How SpaceX Reinvented The Rocket Engine!

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 3 тра 2024
  • Get yourself a Displate deal using my link www.displate.com/spacerace or my discount code SpaceRace to access my special promo on all designs | 1-2 - 27% OFF 3+ - 37% OFF available until May 14th excl. Limited Editions, Lumino and Textra.
    Last Video: NASA Reveals NEW Lunar Starship!
    • NASA Reveals NEW Lunar...
    ►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
    ►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
    ► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
    ► Patreon: / theteslaspace
    ► Subscribe to our other channel, The Tesla Space: / theteslaspace
    Mars Colonization News and Updates
    • Mars Colonization News...
    SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
    The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
    ► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
    Business Email: sean@creatormill.com
    #Spacex #Space #Mars
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 444

  • @TheSpaceRaceYT
    @TheSpaceRaceYT  13 днів тому +12

    Get yourself a Displate deal using my link www.displate.com/spacerace or my discount code SpaceRace to access my special promo on all designs | 1-2 -> 27% OFF 3+ -> 37% OFF available until May 14th excl. Limited Editions, Lumino and Textra.

    • @typerightseesight
      @typerightseesight 13 днів тому +1

      you gotta think of how america came to be and how many people will die trying to settle on mars.

    • @maconcamp472
      @maconcamp472 День тому

      A massless particle is more like Saturn!!🪐 We’re particles evolving!! Photons!! Stars!!⭐️
      This is the quantum age!! We’re the universe going quantum!! We’re ghost particles!!👻👻👻👻👻👻
      Dream of world peace and we’ll get there faster!!😇
      We’re the universe dreaming!!🛌
      Galaxy collisions!!!🌌 Twin flame connections!!🔥🔥
      Quantum entanglement!!💫
      It’s all connected!! We’re the universe dreaming and awakening!!🦕🧊🦖🧊🦣🧊🍄🧊
      Black holes 🕳️ are like moons!! They’re seeds!! They’re our thoughts!!💭
      We’re storytellers!! 📚

  • @MoempfLP
    @MoempfLP 13 днів тому +194

    “Everyone knew it was impossible, until a fool who didn’t know came along and did it.”
    - Albert Einstein

    • @i-love-space390
      @i-love-space390 12 днів тому +8

      Naaah. It was just that the industry was risk averse because of monopoly government contracts and stockholders that insist on immediate return on investment. Now that SpaceX has unleashed the venture capitalists, look how many little companies are developing their own rocket engines. Many are every bit as innovative as SpaceX. Stoke Space is one. They are developing full flow staged combustion engines with deep throttle capability and marrying them into a ring aerospike design around a heat shield for a fully reusable design for first AND SECOND stages of their vehicle.
      It's all about unleashing the money.

    • @ptanticar
      @ptanticar 3 дні тому +2

      Einstein said no such thing.

    • @Sugarsail1
      @Sugarsail1 3 дні тому +9

      @@ptanticar "Yes I did." - Albert Einstein

    • @LizBrowne-do2li
      @LizBrowne-do2li 2 дні тому

      @@Sugarsail1 Did you use a OuiJa board to ask Einstein? He may have repeated it, but he did not invent the quote

    • @lawrencenoyman350
      @lawrencenoyman350 2 дні тому +4

      "Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
      -- Abraham Lincoln

  • @AM-tu1rc
    @AM-tu1rc 13 днів тому +226

    I'm an engineer on Starlink and I always get lost when talking to my colleagues who work on Falcon and Starship. This really helped out!

    • @Yuhyuhmuhmuh
      @Yuhyuhmuhmuh 13 днів тому +6

      What do you do if you don't mind me asking?

    • @RedRyan
      @RedRyan 13 днів тому +4

      Well said!

    • @davidplaysalot8726
      @davidplaysalot8726 12 днів тому +1

      They're not your colleagues... noob 😂

    • @wyattnoise
      @wyattnoise 11 днів тому +4

      Press "X" to doubt.

    • @party4keeps28
      @party4keeps28 9 днів тому +6

      ​​@@wyattnoise Why does this seem unlikely to you? I work on Starlink as well.

  • @philip8201
    @philip8201 13 днів тому +112

    The voice is back!

    • @TheSpaceRaceYT
      @TheSpaceRaceYT  13 днів тому +22

      The Voice would never leave you

    • @kirillperov3843
      @kirillperov3843 13 днів тому +11

      @@TheSpaceRaceYT don't do that anymore

    • @nth7273
      @nth7273 13 днів тому +2

      @@TheSpaceRaceYT How dare you use the Voice on me.

    • @JoelSapp
      @JoelSapp 9 днів тому +1

      Computer generated voice? Merlin was pronounced super oddly

  • @MiMiHaiNguyen
    @MiMiHaiNguyen 13 днів тому +27

    Correction: the most powerful rocket engine is the Soviet-built RD-170(has 4 chambers). The F1 is only the most powerful single-chambered engine.

    • @paulmichaelfreedman8334
      @paulmichaelfreedman8334 13 днів тому +4

      Some also set the criterium that it has to have flown a successful mission. The RD-170 does not have that honour.

    • @Raoul_Volfoni
      @Raoul_Volfoni 12 днів тому +4

      The RD170 did fly on Energia

    • @paulmichaelfreedman8334
      @paulmichaelfreedman8334 12 днів тому

      @@Raoul_Volfoni Are we mixing up RD-170 and RD-270?

    • @MiMiHaiNguyen
      @MiMiHaiNguyen 12 днів тому

      @@Raoul_Volfoni twice.

    • @MiMiHaiNguyen
      @MiMiHaiNguyen 12 днів тому

      @@paulmichaelfreedman8334 !?

  • @foxmccloud7055
    @foxmccloud7055 13 днів тому +78

    Now, SpaceX has reinvented the spacesuit.

    • @RedRyan
      @RedRyan 13 днів тому +5

      That spacesuit looks insanely perfect! I guess the best exoskeleton is no exoskeleton? I'm loving it

    • @TheSteveSteele
      @TheSteveSteele 6 днів тому +7

      Yeah, I don’t know about that. My father was head of NASA’s Spacesuit Reliability Division back in the Apollo and STS days. Spacesuits are no joke. Very high end technology. They use materials that us ordinary humans have no access to. He once brought an Apollo era spacesuit home with some of the proprietary materials. It was interesting to see. The point is though, a spacesuit has to be proven to be successful. It has to be perfect. The tests they run on spacesuits are incredibly harsh. From extended exposure to +- 250° F to +- -250° in a matter of seconds. There are several companies who are attempting to win that sweet NASA contract money. NASA isn’t going to give out the contract to SpaceX unless they deserve it, (unlike the near treasonous underhand deal that the traitor Kathy Lueders made with HLS. A rocket that uses 33 engines and has yet NOT to blow up, kinda like the Soviet N1, huh? Blue Origin should have received that contract.) Human lives are at stake and no fancy spacesuit is going to win because Elon thinks it will look cool. We’ll see.

    • @Overmotor
      @Overmotor 6 днів тому +2

      @@RedRyan It will need to be redesigned again (which I'm sure they're working on) to allow the suit to function by itself. As it stands right now it's sleek and compact but still tethered to the spacecraft. Once you add life support systems built in the design will change to accommodate the "backpack", however it will be much sleeker than anything we've seen so far. Very cool!

    • @RedRyan
      @RedRyan 6 днів тому +1

      @@Overmotor thank you for the great response. I is great to see a company with the resource of SpaceX to be giving this their all

    • @nathannault2239
      @nathannault2239 3 дні тому +3

      ​@@TheSteveSteeleAnd how's NASA getting its equipment to space now? Bloated government bureaucracies will NEVER be as efficient as private corporations. Period.

  • @alexdylan04
    @alexdylan04 13 днів тому +46

    THANK GOD UR VOICE IS BACK

  • @TheNobbynoonar
    @TheNobbynoonar День тому +6

    SpaceX did not reinvent the rocket engine-they have made big improvements to existing rocket engine technology and deserve the credit given to them.

    • @ct1762
      @ct1762 12 годин тому +1

      you mean the 5x Starship disasters in a row? Musk saying it will have "lecture halls and game rooms and hld 100 people" that one?

    • @Deontjie
      @Deontjie 7 годин тому

      Pretty soon some idiot will compare the major technological advantages of SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla and Neurolink with their personal jealousy of Elon Musk.

    • @chaneysheffield8185
      @chaneysheffield8185 4 години тому

      @@ct1762 disaster? 🤣dude they are TEST flights. the whole point is to get as far as you can and find the flaws. dummy.

  • @selectedvideos6180
    @selectedvideos6180 7 днів тому +15

    I believe this closed cycle engine is not new. The Soviet/ Russian RD180 was a closed cycle rocket engine designed in the 70's or 80's.

    • @ironicplaid
      @ironicplaid 22 години тому +4

      It’s also not the only engine with multiple shafts driving pumps. I’m pretty sure the RS-25 on the space shuttle and now SLS also has two shafts.

    • @chaneysheffield8185
      @chaneysheffield8185 4 години тому

      that engine was designed for one use due to the pyrotechnic ignition.

    • @squireson
      @squireson 2 години тому

      In general the over-hyped misstatements are a product of the narrator's ignorance of rocket engine history. These designers still stand on the shoulders of decades of work over a wide variety of approaches with all of the lessons learned (mostly) available as guidance.
      The incremental improvements and rebalancing have produced an excellent engine. From this we can conclude that Elon Musk is a super genius who should run the whole world.

  • @TimRobertsen
    @TimRobertsen 13 днів тому +7

    13:03 - The F-1 had a bit more than twice as much thrust:p About 680-790 metric tons.
    It had all the tons of thrust:p Credit given where credit is due;)
    And, the RS-25 had an efficiency/specific impulse of around 450s, which is unmatch by any rocketengine ever produced/used.
    The F-1 and the RS-25 are both unmatch in their domain. The Raptor is an incredibly good mix of power and efficiency :)

  • @weed...5692
    @weed...5692 8 днів тому +13

    9:16 "Unlike every previous engine, which had used a single turbine [....], the Raptor is the only engine with dual gas turbines" - but the Soviets were the first to do that. Most people watching space documentaries have seen that documentary - "The engines that came from the cold", about soviet closed-cycle rocket engines.

    • @Aexorzist
      @Aexorzist 5 днів тому +1

      Soviet engines are not full flow staged combustion. There is a big difference.

    • @weed...5692
      @weed...5692 4 дні тому +4

      @@Aexorzist Soviet engines were full flow staged combustion. There is no big difference.

    • @ct1762
      @ct1762 12 годин тому

      @@weed...5692 the Muskrats are out in full force! Long live utter delusion!

  • @MBSfilms77
    @MBSfilms77 13 днів тому +21

    I feel really bad about the feedback (including mine) on the last video about thinking that guy’s voice was AI

  • @jrf870
    @jrf870 13 днів тому +8

    Thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos!

  • @SLane249
    @SLane249 13 днів тому +3

    I was always confused about open/closed cycles and full flow. Your explanation has helped me understand. Thank you.

  • @zam6877
    @zam6877 13 днів тому +3

    Great explanation
    Simple, so not burdened with alot of terminology and hitting all the main introductory points
    Thanks

  • @johnstewart579
    @johnstewart579 13 днів тому +6

    Thank you for this educational video. Keep up the good work

  • @adam_belounis.
    @adam_belounis. 13 днів тому +3

    Can't be more exited , what a wonderful time to be alive ❤

  • @Pocketkid2
    @Pocketkid2 3 дні тому +2

    This is a most excellent video! It is simple and visual and has enough detail that an engineer such as myself who appreciates science but does not know that much about rocket technology can appreciate what is going on at SpaceX!

  • @AlexandruVoda
    @AlexandruVoda 4 дні тому +2

    6:53 Correction, SpaceX were certainly not the first to use methalox as a propelant (they are the first at the scale of Starship). At the very least, NASA's Project Morpheus is a precursor for both propulsive landing and for use of methalox. RS-16 and RD-0169 are also methalox engines that predate SpaceX's Raptor. The Full Flow engine however is indeed a world first by SpaceX AFAIK.

  • @im_agine852
    @im_agine852 13 днів тому +10

    That was f'n GREAT. Thanks

    • @TheSpaceRaceYT
      @TheSpaceRaceYT  13 днів тому +2

      We're really glad you liked it. Thank you!

  • @nealkonneker6084
    @nealkonneker6084 8 днів тому +5

    I am curious why the Raptor isn't bigger. Fewer larger engines would seem to reduce the complexity, fewer parts to fail. 33 engines on the starship just seems like asking for trouble.

    • @markbrown8097
      @markbrown8097 День тому +1

      And has proven to be troublesome.

    • @ct1762
      @ct1762 12 годин тому

      yes and did you know it needs a minimum of 8x refuel missions before going to the moon> ? meaning it will sit there in space like a bloated grain silo getting rammed with fuel for over 6 weeks, then takes the astronauts. utter stupidity!

    • @chaneysheffield8185
      @chaneysheffield8185 4 години тому

      @@ct1762 you just hatting to hate. wow you really must be a failure if you are this bad.

    • @chaneysheffield8185
      @chaneysheffield8185 4 години тому

      its interesting, but i believe the size of the actual motor is for production ease reasons, smaller motor easier to move and has a smaller assembly team and time. just a guess willing to debate the topic.

  • @Intellistan
    @Intellistan 7 днів тому +3

    Outstanding production. Absolutely awesome

  • @davejoseph5615
    @davejoseph5615 3 дні тому +1

    Yeah, let's build everything like this 12:21 so we can have lots of explosions just like a Michael Bay movie.

  • @uncleal
    @uncleal 4 дні тому +2

    The de Laval nozzle is a thermodynamic thing of divine beauty. Appreciate a rocket "engine" from its elegant thermodynamics. BTW, "kerosene" That was naphthalene, a high-melting solid and perhaps the worst class of fuel imaginable (including massive loss of internal energy via 4n+2 aromaticity, plus graphitization). CH4 is hydrogen with a built-in supercompressor. All the fun is in the footnotes.

  • @bournejsn
    @bournejsn 7 днів тому +10

    So relieved when you started from the Merlin engine and not the beginning of Rocketry LOL phew!

  • @hoodedcreeper2465
    @hoodedcreeper2465 19 годин тому +1

    The throat is actually where the gas hits supersonic speed. Normally a narrowing the opening like in jet engines would accelerate the gas because of Bernoulli's principal. However at supersonic speed that works backwards.

  • @gamereditor59ner22
    @gamereditor59ner22 6 днів тому +4

    Thank you for the information and keep it up!

  • @kennylandro5350
    @kennylandro5350 13 днів тому +4

    Good video, welcome back ❤

  • @Randommemers
    @Randommemers 13 днів тому +9

    Well constructed video ❤

  • @ianPedlar
    @ianPedlar 7 днів тому +1

    Gosh you're just brilliant at explaining these things!

  • @user-pw4mj2tz2h
    @user-pw4mj2tz2h 13 днів тому +18

    Thanks GOD!!!! THE VOICE IS BACK!!!!!!❤

  • @bazoo513
    @bazoo513 13 днів тому +4

    16:40 - The starship cannot "connect the solar system", when it needs dozens of (yet to be demonstrated) refuelings to even reach the Moon.
    Raptor is a great engine. However:
    - It is still woefully unreliable; improving its reliability will be a monumental challenge.
    - The design goal was, of course, not to design "the most complex engine", but the one with the greatest specific impulse, as small and light as possible. It was only possible through this complex cycle.
    -This is not the first time that full flow staged combustion cycle was tried (but it is the first such engine that actually flew.)
    - Other people use methane; there are at least two other methalox engines that already successfully launched actual payload into orbit
    - Making a video on SpaceX engine development and not even mentioning Tom Mueller is absurd.

    • @SpaceAdvocate
      @SpaceAdvocate 13 днів тому

      Raptor reliability seems great. As far as we know, it's been perfect for IFT-2 and IFT-3. There have been some failed engine relights, but it seems unrelated to the engines themselves, rather being the result of sloshing, ullage collapse, blockages in the propellant supply or the like.
      And maximizing specific impulse clearly wasn't the primary goal. They've been increaseing the throat diameter for new versions, increasing thrust but reducing specific impulse. I think their objective was something along the lines of:
      - Make an engine that is as cheap as possible per ton of thrust, while being reusable without a need for refurbishment, and only requiring propellants/consumables that are readily available on Mars.
      The goal can be tweaked a bit more, but it pretty much results in the Raptor engine. You want methalox, autogeneous pressurization and torch igniters for Mars. You want full flow staged combustion for ease of reuse and a high amount of thrust relative to dry mass/cost.

    • @bazoo513
      @bazoo513 13 днів тому +1

      @@SpaceAdvocate Well, I do hope that those failed relights have nothing to do with the engine itself...

  • @ballerdoc
    @ballerdoc 13 днів тому +18

    I actually find the guy's voice quite similar to yours . Taking some time off might be beneficial; people often respond negatively to change, so it's important to allow things to settle. The speaker just needs to refine his delivery a bit more to sound less ai-ish.

    • @TheSpaceRaceYT
      @TheSpaceRaceYT  13 днів тому +15

      We sound very similar in real life. We might have a little something coming soon where you can see both of us together on camera... Stay tuned

    • @RedRyan
      @RedRyan 13 днів тому +1

      ​@@TheSpaceRaceYTthat would be super awesome! I love seeing people on camera even when it's scarcely

    • @amanichristopher719
      @amanichristopher719 13 днів тому

      ​@@TheSpaceRaceYTwe need to see you on camera. Big fans

  • @nicholashenning9034
    @nicholashenning9034 13 днів тому +4

    You got your voice back

  • @marpintado
    @marpintado 2 дні тому +1

    The Russian engineers invented this system but Space X doubled the concept!!!

  • @jswebbproductions9785
    @jswebbproductions9785 13 днів тому +2

    wow, what a awesome video! very well designed and researched and the original voice IS BACK!! One of the best videos I've seen from this channel! And great job explaining how rocket engines work, I finally can begin to understand it! btw, much love to the voice of the last video, nothing personal against him, just prefer your voice!! congratulations on a job well done!

  • @MattH-wg7ou
    @MattH-wg7ou День тому

    FULL FLOW STAGED COMBUSTION!!!

  • @PhilfreezeCH
    @PhilfreezeCH 4 дні тому +3

    13:15 including the engine bell in the size comparison is a super weird move.
    The RS-25 also operates in space and just needs a larger engine bell than the first-stage Raptors. The second stage Raptors are also bigger.

  • @mrsimo7144
    @mrsimo7144 6 днів тому

    Thanks for this. Much appreciated.

  • @anthonylaiferrario
    @anthonylaiferrario 5 днів тому +4

    One quick correction. Raptor doesn’t require stage 0 spin start support. We see all stage 2 raptors start in flight and we see a number of stage 1 raptors restart in flight

    • @BagelmanSupreme
      @BagelmanSupreme 4 дні тому +1

      This is true, but it requires fuel and some special engineering to spin them up, and you can only do that a limited number of times depending on mission parameters. So yes, the starship booster COULD do its own spinprime at launch (and does when landing), but stage zero still does this as an integral part of the launch process, reducing the number of restarts the booster needs to be able to accomplish solo by 1

    • @sauceboss1846
      @sauceboss1846 3 дні тому +7

      @@BagelmanSupremeyou both are right and wrong. The outer 20 engines have no ability to relight so they rely on stage zero start them up while the inner 13 gimbal engines have the ability to spin up multiple times during flight so they aren’t hooked into stage zero like the 20 Outer

  • @adamgrundy4327
    @adamgrundy4327 2 дні тому

    the amazing part is the raptor 3 which is still in testing and not on starship yet has reached up to 350bar. its amazing how much they are improving it and at an incredible speed.

  • @clavo3352
    @clavo3352 8 днів тому

    Grateful for this video! TY !!😊

  • @yougeo
    @yougeo 9 днів тому

    Good shirt excellent video with plenty of detail. Best one I have seen on the raptor engine.

  • @maxheadrom3088
    @maxheadrom3088 2 дні тому +1

    Next week: how Americans reinvented the ball and created a game played using the hands and named it "football"!

  • @russellhays4982
    @russellhays4982 5 днів тому

    great simple breakdown and nice video

  • @mikefiell8103
    @mikefiell8103 2 дні тому

    Excellent video! Recommended watch!

  • @jamestregler1584
    @jamestregler1584 5 днів тому

    Thanks this explains the new rocket's inner workings ; from old New Orleans 😇🇫🇷

  • @AugustusLarch
    @AugustusLarch День тому

    One detail wrong on the LOX. Gas oxygen is put under pressure until it liquefies. Not cooled until it turns into a liquid.

  • @DaT0nkee
    @DaT0nkee 13 днів тому +2

    Actually Raptor originally was designed as a hidrolox engine, they switched to methane for economic reasons. As well as the rest of the industry.

  • @Nerdmom1701
    @Nerdmom1701 13 днів тому

    Great to hear your voice again!😂 👍🏻🙏🏻❤️

  • @DansHobbies
    @DansHobbies 13 днів тому +6

    easily the best explanation i have seen.

  • @user-gp6iq5qe1o
    @user-gp6iq5qe1o 13 днів тому

    Yay! Favorite narrator is back!

  • @dosmastrify
    @dosmastrify 5 днів тому +1

    4:00 but based on what you just said, we should want the biggest nozzle possible even if that causes separation from the walls

  • @ophthojooeileyecirclehisha4917
    @ophthojooeileyecirclehisha4917 6 днів тому

    thank you

  • @StephenMattison66
    @StephenMattison66 День тому

    Great video, well done, ty!

  • @44JohnDoe
    @44JohnDoe 9 днів тому

    Great stuff, as always

  • @chrisb.travelin544
    @chrisb.travelin544 13 днів тому

    Once again, outstanding content. Please keep it up. Others who post daily have a LOT of repeat "click bate". Cheers.

  • @pauljcampbell2997
    @pauljcampbell2997 13 днів тому +1

    Great video!

  • @uchechukwuekemezie
    @uchechukwuekemezie 13 днів тому

    Thank God!! The voice is back😊

  • @mtstachowiak
    @mtstachowiak 13 днів тому

    The voice is back, awesome :)

  • @ScatterlingOfA
    @ScatterlingOfA 6 днів тому

    Well done!!

  • @martinlastname8548
    @martinlastname8548 5 днів тому

    Great video dude

  • @mgman6851
    @mgman6851 6 днів тому

    Great video. Thanks. Can u provide more detail in the raptor design in another video please ?

  • @apachetamizha
    @apachetamizha 11 днів тому

    Marvelous engineering 😊

  • @MitzvosGolem1
    @MitzvosGolem1 2 дні тому +1

    Russia used closed cycle rocket motors captured Fuel pump exhaust energy long ago in 1970s.

  • @The-KP
    @The-KP 11 днів тому +4

    It doesn't matter how efficient your engines are when just getting a ship to the next object in space multiples your mission complexity and raises your disaster risk by two orders of magnitude. One of the missing terms to the Starship equation, in this video, is how much fuel is needed to power your rocket on the mission for which it was designed? A dozen Starship tanker trips, it turns out. The Starship system offers the process for determining just how large a superheavy launcher can be and still be reliable, but you cannot change any of the variables in that equation! 33 engines, one large (and getting larger) ship, and a whole lot of hope that it will be not explode once people are onboard

  • @Vermiliontea
    @Vermiliontea 7 днів тому +2

    The Merlin 1D represents what could be done with the available time and money at the time, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a demanding and specific mission requirement.
    SpaceX rocket design starts with the goal of lowest possible cost of payload to low Earth orbit. This requirement trumps everything else. The consequence is that you find yourself with a set of artificial "musts", because otherwise there's no point in doing it at all. So the question is not so much if it's "possible", but *_how_* it can be possible. What enters into this process is that you must reuse as much of the rocket as possible.
    What eventually comes out of it, is a two-stage rocket, without solid-fuel boosters, a single rocket fuel that must be not hydrogen, and not hypergolic. A rather small rocket engine that need a very high thrust to weight ratio, must be throttleable, and must be a mass-production item.
    The Raptor is a product of the exact same process, only this time there are no compromises involving time and money. And it has to be the extremest thing possible, because otherwise it would not reach the required thrust to weight ratio with the methane fuel, nor would it reach the required thrust per nozzle area. Its thrust-performance for a first stage is a must, and reaching that with methane as fuel is not easy. Which is why ULA Vulcan is effectively a three-stage rocket with its solid-fuel boosters.

  • @ThomasButryn
    @ThomasButryn День тому

    Great show!!

  • @jameswoll
    @jameswoll 10 днів тому

    Good one, dude!

  • @nickmiladinovic500
    @nickmiladinovic500 13 днів тому

    Thank god the narrator is back

  • @chicomalo3654
    @chicomalo3654 18 годин тому

    i can connect you to the universe without burning anything -LSD

  • @keithsweat7513
    @keithsweat7513 7 днів тому

    This is a good video, only thing, the full flow diagram could be simplified by not having that counter intuitive X configuration in the middle of the GG's for easier following of the fuel and oxidizer paths

  • @ikajakonia8009
    @ikajakonia8009 3 дні тому

    if you know the physics and options of Raptor Engine working, it is surely not complicated! it is like an open book and you just need to read it!

  • @AmericanCrusader222
    @AmericanCrusader222 13 днів тому

    Now we gotta do one on the new EVA suit!!

  • @En1Gm4A
    @En1Gm4A 11 днів тому

    Awesome video

  • @johnkeck
    @johnkeck 16 годин тому

    Cool video! I have a hard time not getting caught up in the excitement. Still, I have to ask: what are the problems with SpaceX and drawbacks to its engine designs? The technical explanations here are good, but still the positive tone sounds like it comes from a SpaceX press release.

  • @aienthusiast618
    @aienthusiast618 13 днів тому

    lets go the normal guy is back the lord is great

  • @samuraishonan4706
    @samuraishonan4706 3 дні тому

    The only aliens visiting earth are not aliens. They are humans coming back in time to study, Earth, 101

  • @leokimvideo
    @leokimvideo 16 годин тому

    I'm thinking the Russians had the most powerful engine. The F1 is not the most powerful

  • @ps3301
    @ps3301 5 днів тому

    Without nuclear rocket, space travel won't be fast enough

  • @Ryan-lk4pu
    @Ryan-lk4pu 2 дні тому

    Good video. Another reason they chose methane is because you can produce it from the Martian atmosphere (if you have a water source).

    • @markbrown8097
      @markbrown8097 День тому

      Good luck with the water source

    • @Ryan-lk4pu
      @Ryan-lk4pu День тому

      @@markbrown8097 I think Mars has a lot water ice. With tentative signs that it's even buried near the equator :)

  • @RiadAhmed-ce6qo
    @RiadAhmed-ce6qo 3 дні тому

    Because it is a modular based cluster cell design . So even engine failed you can keep it operational by isolating damaged cells. in this case power out put will be reduced but by the percentage you can figure out list how many motors can provide you enough thrust to keep you safe during a malfunction. Star-link in future will orbit the moon as well. What is possible
    moon and the earth a satellite link chain like bicycle's chain which will continue and this link will provide communication and a trailing guide for moon ferry so people can go to the moon ,orbiting and back. which is the first steps of Star Track.

  • @bazoo513
    @bazoo513 13 днів тому +4

    0:08 - I beg to differ. It's not that those "crazy ideas" were thought impossible, or haven't been tried before - its that other companies stuck to easily to the conventional wisdom that they are not economically viable.

    • @aggonzalezdc
      @aggonzalezdc 5 днів тому +5

      Thank you. SpaceX didnt reinvent anything. They made incremental improvements that made the difficulty of full flow staged combustion more viable. Which is impressive! No need to bend the truth, it's still awesome. But don't act like they were the first to come up with this.

  • @jackdoe7933
    @jackdoe7933 7 днів тому +1

    The Germans where the first to use methane as rocket fuel in 1930.
    The benefits of using methane in rocket engines has been known forever just as the idea of using a closed cycle engine which was perfected by the Soviets .
    Of course if you're using a oxy hydrogen engine then there is no coking ... water being the by product of combustion.

  • @marcelomendonca2540
    @marcelomendonca2540 13 днів тому +3

    Wait a moment. You've said that Raptor engines require external stuff on the launch pad to get started. However SpaceX has turned Starship booster engines off and on again on the fly by them own. How is that possible?

    • @martin830319
      @martin830319 13 днів тому +5

      Only the outer 20 engines started by stage zero. The rest uses on board high pressure helium to start.

    • @TheSpaceRaceYT
      @TheSpaceRaceYT  13 днів тому +2

      That's a good point. There's never enough time to cover all of the technicalities - the booster engines get a spin start from the launch mount, the engine relights and upper stage Raptors are spun up by pressurized gas.

    • @aggonzalezdc
      @aggonzalezdc 5 днів тому +2

      Yea any of the reused engines have an onboard system for spin priming. But the ones that don't need to relight? Might as well leave it on the ground. Clever.

  • @karthikumarsambasivam8191
    @karthikumarsambasivam8191 7 днів тому +1

    At 03:00 the animation puts LOX and RP1 at the same time of arrival at the chamber, which will most likely end up with a detonation. LOX has to lead and RP1 comes a few milliseconds later. Incredible video though

    • @aggonzalezdc
      @aggonzalezdc 5 днів тому +1

      It was later, but you didn't notice the 30 milliseconds.

    • @karthikumarsambasivam8191
      @karthikumarsambasivam8191 3 дні тому

      @@aggonzalezdc thanks. I got it later. I correct my mistake. if it's okay, I would still leave the comment for people to understand what happens when this happens, so they at least find out the kro-lox hardstart before actually hardstarting a kero-lox engine like me. haha

  • @jayjayd_123
    @jayjayd_123 13 днів тому

    If you ever need any music, pls hit me up bro🙌🏽 been watching your videos for a while

  • @wxb200
    @wxb200 13 днів тому +1

    The Raptor Engine. I want one...

  • @jedwardzenio5989
    @jedwardzenio5989 6 днів тому

    Nice vídeo!

  • @certifiedartroom
    @certifiedartroom 9 днів тому

    Elon needs to follow the same thinking for cyber truck.

  • @jayman488
    @jayman488 3 дні тому

    Nice video, but the Raptor is not the first engine to use two turbines. The space shuttle's RS-25 engines have two fuel rich preburners and turbines. The Raptor is, however, the first full flow staged combustion cycle engine to actually fly, although others have been tested.

  • @cajampa
    @cajampa 3 дні тому

    I wish you had focused on the v3 instead. That is what I hoped to see when I clicked on the video.

  • @morganp7238
    @morganp7238 7 днів тому

    good vid

  • @NicholasNerios
    @NicholasNerios 13 днів тому

    Was there a landing / launcher pad planned for Mars and Moon missions?
    If the thrusters need the launch pad to windup wouldn't landing missions need a more autonomous launch pad for the thrusters?

    • @bensemusx
      @bensemusx 13 днів тому +1

      No. The outer ring of engines in SuperHeavy need the pad to start. The centre engine don’t and neither do the Starship engines.
      You can see this for your self in the last test. Starship obviously started its engines without the pad and the booster stared to start its centre engines but then blew up.

  • @XYZH1234
    @XYZH1234 7 днів тому

    I did the same using LOX+Diesel fuels and stainless steal to build cheap rocket systems in the early 2000. But funding is hard to come by.

  • @verttikoo2052
    @verttikoo2052 11 годин тому

    Incredibly reliable engine 🎉 Oh wait 🤔🤣😂

  • @TruthBeTold121212
    @TruthBeTold121212 15 годин тому

    How is the raptor engine technology different from hypersonic glide missiles?

  • @davefield8100
    @davefield8100 3 дні тому

    If the spin up of the turbines is external, how will the engines get started on the moon or Mars until launching facilities are constructed?

  • @palindromic7873
    @palindromic7873 13 днів тому +1

    And then there was the wheel.

  • @DileepaRanawake
    @DileepaRanawake 13 днів тому

    Struggle to believe Elon gave the team the objective of ‘build the complex engine’ this is completely the opposite of the ‘best part is no part’ philosophy