Elon Musk is brilliant, and he still has the collaboration of highly capable people, so his mission is increasingly bold and capable. Congratulations, we could not be in better hands, mind and heart.👏👏👏🌟❤️🌹
It's amazing how much a bunch of engineers can achieve if led in the right style. We would need that in sooo many other areas! I wonder if Elon is really the only person on this planet who can create that working atmosphere. Hard to believe ...
There have been a few persons like him, Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Steven Jobs in American history. In Britain there was Isambard Kingdom Brunel. But it's not the working atmosphere. That's brutal, and only endurable for a limited time, and only because they are doing something they really want to be a part of. It's the vision and direction. These entrepreneurs are not primarily interested in making money. They want to do something they "see" can be done, they want to have done, but no one else is doing. So they have to do it themselves. And to achieve those goals, some things need to be done in a very special way. It's the direction. Engineers want to do it one way, the smooth, predictable way. But that would sometimes fail the purpose for the enterprise as whole. So that's where the Jobs and Musk tells their engineers: "No, we must do it this way, or there is no point in doing it at all."
There are definite improvements in the mass of the engines. As long as the performance is the same or better, it should be a real improvement. Great video.
@@alphatech4966 I agree. Every new model, be it a rocket engine, or a Ford F150 will have bugs to work out. This being iteration 3 and even improvements on 3,, all part of the process. Try it out, blow it up,, learn, change. Did Falcon 9 get a numerical designation because the previous 8 disassembled? I think yes.
This is marvelous update with proper comparisons to show improvement over time and vs BE-4 which I have been waiting for. Very complete, concise. Nicely done.
The difference from 1 to 3 are insane! How is that even possible to do ? V3 Looks like a base model that not have all parts on yet.!! Production cost must also be much better??!
I would love to see a technical discussion of how SpaceX Raptor engines evolved to a simpler design. Just looking at the engines it’s easy to see the simpler design, but without knowing what the different parts are it might as well be magic.
I suspect that a lot of the previously external plumbing, is now incorporated within the engine via 3D printing. Also a lot of early wiring is for sensors to gather performance data, as the design evolves, fewer sensors are required, and when your confidence in reliability is high enough, none.
@@royh6526 I've spent the day studying the Raptor, and I think you're spot on. Changes to design, incorporating data into the shapes and dimensions, have made a lot of sensors redundant, and probably also a few valves. But they must also have internalized some things with 3D-printing. If you go 3D-print for other reasons, like more internal cooling, you might as well stuff everything. I might also have figured out how they throttle the thing, but I keep my mouth in order to not make a fool of myself. And yes, I'm implying that the obvious, natural way might not be it, ...or otoh, it might be.
Good Morning. Another Good thing about the Raptor 3 is. The less parts the easier it is to de-bug and improve on it. With less parts. The less likely it is to fail. That is probably the most important aspect of the design. I wonder what the Raptor 3-Vac engine will be like. Go SpaceX. Have a Great Day my Friend.
anyone that knows anything knows the reason for the new engine, just look at it and the difference between the others, elon is trying to refine the engine not by mass/weight but by more compact/less moving parts makes it easier to build and more reliable less prone to failure, due to moving part failure. he is getting there just wait till model number 4..
0:14 "it's trully neater and cleaner then we can imagine". Well, thank you very much - I can imagine it clearly and easily :-) What more, the engine itself has been conceived first by imagining it being that way!
Good for LEO launches but to Mars we will have to wait for nuclear engines that will be lifted and installed in LEO. Build a starship mother ship, built horizontally like a submarine. and with secondary decent/acent ship attached. Then presend to Mars a few starships loaded with gear ahead of time.
Raptor V2 number 569. At $1m per engine, Raptor V3 is STILL a bargain and they are ramping up production when the Texas plant goes online. This is TRUE "hardware rich" development and the results have been Awesome! Spacex will be throwing out hundreds of engines and yet the cost of development and the speed is marvelous. Typically, it takes about $3 billion to develop a rocket motor of this class and sophistication and it can be argued that they were done with R2... now we see R3 is SO much better. Spacex has been relentless.
Would you make us a video focused on the mechanics of the synchronized moving engine directional gearings….that illustrate accuracy control of the directional thrust? It’s neat the way the engines dance around in different directions to guide the rocket.
For the calculationally challenged, the reduction in induced mass from Raptor 2 to Raptor 3 is almost 85%! Gotta love a man whose motto is "The best part is no part." Hellova engineer, that Elon Musk!
That's what I say about the DARPA Nuclear power attachment. Weapons grade material launch approval? Better to capture nuclear particles from the radiation belt and slowly release them in the detonated rocket exhaust. Computer research says it only increases prepulsion 2.5%. nothing compared to what Russia believes can be up to 20 times more powerful. I know this thow. NOBODY will approve launching weapons grade material from a rocket that's subject to explode on it's way up.
I know the word "seems" is there but the comment evidences a numpty with no understanding of the progress. Forget this channel and watch Tim tour with Elon.
I calculated StarShip 3 Booster prop load is for 128 seconds of work only. Looks suspicious. It shall have more volume for prop. StarShip Booster may have 4600t of prop, 33 Raptor 3 engines, and still fly as expected.
There's two great stories to understand reasons why Musk is so successful, "Pendulum", and "Longtitude" . The first has to do with a guy who doesn't meet the mold for design engineering. The second is the story how designers are always in the progressive iterations..lead to improvements. Both are wonderful stories based on history
Is there an estimate on how many raptor V2 are currently in inventory and how many booster/starship they are dedicated to until we see starship block 2?
Over 300 have been produced at my last count. The new factory coming on line is expected to produce over 500 of the things a year. Mind boggling numbers.
How can you not understand the drive of SpaceX and their drive to create better and safer rockets faster than any other rocket companies in the world and create them faster and in mass with studies after studies to produce new designs of their rockets . No other rocket companies have accomplished this like SpaceX has done in so little time.
I'd say Energija was very similar in attitude, design efficiency and results. But of course, due to russias more or less bankrupsy in 1991 and subsequently without a single human flight, the companies biggest hardware - the modular energija rocket with the buran shuttle as optional payload - has become a footnote in history and all those involved are no longer active or dead. As far as I know Space X took much inspiration from those rocket engines.
This content sounds like it was generated by chatgpt, regurgitating in 15 mins what could be said in five. Very little technical information about how the engine was improved.
Performance is really magnificent, all credits to SpaceX. But I am afraid, that pushing the limits would very probably compromise RELIABILITY, which is imho much more important property, than performance.
The company I worked for use to use inconel SS parts in the Bolt air guns we used in offshore siesmic surveys. Very tough and long wearing parts, usually in excess of 3 million shots per parts.
Elon just flip all the techniques and fundamentals of other govt founded space agencies in the world's I request to USA govt, Make Him Boss of NASA and give him full hands, He can change the space games that no one can do in next 100 years
Because engine like that is exponentially more complex to come up and cost exponentially more in R&D, and keep in mind that no one before this even thought about saving few kgs by remaking entire engine and make it more robust for reentry or be more suitable for mass production. None of those things have been relevant for one time use
Mr. Musk, please let us know the quantum of combustion exhaust gas emitted by ONE raptor in test firing and/or rocket flight take offs. How many of your EVs are required to compensate for this.
Came way farther than I expected with the support hardware and we have confirm that the current model supports 280t normal thrust and 350 ISP (the latter I have been waiting for for quite some time).
It's not exactly "wire-tucking". I think they have done the same as they did with the Merlin1D. Which was something unique. The Raptor's fuel pumps pump ca 900 l fuel and oxygen into the combustion chamber every second. And they do that against the pressure of 350 bar inside the chamber. That requires more than 40,000 hp. While that is a technical problem in itself, then comes the fact that achieving stable combustion is excruciatingly difficult, and it just becomes more difficult when you increase pressure, temperature and size. It takes very clever design of pintle and combustion chamber. SpaceX has used a sort of magic to solve this (an impossible, inhouse, extremely advanced mathematical modeling software tool). But it also requires a lot of sensors, regulators, valves and a computer to control all the valves, and a lot of plumbing. What they did with the Merlin1D, was that they dispensed with most of this, replacing it with plumbing that is so infernally cleverly shaped and dimensioned that it doesn't need most of the regulators and valves. This was again ridiculously difficult to do, and required lots of effort and tons of testing. But the end result was the most reliable, cheapest engine of any launch rocket, at the same time as it had the highest thrust/weight ratio in the world by a mile, and the world record of specific impulse for kerosene rockets. Looking at that Raptor 3 engine, it seems to me they have done the same to the Raptor.
@@Vermiliontea "wire-tuck" is an attempt at an oversimplification of their manufacture process. I know that it is ridiculously more advanced than just hiding wires - rather, their 3d printing process is one function that has basically baked in the fuel lines and wiring conduits for the engine, reducing mass and the need for heat shielding. TRUST ME I AM EXCITED TO SEE THIS WORK, especially the VACUUM VERSION.
@@Gigalisk Yep, I've spent the day studying it. And I think you're more right than me. They can't do exactly the same thing as they did with the Merlin1D, because their functioning differs greatly. And the Raptor doesn't have a pintle. It has a ridiculously complex injector, which I think I've seen by the 3D-print maker. Nobody said it was a Raptor injector, but I figure it could hardy be anything different. Anyway, there's a fair amount of lines they cannot get rid of, so the explanation is probably that they have 3D-print integrated them. But I also trust that they have made design changes that make a lot of sensors redundant, and then they're rid of them and their lines too.
Why are you so surprised?? A few days after the 4th starship launch Tim of 'Everyday Astronaut', in June, stood in front of the Raptor 3 engine as Elon discussed the design of the engine. This surprise is simple stupid click bate, you knew as well as everyone who saw that interview what the raptor 3 looked like and how its design was different from the former raptor engines.
Rocket is complicated and dificulte Low safety and high cost We need somethings better Developing technologies to enable human access to space at dramatically lower cost and increased reliability #FeelFree
What if automotive engineers focused on new internal combustion engine designs using 3-D printing and A I to create a new engine design that enhanced fuel efficiency, increased horsepower, and reduced weight? One area that comes to mind is doing something with hot exhaust gases RE-igniting the exhaust with more fuel then RE-routing the power generated back through impellers that geared back to the driveshaft? Is something like that possible with a net gain in break horsepower? 👍🖖😊
What if electric was so efficient that there is hardly any heat imagine how this would save the planet from global warming and the harmful effects of exhaust gasse, the future is now
Well, they have done that for like 100 years. 😉 Vehicle combustion engines have the demand upon them to work well in an extremely wide power output range. This is where we have always seen progress. When fuel cost increased the efficiency throughout the power range has also become important. This is why we now see developments like attempting to vary valve timing and lift. Varying compression ratio is also tempting, and quite possible (you put a knee on the pushrod and connect a second rod to the knee). The problem here is that increased friction losses tend to eat gains. Auto engines should also be affordable. Nevertheless, physics offer two main ways to increase efficiency: Convert more of the heat energy from the combustion to mechanical energy. Or reduce cooling. Reduce cooling can be done by using more extreme materials, and also by making cylinders bigger and keeping stroke close to diameter. Or you can use the cooled energy for more mechanical energy. This is part of what water injection would do. Water injection also allows for higher compression ratio, which extracts more energy during the longer expansion cycle. The same thing that diesel engines already do. Turbos mainly make an engine "bigger", thus becoming stronger by combusting more fuel and air. But it also feeds back some of the exhaust energy extracted by the turbine to the engine, by "blowing" it. There is however another interesting method to extract more mechanical energy from the exhausts. It's sometimes called 5-stroke engine, but is in properly more like a 6-stroke engine. For every 2 cylinders, you add a third bigger cylinder. Thus you can only build 6-stroke engines as 3-cylinder, 6-cyl, 9-cyl, 12-cyl etc. The exhaust from each of the two combustion cylinders is alternately fed into the third cylinder each cycle. Experimental engines like this has been built and tested with very good results, at least 10% increase in efficiency. The engine also becomes bigger, heavier and more expensive.
@@shimmy1984why wouldn't they be shocked? if they aren't then they should go bankrupt. remember when the then ULA president laughed at the topic of SpaceX landing Falcon 9 boosters back in 2014?
Enjoyed your very informative video. But, you claim that not only is Raptor 3 the highest thrust of all currently flying rocket engines, but also the most reliable. No reliability data yet. And certainly every time you push farther to the boundaries of power vs weight, reliability usually takes a hit. SpaceX method is to develop a new better version, then through extensive testing and actual use to constantly improve reliability. We will have high confidence on reliability after 100 successful flights.
Like honestly I think the payload numbers for SS 2 and 3 are kinda bullshit, but even assuming SS 3.0 can "only" deliver 100 - 150T of cargo to orbit, imagine wat a 12 to 18m SS could do, honestly these would probably be what is used to refuel SS in orbit to bring the number of launches down to a reasonable number, as an 18m starship of the same hight as SS 3.0 should theoretically be able to carry 2960T... If my math is right, which is 2x Pi squared, because it's 2x the diameter which diameter increases the amount of fuel at Pi squared the increase in the diameter and I am assuming that increase in fuel will give you a proportionate increase in payload. So 2x Pi squared x 150 = 2960, like this isn't accurate even if I'm right there will need to be reinforcements to make the craft able to carry the weight, so lets half it and call it 1480T still enough to refuel SS 2.0 in almost 1 go only missing 20 tonnes of fuel, and 2 launches would be more than enough to refuel SS 3.0 with 640T of cargo capacity spare. And really the only reason to need a payload that large is as a fuel tanker from Earth to LEO, Starship 3.0 is already enough to bring up the heaviest of loads. Although I think at that point you would be better off bringing up a light weight craft especially for interplanetary travel without the extra weight of a heat shield and doesn't need to be strong enough to deal with high acceleration with a bunch of weight on top of it.
maybe a 3D toroid fractal geometry for the inside texture surface of the rocket cones, something that channels the vibration of the frequency of the thrust.
It looks that the first Starship has a zero payload capability, running outof fuel while flying empty. It will be interesting to see what this engine could do to save this vehicle.
First minute I thought the voice is good. But after the whole video I know what you mean. It's annoyingly and unnaturally anytime the same without any variation. It's irritating.
Raptor 3 upgrade won’t matter. Ift-4 created 120,000,000 hp and could only reach 25 miles empty. Apollo v F1 produced 7,500,000 hp and it reach 40 miles with the entire payload plus astronauts. Look up gains of diminishing returns. Starship has reach the point that bigger only mean less height and speed. When your space rocket weighs 9 time more than it has to. This is what you get. Plus the problem of 33 engines on a single rocket booster means it can’t burn over 4.00 minutes total before failure. I’ve never seen a guy so determined to prove he is right. Lesson do screw with physics. Just use physics.
@@jonnies sorry I missed your refuelable comment. Maybe you need to google. Last I checked starship has only arced Leo twice. Last they blew through all the fuel on board. So, please enlighten us as to the not the shiniest apple in the barrel is going to manage this feat? While you’re at it. Please check on landing in Australia? This would require a complete landing other than cgi. Nice!
Trouble with SpaceX's latest load ... Northrop Grumman's Cygnus, packed with vital ISS supplies.... Has failed to enter the proper trajectory twice! ... Here comes the FAA ....
Elon Musk is brilliant, and he still has the collaboration of highly capable people, so his mission is increasingly bold and capable. Congratulations, we could not be in better hands, mind and heart.👏👏👏🌟❤️🌹
Elon the man ‘awesome .😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊.
It's amazing how much a bunch of engineers can achieve if led in the right style. We would need that in sooo many other areas!
I wonder if Elon is really the only person on this planet who can create that working atmosphere. Hard to believe ...
There have been a few persons like him, Henry Ford, Howard Hughes, Steven Jobs in American history. In Britain there was Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
But it's not the working atmosphere. That's brutal, and only endurable for a limited time, and only because they are doing something they really want to be a part of. It's the vision and direction. These entrepreneurs are not primarily interested in making money. They want to do something they "see" can be done, they want to have done, but no one else is doing. So they have to do it themselves. And to achieve those goals, some things need to be done in a very special way. It's the direction. Engineers want to do it one way, the smooth, predictable way. But that would sometimes fail the purpose for the enterprise as whole. So that's where the Jobs and Musk tells their engineers: "No, we must do it this way, or there is no point in doing it at all."
There are definite improvements in the mass of the engines. As long as the performance is the same or better, it should be a real improvement. Great video.
Simple is strong, reduces weight, manufacturing time and cost, and failure rates. Nothing but good
Let's wait for it to go to work, shall we?
@@alphatech4966 I agree. Every new model, be it a rocket engine, or a Ford F150 will have bugs to work out. This being iteration 3 and even improvements on 3,, all part of the process. Try it out, blow it up,, learn, change. Did Falcon 9 get a numerical designation because the previous 8 disassembled? I think yes.
Bless Elon Musk.. this is my hero.
Elon Musk = Tony Stark
Jeff Bezos = Justin Hammer
Pure Genius, Elon is a Genius and you will never catch up with SpaceX ‼️‼️‼️‼️
Never😂
This is marvelous update with proper comparisons to show improvement over time and vs BE-4 which I have been waiting for.
Very complete, concise. Nicely done.
Thank you for supporting our team! Have a great day!
The difference from 1 to 3 are insane! How is that even possible to do ? V3 Looks like a base model that not have all parts on yet.!! Production cost must also be much better??!
I would love to see a technical discussion of how SpaceX Raptor engines evolved to a simpler design. Just looking at the engines it’s easy to see the simpler design, but without knowing what the different parts are it might as well be magic.
I suspect that a lot of the previously external plumbing, is now incorporated within the engine via 3D printing. Also a lot of early wiring is for sensors to gather performance data, as the design evolves, fewer sensors are required, and when your confidence in reliability is high enough, none.
@@royh6526 I've spent the day studying the Raptor, and I think you're spot on. Changes to design, incorporating data into the shapes and dimensions, have made a lot of sensors redundant, and probably also a few valves. But they must also have internalized some things with 3D-printing. If you go 3D-print for other reasons, like more internal cooling, you might as well stuff everything. I might also have figured out how they throttle the thing, but I keep my mouth in order to not make a fool of myself. And yes, I'm implying that the obvious, natural way might not be it, ...or otoh, it might be.
Good Morning. Another Good thing about the Raptor 3 is. The less parts the easier it is to de-bug and improve on it. With less parts. The less likely it is to fail. That is probably the most important aspect of the design. I wonder what the Raptor 3-Vac engine will be like. Go SpaceX. Have a Great Day my Friend.
It will be bigger than Raptor 3! As for the other components, we will have to wait! Starship v2 will be the first prototypes to have this engine.
Excellent stuff bro , hell yeah go Elon .
“Simplicity is the mark of a genius”
-Plato
anyone that knows anything knows the reason for the new engine, just look at it and the difference between the others, elon is trying to refine the engine not by mass/weight but by more compact/less moving parts makes it easier to build and more reliable less prone to failure, due to moving part failure. he is getting there just wait till model number 4..
Just one word!! WOW!!
🥳🥳🥳
The guy turning that handle reminded me of how some early cars were started!
Great coverage well timed, thank you!
A little mistake. Raptor2 is 327s isp.
Absolutely gorgeous! as Elon said it would be 🚀 and the 3/4 is going to bump thrust again ✨💫
Wild n Crazy n Beautiful 🚀
I am quite worried about the platform below the launch pad
0:14 "it's trully neater and cleaner then we can imagine". Well, thank you very much - I can imagine it clearly and easily :-) What more, the engine itself has been conceived first by imagining it being that way!
I didn't think it could be this neat!
I thought at most they would cut out a few pipes.
Good for LEO launches but to Mars we will have to wait for nuclear engines that will be lifted and installed in LEO. Build a starship mother ship, built horizontally like a submarine. and with secondary decent/acent ship attached. Then presend to Mars a few starships loaded with gear ahead of time.
Raptor 3 SN 1...SPECTACULAR 😊
Raptor V2 number 569. At $1m per engine, Raptor V3 is STILL a bargain and they are ramping up production when the Texas plant goes online. This is TRUE "hardware rich" development and the results have been Awesome! Spacex will be throwing out hundreds of engines and yet the cost of development and the speed is marvelous. Typically, it takes about $3 billion to develop a rocket motor of this class and sophistication and it can be argued that they were done with R2... now we see R3 is SO much better.
Spacex has been relentless.
I'd wager that spacex spent more than 4 billion developing these engines and still rising.
Would you make us a video focused on the mechanics of the synchronized moving engine directional gearings….that illustrate accuracy control of the directional thrust? It’s neat the way the engines dance around in different directions to guide the rocket.
For the calculationally challenged, the reduction in induced mass from Raptor 2 to Raptor 3 is almost 85%! Gotta love a man whose motto is "The best part is no part." Hellova engineer, that Elon Musk!
what!? raptor 2 mass is 1650 kg while raptor 3 is 1530 kg, how is that an 85% reduction? the blind leading the blind😂
@@zhongxina9420 If you had read my comment it was about INDUCED MASS not overall mass. I stand by what I wrote.
Raptor 3 seems to embody the whole "The best part is no part at all" philosophy.
So smooth it looks photoshopped
That's what I say about the DARPA Nuclear power attachment. Weapons grade material launch approval?
Better to capture nuclear particles from the radiation belt and slowly release them in the detonated rocket exhaust.
Computer research says it only increases prepulsion 2.5%. nothing compared to what Russia believes can be up to 20 times more powerful. I know this thow.
NOBODY will approve launching weapons grade material from a rocket that's subject to explode on it's way up.
I know the word "seems" is there but the comment evidences a numpty with no understanding of the progress. Forget this channel and watch Tim tour with Elon.
Very clear presentation and explanation. Thank you.
Thank you so much! Have a good day!
I calculated StarShip 3 Booster prop load is for 128 seconds of work only. Looks suspicious. It shall have more volume for prop.
StarShip Booster may have 4600t of prop, 33 Raptor 3 engines, and still fly as expected.
ok, what
I think you don't understand that the seconds is not operating time but a measure of the speed of the exhaust.
@@royh6526
Fuel consumption is 'thrust in kgf'/ 'specific impulse in seconds'
306,000 / 350 = 874.3 kg/s
Number of engines
10000 / 280 = 35, 71 ~ 36 engines
All engines fuel consumption
36 * 874.3 = 31475 kg/s
Booster prop in seconds
4,050,000 / 31475 = 128.67 seconds.
To save weight and simplify the raptors further, the turbines could be made annular to revolve around the engine bell exterior.
I hope that this version won't have reliability issues
Get it going. We should at least have more space
stations further out
There's two great stories to understand reasons why Musk is so successful, "Pendulum", and "Longtitude" . The first has to do with a guy who doesn't meet the mold for design engineering. The second is the story how designers are always in the progressive iterations..lead to improvements. Both are wonderful stories based on history
Is there an estimate on how many raptor V2 are currently in inventory and how many booster/starship they are dedicated to until we see starship block 2?
Over 300 have been produced at my last count. The new factory coming on line is expected to produce over 500 of the things a year. Mind boggling numbers.
✨️MASTERPIECE✨️
How can you not understand the drive of SpaceX and their drive to create better and safer rockets faster than any other rocket companies in the world and create them faster and in mass with studies after studies to produce new designs of their rockets . No other rocket companies have accomplished this like SpaceX has done in so little time.
I'd say Energija was very similar in attitude, design efficiency and results. But of course, due to russias more or less bankrupsy in 1991 and subsequently without a single human flight, the companies biggest hardware - the modular energija rocket with the buran shuttle as optional payload - has become a footnote in history and all those involved are no longer active or dead. As far as I know Space X took much inspiration from those rocket engines.
Can’t wait to see it in Vanta black
This content sounds like it was generated by chatgpt, regurgitating in 15 mins what could be said in five. Very little technical information about how the engine was improved.
Nice video.
We have been fooled by Boeing all of these years..
Performance is really magnificent, all credits to SpaceX. But I am afraid, that pushing the limits would very probably compromise RELIABILITY, which is imho much more important property, than performance.
I just love anything called Raptor !! Well, except the imitation Ford truck............😜
Is the R3 3d printed? Is that how they're able to reduce the complexity of the engine?
Only the inconel combustion chamber is 3D printed.
The company I worked for use to use inconel SS parts in the Bolt air guns we used in offshore siesmic surveys. Very tough and long wearing parts, usually in excess of 3 million shots per parts.
I wonder if the hot oxygen ullage is still tapped off the oxygen precombustion?
KISS design.
Can Raptor v3 be relight in space close to unlimited times? That is test in space.
Nice question.
The first 2 versions were most likely loaded with sensors and assorted wiring. No need on v3 .
What did all the other stuff do???
Elon just flip all the techniques and fundamentals of other govt founded space agencies in the world's
I request to USA govt, Make Him Boss of NASA and give him full hands, He can change the space games that no one can do in next 100 years
NASA is too engrossed in politics. that can't be good for elon
You have to wonder why no one else has designed an engine without the rats nest of piping, tubing and cables. These SpaceX guys must be aliens!
Because engine like that is exponentially more complex to come up and cost exponentially more in R&D, and keep in mind that no one before this even thought about saving few kgs by remaking entire engine and make it more robust for reentry or be more suitable for mass production. None of those things have been relevant for one time use
We don't know that. We do know NASA keeps close tabs on everything.
Mr. Musk, please let us know the quantum of combustion exhaust gas emitted by ONE raptor in test firing and/or rocket flight take offs. How many of your EVs are required to compensate for this.
Imagine F1 engine sized Raptor 3
if so it will blow everything away
Thank you 🙏 just why not keep it secret 🤫 for safety purposes still 👏👏👏yeah ☝️👋☮️
They look like a nascent army of Daleks preparing for invasion.
Clever!
So how did they test the other raptor 3 engines first?
Presumably they were prototypes, vs this being first production unit.
They look more and more like Swiss watches.
The Rapter engine will continue to develop
Came way farther than I expected with the support hardware and we have confirm that the current model supports 280t normal thrust and 350 ISP (the latter I have been waiting for for quite some time).
elon said that they'll try to get raptor 3 to 350 tons of thrust
Why do I have the feeling the USAF will use these to build a reusable space plane to replace the X-37?
Eventually I think they will move to an RDE.
Wèll done, SpaceX! word of caution, unfriendly eyes would love to know the details.
Elon lets China boost his intellectual property.
how much more detail!
BRUH Honda's been wire-tucking engines for YEARS....glad the trend has reached SPACEX.
It's not exactly "wire-tucking". I think they have done the same as they did with the Merlin1D. Which was something unique. The Raptor's fuel pumps pump ca 900 l fuel and oxygen into the combustion chamber every second. And they do that against the pressure of 350 bar inside the chamber. That requires more than 40,000 hp. While that is a technical problem in itself, then comes the fact that achieving stable combustion is excruciatingly difficult, and it just becomes more difficult when you increase pressure, temperature and size. It takes very clever design of pintle and combustion chamber. SpaceX has used a sort of magic to solve this (an impossible, inhouse, extremely advanced mathematical modeling software tool). But it also requires a lot of sensors, regulators, valves and a computer to control all the valves, and a lot of plumbing. What they did with the Merlin1D, was that they dispensed with most of this, replacing it with plumbing that is so infernally cleverly shaped and dimensioned that it doesn't need most of the regulators and valves. This was again ridiculously difficult to do, and required lots of effort and tons of testing. But the end result was the most reliable, cheapest engine of any launch rocket, at the same time as it had the highest thrust/weight ratio in the world by a mile, and the world record of specific impulse for kerosene rockets. Looking at that Raptor 3 engine, it seems to me they have done the same to the Raptor.
@@Vermiliontea "wire-tuck" is an attempt at an oversimplification of their manufacture process. I know that it is ridiculously more advanced than just hiding wires - rather, their 3d printing process is one function that has basically baked in the fuel lines and wiring conduits for the engine, reducing mass and the need for heat shielding. TRUST ME I AM EXCITED TO SEE THIS WORK, especially the VACUUM VERSION.
@@Gigalisk Yep, I've spent the day studying it. And I think you're more right than me. They can't do exactly the same thing as they did with the Merlin1D, because their functioning differs greatly. And the Raptor doesn't have a pintle. It has a ridiculously complex injector, which I think I've seen by the 3D-print maker. Nobody said it was a Raptor injector, but I figure it could hardy be anything different. Anyway, there's a fair amount of lines they cannot get rid of, so the explanation is probably that they have 3D-print integrated them. But I also trust that they have made design changes that make a lot of sensors redundant, and then they're rid of them and their lines too.
New Tons...lol
Simplicate and add lightness....
No...I did a quick phone poll with "the whole industry" and they're looking at it as a natural evolutionary step...
Kilonew-tons
Why are you so surprised?? A few days after the 4th starship launch Tim of 'Everyday Astronaut', in June, stood in front of the Raptor 3 engine as Elon discussed the design of the engine. This surprise is simple stupid click bate, you knew as well as everyone who saw that interview what the raptor 3 looked like and how its design was different from the former raptor engines.
im waiting for new raptor updates like im waiting till a new season of my favourite anime drops😅
Why do you guys keep using the AI voice?
Rocket is complicated and dificulte
Low safety and high cost
We need somethings better
Developing technologies to enable human access to space at dramatically lower cost and increased reliability #FeelFree
I’m not watching anything with ‘shocked’ in the title anymore.
What if automotive engineers focused on new internal combustion engine designs using 3-D printing and A I to create a new engine design that enhanced fuel efficiency, increased horsepower, and reduced weight? One area that comes to mind is doing something with hot exhaust gases RE-igniting the exhaust with more fuel then RE-routing the power generated back through impellers that geared back to the driveshaft? Is something like that possible with a net gain in break horsepower? 👍🖖😊
Water injection with a small displacement turbocharged engine is probably the best we can do there.
What if electric was so efficient that there is hardly any heat imagine how this would save the planet from global warming and the harmful effects of exhaust gasse, the future is now
@@jacobclark89 Yeah but energy storage for a battery is two orders of magnitude less dense and that isn't a trivial problem
Perhaps when we get Zero Point Room Temperature electric 😮
Well, they have done that for like 100 years. 😉
Vehicle combustion engines have the demand upon them to work well in an extremely wide power output range. This is where we have always seen progress. When fuel cost increased the efficiency throughout the power range has also become important. This is why we now see developments like attempting to vary valve timing and lift. Varying compression ratio is also tempting, and quite possible (you put a knee on the pushrod and connect a second rod to the knee). The problem here is that increased friction losses tend to eat gains. Auto engines should also be affordable.
Nevertheless, physics offer two main ways to increase efficiency: Convert more of the heat energy from the combustion to mechanical energy. Or reduce cooling. Reduce cooling can be done by using more extreme materials, and also by making cylinders bigger and keeping stroke close to diameter. Or you can use the cooled energy for more mechanical energy. This is part of what water injection would do. Water injection also allows for higher compression ratio, which extracts more energy during the longer expansion cycle. The same thing that diesel engines already do.
Turbos mainly make an engine "bigger", thus becoming stronger by combusting more fuel and air. But it also feeds back some of the exhaust energy extracted by the turbine to the engine, by "blowing" it.
There is however another interesting method to extract more mechanical energy from the exhausts. It's sometimes called 5-stroke engine, but is in properly more like a 6-stroke engine. For every 2 cylinders, you add a third bigger cylinder. Thus you can only build 6-stroke engines as 3-cylinder, 6-cyl, 9-cyl, 12-cyl etc. The exhaust from each of the two combustion cylinders is alternately fed into the third cylinder each cycle. Experimental engines like this has been built and tested with very good results, at least 10% increase in efficiency. The engine also becomes bigger, heavier and more expensive.
"Shocked The Whole Industry!" is this channel AI generated?
Of course not! What "AI" could create such a great update?🤣
@@alphatech4966 It was a good video.
If other companies aren't shocked, they're definitely fucked
@@shimmy1984why wouldn't they be shocked? if they aren't then they should go bankrupt. remember when the then ULA president laughed at the topic of SpaceX landing Falcon 9 boosters back in 2014?
Enjoyed your very informative video. But, you claim that not only is Raptor 3 the highest thrust of all currently flying rocket engines, but also the most reliable. No reliability data yet. And certainly every time you push farther to the boundaries of power vs weight, reliability usually takes a hit. SpaceX method is to develop a new better version, then through extensive testing and actual use to constantly improve reliability. We will have high confidence on reliability after 100 successful flights.
looks like a dalek
Yo Elon where's my samach!
Like honestly I think the payload numbers for SS 2 and 3 are kinda bullshit, but even assuming SS 3.0 can "only" deliver 100 - 150T of cargo to orbit, imagine wat a 12 to 18m SS could do, honestly these would probably be what is used to refuel SS in orbit to bring the number of launches down to a reasonable number, as an 18m starship of the same hight as SS 3.0 should theoretically be able to carry 2960T... If my math is right, which is 2x Pi squared, because it's 2x the diameter which diameter increases the amount of fuel at Pi squared the increase in the diameter and I am assuming that increase in fuel will give you a proportionate increase in payload.
So 2x Pi squared x 150 = 2960, like this isn't accurate even if I'm right there will need to be reinforcements to make the craft able to carry the weight, so lets half it and call it 1480T still enough to refuel SS 2.0 in almost 1 go only missing 20 tonnes of fuel, and 2 launches would be more than enough to refuel SS 3.0 with 640T of cargo capacity spare.
And really the only reason to need a payload that large is as a fuel tanker from Earth to LEO, Starship 3.0 is already enough to bring up the heaviest of loads.
Although I think at that point you would be better off bringing up a light weight craft especially for interplanetary travel without the extra weight of a heat shield and doesn't need to be strong enough to deal with high acceleration with a bunch of weight on top of it.
Jork God Mom liefde leven mijn Vrau
195 kg is err... 195 keegos ?
Shatters the illusion that you’re listening to a human being. Pace of the bot narration seems to vary also
oh!
F-me! But can you change the fuels and still use the same engine? THAT would be amazing!
nope. too complex. imagine putting petrol in a diesel engine or vice versa, the same thing would happen except more explosions
maybe a 3D toroid fractal geometry for the inside texture surface of the rocket cones, something that channels the vibration of the frequency of the thrust.
Great narration
Engines have no physical wire to see. So,Raptor V3 engines are connect to ship with Bluetooth 😂❤
SpaceX needs to go nuclear!
Why does the narrator talk like a game show host? Too annoying to hang around....click
sane
😂But But it not suitable for long trips in our gigantic solar sustem.😂😢
are there rockets currently that are? it may not be suitable but it's the rocket that closest capability to have it done.
Since US pride itself on even handedness how old is Raptor 3 ,how old is RD1O0?
It looks that the first Starship has a zero payload capability, running outof fuel while flying empty. It will be interesting to see what this engine could do to save this vehicle.
Geez, if this is what AI is going to sound like, the future is bleak lol
I don't understand why you call me "AI" anymore!
First minute I thought the voice is good. But after the whole video I know what you mean. It's annoyingly and unnaturally anytime the same without any variation. It's irritating.
I.S.P, not isp.
Good overview of Raptor3, but still wondering why the editing isn’t better
Thanks for reminding me! I will pay more attention to this issue!
But what's wrong with video editing?
Best engineering! Trump, have Elon Run NASA. Just think of the gains the space industry would have!
Could you even imagine the levels of 'staff clear out' in his first 3 months!!?? 🤣
Pretty hard to do from prison 😂 Donalds losing BIGLY havent you heard? 😅
Elon would be working for pocket change.
@@jackmorrison8269 Ah! Sarcasm!
@@ArcyVangkerr Make it 30 days and I'm in.
Raptor 3 upgrade won’t matter. Ift-4 created 120,000,000 hp and could only reach 25 miles empty. Apollo v F1 produced 7,500,000 hp and it reach 40 miles with the entire payload plus astronauts.
Look up gains of diminishing returns. Starship has reach the point that bigger only mean less height and speed.
When your space rocket weighs 9 time more than it has to. This is what you get. Plus the problem of 33 engines on a single rocket booster means it can’t burn over 4.00 minutes total before failure.
I’ve never seen a guy so determined to prove he is right. Lesson do screw with physics. Just use physics.
lmao😂
I must have missed the part where the Saturn V was fully reusable, and refuellable in orbit 😂🎉
I missed the part where starship has ever been reusable?
Let recount, 137 engines trashed not reused. Oh and 4 boosters and 4 starships. Definition of reusable (To use again) lmao 😂
@@jonnies sorry I missed your refuelable comment. Maybe you need to google. Last I checked starship has only arced Leo twice. Last they blew through all the fuel on board. So, please enlighten us as to the not the shiniest apple in the barrel is going to manage this feat? While you’re at it. Please check on landing in Australia? This would require a complete landing other than cgi. Nice!
Stop recycling stories
Mars in the next 10 -20 years .. 😅 that's a good one
Moon again ! When ?
quickly!
@@mikewallace8087 they are just now getting the GPS working well enough to locate the moon .. Luna
@@mikewallace8087 All the Apollo missions were a froad on tax players .. and it was a nice Hollywood movie production
@@samm928and yet all film studios have said the technology didn't exist to make a hoax
Trouble with SpaceX's latest load ... Northrop Grumman's Cygnus, packed with vital ISS supplies.... Has failed to enter the proper trajectory twice! ... Here comes the FAA ....
Oh! It's not Falcon's fault, my friend!
Northrop Grumman's Cygnus problem, not SpaceX's.
SpaceX got it to its required orbit. 😂✌
Rotor detonating engine is more revolutionary
And unreliable
No don't have anything to do with NASA ROFL 🤣
This voice is unbearable. Had to stop viewing.
Try on 2nd speed
Eye es pee
Narration just too annoying. Sorry :-(