No, the RD-170 was a multiple chamber engine. Not in the same category as the F-1 is is the most powerful single chamber rocket thruster. The reason the Soviets created the multiple chamber configuration is because they were never able to get the metallurgy correct to build a device on the scale of the F-1. - - However, they were able to create a very efficient single shaft for oxidizer/fuel gas generator on a full flow stage combustion. That didn't happen again till the Raptor.
@@qpwodkgh2010 The metallurgy wasn't the problem, it was combustion instability from the injector plate layout. This is more of a design and testing issue than material science issue. It wasn't a full-flow staged combustion cycle either. Full flow means all the fuel and all the oxidiser go through a pre-burner. The RD170 is a staged combustion cycle, but not full flow. Full flow is theoretically better, since it allows for lower turbine temperatures, for the same pumping power, since mass-flow is higher. It also means the inputs to the combustion chamber are hot and more likely to achieve complete combustion.
The most powerful rocket engine, period, is the 5-segment solid rocket booster used by the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, with a whopping 3.6 million pounds of thrust - an ENORMOUS upgrade over the earlier 4-segment SRBs used by the Space Shuttle, which had 2.8 million pounds of thrust. Prior to then, the most powerful rocket engine was the almost cartoonishly huge Aerojet AJ-260 solid rocket motor - only two of which were built and tested in the 1960s. The *21.67 foot-wide* booster produced 3.5 million pounds of thrust, and was so obscenely powerful that it lit up the entire sky as if it was day during its nighttime test, and shook the earth so much that it registered as a 3.0-4.0 magnitude earthquake.
Words cannot convey how awesome this video is. I've been a fan of rockets for decades, yet I've NEVER seen the F-1 explained so thoroughly and animated so gorgeously. :-) Meanwhile Flat Earth folks say "rockets push off air" LOL.
What a great video. It surprised me that you have just started out 3 months ago. With the quality already at this level, I'm sure this channel has a bright future. Subscriber no. 472
The most powerful of all rocket engines, by weight, are solid rocket motors. They are also the simplest type of rocket engine; effectively, a metal tube with a nozzle, packed full of solid propellant, meaning that about 90% of its mass is just fuel, allowing for an INCREDIBLY high thrust-to-weight ratio. Thus, if you’re looking for the most powerful rocket engine, period, that would be the 5-segment solid rocket booster used by the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, with a whopping 3.6 million pounds of thrust - an ENORMOUS upgrade over the earlier 4-segment SRBs used by the Space Shuttle, which had 2.8 million pounds of thrust. Prior to then, the most powerful rocket engine was the almost cartoonishly huge Aerojet AJ-260 solid rocket motor - only two of which were built and tested in the 1960s. The *21.67 foot-wide* booster produced 3.5 million pounds of thrust, and was so obscenely powerful that it lit up the entire sky as if it was day during its nighttime test, and shook the earth so much that it registered as a 3.0-4.0 magnitude earthquake. While SRBs are the cheapest, simplest, and most powerful types of rocket engines (either by thrust-to-weight ratio, or just the fact that the most powerful rocket engines thus far have been SRBs), they do have some downsides. Firstly, they cannot easily be reused. While they recovered the space shuttle’s SRBs, they had to essentially strip them down to bare metal and completely rebuild them; sure, the avionics were recovered, so that is a lot of cost recouped, but it’s still almost as much effort to refurbish them as it is to build a new one. There is also no chance of being able to reuse them “in the field”, so to speak. While you could theoretically refill the fuel tanks of a liquid propellant rocket out on the Moon or Mars or in orbit, you need an entire factory to refurbish SRBs. You don’t just pour gunpowder into a tube and cap it off - it’s nowhere near that simple. Rather, the boosters are made by casting them in a mold, pouring a liquefied propellant mix that cures and hardens inside of the casing. SRBs have a tube running down their length for combustion to take place, and the shape of the tube is very carefully designed to control thrust and performance. If you look at a cross-section of a space shuttle SRB, you’ll see that the tube is sort of star-shaped, with the size and number of points changing along the length. Secondly, they are far, FAR more dangerous than liquid rocket engines. While you can build a liquid-fueled rocket and only fuel it up on the pad right before launch, a solid rocket motor is filled with propellant before it even leaves the factory. Thus, from the moment the propellant casting begins, it is effectively a live bomb. No smoking, no static discharges, no open flames. Transporting them and assembling them on the main rocket is a very delicate process. Additionally, by nature of them having virtually zero moving parts (aside from perhaps a gimbal to swivel the nozzle for steering), once they are lit, you cannot shut them down. They will continue to burn until they’re out of propellant. So, while liquid-fueled rocket engines can be fired multiple times in a single mission - igniting, shutting down, and re-igniting later on - an SRB can only be used once in the mission. If you are about to launch but something goes wrong, you cannot shut down the SRBs and abort the launch like you can with liquid rocket engines, where you can close the fuel valves to shut them down. This is why SRBs are only ignited at the VERY last moment, literally less than a second before lift-off, as once they are lit, there is no going back. This one-time firing is also why the majority of rockets that use SRBs only use them during launch, when you would have them on continuously anyways, and not for things like orbital maneuvering, where you need to have precise engine firings happening numerous times. The small reaction-control thrusters that steer spacecraft can be fired many THOUSANDS of times during a mission, and need to operate with millisecond precision, or else they may end up spinning the spacecraft out of control. There’s pros and cons to both. If any of you who have bothered to actually read this far in my yapping are interested in this sort of stuff, but have not done so already, I would HIGHLY recommend that you play Kerbal Space Program (NOT KSP2 - the sequel is an incomplete piece of trash that the studio pulled the plug on and the devs basically abandoned). It’s what seriously inspired me to pursue my current path of studying in university to become an aerospace engineer, and where I learned the majority of my fundamental spaceflight knowledge from. The game lets you build rockets, aircraft, rovers, etc. as if they were made from LEGOs, and you certainly gain an intuitive feel for the difference between a good design and a bad one.
I like your video, you got a lot for a short time, very underrated. however, there are some things that you could have improved on. You really should have mentioned the fact that the reason why we cant run the engine closed cycle is because we need a very fuel rich combustion mixture to keep the combustion cold enough to prevent the turbine from getting destroyed, and this type of combustion with rp-1 produces a very dirty soot particle filled gas which would clog the injectors in a closed cycle engine. Including this is also a good idea because it sets the stage for people to learn about other closed cycle rocket engine types. This is other criticism less significant, but you mentioned that the fuel evaporates in the pipes, which needs a little elaboration. I do not think that RP-1 engines have boiling fluids in the cooling channels. The pressure from the turbopumps is too high for it to boil. What most likely happens is it goes supercritical. If the engine is hydrogen fueled, it just expands a lot while supercritical, but it physically cannot evaporate. But this small error is understandable, since some big creators made this mistake and its not talked about very often. there are a couple other little things, but anyways, overall a good video I think it deserves more views. :)
Pretty good thumbnail, the video editing don't seem to be boring , look pretty good, who know , this might get 100k-400k views and also pretty understandable explanation
I subbed, it’s crazy how you haven’t blown up yet I thought you had over a 100k subscribers but I’m sure you will be there soon with this content (Don’t want to be that guy, but I’m here before your famous)
Wow well done! I knew a lot of the major points of design and have a solid background in this, but you've done a great job explaining things so clearly with your animations and graphics, and i even learnt some stuff. Other people have said it but i haven't such good rocket animations before either! Keep it up!
Awesome, this definitely helped me understand rocket engines way better! The faster pace and helpful visuals definitely kept my attention better than a Scott Manley video lol.
I've been playing Kerbal Space Program the past while and I only just now realised the ingame Company 'Kerbodyne's realife counterpart is actually Rocketdyne hahaha. But its super cool to now understand what the engine is actually doing when I look at it, instead of... magic (Rocket Engine go boom boom, rocket go space).
Amazing explanation and graphics to relate basic principles to the specific components of the Saturn engine! This should be see in the basic curricula of Aerospace engineering schools.
*_Former Boeing... we made the 1st stage of the Saturn Rocket..._* it was called the S-IC (pronounced S-one-C) was the first stage of the American Saturn V rocket. The S-IC stage was manufactured by the Boeing Company. Like the first stages of most rockets, most of its mass of more than 2,000 t (4,400,000 lb) at launch was propellant, in this case RP-1 rocket fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer...
I’m so lucky ive found your channel early on. I can tell your videos will be just as good as the giants like Real Engineering and Mustard, remember QUALITY over QUANTITY. Keep making great content, and don’t push out garbage, we can wait! Amazing video on rocket engines, can’t wait for your next video :)
Wow, this was good; really good. How old are you? And I take it you are aiming to be a rocket scientist. I had no idea the F-1’s turbo pumps used screw pumps to pressurize the liquids. That alone made this episode a gem. I also didn’t know the LOX dome was a discrete unit, and of its importance. Nice work.
2 things: - There is actually a rocket, called Electron, which uses battery and electric motor on its second stage instead of turbo pumps. - Your video is way to fast imho. Understanding and learning requires time, and own thoughts. You have to think about it, truly grasp it. This fast forward style content will make your viewers truly understand only 5-10% of the whole subject.
Nice presentation, but I think you're misstating the physics with the pushups and pull-ups thing. Not to nit pick, but it does give the wrong mechanism in that the third law is a negligible contributor to the motion in a pushup. It's important because with a pushup you rise because you are pushing on the earth. In a rocket, you aren't pushing on anything.
Since rocket speed is usually measured in m/s (I think), I did some math (typed a number on my calculator) and 15700mph is equivalent to 7018,528 m/s, or Mach 25,5
Very good video, informations and animations but there is 1 problem. My english is not good and you are talking very fast. İ cant understand some words. But great video keep going
0:57 - High pressure in the combustion chamber but not in the exhaust gas!!! And second, pressure is NOT more mass in the same volume. That would be density. Pressure is more like kinetic energy density.
While it is, in fact, amazing that we managed to make an engine that powerful back in the 60's... What's really interesting is that it only takes three of the Raptor 2 to match the thrust of the F-1, for less weight, giving the Raptor 2 about 50% more thrust to weight ratio. (And tests on the Raptor 3 have already come out even more powerful.) Not to mention the Raptor 2 has a sea-level specific impulse higher than the F-1's vacuum specific impulse! So it's not just lighter for the same amount of thrust, it's significantly more efficient. And as a result the Starship's booster already gets more than twice the thrust of a Saturn V running those five monster F-1 engines. Whew! (Raptor 2: Specific impulse, vacuum: 380 s; Specific impulse, sea-level: 327 s. F-1: Specific impulse, vacuum: 304 s; Specific impulse, sea-level: 263 s. All figures from Wikipedia on 6-10-24.)
yeah.. earth's gravity is just too damn high. i think we go with shooting things out into space and figure out the g force science for allowing human and technical passengers to survive the trip. maybe shoot out the vessel the humans intend to ride on. then launch the humans in a small rocket to rendezvous with the vessel in orbit.
Your explanation of how rockets are propelled is not very good. 1. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is not a good explanation since rocket engines do not need stuff to push against. 2. F=ma is just not true for a rocket since that assumes mass is constant. The actual equation that applies here is F=dp/dt. Your use of words that have precise meaning behind them is very sloppy.
@@ronjon7942 "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is intrinsicly a statement about two bodies exerting a force on each other, which you CAN use to model rocket engines, if you take the gas to be a reaction mass, but I think it is very badly worded in the video, considering the example of push-ups and pull-ups, which require another object to act against, sentences like "The more force we throw one way", and using F=ma where it does not apply. The presentation is correct enough so that somebody who does have an understanding of this stuff will get what the author is talking about, but for people new to the subject this sloppiness can be harmful. The video contains sentences like 'pressure is more mass for the same space' and while this is again close to the truth in this context, that is just not what pressure is. I think the author knows enough of this stuff to form some level of understanding, but not enough to teach other people.
Why the hell does your thumbnail have an arrow pointing to the ONLY THING IN THE THUMBNAIL? It's always a shame when a channel places more value on using clickbait techniques rather than making content that will stand on its own. Oh well, another channel blocked.
Dude. Slow down. Take a breath or two. Seriously good video, but difficult for this slow Aussie to absorb and process what you're saying. 🙂 You deserve more subs with this quality production.
Imagine explaining an entire rocket engine in 8:22 without breathing. Very time efficient 👍
I can’t believe this only has 500 views. I thought this was a big channel. Great video
Let's hope it will be one in the future
The F-1 is the most powerful single chamber engine, but it's not the most powerful rocket engine, that title goes to the RD-170
No, the RD-170 was a multiple chamber engine. Not in the same category as the F-1 is is the most powerful single chamber rocket thruster. The reason the Soviets created the multiple chamber configuration is because they were never able to get the metallurgy correct to build a device on the scale of the F-1.
- - However, they were able to create a very efficient single shaft for oxidizer/fuel gas generator on a full flow stage combustion. That didn't happen again till the Raptor.
@@qpwodkgh2010 The metallurgy wasn't the problem, it was combustion instability from the injector plate layout. This is more of a design and testing issue than material science issue.
It wasn't a full-flow staged combustion cycle either. Full flow means all the fuel and all the oxidiser go through a pre-burner. The RD170 is a staged combustion cycle, but not full flow. Full flow is theoretically better, since it allows for lower turbine temperatures, for the same pumping power, since mass-flow is higher. It also means the inputs to the combustion chamber are hot and more likely to achieve complete combustion.
@@qpwodkgh2010 learn to read
@@qpwodkgh2010 bro cant read
The most powerful rocket engine, period, is the 5-segment solid rocket booster used by the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, with a whopping 3.6 million pounds of thrust - an ENORMOUS upgrade over the earlier 4-segment SRBs used by the Space Shuttle, which had 2.8 million pounds of thrust. Prior to then, the most powerful rocket engine was the almost cartoonishly huge Aerojet AJ-260 solid rocket motor - only two of which were built and tested in the 1960s. The *21.67 foot-wide* booster produced 3.5 million pounds of thrust, and was so obscenely powerful that it lit up the entire sky as if it was day during its nighttime test, and shook the earth so much that it registered as a 3.0-4.0 magnitude earthquake.
i just can't get over the fact each engine has a fifty-five THOUSAND horsepower FUEL PUMP
Words cannot convey how awesome this video is. I've been a fan of rockets for decades, yet I've NEVER seen the F-1 explained so thoroughly and animated so gorgeously. :-) Meanwhile Flat Earth folks say "rockets push off air" LOL.
This exactly why i think that plumbing is the most useful knowledge/skill anyone could ever learn.
Great video, thanks!
Hot’s on the left, cold’s on the right, and shite don’t run uph…. Oh, wait, wrong kinda plumbing. :)
What a great video. It surprised me that you have just started out 3 months ago. With the quality already at this level, I'm sure this channel has a bright future.
Subscriber no. 472
The most powerful of all rocket engines, by weight, are solid rocket motors. They are also the simplest type of rocket engine; effectively, a metal tube with a nozzle, packed full of solid propellant, meaning that about 90% of its mass is just fuel, allowing for an INCREDIBLY high thrust-to-weight ratio. Thus, if you’re looking for the most powerful rocket engine, period, that would be the 5-segment solid rocket booster used by the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket, with a whopping 3.6 million pounds of thrust - an ENORMOUS upgrade over the earlier 4-segment SRBs used by the Space Shuttle, which had 2.8 million pounds of thrust. Prior to then, the most powerful rocket engine was the almost cartoonishly huge Aerojet AJ-260 solid rocket motor - only two of which were built and tested in the 1960s. The *21.67 foot-wide* booster produced 3.5 million pounds of thrust, and was so obscenely powerful that it lit up the entire sky as if it was day during its nighttime test, and shook the earth so much that it registered as a 3.0-4.0 magnitude earthquake.
While SRBs are the cheapest, simplest, and most powerful types of rocket engines (either by thrust-to-weight ratio, or just the fact that the most powerful rocket engines thus far have been SRBs), they do have some downsides. Firstly, they cannot easily be reused. While they recovered the space shuttle’s SRBs, they had to essentially strip them down to bare metal and completely rebuild them; sure, the avionics were recovered, so that is a lot of cost recouped, but it’s still almost as much effort to refurbish them as it is to build a new one. There is also no chance of being able to reuse them “in the field”, so to speak. While you could theoretically refill the fuel tanks of a liquid propellant rocket out on the Moon or Mars or in orbit, you need an entire factory to refurbish SRBs. You don’t just pour gunpowder into a tube and cap it off - it’s nowhere near that simple. Rather, the boosters are made by casting them in a mold, pouring a liquefied propellant mix that cures and hardens inside of the casing. SRBs have a tube running down their length for combustion to take place, and the shape of the tube is very carefully designed to control thrust and performance. If you look at a cross-section of a space shuttle SRB, you’ll see that the tube is sort of star-shaped, with the size and number of points changing along the length.
Secondly, they are far, FAR more dangerous than liquid rocket engines. While you can build a liquid-fueled rocket and only fuel it up on the pad right before launch, a solid rocket motor is filled with propellant before it even leaves the factory. Thus, from the moment the propellant casting begins, it is effectively a live bomb. No smoking, no static discharges, no open flames. Transporting them and assembling them on the main rocket is a very delicate process. Additionally, by nature of them having virtually zero moving parts (aside from perhaps a gimbal to swivel the nozzle for steering), once they are lit, you cannot shut them down. They will continue to burn until they’re out of propellant. So, while liquid-fueled rocket engines can be fired multiple times in a single mission - igniting, shutting down, and re-igniting later on - an SRB can only be used once in the mission. If you are about to launch but something goes wrong, you cannot shut down the SRBs and abort the launch like you can with liquid rocket engines, where you can close the fuel valves to shut them down. This is why SRBs are only ignited at the VERY last moment, literally less than a second before lift-off, as once they are lit, there is no going back. This one-time firing is also why the majority of rockets that use SRBs only use them during launch, when you would have them on continuously anyways, and not for things like orbital maneuvering, where you need to have precise engine firings happening numerous times. The small reaction-control thrusters that steer spacecraft can be fired many THOUSANDS of times during a mission, and need to operate with millisecond precision, or else they may end up spinning the spacecraft out of control.
There’s pros and cons to both. If any of you who have bothered to actually read this far in my yapping are interested in this sort of stuff, but have not done so already, I would HIGHLY recommend that you play Kerbal Space Program (NOT KSP2 - the sequel is an incomplete piece of trash that the studio pulled the plug on and the devs basically abandoned). It’s what seriously inspired me to pursue my current path of studying in university to become an aerospace engineer, and where I learned the majority of my fundamental spaceflight knowledge from. The game lets you build rockets, aircraft, rovers, etc. as if they were made from LEGOs, and you certainly gain an intuitive feel for the difference between a good design and a bad one.
I like your video, you got a lot for a short time, very underrated.
however, there are some things that you could have improved on. You really should have mentioned the fact that the reason why we cant run the engine closed cycle is because we need a very fuel rich combustion mixture to keep the combustion cold enough to prevent the turbine from getting destroyed, and this type of combustion with rp-1 produces a very dirty soot particle filled gas which would clog the injectors in a closed cycle engine. Including this is also a good idea because it sets the stage for people to learn about other closed cycle rocket engine types.
This is other criticism less significant, but you mentioned that the fuel evaporates in the pipes, which needs a little elaboration. I do not think that RP-1 engines have boiling fluids in the cooling channels. The pressure from the turbopumps is too high for it to boil. What most likely happens is it goes supercritical. If the engine is hydrogen fueled, it just expands a lot while supercritical, but it physically cannot evaporate. But this small error is understandable, since some big creators made this mistake and its not talked about very often.
there are a couple other little things, but anyways, overall a good video I think it deserves more views. :)
SpaceX's Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion cycle engine.
Pretty good thumbnail, the video editing don't seem to be boring , look pretty good, who know , this might get 100k-400k views
and also pretty understandable explanation
I subbed, it’s crazy how you haven’t blown up yet I thought you had over a 100k subscribers but I’m sure you will be there soon with this content
(Don’t want to be that guy, but I’m here before your famous)
Wow well done! I knew a lot of the major points of design and have a solid background in this, but you've done a great job explaining things so clearly with your animations and graphics, and i even learnt some stuff. Other people have said it but i haven't such good rocket animations before either! Keep it up!
Awesome, this definitely helped me understand rocket engines way better! The faster pace and helpful visuals definitely kept my attention better than a Scott Manley video lol.
Very well done! Stick with it, this channel is going places.
Here before the rest of the world blows this video up! 👍👍
You're gonna go far!
I've been playing Kerbal Space Program the past while and I only just now realised the ingame Company 'Kerbodyne's realife counterpart is actually Rocketdyne hahaha. But its super cool to now understand what the engine is actually doing when I look at it, instead of... magic (Rocket Engine go boom boom, rocket go space).
wonderful job explaining it, this was actually a very nice video
Impressive video! Can’t wait to see more. 😀
Amazing explanation and graphics to relate basic principles to the specific components of the Saturn engine! This should be see in the basic curricula of Aerospace engineering schools.
*_Former Boeing... we made the 1st stage of the Saturn Rocket..._* it was called the S-IC (pronounced S-one-C) was the first stage of the American Saturn V rocket. The S-IC stage was manufactured by the Boeing Company. Like the first stages of most rockets, most of its mass of more than 2,000 t (4,400,000 lb) at launch was propellant, in this case RP-1 rocket fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer...
Why not have the rocket base frame on springs, that, at launch, impart a few m/s push upwards to save on fuel consumption?
@@Butchman2000 Thanks for comment... good idea... no one ever asked it before...
Rocket engines can only get us far but to truly explore beyond our solar system in a human lifetime we need WARPDRIVES
I’m so lucky ive found your channel early on. I can tell your videos will be just as good as the giants like Real Engineering and Mustard, remember QUALITY over QUANTITY. Keep making great content, and don’t push out garbage, we can wait! Amazing video on rocket engines, can’t wait for your next video :)
The F-1 engines also ran fuel rich to keep temperatures down.
5:20 do you mean helium and nitrogen? Oxygen do be reactive
yea mb, pressurizing with oxygen would be pretty dumb (and explosive)
Man this is such an accessible explanation of such a complex concept! Well done!
Even with your speech speed, you do an excellent job of explaining the complex design processes!!👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Solid video! Really liked it
Great Video! Loved seeing each component’s location as you explained.
Wow, this was good; really good. How old are you? And I take it you are aiming to be a rocket scientist.
I had no idea the F-1’s turbo pumps used screw pumps to pressurize the liquids. That alone made this episode a gem. I also didn’t know the LOX dome was a discrete unit, and of its importance.
Nice work.
Thought this was a bigger channel from the video, this is such a great video. Keep it up! You’re going to get big
best explanation of how a rocket engine works i have ever seen - beautiful content 👍👍
In the remote chance that anyone viewing this video has missed it, there is a good book on rocketry chemistry by John Drury Clark, "Ignition!"
Awesome video, thank you
Bro how do you only have 100 subs?
Such a great video!
You just earned yourself a subscriber🇩🇪👌🇬🇧🇺🇸
2 things:
- There is actually a rocket, called Electron, which uses battery and electric motor on its second stage instead of turbo pumps.
- Your video is way to fast imho. Understanding and learning requires time, and own thoughts. You have to think about it, truly grasp it. This fast forward style content will make your viewers truly understand only 5-10% of the whole subject.
Nice presentation, but I think you're misstating the physics with the pushups and pull-ups thing. Not to nit pick, but it does give the wrong mechanism in that the third law is a negligible contributor to the motion in a pushup. It's important because with a pushup you rise because you are pushing on the earth. In a rocket, you aren't pushing on anything.
Yes your correct, I was just using a vague example
I subbed, good job
Since rocket speed is usually measured in m/s (I think), I did some math (typed a number on my calculator) and 15700mph is equivalent to 7018,528 m/s, or Mach 25,5
yes that's right, mach 20-25 was Saturn V's top speed range
Great job bro
Such an amzing vicso
I could just imagine Elon Musk commenting about that engine having too many fiddly bits 😂
thanks awesome content
Very good video, informations and animations but there is 1 problem. My english is not good and you are talking very fast. İ cant understand some words. But great video keep going
Great video! Hope to see more:) Liked and Sub'ed;)
Hey algorithm, do your thing already!
10/10 tutorial, would follow again 👍
Pretty good video my friend... I wish this video will get a great views😊😊😊
a great video very suprised to not see over a million views
Just like to say that I commented when this only had 8k views. In before the rush :)
Also, when he only had 343 subscribers
0:57 - High pressure in the combustion chamber but not in the exhaust gas!!! And second, pressure is NOT more mass in the same volume. That would be density. Pressure is more like kinetic energy density.
3:30, Rocketlab night have something to say to you
They’re also not pushing 1.5 million lbs of thrust per engine.
Amazing video 👏
Me after whatching :
Now I'm a rocket scientist 😅
wow so good keep it up and u will blow up in no time fr
Great Video!!
Please make a pinned comment with the mistakes and corrections in this video.
good video
Pretty cool! Right?
closed cycle raptor engine and how it achieves worlds highest 200 to 1 power to weight ratio
Great explanation !! Thanks !!!
Really well explained
While it is, in fact, amazing that we managed to make an engine that powerful back in the 60's... What's really interesting is that it only takes three of the Raptor 2 to match the thrust of the F-1, for less weight, giving the Raptor 2 about 50% more thrust to weight ratio. (And tests on the Raptor 3 have already come out even more powerful.) Not to mention the Raptor 2 has a sea-level specific impulse higher than the F-1's vacuum specific impulse! So it's not just lighter for the same amount of thrust, it's significantly more efficient. And as a result the Starship's booster already gets more than twice the thrust of a Saturn V running those five monster F-1 engines. Whew!
(Raptor 2: Specific impulse, vacuum: 380 s; Specific impulse, sea-level: 327 s. F-1: Specific impulse, vacuum: 304 s; Specific impulse, sea-level: 263 s. All figures from Wikipedia on 6-10-24.)
Nice vid
5:38 the exhaust is actually not mach one, it is MACH 10.
This video also has many mistakes.
Awesome video mate
5:19 You mean helium and *nitrogen*. Oxygen is a very reactive gas.
yes yes, my mistake
0:39 focus on your pronunciation, it's much more useful.
great video bro
nice video bro
7:50 thats 6 f1 engines on screen not 5
oh mb
👋 hello
Very nice video. We will watch your career, with great interest ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
yeah.. earth's gravity is just too damn high. i think we go with shooting things out into space and figure out the g force science for allowing human and technical passengers to survive the trip. maybe shoot out the vessel the humans intend to ride on. then launch the humans in a small rocket to rendezvous with the vessel in orbit.
5:12 - "shook at incredible pressures" ??? What is this? And boy, it would help if you worked on your pronunciation.
0:54 - You say mass and then you write (lb/s) 🤦♂ The units lb/s are the units of mass rate.
Your explanation of how rockets are propelled is not very good. 1. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is not a good explanation since rocket engines do not need stuff to push against. 2. F=ma is just not true for a rocket since that assumes mass is constant. The actual equation that applies here is F=dp/dt.
Your use of words that have precise meaning behind them is very sloppy.
What are you…? How does ‘equal and opposite’ imply it needs something to push against?
@@ronjon7942 "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is intrinsicly a statement about two bodies exerting a force on each other, which you CAN use to model rocket engines, if you take the gas to be a reaction mass, but I think it is very badly worded in the video, considering the example of push-ups and pull-ups, which require another object to act against, sentences like "The more force we throw one way", and using F=ma where it does not apply.
The presentation is correct enough so that somebody who does have an understanding of this stuff will get what the author is talking about, but for people new to the subject this sloppiness can be harmful. The video contains sentences like 'pressure is more mass for the same space' and while this is again close to the truth in this context, that is just not what pressure is.
I think the author knows enough of this stuff to form some level of understanding, but not enough to teach other people.
Why the hell does your thumbnail have an arrow pointing to the ONLY THING IN THE THUMBNAIL? It's always a shame when a channel places more value on using clickbait techniques rather than making content that will stand on its own. Oh well, another channel blocked.
?
Good enthusiasm but work on enunciation and breathing. Comes off as a hurried mumble jumble of words.
Meh, one can always ‘throttle’ the playback speed down. Personally, I like the rapid-fire narration as it holds my attention better.
@@ronjon7942 Oh I was trying to be helpful as well. But your suggestion is great, thanks for reminding me.
Another lazy "content creator" putting needless arrows in their thumbnails to prey on the sense of urgency it creates.
i heard they do not know how to make them any more.
Yea they don’t know how to make large engines like these anymore, plus it’s not really that cost efficient compared to smaller engines
@@kevkev-70they could, the lost knowledge is the one that the old workers accumulated over decades of working on a thing. The little details
Forget to mention we can't build F1 Engines anymore because we lost the knowledge and the tricks to keep that big engine running
Yea I should’ve included that, thanks
Why would we want to rebuild the F-1 engine when the RD-270 is just better ?
@@unepintade Um we don't support Russia lol
@@uneasingcoma5652 ? It's Ukrainian
"we lost the knowledge", we lost the blueprints yeah, but we can make engines 5 times more powerful lmao
They can not go into space. What ever.
Yeah, because its all fake and they want to get our attention off from the real issues. /s
I KNEW there was going to be a flat Earther conspiracy theorist nut in the comments somewhere 😂
@@ct92404 Yes, good old controllers bad science. 😄
Dude. Slow down. Take a breath or two. Seriously good video, but difficult for this slow Aussie to absorb and process what you're saying. 🙂 You deserve more subs with this quality production.