Пікірлер

• 
  @oxygenasturia57067 сағат бұрын

  What do you think of smaller centrifuges used on the Moon or Artificial Gravity on the Moon?

• 
  @LeandroAndrus-fn4pt9 сағат бұрын

  The problem with tether is that tethered objects tent to fly towards each other. The only way to counteract it is to make the tether rigid which would make it massive and weight almost as much as the ship. Now we’re back to square 1, when the construction will start to rotate in the axis of the tether. The only reasonable way to make artificial gravity is to make donut shaped ship where the outer wall will be the floor. It’s the only stable configuration. Now, it doesn’t have to be a true circle! You can simply attach dozens of ships together in a circular orientation. This is much easier, much less wasteful, and does not require any major in-flight construction!

• 
  @gregmyles5852Күн бұрын

  Surely accelerating the ship throughout it's journey will eliminate the need for all these dodgy fixes

• 
  @ConHathyКүн бұрын

  I actually made an entire video all about trying to use thrust gravity: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oIZ_sMpmd9ufh6Q.html

• 
  @xxxxxx3901Күн бұрын

  It doesn't really matter what you say, because you didn't use cartoons to make your point.

• 
  @ConHathyКүн бұрын

  Damn, but they’re just so time consuming

• 
  @davekennedy6315Күн бұрын

  The moron that is Elon Musk is making out he wants to push Humanity towards Mars. Yet he is the one filling the Earths orbit with ever increasing amounts of orbiting junk from his rockets etc leading to a potential of it eventually being impossible to get a space craft through all that junk! Anything that goes up there will be torn to shreds by chunks of rocket, satellites and pieces of and all the way down to lethal and tiny flakes of paint that will be like tiny ultra high velocity armour piercing bullets. Musk has made it ever cheaper for countries and companies to send their crap into orbit and this will eventually form a complete junk shield surrounding the Earth. Maybe it's for the best? We as a species are destructive, polluting, murderous scumbags and if we could we would spread like an infection through our Solar System and beyond given the opportunity. We would wreck the entire Milky Way, luckily it appears that who/whatever lead to our creation has built in a system that will stop us going intergalactic (not counting Andromeda, on a collision course with the Milky Way anyways) what with all other galaxies shooting away from us many times faster than the speed of light.

• 
  @bhavikyadav2934Күн бұрын

  Yeah that could have gone very bad for spacex

• 
  @AstroTibs2 күн бұрын

  RIP Arecibo. You were something else.

• 
  @MRptwrench2 күн бұрын

  When the video said "intermediate moment..." who else thought of the T-handle on the ISS?

• 
  @professorryze37392 күн бұрын

  8:19 Yeah it definitely can try to reduce it but you have to remember that energy cant just vanish

• 
  @ConHathy2 күн бұрын

  It doesn’t vanish, just transforms into heat

• 
  @entity_unknown_3 күн бұрын

  Theoretically why not though? It's better for long duration. Fleets of ships will likely travel interplanetary like ocean fleets did colonizing the Americas there are extra life boats if something we're to go wrong. If they are all traveling together, why not attempt to utilize this principle? The only reason I could think is because you need a distance of about twice the length of the ISS or a few football fields for it to simulate Earth gravity, but what about adapting to lessoned Mars gravity? Or suffering the mild effects of motion illness with a quicker rotation speed to counteract a smaller diameter for the ships to spin

• 
  @seanjoseph86373 күн бұрын

  RPM's? When did the minute become plural?

• 
  @kenhart52595 күн бұрын

  So I feel that Mars is a one way trip. So why not tether a crew in one and supplies in the other, land them both, and dig some graves.

• 
  @Dumb-Comment5 күн бұрын

  let him try, you cant reason people out of stupidity because they didnt reason themselves into it

• 
  @hornick185 күн бұрын

  I wish cgp would respond

• 
  @Nicholas-lf4wh6 күн бұрын

  Heretic

• 
  @SirDamatoIII6 күн бұрын

  Blasphemer!

• 
  @mattkeating78366 күн бұрын

  Just make one deck of the ship rotate. Rest of ship can be setup for when ship is vertical on launch pad, but that one deck is setup for the walls being the floors

• 
  @Antagon6667 күн бұрын

  Oh boy, couldn't have aged better: "the 3 billion dollars are going to speed up starship's development". They already burned through it, without a single one successful landing. Want to see how they are going to do 16 refuelings in space at this rate

• 
  @starsidescav94877 күн бұрын

  I suppose the one nice thing about the tethered method is since that would cause the gravity to be in the same direction as when the starship lands, allowing you to design the interior to be used the same way on land and in space, a minor benefit but a cool one

• 
  @DanFrederiksen8 күн бұрын

  that area rule sounds much too dumb to be an actual rule. Surely the equalization has to be angularly close? contribution from the wings can't just be countered by a dip at the top of the fuselage? it must be right at the foot of the wing

• 
  @ConHathy8 күн бұрын

  No, it can be on the top of the fuselage. Look at the 747: later versions had the hump on top of the fuselage extended to help with the area ruling despite it not being near the actual wings. This configuration counterintuitively gave it more cargo space with a net decrease in drag

• 
  @DanFrederiksen8 күн бұрын

  @@ConHathy says who?

• 
  @ConHathy8 күн бұрын

  @@DanFrederiksen I learned about it in university but it has also been in "The Whitcomb Area Rule: NACA Aerodynamics Research and Innovation" by Lane E. Wallace. There is a widely circulated figure showing the area ruling and reduction in drag here (It says it comes from Aeronautics and Astronautics 1973, in my couple of minutes of googling I couldn't track down the original source of the figure but that would have been a NASA report): www.researchgate.net/figure/Boeing-747-cab-extension-subsonic-area-ruling-Source-Aeronautics-and-Astronautics-1973_fig82_349063662

• 
  @DanFrederiksen8 күн бұрын

  @@ConHathy thank you. I notice that the extended upper version didn't come out until 1983 but it could still be experimental data before it was done. Wiki says the extended upper were on request from airlines though. And I note that the supposed benefit doesn't kick in until above the max cruise speed of the 747 at the time. So it could never benefit from it according to that data but if the data is real, it's interesting nonetheless. Would be interesting to see that experiment done again, perhaps in good simulation as well to explore the airflow and shocks, if the area rule is in fact in effect.

• 
  @radiance29659 күн бұрын

  Icosahedron: *H e y*

• 
  @Number6_9 күн бұрын

  The real news here is that $3 billion dollars is $10 out of the pocket of every man woman and child in the US. So multiply the number of people in your house(if you have one!) by $10 and that is how much has been taken from you every time the government gives away another $3 billion. They spent $30billion well muliply that number by 10 again.

• 
  @recurvestickerdragon10 күн бұрын

  one concept not covered by this video, that I think would actually be quite nice, is to have two starships dock nose-to-nose, no tether required. Yes, it'll be a short radius, and having the crew cabins near the center of rotation compared to the fuel "wastes" the strongest centrifugal force, but it's easily the least complex and most practical approach. keep in mind, they don't need a full gee, just enough of a gradient to stave off the worst effects

• 
  @robindude818710 күн бұрын

  "...this lunar landing contract came with 2.89 billion dollars, which is definitely going to speed up development..." Wow. _That_ aged like milk. Other than that, great video! Have a nice day!

• 
  @gaia3511 күн бұрын

  I think you're right, but more interestingly hexagons are 2D. the shape, the term 2D and the word "flat" are all interchangeable. i'm sure there's some logic like squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares, with the words I've gave, but none the less, 2D means Hexagon. Particles like atoms, most harmoniously stack in hexagonal formations, this is why bees and rock and so many other things as shown in CGP Grey's video; Because hexagons are the foundation to the 3rd dimension. where subject as you bring up, orientation, and tension can deform atomic hexagonal formations' triangular gaps into rectangles and pentagons introducing curvature in matter.

• 
  @Necroxion11 күн бұрын

  I wonder what kind of sensors would be used on a rotating ship and how they orient to the outside environment

• 
  @bileti9912 күн бұрын

  How do I cite you in my thesis work :D Nice video

• 
  @CoiledDracca12 күн бұрын

  Micro contained neutron 'stars' or micro black holes that were in balance. Having them in a mini matrix, self contained etc. Has anyone ever thought that tiny singularities could act as real gravity?

• 
  @alanburd807913 күн бұрын

  Then…make the hexagons with six triangles…and win the lottery.

• 
  @Mike-mf3ed13 күн бұрын

  I was taught in school that polygons are shapes with “more than 4 sides” which also excludes Triangles. I’ve gone by that logic for years and now my reality is shattered. But even if Hexagons aren’t the Bestagons, they’re still my “Favourite-agons”.

• 
  @kingace618614 күн бұрын

  THERE IS A HERETIC IN OUR MIDST!

• 
  @shapshane824114 күн бұрын

  his video was a joke about how easy it is to change people's minds with little logic. he literally becomes a priest at the end!

• 
  @romanberkutov259215 күн бұрын

  1)Посмотрите экспансию. Достаточно системы с постояннымиускорением. Вы сначала разгоняетесь до цели, на половины пути разворачиваете корабль и тормозите с тем же ускорением. Таким образом вектор тяги всегда направлены в одну сторону, прям как в лифте. Бах, у вас искусственная гравитация. Если хотите, чтобы было как на земле, то нужно ускоряться 9.8 км,/ч но это пока не достижимо. Зато можно постепенно кскоряться с помощью ионых двигателей

• 
  @ConHathy15 күн бұрын

  I actually made an entire video all about trying to use thrust gravity: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oIZ_sMpmd9ufh6Q.html

• 
  @fitnesstop11215 күн бұрын

  That’s pretty creative

• 
  @kieranhosty16 күн бұрын

  Found your channel through this, if you're interested in making a video on that, I'd be very interested in seeing more about the feasibility of short radius centrifuges.

• 
  @Ajan-X16 күн бұрын

  Why not just create a small artificial black hole in the middle?

• 
  @justindixon744116 күн бұрын

  Tether?! HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLL no. That's a massive disaster waiting to happen. Tethers are horrible if anything whatsoever goes wrong ever.

• 
  @Alley-dw2fl16 күн бұрын

  3 years later and 2 of that 3 billion space x received from the government hasnt done much. Space x still can't get star ship to explode. It won't get to the moon on the last billion, either. Yet another of Musks lies and failures.

• 
  @SpicyMelonYT16 күн бұрын

  Hey man, loved the video. I wanted to say that while it think it’s super important to make education content entertaining, and thus to do that one would need to make shorter content like you did by cutting out material (smart move) I would definitely love to see a video where you don’t hold back. For the boys ya know. So keep doing what you’re doing. It’s awesome. But you maybe one video this year do something more for yourself. A video where you get to just let loose and talk about all the wills and wacky things you think about. Cause I know I wish I could do that. But I don’t have an audience like you. I would love to see it.

• 
  @kendreamer637616 күн бұрын

  Wtf is he talking about we went to the moon and they did it with out a y of that junk we jad people on the ISS for years and they had no problems when they came back

• 
  @antipoti16 күн бұрын

  Subbed

• 
  @haruruben16 күн бұрын

  I’d rather go to Titan

• 
  @johnransom998317 күн бұрын

  The accelerate/decelerate the small radius machine inside the ship, you would have to counterbalance the ship by using thrusters.

• 
  @KurNorock17 күн бұрын

  They couldn't stop the swelling of the eyes with the short radius centrifuge. Well yeah, duh. You are rising around the head so the head gets no "gravity" so the blood isn't pulled out of the head by the "gravity".

• 
  @ConHathy17 күн бұрын

  That was actually a control setup where they intentionally put the eyes at the center, they also extended the arm to put gravity on the eyes but it didn’t seem to help (at least in earth’s gravity) I wasn’t able to find footage of that unfortunately

• 
  @richardmcclung671017 күн бұрын

  [*orry, my * key no longer work* I have a PO* Dell laptop.] I'm really not into all the*e detail*. Ju*t *how u* an animation of two *tar*hip* tethered together and rotating no*e to no*e on the way to Mar*. End of video. And don't tell me you can't hook them together no*e to no*e. Innovate!!

• 
  @richardkohlhof17 күн бұрын

  Thank you I have a compulsion and need to try to understand the aspects of rotational Dynamics to create a stable artificial gravity that doesn't make you want to vomit or feel nauseous at all times it's very interesting and very much more complicated unless you're in a shit that's a Taurus I suppose although I find the concept of basically lobbing to tethered ships occasionally giving a boost to the ship that's on the Ford Mustang motion to tag the one behind so to speak yet rotating with it and Tethered to give boosts of velocity on occasion and I suppose it could be used to slow the velocity as well

• 
  @Lappillainen17 күн бұрын

  Apparently Spacex tested tumbling starship in the last test flight. Rotating ship consumes fuel, no way to correct trajectory while spinning so it must be stopped and started again with thrusters

• 
  @undercovernerd113718 күн бұрын

  "That 2.98B will DEFINITELY speed up development" Whoops, nope, just went down the drain cuz Musk is a grifter

• 
  @thegreyfrog339418 күн бұрын

  Heretics.

• 
  @dougsholly932318 күн бұрын

  I think if you rewatch his video, he multiple times qualifies 'strongest shape' with provisions like 'least amount of material for strength' and such. He even fully explained graphene's weaknesses. That being said, both videos are quite informative.

• 
  @ConHathy18 күн бұрын

  It is not the strongest by weight, triangles may be twice as heavy (with the same thickness) but they much more than twice as strong

• 
  @dougsholly932318 күн бұрын

  @@ConHathy I am referring to the argument he made specifically about honeycombs. For the amount of material, not weight, they create a strong home for honey storage and hatching new bees. I think he even mentioned that triangles were the strongest, but would require a lot more material to construct, and so for the amount of material in a pattern that takes up the least amount of wasted space, hexagons were ideal. I'm not saying you are wrong about anything. I'm just saying that he qualified his 'strongest 'shape with conditions. You seemed to imply that he declared hexagon the strongest shape period, and I didn't get that impression.