Hey everyone! Thanks for watching. Simply Space is a new channel and if you enjoy it, I'd really appreciate it if you shared it with anyone that needs some more space in their lives.
Dude, I've been playing KSP for years. But I've never seen a simplier yet more understandable explanation of basic orbital dynamics than yours. Really nice! Keep up the good work!
I highly recommend the video series "Journey to the ISS" from the ESA. It's on RUclips and explains a manned Soyuz launch, rendezvous, docking and return. Edit: the three videos are hard to find because they don't have the series name in the title. The three video titles are, in order: -The Soyuz launch sequence explained -Soyuz rendezvous and docking explained -Soyuz undocking, reentry and landing explained ... Posted by the European Space Agency channel
As a ksp player this is so fricking useful because i always had to wait years bc they were on same orbit. Thank you for telling me how to line them up!
But why is the orbit of iss not around the equator? Then it is much easier to rendezvous and when launching they would need less delta v because off the earth spinning?
If the ISS's orbit was equatorial the it would not pass over any of the launch sites in Russia and the US. If you launch from say a 45° latitude, then the minimum inclination orbit you can launch into would be 45°. Getting to an equatorial orbiting ISS would cost an insane amount of dV to reduce your inclination to match the station.
Sir please tell how may I know at what distance or time should i accelerate from lower orbit to catch the station? You say, 'once they are in perfect position,' How do i know the perfect position ? The video helped me a lot ... Now i can connect the solars to the iss in SIMPLE ROCKETS 2. Its a game tho , it will help me to find the 'perfect position'.. Still curious...
So... I knew about orbits, the fact that an elliptical one makes the object move faster the closer it is to the planet, I knew about Hohmann transfers and their mechanics. I never put to think about the fact that the higher you go, the slower you are going in a circular orbit in respect to a smaller one. But makes total sense when I think about a very elliptic one... I used to think that the bigger circle was faster relative to ground and slower related to complete revolutions as it had to "draw" a bigger circle or travel a longer path... I was wrong but never stopped to think about it. You made me think about it, understand it in a deeper way and realize I was wrong on that. Funny thing is that I knew the info, but you made me click it in the right way. Thanks! 4:05 gravitational potential
I want to point something out you if you want to rendezvous with the international space station you don’t actually .51° you. 41° but now we’re getting in and do some spherical trigonometry, the earth’s rotation and some fun math
You're confusing azimuth and inclination. The inclination is 51º but the azimuth depends on what launch site you're flying from. www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Launch_Azimuth
Nice video. I'm not sure of your audience thus my critique may be irrelevant. I love the subject matter however I felt like you spoke too slow and didn't get to points quick enough. Again, I'm not criticizing but rather a critique. Thanks for the video. I liked it.
I know about the subject, I'm not new to it, and I liked the pace. On the other side, it's a 5.50 mins video, how much more time optimization can it get? :-P Maybe he can remove one sentence here or there but most of it is very good IMHO
Brilliantly and clearly explained. I used to read a lot on space flight (many years ago) but I didn't know about the details of getting to a higher orbit. You've done Oz proud cobber. That's sounds like a real country accent. Which town are you from?
I recently found your channel and its simply superb.. I think your channel is very underrated( it deserves 100k subscribers) ..You have a great understanding and ability to explain simply.. I highly recommend that you target Spacex, Elon, and Tesla in the descriptions of your next few vids (Explain something about the roadsters orbit?).. I think some more exposure to the Elon/Tesla/ spaceX crowd ( hype train / big community), will help blow your channel up.. Good luck -
Excellent information and a nice presentation. Realy I am a fan of you. Keep it up. Secondly, in the universe, all stars and planets are moving. I mean galaxy, solar system, sun, earth etc are moving. What is exactly the path of an object on the earth? please provide it in nest video.
Good video and reasonably well explained. The only minor caveat I have is that your animation appear to show the capsule raising its orbit to come up in front of the station WRT the direction of the orbit. Per my understanding, and please correct me I'm wrong, craft always approach from behind, as it takes less delta v to approach it from behind than to go past it then back up.
Good video, But I still have one question,you said if we bring the vehicle in lower orbit than the ISS its going to be faster because its closer to the centre of mass but wouldn't going down mean that you get more drag because you are deeper in the atmosphere and thus slowing the vehicle more down?
Yes, but it's such a tiny amount of drag that we can treat it as being negligible. Drag would slow you down, putting you in a lower orbit, that would actually be faster.
@@SimplySpaceThe content of this video was obviously really smart etc but your reply to this comment impressed me more. It's easy to fake being smart by googling a few things and being interested in something, but you replied in a way to make them calculate the answer to their question so they will never forget the answer, and maybe apply the same logic to other questions in the future. That's something you don't learn from textbooks.
There are so many technical inaccuracies in this video that it makes me angry. Please don't go on a mission to educate others before thoroughly learning something yourself first.
- We do NOT wait until the ISS orbit intersects the launch site. The rendezvous location is quite different than both the ISS and the launch locations. The launch time is selected depending on numerous criteria. The rendezvous time is one of them, but for completely unrelated reasons than what you are claiming in this video. There are two more orbits before reaching the eventual ISS orbit. Some of these allow for a shorter docking time of several hours as opposed to days, but the mechanics of that are also due to unrelated reasons. - We do NOT launch into a phasing orbit. We launch to an insertion/parking orbit which is then left to reach the phasing orbit. - We do NOT use a Hoffman Transfer to reach the ISS orbit, we use a Bi-elliptic Transfer to achieve the correct altitude an speed. The Hoffman Transfer is used to get from the insertion orbit to the phasing orbit. - We are NOT slowing down as we get to the higher orbit. The spacecraft still has the same velocity. It is the change in angular velocity that makes it appear to go slower to an observant from Earth, but the angular momentum is conserved. There are a lot of other channels that explain this same stuff better and in much greater detail and accuracy. Do not waste your time with this one.
You're what I call a nitpicker and it's just kind of sad that you're trying to flex on a video that is clearly meant to introduce the laymen person the the concept of orbital rendezvous. While your points about transfers and phasing may be correct for certain spacecraft, rendezvous profiles differ over years and vehicles, a level of specificity I was not writing this episode to. This video is meant to introduce the concepts of phasing and coelliptic altitude adjustment, Hohmann transfers provide the best introduction to this topic. Your understanding of orbital mechanics is weak. We do wait for the plane of the ISS's orbit to align with the launch site, launch windows are planned for that alignment otherwise the orbit will have a different longitude of ascending node and the dV required to correct that will be LARGE, hence we want to restrict all dV we can to be in-plane. Orbital velocity DOES decrease as our orbit increases in altitude, any physics student can tell you this and I provided a force vector explanation as to why. If you want a mathematical proof, you can rearrange Fc=(mV^2)/r and Fg=(GMm)/r^2 to give V=√(GM/r) which shows that velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of orbital radius. If need be take an energy conservation approach, while approaching apogee you're trading kinetic energy for gravitational potential energy, while approaching perigee the opposite is true. Don't kid yourself, I know when you saw this video of a young person explaining something, you felt insecure and had to flex the fact you thought you had superior knowledge of the subject. I know I've been there too and felt the same reaction. There are almost certainly things you know that I don't, but don't make a fool of yourself trying to point it out. If you want to point out inaccuracies there are more polite ways to do so than getting angry at a video and creator. We could have had a nice discussion here but you decided it was best to mock me from your first comment.
So you chose to give information that is factually inaccurate because it is easier to understand for someone who doesn't know much about this stuff? That (if true) is even worse than being ignorant.
I've successfully provided a framework for someone to build an understanding of something they might never have encountered before. Just because I didn't mention the difference between phasing orbits, insertion orbits, Hohmann transfers and bielliptic transfers doesn't mean I provided factually inaccurate information. I decided that it wasn't in the scope of the video, hence I DIDN'T MENTION IT. There's a large difference between a choice to omit information not necessary to the task at hand, and providing false information. Would you expect this video to cover nodal precession, ISS reboost, ULA's RAAN steering, state vector determination, orbital TLEs? No, because they're outside the scope of the video. Creating educational content is a balance between providing enough information to create a picture of what's happening and providing excess information that could potentially confuse a viewer. You've made a fool of yourself here, I'm not commenting on this thread anymore.
Hey everyone! Thanks for watching. Simply Space is a new channel and if you enjoy it, I'd really appreciate it if you shared it with anyone that needs some more space in their lives.
Dude, I've been playing KSP for years. But I've never seen a simplier yet more understandable explanation of basic orbital dynamics than yours. Really nice! Keep up the good work!
0:04 Vsauce vibes 🤣
I highly recommend the video series "Journey to the ISS" from the ESA. It's on RUclips and explains a manned Soyuz launch, rendezvous, docking and return.
Edit: the three videos are hard to find because they don't have the series name in the title. The three video titles are, in order:
-The Soyuz launch sequence explained
-Soyuz rendezvous and docking explained
-Soyuz undocking, reentry and landing explained
... Posted by the European Space Agency channel
I wish i can deliver a presentation like you. Very articulate speaking!
Practice my friend. Before starting the channel I did 4 years of debating and that really helped.
Vsauce Jr.
Good vid tho
Exactly what i thought
Great explanation!
You helped me with KSP dockings
Thank you soooooo much, seriously
I love you graphics
Pretty authentic, keep going
Great video, and amazing explanation of rendezvous! Just subbed & keep up the amazing work
Wow thanks, it's awesome to see someone big in the space community enjoying my videos!
As a KSP player, I could now dock the spaceships to the station. Thanks for the explanation!
Anybody else notice that ISS cutout above the animated picture of the earth moving?
Huh
In real time?
Plus an easter egg
I was searching for this comment. I guess it was in real-time
As a ksp player this is so fricking useful because i always had to wait years bc they were on same orbit. Thank you for telling me how to line them up!
Good information. Very well done.
Thanks a lot, it's great hearing positive responses.
But why is the orbit of iss not around the equator? Then it is much easier to rendezvous and when launching they would need less delta v because off the earth spinning?
If the ISS's orbit was equatorial the it would not pass over any of the launch sites in Russia and the US.
If you launch from say a 45° latitude, then the minimum inclination orbit you can launch into would be 45°. Getting to an equatorial orbiting ISS would cost an insane amount of dV to reduce your inclination to match the station.
Instructions unclear. Accidentally got ahead of the ISS and it rendezvous with me instead.
😃
“Aye iss iss”
I hope this kid should get millions of subscribers ..will forward as many know groups I have
Me too.
How old is he?
Why is the ISS sticker on the map moving
I guess this is a real time dashboard that shows the current position above the Earth, but hell i can’t understand how it works
Sir please tell how may I know at what distance or time should i accelerate from lower orbit to catch the station?
You say, 'once they are in perfect position,'
How do i know the perfect position ?
The video helped me a lot ... Now i can connect the solars to the iss in SIMPLE ROCKETS 2.
Its a game tho , it will help me to find the 'perfect position'..
Still curious...
Crazy how I learned the basics orbital mechanics by playing sfs.. Of course, it's incredibly simplified but it's enough for me.
So... I knew about orbits, the fact that an elliptical one makes the object move faster the closer it is to the planet, I knew about Hohmann transfers and their mechanics.
I never put to think about the fact that the higher you go, the slower you are going in a circular orbit in respect to a smaller one. But makes total sense when I think about a very elliptic one...
I used to think that the bigger circle was faster relative to ground and slower related to complete revolutions as it had to "draw" a bigger circle or travel a longer path... I was wrong but never stopped to think about it. You made me think about it, understand it in a deeper way and realize I was wrong on that. Funny thing is that I knew the info, but you made me click it in the right way. Thanks!
4:05 gravitational potential
I want to point something out you if you want to rendezvous with the international space station you don’t actually .51° you. 41° but now we’re getting in and do some spherical trigonometry, the earth’s rotation and some fun math
You're confusing azimuth and inclination. The inclination is 51º but the azimuth depends on what launch site you're flying from.
www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Launch_Azimuth
Simply Space Every day astronaut did a video on why Rockets roll
What a nice describing!!!
Thanks for your excellent narration on this issue.
You made a great v-sauce impression.
did anyone notice the space station model behind him moving @2:20
I noticed
Why Soyuz only took 3 hours but SpaceX took more than 8 hpurs at least?
As an aeronautical engineering student, this is interesting 🤗🤗
Glad I played SFS 😂
You can use this info in SFS so you can be a master pro
Nice video. I'm not sure of your audience thus my critique may be irrelevant. I love the subject matter however I felt like you spoke too slow and didn't get to points quick enough. Again, I'm not criticizing but rather a critique. Thanks for the video. I liked it.
I know about the subject, I'm not new to it, and I liked the pace. On the other side, it's a 5.50 mins video, how much more time optimization can it get? :-P Maybe he can remove one sentence here or there but most of it is very good IMHO
I'm a bit dizzy from all the spinning 🙂
Great video, you really explain it so anyone can understand. Good job!
Good information..
Thank you very much!
nah dude just add a maneuver node and increase prograde until you get intersect nodes
If you're gonna brute force an intercept, yeah.
How do they avoid all the satellites?
Satellites are actually really far apart and i think the iss has an exclusion zone.
@@Daniel115XD it's a trip to think of all of the satellites zipping around the earth on different tracks basically
Amazing, this helps me to improve my Kerbal Space Program skills ;)
I know, right?
Brilliantly and clearly explained. I used to read a lot on space flight (many years ago) but I didn't know about the details of getting to a higher orbit. You've done Oz proud cobber. That's sounds like a real country accent. Which town are you from?
I'm from New Zealand
I didn't hear that accent on my two trips to South Island. Which town are you from?
Thought LEO was about 7,8 km/s. So nearly 8.
But nice job explaining the basic principles of rendevouz!
You deserve more subs.
Love this, thank you!
Thanks and you're welcome. Watch this space, there are some really interesting videos in the works.
if we didnt boost the ISS orbit every once in a while it would fall to earth and burn up
Yes
I recently found your channel and its simply superb.. I think your channel is very underrated( it deserves 100k subscribers) ..You have a great understanding and ability to explain simply.. I highly recommend that you target Spacex, Elon, and Tesla in the descriptions of your next few vids (Explain something about the roadsters orbit?).. I think some more exposure to the Elon/Tesla/ spaceX crowd ( hype train / big community), will help blow your channel up.. Good luck
-
just got here and Im loving it
good job
Cheers, I'm in the middle of writing a new video right now :)
Excellent information and a nice presentation. Realy I am a fan of you. Keep it up. Secondly, in the universe, all stars and planets are moving. I mean galaxy, solar system, sun, earth etc are moving. What is exactly the path of an object on the earth? please provide it in nest video.
Great video, Been!
No u
New videos when?
Never trust a Kiwi
Great video !
This is awesome!! Love your channel!
Thank you. Please share it with as many people as you can.
Great video
Good video and reasonably well explained.
The only minor caveat I have is that your animation appear to show the capsule raising its orbit to come up in front of the station WRT the direction of the orbit. Per my understanding, and please correct me I'm wrong, craft always approach from behind, as it takes less delta v to approach it from behind than to go past it then back up.
Well, the station simply rotates 180 degrees because the docking port is on the front of the station. The spacecraft always approaches from behind.
Well done. I've learnt so much from your video's. Keep up the great work 🙂
Brilliant
Excellent explanation. I had multiple A-ha moments. 😁🌹
Good explanation. You look like Wesley from Star Trek TNG.
Im the 100th likes but no one cares
I care
Great video! couldn't find the explanation anywhere else
I really love this video, please make more videos. How old are you? Where are you studying?
One of the best depiction I ever saw ..this kid seems to a super kid
Thank u so much this vid is so useful and helpful! ;)
U can learn all these in KSP. And even try on practice :)
Perfect explaination , thanks and keep it UP
Good video,
But I still have one question,you said if we bring the vehicle in lower orbit than the ISS its going to be faster because its closer to the centre of mass but wouldn't going down mean that you get more drag because you are deeper in the atmosphere and thus slowing the vehicle more down?
Yes, but it's such a tiny amount of drag that we can treat it as being negligible.
Drag would slow you down, putting you in a lower orbit, that would actually be faster.
💛👍
Great explanation, love the positive energy and Vsauce vibes!
You ‘re so sharp mate 💪keep on doing it please.. thanks for sharing
Thanks Riccardo
or Simply, Play KSP
Very interesting and well explained! Thank you and keep up the good work! One small remark, though: Isn't Earth rotating in the opposite direction?
Nope, think about what direction the sun rises and sets in.
@@SimplySpaceThe content of this video was obviously really smart etc but your reply to this comment impressed me more. It's easy to fake being smart by googling a few things and being interested in something, but you replied in a way to make them calculate the answer to their question so they will never forget the answer, and maybe apply the same logic to other questions in the future. That's something you don't learn from textbooks.
Cool animations!
I'm glad you like it, the next one is coming very soon.
First!
Second
There are so many technical inaccuracies in this video that it makes me angry. Please don't go on a mission to educate others before thoroughly learning something yourself first.
Care to enlighten me? (I know Super Dracos aren't used for on orbit maneuvering, I'll conscede that as an oversight at the time)
- We do NOT wait until the ISS orbit intersects the launch site. The rendezvous location is quite different than both the ISS and the launch locations. The launch time is selected depending on numerous criteria. The rendezvous time is one of them, but for completely unrelated reasons than what you are claiming in this video. There are two more orbits before reaching the eventual ISS orbit. Some of these allow for a shorter docking time of several hours as opposed to days, but the mechanics of that are also due to unrelated reasons.
- We do NOT launch into a phasing orbit. We launch to an insertion/parking orbit which is then left to reach the phasing orbit.
- We do NOT use a Hoffman Transfer to reach the ISS orbit, we use a Bi-elliptic Transfer to achieve the correct altitude an speed. The Hoffman Transfer is used to get from the insertion orbit to the phasing orbit.
- We are NOT slowing down as we get to the higher orbit. The spacecraft still has the same velocity. It is the change in angular velocity that makes it appear to go slower to an observant from Earth, but the angular momentum is conserved.
There are a lot of other channels that explain this same stuff better and in much greater detail and accuracy. Do not waste your time with this one.
You're what I call a nitpicker and it's just kind of sad that you're trying to flex on a video that is clearly meant to introduce the laymen person the the concept of orbital rendezvous. While your points about transfers and phasing may be correct for certain spacecraft, rendezvous profiles differ over years and vehicles, a level of specificity I was not writing this episode to. This video is meant to introduce the concepts of phasing and coelliptic altitude adjustment, Hohmann transfers provide the best introduction to this topic. Your understanding of orbital mechanics is weak. We do wait for the plane of the ISS's orbit to align with the launch site, launch windows are planned for that alignment otherwise the orbit will have a different longitude of ascending node and the dV required to correct that will be LARGE, hence we want to restrict all dV we can to be in-plane. Orbital velocity DOES decrease as our orbit increases in altitude, any physics student can tell you this and I provided a force vector explanation as to why. If you want a mathematical proof, you can rearrange Fc=(mV^2)/r and Fg=(GMm)/r^2 to give V=√(GM/r) which shows that velocity is inversely proportional to the square root of orbital radius. If need be take an energy conservation approach, while approaching apogee you're trading kinetic energy for gravitational potential energy, while approaching perigee the opposite is true.
Don't kid yourself, I know when you saw this video of a young person explaining something, you felt insecure and had to flex the fact you thought you had superior knowledge of the subject. I know I've been there too and felt the same reaction. There are almost certainly things you know that I don't, but don't make a fool of yourself trying to point it out. If you want to point out inaccuracies there are more polite ways to do so than getting angry at a video and creator. We could have had a nice discussion here but you decided it was best to mock me from your first comment.
So you chose to give information that is factually inaccurate because it is easier to understand for someone who doesn't know much about this stuff? That (if true) is even worse than being ignorant.
I've successfully provided a framework for someone to build an understanding of something they might never have encountered before. Just because I didn't mention the difference between phasing orbits, insertion orbits, Hohmann transfers and bielliptic transfers doesn't mean I provided factually inaccurate information. I decided that it wasn't in the scope of the video, hence I DIDN'T MENTION IT. There's a large difference between a choice to omit information not necessary to the task at hand, and providing false information. Would you expect this video to cover nodal precession, ISS reboost, ULA's RAAN steering, state vector determination, orbital TLEs? No, because they're outside the scope of the video. Creating educational content is a balance between providing enough information to create a picture of what's happening and providing excess information that could potentially confuse a viewer.
You've made a fool of yourself here, I'm not commenting on this thread anymore.