4 engine Centaur. That's KSP engineering right there: When in doubt, add engines.

@MushVPeets

5 жыл бұрын

The SLS upper stages - ICPS and EUS - are more like an inflated Delta Cryogenic Second Stage with more engines, than like a giant Centaur. But yes, that entire rocket is a bit Kerbal and not in the best way.

@pluto8404

5 жыл бұрын

More engines, more struts. Quick mafs

@bluemountain4181

5 жыл бұрын

Same with the SRBs. Need some extra delta-v in a hurry? Strap on a few more boom sticks.

@Markle2k

5 жыл бұрын

Not as Kerbal as a Saturn V. Five F-1s on the first stage, Five J-2s on the second stage, and get ready for this.... a *third stage* with another J-2!!!!!1111!!!

@AKAtheA

5 жыл бұрын

Them $$$$ gonna fly...

How many times have each of us done that absurdly high angle burn with our underpowered upper stage just to keep from dipping back in the atmosphere while playing Kerbal? LOL

@dylanwatts9344

5 жыл бұрын

Shamefully I have. But Scott make a point, KSP needs g-force repercussions. Or an option for it at least (unless they add that within the last year, been on a hiatus

@ThomasKwa

5 жыл бұрын

This was my standard launch profile! I don't know the exact stats, but in KSP nuclear engines are efficient enough that it's better to use a nuclear engine even if you have to pitch up 35 degrees.

@gajbooks

5 жыл бұрын

There are mods for that.

@fcgHenden

5 жыл бұрын

@@ThomasKwa Living on the edge every time. 😂

@35571113

5 жыл бұрын

What intrigues me, is that in KSP I just do it "by the seat of my pants" - but how do they do it in real life? How do they find the balance between computer-controlled precision and human flexibility to react to unpredicted situations?

My next metal band is gonna be called "100% Fratricide"

@rbrtck

3 жыл бұрын

Are you an only child? ;)

Each of your videos is a master piece

@krakenburger56

5 жыл бұрын

For some reason I always see your comments!

@dougbadgley6031

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed! Very informative and interesting.

@pzoe3808

5 жыл бұрын

I enjoyed this video

I feel like your educational videos on the mechanics of spaceflight are such a great way to supplement and build up watching the actual launches. Anyone can watch a launch and be impressed by hardware involved, but knowing just a little more makes it even more impressive to see these engineering marvels work.

Therapist: Atlas Heavy isn’t real, it can’t hurt you. Atlas Heavy: 0:46

@cumguzzler8537

3 жыл бұрын

*Silent screaming*

4:30 - Reminds me of my Nerv-powered upper stages and spaceplanes...

Slight correction: The RL-10 can be scaled up quite a bit, which is where the RL-60 comes from. Though it's probably not worth starting up a new production line when a new thrust structure and twice the engines will do a good enough job.

Your passion for the subject matter and your explanations make this channel one of my favorites.

The various topics which came from you always fascinate me. Well done Scott!

I appreciate the amount of research and effort it takes to pull even one of these videos together, but you are cranking out content like crazy. I hope you have staff behind the scenes helping you pull all this together...otherwise all work and no play won't make for a happy Scott!

@scottmanley

5 жыл бұрын

I used to play games on the channel, but nobody watches those any more.

Congratulations with the 1m subs! I have enjoyed every video you made and got along back in 2014 with the ksp videos! Thanks for all the great videos!

A question I have had for years finally answered. Thank you Scott!

Why do kerbal mods look better than ULA animations?

@SexycuteStudios

5 жыл бұрын

A shortage of 3D artists in the space sector, and a lack of space-themed 3D content generally.

@Tyler-sy7jo

5 жыл бұрын

ULA also has no need to spend precious funding on better looking simulations.

@mikicerise6250

5 жыл бұрын

Games endeavour to create realistic seeming graphics. Space programmes do not want people confusing animations with reality - although from what I've seen that hasn't stopped Americans. xD

@julopabene8736

4 жыл бұрын

You mean the in-flight footage, such as 4:07 and onward? Perhaps it could be because the Atlas V dates back all the way to 2002, so there is a chance the animations are from that era too. And when you consider that around that time you had games like Morrowind, Vice City, or Battlefield 1942, I think these animations don't look too shabby. They don't need to look fancy after all, just give a general idea of what is going on.

@rokudoma3385

4 жыл бұрын

SpaceX doesnt look too bad

Very interesting. I love videos like this where you explain what's going on in upcoming space news.

Good to see so much hard work being put into making future spacecraft as safe as possible

Incredible analysis Scott , great work!

I always learn a ton here. Great video, man!

Thank you, I was literally just last night reading about cst-100, wondering when it was launching. As always, quality video.

really interesting video for the evening, thanks scott!

You tube recomended me this 1 day before starliner lanch in 2019, good job you tube :) Great video btw, you explained really well stuff that i read at various sources last few days, that didnt go so deep into that. XD

Nicely done on this video Scott!

This is point in career mode where I get frustrated because I haven’t unlocked big enough engines to launch anything worth while.

7:13 and i though that this only happened in KSP.

@Br3ttM

5 жыл бұрын

Normally that's when I revert and either add more boosters, or try to get a better launch profile. In real life, when something goes wrong, you have to keep playing it out, and try to save what you can.

@k1productions87

5 жыл бұрын

I didn't see your comment before typing mine, lol

@Neofito89

5 жыл бұрын

ahahahahahahaha

@fcgHenden

5 жыл бұрын

@@Br3ttM Nope, irl the simulator also reverts and adds more boosters when it's hopeless but the simulator tries to get to orbit as much as he can. We just don't see it when he hits Esc. Sometimes, he's just too lazy to revert and then we have explosions. Remember the F9 kraken on launchpad? 😂

@MW-wv8pb

5 жыл бұрын

NASA needs to find a way to quick-save.

We can only hope that during the next Starliner test flight we actually DO get to see those dual RL-10s in action. Still disappointed that even the post flight videos didn't show them.

Who's here after Boeing's successful Starliner failure?

@twistedyogert

4 жыл бұрын

Aye

@davemanmartin

4 жыл бұрын

Bingo

@rebeccarivers4797

4 жыл бұрын

Which one?

@BenjaminKirbyTennyson0

3 жыл бұрын

Task failed successfully

Can’t wait to fly on that rocket! Great video Scott, that explains why my KSP RSS Atlas V upper stage kept falling back to earth

I get excited every time u make a video

Have you ever done a video of ideas on how to address the orbital debris problem? I would be very interested to see what the realistic suggestions on how to work on this problem look like.

I must admit that I was surprised to learn that the original unmanned moon Landers, the Mariners I believe, used centaur upper stages. I thought how long have they been flying these things? I'd love a history of the centaur rocket video or a pointer to a good reference.

@chriskerwin3904

5 жыл бұрын

He already did one.

It will be nice to see dual engine Centaur upper stages again since I like the iconic layout with 2 RL-10 engines :) However I think the RL-10 is really pushed to its limits in terms of future manned missions. They should really continue with the J-2X development and use it as upperstage engine for the SLS instead of clustering RL-10 engines like on the Saturn I.

@chriskerwin3904

5 жыл бұрын

Definitely agree about the RL-10. I always liked the idea of using a modified RS-25 on the upper stage instead of the J-2X. The European Vinci seems like a very capable vacuum engine as well. My understanding was that development for the J-2X was rather costly even as rocket engines go.

@telclivo7945

5 жыл бұрын

@@chriskerwin3904 It was costly due to it being the underfunded Constellation program in which the rockets themselves sucked more funding than they anticipated. The J2X was very close to final design as they even tested the prototype engine to see how well the gimballing system would work.

@MushVPeets

5 жыл бұрын

Seems to me that you would want to use pretty much _anything_ but the expensive and rather weak RL-10 for a giant upper stage like that. RS-25, J-2X, Vinci... Hell, let's bring back the LR87-LH2 and bolt one or two of those bad boys on the stage, that thing was fun.

@badbeardbill9956

5 жыл бұрын

Well, the reason for the RL-10 is the relatively recent trend of small upper stages. For example, the Saturn I's upper stage is larger than ICPS, and the Saturn IB's upper stage is likely larger than EUS. RL-10s are perfectly sized for these stages, since thrust isn't what they need. Also, the RL-10 shouldn't be expensive. I wonder how the space program would be if we had more engine production companies...

@chriskerwin3904

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the LR-87 was an impressively robust engine. It was able to operate on KeroLOX, HydroLOX and Aerozine 50/N2O4.

That was cool to watch one of your videos from a year ago. ...and I happen to notice 999K subscribers, wow

Congrats on 1million!!!!!!!

Really looking forward to seeing the Dreamchaser flying in the future.

Fascinating insights. Incredible.

Nice updates Scott! I don't know if you ever made a comparison video of the various crew capsules and what will be the differences, but if not, please explain this topic!

@fcgHenden

5 жыл бұрын

That's gonna be a long video. I bet the differences go more than just aero, attitude control, abort procedures, mission profiles, landing, emergency egress, loading, mounting.... I'm getting pumped up! That's gonna be a good long video! Please do it! Please please please!

@ColinPaddock

5 жыл бұрын

Has Scott gotten past the hacker episode to the point where youtube will let him do long videos again?

@Skukkix23

5 жыл бұрын

I just think he realized that it is more efficient to make short videos. The other option is to make videos like Curios Droid, which takes a lot of production time and preparation, that's why CD's videos are way better than Scott's, but CD can't upload multiple times a week. So let's be happy we have one guy who uploads multiple times a week and one who polishes the fascination for aerospace and science in general. And btw, he could explain a lot of differences in 10 minutes.

1:18 I suppose calling it an Atlas 5 022 would be too obvious!

@ax2bxc

5 жыл бұрын

or replace 0 with C for capsule

@Nilguiri

5 жыл бұрын

My point is, why would you put a letter in what, until now, has obviously been a numeric field?

@index7787

5 жыл бұрын

Right?!?! They some dumb smart people ;p

@ThomasKwa

5 жыл бұрын

No, the Atlas V 022 is a special-order variant with a 0 meter fairing, which costs the US Government $10 million extra to produce.

@WartimeFriction

5 жыл бұрын

I was thinking they would simply put a dash :)

6:20 so they aren't allowed to use tweakscale?

@GrogAdHoc

5 жыл бұрын

At least they can use Engineer Redux mod.

So the reason is "MOAR BOOSTER!"?

@chrissybrinn9307

5 жыл бұрын

yes

@thenasadude6878

5 жыл бұрын

They've got a fever, and the only prescription is more engine bell

@DGFishRfine1

4 жыл бұрын

MOAR!

Love these type of videos

You’re awesome Scott!

Really enjoyed this. Ty

Hi Scott, at about the 5:00 mark, you said the study did manage to find a way to bring an Atlas V401 just within limits. 1. How was it proposed that this be done, and 2. Why then does CST100 "Starliner" require a dual engine centaur? Thanks.

@rbrtck

3 жыл бұрын

Plus the two SRBs. This is just a guess on my part, but maybe there just wasn't enough of a safety margin: just shallow enough a reentry not to burn up the Starliner as well as barely avoid the "black zones", requiring nearly perfect flight profiles and abort sequences. The second RL10 provides a margin of safety for the second phase of the flight, while the two strap-on SRBs provide a margin of safety for the first phase, both of which would be stressed by the required flight profile without the extra energy/thrust. The Atlas V is a great rocket, obviously, but it was never designed to be human-rated and is not an ideal fit for this purpose, so a heavier configuration than one would normally expect is needed to provide adequate safety margins. Additionally, when the requirement for a second RL10 was made, this ate into the first stage's performance, hence the addition of the two SRBs. When only one RL10 was originally thought to be needed, no SRBs were planned to be used, but changing one part of the system often forces changes in other parts, of course. The key is to flatten out the flight profile to allow for safe abort modes for humans--instead of the first stage lofting the second stage way higher than required to allow the low thrust of the RL10 enough time to circularize the orbit, which is how the Atlas V normally works, the second stage (Centaur) needs more thrust to circularize the orbit more quickly with a flatter profile (or else it won't make it and will reenter due to Earth's gravity). The reason the normal Centaur has such weak thrust is that having only a single little RL10 makes it incredibly light and therefore efficient. Two RL10s make it much heavier and therefore less efficient, which is probably why the first stage needs help from two SRBs instead of having none, as originally planned--they give the whole system the energy it needs to carry an extra engine on a more challenging profile. By the way, even the Falcon 9 has to fly a somewhat flatter-than-normal profile, despite being a more standard design with a powerful, high-energy (but heavy) second stage. While this does not impact its configuration, it does require its reusable first stage to land on a barge at sea instead of on land (where it would normally land with a load of that mass). This gives it the additional performance it needs to fly with an adequate safety margin for humans.

Good one, Scott. More on CST 100 info, please !!!

Atlas 5 series also has significantly less payload compared to 4 series due to the much larger payload fairing and the small burnout mass of the first stage meaning that even a few extra tonnes of fairing reduces the mass ratio by 5-10%.

The expander cycle that RL10 use can be scale up with 2x of thrust, the Pratt and Whitney RL60 feature 2x of thrust of rl10. NASA or other launch provider just don’t want to pay more money into development of a new upper stage engine and end up with only RL10.

By contrast, SLS Block I will fly with just the single RL10 engined ICPS upper stage. Is this because the SLS Core Stage puts the Orion capsule and the upper stage very close to being in orbit, so no lofted trajectory required for the ICPS to make orbit?

@grantexploit5903

5 жыл бұрын

The SLS core stage will put both above LEO, though still with an atmospheric periapsis (not strictly necessary, just so that the core stage will deorbit). All the ICPS will need to do is make the periapsis positive and finish the transfer.

I'm going to america soon, so I might be able to watch this launch live!

I was wondering why they were using the dual engine, thanks!

Scott, one would've thought that NASA would've paid the ULA to fly several of their Atlas Centaur V's with the two-engined variant in order to man-rate it ahead of its use by the Dream Chaser and CST-100.

Very Cool, as usual

It would be intresting to get a breakdown of types of rockets and there % of success rates and suchlike.Great channel for a non technical dude like me.

Scott, please elaborate on the difference between expansion cycle engines and the other types. (Have you already done a vid about that?)

@scottmanley

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZoWMvJSLqrHFf9I.html

@DistracticusPrime

5 жыл бұрын

Brilliant! Thank you!

Those fairings on the right in the drawing at 0:17 are interesting. It looks like they add a lot of mass and unusable volume by enclosing both the second stage and the payload. I'm assuming there's aerodynamic issues they are compensating for? Makes me wonder if I should be starting my fairings in KSP just above the 2nd stage engine.

@CountArtha

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, in this case it's a necessary evil because the Centaur only has a 3-meter diameter. Putting a 5-meter fairing on top would probably put too much stress on the rocket. The Centaur was designed for the old Atlas D from Project Mercury, not the beefier Atlas V.

@hamzahkhan8952

7 ай бұрын

im pretty sure its so that there is more room for larger fuel tanks.

I'd be interested in a in detailed discussion about various abort modes for the various manned spacecraft and these "black-zones",

Thank You.

I enjoyed this video

I'm a bit confused about the current Atlas versions. I worked on the original Atlas at Astronautics in San Diego, as well as the Centaur, and there is virtually no link between the original and the V, other than the names Atlas and Centaur.

The Starliner recent test flight was good........ launch and landing were spot on, that was critical. The rendezvous with station had to be cancelled, but it will work on the next flight, with crew !!!

100% fratricide chance for the aries 1 lol You didn't demonstrate this classic problem in KSP i noticed. its a really common beginner mistake of too little thrust for the payload.

Having 1 engine where possible is good, if you need more engines then 3 and 5 are better options for thrust symmetry.

7:11 it doe surelly looks like one of those almost failed launches in ksp

Watch 6:41 with autocaptions on. It turns "Cygnus OA6 Launch" into "Sickness Always Sex Launch".

@InventorZahran

4 жыл бұрын

"I am fluent in over six-million forms of communication, and KZread auto-captions isn't one of them..."

I've never even played the game, but you've got my brain reading "KSC" as Kerbal Space Center. :-D

Can anyone explain the dreaded "black zones" diagram for space shuttle at 3:16 in this video? Thanks!

@dks13827

4 жыл бұрын

Certain failures at certain times will kill you. Example, losing all 3 main engines during the solid rocket burn. Also, losing 3 engines soon after SRB jettison.

I get the one solid boost variant does the power slide thing... But why do the other variants have asymmetric booster layouts?

@adamdapatsfan

5 жыл бұрын

When the Atlas V was first designed, it wasn't meant to have solid boosters. As such, there are some elements of the rocket that stick out the side (including hardware originally designed to support a "Heavy" variant) where boosters would normally go. Later on in Atlas V development, they realized that boosters could make a big difference in terms of payload and cost, and instead of going back and changing the surface features, they just attached the boosters to places where there wasn't anything in the way. This is also why the Atlas V is limited to only five boosters - there isn't enough space for more. ULA's next rocket, Vulcan, is being designed to support boosters from the beginning, and thus is able to mount them symmetrically, and carry more than five.

@Crushnaut

5 жыл бұрын

@@adamdapatsfan very interesting. Thanks for the reply!

N22? Why not just 022? N22 sounds like some obscure model number, not a booster config. :( Also, what caused that one Atlas CBC to crap out before its burn time was over?

@adamdapatsfan

5 жыл бұрын

The issue on the OA-6 mission was with a mixture ratio control valve (MRCV) on the RD-180 engine. The valve erroneously reduced the amount of fuel being fed to the engine. Sensing that the engine wasn't producing enough thrust, the avionics increased the amount of oxygen being fed to the engine, which in turn increased the thrust back up to normal levels. However, since the rocket was consuming more oxygen than intended, it ran out of oxygen earlier than intended, which is what ultimately caused the engine to shut down early.

I’ve seen some diagrams of ULAs Vulcan and on it they have a 4 engine upper stage centaur

@badbeardbill9956

5 жыл бұрын

That's ACES

Why this video has those dislikes? There is nothing to dislike, it's just an informational video. I am confused.

@user-qe8xu5wo4p

4 жыл бұрын

People who dont believe in space mostly

5:13 Eyeballs In

I spaced out for a minute and when Scott was saying “dual” I heard “juul.” I had to rewind and make sure that I wasn’t going crazy 😂

I learned something, happy days....

Okay so adding a second RL-10 engine to Centaur helps by 1) increasing redundancy, and 2) results in a more horizontal flight path at the time of abort so reduces reentry loads/acceleration, avoiding a ballistic trajectory. Is this correct? Seeing as abort is only performed in case of emergency, and that crew have survived ballistic entries many times before (Vostok and Voskhod nominal entry mode was ballistic and experienced 8 g's, Apollo nominal entry was 4-6 g's, and Soyuz T-10 pad abort experienced 14-17 g's), it seems like a lot of effort to design, analyze, and qualify/test a new system of adding a 2nd engine all in an attempt to reduce g's experienced in a contingency scenario which we have already know is survivable. Yes it would be harsher on crew, but it's a backup for emergency only and hopefully is never used

How on earth does this guy have the time to: 1) find all this info 2) make these videos 3) have a full time job

Anyone notice the shielding at the end detaching and floating by the stage before then engine started?

@hamzahkhan8952

7 ай бұрын

they are covers protecting the docking mechanisms

Does anyone know what "eyeballs in" means, at 5:08?

@dks13827

4 жыл бұрын

Yes you are laying on your back in the spacecraft.............. the G forces are eyeballs in. In a jet fighter, eye balls down, which is tougher and can cause you to blackout or gray out.

Sorry this isn't related, but are you going to talk about how the hole on the ISS turned out to be a drilled hole rather than a debris strike?

@15Redstones

5 жыл бұрын

The Soyuz capsule has 2 layers of metal with foam in between. The hole in the inner metal layer was drilled and probably it has been there unnoticed for a while. The hole in the outer layer was microdebris. Only when both layers had a hole there was air leaking. Since they couldn't fix the hole in the outer layer they patched up the inner hole.

@Marc83Aus

5 жыл бұрын

Someone made a mistake during assembly and drilled a hole in the wrong place, classic russian space engineering.

@frankieford7668

5 жыл бұрын

Looks like a Crazy Cosmonaut was trying to mount a bracket...used too long a drill bit...Whoops..!

5:16 Is the Orion capsule definitely done for then? Or are they just going to look for a new rocket to lift it, since the Ares I isn't viable.

@adamdapatsfan

5 жыл бұрын

Orion is (technically) the only element of the Constellation Program that still exists today, and remains a part of NASA's plans. However, instead of launching on the Ares I, it will now launch on the SLS. One test flight of the Orion capsule in space has already been performed (albeit on a different rocket, the Delta IV Heavy), and another Orion is scheduled to fly on the first SLS mission in 2020 (or perhaps 2021, depending on schedule slips).

@PTNLemay

5 жыл бұрын

Ah that's nice. Cost over-runs and impeding redundancy aside, I've always had a soft spot for that capsule.

@dks13827

4 жыл бұрын

It's not done for. Going to do some lunar orbit missions......... but I wish they would hurry.

Does this mean , that a droneship landing is more suitable for crewed dragon?

@scottmanley

5 жыл бұрын

Maybe it is

What happened to KSP?

I knew it was the centaur by looking at the thumbnail and are you saying dual or jool?

N22 could be a follow up to the N1 xD

That launch is coming in a few days, I had a view of the bimotor centaur in Smarter Everyday's video, and made some guesses but had to reconsider everything after this explanation. And had to watch the video twice for a full understanding. None of this knowledge came from my aerospace engineering Msc

Is there a 1-SRB variant?

@scottmanley

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, the 411

I covered my second stage with a fairing in KSP once, I'm not sure why. Hadn't realized that was an actual thing that NASA did though.

I've had the experience of the 2nd stage struggling to make orbit in KSP when using the nuclear rocket. Much higher delta-V, but much lower thrust.

Can you answer why the Centaur upper stage and Starliner has that odd structural shape. What I mean is that most of the atlas fairings widen out and then narrow back down into the vehicle, but with the Starliner there is that overhang due to the size of the capsule. Why has Boeing or NASA or whoever designed it like that?

@PatrykZ94

5 жыл бұрын

That's because they had issues with aerodynamics without them.

@CountArtha

2 жыл бұрын

The Centaur was designed in 1962 for a skinnier version of the Atlas rocket. The Atlas V first stage is about 4 meters wide, but the Centaur is only 3 meters wide. The Starliner is half again the diameter of the Centaur (4.56 m), so I assume the skirt is there to prevent an unrecoverable yaw from too much drag on one side.

new Vintage Space video premiering

Just out of curiousity, if the two-engine Centaur hasn't been used in 15 years, then how is this Atlas V 5N22 getting a man-rating? Are they going to have to rush through a lot of test launches? I thought a big part of why Dragon was being delayed was because of relatively minor tweaks to the Falcon 9?

@marcoseduardocastro781

5 жыл бұрын

Dragon wasn't delayed Crew Dragon was It probably was because NASA never considered the CST-100 Starliner and the Crew Dragon as a replacement of the space shuttle

@CountArtha

2 жыл бұрын

They need to fly the new configuration twice to get it man-rated. Normally it takes three, but NASA gave both commercial crew providers a waiver for the third flight because Falcon 9 and Atlas V were already reliable as unmanned launchers. The second test flight of Starliner is happening in about two hours, so if it goes according to plan (this time) NASA will probably give ULA permission to fly astronauts.

what atlas config can bring a 6 ton payload to mars ? i need the knoldge plz

@grantexploit5903

5 жыл бұрын

Lemme... Atlas 552 is the only one unless you count the cancelled Heavy.

The weird SRB placement on the Atlas family just bothers me. Even when there are an even number of boosters, they're not positioned uniformly. Is there any functional reason why this is done?

@rbrtck

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe it's to avoid its external plumbing without having to reroute it?

My idea for a stillborn Centaur: Since the RL10s are so underpowered for the stage, I wonder what would happen if they replaced it with a J2X had they continued developing it. Would it be okay, or would it be too much thrust?

@rbrtck

3 жыл бұрын

Efficiency would go way down because of its gas generator cycle and larger size and weight, especially in comparison to the small, ultra-light Centaur. Thrust would be similar to that of the Falcon 9 second stage, but that whole stage is, by system design, much larger and heavier itself, so yeah, the J2X (which has similar thrust to the Merlin-1) would be too much engine for the Centaur in every way.

Scott, any fresh theories on Zuma?

@scottmanley

5 жыл бұрын

NG screwed up

@Dead1yM

5 жыл бұрын

What, so no conspiracy about it living out its secret rods from the gods mission?

Was thinking it was to keep it from rolling. Mhhhh, can Imagine it having both as a reason

I haven't noticed untill now, but 511? How it is working with only one SRB ? I mean where is center of mass ?

@fcgHenden

5 жыл бұрын

This is actually intriguing. The CoM is a bit to the side so the whole rocket "power slides" during launch -like the shuttle.

@debott4538

5 жыл бұрын

Scott did a really good video on that topic a year ago, just as the Osiris-Rex mission came up, I believe. I recommend checking it out. ;)

@rbrtck

3 жыл бұрын

Actually, *all* of the Atlas V configurations with SRBs are asymmetrical to some degree. The two-SRB configuration is probably the least asymmetrical, but it still is slightly off-center.

How can a flight from Orlando to LA take roughly the same time as a flight from LA to Orlando, considering Earth's rotation? I know that this isn't related to the video, but I was really curious about it.

@johnmiranda163

5 жыл бұрын

A friend of mine was trying to use this as evidence to flat Earth

@telclivo7945

5 жыл бұрын

If you are in a moving train and jump at the front of the train, you land in the same position and do not fly to the back of the train. Everything on Earth is spinning at the speed at which the Earth spins, but due to gravity (and the atmosphere in the example of a plane) we stick in the same spot.

@BentConrod

5 жыл бұрын

If you are in a speeding train and you run from your seat to the front of the carriage, will it take more time to run back to your seat?

@SexycuteStudios

5 жыл бұрын

It's all R E L A T I V E

@CountArtha

2 жыл бұрын

The atmosphere rotates at about the same rate as the surface, which is why you don't have a 1,000 mph headwind when you're standing on the ground near the equator. Instead you just have a gentle "trade wind" and the Coriolis Effect.

Hill they try to human-rate the Vulcan as well? Will we see a Vulcan Starliner mission?

@rbrtck

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, that is the plan, since the Atlas V will be retired anyway, human-rating the Delta IV Heavy would be difficult at best (and it's so expensive!), and the Falcon 9 is not desirable either for Boeing's own reason and because it would be the only human-rated US booster when the desire is to have more than one option at all times.

“Hopefully launching early next year” I’m still saying that

I'd love to see a video on the expander cycle mentioned in this one!

@scottmanley

5 жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/ZoWMvJSLqrHFf9I.html

6:57 I have done this in KSP more times than I care to relate....