For all of those who are concerned with expelling propane as propellant, so long as its only small bursts, there's good ventilation, and there aren't any nearby ignition sources, its pretty safe. However, if anyone of those three things are not 100% ensured you could cause a fire at best, or, more likely, explode the room as it slowly mixes to a perfect ratio before you get a call from someone and BOOM. Propane is used all the time as the pressurant for airsoft guns due to its wide availability and the fact that it condenses under high pressure, allowing you to store more of it in the same volume compared to N2 for example. However, airsoft guns are built to only expel very very tiny amounts of gas per shot, so as long as there is ventilation they don't pose a risk. Safe use of propane as RCS propellant is definitely viable, however likely not a good idea for the rcs of a rocket given that if you fired the rcs before burnout, you risk the engine plume igniting the propane back up to those brass ports and then, best case scenario, you have one or more rcs ports that is now more mini computer controlled flame thrower than it is a control thruster. Worst case scenario you blow up your propane supply somehow and that's by by for your rocket most likely.
Please read my comment to his videos. I suggested to add this control system to his rocket a few months ago, but he didn't acknowledge AmazingDIYprojects for the idea and myself for the suggestion... very sad!
Why aren't you crediting Goddard? I think every major rocket today flies with RCS. It's not like this is some esoteric idea. Anyway, BPS's system uses pressurized gas, and this system uses pressure stabilized liquid (butane?) so I'd say they're completely different. Go try and steal credit somewhere else. Great work by DIYProjects though. The valves look custom! Those are hard!
@Charlie Garcia Forgot to say Goddard created the first liquid fueled rocket, while BPS and model rockets generally speaking use solid fuel. I hope you know the difference.
@@YukonK9 Now you have stated he is an engineer and an expert in rocketry, I'm even more puzzled by his reply. As long as we talk about technical stuff, in a polite way, I will free to express myself in the way I prefer... thank you! Regarding the concept "ideas are around", this is true, but coming out of the blue with a concept never mentioned before (aka gas thrusters) is very strange and I still believe that acknowledging who has inspired it, doesn't cost a penny.
@@dennzii pneumatic valve. it uses a solenoid to move a cylinder/piston to open a path for air to flow. they might be hand made in the video to be as light as possible. dont use propane. use caned air or Co2 in very short bursts. NASA uses inert gas. aka non flammable.
@@dennzii He was mistaken, those were not solenoid valves. they were mechanical push rod style (not the official name, I don't know what they are called) valves and 2 servo motors. each servo had two valves connected to it such that if it rotates one way it opens on and if it rotates the other way it pushes down on and opens the other. Thus each servo controls two opposing valves.
@@darkshadowsx5949 There are clearly RC model servos driving the valves in the video, not solenoids. But the construction of the valves themselves sadly remains a mystery=/ Also "canned air" is really a propane=), i agree it isnt as safe, but it is far simpler/lighter than CO2 system.
you need to minimise the size of the RCS mono propellant storage in order to fit data collection, a recovery system and a GPS into the tiny fairing. PS, flash powder has a significantly higher energy density than carbon based fuels
NASA uses inert gas for the RCS Thrusters. A 12g co2 canister would blow that sucker over on the bench with the same burst timing. propane is a bad choice.. especially for testing in a closed area. using a flammable gas for RCS is a complete waste in space as well.
Astronaut jet packs such as the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) and Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue (SAFER), as well as some very small satellites, do indeed use an 'inert' gas, such as compressed nitrogen. The Soviet analog used compressed oxygen, if memory serves. From what I've read, these, "cold gas thusters" are used when safety and low cost is paramount, but suffer from very poor efficiency. For missions where more performance (and fuel efficiency) is required, the fuel for RCS thrusters are hardly inert. From what I've read, the most prevalent propellant is high purity Hydrazine, (toxic) loaded in helium pressurized tanks are piped through a catalyst in in a rocket motor, resulting in an explosive decomposition. This is usually called a mono-propellant system. Used examples: The Curiosity Rover's cruse stage and skycrane, New Horizons RCS, Cassini's RCS, Voyagers RCS, Mars Reconnaissance orbiter RCS and main engines, etc. Though hydrogen-peroxide (used in those stunt jet packs) and NO2(though more inert it requires a higher catalyst temperature, can be used as a mono-propellant as well. Even mixing a tiny amount of fuel with the oxidizer inside the storage tank. For even greater performance, at the expense of more plumbing complexity, the hydrazine (well, they call it mono-methyl hydrazine) fuel is oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide, becoming a 'bi-propellant system.' The chemical reaction is 'hypergolic,' meaning the fuel and oxidizer ignite on contact, eliminating the need for any ignitions systems. Examples include: Apollo service and lunar modules, Space shuttle Shuttle, Soyuz, SpaceX Dragon Cargo and crew, Cassini's main engine, most GEO sync satellites' apogee engines, Russian and Chinese launch vehicles, etc, etc, etc.
Just because it's fire it won't increase thrust. It would need a combustion chamber in which it would build pressure and then be released through the nozzles. To ignite outside the nozzle would make no difference.
milkbox But RCS is only useful in a vacuum or near-vacuum where surface controls are useless, but then there is no oxygen to burn and this gas would not be alight. To have a combustion RCS you would need an oxydizer tank just for this and this complexity is avoided even by NASA (they just use pressurized monopropelant). Although apparently SpaceX does use oxydizer for the Dragon RCS (but no flame seem to come out, just a big white plume). It would be nice to see a rocket spiting fire from the sides anyway.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just trying to make a joke. Albeit a not-so-good one. oh and we've seen rockets spit flames out the side before. See: Challenger disaster.
RCS check
Stuff we still need:
Solar pannel, battery, propulsion, SAS
Bernhard Blietz you for got the nuclear space cats that will be piloting it
@@enamelbucket2081 bump - any updates on the space cats?
For all of those who are concerned with expelling propane as propellant, so long as its only small bursts, there's good ventilation, and there aren't any nearby ignition sources, its pretty safe. However, if anyone of those three things are not 100% ensured you could cause a fire at best, or, more likely, explode the room as it slowly mixes to a perfect ratio before you get a call from someone and BOOM. Propane is used all the time as the pressurant for airsoft guns due to its wide availability and the fact that it condenses under high pressure, allowing you to store more of it in the same volume compared to N2 for example. However, airsoft guns are built to only expel very very tiny amounts of gas per shot, so as long as there is ventilation they don't pose a risk. Safe use of propane as RCS propellant is definitely viable, however likely not a good idea for the rcs of a rocket given that if you fired the rcs before burnout, you risk the engine plume igniting the propane back up to those brass ports and then, best case scenario, you have one or more rcs ports that is now more mini computer controlled flame thrower than it is a control thruster. Worst case scenario you blow up your propane supply somehow and that's by by for your rocket most likely.
Serious knowledge
Bro wrote an entire essay
You have made DIY reaction control system?! 99% of people have no idea what it is, but I must say its both pretty crazy and awesome.
haha 100% of the people here know what this is.
Stupid
@@theAppleWizz I don' t !
How did you design and build this? Any schematics I can look at?
BPS.Space be like
Please read my comment to his videos. I suggested to add this control system to his rocket a few months ago, but he didn't acknowledge AmazingDIYprojects for the idea and myself for the suggestion... very sad!
@@RCLoversan ya
Why aren't you crediting Goddard? I think every major rocket today flies with RCS. It's not like this is some esoteric idea.
Anyway, BPS's system uses pressurized gas, and this system uses pressure stabilized liquid (butane?) so I'd say they're completely different.
Go try and steal credit somewhere else.
Great work by DIYProjects though. The valves look custom! Those are hard!
@Charlie Garcia Forgot to say Goddard created the first liquid fueled rocket, while BPS and model rockets generally speaking use solid fuel. I hope you know the difference.
@@YukonK9 Now you have stated he is an engineer and an expert in rocketry, I'm even more puzzled by his reply. As long as we talk about technical stuff, in a polite way, I will free to express myself in the way I prefer... thank you! Regarding the concept "ideas are around", this is true, but coming out of the blue with a concept never mentioned before (aka gas thrusters) is very strange and I still believe that acknowledging who has inspired it, doesn't cost a penny.
this would be great for model rocket builders so they can control attitude in thinner parts of the atmosphere, maybe even directing itself to orbit.
Idk what model builder is going to orbit but this would be cool
you never know what the future can hold right?
This is so underrated🔥
Wow, this is pretty awesome
This is awesome! But that must be quite heavy for a model rocket, doesn't it?
What kind of valves did you use? and how it work?
I'm trying to build a rocket, and this electrovalve is amazing!
it doesnt answer :(
you posted that 2 years ago do you know that what type of valves did it use?
Please answer if you know :)
@@dennzii pneumatic valve. it uses a solenoid to move a cylinder/piston to open a path for air to flow.
they might be hand made in the video to be as light as possible. dont use propane. use caned air or Co2 in very short bursts. NASA uses inert gas. aka non flammable.
@@darkshadowsx5949 thank you very much!!
@@dennzii He was mistaken, those were not solenoid valves. they were mechanical push rod style (not the official name, I don't know what they are called) valves and 2 servo motors. each servo had two valves connected to it such that if it rotates one way it opens on and if it rotates the other way it pushes down on and opens the other. Thus each servo controls two opposing valves.
@@darkshadowsx5949 There are clearly RC model servos driving the valves in the video, not solenoids. But the construction of the valves themselves sadly remains a mystery=/ Also "canned air" is really a propane=), i agree it isnt as safe, but it is far simpler/lighter than CO2 system.
Perfect for a cubesat design!
SpydreX Official but why would a cubesat need anything other than axis control? Gyros would make more sense.
But if the reaction wheels get oversaturated then you need RCS to desaturate them.
So cool little rcs system
Great job!
What are name of the pieces? Please answer :)
Please make another video ,and give more information about thruster and it's making material
if you see this comment, can you please do a follow up video on how this technology works and how you built it. Thanks!
What valves do you use here? I would love to know
Looks like linear actuators pulling spring-loaded ball valves open
@@ataphelicopter5734 that would be a solenoid
What type of valves are those?
Thats amazing!
you need to minimise the size of the RCS mono propellant storage in order to fit data collection, a recovery system and a GPS into the tiny fairing.
PS, flash powder has a significantly higher energy density than carbon based fuels
really you shouldn't be using propane.. Co2 is best as its inert. an 8g co2 cartridge is fairly small and packs a lot of power.
why haven't i seen this thing earlier ???
Any information about the valves🤔
can you show how to make it?
What are those moving brass air regulators called at 0:27 ? it would be very helpful to have an answer.
Just some DIY valves I made for this project, I do not know what their actual name would be, sorry. Im using propane as inert propellant.
@@amazingdiyprojects its alright, thanks
@@amazingdiyprojects can u share more details on making it!?🔥
Amaaaaaazing !!!
Add igniters for increased danger and fun level.
How to make It
using co2 off the shelf is way better than dangerous propane which could get caught in the plume of your model rocket and cause an catastrophic ending
I've seen those valves in Ironman boots 😅
You would need a pretty big can if you become off course
Show the process of making this
on board camera or it didn't happen
Kindly,
From ware i can buy micro thrusters to make a satellite in a motion less state over earth .
Like dish satellite for example.
NASA uses inert gas for the RCS Thrusters. A 12g co2 canister would blow that sucker over on the bench with the same burst timing.
propane is a bad choice.. especially for testing in a closed area. using a flammable gas for RCS is a complete waste in space as well.
Astronaut jet packs such as the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) and Simplified Aid For EVA Rescue (SAFER), as well as some very small satellites, do indeed use an 'inert' gas, such as compressed nitrogen. The Soviet analog used compressed oxygen, if memory serves. From what I've read, these, "cold gas thusters" are used when safety and low cost is paramount, but suffer from very poor efficiency. For missions where more performance (and fuel efficiency) is required, the fuel for RCS thrusters are hardly inert. From what I've read, the most prevalent propellant is high purity Hydrazine, (toxic) loaded in helium pressurized tanks are piped through a catalyst in in a rocket motor, resulting in an explosive decomposition. This is usually called a mono-propellant system. Used examples: The Curiosity Rover's cruse stage and skycrane, New Horizons RCS, Cassini's RCS, Voyagers RCS, Mars Reconnaissance orbiter RCS and main engines, etc. Though hydrogen-peroxide (used in those stunt jet packs) and NO2(though more inert it requires a higher catalyst temperature, can be used as a mono-propellant as well. Even mixing a tiny amount of fuel with the oxidizer inside the storage tank.
For even greater performance, at the expense of more plumbing complexity, the hydrazine (well, they call it mono-methyl hydrazine) fuel is oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide, becoming a 'bi-propellant system.' The chemical reaction is 'hypergolic,' meaning the fuel and oxidizer ignite on contact, eliminating the need for any ignitions systems. Examples include: Apollo service and lunar modules, Space shuttle Shuttle, Soyuz, SpaceX Dragon Cargo and crew, Cassini's main engine, most GEO sync satellites' apogee engines, Russian and Chinese launch vehicles, etc, etc, etc.
Cool.
DIY Patriot PAC-3 missile?
Bu adam başka birşey ya 2014te yaptığına bakın
Looks like it would have too much force lol
Hey amazingdiyprojects , may you not edit the manufacturing process and describe the ingredients used
milk, eggs, flower, baking soda and sugar. oh are we not making cookies?
@@darkshadowsx5949 ingredients xD
I would make those valves of aluminium, and use a 3 axis Gyro stable system, and it will be golden!
Now add a small holes on the sides of the nozzle and put an ignitor in there. A tad more thurst :-D
Just because it's fire it won't increase thrust. It would need a combustion chamber in which it would build pressure and then be released through the nozzles. To ignite outside the nozzle would make no difference.
Leandro Ribeiro Oh, but it would make a difference. It would add to the awesome factor!
milkbox But RCS is only useful in a vacuum or near-vacuum where surface controls are useless, but then there is no oxygen to burn and this gas would not be alight. To have a combustion RCS you would need an oxydizer tank just for this and this complexity is avoided even by NASA (they just use pressurized monopropelant). Although apparently SpaceX does use oxydizer for the Dragon RCS (but no flame seem to come out, just a big white plume).
It would be nice to see a rocket spiting fire from the sides anyway.
Leandro Ribeiro Yeah, true.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I was just trying to make a joke. Albeit a not-so-good one. oh and we've seen rockets spit flames out the side before. See: Challenger disaster.
Maks computer control staplitz computer
YESS!! I am the 1,000th like! I know nobody cares, but still!
I pushed dislike because of popup in the center of screen.