@2:00 Mariner 10 also gravity assisted off of Venus. Also Mercury is an underrated object in the solar system, which sees much less love in scifi then even Venus in recent years and that's shame. If you can finally land stuff on Mercury there are really cool options, even for space habitats. Personally I'm a sucker for the "mushroom" habitat (tall skinny cylinder standing on landing legs above the surface with a round sun shade above, so the over all structure looks like a reflective mushroom on the surface), but you could also do a large rover with your habitat on board that constantly drives slowly to stay in the terminator of the planet. Given the slow rotation of Mercury it wouldn't take much effort to stay in the that goldily locks zone. Not to mention his close proximity to the Sun and relatively low surface gravity make it ideal location for mining the resources and building large Solar collectors for beamed power throughout the solar system (eg first steps to a type 2 civilization).
As someone who loves playing Spaceflight simulator, I know how just insanely hard it is to get to mercury, it’s nearly impossible without Venus gravity assist. (Plus space flight simulator is scaled down to 1/10, I can’t even imagine how it is irl 😳)
@@stark8674ah yes because a 2d space game for phones can be compared to a 3d game on computers and consoles. Grow up, nobody needs to hear you or anyone else for that matter trying to make that point.
It has also quite high ascent velocity. Landing spacecraft would need to brake 3,5-4 km/s, which translates into M/m ratio 3,8 and higher for UDMH/N2O4. This is generally quite high ratio for our interplanetary spacecraft busses. Our chemical rockets has also barely enough deltaV to reach BEO let alone to make there any significant changes in spacecraft velocity. Fact is, that humanity landed only on four objects with significant gravity and three of them had atmosphere to slow landers down. Only Moon does not have atmosphere and landing there is possible, because traveling to Moon is relatively cheap speed-wise. Another fact is, that using non-chemical propulsion, Mercury is most easy target of all Solar bodies. Because at Mercurys orbit, Solar power is six times greater then at Earths orbit. So we can build tug based on Ion engines or even VASIMR and move heavy load (dozens tons) to Mercury low orbit. Doing same at Jovian moons will require unprecedentedly powerful space nuclear reactor. Which sucks because such power source would need to last many years without any maintenance (in comparison, Solar panels are generally maintenance free) and it is also very heavy power source (which greatly decrease useful load). Edit: Simply put, we are quite lucky, that we can even travel BEO and on LEO. Increase density of our atmosphere 2-3 times or increase mass of Earth by 50% and we will be locked on Earth until development of fusion engines. because chemical reactions would be not powerful enough to overcome these obstacles.
What's BEO? I didn't realise that 3/4 of our landings have been on bodies with atmosphere. That puts Kerbal players Tylo landings into perspective -- 0.8G; no atmosphere! On the other hand, the small scale of the Kerbol system and planetoids takes away a lot of the difficulty. Tylo is about 1/10th the radius of Earth which cuts down the delta-V required to orbit. It takes about 8km/s to reach Earth orbit, about 3km/s for Kerbin which has 1G & 1/10th radius, and maybe 2.3km/s for Tylo.
@@eekee6034 Beyond Earth Orbit Yep, Tylo is one of hardest to land on. 2,3 km/s is theoretical minimum (more precisely it is 2270 m/s for Equator landing from 0 inclination and very low orbit). Even Mechjeb with his suicide burn and adequately powerful engine would fail with so small delta-v. Realistically human need 2,7-3 km/s to be safe and have opportunity to chose better landing spot. 6 km/s for return landing. Taking into consideration, that you can not use high efficient chemical engines, because they have insufficient thrust, we are talking about Ck (M/m ratio) 5-6. On Tylo low orbit. Such spacecraft is hard to even get from Kerbin to LKO, let alone to LTO. This is why I am using Kerbal Interstellar to make things more funny. Stock KSP is for this type of mission too annoying to be fun.
Fun video. :) Little bit hectic for me, but that's because I am, unfortunately, a sensitive creature. I admit I'd almost forgotten about Mercury. It does make sense that it's hard to reach Mercury because it takes so much delta-V to get that close to the Sun. I've seen how that goes in Kerbal Space Program. It's bad enough when the whole system is a scale model. :) And now there's the "Quack Pack" of planets inside Moho... I haven't tried it. :)
A Mercury landing will take a much -cooler- bigger rocket like Starship and a dump truck of an ion engine. But it would be cool! And then hot. And then cool. And then hot again. Because Mercury still has days.
9/10 things are right but a lot of things are intentionally missed to exaggerate just how difficult it is. Its not impossible tho as this video claims it to be
underrated video 10/10 I love eating mercury
me too, mercury is really tasty
OMG PLS
Yes totally not heavy metal and didn’t cause minimata disease
Mercury the planet or the metal
@@grady631 Why not both
The only way you're gonna "land" there is *EXTREMELY* aggressive lithobraking.
this guy makes the kind of content i'd see from a youtuber with 100k subs
you deserve way more!
@2:00 Mariner 10 also gravity assisted off of Venus.
Also Mercury is an underrated object in the solar system, which sees much less love in scifi then even Venus in recent years and that's shame. If you can finally land stuff on Mercury there are really cool options, even for space habitats. Personally I'm a sucker for the "mushroom" habitat (tall skinny cylinder standing on landing legs above the surface with a round sun shade above, so the over all structure looks like a reflective mushroom on the surface), but you could also do a large rover with your habitat on board that constantly drives slowly to stay in the terminator of the planet. Given the slow rotation of Mercury it wouldn't take much effort to stay in the that goldily locks zone. Not to mention his close proximity to the Sun and relatively low surface gravity make it ideal location for mining the resources and building large Solar collectors for beamed power throughout the solar system (eg first steps to a type 2 civilization).
“But i did it in KSP”
All im saying is that anyone that has done it in RSS KSP would already know the answer to the title, being that mercury is hard as shit to get to.
As someone who loves playing Spaceflight simulator, I know how just insanely hard it is to get to mercury, it’s nearly impossible without Venus gravity assist. (Plus space flight simulator is scaled down to 1/10, I can’t even imagine how it is irl 😳)
SFS is just a worse KSP clone
@@stark8674 sorry but I can’t be hunched over a computer all day like y’all. I mainly play SFS because it’s on mobile.
@@stark8674ah yes because a 2d space game for phones can be compared to a 3d game on computers and consoles. Grow up, nobody needs to hear you or anyone else for that matter trying to make that point.
@@rustyshackleford234play Juno new origins it's on mobile and it's 3D
@@stark8674ok, now go play your ksp on your phone
insanely underrated
you're like a more aggressive sam o' nella, i dig it
Imagine Sam o' Nella talking about being so cold he pissed icicles.
Actually, that's not that crazy...
Just fly towards it duh
Yeah that wouldn't work only if there was something like orbital mechanics, smh. Great idea.
@@MilardikanSarcasm 😱
It has also quite high ascent velocity. Landing spacecraft would need to brake 3,5-4 km/s, which translates into M/m ratio 3,8 and higher for UDMH/N2O4. This is generally quite high ratio for our interplanetary spacecraft busses. Our chemical rockets has also barely enough deltaV to reach BEO let alone to make there any significant changes in spacecraft velocity.
Fact is, that humanity landed only on four objects with significant gravity and three of them had atmosphere to slow landers down. Only Moon does not have atmosphere and landing there is possible, because traveling to Moon is relatively cheap speed-wise.
Another fact is, that using non-chemical propulsion, Mercury is most easy target of all Solar bodies. Because at Mercurys orbit, Solar power is six times greater then at Earths orbit. So we can build tug based on Ion engines or even VASIMR and move heavy load (dozens tons) to Mercury low orbit.
Doing same at Jovian moons will require unprecedentedly powerful space nuclear reactor. Which sucks because such power source would need to last many years without any maintenance (in comparison, Solar panels are generally maintenance free) and it is also very heavy power source (which greatly decrease useful load).
Edit:
Simply put, we are quite lucky, that we can even travel BEO and on LEO. Increase density of our atmosphere 2-3 times or increase mass of Earth by 50% and we will be locked on Earth until development of fusion engines. because chemical reactions would be not powerful enough to overcome these obstacles.
What's BEO?
I didn't realise that 3/4 of our landings have been on bodies with atmosphere. That puts Kerbal players Tylo landings into perspective -- 0.8G; no atmosphere! On the other hand, the small scale of the Kerbol system and planetoids takes away a lot of the difficulty. Tylo is about 1/10th the radius of Earth which cuts down the delta-V required to orbit. It takes about 8km/s to reach Earth orbit, about 3km/s for Kerbin which has 1G & 1/10th radius, and maybe 2.3km/s for Tylo.
@@eekee6034
Beyond Earth Orbit
Yep, Tylo is one of hardest to land on. 2,3 km/s is theoretical minimum (more precisely it is 2270 m/s for Equator landing from 0 inclination and very low orbit). Even Mechjeb with his suicide burn and adequately powerful engine would fail with so small delta-v. Realistically human need 2,7-3 km/s to be safe and have opportunity to chose better landing spot. 6 km/s for return landing. Taking into consideration, that you can not use high efficient chemical engines, because they have insufficient thrust, we are talking about Ck (M/m ratio) 5-6. On Tylo low orbit. Such spacecraft is hard to even get from Kerbin to LKO, let alone to LTO.
This is why I am using Kerbal Interstellar to make things more funny. Stock KSP is for this type of mission too annoying to be fun.
Fun video. :) Little bit hectic for me, but that's because I am, unfortunately, a sensitive creature.
I admit I'd almost forgotten about Mercury. It does make sense that it's hard to reach Mercury because it takes so much delta-V to get that close to the Sun. I've seen how that goes in Kerbal Space Program. It's bad enough when the whole system is a scale model. :) And now there's the "Quack Pack" of planets inside Moho... I haven't tried it. :)
Amazing video and for some reason the BEPIS part had me laughing
We have Ion proprolsion, soo with much xenon gas and solar panels, is a ultra long range craft
A Mercury landing will take a much -cooler- bigger rocket like Starship and a dump truck of an ion engine. But it would be cool!
And then hot. And then cool. And then hot again. Because Mercury still has days.
this is like smart big brain but with MEMZ. very pog
this is criminally underrated
Scotty you pour that whisky into that anti matter reactor and give me warp 9 speed now 🖖🛰️
0:44 bepis
thank you for the ear anhiliting earrape
only 48 subs but video quality way better than multi million sub channales
what the hell youtube
You can train the RUclips Algorithm to show you the good stuff by avoiding the poor-quality channels. Might take time though.
i was using microphones when he said bepis
simple answer its too dahm hot for any of our electronics to handle, too cold for any of our other stuff to handle, and its going too fast
Pretty good stuff! But the volume differences really put me off
Welcome to KSP
underrated
So you’re telling me that 23 + lemon = mercury? Jeez i love mercury. Its my favorite letter.
the average Kerbal space program player could do this mission in one year with enough determination
beppis jumpscare 0:45
WHERE ARE ALL THE FUCKING VIEWS?!?
is gallelio special? It deorbited jupiter so it wouldnt hit europa.
thanks
you're welcome i guess
Nice
Subbed! Awesome video!
How about jupiter. Cause we all know we can land on it.
Pressure and heat:
we havent went to it cause it doesnt exist like dres
Sun
B E P I S
0:46
Also Mercury Is the most boring planet…
there's been a theroretical missing element that is found on it, but that's an old article, also might have some nice minerals for mining and selling.
Dres is!
@@AKU666 c a n y o n
The music is really annoying. I wanted to watch this but finally gave up.
I could have watched this video if you didn't have that obnoxious background music going the whole time, made it about a minute though.👎👎
9/10 things are right but a lot of things are intentionally missed to exaggerate just how difficult it is. Its not impossible tho as this video claims it to be