Excuse me, Dan. Childhood question for ya: Have any of you ever watched a "SciFi/Documentary" called *Alien Planet* from 2005? If not, please watch it and give us your honest thoughts on the subject. You might enjoy it.
It just now came to me that the Endurance survived an explosive decompression, partial re-entry (with no heat shield) and a supermassive black hole's pull. That is one hell of a reliable craft.
I love the entire movie, but that Explosive Decompression scene scared the shit out of everyone in the theater (that i was in) and it was also the most exhilarating moment as well. I would love to be able to go back and experience that moment, for the first time, again.
The loudest sound you ever heard followed by dead silence, as part of the Endurance explodes and the whole mission is apparently ruined. Very effective scene.
@@matteodelgallo1983 We do have fusion reactors just not reliable ones they use more power than they create but we’re really close within 10 years I’d say
@@matteodelgallo1983 all the tech used in the film have realistic basis.. we're just not advanced enough to implement them Fusion for instance was recently cracked &we're slowly discovering the enzymes needed to replicate the cold-hybernation processes frogs &reptiles use to sleep frozen for months at a time. So yeh all VERY real hard scifi measures.. some would say about too real &they could've.. gone abit softer with the science to alleviate the fiction.. but they wanted the entire process to feel tangible.. possible.. real.
@@o-wolf and then they threw literally all out of the window with the "love transcends time" bullshit. Maybe I am a cynic but that soured the whole movie for me.
The Lander is by far one of my favorite crafts from media, it's just so angular yet somehow sleek? Just a piece of eye candy, especially with the ceiling and floor windows in its cockpit.
Ima sucker for the lander myself.. even though it gets no love lol.. something about a tough well designed cargo lifter/tug/courier that just scratches that millennium falcon itch I guess
Agreed bro...I wonder if money were no object could we build something like that...if research were given total leeway to find fuel, a power source and "rocket" engine.... I think the cryobeds are still a dream for the future.
pretty well thought out ships, the lack of external moving parts is something nasa would def do because that just increases the number of points of failure
especially with the phenomenon of cold welding, where the oxide layer on a metal is eroded away in vacuum conditions and it's able to bind seamlessly with other metal crystals in said vacuum, which is very bad for space craft when those weld points occur in moving components like door hinges and locks, which is exactly what happened on a Soviet space mission during the cold war, where the door mechanism on the command module experienced a cold weld resulting in some significant difficulties with opening and closing the hatch.
Interstellar's endurance truly did live up to it's name. After everything thrown at it, it managed to survive by the end of the whole movie. Its namesake would be proud.
My favourite part about it is it's infinite delta-v very fun. I mean it go to Saturn in 2 years, that's like 35 km/s not to mention you have to slow down when you get there
Yeah, it kinda undermines the whole "we need artificial gravity because our rockets are too weak" thing, when their rockets are zipping to Saturn and flying up and down a black holes gravity well multiple times without refueling.
@@BallMuncher555 They went down twice, once for Miller's Planet and then a second time near the end for the sling shot maneuver. Kip Thorn, one of the science advisors for the movie, mentioned in his book that Miller's Planet was so close to the event horizon of Gargantua that it was orbiting at 55% the speed of light, and the Endurance, even in its high parking orbit when waiting for the Ranger, was orbiting at 30% the speed of light. The Ranger had to bridge that 25% lightspeed deltaV gap twice, once when landing on the planet and a second time when leaving. They did mention getting a gravity assist from a neutron star as a slight nod to how absurdly difficult the maneuver was, but Kip Thorn mentioned that needs to be taken with a bit of artistic license because to have gotten a good enough gravity assist to have made much of a difference the ship would have had to fly so close to the neutron star that it would have been ripped apart by its tides. And even with a really good gravity assist, one that reduced the deltaV needed a hundredfold, that still leaves over a thousand kilometers per second of deltaV. That enough to take off of Earth dozens of times. And a 100 fold decrease is optimistic. The Endurance then needed to leave its 30% lightspeed parking orbit to head up to Mann's planet, which was also no small feat and the Endurance had no neutron star slingshots to help it. It just straight up had a deltaV budget of hundreds of thousands of kilometers per second. Is that possible with fusion? Yeah, but such ships are generally like 80% fuel tank, with vast radiator arrays to keep the absurdly energetic fusion engines cool. A ship that is mostly habitat ring being able to do that with no red hot radiator arrays in sight is towards the more implausibly efficient and power dense end of the fusion engine spectrum. So yeah, Endurance and the Rangers were *really* powerful. Like, so powerful it raises questions about why they needed to solve the gravity problem so badly if they already had rockets that capable. They never really brought it up aside from a brief line saying that “rockets are too weak”. Which I mean, no. They have cargo shuttles so efficient that they could fly to orbit and back again dozens of times without refueling. That is plenty powerful; the problem is that there was too few of them. They frame the challenge of evacuating Earth as an energy problem, but they have absurdly powerful fusion drives. Its not an energy problem at that point, it’s a production problem, and they never gave us any reason why the brand new gravity drive would be easier to produce than the fusion drives they already had. And sure, even if making a grav drive was as quick and cheap as pouring concrete into a mold for some reason, I just can’t help but think the people on Earth could have been in pretty much the same place by the end of the movie if they had been building up a fleet of fusion ships and been steadily evacuating Earth for the 23 years that they were sitting around waiting on the gravity problem.
Excuse me, Spacedock team. Childhood question here: Have any of you ever watched a "SciFi/Documentary" called *Alien Planet* from 2005? If not, please watch it and give us your honest thoughts on the subject. You guys might even enjoy it. (Sorry for double posting, I just wanted to make sure you guys get this message is all.)
I think it's well thought-through. 18.5 m= 60.7 ft. or 60 ft. 8 in. 64 m= 210 ft. 200 m= 660 ft. (it's the circumference) 11.2 m= 36.7 ft. or 36 ft. 9 in. 20 m= 67 ft. 15 m= 49 ft.
One thing that I think kind of undermined the main goal of the crew of solving the gravity problem, was just how absurdly capable the rangers were. I mean, not only were they single stage to orbit around a planet larger than Earth, they were single stage to orbit around a supermassive blackhole. Kip Thorn one of the advisors for the movie mentions in his book the Science of Interstellar that Millers planet was orbiting Gargantua at 55% the speed of light, and the Ranger left the Endurance in a high parking orbit at 30% the speed of light. The deltaV to go from that parking orbit, to Millers planet and back up again is absurd. Now, they did explain it a bit by having them do some gravity assists around a neutron star which helps a lot, *but still*. These vehicles can take off from Earth, deliver a payload to orbit, land and repeat, multiple times without refueling or refurbishment. Who needs artificial gravity if you have SSTO's that capable and rapidly reusable? If they had been mass producing large cargo versions of those things during the several decades of waiting on the gravity problem they would have had a substantial head start.
The one thing that irks me about Interstellar is its bad rocket science. Realistically, any starship would require engines powered by antimatter situated far away from the crew module due to the lethal levels of gamma rays and fast moving neutrons emitted by such an engine. Otherwise, it would require intense radiation shielding with materials or energy fields currently not known to science. For the ranger to performs feats it did in the movie, it would definitely have to be antimatter powered. Only antimatter would have the energy needed to send a spaceship the size of ranger to take off from planets into space without external rocket assistance. Perhaps the least accurate part of the movie is when the Endurance use the black hole to send itself to Edmund. Without antimatter engines, that maneuver would have ended with the Endurance remaining in orbit and eventually getting sucked into the black hole, and without antimatter engines, the Endurance would not have been able to slow down before it reached Edmund’s planet as the velocity of Endurance after the slingshot was over 100,000 km/s.
What was the point of using an Apollo type stack to launch from Earth when you have a SSTO system as capable as the rangers (or landers)? What also irked me was having those white bathroom style tiles in the Endurance... Still, I found it an alright movie overall. But enjoyed it less then I normally would have because of the "it's so super scientifically accurate media hype".
@robinson During the whole Miller's planet sequence they were never near the Endurance so couldn't refuel from it. Presumably they refueled between planets, but just the Miller's planet trip would have required staggering amounts of fuel, far far more than the rest of the missions combined, due to it orbiting so close to Gargantua.
Are u being serious? There's no way in hell u think a hyperefficient lander/ranger thrust modules can in any way even scratch the delta v needed to save 8+ BILLION ppl You need to build multiple IMMENSE structures capable of inhabiting multiple millions of individuals.. meaning u need to nullify gravities hold COMPLETELY.. I swear to god every critique I've seen of this movie comes from ppl who either have no clue what they're on about or ppl who are semi science literate but have greatly underestimated the challenges presented
@@valorum999 they literally said it in the video if you'd bother to listen.. it's to save every ounce of reaction mass/fuel possible.. just because it CAN reach orbit by itself doesn't mean it SHOULD.. surely that can't be so hard to grasp?
The cryo suspension pods didn't actually freeze anyone. They likely took over one's metabolism and energy needs with some futuristic fluid. Likely an efficient way to put someone into a form of hibernation while slowing the aging process.
Them being submerged in liquid while still being able to breath could be an example of liquid breathing with the use of supersaturating the liquid with liquid oxygen too. Only question now is how they solved the carbon respiration problem
Plot hole; Humanity has Tokamak compact fusion reactors (and presumably could upscale them) and is in trouble on Earth and needs to go _elsewhere?_ With the energy independence that gives Humans could just grow limitless food in giant underground greenhouses. That sort of technology would be a game changer for Humanity.
Yeah, fusion would be a serious game changer. As easy as the Ranger and Lander got into orbit I always wondered why they even looked for another planet. Just build giant O'Neill cylinders for humanity to live on in orbit (like what they lived on in the end). Plus this eliminates any contamination from possible alien organisms you'd get on a planet like the one Brand was on in the final scene.
I think the reason for it was society. If you remember in the movie the society regressed trying to make more people into farmers to meet the demands for food. They were not interested in leaving Earth in the slightest and so much pressure was put upon NASA they literally went underground.
No, it would just reduce energy scarcity. Affordable Fusion is not a magical catch-all for every problem. It wouldn't cure the blight or restore the biosphere (which by that point was obviously collapsing)
How fitting that the movie's theme is based primarily on TIME and that the modules of the Endurance spacecraft match up to all 12 hours on a clock. Maybe just a coincidence, but if not, it just shows the level of attention to detail that was put into this masterpiece of a story. Love your channel btw!
I found the description of the engines to be the most interesting part of this video. Those Tokamaks must have some really impressive output in order to boost the engine's efficiency enough that it can function as an SSTO.
Agreed. However, that wouldn't be a huge problem, considering that Tokamaks are literally fusion reactors. As long as you can harness the energy you produce from those things, you should be fine.
Really the impressive part about it is their weight. They would have to be incredibly lightweight to be able to have 2 of them on an SSTO Ranger, regardless of the Isp of the engines. It takes a pretty insane amount of engineering to make even regular chemical rockets with a good thrust/weight ratio.
@@deep.space.12 I didn't know that they had fuel shortages in the film, because I never watched it. I just like the ship. Tokamaks are a real technology in nuclear fusion research, and I assumed going into my earlier comment that they were literally swimming in fuel because they passed by a gas giant and landed on an ocean world with what I'm assuming was liquid water. That should be screaming "Split my water molecules! Harness my hydrogen atoms!" It's my bad, I've literally never watched the film, so I didn't know that they had a fuel problem. They literally passed by a gas giant (or maybe more?) on the way, so if they could safely get close enough, there would be even less reason to have a fuel shortage. Even if they exclusively used deuterium, it shouldn't be THAT hard to find hydrogen isotopes. Literally stick a straw into Saturn and you could probably get a lot. But once again, that depends whether they can get to low orbit around a gas giant safely (I assume they can, since the ship has done crazier things).
@@deep.space.12 there is a difference between fuel and propellant. I agree that they wouldn't have run out of fuel for working fusion reactors, but with the years it was doing orbital adjustments in the movie running out of propellant to use in the engines seems quite plausible. I suspect they might have said they didn't have enough fuel in the movie because the average person gets fuel and propellant confused, and fuel is the more commonly used term.
it's kinda iconic that the endurance is shape like a clock, cause with the humans facing extinction from the blight, the crew had to find another habitable world for their kind, and time obviously is ticking, and it is NOT on their side.
now that Spacedock and you have pointed it out, yeah, there was a lot of reference to clocks in this movie. I even have the soundtrack, and didn't pick up on that really until now.
2:42 "just a normal cryogenic chamber for long human shelf life" *witness man "go to sleep" in the way his mom had nightmares of him dieing at 3, plastic bag and bathtub*
Interstellar is up there with 2001 a space odyssey (which to be honest I did not like) in importance to the history of science fiction movies. It was easily the best science fiction movie of its decade, and possibly the best in multiple decades.
@JasonB Nolan had stated in interviews that Interstellar was basically what he wanted 2001 to be. I always thought there were a ton of similarities also, but didn't find out specifically till a few years later that was the inspiration behind Interstellar. And I'm glad also I'm the only one that thinks it's the best of the past several many years. IMO it's not just the best, but perhaps the most important of at least the last 20 years.
2001 is great but you have to see it a bunch of times to get more of what it's saying....you wont get full understanding from 1 watch and even for asome you might see it 100 times and still not get all of it;'s meaning that's fine it was intended cus Kubrick wanted us to come to our own conclusions and when he was alive he explained it as fully as he was willing but still wanted us to see in it what we will I think a lot of it is metaphor, it's saying there's mysteries in the galaxy we can never understand but trying to is part of the journey of life, we need to appreciate our world and all those worlds out there that might support life and stop fighting cus all the people on Earth are human and we all come from the same place, star dust, the same atoms in all of us are in the very dust the forms stars..... Interstellar is a lot of deep science wrapped around an easier to understand story but no less of an awesome film
@@Red_Lanterns_Rage my problem with the movie 2001 is how slow parts of it are, with me falling asleep (no exaggeration) while watching it at least once (some have made the same criticism of interstellar, but I disagree). The mood and tone in interstellar prevent it from having the same effect on me (a combination of the drama, music, and visuals). In 2001, I admire the effects production, the interactions with HAL, etc, but I found large parts of the movie were stretched out beyond where they needed, and how drawn out those parts of the movie were not compensated for by having attention/interest retaining visuals or audio the way Interstellar does. By the way, interstellar started out originally as a thought experiment (similar to how Einstein came up with his relativity theories) on what a black hole would truly look like by an astrophysicist named Kip Thorne (if I recall his name correctly). Christopher Nolan then built the movie from there. In the process, the effects team developed an algorithm to accurately model a black hole's appearance based on thorn's theories. The visuals of the black hole in the film apparently required hundreds of hours to render frame by frame using a super computer running that algorithm, and the model created for the movie itself is considered a scientific breakthrough/discovery in the field of astrophysics alongside kip thorn's theories that led to its design. Not sure how many fiction movies can make the claim of directly making a scientific discovery, but sure it is a pretty small club (I can think of at least three including interstellar, but the other two benefited just the field of entertainment production if I recall correctly, with one, terminator 2 I think, making advancements in computer effects, while the other, ironically a direct to tv and DVD movie in the stargate franchise (ark of truth) resulted in the development of a new substance for fire protection in movie stunts involving pyrotechnics if I remember correctly; I could be mistaken about the other two, with them possibly taking advantage of earlier discoveries/ breakthroughs and just being the first to make use of them, but if I recall correctly the production teams actually made the advancements themselves; I'm sure there are others, but it is still a relatively small number, and even fewer were as significant as interstellar's contribution). 2001 did contribute to the advancement of special effects and cinematography, but I don't think it actually made scientific discoveries of its own.
@@anuvisraa5786 they had actual scientists help with the science side so either you're wrong or the scientists were idiots yet a lot of what was shown aside from the inside of the black hole was legit and lines up with what's known
Why? Technological advances aren't that homogenous. Maybe they could solve the energy crisis but if all of your food crops are dying from resistant fungi and parasites, no amount of electricity is going to keep you alive.
well currently tthe F35 go with augmented reality in the pilots visor connected to cameras bellow the aircraft. Pilots can have a 360 view from their sit.
Conceptually it would be great, but it probably would diminish the situational awareness of the pilots, plus it would also add to the complexity of the seats, which are already complex enough with the emergency eject system. Imagine how they'd design the frame of the plane if you need to accommodate ejection of the pilot when they're seated in an awkward angle?
Your timing is brilliant! I just rewatched Interstellar last week, but seeing the Endurance get a review puts me right back in the mood to see the movie again.
tfw the backing music is the same as the closing backing music of We're The Last Humans Left :') if that's not deliberate, then it's a hell of a coincidence
@@TimberwolfCY a thermal engineer acquaintance has been able to impress upon me that keeping temperatures on a spaceship stable enough for humans (and Xray diodes, IIRC) is really hard, so keeping humans comfortable while animating a 10K's of degrees fusion reaction is a heavy lift
@@briankuczynski6884 Quite right. Not all of those big panels on the ISS are for solar power, for example. Several of them are radiators. Thermal management is really hard in space.
Maybe they followed the same route as the Epstien Drive from the Expanse: say all the waste heat somehow got redirected into the drive plume, and dumped out the bottom of the engine.
@@briankuczynski6884 Fair enough, but we're also talking about wormhole transportation here, too. I recall something about as the engines develop the temperatures in theory should come down some. But I'm no physicist, either lol
Easily one of my all-time favorite fictional space crafts. Excellent video, there was a good amount of stuff even I didn't know and only made me appreciate her even more.
Can you please review the SATO Jackal and Raven from Call of Duty Infinite Warfare (Jackal is the space fighter of SATO and the Raven is the SATO dropship)
Plus How did the Lander managed to get the Endurance back to orbit?!!!!! I though the Lander does not have enough thrust to pust the endurance out of orbit🤯
I love the Endurance. Thanks for the video! Apart from the engines and the SSTO's, I think the basic concept is sound and can be adapted to real-life space exploration. Imagine a spacecraft with Bigelow's space pods arranged in a ring with NERVA engine pods and a dockable SpaceX Starship!
Radiators don't look sexy 😉 In particular, it doesn't look futuristic. All the tech in Interstellar is very NASA style, but futuristic. Realistic radiators (and propellant tanks for that matter) would absolutely crush that look.
I assume it's probably sort of body radiators on the hull itself. Maybe even slight chance that RCS is made in a way to take away some heat(making gas hotter so it expands more and is more efficient).
CHECK OUT WORLD ANVIL AND SUPPORT SPACEDOCK!
worldanvil.pxf.io/vAgZy
Excuse me, Dan. Childhood question for ya: Have any of you ever watched a "SciFi/Documentary" called *Alien Planet* from 2005? If not, please watch it and give us your honest thoughts on the subject. You might enjoy it.
Ahh i wish it was a rickroll
It just now came to me that the Endurance survived an explosive decompression, partial re-entry (with no heat shield) and a supermassive black hole's pull. That is one hell of a reliable craft.
Supermassive black holes actually have less of a "spaghettification" effect than smaller ones.
@@rusher2937 That's some serious relativism baked into your statement.
Also the ship was ring shaped because it allows to withstand tidal forces of the wormhole .
The Endurance is a well fitting name for the achievements she accomplished : )
Script immunity
Who can forget the iconic lines of Dr Mann: *There is a moment …* [gets cut off by explosion].
_Truly Matt Damon's greatest speech._
"Matt Damen."
- Matt Damen
I love the entire movie, but that Explosive Decompression scene scared the shit out of everyone in the theater (that i was in) and it was also the most exhilarating moment as well. I would love to be able to go back and experience that moment, for the first time, again.
@@Seluecus1 i think it is one of the most exciting sequences in movie history.
The loudest sound you ever heard followed by dead silence, as part of the Endurance explodes and the whole mission is apparently ruined. Very effective scene.
Matt Damon's greatest speech was on Team America
"Matt Daaymon" - Matt Damon, Team America.
Those are actually seemingly practical and believable designs using the current known technology. Superb presentation.
...fusion reactors and cryopods aren't exactly existing technologies. Possible? Maybe (fusion more than cryopods), but they don't exist yet.
@@matteodelgallo1983 We do have fusion reactors just not reliable ones they use more power than they create but we’re really close within 10 years I’d say
@@matteodelgallo1983 all the tech used in the film have realistic basis.. we're just not advanced enough to implement them
Fusion for instance was recently cracked &we're slowly discovering the enzymes needed to replicate the cold-hybernation processes frogs &reptiles use to sleep frozen for months at a time.
So yeh all VERY real hard scifi measures.. some would say about too real &they could've.. gone abit softer with the science to alleviate the fiction.. but they wanted the entire process to feel tangible.. possible.. real.
@@o-wolf and then they threw literally all out of the window with the "love transcends time" bullshit.
Maybe I am a cynic but that soured the whole movie for me.
@@boooster101 how would YOU have ended that movie?
The Lander is by far one of my favorite crafts from media, it's just so angular yet somehow sleek? Just a piece of eye candy, especially with the ceiling and floor windows in its cockpit.
i totally agree , what a magnificent spacecraft
The lander looks amazing, especialy that one scene where brand is flying it over Mann
That lander could be useful for transporting cargo and colony materials to mars
like a redisign of the LEM
the ranger is probably one of my favourite ships ever, so gorgeous
Sometimes I go back and watch the Miller's Planet scene just to see it in action. The sound design when it takes off... 🤤
Ima sucker for the lander myself.. even though it gets no love lol.. something about a tough well designed cargo lifter/tug/courier that just scratches that millennium falcon itch I guess
@@o-wolf i love it too, everything in this movie is divine!!
The ranger is something I wish Microsoft flight sim or someone would make a dlc in a flight sim
Agreed bro...I wonder if money were no object could we build something like that...if research were given total leeway to find fuel, a power source and "rocket" engine....
I think the cryobeds are still a dream for the future.
pretty well thought out ships, the lack of external moving parts is something nasa would def do because that just increases the number of points of failure
especially with the phenomenon of cold welding, where the oxide layer on a metal is eroded away in vacuum conditions and it's able to bind seamlessly with other metal crystals in said vacuum, which is very bad for space craft when those weld points occur in moving components like door hinges and locks, which is exactly what happened on a Soviet space mission during the cold war, where the door mechanism on the command module experienced a cold weld resulting in some significant difficulties with opening and closing the hatch.
@@engineer84-w8x yup, happened on a NASA orbital mission too IIRC
Its amazing how well thought-out the Endurance is
Interstellar's endurance truly did live up to it's name. After everything thrown at it, it managed to survive by the end of the whole movie. Its namesake would be proud.
My favourite part about it is it's infinite delta-v very fun. I mean it go to Saturn in 2 years, that's like 35 km/s not to mention you have to slow down when you get there
Yeah, it kinda undermines the whole "we need artificial gravity because our rockets are too weak" thing, when their rockets are zipping to Saturn and flying up and down a black holes gravity well multiple times without refueling.
It has super efficient magnetohydrodynamic engines powered by fusion reactors.
@@massimocole9689 they only went down and up the black holes gravity well once, and that was with the slingshot maneuver they did.
@@BallMuncher555 They went down twice, once for Miller's Planet and then a second time near the end for the sling shot maneuver. Kip Thorn, one of the science advisors for the movie, mentioned in his book that Miller's Planet was so close to the event horizon of Gargantua that it was orbiting at 55% the speed of light, and the Endurance, even in its high parking orbit when waiting for the Ranger, was orbiting at 30% the speed of light. The Ranger had to bridge that 25% lightspeed deltaV gap twice, once when landing on the planet and a second time when leaving.
They did mention getting a gravity assist from a neutron star as a slight nod to how absurdly difficult the maneuver was, but Kip Thorn mentioned that needs to be taken with a bit of artistic license because to have gotten a good enough gravity assist to have made much of a difference the ship would have had to fly so close to the neutron star that it would have been ripped apart by its tides. And even with a really good gravity assist, one that reduced the deltaV needed a hundredfold, that still leaves over a thousand kilometers per second of deltaV. That enough to take off of Earth dozens of times. And a 100 fold decrease is optimistic.
The Endurance then needed to leave its 30% lightspeed parking orbit to head up to Mann's planet, which was also no small feat and the Endurance had no neutron star slingshots to help it. It just straight up had a deltaV budget of hundreds of thousands of kilometers per second. Is that possible with fusion? Yeah, but such ships are generally like 80% fuel tank, with vast radiator arrays to keep the absurdly energetic fusion engines cool. A ship that is mostly habitat ring being able to do that with no red hot radiator arrays in sight is towards the more implausibly efficient and power dense end of the fusion engine spectrum.
So yeah, Endurance and the Rangers were *really* powerful. Like, so powerful it raises questions about why they needed to solve the gravity problem so badly if they already had rockets that capable. They never really brought it up aside from a brief line saying that “rockets are too weak”. Which I mean, no. They have cargo shuttles so efficient that they could fly to orbit and back again dozens of times without refueling. That is plenty powerful; the problem is that there was too few of them. They frame the challenge of evacuating Earth as an energy problem, but they have absurdly powerful fusion drives. Its not an energy problem at that point, it’s a production problem, and they never gave us any reason why the brand new gravity drive would be easier to produce than the fusion drives they already had. And sure, even if making a grav drive was as quick and cheap as pouring concrete into a mold for some reason, I just can’t help but think the people on Earth could have been in pretty much the same place by the end of the movie if they had been building up a fleet of fusion ships and been steadily evacuating Earth for the 23 years that they were sitting around waiting on the gravity problem.
Lander is my favorite spaceship I've ever seen. because of its extremely cool shape and can be used in every aspect and every mission.
Great video. Spacedock and The exoplanets channel are my favorite channels!
I love the ranger's design around the movie's theme of time. A black and white circular craft, with 12 segments and an arm- a clock.
The fact that this thing survived a black holes pull is insane.
Excuse me, Spacedock team. Childhood question here: Have any of you ever watched a "SciFi/Documentary" called *Alien Planet* from 2005? If not, please watch it and give us your honest thoughts on the subject. You guys might even enjoy it.
(Sorry for double posting, I just wanted to make sure you guys get this message is all.)
ah the tale of Ike and Leo. I remember watching it on discovery channel. It made me scared as much as I was amazed.
In case anyone hasn't, check out Wayne Douglas Barlowe's "Expedition" from which DC's "Alien Planet" is directly based and Wayne produced
I think it's well thought-through.
18.5 m= 60.7 ft. or 60 ft. 8 in.
64 m= 210 ft.
200 m= 660 ft. (it's the circumference)
11.2 m= 36.7 ft. or 36 ft. 9 in.
20 m= 67 ft.
15 m= 49 ft.
I legitimately just rewatched this movie with my girlfriend. God it is so visually stunning.
One thing that I think kind of undermined the main goal of the crew of solving the gravity problem, was just how absurdly capable the rangers were. I mean, not only were they single stage to orbit around a planet larger than Earth, they were single stage to orbit around a supermassive blackhole. Kip Thorn one of the advisors for the movie mentions in his book the Science of Interstellar that Millers planet was orbiting Gargantua at 55% the speed of light, and the Ranger left the Endurance in a high parking orbit at 30% the speed of light. The deltaV to go from that parking orbit, to Millers planet and back up again is absurd. Now, they did explain it a bit by having them do some gravity assists around a neutron star which helps a lot, *but still*. These vehicles can take off from Earth, deliver a payload to orbit, land and repeat, multiple times without refueling or refurbishment. Who needs artificial gravity if you have SSTO's that capable and rapidly reusable? If they had been mass producing large cargo versions of those things during the several decades of waiting on the gravity problem they would have had a substantial head start.
The one thing that irks me about Interstellar is its bad rocket science. Realistically, any starship would require engines powered by antimatter situated far away from the crew module due to the lethal levels of gamma rays and fast moving neutrons emitted by such an engine. Otherwise, it would require intense radiation shielding with materials or energy fields currently not known to science. For the ranger to performs feats it did in the movie, it would definitely have to be antimatter powered. Only antimatter would have the energy needed to send a spaceship the size of ranger to take off from planets into space without external rocket assistance. Perhaps the least accurate part of the movie is when the Endurance use the black hole to send itself to Edmund. Without antimatter engines, that maneuver would have ended with the Endurance remaining in orbit and eventually getting sucked into the black hole, and without antimatter engines, the Endurance would not have been able to slow down before it reached Edmund’s planet as the velocity of Endurance after the slingshot was over 100,000 km/s.
What was the point of using an Apollo type stack to launch from Earth when you have a SSTO system as capable as the rangers (or landers)? What also irked me was having those white bathroom style tiles in the Endurance... Still, I found it an alright movie overall. But enjoyed it less then I normally would have because of the "it's so super scientifically accurate media hype".
@robinson During the whole Miller's planet sequence they were never near the Endurance so couldn't refuel from it. Presumably they refueled between planets, but just the Miller's planet trip would have required staggering amounts of fuel, far far more than the rest of the missions combined, due to it orbiting so close to Gargantua.
Are u being serious? There's no way in hell u think a hyperefficient lander/ranger thrust modules can in any way even scratch the delta v needed to save 8+ BILLION ppl
You need to build multiple IMMENSE structures capable of inhabiting multiple millions of individuals.. meaning u need to nullify gravities hold COMPLETELY.. I swear to god every critique I've seen of this movie comes from ppl who either have no clue what they're on about or ppl who are semi science literate but have greatly underestimated the challenges presented
@@valorum999 they literally said it in the video if you'd bother to listen.. it's to save every ounce of reaction mass/fuel possible.. just because it CAN reach orbit by itself doesn't mean it SHOULD.. surely that can't be so hard to grasp?
The cryo suspension pods didn't actually freeze anyone. They likely took over one's metabolism and energy needs with some futuristic fluid. Likely an efficient way to put someone into a form of hibernation while slowing the aging process.
They weren’t frozen, or aging would have stopped.
Them being submerged in liquid while still being able to breath could be an example of liquid breathing with the use of supersaturating the liquid with liquid oxygen too. Only question now is how they solved the carbon respiration problem
Ship felt practical, well though, but also desperate
Desperate times require desperate ship designs
Plot hole; Humanity has Tokamak compact fusion reactors (and presumably could upscale them) and is in trouble on Earth and needs to go _elsewhere?_
With the energy independence that gives Humans could just grow limitless food in giant underground greenhouses.
That sort of technology would be a game changer for Humanity.
Yeah, fusion would be a serious game changer. As easy as the Ranger and Lander got into orbit I always wondered why they even looked for another planet. Just build giant O'Neill cylinders for humanity to live on in orbit (like what they lived on in the end). Plus this eliminates any contamination from possible alien organisms you'd get on a planet like the one Brand was on in the final scene.
I think the reason for it was society. If you remember in the movie the society regressed trying to make more people into farmers to meet the demands for food. They were not interested in leaving Earth in the slightest and so much pressure was put upon NASA they literally went underground.
@@Vevvev8 good call
No, it would just reduce energy scarcity. Affordable Fusion is not a magical catch-all for every problem. It wouldn't cure the blight or restore the biosphere (which by that point was obviously collapsing)
fusion power creates heat pollution
Loved this movie. Was one of the ones that I watched over and over. I am a space aficondo, have been since I was a kid.
So when are you going to do one about Andromeda from the Andromeda series?
I just luv the Emdurance Lander design, its quite unique, it feels like a really cool space tank, its like a juggernaut.
7:30 i would have laughed so hard if the lander pushed on the docking port of the endurance so hard that the whole docking tunnel just snapped off
also the centre of trust would just make it spin around end over end
@@mathewferstl7042 it would make more sense if they lit half of the endurance's engines to balance the whole ship
How fitting that the movie's theme is based primarily on TIME and that the modules of the Endurance spacecraft match up to all 12 hours on a clock. Maybe just a coincidence, but if not, it just shows the level of attention to detail that was put into this masterpiece of a story. Love your channel btw!
May favorite fictional spacecraft getting the love it deserves.
Rangers and (2001) space pods are both beautiful designs. Thanks!
She’s got 12 modules and spins clockwise in a movie about time.
Amazing.
I heard the first few notes of the music and immediately thought of Mericia, gosh I love this track
Thank you for this video, now I can build a life-sized Endurence in my back yard 😌
I found the description of the engines to be the most interesting part of this video. Those Tokamaks must have some really impressive output in order to boost the engine's efficiency enough that it can function as an SSTO.
Agreed. However, that wouldn't be a huge problem, considering that Tokamaks are literally fusion reactors. As long as you can harness the energy you produce from those things, you should be fine.
Really the impressive part about it is their weight. They would have to be incredibly lightweight to be able to have 2 of them on an SSTO Ranger, regardless of the Isp of the engines. It takes a pretty insane amount of engineering to make even regular chemical rockets with a good thrust/weight ratio.
Which makes it less believable TBH. Fuel won't be as limited as depicted in the film if they are harnessing fusion.
@@deep.space.12 I didn't know that they had fuel shortages in the film, because I never watched it. I just like the ship. Tokamaks are a real technology in nuclear fusion research, and I assumed going into my earlier comment that they were literally swimming in fuel because they passed by a gas giant and landed on an ocean world with what I'm assuming was liquid water. That should be screaming "Split my water molecules! Harness my hydrogen atoms!" It's my bad, I've literally never watched the film, so I didn't know that they had a fuel problem. They literally passed by a gas giant (or maybe more?) on the way, so if they could safely get close enough, there would be even less reason to have a fuel shortage. Even if they exclusively used deuterium, it shouldn't be THAT hard to find hydrogen isotopes. Literally stick a straw into Saturn and you could probably get a lot. But once again, that depends whether they can get to low orbit around a gas giant safely (I assume they can, since the ship has done crazier things).
@@deep.space.12 there is a difference between fuel and propellant. I agree that they wouldn't have run out of fuel for working fusion reactors, but with the years it was doing orbital adjustments in the movie running out of propellant to use in the engines seems quite plausible.
I suspect they might have said they didn't have enough fuel in the movie because the average person gets fuel and propellant confused, and fuel is the more commonly used term.
For a Ship Breakdown you should do The Ark from the National Geographic Documentary - Evacuate Earth
Do not go gentle into that good night
Shaped like a clock, and this is why interstellar is one of my favorite movies
Great video as always.
it's kinda iconic that the endurance is shape like a clock, cause with the humans facing extinction from the blight, the crew had to find another habitable world for their kind, and time obviously is ticking, and it is NOT on their side.
Hm, nice pick-up there! Time and clocks references are all throughout the movie and soundtrack, but I missed that rather obvious one. Thanks!
now that Spacedock and you have pointed it out, yeah, there was a lot of reference to clocks in this movie.
I even have the soundtrack, and didn't pick up on that really until now.
Thanks so much for making this video
they did NOT have to go this hard on the ships for a 2 hour movie
I think this is the reason I love this movie.
It would be neat to see a prequel of the Lazarus missions, maybe the Lander could get some more love.
2:42 "just a normal cryogenic chamber for long human shelf life"
*witness man "go to sleep" in the way his mom had nightmares of him dieing at 3, plastic bag and bathtub*
Two things. One, I would have added a second pylon, and two, the overall design reminds me of the XCV-330 USS Enterprise (Declaration class).
I wish we can actually build these things
The endurance is a really cool spacecraft, I'm glad you have made a video about it, can you make HUMANITAS spaceship from Voyagers next time?
3:26 CMON TARS
I love how during the world anvil spot he’s talking about regurgitated Star Trek and Star Wars and in the video playing is a Star Wars fan fic
Interstellar is up there with 2001 a space odyssey (which to be honest I did not like) in importance to the history of science fiction movies. It was easily the best science fiction movie of its decade, and possibly the best in multiple decades.
@JasonB Nolan had stated in interviews that Interstellar was basically what he wanted 2001 to be. I always thought there were a ton of similarities also, but didn't find out specifically till a few years later that was the inspiration behind Interstellar. And I'm glad also I'm the only one that thinks it's the best of the past several many years. IMO it's not just the best, but perhaps the most important of at least the last 20 years.
2001 is great but you have to see it a bunch of times to get more of what it's saying....you wont get full understanding from 1 watch and even for asome you might see it 100 times and still not get all of it;'s meaning that's fine it was intended cus Kubrick wanted us to come to our own conclusions and when he was alive he explained it as fully as he was willing but still wanted us to see in it what we will
I think a lot of it is metaphor, it's saying there's mysteries in the galaxy we can never understand but trying to is part of the journey of life, we need to appreciate our world and all those worlds out there that might support life and stop fighting cus all the people on Earth are human and we all come from the same place, star dust, the same atoms in all of us are in the very dust the forms stars.....
Interstellar is a lot of deep science wrapped around an easier to understand story but no less of an awesome film
@@Red_Lanterns_Rage my problem with the movie 2001 is how slow parts of it are, with me falling asleep (no exaggeration) while watching it at least once (some have made the same criticism of interstellar, but I disagree). The mood and tone in interstellar prevent it from having the same effect on me (a combination of the drama, music, and visuals). In 2001, I admire the effects production, the interactions with HAL, etc, but I found large parts of the movie were stretched out beyond where they needed, and how drawn out those parts of the movie were not compensated for by having attention/interest retaining visuals or audio the way Interstellar does.
By the way, interstellar started out originally as a thought experiment (similar to how Einstein came up with his relativity theories) on what a black hole would truly look like by an astrophysicist named Kip Thorne (if I recall his name correctly). Christopher Nolan then built the movie from there. In the process, the effects team developed an algorithm to accurately model a black hole's appearance based on thorn's theories. The visuals of the black hole in the film apparently required hundreds of hours to render frame by frame using a super computer running that algorithm, and the model created for the movie itself is considered a scientific breakthrough/discovery in the field of astrophysics alongside kip thorn's theories that led to its design. Not sure how many fiction movies can make the claim of directly making a scientific discovery, but sure it is a pretty small club (I can think of at least three including interstellar, but the other two benefited just the field of entertainment production if I recall correctly, with one, terminator 2 I think, making advancements in computer effects, while the other, ironically a direct to tv and DVD movie in the stargate franchise (ark of truth) resulted in the development of a new substance for fire protection in movie stunts involving pyrotechnics if I remember correctly; I could be mistaken about the other two, with them possibly taking advantage of earlier discoveries/ breakthroughs and just being the first to make use of them, but if I recall correctly the production teams actually made the advancements themselves; I'm sure there are others, but it is still a relatively small number, and even fewer were as significant as interstellar's contribution). 2001 did contribute to the advancement of special effects and cinematography, but I don't think it actually made scientific discoveries of its own.
interestelar is a mediocre movie in plot and science. prety visuals but not a lot more
@@anuvisraa5786 they had actual scientists help with the science side so either you're wrong or the scientists were idiots yet a lot of what was shown aside from the inside of the black hole was legit and lines up with what's known
LOL the idea that they had fusion power but couldn’t fix the earth is hilarious
Why? Technological advances aren't that homogenous.
Maybe they could solve the energy crisis but if all of your food crops are dying from resistant fungi and parasites, no amount of electricity is going to keep you alive.
The Lander is so CHAD AND GOATED BRO🤩
Another great ship breakdown that makes the source material more enjoyable. Thanks you Spacedock!
I might be wrong but that rotating seat along with top and bottom windows look like a good idea to be implemented into fighter jets
DARPA, USAF and NASA wants to know your location
well currently tthe F35 go with augmented reality in the pilots visor connected to cameras bellow the aircraft. Pilots can have a 360 view from their sit.
Conceptually it would be great, but it probably would diminish the situational awareness of the pilots, plus it would also add to the complexity of the seats, which are already complex enough with the emergency eject system. Imagine how they'd design the frame of the plane if you need to accommodate ejection of the pilot when they're seated in an awkward angle?
lets goo i finally have inspiration for KSP
Always wanted a vid about this!
Your timing is brilliant! I just rewatched Interstellar last week, but seeing the Endurance get a review puts me right back in the mood to see the movie again.
Excellent breakdown.
Once you go into space then you are in the unknown. But if you enter a wormhole then you open a door to a paradise or hell at your own peril.
famous last words:there is a moment BOOOOOOOOOOM
Bucking. Frilliant. Video.
Thank you
🐺
Great episode!!!really great episode!!! Thanks!
Now I’m just waiting for NASA to actually make this possible
tfw the backing music is the same as the closing backing music of We're The Last Humans Left :') if that's not deliberate, then it's a hell of a coincidence
what even is that music
@@jimkerman5675 "Will You Follow Me" by Tiny Music :)
@@SpyglassRealms fanks g
You had me at World Anvil...
I HAD NOT known that the Endurance was supposed to have tokamaks on board. That's uh, a very impressive bit of thermal engineering.
If they work the way China's been working on them, they'll be pretty damn small IIRC
@@TimberwolfCY a thermal engineer acquaintance has been able to impress upon me that keeping temperatures on a spaceship stable enough for humans (and Xray diodes, IIRC) is really hard, so keeping humans comfortable while animating a 10K's of degrees fusion reaction is a heavy lift
@@briankuczynski6884 Quite right. Not all of those big panels on the ISS are for solar power, for example. Several of them are radiators. Thermal management is really hard in space.
Maybe they followed the same route as the Epstien Drive from the Expanse: say all the waste heat somehow got redirected into the drive plume, and dumped out the bottom of the engine.
@@briankuczynski6884 Fair enough, but we're also talking about wormhole transportation here, too. I recall something about as the engines develop the temperatures in theory should come down some. But I'm no physicist, either lol
Does anyone know what the music used in the background for most of the video is?
If you haven't you should do a tardis breakdown of the ship .
Excellent video
Yes finally!
I guess I have to watch the movie again. I did not hear them talk about any of these in the movie.
Is there any possibility you guys might do the Resolute from the new Lost in Space?
yeah i just watched that new series on Netflix and it's pretty cool so far
It's my favorite"realistic" sci-fi ship so far
I love these videos!
Could we get some redos of some of your earlier videos with all the new production value
Is there a way to have a print to this blueprints?
Thanks for the content.
What song are they using in the background?
It's 'Will you follow me' by Tiny Music. You can listen to it on Soundcloud.
@@kutter_ttl6786 thank you
7:25 I sense some sass
incredible detail thanks
Do a video about Lost In Space jupiters! And/or The Resolute
and the Proteus...
wait, different Lost in Space XD
(people consider it a bad movie, but i grew up liking it)
I skipped thru Battlezone II music but couldnt find those tracks from this video. Anyone knows them?
In ,Through and Beyond.
Easily one of my all-time favorite fictional space crafts. Excellent video, there was a good amount of stuff even I didn't know and only made me appreciate her even more.
Can you please review the SATO Jackal and Raven from Call of Duty Infinite Warfare (Jackal is the space fighter of SATO and the Raven is the SATO dropship)
@spacedock
Where did you find all of this info, so much of this never got mentioned in the movie
Thank you!
Endurance - sounds like they picked an apt name for the spacecraft.
What show is this ship from
Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. A movie from 2014
@@fabiosilveira8571 thanks
when the name of your space craft projects it's strongest attribute. this ship endured hell.
Plus How did the Lander managed to get the Endurance back to orbit?!!!!!
I though the Lander does not have enough thrust to pust the endurance out of orbit🤯
I love the Endurance. Thanks for the video! Apart from the engines and the SSTO's, I think the basic concept is sound and can be adapted to real-life space exploration. Imagine a spacecraft with Bigelow's space pods arranged in a ring with NERVA engine pods and a dockable SpaceX Starship!
someone please, please, tell me the name of the song they use from around the 00:30 mark, i love it
6:00 - and how many can’t figure out the obvious over why the Rangers were initially used multi-stage rockets?
To conserve reaction mass on the ranger itself, most likely, one less ssto on earth is one more shunk of margin of error out there pass the wormhole
I kinda wish the movie had including a guided tour of the vessel, but that would have never fit the sombre story telling.
Goes to show how redundancy pays even though its a movie
I can't wait to see Outerstellar.
Can i get a break down of the GunStar from The Last Starfighter.
Does it have radiators?
I’ve been waiting for this one for years, thank you so much!!
why no radiators? how do they deal with the accumulating heat from the reactors, computers, life supports etc?
Radiators don't look sexy 😉
In particular, it doesn't look futuristic. All the tech in Interstellar is very NASA style, but futuristic. Realistic radiators (and propellant tanks for that matter) would absolutely crush that look.
@@vickas54 agreed, radiators in general are very hard to make sexy/compact
The ISV Venturestar from Avatar is a very good example though.
@@egabootlewchalermwongse9015 you can always make them like small fins on each pod
I assume it's probably sort of body radiators on the hull itself.
Maybe even slight chance that RCS is made in a way to take away some heat(making gas hotter so it expands more and is more efficient).
8:21 Yuri 5 Base. I see where someones mind is....
Favorite ship after the roci!!!