusting accordingly? The amount of oxygen is clearly a problem of landing and even more so re-orbiting. I mean we haven't even got earths atmosphere down to a science that we can cleanly enter and re-land on our own planet let alone re-send objects from mars surface. I know it is more expensive on the side of breaking earths atmosphere part but the issue seems at this point is landing on mars safely and traveling mass distances. Send to james webb telescope satellites into mar's moons orbit and collect data accordingly and adjust from there. I gave up after hanks info.
To answer the first part of your post, that wouldn't help. Such a satellite collection could help with mars to mars communication.. the 7 minutes of terror are caused by the distance between the earth and mars. No matter how many satellites you have around mars this distance is unaffected. Eventually if laser communication is perfected a satellite in orbit around mars could communicate with a satellite around the earth shortening the delay. In such a scenario, only 1 satellite is needed around mars.
@@drewberrymore2415 That is my question. OUR moons can and do orbit at a radius that makes it "unpredictable" Create a lesser distance between the two or increase the numbers between the two.. Incorrect. There cannot be a constant laser connecting the two as you would need to calculate and connect the two in such a way that what you say is impossible. Regarding light and physics.. My main issue is our ability to send and receive radio signals.
@@HeartsanimeIndeed, it could not be a constant connection with a single satellite.. but one can make sure the landing happens when such a connection is possible. Are you suggesting we bounce signals off a satellite in lunar orbit? If so, this could augment bandwidth but won't affect the delay. The signal still has to travel the same distance even if it is relayed along the way(unless the operators are in lunar orbit)
Not entirely true. Martin-Marietta (later became Lockheed-Martin) developed an automated oxygen production plant using Mars' Carbon-Dioxide atmosphere. The plant is small enough to get flown to Mars. The idea was (maybe is??) to send the plant to Mars about two years before humans are launched. By the time they will get there, they will have an air supply for over a year ready and waiting for them on Mars. So you only have to carry from Earth the oxygen to a one way trip. The oxygen for both the mission on Mars' surface and the voyage home will be produced on Mars.
There's a simple reason Mars missions fail. Russia. The Soviet Union/Russia have failed most of the missions they sent. US missions have overwhelmingly succeeded. It's disingenuous to say half have failed when the vast majority of the failures comes from one organization.
In my opinion humans will mine Mars, not live on it. What we know, and what we know how to do is vastly different. I'd be glad to be proved wrong though.
@@TPPMac1 In the very last episode of SciShow Space they say at the end it’s the last episode. I understand they had to do it for budgetary reasons but I preferred having a separate channel for space.
@@manjsher3094 Yes. When I went to school in the '50's and '60's, if you were a girl, no one encouraged you to be better in math. It wasn't considered as important for girls as reading.
what's with the this insistence on describing everything in vague qualitative terms? you describe the pathfinder landing as moving "as fast as cars on the freeway". you go out of your way to avoid saying "kevlar". it doesn't make things more relatable to everyday life to leave out the actual numbers and names of things, it just wastes the chance to add another frame of reference for the things you're talking about. we develop a better understanding of what a "kilometer per hour" is by gathering thousands of references to it over the years, over a wide range of values, from mundane to extreme. that's a good thing that's supposed to happen, not a bad thing you should try to prevent. it's like this video's goal is to try to teach you about the history of mars missions, and great care has been taken to ensure you doesn't accidentally learn anything else in the process. i think you're trying to make the videos more easily digestible, but the reason the video is so digestible is because there's almost no real information to process! come on! also, the times you do use units, you don't link them to anything common, so if your goal is relatable measurements you frequently ignore it. "1600 km/h" is meaningless number, while adding "or about 1.3 times the speed of sound in earth's atmospher" immediately grounds it in "oh ok so like a fighter jet". look you have to do BOTH THINGS, not just one or the other inconsistently.
I’m very glad they brought sci show space back to the main channel. It’s all great sci show content and I don’t think as many people were watching it on the separate channel
I'm really glad that lady came on to repeat the same stuff the first guy told us
@@thefallensolo3549 lmao the compilations can have overlap that’s for sure 😂
Let's not forget all the Kerbal missions where reverse accelerating at full thrust in the lowest point in the atmosphere still results in the giant craft skipping off and heading into deep space because you rushed the trip and went way too fast.
1:17 "Before Mars, the only places we've ever landed spacecraft are the moon and Earth"
Not quite - several of the Venera series of spacecraft landed on Venus in the 1970s. They were launched by the USSR and a few iterations successfully landed.
and even functioned... for a few seconds
Think they lasted longer than seconds something like 42isj minutes I believe.
I just know didn't send signals after an hour because it had degraded enough to where no longer could.
Truly incredible engineering there. The surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.
@@stephen1r2 i think one made it over a couple hours.. but yeah most were toast in under 50min
@@hithere5553 Venera 14 lasted for a full hour and actually even transmitted an image of the surface back! Along with lots of other useful data that we still reference today. According to an article that NASA has on it:
"Although data from Venera 14 was beamed across the inner Solar System almost 40 years ago, digital processing and merging of Venera's unusual images continues even today."
Seven minutes of terror? Man, astrophysicists are WAY better than historians at naming stuff.
Dang, I never would’ve thought the airbag pyramids were so terrifying. Imagine how freaky it’d be to see something like that bouncing across the surface of earth… reminds me of that one review for the giant beachball
the review, for reference and because funny:
“We took this ball to the beach and after close to 2 hours to pump it up, we pushed it around for about 10 fun filled minutes. That was when the wind picked it up and sent it huddling down the beach at about 40 knots. It destroyed everything in its path. Children screamed in terror at the giant inflatable monster that crushed their sand castles. Grown men were knocked down trying to save their families. The faster we chased it, the faster it rolled. It was like it was mocking us. Eventually, we had to stop running after it because its path of injury and destruction was going to cost us a fortune in legal fees. Rumor has it that it can still be seen stalking innocent families on the Florida panhandle. We lost it in South Carolina, so there is something to be said about its durability.”
Inspired by S3 of Chocky
Why Do Half of All Mars Missions Fail?
Conclusion: because it's really hard.
Makes sense. 10/10
The people of Mars have great stealth tech...
Lets hope they don’t start experimenting with extra solar goo
@@tabeebrahman4843
Definitely.
Meanwhile it's the belters who do all the work.
@@DeltaNovum
Sing it!
Unfortunately all native Martians are flat Marsers that believe our satellites and rovers are from other Martian nations. They also are extremely paranoid and shy so they hide from everything. Since they are flat Marsers they don't bother sending spacecraft up and out to their moons or other planets.
Russia got landers to the surface of Venus, which didnt last long but were able to transmit images.
So, we, as in the US, had never landed on any other planet before Mars. But we, as a world people, or species, did reach Venus too.
And we (much more recently) landed on Titan, moon of Saturn.
Makes me feel a bit better about my 100% failure rate.
100% *learning opportunity rate
🙃
I heard "Mars has been fascinating people" like fascinating people was a group of people that Mars has been.
3:32 The parachutes used by Curiosity and future Mars missions are made from ultra lightweight fabric developed by a Devon, UK company near me. John Heathcote.
It's pretty clear that Barsoom does not particularly want us there, but humans are fairly difficult to discourage when they want something.💥
ISWYDT
Edgar Rice Burroughs?
Did Frazetta illustrate that series too?
@@francislutz8027 I only ever had the paperback series, illustrated by whom I couldn't tell you, since I loaned them out to a 'friend' in 1982 and never saw them again.😒
The thing I've never understood and would love an episode on. Why do we believe we can "teraform" mars abd yet we're not using whatever tech that is to fix the damage we're causing here?
Well, for one thing, “Whatever tech that is” is what’s CAUSING the damage to earth. We’re pumping out billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere which heats up the planet. That sucks for earth, but it’s exactly what we’d need to make mars, which is cold and has a thin atmosphere, more earthlike.
There’s also the fact that (as far as I’m aware) people who think we can terraform mars are assuming that by the time we tried to do that, we’d have technology at our disposal which we don’t currently, like something we could use to make an artificial magnetosphere. Even with the most optimistic theoretically possible technologies it’d probably still take well in excess of a human lifetime.
Those are basically opposite problems.
To put it shortly and over simplify things.
If the goal is to Terraform Mars, then you would want loads of more greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere and make the plant way hotter.
While Earth the greenhouse gasses we are realising into our atmosphere and global warming is the issue.
Still would be way way way easier to make sure Earth remains habitable for humans, then it would be to make Mars habitable for humans.
And the problem with global warming isn’t so much that we don’t have a solution or don’t know what to do. But more that we have so far been unwilling or otherwised failed to make the changes that would be needed.
Especially when it comes to politicians listening to scientists and implementing changes on a national and global scale.
Because for more or less all countries, it seems like the issue again over simplified can boil down to, if your goal is to win the next election in maybe 3 years from now, or otherwise remain popular with key holders to make sure you are able to stay in power. Then implementing regulation that is inconvenient, expensive and / or limits economic growth now in the short term for the people that is able to keep you in power. For a problem of what we do now will mainly have major consequences multiple decades in the future.
There isn’t a lot of incentives to do what’s clearly been outlined needs to be done. Expect for the whole super major longterm consequences with a bit of time delay.
The theorised methods to terraform Mars isn’t really some magic atmosphere controlling sophisticated machine. More as a example one of the more extreme ideas, is to nuke the icecaps on the poles of Mars. That I believe is know to contain loads of CO2. As a way to basically kickstart giving Mars a atmosphere.
So taking the technology / idea to nuke the poles to melt all the ice, and hope to realise more green house gases. Would not transfer well to help us with earth.
And that is the case with basically all the theorised methods of terraforming Mars, it’s the opposite of what we would want to do.
Anything involving terraforming Venus on the other hand. Would have more overlap with the climate change issues in earth.
As Venus is basically what happens if you take green house gases and global warming and dial it to the max.
@@IQzminus2to oversimplify it, if the solution involves going back to the Stone Age and using horses again, not having the free will to eat meat because I want to eat meat, and half of the world freezing because gas boilers would be banned from heating homes, then frankly - let the planet burn as we simply aren’t compatible with Earth in that instance.
Thank you for posting, great to see Scishow in my feed again. :]
I always think of Destiny 2 whenever Mars comes up in space news for any reason, hear the Escalation Protocol startup noise. Cant help it, whatsoever.
I personally like how you had a shave in the intro
the curiosity rover is so cute
I don't know why, but all the prettiest colours in the world are just so dangerous. The beautiful blue glow of Cherenkov-radiation; the gorgeous pale green of the screaming Hall Effect thruster; the stunning patterns of aposematic colour on dangerous animals; the incandescent pulsing of red hot coals; the vibrant colour displays of volcanic acid pools... it's so pretty and yet - so, so bad for your health.
@SciShow I see in the comments that many people were confused and didn’t realize that this is a compilation video. I know you put it in the title, which is great, but not everyone will read that. It would be really helpful to say at the beginning that this is a compilation video of several previously-aired videos. Also, you should delete or edit outdated content. For example, when Reid talked about 2020 being in the future you should have deleted that or added text saying Perseverance successfully landed on Mars in 2020.
And there are other options you should consider. For example, one commenter had a great idea and said you should just make a playlist of related videos.
Very constructive feedback!
Heating of the spacecraft is caused by gas compression not friction.
Well if you figure out why half succeed - you're halfway there.
And knowing is half the battle.
25:23 EYYYY POLISH DIAGRAM SPOTTED
Reentry heat isn't caused by friction, it's caused by compression of air. A very rookie mistake to make on a science channel. 😅
Saying that half the probes that have gone to Mars have either crashed or disappeared is a little unfair... The vast majority of those failed missions were Russia just throwing garbage at Mars and hoping something will land safely.
I've played DooM. We should leave Mars alone, just in case.
I feel like this is all old news.
I love learning about the soviet space program. Its so much more fun and mad sciencey.
Yooooo 33 minute scishow video!!!
if nasa didnt exist the coffie industry would be at least 89% smaller lol
And would brew at the speed of light... What? Oh, oohh... got it. You meant... yep. 😂
Never thought of it that way, touche!
the marscopter section is bittersweat after ingenuity took its last flight :(
Have we attempted missions to venus? It's closer, no?
From another comment: Several of the Venera series of spacecraft were launched by the USSR to land on Venus. Most of them were destroyed within minutes since it's hot enough to melt lead at the surface.
Soviets landed a couple of landers on Venus. They took pictures and took measurements before failing.
yes, we landed on Venus, earth & the moon before Mars
If we send humans to venus, it will be to work/live 50kms up though, just like when we land on earth, we land at sea level (in the ocean traditionally), NOT the bottom of the Mariana trench, we'd do the same on Venus, so in terms of sucsessful missions to Venus, what is of relevence is what happens if we "land" where air filled bubbles float to naturally (50km up) & we've done that twice, transmission from those balloons to be picked up by a Haley's comet flyby, so balloon probes only had enough battery to last for 2 days. When the batteries failed after 2 days, the probes were still alive & well, with absolutely no sign they couldn't stay there for years.
It's really silly to talk about the very first probes we sucessfully landed on another planet 50 years ago as only lasting for a short time, as if that means there's a problem with the planet! We couldn't even land on Mars with the same tech we had back then! Any probe sent to land or float on venus today would do as well, if not better than on Mars. In terms of landing, would be the same as landing at the bottom of the Mariana trench & we couldn't even reach Titanic when we last landed on venus! Today we have that tech available though, so easy to do & don't even need parachutes or anything, the thick, water like atmosphere slows the craft down & protects it from injury on landing
@@twinostrich8045 a pizza oven's hot enough to melt lead too, so what? You don't have anything you can put in a pizza oven that won't melt?
Australian bushfires are hot enough to melt a LOT more than lead! They also melt bronze, copper, aluminium, tin, iron, zinc, silver, gold etc etc, being over double the temperature of the surface of venus, but people still manage to build houses out of materials that can withstand them
@@mehere8038 to my knowledge its very difficult to simultaneously protect electrical equipment and have it take readings. Put your phone actively recording video inside a steel box in an oven and let me know how well it goes
Also, since most houses don't have asbestos anymore, they actually burn really fast.
So I'm curious, is the shoot and couch just left there on the planet like trash or is the first and most important mission to go collect our trash so we can bring it back?
Well first you have to use a gravity slingshot around the moon. Then you need to let the automatic joystick controls fly you through the valley and slow the descent till juuuust before you fall off the cliff. Badda bing badda boom welcome to mars and welcome to the astronaut core. Thanks Lt. Dan!
Mars where the Wong's rule and raise their cow bettles!
I'm sure somebody's already thought of it, but I wonder if the US Navy might be able to help make VASIMR practical. They've got decades of experience operating compact nuclear reactors safely.
Re watched treasure planet and there ships used soaler sales to come around and now that I watch this that movie was way ahead of its time
6:27 you mean "support human life AGAIN"
This is the difference between Star Trek “They’re ver advanced Captain! They’re usin’ Ion Drive!” And Star Wars . . .
I believe all of the Hall Thruster research has been on small versions that could fit on a space craft. If this is the case they should try to build a giant one. Disregard weight and dimensions. Create the highest thrust version possible. Maybe, instead of thrust equal to the weight of a piece of paper, a whole ream of paper. Obviously it would be useless on a space craft but I bet they'd learn so much from that research it would greatly enhance understanding and many things learned could be used on the smaller ones.
VERY GOOD
“GET YOUR ASS TO MAAAS!”
Well, knowing is half the battle.
What battle
Do lasers experience kickback from the light they send out? If so, why not just point a big laser out the back of the spaceship and turn it on?
no, they do not
Ions do, they have ion engines. They're great with nuclear batteries, cause they do tiny thrusts for a long time
because it takes too long to accelerate. like, the sun will scald the earth before you get anywhere (probably not but its too slow to be practical)
Light has no mass, no
@@abstractlizard9377 there's a thing called photon pressure.
2x speed on youtube seems to help somewhat.
32:06 the satellite also accelerates in the opposite direction, right? I mean, conservation of momentum and all that. Maybe accelerates just a little compared to the solar sail, but it's greater than zero (i guess)
Yes, but we can make them very massive, so they will hardly move at all.
@@gloriouslumi Wrong. Photons have relativistic mass, and apply photon pressure. Also, they are not bouncy balls. When light is reflected, photons are absorbed, and new photons are emitted.
Well if we solve the problem of increasing the speed to getting to Mars in a few days, we will have a whole new problem on our hands, how to decelerate the spacecraft and how to stop it.
@16min how about a very long (like 50m)rotatable pole with a camera on top? wich can also be folded so it better fits in the rover and can be protected against sand storms?
Could be wrong here, but humanity landed a probe on Venus six years before landing anything on Mars.
Great video!
Why was this recommended to me three years after i saw it?
power up the ion thruster!
Confirmed: talking about Mars shaves your beard.
Studebakers' parent company Raytheon made ablative heat shields for the mercury and gemini space programs in the early 1960's.
When the landing systems were described, it was very much a moment of: "Yeah, I know that type of engineer".
As in the vibes and attitudes are very much reflective of different approaches mechanical eng. have.
Lasers dont need to push a ship to 10% the speed of light. It can push hydrogen to 10% light speed and have it push solar sails of a ship.
He says that before Mars we had only landed on the Moon and the Earth but in reality Venus was the third celestial body, not Mars.
No the Russians landed on Venus after the moon
is there a reason they didn’t mention landing on Venus that i’m missing?
Because this video isn't about Venus?
Or that time we slammed a probe into Saturn
@@maksphoto78 when he said mars is the only planet we’ve landed on, that wasn’t true. why would he leave out landing on venus?
@@Forgan_Mreeman USSR did it, this is a US channel. They tend to ignore anything not done by the US. You are right though, before Mars we humans had landed on the moon, earth & venus
@@Forgan_Mreemanmaybe by "we" he means NASA or the U.S.? Seems a poor oversight of his..
Mars is a hazy and dead world. We will never see Mars as a home for many millions of years yet. Once the sun expands, cooks our world, then we may be able to use it.
Until then, we will be staying here.
Aren't hall thrusters the same as ion propulsion?
The meaning of life is 42..
And the two wisest phrases are
1. "Knowing is half the battle!" (☝️There is either something we still do not know, or something we know but aren't confronting. Also possibly something we don't know that would whoop our azzaleas into a great red spot like the eye of Jupiter)
"Choose a Nice one.. And not too expensive!" (🤔 Perhaps we have spent too much of everything developing space lasers.. 👉Just in general not the Jewish ones.. in particular.. reference.)
Ever see an autogyro or a pine seed falling to the ground? Excellent for soft landings.
Hall thrusters/ion drives build speed slowly. So start at a higher speed.
Near sonic jet launches escape velocity rocket pod carrying the ion drive craft.
Long elliptical loop once around the Earth for gravity assist, refire the rockets, open the pod and release the Mars bound craft with enough momentum for the ion drive to catch up.
-or-
For repeating missions, use a solar sail connected to a cargo bay. Surely someone at NASA knows how to tac a sailboat in the wind.
- or -
Sit on 1960s technology another 40 years and launch the Centennial Series, to Low Earth Orbit and (maybe) Beyond.
If a photon hits a solar sail and transfers momentum into the sail, does that mean the photon *loses* momentum? Does the photon slow down?
The photon reflects off the sail and transfers twice its momentum to the sail.
@Aaron Hancock How can a photon add energy to the sail without losing energy itself? Doesn't that violate Newton's Laws? Hence my original question.
@@CritterKeeper01 The photon is absorbed. When light is reflected, new photons are actually created. Photons aren't bouncy balls.
@@maksphoto78 Okay, so why doesn't the new photon being created require just as much loss of energy as the old one being absorbed imparted? I'm just trying to see how we aren't getting something for nothing here.
@@CritterKeeper01 Photons have no mass, but they have momentum. In classical physics that momentum is described by p(photon momentum)=h/λ. In quantum physics it’s given by p=E/c.
Imagine a photon as a perfectly elastic (but extremely tiny) billiard ball. Imagine the sail as a perfectly elastic billiard table rail. When the billiard ball hits the rail, it bounces back at the same speed but in the reflected direction. If perfectly perpendicular, it transfers 2x the kinetic energy it had to the billiard rail. If it was absorbed (stopped) it would transfer 1x it’s kinetic energy to the rail.
This makes a black (absorptive) sail ½ as effective as a reflective sail.
Why Do Half of All Mars Missions Fail? Freedom units...
would be cool to see multiple propultion systems one that uses electricity like the ones we have now for small adjustments. the laser sail thing for zooming, and back up chemical propellant that can be engaged for both main and minor propultion. so you can make the best choice for each situation
OMG how old is this video? "Mars 2020 in the next few years"!
Yea Mars2020 already happened and has a Drone Helicopter and the works, video is so outdated
What got me is the "artists rendering" of what the drone copter "may" look like in 2020.
Pretty sure I could have traced a real picture of it for them or something
It is a compilation video. I am pretty sure I watched this year's ago
I don't know, why do half of my Kerbal missions fail?
It's because
whether we wanted it or not, we'ce stepped into war with the Cabal on Mars
What if we developed an AI that would be sent down with a rover and act as the "Controller" for the Mars Helicopter?
We simply aren't there yet, and won't be until we achieve AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. Right now we only have AI, which is very good at completing very narrow tasks. It may be able to complete these tasks, but it doesn't have any **understanding** of what the task is, or why it is doing what it is doing. So when something outside of it's limited purview happens, it can't adjust because it doesn't actually understand the processes it's completing.
I like to compare it to the human body vs the human brain. The body carries out innumerous functions all on its own, without consciously needing to control it. If the body is damaged, it automatically starts minimizing injury and repair damage all on its own. But the body doesn't know the nature of the damage. It doesn't know that you just cut your femoral artery and no amount of clotting is going to stop it. That's AI. Your brain, on the other hand, is capable of that understanding, and is able to respond appropriately to stop the bleeding or seek help. That's AGI.
Computers need electricity
I'm sure we're heading that way, though maybe not as sci-fi as you might think. It will look like increasingly sophisticated autopilots that can recognize features of interest and navigate obstacles with more autonomy.
dope vid, but can you please be more specific about the atmospheric density? 2:04 / 14:26
Are we not able to send enough satellites around mars and either earth moons orbit to create an almost instantaneous relay that we can use whatever method of landing to be able to adjust to the variables on mars? We should be focusing on that if we want to minimize risk of the astronauts we plan to send there.
Also we know the rotation on mars and should be able to get a rough estimate of the landing zone? Unless we haven't mapped all of the surfaces of mars? But it is safe to say that regardless you will be landing on an uneven surface on even the "flattest" part of mars. Regardless of a "soft" landing it seems the major issue is slowing down the speed of mass that we are sending there.
With the retro rockets can't we adjust the chemicals in a way that maximizes the counter force according to mar's atmosphere rather than our own? I don't know the specifics but surely a chemist and liquid gas and or whatever is used professional create a "reverse rocket fuel" to boost the power of the retro rockets. Since there is a lot less oxygen in mar's atmosphere they should adjust accordingly?
Bear in mind I have written out these questions before even watching 11 minutes of this. after the 15:30 timestamp my question is not to use earths conventual means of creating lift but adjusting accordingly? The amount of oxygen is clearly a problem of landing and even more so re-orbiting. I mean we haven't even got earths atmosphere down to a science that we can cleanly enter and re-land on our own planet let alone re-send objects from mars surface.
I know it is more expensive on the side of breaking earths atmosphere part but the issue seems at this point is landing on mars safely and traveling mass distances. Send to james webb telescope satellites into mar's moons orbit and collect data accordingly and adjust from there. I gave up after hanks info.
To answer the first part of your post, that wouldn't help. Such a satellite collection could help with mars to mars communication.. the 7 minutes of terror are caused by the distance between the earth and mars. No matter how many satellites you have around mars this distance is unaffected.
Eventually if laser communication is perfected a satellite in orbit around mars could communicate with a satellite around the earth shortening the delay. In such a scenario, only 1 satellite is needed around mars.
@@drewberrymore2415 That is my question. OUR moons can and do orbit at a radius that makes it "unpredictable" Create a lesser distance between the two or increase the numbers between the two..
Incorrect. There cannot be a constant laser connecting the two as you would need to calculate and connect the two in such a way that what you say is impossible. Regarding light and physics.. My main issue is our ability to send and receive radio signals.
@@HeartsanimeIndeed, it could not be a constant connection with a single satellite.. but one can make sure the landing happens when such a connection is possible.
Are you suggesting we bounce signals off a satellite in lunar orbit? If so, this could augment bandwidth but won't affect the delay. The signal still has to travel the same distance even if it is relayed along the way(unless the operators are in lunar orbit)
@@Heartsanime we can't send anything faster than the speed of light no! That's impossible! Satellites don't change the laws of physics!
Entry into an atmosphere causes heat because air/gas compression not friction.
We keep forgetting we need to bring our own oxygen supply. Who'd've thunk!
Not entirely true. Martin-Marietta (later became Lockheed-Martin) developed an automated oxygen production plant using Mars' Carbon-Dioxide atmosphere. The plant is small enough to get flown to Mars. The idea was (maybe is??) to send the plant to Mars about two years before humans are launched. By the time they will get there, they will have an air supply for over a year ready and waiting for them on Mars.
So you only have to carry from Earth the oxygen to a one way trip. The oxygen for both the mission on Mars' surface and the voyage home will be produced on Mars.
I thought it was John Batista for a moment
Is no one gonna mention the shave jumpscare??
Arrow show?
(a few minutes later)
Ah! Aeroshell.
A helicopter whose rotor magnets are attracting iron dust from dust storms. So we might farm iron for laser 3-D printers using magnets.
Because that's what the script calls for.
This will happen if they try to send a human to Mars.
great
There's a simple reason Mars missions fail. Russia. The Soviet Union/Russia have failed most of the missions they sent. US missions have overwhelmingly succeeded. It's disingenuous to say half have failed when the vast majority of the failures comes from one organization.
You said it. It's Martians. :)
"ion engines just aren't ready to do that yet..."
Looks like we found who's afraid of commitment. 😢
Now I must go play kerbal space program
Did this video get Reuploaded as this is all old news
It's a compilation video
@@awaredeshmukh3202 for a compilation video its still old news
@@TheDoomLordd Right. I don’t blame them for making these compilation videos but they should, at a minimum, remove the outdated sections.
L means Learning
In my opinion humans will mine Mars, not live on it. What we know, and what we know how to do is vastly different. I'd be glad to be proved wrong though.
What's happened to SciShow Space? It's been 3ish months now since a video there.
They deprecated that channel. Everything is now posted here.
@@rickkwitkoski1976 Thanks! I always thought they should have done that anyway, but I didn't see any news about it.
@@TPPMac1 In the very last episode of SciShow Space they say at the end it’s the last episode. I understand they had to do it for budgetary reasons but I preferred having a separate channel for space.
@@bbartky So they did! thanks for pointing it out as I'd either missed the video, or, more likely, was laying in bed watching it and dozed off.
Nice video
Because interplanetary travel is complicated?
Dose MARS have ALIENS?👽👽
Why would it take 8 minutes to send the message to mars. Its only 3 light minutes away ?
Unless you're talking about sending the message to the sun
It has to come back and the sun is closer to 4 minutes away
D-Star how original. 😂
Wakanda expanded to Mars
why are some people better at math or arithmatic and others arent?
Early childhood education?
@@manjsher3094 Yes. When I went to school in the '50's and '60's, if you were a girl, no one encouraged you to be better in math. It wasn't considered as important for girls as reading.
Aliens...
2024, still not able to land on the moon since the 70s....
I say it's a curse!
Why in the video published in 2023 you are talking about Perseverance in future tense? It landed in 2021.
He's a time traveller.
It's a compilation of earlier videos
This is a compilation video.
Antigravity reactor is the only way. Im sure its been secretly done.
what's with the this insistence on describing everything in vague qualitative terms? you describe the pathfinder landing as moving "as fast as cars on the freeway". you go out of your way to avoid saying "kevlar". it doesn't make things more relatable to everyday life to leave out the actual numbers and names of things, it just wastes the chance to add another frame of reference for the things you're talking about. we develop a better understanding of what a "kilometer per hour" is by gathering thousands of references to it over the years, over a wide range of values, from mundane to extreme. that's a good thing that's supposed to happen, not a bad thing you should try to prevent. it's like this video's goal is to try to teach you about the history of mars missions, and great care has been taken to ensure you doesn't accidentally learn anything else in the process. i think you're trying to make the videos more easily digestible, but the reason the video is so digestible is because there's almost no real information to process! come on!
also, the times you do use units, you don't link them to anything common, so if your goal is relatable measurements you frequently ignore it. "1600 km/h" is meaningless number, while adding "or about 1.3 times the speed of sound in earth's atmospher" immediately grounds it in "oh ok so like a fighter jet". look you have to do BOTH THINGS, not just one or the other inconsistently.
Not all bulletproof vests use Kevlar.
I predict the first group mission to Mars will end in tragedy. Humans ain't meant for space.
We made it to the moon and that's also space...