SmarterEveryDay

SmarterEveryDay SmarterEveryDay

  • 30
  • 912M
I explore the world using science. That's pretty much all there is to it. Watch 2 videos. If you learn something AWESOME, please subscribe if you feel like I earned it.

Contact: www.smartereveryday.com/contact. I currently get lots of correspondence so please forgive me if I'm unable to reply. I mean well, but want to focus on being a better Dad.

Wideo

16:29How to Make Pizza on a Submarine - Smarter Every Day 246
36:40Navy SEAL Astronauts - Smarter Every Day 243
Navy SEAL Astronauts - Smarter Every Day 243wyświetleń 1,7M5 miesięcy temu
54:33Everything about Sea Turtles  - Smarter Every Day 239
13:30Modeling Murmuration - Smarter Every Day 234
Modeling Murmuration - Smarter Every Day 234wyświetleń 892K10 miesięcy temu
12:56The Gun Detector - Smarter Every Day 225

Komentarze

  • i like your videos but i thot i would get smarter every day but you dont have one every day

  • Destin, when are you going on ROCKETSHIP?

  • Half of the Nasa budget goes for the team naming the projects.

  • I think it should be a combination if both. Like the new fighter jets. The computer handles the stability issue where as the pilot gets the ultimate control.

  • NGL, That startup sequence could make for a good beat

  • My colonoscopy is shortly and this makes my day...

  • Hi. I am curious how working/testing within the earths atmosphere compares to that of any luminary. The thrusters they show and all the tech within are designed to operate within an atmosphere not on another world.

  • They plant trees.

  • Kim Jon in be like: 👀

  • That aluminum ring between the fairing and the rocket body, we made the machine that makes it.

  • Weed whacker collision in slo-mo???

  • You oughta fire that thing at a side of beef and see what happens, then BBQ what's left of it.

  • That beat when it first starts up... can totally see Andrew Huang making an entire song out of it, haha

  • I agree with you on the training. I believe the pilots should train towards having no control algorithms. Having a manual , slide rule no power mechanisms type of plan to journey home or land is extremely important to keep life safe. Redundancy means simple !

  • Bob is deader than Bill Cosby's acting career and for the same reason.

  • @16:46 Thought some heavy metal was about to play or something.

  • I missed this because PLtools unsubscribed me.

  • Pity the EGC isn't pointing towards the centre of the earth all the time. Seems like it would introduce error.

  • 16:46 someone please sample this for a song

  • Hey Dustin (idk how to spell your name irl), what if we got you, Mark Rober, MatPat, and the TKoR team to help design/build/test the Artemis Lunar Module.

  • this man's face is engineered to have a moustache

  • Hey Destin, I just want to let you know that the available subtitles are riddled with errors, I hope you can fix them

  • Personally, I think the computer should handle everything. If the computer can't solve a problem, I don't think a human could. Any training we could put into a human to be able to solve the problem, we could also put that same time into training the computer better. There is so much more things going on now, so even with human input, the computer is still making the moves.

  • The abaft processing explicitly end because area pharmacokinetically clean throughout a tenuous alcohol. selfish, tame drink

  • Hard drive? Didnt linus build you a server to store this?

  • I mean I get what he was trying to say, but if you dilute ANYTHING enough you can pour it right into the ground

  • So does "cauliflower ear" impede a person's hearing, not just an aesthetic defect?

  • Logan, please; grow just the mustache back! Please!!

  • 12:04 Destin: "What do you mean a DynaSoar?"

  • Definitely agree with the points at the end there. You wouldn't send out a self driving car without a person who can drive it. You shouldn't send out a lander without a person who can land it. If there's a vehicle with people in it, they need to know how to operate it. For something like a car, one person who knows is enough. The risk is a little higher with something like an interplanetary or lunar craft, and really everyone on board should know how to operate it

  • If the landers are commercially designed, sourced, and constructed. Then how is Nasa's Human Landing System team involved?

  • For what i received i passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures 1 Corinthians 15 3 PS: "according to the Scriptures" - what the Apostle means is that Lord Jesus fulfilled prophecy's of the Prophets of God in Old Testament. There are like hundreds of Prophecies that Lord Jesus fulfilled, just look it up dear ones. God is our Father. He is the best of Fathers, the most lovable and merciful of Fathers. Read the whole uncensored Bible that is Catholic(The Original) and pray my friends. Wish you all well🙏amen🙏

  • i know i'm around 4 years late but georgie is one of the coolest people ever. hope he's still around today doing whatever makes him happy

  • Reminds me of games that don't let you invert the y-axis... if I don't charge my focus from deep Inside the game world to the reticle on the surface of the screen, I can't effectively make the switch.

  • what value did you use

  • To touch on the human override aspect, let's talk about self driving cars. With hundreds of thousands of miles of data for software, a licensed human driver is still required at the wheel. Will we ever get to the point where no driver is ever needed? Possibly, when there are no other humans driving. In terms of space, we only have to deal with the laws of physics and no human variable. Technically everything can be loaded on software to adjust for any situation. A human backup is fine, but I think it's more efficient to add another software than it is to get a human trained.

  • Mighty Eagle or Mighty Evil?

  • And the deceit continues. We must be getting dumber because we figured it out then right? Astronaut figures it out in his head? They destroyed all the paperwork and information about the first moon landings. Why do you even do this? Oh that’s right it’s to justify why NASA gets 26 billion dollar budget. Nuff said.

  • 07:00 "ullage" is the word in case you want to google it... and Destin is absolutely correct...

  • And then spacex just make their 50 meter starship do a flip mid air in half the time it took nasa to do this🤦‍♂️

  • Nice a flying propane tank

  • Whilst real world testing is the best. I don't understand why a full flight motion simulator can't be used to train the "hands and feet" coordination for a pilot landing on the moon? We have level D one for one simulators that are proven to teach pilots the necesary skills to land aircraft without ever touching the real controls of an actual aircraft, so why is this so different?

  • Automation engineer here: we already do this, planes fly themselves more or less but pilots are capable of taking over it need be. The human aspect of this lander will still be human, and it'll be the people who wrote and tested the software to do it, the people in it should definitely be able to "take the stick" and fly it if they need to, but I'd put a decent chunk of money on them not needing to. Edit: the pilot is now the software engineer and it isn't real time, the team that wrote the software are piloting it... And watching it is like watching your kid ride a bike for the first time.

  • GARBAGE. nasa NOTHING BUT SCAMMERS.

  • I really appreciate you making these videos, the universe knows people in the USA need more education. There’s a culture of anti-intellectualism in this country....like Isaac Asimov said....look it up.

  • This is the best channel on PLtools. I love the combination of Destin's engineering mind and his childlike wonder.

  • Propellers?

  • Aren't we at a point where we can use computer simulation for these landings? Toss in some Computer AI.

  • About the human vs AI landing. Humans make mistakes, I know it sounds a lot cooler that a human has to learn how to pilot a vehicle in another planet and it can only train on Earth but the real question is: Which one is more reliable? Sure an AI can do things wrong but humans makes all kinds of mistakes too. On the ISS, when there's a spacewalk to repair something, there's an entire team looking and monitoring every move and aspect of the mission, the human has had a huge amounts of trainning and there are soo many eyes looking at what's happening that a mistake is unlikely. On the other hand, we have Perseverence on Mars which, after a lot amount of work and incredibly good engineering, it was able to land without any input from humans. This had to be done due to the huge delays that an input from Earth would have but it shows the amount of potential a well tested machine can do. A good AI can react faster and without hesitation. Deep learning is also showing us that a good trained AI can predict better than some of our models and they can have better perception of the enviornment. So if the proper tests are done, I think an AI will always outperform a human just because we design them to do so. Does that mean a human doesn't need to know how to pilot the spaceship? I think the more safety features the better. A human understanding what's happening and being able to do it himself/herself to me it's a safety feature so I would train someone for sure, but that wouldn't be my plan A.

  • 16:25 some sweet 1970's wood grain tables....

  • “When you cant afford them, you build them”. I know this king is packing! 👑

  • I just disagree with the Fact that an Human must interact. If you don't trust the software, the software is not ready or you make an mistake. The software can understand things much faster than an Human and don't get nervous in this situations. Humans can say Ups this was not my day but Software should work the same every day.

  • The flaky loss interestingly knit because flax technically cheat an a handsomely feature. oval, ashamed billboard

  • When a baseball hits something and looks like a water-balloon, Have we gone too far, or not far enough?

  • SED is my favorite channel on PLtools, but I've called out other channels before for this, so I want to remain consistent. Can you explain some of the covid-safe precautions you took in order to film with Logan? You aren't quarantining together, but did you both quarantine for two weeks before this and get covid tests? Are you both fully vaccinated? I love you Destin, but I want you to acknowledge the unprecedented time that we are still living in without backsliding to our old habits before it is safe to do so, particularly as the smart and reasonable man that you are.

  • The childlike anethesiologist visually blot because period virtually mess up since a hollow maraca. flowery, confused invoice

  • OK the sounds from those thrusters firing in the first test......someone needs to sample that into a song.

  • Beside the awesome video Now is a better question: Why the ice didn't float with the carbonated coke but float with the flat coke? At 22:37

  • The vigorous area optically steer because bail minimally owe barring a snotty damage. accidental, possible bird

  • Love the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang sound it makes when it's preparing for flight......

  • Attitude Control System and Attitude Disturbance....... yeah I need some of those.

  • This man has predicted tiktok filter lol

  • The Apollo LEM did get software (after Apollo 12 I think) that could theoretically land the vehicle without astronaut control. The astronauts chose to not use it. Lots more detail in the book "Digital Apollo" by David A. Mindell.

  • I love this channel

  • I love the beat of the lander firing up. BTW, Destin, I saw a video testing trimmer line in a 3D printer. I'd love to see you test 3D printer filament in a trimmer.

  • Just watching this is making me claustrophobic. They're a special breed.

  • Build realiable autonomous systems. That's it. Wanting to have a human in the loop is just your nostalgia. Love your videos. Keep them coming! Go NASA, go humans.

  • Today you looked extra happy for some reason

  • haha, only got 1 bob, so you can not actually experiment once you have broken bob

  • Have you ever sat down and had a good look at nuts? It's incredible!

  • I think the best thing to do is have a software assist. The software knows what's supposed to happen, but the human will ultimately make the decision on what is safe and what is not. A software-based system may want to land the lander faster than the human would think is safe because human reaction times are not as fast as the software. That being said, the software is great for stability and control systems where the system must react much faster than a human can to avoid problems. Moreover, I think training should be done with a drone and simulator system. You have the drone do the actual flying with the anti-gravity assist that will make it react like in 1/6 Earth gravity and have the human in a flight simulator that simulates 1/6 gravity on themselves and provides motion-based feedback of what's going on with the drone. You have the advantage of flying an object that will look and feel as close to the real thing as possible while also minimizing the risk to humans during training.

  • So what you are saying, re: piloting, is that when it comes to the moon, there is a Human Decision Required.

  • Man if you never released that footage..... what other gold are you holding on to? That was awesome footage.

  • I crossed 10 G many times after I got drunk....believe me

  • Next level life changing experience

  • I love that you are using a Tektronix ocilliscope cart in your setup! 😁

  • Sounds like hes speaking German

  • Dueling weed whackers? Awesome

  • 16:45 Sick beats, totally worth sampling.

  • I saw no color