It's a term of art in the scientific community

It's French for " lots of" ..

@@Camcodrummer Touché, but it's clearly MERICAN!

He has cussed before, maybe just not on nat geo sponsored star talk

Fun fact, a buttload is a real unit of measurement, equals 126 gallons of wine.

If solid rocket boosters need no "air" to function, how about explaining exactly how there is a massive amount of actual FLAME exiting the exhaust of each and every solid rocket booster ever ignited. And exactly how does dynamite explode without "air"? BOTH of those items carry with them, their own "air" in the form of oxidizers. And David needs to put the hops down and wake up to the fact that these attempts to correct that which needed no correction are what stinks around here. Carrying your own source of oxygen does not mean the object needs "no air" in order to function. His explanation is just fine. For he clearly stated to ALL willing to take 3 seconds to LISTEN that the boosters provided their own "air" in the form of oxidizers. He also stated that values used were approximations worthy enough for the explanation at hand. This is not an actual course on the topic in case that reality was intentionally ignored. He also addressed the potential for some data which is close enough but may not be 100% accurate, for his job title is MUCH different than that of an engineer. Also, the two of you are correcting no one at any moment. You are commenting on youtube. Not a lot of power nor genius thoughts to be found in comment sections. ESPECIALLY comment sections on youtube. All you two are doing is typing words, hoping that someone somewhere will believe that without you two chiming in with pointless and not exactly factual "corrections", reality will somehow be effected. ALL this was, was an explanation of the rocket equation to help others understand why rockets tend to be so massive. Objective obtained with success. That simple explanation to express the why also nets people the ability to understand that with all the effort and mass of the vehicles, the rockets which went to the moon had a very specific destination. Again, objective obtained. Your "corrections" are simply not needed. Especially the non-factual attempts.

wow... took you a lot of calories to put out the reply... Get your physics checked. Google stuff. For example: "In a solid rocket, the fuel and oxidizer are mixed together into a solid propellant which is packed into a solid cylinder. A hole through the cylinder serves as a combustion chamber. When the mixture is ignited, combustion takes place on the surface of the propellant." He incorrectly stated this point. Its ok. He could not even explain the Rocket equation correctly. It is all ok. I like the guy. He doesn't need to be that exact on equations but the concepts I think he should be careful about. So don't reply...

What a train wreck of uninformed people posting replies to this very flawed video. Rockets never use atmospheric oxygen.

@@PirohSparks Well said, it truly sounded like Neil believes they do, quite astonishing he wouldn't research such a topic. Chuck will spend the rest of his days thinking SRBs are like cars

there are a few programmes with them sat next to each other, explainers etc.. have you seen them...?

Plus the animals have to rest and eat to rest their energy.

thankyou

@@HopDavid dude, you are all over the place in the comment section. I understood your complaint but please take a break.

@@Rocrastination why does he need to take a break. The comments section is for everyone.

@@HopDavid you are right, but if you used the 'rocket equation ' that is worked out in it. But for simplicity, as a rocket carries more it does need to increase by a large factor. It is too bad he didn't brush up on his formulas before he introduced the topic.

I thought I heard he both mentions an oxygen, and a hydrogen tank.

@@AM-el4iv For the second stage upper atmosphere booster rocket.

@@AM-el4iv yes, for the RS-25 engines on the shuttle or the first stage on Artimis. They combine H2 and O2 fed by turbopumps. The SRB's, the solid rocket boosters use ammonium perchlorate as it's oxidiser/ oxygen source, contained without the fuel mixture. Kind of like gunpowder containing salpeter as an oxidiser. These SRB's use no mechanical pumps and cannot be shut down once ignited. Regards.

@@HopDavid how do you know NdGT made it up?

@@HopDavid Delta V is ∆v=Ve∗ln(mi/mf), guess what that mi and mf is? it's MASS initial and MASS final.

Yes

Nerd battle!🍿

@@DrLex509 what's a nerd? A person who understands knows how things work and learns science? We need more of them. Ignorance should be painful..

​@@MitzvosGolem1dude theres nothing bad being a nere

The show isn't for the 1%

Chuck is useless.

Explaining scientific concepts to the lay person can’t be objectively represented like the mathematic explanation of it. Showing the math on a white board that most people have no clue about probably isn’t the first best step to promote science literacy.

@@HopDavid He was in error regarding the oxygen source of the Solid Rocket Boosters but got the upper stage liquid rocket fuel and oxidizer correctly. He is an astrophysicist not a rocket scientist so he made an assumption error not doing his research on how solid rocket boosters are fueled and oxidized (as well as liquid ones in the atmosphere). One error doesn’t invalidate everything he says. He has spoke incorrectly in the past. Everyone messes up their facts from time to time especially in a forum like this. Perhaps the writer for the episode is to blame as well. Either way he should present a correction statement for this.

Yea, it really bothers me when someone that presents themselves as a public information source for technology makes basic flubs like the rocket equation explanation or that solid fuel doesn't have oxidizer built in. He knows what the topic is he's going to talk about - and gets big bucks for talking about it. Is it to much to expect him to do some research and maybe make a chart or graph? When I see basic flubs like these, it makes me have to rethink everything else I heard from the guy. Is climate change really responsible for all the stuff they say it does?

I remember that absolutely crazy we were at my uncle's over 20 miles away and twice the boom was so loud I felt it in my chest and teeth

agree to that

Agreed. Someday we will have the animated version like The Ricky Gervais Show from the old podcasts

some of their videos do have some quite nice animations, maybe they were done after this comment! 🙂

​@@paulotellez8443 with Karl? and Stephen merchant? 🙂 that animated show is here on KZfaq somewhere

@@davidevans3227 I think so. That will make me feel good actually..😊

@@HopDavid Yeah, he got a little confused on-air. He had the basic concept. I wish he'd do more research before jumping into these explanations. He is very good jumping over really nerdy dives and simplifying concepts, which is what the channel is all about.

@@HopDavid It's disappointing that he gets that wrong, and it's easy to disprove: If it takes a certain amount of propellant to launch a certain payload to orbit, you can simply double the payload by launching *_two_* rockets!

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eK1ogrNom865lJc.html

There's an explainer for that, and Chuck made him laugh so hard he couldn't talk!

@@HopDavid earth is flat how could any of this make sense

@@HopDavid It helps when after saying his explanation is wrong, that you give the correct explanation or point out what exactly Neil's error was.

The take away from your insight is, I learned over a life time that the divide between knowledge and wisdom, results in an equal playing field for those of us that didn't have the opportunity to go past the 12th grade. You don't always need a formal education to do as well as or know as much as someone that was blessed to be able to pay for a 4+ year certificate. Example...I don't believe Donald Trump is an uneducated man, but I am convinced he has very little wisdom...along with a few other falcuties he obviously is missing.

@@HopDavid Neil has haters, like you, that make me love him more. Imagine me believing some random simple internet guy, you, over Neil, lmao. Be honest for once in your miserable life. Why do you really hate on Neil?? I have a good idea as to why, but i'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.

@@HopDavid show us your critical thinking skills by not being a jobless obsessed weirdo lingering around every comment section that has anything remotely to do with Neil DeGrasse Tyson

Unfortunately, there were several grave errors in this video. The first one is that fuel consumption doesn't increase exponentially with payload mass, but with the change of speed (also known as delta-v). If you want to launch _twice_ as much payload into orbit, you can simply use _two_ rockets, meaning that the fuel consumption increases more or less _linearly_ with mass, not exponentially. Another error is that solid rocket boosters (SRBs) like those used by the shuttle, the SLS and several other rockets don't use atmospheric oxygen. The oxygen needed for their combustion is contained within their solid propellant and is released when heated up.

@@fromnorway643 Found the rocket scientist!

Besides air breathing solid boosters his rocket equation explanation is wrong. It's delta V that drives the exponent, not payload mass. There is so much Neil gets wrong.

@@HopDavid Can you give me some referances to this?

Except this explanation is wrong. The boosters don't use air. They use a solid propellant that's about 70% oxidizer, and is why once they start burning they can't stop. They're not dropped because there's not enough air, but because they're out of fuel. They're very powerful, though, so they're useful for getting the rocket started on its way to space. Which nicely leads to the second issue in that fuel required doesn't increase exponentially with payload mass. Roughly speaking, the amount of rocket you need increases linearly with payload; think double/triple/etc the payload, double/triple/etc the rocket. Where the exponential fuel comes into play is with how much that payload needs to change velocity, which while there's more to it generally means the faster you need the payload to move you'll need exponentially more fuel to do so. This is why rockets tend to use stages; it breaks a single exponential problem into the sum of several smaller exponential problems to get the same result for less fuel.

The glassy eyes and bottle of champagne? on the counter, tells me hes doin juuuuuuuuust fine. lol . . . the door handle/lock tells me hes in a hotel. so he's prolly just on tour for his regular job. 🤗

Shut the f up! Who cares about his well-being? Neil doesn't even "need" him to make amazing videos loaded with tons of knowledge

@@2MANYWWWWWWWWWWWWS4U definitely at a hotel

No1 asked for your input

often people are in hotel rooms i think touring a show or something

Lifting a certain amount of payload up to the altitude of a typical low Earth orbit (a few hundred kilometres up) is _not_ the same as actually putting that payload into orbit. The payload needs to be accelerated to such a high _sideways_ speed that the Earth's surface curves away from it at the same rate as it is falling so it keeps missing the Earth. (that's basically what a circular orbit is) A typical rocket may use about 20 times the payload's mass in propellant (fuel + oxidizer) to reach the necessary 28,000 km/h, and most of the energy in that fuel goes into that sideways acceleration, not lifting the payload up.

Heating up water just makes water vapor. To separate water into oxygen and hydrogen... u need to use electrosis. Basically hook up a battery and put the wires into water... u will see bubbles forming on the wires... one is oxygen... other is hydrogen

@@HopDavid Yes, as I found out after watching it. At least he appears to be paying attention to comments and has now changed the title.

Dr Tyson never confuses himself. He just sometimes jumbles the best way for us sheep to learn.

Exactly! If you want to double the payload, you can simply launch _two_ rockets!

@@fromnorway643 I'm guessing Neil DeGrasse Tyson doesn't play KSP.

@@FourthRoot Neither do I, but some of the things he said here is simply plain wrong!

@@fromnorway643 To be fair, Neil isn't exactly pretending to be an expert on this subject. He's an astrophysicist, not an aeronautical engineer and knows it. But what he's best at is sharing his contagious enthusiasm and excitement for all things space, even when he's somewhat outside of his element.

@@FourthRoot It's more crucial than ever that people retain at least a minimum of science literacy and ability to think logically during these times of anti-science and "alternative facts", and Tyson does a good job at contributing to that. His most important and worrying words ever were almost certainly those he said in the video "science in America" from 5 years ago and should be watched by everyone.

@@HopDavid He is attempting to explain the rocket equation to a lay audience. Cut him a little slack. Delta V is proportional to the natural log of (initial mass/final mass). That mass includes both payload and propellent.

Unfortunately, he was wrong about the rocket equation! Fuel consumption doesn't increase exponentially with payload, but with the change of _speed._ This is easy to understand if you consider that if it takes a certain amount of fuel to launch a certain payload into orbit, you can launch _twice_ as much payload simply by using _two_ rockets, so the fuel/payload ratio is more or less _linear._

However, by that same equation, if you have two similar* rockets capable of putting 5 and 10 tons into an orbit respectively, then if you have ywo 5 ton satellites it's actually more fuel efficient** to use use the single large rocket than the two smaller ones. The e"dry" mass of the two smaller rockets explains most of this difference. * In terms of fuel, engines, tank materials. Only the size of the tanks and number of engines change between the two, essentially. ** As in less fuel used overall. Different fuels/engines have different performance characteristics, hence why those are qualifiers.

@@firefly4f4 A larger rocket will be less impacted by atmospheric drag than a smaller one if they have the same shape, so it will also gain some advantage that way.

Anytime someone has bought me lunch it is because they wanted something in return. guess that is the basis for the saying?

Hydrazine in Russian rockets also Rubber Aluminum hydrogen peroxide mix if I recall. He is ok. Not an engineer ..

Can you pull it out of the air chill and compress it turn it to liquid? I mean is it not the same molecule as retrieving it from hydrocarbons

Is conversion too hard for you? He also only used pound as an example he could have said anything and no conversion was required.

basically 90% hydrogen peroxide and methanol ( c-Stoff and the 2nd part was nitrogen tetroxide)

To be fair he does relay a lot of information but as an educator and it being the most important thing according to him he should have someone who can write up notes for the information he wants to convey with accurate facts I know this is just one of the side projects he has but with all the fake science and inaccurate "science related channels" on KZfaq he should stay above the bar with as much as this channel makes I'm sure they can hire someone to do that he's the communicator people like to hear him talk almost as much as he does 😂 at least for the stuff out of his field think whoever is producing his channel is dropping the ball or there editor cut and kept the wrong takes