If that moon or other planet over the horizon isn't part of the plot line, I give it a thumbs down.

The gravity of the visible planet and the earth like planet the characters are on would be on a collision course. I suspect the environment and the characters should already be rising or at least be feeling the effects of the planet over the horizon.

That, on its own, would be a bigger story line than whatever is going on in the clip.

If Neil deGrasse Tyson was dead, he'd be rolling over in his grave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L051v3NC0F4

Its a cute prototype that stretches the imagination but is a wholly improbable design to find its way to Mars.

The weight and dimensions alone would make it very, very difficult to de-orbit onto the surface of mars. This thing weighs: 5,500 lbs. (2,500 kilograms).

Its not going to be very economical to get it out of earths gravity and into orbit just to start, forget about the energy it will require to get it moving towards Mars.

Some people spend a lot of time and money to learn about gravity. Either way, you pay the price.

The sand certainly helped it, but yeah, low center of gravity FTW.

Can be! It depends on the contents of the container and how air-tight its construction and materials are. Generally materials packed for transport are supposed to be strapped or otherwise held in place so that they don't shift and upset the transport vehicle (see the 747 that crashed in the Middle East when its cargo shifted...). But that's just the stuff that was meant to be in the container. Every ship has to contend with the risk of water ingress. Un-contained water in a vessel forms a "free surface" and the so-called free surface effect applies. That's where that material can and will move based on gravity, often making a bad situation much much worse. Imagine water in a tank (itself a free surface) vs. water sloshing around the cabin of a plane. This is what usually causes ships to capsize: water gets in and isn't contained, so it can move tremendous amounts of mass anywhere it wants to go -- usually in the direction it's already going. Calculations of ship stability for things like cargo loading and ballast assume minimal free surface in the ship, because you have to. That's how ships stay upright and afloat.

How does this apply to lost containers? Depending on how watertight the container is and how well strapped in the contents are, some amount of water may get in and form a free surface. This free surface will move around until the container finds its equilibrium which may or may not be watertight and less dense than the water around it, which defines whether it floats or sinks and what direction it faces when it does.

A container with a lot of weight on one side but otherwise watertight will stand upright and perhaps still sink (like the one at the end of this video). A container with well-distributed weight would tend to end up flat. Whether it sinks or not depends on whether it's watertight and what its density is -- the weight of the container displacing ocean vs. the weight of the ocean it displaces.

Sadly, a significant number of containers end up at the worst possible density/displacement where they float just at or near the surface and lay in wait to devastate passing ships, regardless of the orientation of the container itself.

Well, the wind could NOT EVER blow the wind into the shape of a sand Castle, because both the Humidity and Gravity are working against it. Even if there was rain or moisture that perfectly conditioned the sand to stick to itelf in the perfect consistency, then the wind couldn't quite blow it around in the way it would need to. And of course Gravity would always cause the sand to fall to it's lowest points.

I know I'm being picky here, but this just stood out to me.
Everything else in the video was engaging.

Not just throwing rocks, but---what is the practical application of this? As a pleasure craft, maintaining all those extra hydraulics would drive maintenance expenses through the roof from the perspective of a recreational boater.
I'm also concerned about reliability, elevation of center of gravity, response to being sideways in a seaway... the second half with the outrigger "sled' maybe would have application in military stuff? Air/Sea rescue?

I remember my dad driving me in to town on a school day when we hadn't realized that school had been cancelled because of icy road conditions.

He could drive OK (very very carefully and slowly), but after we discovered that school had been cancelled we parked across the street from my grandma's house and found ourselves unable to walk over the crest of the road. Probably just 1-2 inches higher in the middle than the sides for drainage purposes, but with the perfectly smooth fresh ice, that was enough to make it pretty much completely impossible to "climb" up that very slight incline.

Looks like gravity and adhesion to the tree are causing the same thing for this guy...

Uh, what? Nobody said that at all. It is neither a "classic example" nor an assumption. The trajectory has been tracked since it was discovered, which is hyperbolic around the sun, and the speed of the object is such that there is no way it could have accelerated to its current velocity due to the gravity of our sun alone, hence it has to be interstellar, picking up kinetic energy from another system outside of our own. The orbit is not improbable, it is unusual compared to trajectories of asteroids that exist within our own solar system. Sharpen your crayon there bud, and stop trying to impress people with your new thesaurus for hipsters (come on, "undergird"?? Really?)

Hadn't heard of that, but I get the concept. Cool idea.

Off the top of my head, I'm concerned about pump and generator efficiency. You're going to use some amount more energy to pump a volume of water up to the high basin than you will get back by gravity feeding it through generators. To be fair, efficiency is a problem with using and recharging chemical batteries as well, but the limited amount that I remember from college engineering courses tells me that efficiency in the electrical / solid state world tends to be more easily obtained than in the mechanical world.

And as another "to be fair", efficiency is a bigger concern for things like fossil fuels, where burning one unit of fuel produces a set amount of energy and you have to improve efficiency to get the most value out of that energy. With things like solar and wind being "free" energy when active but requiring storage for when the source is inactive (night / calm winds), efficiency still certainly matters, but not as much as with a scarce / non-renewable source of energy.

Anyway, I'd like to see concrete numbers comparing the utility and efficiency (in various metrics) of your hydro storage vs battery storage.

Ok....they start with a few mistaken premises.
Most importantly, the premise that energy is best stored in a chemical battery. It sounds good, but it's simply wrong. The best way to store large amounts of energy is in a hydro/gravity storage system. This is a two basin system, with two basins at different heights with a pump/generator linking them. When you have excess power, you pump water uphill. When you need more power, you let it flow back down. It's ecologically friendly, cheap, and effectively never wears out like batteries all do, it can work on any scale, and unlike most hydro doesn't impact a living river system. It's proven technology that's head and shoulders above battery banks.

"There's no gravity in space"
Eh, it depends who you're talking to. If you're explaining to kids why things float in space, that's a reasonable approximation. If you're teaching physics to high school students, you're really doing it wrong.

"Trojan horse"
When was this ever presented as fact? I actually remember learning about the search for a possible real world site of Troy and I remember being taught the STORY of this, but given it was in the same story about a guy who could only be killed in the heel, we weren't expected to believe it was 100% accurate. Talking snakes on the other hand? Totally real.

The rest are reasonable enough.

You should check out his other songs. Most i'm guessing you will know. They are all amazingly well done. I'm surprised more people don't love his stuff. Here are my faves.
*related https://videosift.com/video/CRISPR-Cas9-Mr-Sandman-Parody-A-Capella-Science
*related https://videosift.com/video/A-Capella-Science-Bohemian-Gravity
*related https://videosift.com/video/Gravitational-Waves-Jam
*related https://videosift.com/video/PLUTO-MARS-Outbound-Probe-A-Capella-Science

CRISPR-Cas9 ("Mr. Sandman" Parody) | A Capella Science has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

A Capella Science - Bohemian Gravity! has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Gravitational Waves Jam has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

PLUTO MARS - Outbound Probe (A Capella Science) has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.