It Does Take a Rocket Scientist! Stan Love Explains Why Mars is Hard.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ค. 2012
- In this video, astronaut, physicist and, well, rocket scientist Stan Love presents his powerful and very entertaining presentation on "Why It's SOOOOOO Hard to Get to Mars." Like Stan says, it does take a rocket scientist. Lots of rocket scientists. And other really cool stuff that NASA is working on.
- วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I watch this at least twice a year. Just such a fantastic presentation.
This was a good Space 101 type of video. A layman could really get a firm grasp on the basics of orbital mechanics and interplanetary travel. Though it would appear from the comments that everyone is more interested in warp drive and other things that don't exist.
Good thing there are still engineers and physicists who go to school and actually make stuff happen.
i've never seen a picture of the apollo reentry,. that was amazing
Great presentation! Thank you
DITTO! Thanks for making it fun, too. I would suggest that you ignore the trolls, though.
Awesome and fascinating. Thank you!
This was an awesome presentation! :D tyvm
Excellent! I enjoyed this presentation a lot
This was the best presentation I ever saw. Really appreciate...
I learned many new things.
Thank You !
great presentation! thanks for sharing!
This is so good, amazing presentation. I learned a lot!
Learnt alot thanks
great presentation. thanks for that
It really covered the many variables in an efficient and expeditious way.
Great video!!
Very well done presentation, very layman
Good stuff
Wow yushis, your statement makes so much sense...
That was my thought too. MPH, KPH, FPS would have easily fit on all the slides. Still, very good presentation.
This is the 4th time I've watched this.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking but at the same time he talks about the shuttle like it's still around. Visually, it looks like the 90s, but it's funny how certain camera setups can do that. I'm willing to believe it's ~3 weeks old though.
Fairly simple - a parachute works because Air will slow it down. same thing with a space ship. The reason Air density matters is because the thicker the air the better it works. Imagine walking around outside - then walking around hip deep in a pool - the water is more dense and harder to move around in.
Any mroe questions?
2, My vision is for a multipurpose vessel that can also be used for collecting ore samples from asteroids. 1, You would launch the propulsion and fuel sections. 2, Then payload section depending on what the mission is? landers etc. 3, The supplies storage section. 4, Habitation Module. 5, Bridge/Habitation Section. 6, Deep Space Communications/Radar? last. The whole thing would be enclosed in a structure that is covered in solar panels/cooling panels. as well as panels on truss's like the iss.
1, Great talk. It seems to me that the only thing stopping us from building our first multipurpose vessel type craft is the braking problem if you approach a body with an atmosphere. do you aerobrake or expend the fuel? do you create a heatshield that also protects you from radiation? aerobraking will dictate the design of the vessel. all the other problems seem solveable. ie artificial gravity you could just have a module inside a module. where the internal segment rotates.
Great presentation. Does anybody know when it was made?
We, as humans need to take chances and make mistakes! We need martyrs! I'll gladly throw down my life for the glorious opportunity to try to reach Mars!
Even there you'd probably be using km/h for general audiences rather than m/s.
(At the very least, he coulda used some of that blank space on the slide to add the 'translations' for those used to working in other scales.)
I really hope a manned trip to mars happens in my lifetime. Maybe 3d-printers combined with some way of converting martian terrain into printable material will help us get over the line.
Stan- youo mane me PROUD to work for JSC!! Great Job! I'd rather spend my time on this than "diversity training", which i still havent figured out how it relates to our mission.
good presentation!
knew most of it but interesting though.
the only bad thing about it is that you didn't use the metric system (;
I say we use a giant trebuchet positioned on the moon. They haven't failed us this far.
Get this man a grant!
What about sending killer robots, I mean robots to do repairs and assist astronauts. You could also have sentient computers to run systems checks.
Ah, you're right! That settles it then.
Best impulse engine so far is the Merlin 1D by SpaceX and not the shuttles main engine. But the shuttle main engines are very good and powerful engines.
Jamie Godman Merlin has the highest thrust to weight ratio (TWR) of any engine built, the specific impulse is relatively poor because it uses kerolox, it has only 311s compared to 453s of the SSMEs.
Ollofyoy
cant fuckin wait for that space elevator
not happening in our lifetime =/
13:00 Oh, man, who ever played Kerbal Space Program knows exactly how that fells...
at 6:05 into it he says spice travel! WOW SPICES DO TRAVEL
Yepp, he shoul've tell us by metric, I was preparing my eyeballs.. :)
Thats the thing people dont like to join :( if everyone joined to one big team oww the posibilitys .... SORRY for my bad English :P
A lot do, perhaps even most, but certainly not all.
I am sad that he did not mention the Delta-V in m/s. I have no idea how much 22,000 mph is, as a European.
Use a conversion calculator and get over it. ;)
yes I am
Watching this high is incredible.
gunpowder contains its own oxidizer
This guy kinda looks like Aaron Eckhart from Batman The Dark Knight.
So according to this presentation, Zubrin's Mars Direct plan wouldn't work because it could't carry enough food supplies for the journey, even if the fuel for the return journey is made on Mars. And SpaceX's BFR would only be able to transport 6 people to Mars not 100, like how Musk claims, because the living space of the BFR is a similar size to the ISS.
Living space on the BFR (Starship) is only one of many problems. It is mainly a fantasy craft.
It was a theory, there was no way of knowing this at the time it was created.
I had another window open with a mph to m/s converter the entire time. But really I just feel sorry for US Scientists.
send the soul to mars why take a body like in the movie with Roddy Piper
poor Jeb...
You'd better spin the Mars spaceship for artificial gravity.
im american and all science/math majors i know only use metric
at least in science
Now I wish that Zubrin would stop soapboxing and get behind NASA and their plans .
To cut 45 minuets short, we are not going to Mars anytime soon :(
Nah, we ARE going.
You just get there dead.
@@dahawk8574 Well you could be alive but with Cancer Tumors, broken bones and blind.
@@j.jwhitty5861 You are more or less correct. Probably be 2040s or 2050s. We really need to get there faster, like less than a month each way.
He apologized right at the beginning for that - did you watch the video?
How would the gun powder ignite in no atmosphere??
Guys, join the rest of the world and use the metric system.
Is his last name raelly love?
what is the difference between thrust and specific impulse
watching this just reinforces my suspicions that we never went to the moon
UMM...IM 11 i and uderstand this,btw in metric, its 18,000 kph
I would use the metric system but i consider it too effeminate.
A real man denotes his distances in miles.
I think they'll need an interplanetary vehicle which is space hardened with shielding for the crew and is nuclear powered. A lander which goes down onto the planet which would be designed to be light and not need heavy shielding. Even in Star Trek they never landed the Enterprise, they used shuttles or teleport.The Interplanetary vehicle would act as a space station. Missions to the asteroid belt would include drones which mine the asteroid and bring the materials back to the ship for processing, refining and fabrication. Robot missions would need to be carried out ahead of anyone going to Mars to prepare the habitat, hydroponic garden and refuelling depot.
Its a thorough and very clear lecture. But all it really does is make me think that fuel rockets are not viable. I mean, a carbon nanotube space elevator would solve the whole problem of fighting against most of the Earths gravity. The dynamic Kasimir effect propulsion device patented by Aisha Mustafa could also change the game if it will actually work.
Perhaps its not really worth it to speculate a Mars trip with these current fuel rockets, and just wait for more efficient methods.
Great video. And if you're on this video and making comments about the metric system, then I feel sorry for you.
And then Elon Musk came to town
This video really upset me. I am a private pilot with hopes of becoming an astronaut. It's all I have dreamed about for a long time. The fact that the topic was why it is so hard to get there was the main problem. NASA is the definition of who will venture to the next frontier. An astronaut lecturing about why we probably won't go upset me the most. An astronaut! I understand it is all true but the angle should have been it's hard and were gonna do it not its hard and were probably not going to do it. After all we went to the moon not because it was easy but because it was hard. I here I thought we felt the same way about Mars, but I guess not.
"An astronaut lecturing about why we probably won't go upset me the most."
He never said we probably won't go. He was being VERY frank and realistic with the facts, not spouting baseless optimism like Elon Musk or Mars One. Mars is 200+ times farther away than the Moon and any human mission to go there would be 2-3 years or 75! times the length of the Apollo missions. Plus no chance of rescue, bailout, or resupply unless you produce it on Mars' surface which we don't know how to do yet. We thought going there would just be hard like the Moon in the 1970s, until we learned more. It's orders of magnitude more difficult.
Did anyone else see the ufo buzzing the space station at 1.05 :L
Help Google X with their space elevator!
flat earth people need to see this.
No they don't. Those morons claim everything that doesn't support their position to be fake or a conspiracy. These are not reasonable people and can therefore not be reasoned with.
Looks like largely an engine problem. Everything is shrunk down and tweaked to be within the tolerance of the specific impulse of the engine(s) available. If NASA had a really powerful engine e.g. 1000 times the current ones, perhaps spaceflight to Mars wouldn't be so difficult i.e. take so long, cost so much, would be safer by carrying radiation protection (lead shields etc) and spare parts and initial resources, facilitate bigger space craft etc etc Perhaps partially shifting from chemical engines to a whole different approach to solve the problem e.g. space elevator to take off some of the trouble of getting to low earth orbit.
but but but!
Yeah, I hate how literally every American thinks the Imperial units are better.
NASA should tell the government that there are WMDs on Mars and then NASA would get unlimited funding
Calling the SSME the best rocket engine ever made hasn't aged well.
What engines are better?
7:36 Nope. Sorry, Nostradamus.
Actually, yes.
Judging from your other comments here, you don't seem to know the basics in physic, chemistry, or even understand how hard it is to go to mars.
So I'm sorry but I don't think you're in a position to contradict a nasa engineer without any form of argumentation.
We have rocket engines with better ISP due to a higher ER nozzle. We have engines with higher chamber pressures. We have engines with higher TWR. That last thing is also key propriety, even if not as critical as ISP, and I've seen it dismissed by rocket scientists more than once. And that is where there is still a lot of room to improve, with 3D printing, modern alloys, etc. SSME had 73.1, an excelent number for an hydrolox engine. NK-33 had 136 in the 60s. Merlin 1D has 180 with just 10 MPa chamber pressure. Raptor is expected to top that.
Discharge the hydrogen out into space? Why not save it... mix it with oxygen taken from CO2 of mars atmosphere. There ya go. Water for when you're on Mars. You only need enough for the trip. On Mars, we'd be like... "Good thing we didn't stupidly eject the hydrogen on the way here"
Because you can't save it, that's not how a rocket works. The rocket gives you energy by throwing the exhaust behind you, if you then catch that exhaust, you would catch the exact same energy you are pushing behind you, you wouldn't move at all.
I think she was talking about hydrogen left over after splitting the crew waste water into hydrogen and oxygen. In any case, it's very impractical to save it and bring that big tank with its mass down to the surface. There's plenty of water already on the surface.
No Americans think it's better. We all hate it. We have no idea why it hasn't changed yet.
Besides, mathematicians and scientists use metric. Schools are trying to change over.
No we don't all hate it. It's fine, outside of science and engineering. With computers to do conversions when needed, it's no big deal to have the two systems.
No one has ever left low earth orbit.
- If it was a charade, there is no reason to pretend to do it more than once (let alone 5 more times) as each one after greatly reduces the ability to keep a lid on it, and greatly increases the chance you'd get busted.
- If it was a charade, then we could expect that the Soviets would have given their best effort to match the claims. They never did. And they never attempted to claim that any of the US missions were a charade.
- Every single piece of evidence that has been called into question has a solid, rational explanation.
- The best effort that Hollywood can produce in 2018 using 21st century tech, like First Man, is clearly bogus. It fails to hold water to say that anyone could have produced anything as authentic as the many hours of Apollo documentation from the late 60s & early 70s using technology from that era. Notice things like how lunar dust moves in the vacuum of space. That is impossible to reproduce on Earth, unless you are in a very large vacuum chamber with xenon lighting. And even that would be a giveaway, because there is no way to get the lighting source far enough when using a vacuum chamber to give the apparently parallel lines of shadows that you get on the surface of the Moon.
- I could go on, but I'll stop here. These four points above are quite solid.
- Why am I using my valuable time to give this feedback? It can be expected that anyone who has rejected the wealth of evidence available to everyone would likewise reject everything I'm highlighting here.
Do you believe this?
The ISS didn't have to be done the way it was. That's just... how they did it. They just kinda winged a lot of it as they went, over the years.
Yes we get it. You're inefficient, and don't know how to use the Martian atmosphere for resources like water, oxygen and return propellant. Why bring everything for the entire duration of the mission, when you can make much of the needed supplies with 19th century chemistry, on the Martian surface?
He makes a lot of true statements but acts as if that is the only way it can be. Like, that rockets have to be discarded during launch. That's proven to be wrong. I realize this is old but he doesn't seem to demonstrate any expectations for anything to change. I hope he's revised his views by now.
He also seems to talk about the orbital transfers as if they're going to be controlled manually. I think it's a safe bet the computer can handle basic orbital mechanics.
Also, that seems like a pretty dumb and pointless mission. Take samples, plant a flag and come back? I sure hope a lot more then that goes on. That's why no one cared that much for a long time. Elon is like... "hey... I want lots of people to go.. and stay.. and build a city" THAT'S worth the trip and that's worth a whole lot more excitment and inspiration than what guys like this offer. Truthful science but lies of omission.
"The ISS didn't have to be done the way it was...They just kinda winged a lot of it..."
But they actually funded and built the thing, not just talked about it. You really think they "just winged it?" Maybe scribbled final designs on the backs of napkins? When Apollo went to the Moon, 80% of the engineers' time was spent making calculations for what MIGHT go wrong after the mission design was finished. That's what goes on behind the scenes.
"You're inefficient...Why bring everything...when you can make
much of the needed supplies with 19th century chemistry?"
You really think they haven't considered this option? Stan Love was focusing on what is KNOWN and most likely to work. Bringing everything with costs a lot of weight, but it's a simple, reliable solution that we have already done hundreds of times. Manufacture and storage on Mars has yet to be engineered, demonstrated, and proven to be so reliable that we would bet the lives of 4-6 people on it.
"rockets have to be discarded during launch. That's proven to be wrong."
Nothing's been proven. The Space Shuttle was reused but was terribly inefficient economically and time-wise. SpaceX has done very well landing a single rocket stage, but that's a long way from a proven, reusable entire launch system that substantially reduces cost and time.
"I hope he's revised his views by now."
You seem to know more than this physicist and astronaut who makes his living at NASA, so please submit your detailed, engineered space plan to the thousands of world class engineers there so they can follow it. Your enthusiasm for space is wonderful, but less arrogance would suit you better.
"that seems like a pretty dumb and pointless mission. Take samples, plant a flag and come back?"
Please learn more about public speaking and criticize less. He was being concise to save time and stay focused on getting to Mars and back, not what you do when you get there.
"Elon is like... 'hey... I want lots of people to go.. and stay.. and build a city' THAT'S worth the trip"
Elon Musk does a lot of talking and has yet to put a single person into space.
"excitment and inspiration"
I agree completely. Inspiration is great, but at some point you have to fund the thing, build it, and bring your crew back alive. Too much optimism without facing reality results in endless delays and failure which is much worse in the long run.
I agree with you James. The way Juliana talks seems like she runs another competitive space organization thats going to put humans in Neptune next month. But sadly she would be eating chicken nuggets by now and giving a futile attempt to criticize another youtube video..
Neptune and chicken nuggets...that was a good one. I needed that:))