Hullo!

Welllllll actually. I had a theory while young 1977-78 about my flying squirel theory for astronauts to return to earth if there was a major issue with ISS. The theory I have says yes they can return in my flying squirel suit. Tell you what. I will let you go to space and test my theory. If you fail to make it back, I'll go back to the drawing board. For the shuttle itself, I had a good number of escape designs and survival methods regardless of landing location of crew. The weirdest one was the arm out the side. In theory, it could have worked, but sequence for escape was a concern. Now something a Little more practical was jettison of crew area as a whole. I liked that design better because of extremely high probability of survival of all the crew members. but I was only 10-11 so they probably didn't consider it. I even advocate a pod on standby outside of ISS.

Sorry, why wouldn't one throw the ball vertically, ie towards the earth?

@@nomayor1 Great question. It's to do with the crazy way orbits work... which is a bit like swinging a weight around you on a piece of string. The string is pulling the weight towards you, but because the weight is trying to fly away from you (sideways) so quickly, all you manage to do is pull its trajectory around in a circle. The same thing happens to the International Space Station. At any given moment, it's flying past the Earth sideways *really* quickly. The Earth's gravity pulls it down, but because it was moving so quickly, gravity just ends up pulling its trajectory so it ends up flying *around* the earth - just like our weight on a string. That's where this idea of 'deorbiting' comes in. Give the Space Station a tiny nudge - or, say, throw our ball off it - and it'll still have basically all that speed. Nothing really changes; its orbit just shifts a little. To make it shift ENOUGH that one end gets inside the atmosphere (the 'periapsis'), you need to change its velocity by a certain amount, which just happens to be about the amount a top badminton player achieves with their smashes. I've tried my best to explain, but honestly the only way to make this intuitive is to play around with it. Download Kerbal Space Program & try it out! Or search for 'orbit simulator' or similar and see what comes up.

It would burn up anyway.

Spark Gap Just realized, it could use a feathered deorbit like SpaceShipOne. That might even solve the problem of reaching the catching athlete on the ground.

Spaceship one doesnt orbit. It has very low to no orbital velocity, as it just goes straight up, which is why it has no heatshield. The badminton shuttle would need to shed its 7+ Km/s velocity without burning up. Not gonna happen.

Noice

Ha ha ha

Shuttlecocks slow down rapidly in regular atmosphere. Could they make one that is so light it slows down before friction can burn it on re-entry?

"Use Rockets" -Scott Manley 2018

LMAO

Understood, using rocket powered arrows.

Well he isn't wrong

Someone should test this theory. Quick, someone call up Oliver Queen!

HAHAHAHAHA excellent

*football

@@rock3tcatU233 football=association football=asoccer=soccer

And they miraculously get better without treatment once a penalty is called!

@@rock3tcatU233 No, football is a different sport actually, without these girly hairdo models the OP was referring to.

John John twas a joke

Ice Queen It's 2018 mate. You have to state immediatly that it was a joke, so that anyone would understand it. Nevertheless you will still insult 50 % of the recipients, so prepare for some backlash/death threats. Nice playing with the words btw.

Fidelis true

John John wooosh

Sploosh

as they say, americans will measure with anything that isn't the metric system

jpteknoman he's Canadian ...

@@williamhutton1752 Say what?! I thought he was scottish

Delivery and hall away was not included in the price? ;-)

That's like having a large boulder the size of a large boulder!

Since there is no air resistance in space, it would need to be specially designed to orient itself correctly. I guess you could call it a space-shuttlecock.

That level of prestige, along with $0.89 might get you a soft drink at the convenience store. Impressive.

It was an advertisment for golf company Element 21

man literally memed even when going in outer space like "wtf do we do up there tho?" "don't know, let's play golf or something"

?

Prakhar Mishra hitchhikers guide to the galaxy reference

@Joe Richard I see what you did there. Hitchhikers.😊

You just made me re-read the book

We have normality!

That's nothing compared to other space mishaps like crashing your probe into Mars because you weren't working in the same units or having your rocket blow up because a failure of one component.

@penn707 At that point it might be worth it to build Space Depot...

Indeed, a grease gun costing 100k is a galactic mistake

@@dynamicworlds1 thought that was Jupiter

@@bradley9856 may as well be since the SI vs USC measures causing it is also a fiction of JPL trying to cover their butts (unchecked interview with CNN) for sloppy engineering and lazy programming code cloning for a program originally written for acompletely other device. May as well argue over commas vs dots for decimals. It was the Mars Climate Orbiter.

*Seinfeld theme plays*

Bingo

Really stretching the definition of "throw" here

Was just about to write that, only two years late 😁 I stopped watching the video at that point, credibility was lost.

Arch Stanton you do realist that he is an astronaut right?

@@williamhutton1752 okay and?

@@bboy_tako Your prefrontal cortex clearly hasn't developed.

@@commercio3564 weird words ok

or more simply, state the obvious ratio for conversion. 1m/s = 3.6km/h and you figure the imperial units ratio, im european.

Yeah, I could have done it that way, but (a) doing one conversion is just as easy as figuring out one conversion ratio, (b) this way is more useful to others who are watching the video, and (c) I was trying to make a point.

It didn't bother me too much 'til he got to the bow an arrow. I know the 3.6 conversion and it's rather simply to approximate. But wtf are ft/s? :'(

Amazing how every fascist for grammar and measurement always writes like an angry ingrate. :p Great write-up though.

The USA is the only country to ever visit the moon therefore all space talk should be done with imperial units. Step it up Europe.

@@medexamtoolsdotcom what, the uk? How dare u :(

only in america

@@medexamtoolsdotcom 'merica

@@medexamtoolsdotcom I hate the imperial system, but that was funny

@@medexamtoolsdotcom as you mentioned uncivilized... But real use of units start in these countries only during 18 century...and civilization also... I am not from UK.

technically you are because earth orbits the sun

Jason Crease that makes more sense, I thought he said 19 m/s. but still using one unit who have been best.

Man simply convert everything to feet per fortnight.

Those are some well-mixed units, tho. =D

Jason, just convert to league per femptosecond and you'll be all set.

I hear feudal japan used some "interesting" units of distance measurement... just in case you want to make these conversions real fun ;-P

that's why metric was created

Yeah, now we just have to get rid of those pesky factor-60 minutes and hours and start using kilo- and megaseconds! :D

I know right? Just pick unit of measurement and stick with, preferably m/s

Don't be too harsh on minutes and hours. 12 and 60 (and 360 for that matter) are very useful numbers. The problem ultimately is inconsistency. The fact that we're trying to use 10, 12, 60, 360, 24 and a few other things through one another. Metric would have been marginally better in base 12, but since our numberic system is base 10, it's too much of a headache. Then again if our numeric system was also base 12, it wouldn't be so irritating. Sure, base 12 looks weird; 1, 12, 144, 1728, 20,736 (by the way, looking at those numbers take a moment to ask yourself why a mile is 1760 yards instead of 1728. Imperial units are so unbelievably inconsistent it's maddening) But that's only because we're not used to dealing with base 12, since we rarely use it, and because of our numberical system. If we co-opt the format used to write hexadecimal numbers to write base 12, we get 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,a,b Which makes those amounts I just wrote for base 12 look like this instead: 1,10,100,1000,10000 No, really. That of course is very confusing because you have to remember what I just wrote is in base 12, not base 10... But just goes to show that the metric system's strength isn't base 10, it's it's own internal consistency. If it had been defined as a base 12 system you'd be using 12^3 and 12^-3 numbers and it would all be just as neat, plus more numerically convenient. (in base 12, 'kilo-' would be 12^3 or 1728, mega would be 12^6 or 2,985,984 - but written in a system with symbols suitable for base 12 it would simply be 1,000,000. - again, just don't forget not to confuse that with base 10...) Decimal time was attempted in the past, but there was a lot of resistance to it due to the inconveniences involved. So... What does any of this matter? Well, it's simply a matter of fractions. if you use 10 are your base, your possible fractions are: 1/2, 1/5th, 1/10th, and multiples thereof. For base 12, you get 1/2,1/3,1/4,1/6,1/12 Incidentally if you're wondering why 60 is then used as well: base 60 gives: 1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5,1/6,1/10, 1/12,1/15, 1/20,1/30,1/60 of course, for general use 60 is quite unwieldy, but it's utility is fairly obvious. Maybe in the days of calculators the purpose of this stuff is less obvious, but there's still a good reason why these numbers show up so often. 12 and 60 are useful. I'd say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but given the establishment of the metric system and it's derivation from base 10 logic that ship has kind of sailed already. If we could start from scratch, perhaps a base 12 system would be better, but as it is the benefit is marginal enough to not be worth the effort. unlike switching from imperial to metric, where the benefit is quite substantial. (because the ridiculous inconsistency of imperial units is a huge pain...)

KuraIthys , well I read that. Thanks!

"Day 45, food is at an all time low, I don't know how much I have left, tell my family I love them" last message from space refrigerator

Alexander Postma Yeah then that golf ball going 20,000 miles an hour takes out a satellite or astronaut. Then Houston is like, damn golfers!

I think that the biggest danger is a golf club who collide with the station at the end of the swing XD

Nice one.

its just another small rock in orbit, one of millions

@Dragon Master It's "fore". Or alternatively, "nonexplosive artillery strike incoming, get the fuck outta da way".

I swear Planetes has given me an irrational fear of untracked space junk

Don't stand to close to the edge of a cliff.... Gravity isn't a science fiction story.

He's talking about movies, not actual gravity.

i thought u were a flat earther saying planets and gravity are made up and referring to them as "science fiction"

I will admit I got a bit nervous when you said gravity, I thought you meant the force not the movie. I’ve been watching too many flat earth debunking videos.

"Today on Dude Perfect, I'm going to serve a shuttlecock to Earth from the International Space Station! It's going to burn up in the atmosphere, so I don't think they'll be able to hit it back, but...as long as some of that ash lands in the court, I think I'll still get the point."

They just gotta build the shuttlecock out of unobtanium.

*Throws Bowling Ball. A few weeks later Tesla Space Man says, "F'k my life".*

Stings2pee It’s called “Iridium” extremely dense (almost twice the density of lead) and is only found in asteroids.

Space dunk

That was astounding.

It was absolutely beautiful, still no news on the center core though

And nice how they never spoke a word about the core landing failing in the live broadcast. I get Ariane feelings. More transparency would have been better. Both SpaceX website and youtube channel have nothing on their core landing failing. Way to go PR department.

I wonder what would happen if you threw a ball straight down. Wouldn't the object eventually reach the upper athmosphere and gradually decelerate and fall back to Earth?

@@bustabanana Throwing it straight down will only slightly change the orbit and actually end up at same height again... It is more effective to throw it in the opposite direction of the orbit you are traveling. He explains it all in the video but I learned it myself from playing Kerbal Space Program.

@@bustabanana If you throw it straight down, approximately 90 minutes later the ball will hit you in the back of the head.

Great Scott! uuups, wrong channel...

It's a bit of a big day for space.

It was all done on a sound stage. Haven't you heard?

Simply throw a ball downwards, towards the Earth, and at 50km/hr it will take a maximum 8 hours to hit the Earth's surface, or perhaps not at all as it would probably burn up.

@@littlekenny8411 nope

@@littlekenny8411 If you are in orbit throwing it down towards the earth will only change the orbit a little, at some points it will actually end up higher...

The first orbital bombardment would be performed with a weapon that has been around since prehistoric times :D I'm sure there's some poetry in there

I think I've seen that in an anime before.

Isn't there a channel for that? Get Dude Perfect on this.

Arrow would burn up on entry, but a large tungsten rod would make it.

In Gundam: Iron Blooded Orphans, the last fight scene involves shooting tungsten rods with giant crossbows from orbit.

Letum , And negate the need to track the trash for months!

J P Shaw Most trash is actually just put back into resupply module's, which then deorbit themselfs. They don't do space walks just to throw their everyday trash away. ^^

Trash mass driver, sounds dangerous to shoot anything big retrograde. Incinerating it first would defeat this purpose.

Can you rephrase that? I dont understand what you mean.

You don't want to shoot large space debris out of a mass driver retrograde (or any direction really), but incinerating trash into dust as the reaction mass (a usual formulation of mass driver) would have been a waste in energy and defeats your purpose of "some" valuable station-keeping delta-v counteracting orbital decay.

It was a sofa from station rec room

...and postponed +30 min. and now at 90 minutes.

Yeaaah. Gotta love the weather lol.

+ 1h delay

It's in space now

MrHack4never that double landing tho

Launching directly "downward" will not lower its (new) orbit as much as launching in the reverse direction of your orbit. The reverse-direction throw from a circular orbit, will make the release point the new apogee for the hurled object. Its perigee (lowest point) will then occur half an orbit later, halfway around the globe. If you draw the instantaneous orbital velocity vector, ֿvₒ , the instant before release, then add the "throw" velocity vector as a vector arrow tacked onto the end of the ֿvₒ vector, the resultant will be the initial velocity vector ֿvᵢ of the released object. All the choices for the endpoint of that vector, lie on a little circle centered at the end of ֿvₒ . The one that drops the orbit the most, is the one that minimizes the length of ֿvᵢ , and that is the one where the throw exactly opposes the orbital direction.

Really informative, thank you! Curiosity satisfied!

Also, just FYI, the directions go like this: Same direction as your orbit: *Prograde* Directly "backward", or opposite your orbit: *Retrograde* Directly towards the planet: *Radial* Directly upward, or perpendicular to the orbit: *Normal* The opposites of radial and normal are just anti-radial and anti-normal, so if you wanted to thrust "downward", you would say anti-normal and if you wanted to thrust away from the planet, you would say anti-radial. This should make understanding some of these Scott Manley videos a little easier.

OK, but bear in mind also, that prograde and retrograde are used in celestial mechanics to describe whether an orbiting body is co- or anti-revovling with respect to the parent body's direction of rotation. This could lead to confusion when you're in a retrograde Earth orbit, and you throw something either in the same or opposite direction from your existing orbital direction.

ffggddss Do you teach school? If not you should! I understood completely, and it was vexing me for a while as to "why" and your explanation was crystal clear.

Dome not if you go around the world :D

I was wondering about this.

Scott Henderson tru

I love your videos on AI.

That is too obvious you shouldn't need to point that out... It wouldn't be orbiting if there's no gravity...

Steve Planet Should be, but peeps be dumb.

+Nazamroth Industries Operation Logs Hahaha. I am surprised one of those fake basketball shot channels have done a video of a shot from the ISS to a hoop on Earth.

sneaking stuff can cause a mission faliure

Obviously it is a remarkably bad idea to do it... but it is still badass.... like most bvadass moves, it is ill-advised.

I can't disagree with that (very badass)

One of the Apollo astronauts did play golf on the Moon. Smacked a couple golf balls with a tool of some sort. Been done already.

Since ksp uses the real math, it is just as accurate and more fun!

@@nielsdaemen Oh I know! I love Kerbal! It was just a funny juxtaposition to sound serious and academic and show a cutesy game.

Huh, that's a neat avatar.

Ironically, I know where yours is taken from, but not mine :D But thank you!

Heh well it really depends how fast you throw it and in what direction throw a mass prograde from the ISS at 3.2 km/s or above and it's most definitely not on a decaying orbit anymore in fact it's trajectory would be hyperbolic as it would be over the 10.85 km/s escape velocity at r=6771 km. Sure the use of the requisite mechanical assistance to pull this off might stretch the definition of throw a touch but semantics lol.

That's what I was waiting for, but I'm now confused. Astronauts can throw something retrograde and expect burn sub year, but athlete can't throw a ball to the ground?

Balls tend to have a relatively low terminal velocity because they're filled with air and not dense.

This isn't the case. If your goal is to deorbit immediately (which would require burning off ALL of your prograde velocity and falling straight down), then sure, but it wouldn't be possible in either case. The idea is that you reduce your prograde velocity just enough so that your orbit drops enough to hit the atmosphere on the opposite side. Obviously, the higher you are, the more you have to lower your orbit in order to do this.

Im sorry but he was speaking about lowering the periapsis til it touches the atmosphere. Thats what you do while at apoapsis. And hes talking about elliptical not spherical orbits. So you're blatantly missing the point.

have to determine how fast you can throw anything by hand in space, as Scott pointed out its not that easy to achieve without using tools to assist you

Kleiner Prinz who are you talking to?

The higher you are at apogee, the less delta-v is required to lower your perigee by a given amount.

As you go higher you start getting into higher radiation regions. Also, the lower the orbit the more cargo they can deliver, which might make a difference. They had the ISS in a lower orbit during construction to make it easier for STS to visit.

They avoid a ton of space junk and satellites by hanging in low Earth Orbit.

launches become more expensive as you go higher.

What science? 😁 OK, OK. I'll be nice.

Is there a specific reason they chose current altitude? I mean, they must have chosen the most optimal orbit, right? @@scottmanley

BL isn't that a thing in tennis?

I did it without safe search on and got nasa related porn

Erik Truchinskas 🤣

^

also to all who upvoted, I heard this from a video that Obsidian Ant made... but it turns out that he simply had bad wording and instead, the beta closes on Sunday not that the update gets rolled out :/

The benefit is that you don't have to spend a huge amount of fuel slowing yourself to a stop from 17,000 mph (27,000 km/h). Just let the atmosphere do it.

A coilgun sounds far more spacey, even though the effect would be the same.

yea, but a coilgun needs energy. An astronaut which needs to train anyway could just wind the spring up.

Now I'm imagining an astronaut in spacesuit, carrying a garbage bag and cranking a winch attached to a big cartoon catapult. It's fucking awesome.

depending on the weigth of the trash and the placement that can cause serious issues

"My cabbages!"

fps? lol, this isn't a video game. xD

Imperial units are a pain. m/s master race amirite?

oh! feet per second! I have never seen it abbreviated like that. I was scratching my head as to what you had meant lol. I guess the fact that it was already a unit of measurement for monitors threw me off lol.

and a spear thrown with a woomera gets 4 times more kinetic energy than a compound crossbow & it's much lighter & easier to take into space & much easier to use in space

1. He actually said *90* m/s. If you search the page for my name, I posted a conversion of every measurement he uses, so you don't have to convert them yourself. 2. The point in an orbit that is closest to the body being orbited (i.e. the point of lowest altitude). 3. The question was if someone could throw something out of orbit using *only* their muscle power.

1: 1 m/s is 3.6 km/h, it's a pretty simple conversion. 3: If you throw something it may take months for it to de-orbit naturally, he's talking about putting something into the thicker part of the atmosphere without having to wait for the orbit to decay over months.

Yeah and he then said ft/s at 7:15 which was a really stupid way to end the video

I mean, if you're in free fall the physics are the same as someone in the ISS.

@@cinquine1 in the ISS they are not in Zero G, they just fall at the same speed of the ISS hence they feel weightless but It's not zero G :)

Easily.

are you sure you're not talking about these guns? *pow* *pow* *kisses bicep*

Tom5tom Entertainment of course, if they can throw a ball. Why wouldn’t they be able to throw a firearm?

JUANCARLOS M If you can dodge a wrench you can dodge a ball.

That would in breech of the outer space treaty

Sir_Tactical_Slime it's not a dumb question. Misconceptions need to be addressed, otherwise they'll still be misconceptions.

X10s with tungsten points? No way am even going to shoot something that expensive :p

Tara FitzGerald we'll pay you $500,000.

...so use a less expensive arrow and/or bow. Pretty simple solution.

Tara FitzGerald Transportation to IIS exceeds the price of almost any object.

Because tires have to be strong enough to contain very high pressures, every time you hit a bump that's a transient pressure increase of several atmospheres.

I heard they were filled with toothpaste.

The relative change from atmospheric pressure (14 psi) on Earth to vacuum is just that - only 14 psi. A tire that's at 30 psi on the ground would effectively be at 44 psi in space - not that huge of a difference

Renoh74 that makes perfect sense lol now I feel dumb

that's ok

Momentum is conserved so when you throw a 200g ball retrograde at 20m/s the station gets 2kgm/s Of momentum. Increasing its speed by 2 micrometers per second.

Ok, thanks! Great video btw :)

BDMA how do you propose we start a recycling program in space?

@@MountainDewIdaho It's not a recycling problem, it's a hazard. We don't need to recycle it, just remove it (or even better, stop adding to it).

Would need 4x the velocity compared to if you throw it backwards.

thanks for the quick reply Scott! Up at 5am here to watch FH but looks like I'm going to be at work by the time it launches, if it goes today. :)

When you want to deorbit something, you have to throw it backwards rather than down, in layman's terms. The reason is that if something gets thrown down, towards an object, and still has enough momentum to keep orbit, it won't just slowly spiral down. As it gets closer the object, in this case, the Earth, it speeds up, causing it to move faster sideways, canceling out the downward momentum. Mostly. This would end up giving it an elliptical orbit. But, if you throw an object retrograde, or directly backwards, it slows down the horizontal momentum, and the Earth has more time to pull it into a lower orbit. Since the ISS' orbit is so low, eventually the atmosphere can catch the object, slowing it down dramatically, and it would burn up after a few passes. Just in case you were interested why.

Well technically I think it may force an atmosphere entry, but it would maybe produce a more elliptical orbit.

Play ksp then you'll understand

I'm a story teller.

They couldn't throw a ball, but they could hit a shuttlecock. Ten second videos that say "Here's a question. The answer is no. Goodbye, thanks for watching." are not interesting, whereas this video was very interesting because it actually explained the answer in detail. If you just want to know the answer, skip to the end of the video.

Yeah, never mind trying to encourage people to sit down and watch a educational video and learn something. Just give them what they are used to: this is how it is, take my word for it. The idea is to make them learn something if they want to find out what the answer is.

If you understood it as well as you thought, you would have known the answer before you came, and enjoyed the journey. If you didn't know it, it's good to have it explained.