Massive Rockets, Engines and Parachutes: More Ideas That SpaceX Abandoned
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2020
- In its 18 year history SpaceX has developed a lot of concepts on paper which never made it to flight, or, were never made to work. Either way the company has a rich history of projects that seemed like a good idea at the time but fell out of favour due to difficulties with engineering, a dearth of time, or a lack of a customer wanting to pay the cost.
- Наука та технологія
I have no idea why the title got changed to '*' but I'm going to blame my kids......
You should've keep the title. It would get more views without being clickbait.
why red dragon? you never hear of a 'blue dragon'. i mean, the logo is of a dragon, that is blue.
@@kellerweskier7214 Red as the planet Mars is RED.
@@animationspace8550 _"It would get more views without being clickbait."_
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
@Steven S. I second Steven and raise him a December.
> Landing boosters with parachutes is just too damn hard.
> From now on we shall land a booster upright on a ship in the ocean pinpointed to a 5 m radius.
Ironically that is apparently easier than doing it with parachutes
hellnawnaw not easier just better
a pitching and rolling ship. And a rocket engine that cannot be throttled low enough to stop the empty booster going back upwards again if not timed perfectly.
@@theenjeneer2493 No, actually easier. Once you've established that parachutes would still require a retro and re-entry burns, you're most of the way to propulsive landing anyway. The weight of landing legs vs parachutes for the final descent comes out pretty even, and the legs give you a cleaner landing with fewer repairs needed...
@@hellnawnaw ironic
Obviously Falcon XXX can not be legally shown on UA-cam.
That will be the name of the Starship used for the first shot in space porno. I mean we all know its coming(phrasing), Some adult film company will if the vehicle is proven safe enough fund a film shoot in orbit on Starship.
David Kearns id be interested in that
If SpaceX never has to sic lawyers on someone trying to use that name for the obvious product, I'll be a little surprised.
David Kearns Zero-G sex? Now there’s an interesting concept.
@@sealpiercing8476 The worst (best?) part is SpaceX's legal team couldn't easily stop them. This is probably happening at some point.
5:51 - Everybody wows at the dragon capsule, but nobody loses a word on the clever mechanism that whisks away the two halves of drape.
I’m Confused
10 interns in the basement, pulling 2 strings and running in opposite directions
I recorded the video at 7:12 aboard the NASA WB-57. It is great to see the video being used. Thanks Scott!
Cool shot!
Did you?
@Charles Yuditsky alright, cool!
" * "
This is the first time I've seen his video only has one single character for the title. Weird...
Atala Keanu Monarshi He ‘abandoned’ the title
I wonder, will it show up on any search query?
Clearly, it symbolizes a mouse's butthole, which is how accurately SpaceX can land their rockets.
@@youtubeisfascism Some weird sh*t pops up
I saw it earlier with a correct title. Maybe an editing error or something to prevent legal issues? I don't know.
"Hi, this is Scott Manley and this is ABANDONED (projects)..."
You can't hide BSF references from me!
Almost brighter than the sun, nice one!
Bright Sun Films
After entirely too much time playing KSP I can never call it a hover slam but only a suicide burn
That's the correct term because there is no hovering involved.
One engineer's abandoned project is another engineer's game-changer.
Sea Dragon
"And of course any intrusion through the heat shield does make the safety people at NASA a _little_ edgy."
LOL. Classic.
I just wanna say that I really love what you provide for us. If I didn't have your videos, I would have no idea how to fly safe. Thank you.
Ha, I haven't thought of it: they needed parachutes anyway for in-flight aborts, as SuperDracos would not have enough fuel to both extract the vehicle from the booster fireball and land it softly.
Scott, the Russian/German telescope just finished scanning the sky for the first time. If I’m not mistaken, you are an astrophysicist. It should be in your domain. Why don’t you do a complete review of the completion of the first scan? That would be interesting to hear your criticism. Thank you 🙏
Sure I'll see if these something I can talk about.
@@scottmanley Thanks in advance, Scott!
Scott Manley that would be a very cool video, I’m gonna look into this telescope now lol
THE name is eROSITA, of the telescope.
@@scottmanley Speaking of abandoned projects, can you do a video on the Aerojet M-1 rocket engine please?
No one:
Scott Manley: "*"
*ship
Congrats on hitting 1 million subs! It's well deserved.
My dad was a board member at Irvin! I remember going to the factory in Hope Mills here in NC. I still have all his research materials and patents! I remember when he needed to mock up stuff he’d go down to the ace hardware and literally pull ordinary hardware off the shelf.
Really enjoy your vids Scott. Youre on my daily go to 😉👍🏻
Just wanted to say thanks for the video, it’s wonderful to nerd out with you!
Thanks so much for uploading. I had the chance to see a rocket launch in 2018. Amazing experience. I shared a pretty solid video of the experience on my page.
4:42
I think you need to blur that naked Raptor.
Rockets? Capsules?Parachutes? Just like the 50s and 60s?I can believe how far they've came. Keep up the great work.👍🏆
Great video! Thanks for sharing❗❗❗ 🙂🙂🙂 👍👍👍
The Crew Drago capsule is soooo cooool. I just wish it held more fuel to land safely onto a surface!!! Fly safe!!!
"Land Safe!"
From what I understand the crew dragon already has the ability to land under its own power but due to uncertainty over safety NASA won’t allow it but it’s cool to know that if space x wanted to they could and you never know maybe after a few successful flights NASA may change there mind and we’ll see dragons landing on the same landing pads as the stage 1 of the falcon 9
Thanks for this video (and your great content overall
Awesome videos Scott I'm a longtime supporter of yours and I love all of your content it's very interesting and informative congratulations and all your success I hope to one day be as successful as you
Please talk about the abandoned f9 second stage recovery project
That's in the 3rd part
Tiny hole in heatsheld exists
People at NASA
CRAWLING IN MY SKIN
lol
Tiny hole in balloon exists.....catastrophic Issues.
*
Love to hear your commentary on propulsive landing and other things! Looking forward to the next episode about steel rockets!
Great walkthrough
Thanks for sharing :-)
Love your channel ❤
Thanks for another great video!
New Scott Manley videos make me happy 😀 “Fly Safe”!
Back in 2012/13 I was skiving off my IT lesson in school and ended up on the SpaceX website somehow. I've not seen the Merlin 2 spoken of since then so it was nice to see it hadn't been completely forgotten
I guess this is less important now that NASA looks to be allowing the reuse of the Dragon 2 for crew missions despite splashing down, but it occurred to me that the even if the SuperDracos weren't to be used for propulsive landings, they could still be used in a similar way to the Soyuz retro rockets for a "soft landing" on land - there's probably some good reasons not to try this! But just from a risk mitigation perspective there surely would of been some consideration for Dragon being able to survive a dry landing on just parachutes in an emergency.
It can probably do it, just not in a reusable way
One day, if Crew Dragon ever has a complete parachute failure, we might get to see it land like in the original concept video (but without the legs).
@@nagualdesign Yeah I've wondered if that 'feature' is already in place too. Would be mostly just software I'd imagine. Then if that works it would make sense to look at adding legs again...and ultimately ditching the parachutes
@@kirkc9643 They're likely too busy with Starship for that.
@Harker92 I have the same idea as you!
8:40 How cute a look this Dragon egg is on the Martian surface!
Ariane 1 attempted a similar 1st stage parachute landing, 3 times I believe
I know the Ariane 5 EAP have a chute based recovery system (not for reuse, just for inspection). For Ariane 1 it was in fact two times, first time the attempt was finally scrapped due to the weight of the payload (L7) the real attempt went (after several delays) with V14 launch and a failure of the chute system. It was even planned for Ariane 4
That was fun and informative. Thanks for sharing.👍🚀🚀🚀👍
I really hope they go back to the Red Dragon project and do at least 1 mission with it, because that would be incredible to see happen. Might even be good as a sort of test run for Starship so they can see how a powered landing impacts the sand, how it all gets blown around, what kind of damage and problems they can expect, etc.
Plus it would just be super cool to see.
That Christmas tree with rocket engine looks great.
Why would the landing legs have to come through the main heat shield rather than coming out from the sides?
Like super dracos pod fairing extend down like F9 legs?
@@deregapreyahvattaffdiff Or like Falcon 9 legs between the draco ports with one leg also part of the hatch.
@@johndododoe1411 , DEREGA, Noah Pettit: That was exactly my thought! They might just scale down the Falcon 9 leg design, then modify it as needed to fit the Dragon like you say... could the problem be not enough room in the capsule to fit the landing-leg hardware?
_"You should be failing. If things are not failing, you are not innovating enough"_
*Elon Musk*
As a web developer this is soo true.. when you are developing something new and it is not proved and tested enough and it seems that it works without failing.. it is a scarier feeling than when its failing. Because with stuff failing you learn and notice things you did not before and cover all the options of a system, when not its like you are going blind into something that works "on the surface" but you really do not know because its new and not tested in all cases that it could go wrong that you do not know about.
Perhaps flat earthers should get into launching rockets. it's the fastest way they can realize they know absolutely nothing.
@@itsnotallrainbowsandunicor1505 it didn't turn out very well last time
@@kroktal8896 maybe would have been a nice idea not to launch together with his poorly made rocket
@@lorenzop6765 flat earthers think cameras are useless (unless it's a p1000 for some reason, it's the only Tele lens they seem to think exists, and which they think disproves the curvature) and think they need to *go there* and *see with my own eyes* as it's apparently the only way to actually know. all of that said, mad Mike probably wasn't a flat earther, just looking for some dopes to fund his steam rocket hobby.
Scott, the clip of the stage separation at 1:90 is very impressive. Looks like a significant wobble occurs as Stage 1 shuts off and the Stage 2 kicks in. Very cool to see the 1st stage in the video frame for quite a bit. Also, what is the piece that comes off of the Stage 2 following the start up?
I think they should demonstrate propulsive landing on 'Of Course I Still Love You' with a cargo Dragon.
It seems that the developing cost ist outroling the benefits of propulsive landing. Watering is just working to well. Would love to see it anyway
Great vid, thanks. 👌🙏
Imagine Falcon XX Heavy.
Imagine starship heavy with 3 super heavy boosters
@@legalnut9950 u mean super heavy heavy
You should talk about the original Falcon Heavy concept, where they showed an animation of all 3 boosters landing back at the cape along with the 2nd stage as well.
They also abandoned propellant cross feed on Falcon Heavy. I would have liked to have seen what that could have done.
4:46 now thats a Christmas tree!)
Kind of a shame that Merlin 2 never came to be. As a big fan of over the top super powerful rocket moters, the last decade have been full of disappointments lol. First the Merlin 2 and then the F-1B that was going to be part of SLS.
More engines instead of one big engine has many pros. Easier mass manufacturing, redundancy during the mission (i think on the F9 one engine can actually fail), easier landing/controlling of low thrust (which even more useful when landing on objects with lower gravity), just to name a few.
cc@@grg6574 2 Merlins at F9 can fail (but depends on the time and flight profile)
Don't forget about some of the earlier Raptor designs, which were in the same class as F-1.
@@grg6574 Fewer engines also has many pros. Fewer moving parts to fail, and a higher thrust-to-weight ratio. And more engines didn't work out for the Soviet N1, for a variety of reasons beyond engine choice. This is a debate that's as old as spaceflight itself. But the OP's point is well-taken: big engines are cool to watch in action. What I'd give to witness a cluster of F-1B's shoving a giant rocket into the sky.
@@harbingerdawn Truth
Love your video’s look forward to them every time. Great info, Great coverage.
I have an interesting Observation.
Go back and look at the crew dragon Launch, Is it me or does it seam to Stall out at about 17 seconds, Just after it clears the Tower.
I swear it seems to almost Stop rising. (then) accelerates quickly away from that altitude.
Probably expected, or Maybe it is the way the camera zooms out at that exact same time. I’ve hunted for other angle video’s and still seems to me like it almost stalls out for a millisecond.
Just wondered your thoughts.
C you L8er
2:32 Using a propane tank for a combustion chamber! That's frugal even for SpaceX.
DIY liquid fuel engine
@@luigivercotti6410 DIY bomb
@@CarlosAM1 What's the difference?
AWESOME :: Your work is interesting and important.
Ooooohhh!!! MARS!
Tars Tarkis & Dejah Thoris...
That 10 legged Lion.
What a time to be alive...
Irony?
good title 👍
Scott, is there some reason or meaning for each of your different intro's ??
So good that SpaceX use SI unit. Wow.
Why “*” as a title?
Didn’t start that way...
@@MoonWeasel23 yea it was different this morning.
It means there's a missing footnote.
@@hjalfi What's a footnote? I mean, I know what it means but what's it mean in the terms of UA-cam/content creators?
Sorry, it's a stupid question but I'm curious as hell. To me (sysadmin) * is a wildcard
If you shoot for the moon, if you fail, at least you'll land among the asterisks
We still could see a similar rocket of the Falcon XX using the super heavy booster. Now that will be cool 🚀🚀
I don't think the time pressure to get Crew Dragon flying was much of an issue in SpaceX's decision to drop propulsive landing. That was always proposed as a later addition to the program with all the initial missions only using parachutes. So, if anything, the most that time pressure could have done was delay when the change over occurred to a later mission. I think SpaceX dropped propulsive landing because when it came down to it NASA wouldn't support their development/testing and certification strategy which included using operational Dragon 2 cargo missions returning from the ISS to test out the propulsive landings. From NASA's perspective, this represented a major increase in risk to their extremely valuable cargo for essentially non-existent or at most very negligible benefits. And I believe that NASA indicated to SpaceX that it would take A LOT more flight testing for them to sign off on it than SpaceX had originally included. As a result, the added cost to SpaceX to certify the propulsive landing system became seriously prohibitive and it was dropped.
Hey Scott, You may or may not recall that the first fly back boosters were proposed by NASA for the shuttle. There was a tab on the Shuttles page about the future or upgrades to the shuttle. Listed was the "glass Cockpit", "fly back boosters", and maybe others. The problems they noted is that for one, they'd have to change to LRB's so that the engine could be turned off and then back on when needed. It was also mentioned about the possibility of attaching wings and a jet engine. The problems that were noted were: increased weight of wings, jet engine, and jet fuel; LRB's need to save fuel during liftoff to use during reentry, shortening the lift off burn; LRB's didn't have the required thrust to replace the SRB's. Considering the proposals of the SLS like 1 month turnaround, SLS C, satellite launching platform, lowering the cost and easier access to space, and other improvements, it might have been really cool to see what a matured system would have been capable off! Space X probably hired those same engineers that proposed the fly back booster.
Set the reaction wheels to SAS only, set wheel traction and friction to 0.4 and that thing will work an absolute treat.
Control from docking port (reversed) and set SAS to prograde.
Really nice looking buggy.
Another reason for not using a single huge engine is redundancy. Where a single (of nine) engine failure is not critical to the mission, would having a single one represent a signifficant risk.
Nice title Scott
Interested to know why you changed the title! Look forward to the next one as always
For your next video can you talk about the long march or the N-1 Soviet moon rocket
Hey Scott, is there a video with footage of the astronauts during launch?
Space X also developed the Falcon XXX. It was only 6 inches long with 2 corrugated boosters and had trouble getting ignition in cold weather.....
Hi Scott thanks for your informative videos. Just wondering do you have a degree in any of the rocket sciences or it's just your passion
He has a degree from Aberdeen in astrophysics and a masters in something. So he's self taught as a rocket scientist. Also he got a day job in software by being a dj.
At 3:00, and it looks a lot like the F1 too.
So these rockets in theory would make good icbms 🤔
In theory all rockets are good for ICBMs
Who are you so wise in the ways of science
Daniel Son well, that’s how the whole space race thing started, so SURE!
Myname'sPedro_L all space rockets are mediocre ICBMs. Good modern ICBM must be capable of sitting in storage for 20 years and simultaneously be ready to launch in 1 minute, also recent 🇷🇺 ICBMs have relatively quick acceleration, because NATO is putting anti ICBMs very close to 🇷🇺 border, with an intent o hit ICBMs during atmospheric flight up, where it is visible very well and very vulnerable. 😾
The Falcon 9 with the upper stage removed is probably the best ICBM SpaceX have designed
@8:30 I'm interested in what the Instrument to detect extant life experiment is? Especially exactly what the SOLID abbreviation is? Does anybody know?
I wonder if the propulsive landing can be partially revived as a backup landing mechanism in case there is any issue with the parachutes.
I'm not sure "things coming out of the heatshield" would be a problem given NASA had a fleet of Shuttles which had 5 doors on their heatshield and none of them ever failed. And there's also the X-37B and Dream Chaser which also have doors on the heatshield.
After two shuttles going kaboom.
I think NASA doesn't wanna see anything like it.
There were also tests (I think they got as far as testing) for putting a crew hatch in the bottom of a Gemini capsule.
@@youkofoxy Neither of those were due to the doors in the heat shield
The Christmas lights make it go faster
Whats with the title? Why is it only "*"?
Nice video title
I was thinking advantage of starting on one concept that includes building hardware then later abandon it to start on another has advantage of building up infrastructure for building things (ordering parts, machining, wiring up stuff, hands-on learning). As compared to lots of paper studies and then select one concept and that will continue beyond when originators die of old age. Those started Dragon got to see it fly people. Not sure for those that started Orion will live long enough to see it carrying people. I am impressed with Dragon using the Dracos for launch abort but also be used for manuveuring. Unlike Orion takes its shape because that what was used for Apollo and makes a lousy cargo carrier because door too small. Then through various foibles is this huge protective shroud with the escape tower, a lot of mass that will be thrown away but yet need it for crew escape. I sure like to hear those that designed Dragon and how they arrived at the way it is, in addition to other ideas that looked promising but turned out not a good idea. And alternates envisioned but never got beyond paper for ? reason.
2:40 engine looks like there is a smaller engine doing mechanical work on it 😂
oh you're right 😂
I wish Dragon would land propulsively. Would be so sick.
Is there any merit in the Draco thrusters being fired as a last desperate resort should there be a ‘problem’ with Crew Dragon’s parachutes? i.e. do they have enough delta-v in them to slow a free-falling capsule down sufficiently to create a chance of a survivable water landing?
I believe Elon was asked that and said it was possible bat at the time the software for it had not been created. I don't know if that changed. I honestly believe the drakes should be used as a backup to the parachutes.
A huge question which, AFAIK, hasn't been answered yet is if Dragon still has propulsive emergency landing capability.
Note that there is one button for "Water de-orbit" and another one for "de-orbit now" inside the crew dragon.
While i am an old guy, an observer of the Apollo program (only on tv, we had 4 channels), during my childhood, i've never seen the real-time drama of developing a low earth orbit/moon mission/mars mission spacecraft until now. There was never this amount of media coverage and technology available to be the mouse in the astronaut's pocket back then.
Of all of these, to me Red Dragon is the saddest cancellation. Starship is really overkill in terms of Mars payload, considering that there would be more scientific value from landing numerous smaller specialized payloads at distant points on the planet. Red Dragon would also have been a clever reuse of existing, actively developed hardware, rather than an expensive and uncertain original design. I'm all for Starship's success, but taking smaller steps can sometimes be worth it.
SpaceX goes through project proposals like I go through SSTO and Eve lander designs in KSP.
They could have propulsively landed crew Dragon onto a bed of sand (or whatever) without landing legs. That would have avoided all that PITA ocean recovery and Bob and Doug would have been spared their 'celebratory vomit'.
Can you imagine a chute failing and while failing the software won't give the astronauts enough control to attempt any kind of soft landing.
Stuffing the parachute for first stage into the inter-stage makes sense.... Having it stuffed into the nozzle of the stage 2 engine sounds scary. They must've had a delay between staging and 2nd engine start to avoid toasting it.
Every non-soviet rocket has a delay due to the closed inter-stage. Also, the second stage exaust temperature should be around 1000ºC at less than 0.1 atmosphere pressure. Not that menacing, relatively easy to protect against for a second or two.
SpaceX has never use hot staging--where the upper stage engine ignites prior to separation--there's always been a few seconds delay between main engine cut off, stage separation, and second stage engine start. That delay allows the stages to separate a decent amount before the upper stage ignites so there's little danger to the parachutes which are stored in bags/compartments to protect them from exhaust.
@@JohnSmith-rf1tx Well, except that Falcon 1 launch where the first stage separated, but crashed into the second stage as it separated.
Red dragon sonds cool
You could also ditch the heat shield if landing legs or balloons are needed for dry landing.
Abandoned projects:
The original video title
I wonder if they could use the SuperDracos as a last ditch effort to save the crew if they have multiple parachute failures.
Scott, in orbit Starship refueling would be a good topic for one of your videos. In orbit refueling is one of the things NASA wants SpaceX to prove before providing money to SpaceX for the Moon Human Lander System (HLS) proposal so it is really relevant. The potential danger of in orbit refueling for maned flights is also relevant.
Elon has said that the Starship will need to be refueled in orbit using 6 to 10 refueling flights of additional Starships for Moon or Mars missions.
Less delta V is needed for the Moon vs Mars but the Starship would need to carry enough propellant for returning from the Moon vs making propellant on Mars. It would seem to be a good assumption that the Starship would have to have a full propellant load for either destination.
The fuel load for a Starship is 1200 Tonnes and the payload of a Starship is supposed to be 150 Tonne.
Now some speculation. Assume 10% of the propellant remains in LEO for a fully loaded Starship and this amount of propellants is needed for Starships that land.
If a special tanker version with 150 Tonnes of propellant as the payload were used the number of refueling flights is just over seven, and probably eight to take care of boil off.
Any thoughts about this?
The Crew Dragon relying on the thrusters would mean there is a no escape zone just before the ground, too low for parachutes to deploy but plenty high enough to kill you in a crash.
If they had of gone ahead with propulsive landing i hoped they would still deploy the parachutes they had carried anyway but still make a silky smooth and soft propulsive landing with the Super Dracos.
But there would be a problem with landing accuracy the higher you deployed the parachutes.
Good to hear he will be Scott Manley until he makes the next video. Wonder if he'll keep prolonging it one video at a time, or if he'll one day claim another name for a video or two.
What about the tiny greenhouse on mars thing? Of course that was just before spacex, but I always wondered why they haven't done it in the 20 years since and they've had the ability for at least a decade now.
I don't believe you Scott. There is no way that one gets to the 10 yard line and then gives up. "Projects Aboandoned" indeed! It's like taking a 4 semester course in German and then a week before the final exam of the 4th semester admitting that you've learned nothing and that you don't know how to speak German. The intellectual stimulus effect of Space Exploration on society, is the most valuable thing about this exploratory accident. Keep it coming.
How about: Instead of feet coming out the headshield, what if the heat shield moved down with shock absorbing legs between it and the crew area?
That would let you land it on soft sand, in scrub, etc. And if you accidentally land on a steep slope, legs would catch and make the capsule tumble, but just the heat shield might act like a sled: slide down a little until it comes to rest, gently.
Why is this called * for me? Edit: Thank You So Much For The Likes I've Never Had This Many! ❤
Tn - Troy Same here. Is that intentional?
I guess its because the title has been «abandoned»
@@trygveskaran764 what does it diplo with the * ?
-Ah vilable- I dont have a have a huge variety in english, but I guess you meant what it has to do with * and I don’t know, it was just an assumption
Trygve Skaran Don’t worry, “diplo” isn’t a word