Why was the nose of this rocket spinning?

[@geodkyt]

I kept hearing that as "Exploder 1", which, given the US's early rocket program, made me giggle.

[@r0cketplumber]

Purple burglar alarm!

[@n003lb]

Haha, I kept hearing the same thing, lol. I just love Scott's accent 😁

[@JoshKaufmanstuff]

Yep, same here lol

[@Palpatine001]

Sorry I cant help but hear Scott saying Exploder 1 now

[@xaviersavedra711]

I laughed a bit too hard at this

[@cwjarvis3]

"I'll try spinning. That's a good trick!" ~ Anakin Skywalker

[@cyalknight]

I've heard that spinning, such as keeping the fuselage in the same place isn't a very good trick in a dogfight. A wider spin (more like a barrel roll,) that doesn't keep your fuselage in the same place is probably a better maneuver in a dogfight. Though an Immelmann turn does include half a loop and half a spin.

[@Shadowkey392]

"It really is!" - Wernher Von Braun

[@davidharrison7014]

I would LOVE to hear James Earl Jones say this. Along with: "Are you an angel?" "I hate sand. "It's coarse, and it's rough, and it gets into everything. "Not like YOU, Padme!", and "Yippee"!

[@Ichangedmynom]

​@@davidharrison7014there's always A.I.

[@NatVirgo]

“Off the shelf rocket motors”

[@scottmanley]

If you’re the Jet Propulsion Laboratory your shelves have rocket motors on them.

[@junkersju87b-2stuka2]

Wow that sounds epic

[@Hobbsy187]

Pick them up at your local Spar

[@quantumblur_3145]

​@@scottmanleywell they'd start on the shelf

[@GoldenTiger01]

Can confirm, we used to buy them by the dozen at our local Sears.

[@Darth-.-Vaper]

Fun fact: All attempted launches prior to explorer 1 were called exploder 1.

[@01283]

kaputnik

[@_billyk_]

"Yeesss! Nailed it on the first try!"

[@nubnubbud]

if you've played KSP, you knew why they did this, because you learned to do this.

[@milolouis]

Haha I've just started re-installing with Realism Overhaul because I saw has last video and remembered how satisfying and difficult it is to get an unguided rocket into orbit like this.

[@mastershooter64]

@@milolouis ah man I gotta get into RO again

[@asasnat342]

no, before I got into the world of RO I learned to just add more reaction wheels

[@1mariomaniac]

​@@milolouis Same, it's also why I don't like using random part failures with RO, lol. Getting an unguided satellite into orbit is already really precise.

[@transmaster]

I actually watched that launch live.

[@Nolys-bk4kd]

I hope you don't mind me asking, but how old are you? That's incredible.

[@CarlosAM1]

@@Nolys-bk4kd he's at least 65 years old

[@transmaster]

70 yo@@Nolys-bk4kd

[@francom6230]

​@@transmasterYou saw the whole space age.. I heard sonic booms of the Shuttle landings but only saw one launch up close in late 80s.. It was huge.. saw several Falcon 9s and one Falcoln Heavy.. that was worth the drive ..so cool..

[@sulljoh1]

It was on TV?

[@Silavite]

One detail about this mechanism I find really interesting is that the angular velocity (spin rate) of the spinning stage actually wasn't a constant. To avoid resonance with the rest of the launch vehicle, the angular velocity actually changed in-flight as the first stage fired.

[@pazsion]

I’d think what was powering the spin was friction and speed… So as it climbed and air density decreased it would slow down. ?? By the time it got to orbit the mass would be the only thing keeping it spinning??

[@frabulakris6481]

​@@pazsionsoo, someone just gave it a little slap before launch ? 😂 i would love to have that job!

[@davisdf3064]

​@@pazsion If i am not wrong, unlike most sounding rockets, Explorer 1's upper stages were spun by an electric motor. That enabled them to change the angular velocity.

[@CGoody564]

​@@pazsionthat's quite the assumption to make. I don't think the spin was based on the air around it; I think it was mechanically powered.

[@Shadowkey392]

@@pazsion actually the spin was driven by electric motors.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

That wasn't a satellite, that was Von Braun's laundry!

[@tan_0562]

Bro 😂

[@mountainman5173]

LMAO

[@nicholasleclerc1583]

Yeah, Von Braun's DIRTY laundry ! Hahaha 😂 (💀)

[@spray_cheese]

Guidance system: - too heavy👎 - works too well Spiny boy: - spins!! Wooo!! - probably still heavy👎 - did I mention it spins?!! I’m just goofing. These guys are scientists. I’m sure it was way better😂 I’m familiar with gyroscopes to be clear. Just part of the goofin

[@Skigress]

I wind up compensating for unbalanced (both built that way and ‘suddenly modified en route’) rockets in KSP by spinning all the time… never knew that I came to the same conclusion as NASA…

[@SparrowHawk183]

"Now *this* is -podracing- rocket science!"

[@johndemeritt3460]

NO -- NOT rocket SCIENCE: rocket ENGINEERING! The latter is a LOT harder than the former!

[@SparrowHawk183]

@@johndemeritt3460 lol true, I agree, but "rocket science" as a phrase is more widely understood. 😅

[@ssgtmole8610]

I'm certain the cosmonauts and astronauts were happy that the engineers figured out stage stabilization without having to do this for crewed capsules. 🤣

[@QuantumHistorian]

I'm not sure I've ever heard the gyroscopic effect referred to as a cheap hack before. That thing is the deepest magic of classical physics.

[@LoisoPondohva]

Well, it's pretty cheap. Free even, not counting a soul you need to sell to the gods of angular momentum.

[@tylisirn]

It's not just gyroscopic, it also evens out any thrust imbalances between the clustered rocket motors. (Every motor's thrust gets averaged over the whole rotation, giving on average even thrust even if the motors aren't exactly equal.)

[@A.Martin]

The spinning is for a similar reason you spin a bullet for increased precision. (Rifles over smooth bore)

[@christopherrasmussen8718]

I remember the old rocket garden at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Shows my age. I had duty at the little Navy base there. I had a pass and car. At the time the civilian tours had stopped running and I had the place to myself. I have been a lifelong space nerd. The rocket from the V2 to Gemini I believe. They had been left to the elements and I remember being concerned we loose them. I believe they have been restored since this time (mid 90s)

[@RCAvhstape]

Also interesting is that the Explorer 1 satellite itself was spin stabilized about the long axis, but because of energy dissipation through the wiggly antennae it quickly transitioned to spinning end over end. An early lesson in spinning body dynamics.

[@bgold2007]

Tennis racket theorem ( 4 names)

[@1mariomaniac]

Huh, I've been playing a bit of KSP: Realism Overhaul and it's neat to know the spinning changing from long-ways to end-over-end isn't just a quirk of the KSP physics engine.

[@RCAvhstape]

@@1mariomaniac It was also shown in the book and film 2010: Odyssey Two. The spaceship Discovery powers down after the end of the first movie, and the anglular momentum from the centrifuge tranferred to the vehicle body, which then transitioned into an end over end spin, seen in the second film. A really cool science fact most moviegoers would never notice.

[@theraptorsnest5891]

LMBO, Scott, usually I don't have any issues understanding your accent but in this video I had to chuckle. Every time you meant to say "Explorer One", it kept coming out as "Exploder One" LOL. Gotta love it! Keep the vids coming Scott!

[@ssgtmole8610]

My quarter Scot grandparentage must have loaded the proper codec. 🥃

[@mickaleneduczech8373]

Minor point, Explorer 1 was the US first successful satellite. Our first satellite was Vanguard, but, yeah, didn't quite make it to orbit. Didn't make it 10' off the launchpad, actually.

[@junkersju87b-2stuka2]

Funny thing is those Sargent motors are so light that u can carry it

[@1mariomaniac]

Yep, quite a bit of kick though! Each one outputs 20kN (4,500lbs) nominal for about 6 seconds!

[@keatomic]

Ahhhh. Gyroscopic stability. Well played grandpa.

[@jonathanlunger2775]

Thats a brilliant design, we should all be so lucky as to design something as smart as exploder 1

[@DonkeeBoyYT]

I have no idea what the hell he's talking about. Also I have no idea what words he's saying.

[@scubastevedan]

I didn't miss your silly Skywalker reference Scott ! 😂

[@gabrielgolding5380]

Is that a Phantom Menace reference I heard???

[@zapfanzapfan]

Basically a von Braun and Jack Parsons collab to go to space :-)

[@jasontoddsprecher]

Who are the people in the picture? Holding up the rocket?

[@davidharrison7014]

I like how Scott put a good SPIN as to WHY NASA did this!

[@iitzfizz]

That thing was jerry rigged for sure

[@DilliganGames]

General Skywalker would be proud

[@MasterArkannor]

"Now this is podracing"

[@ParanoidCarrot]

the ammount of anguish i felt when trying to explain to my ELECTRONIC ENGINEER coworker that you can turn a station in space they use gyros and manuvering thursters. he was adamant and because he was so "highly educated" that manuvering thursters are science fiction, and that you need air resistance to turn with anything rocket propelled. and this man just was so THICK IN THE HEAD it infuriates me still to this day

[@steffenbuettner4294]

Ah yes, Exploder 1 😉

[@klocugh12]

They must have listened to Dead or Alive while designing this.

[@wunkskorks2623]

I wonder if that type of ingenuity has been substantially degraded by computer simulations. The computer, like AI, can’t riff. It solves the problem that is programmed into it(with the limitations of the programmer). With that program is a barrier. I have seen quite a few times, people walk into a project with a fresh perspective and completely blow everyone’s minds. They had no parameters, no details on the last months of the project and bam, a brand new idea out of nowhere. An idea that inspires more ideas, leading to a breakthrough in a completely stagnant project.

[@djohanson99]

This was not a "trick" nor a "hack'. Engineers had a problem to be solved. And they solved. To me the word "hack" or " hacker' involves breaking the rules or something. Being a government agency of great power this was not a "hack".

[@chefscorner7063]

It worked to improve bullet flight so why not rockets. Of course now we bullets with guidance systems in them. Hmmm, did we go backwards??

[@letsbereasonablefergawdssake]

Step back for a second and give sone thought to problems introduced into an already complex equation if entertaining THIS 'solution' to the 'problem' of avoiding the need for complex guidance hardware... Seriously? I have nostlgia for the early days and love tales of unique innovations overcoming the many insanely difficult obstacles. But there are a few such tales that require casting aside everything learned thus far about physics, rocketry, and the space programs accomplishments, the respect and reverence are directly related to having a firm understanding of how difficult every damn thing is even though we've reached an amazing point where excitement has been muted by spacex repeated remarkable competence. Accepting stories like this 'ingenious hack' without honest evaluation of the incredible complexity such a thing would add...not solve...is rediculous but thats just my humble opinion I certainly may be wrong

[@curvedturtle]

When you are making early rocket in RP-1:

[@Jay70chevelle]

Off the shelf rocket motors huh? Hmm, that mighy work for this baby monkey space x program i been thinking about😂😂😂😂

[@YodaWhat]

But the spinning also cause problems for the payload stage, which had the CONING INSTABILITY!

[@GnanaPrakash86AP]

Its funny that the way I launched my first satellite in RSS RO is the very same way the NASA had already done their first 😂 unfortunately, the KSP physics system isn't perfect and 2/3 attempts like this glitch out at the end.

[@Kiefer_Unmanned_Aviation]

Actually the first man made satellite was not this or Sputnik...it was a manhole cover that was covering an opening of an underground nuclear test performed in the USA...now you know...

[@transmaster]

It was spin stabilized

[@ryanreedgibson]

Lots of math. Would love to have the education for that.

[@jayrenner1053]

And the flexible rods eventually caused it to start flipping.....The Dzhanibekov effect.

[@thle8972]

That’s called evolution. Somebody has to discover something. Nothing to do with muslim or not.

[@MDSBock]

Not the nose it's the satellite which is spinning, keeps the satellite from tumbling in space, think they also put 4x whip antennas evenly around to help in stability...

[@duncanbryson1167]

Like rifling. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 ➡️ 🇺🇲 How long?

[@scottmanley]

23 years now in the Us

[@duncanbryson1167]

@@scottmanley Thanks, I'm in Larkhall.

[@pazsion]

So the spinning kept it from tumbling when in zero g? So it would always point a certain direction? The brain is still perplexed 🤔

[@wilfdarr]

Yes, when my rocket starts spinning uncontrollably in KSP it's a feature, not a bug...

[@Arcadelt12]

Too bad they didn't know about the intermediate axis theorem, as the explorer 1's spin about its longitudinal axis converted to spin around its transverse axis due to energy loss in the flexible antennas

[@braveworld2707]

Interesting bit of information. Thanks Scott. Blue skies and tailwinds! 👍

[@donbuchanan2511]

Rigidity.

[@jamesbutler6253]

With all German scientists, just improving the V2 for the first space rocket

[@tylerbell6796]

We have forgotten the meaning of “hack”. This was a massive engineering endeavor, not a “hack”.

[@WilliamRWarrenJr]

Yeahbut yeahbut yeahbut it didn't work ... the spin turned into a tumble (whip antenna blues)

[@lodewijkbakker3246]

Ingenious maybe for how it was supposed to work but it also caused doom for some of the sats as due to the flexible antennas it off coursed flipped to spinning end over end

[@andrewkvk1707]

I do the same thing in KSP early in the tech tree 😂 not enough battery for active control? just use inertia.

[@pennypackmtb2542]

Unfortunately it failed and any new ideas they tried on that rocket were considered suspect and therefore scrapped

[@thetobi583]

...but will the same idea work for a craft in KSP/KSP2?

[@ahoksbergen]

Momentum...not easily understood. To me its proof we have a Creator.

[@mohawksniper79]

Well I'm glad spinning is a good thing because I was spinning when I puffed on a fat spliff😂

[@kernelsmith]

No word, save "literally", has been abused more than "hack"

[@markrix]

good thing? lay down, put a foot on the floor, dont drink as much next time 😂

[@skye_is_sus]

Space

[@Dominion69420]

Meanwhile in RP-1 I have to shove a ton of RCS and spin it mid flight

[@punkinhaidmartin]

I wonder if that would not be a cheaper option today in some instances?

[@stephenstewart13]

ICBM is more than "a few hundred kilometers. "

[@jonnyreverb]

You don't count the giant mylar balloon in project echo as a satellite?

[@james10739]

I mean we have known that about bullets for over a century

[@GUNNYCANUCK]

What's the music in the background?

[@tesmith47]

there was one of the redstone rockets at the smithsonian in DC when i was a kid

[@IJRPUBLIC]

Simple reasoning, thank you.

[@ColdWarAviator]

SPIN: Semi Professional Inertial Navigation

[@mydogbrian4814]

- Not the Juno, but the *Jupiter-C.* But all composite details are correct. - It was used for testing Jupiter reentry noes cones in 600 mile high parabolic arcs previous to the 1st satellite. - The only historical significance of the launch was that von Braun offered to use It in 1956 to launch a satellite. But the government nixed the idea because it was a millitary rocket & may have caused an international incident of crossing over sovereign Soviet Russian territory. And so a non threatening Vangaurd civilian rocket, not powerfully enough to be a millitary threat was chosen to do the job. - The Russians actualy made the crossing of the worlds countries in space a non issue with the military rocket launch of Sputnik-1. Settling the debate in the US.. As far as the U.S. State Department was concerned, the Rusians actually did the U.S. a favor by being first. But it was a historical eye sore to the U.S. prestige.

[@randycampbell6307]

Actually the Juno 1 was the full four stage rocket assembly while the Jupiter-C was just the first stage. (Ya I had to look it up but Scott's correctly using the proper designations :) )

[@mydogbrian4814]

@randycampbell6307 interesting. But the Pioneer-1 was launched by the *Jupiter-C*

[@nuclearfrog306]

they really said "just put some sepatrons on it"

[@DoctyrEvil]

It's just a bunch of Sepratrons up there.

[@anoninunen]

SPEEEeeeEEEeeeEEEnnn!

[@michaellavery4899]

So simple it should have been obvious.

[@drewduncan5774]

the stages drop off but the tip keep spinnin

[@rosswarren436]

Always was a bit confused by the model kits over the years. Was this a Juno vehicle or a Jupiter-C? What was the difference?

[@randycampbell6307]

Actually both :) The Juno 1 was a four stage rocket whereas the Jupiter-C was just the booster/first stage. Which itself was different from the Redstone in size and propellants.

[@rosswarren436]

@@randycampbell6307Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I had read they had lengthened the propellant tanks and switched to a different fuel. They had launched several of these as nuclear reentry test vehicles for warheads (without all the upper stage). The thing was they were so close to being able to achieve orbit that they got a directive from the White House in 1954 I think it was, saying "No accidental satellites". Crazy. In some ways, it was almost as if we WANTED the Soviets to be first, so they couldn't complain about our later developed reconnaissance satellites flying over their territory. Then there was the PR value we wanted of having a non-military vehicle carry our first satellite, but the spectacular failure of Vanguard 1 and the American public's reaction to that set the stage for Huntsville to come through. Amazing times back then. Wish Estes would re-release their Jupiter-C kit one day. Glad New Horizons has theirs out. A bit expensive for the scale, but nice.

[@hafizuddinmohdlowhim8426]

When you know how to do it , you know how to do it.

[@Leif-m6p]

I wish I had your confidence.

[@vernepavreal7296]

oh no not shorts here as well exclamationj

[@joyboricua3721]

Is that why the electron spin? 👻

[@zedzedder4947]

So, when/how did the more complex solution become more efficient?

[@unownyoutuber9049]

when rockets that where more powerful started rolling out and missions became more complex then randomly lobbing satellites into orbit.

[@sulljoh1]

Baby Sargent Adorable

[@stevengill1736]

It's spinadelic baby!

[@rileychadwell5635]

No. Redstone was not orbital

[@vast634]

Wernher: always wanted to try that

[@sus0_2]

I love the Star wars reference

[@andyo5220]

The genius of rocket science.

[@RitaElaineHeltonBarker-uz4sz]

I heard "the exploder 1"...?

[@JustinMiales]

Acts like a gyroscope

[@founder3]

Prelude to gytodiscs?

[@mountainman5173]

I see what you did there... 😂

[@-jeff-]

Centrifugal guidance? Neat trick.

[@andrebello4191]

I would say more like gyroscopic than centrifugal

[@norkieuppercrusty1]

Good old German technology

[@PSNPerfectNinja]

Shit you don't see in KSP

[@Unotch]

And ... DID it explode?