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.
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!! 📚
SuperDraco is a hypergolic propellant rocket engine designed and built by SpaceX. It is part of the SpaceX Draco family of rocket engines. A redundant array of eight SuperDraco engines provides fault-tolerant propulsion for use as a launch escape system for the SpaceX Dragon 2, a passenger-carrying space capsule.
excellent report .. BUT .. Rockets .. have "MOTORS" NOT engines .. a motor by definition is a simple motive of power being of one or fewer moving parts .. ignoring ancillaries which aren't principle to its design .. in its simplest form while being highly effective .. can & is made in a cardboard tube .. an "engine" is a complex machine in principle have many moving parts .. just like many current engineering channels explaining something being 100 times less than .. "times" being a multiple of .. not a fraction or reduction .. ffs get the language right for credibility .. amazing machines .. excellent report
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.
What people don't appreciate about Engineering at this level is the insane amount of tools, modelling, Simulation, mathematics, physics, and software engineering(not the cute app stuff, real software engineering) involved. Engineering and Physics can be borderline Magic at the highest levels, where the practitioners are blown away and marvel at their own creations.
Add the testing program - Test often and learn. Simulations can only get you so far. You need to test to validate the sims, and correct the sims. Testing tells you what you dont know.
In the past, I had the privilege of working for a leading turbomachinery consulting firm located near Boston. As an aerodynamicist specializing in turbomachinery, I take great pride in my contributions to early aero-thermo performance maps, required in the cycle analysis of this and other innovative rocket engines under study at that time. The period was marked by significant advancements in turbomachinery technology, including Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, and systems analysis. This confluence of this technology spurred these ambitious projects. As I reflect on those times, I extend my best wishes to all the companies rising to conquer the challenge. May they continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible.
@@kareemsambrano2258 Very carefully, with control of the thrust vector to counter balance: gravity, wind, polar moments along with a few other factors. Imagine a circus aerialist balancing atop a ball, now add a second ball. The turbomachinery aero design and performance is only a small piece of this complex system.
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.
@@stevenhe3462 Not that many other fuels. The other two examples used either liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen or hypergolics. You can not use RP1 due to soot. Soot is why the only RP1 staged combustion engines were oxygen rich.
Update: SpaceX has now caught a Starship booster with the toothpick retrieval structure, after safely operating the return booster for reentry and precise maneuverability. Truly a marvel for mankind. Congratulations to everyone at SpaceX, from the housekeepers who keep it a clean environment, to the programmers, to the engineers, to Musk himself, and everyone in between. You all are helping in changing the course of the future. Your work has not gone unnoticed.
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.
@@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!
@@SteveSteeleSoundSymphonyAnd how's NASA getting its equipment to space now? Bloated government bureaucracies will NEVER be as efficient as private corporations. Period.
Pretty soon some idiot will compare the major technological advantages of SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla and Neurolink with their personal jealousy of Elon Musk.
Do you know how many Falcons and Merlins they had to go through to reach where they are today? Now the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in history. Why do you think Starship won't eventually reach the same level of success, even if it takes longer to do so because of the complexity of the design?
Everyday Astronaut has some really good videos about it. He also has one about the entire (huge) family of Soviet rocket engines. They were quite impressive! (But Raptor is better.)
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.
@@weed...5692 The only known Soviet full flow staged combustion engine was RD-270 (powered by N2O4 / UDMH) and it did go nowhere as they were not able to make it work properly.
*SpaceX's Raptor Engine: A Rocket Engine Reinvented* *Here's a summary of the video's key points about the Raptor engine, including starting timestamps:* * *[**0:02**] From Merlin to Raptor:* SpaceX began with the Merlin engine, designed for simplicity and cost-effectiveness. It was crucial for early successes, but needed to evolve. * *[**7:07**] Raptor's fuel: Methane* - A switch from kerosene to methane offers advantages: * Clean burning, leaving no residue. * Enables high reusability for Starship. * *[**9:03**] Raptor's cycle: Full Flow Staged Combustion* * Extremely complex but highly efficient. * Dual gas turbines compared to single turbines in previous engines. * Closed cycle, using all the pressure from gas generators. * Full flow, with both fuel and oxygen passing through pre-burners before the combustion chamber. * *[**12:36**] Raptor's performance:* * Delivers 230 metric tons of thrust at sea level. * Has an unmatched power-to-weight ratio. * Achieves high chamber pressure (300 bar). * *[**14:22**] Future of Raptor:* * Simplification and cost reduction through component integration and removing unnecessary parts. * Mass production for Starship's ambitious goals. * *[**15:53**] Starship's impact:* * Aims to become as commonplace as jetliners. * Will be used for travel between Earth and Mars, Earth and the Moon, and even point-to-point transportation on Earth. * Could be one of the most important vehicles ever created in human history. *The video emphasizes SpaceX's innovative approach to rocket engine design, pushing the boundaries of what's possible.* i used gemini 1.5 flash and pro to summarize the transcript
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 :)
The only major reason RS-25 has that high specific impulse is that it runs on hydrogen. RL10 has higher specific impulse, for example. And it's thrust-to-weight ratio is not that good. The problem with hydrogen is low density so you need enormous and heavy fuel tank, also it leaks through anything, even metal. Saturn V had very poor thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2 at liftoff, so it accelerated very slowly and wasted a lot of propellant on just overcoming the gravity,
@@woopsserg Yeah, you're right. The RL-10B-2 does have 13s higher SI compared to the RS-25 (it's just that the RL-10B-2 was designed and optimized for vacuum-only, the RS-25 is sea-level and vacuum:p). Hydrogen is hard to beat because of its high(est) energy density, only beaten by nuclear fission, fusion and anti-matter :p
@@TimRobertsen Yes, you cannot beat hydrogen. However what really matters is performance of the system overall. And hydrogen has so huge storage downside that basically negates all the performance benefits. It's like having 20% more efficient engine but having 30% heavier car to fit the fuel. It is really beneficial only in upper stage as allows higher mass to high energy orbits and where storage tank size is of less detriment.
@@woopsserg Yes, hydrogen is, despite its energydensity, tricky to work with: leakages, hydrogen embrittlement etc. Which has for years puzzled me why Toyota is pushing the hydrogen-fueled cars (they must know something I don't:p). The overall system functionallity and performance is ofcourse the most important factor, and, to me, it seems that SpaceX has developed a solid design with the Raptor engines. It remains to be seen how it performs with regards to re-ignitions on descent and in space, I guess we'll see in the next days.
Gonna say it even though someone else already has, however oxygen is not the only feasible oxidizer that the rocket industry or combustion in general has taken advantage of. The most notable ones that have been tested are the oxides of nitrogen (eg DNTO), oxygen as mentioned in the video, and fluorine. A reducing agent can burn with anything as long as there is free oxygen or a free halogen for it to react with, and by free i don't mean diatomic molecules of only the element, i mean still able to react with other substances regardless of other chemical bonds within the respective molecule.
Yes, fluorine and methane is very safe Man fluorine is so toxic to humans that any bit that any person touches will fuck their bones up. I just do not think fluorine is a realistic oxidizer, but maybe ozone, or other oxidizers will work.
I saw a video of the most powerful rocket engine tested, where they (Rockadyne I believe) did it with liquid lithium and fluorine. However, the rocket ticked all the boxes for hazard and there weight of insulation needed to keep the lithium in liquid for offsets the output.
@@spenzlee7191 Its spelled "Rocketdyne" but that doesn't matter to much. As to it being the most powerful rocket engine that is incorrect. It was the most efficient traditional rocket engine ever tested with an ISP of roughly 850. It had good thrust however the most powerful rocket engine tested goes to the RD-170 which was a 4 nozzled Russian engine burning kerolox. It had around 1 million lb/f thrust over the F1.
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
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
@@Nathan_Higgensyou 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
1:30 I encourage you to be mindful when using absolute phrases like "nobody," "everyone," "always," or "never," as they are rarely accurate. This is why PhD students are trained to avoid such generalizations in their writing and speaking, and it’s something you’ve likely noticed among high-level scientists and researchers. While I understand that UA-cam often thrives on hyperbole and dramatic statements, I bring this up not to criticize or highlight mistakes, but because you strike me as an intelligent creator who values credibility and trust. Research in psychology suggests that overly absolute statements can erode credibility among more discerning audiences. For example, adjusting a phrase like "nobody invested in Space-X early on" or "nobody thought they would succeed" to "very few people invested in Space-X early on" retains the strength of your point without risking inaccuracy. Arguably it strengthens the point you are trying to make because the way you said it in the video is inaccurate, and based on the intelligence level of the comments I've seen from your viewers most of your fan base more than likely realizes that. Lastly, consider that an unintended misstep could alienate a potential viewer, sponsor, or investor-like someone who actually invested early in Space-X. By refining these details, you enhance your professionalism and trustworthiness while still delivering impactful content.
The engineering behind the Raptor engine is mind-blowing. From the dual turbines to the unmatched power-to-weight ratio, it’s a testament to SpaceX’s commitment to excellence. Achieving over 99% combustion efficiency is no small feat and demonstrates how cutting-edge technology can revolutionize space exploration.
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?
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.
Truly an amazing feat of engineering, this thing just wants to blow itself up at any given moment. Imagine you mill a workable piece of metal and then stack 4000lbs of weights at every square inch of it but it doesn't bend or break or melt, mind blowing!
So the outer 20 engines can only be lit by the launch facilities on the ground, however for the 13 inner engines on superheavy there are on board systems to relight. On the ship, all 6 of the engines can be relit.
The upper stage (Starship) raptors and the inner raptors on the first stage booster are capable of self-starting. Elon has been quite evasive about revealing how exactly they achieve this.
What is the difference in volume requirements between RP-1 and methalox ? Also, has nitromethane ( CH 3NO2 ) been tried as a fuel , as its makeup carries its own oxygen ? Just asking.
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!
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.
Full flow staged combustion isn’t just “closed cycle” combustion. There have been a few experimental FFSC engines before but Raptor is the only one that has actually flown.
@@peterfireflylund Still "reinvention" is quite wrong word here in the title. Actually Elaon mask engineers learn a lot from Soviet rocket engines and they made a next step in a long sequence of improvements already made by previous genterations of engineers. Too much pathos and propaganda as always in US movies.
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.
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!
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.
Bigger combustion chambers are generally harder (combustion instabilities are worse). Bigger things are also harder to make (and might require bigger tools).
Soooooooooooooooooo, If a booster stalls , you can't restart it mid launch. There is no saving a launch if a booster stalls. You must immediately go into a scuttle protocol. any kind of temporary hick-up in fuel flow can cause a permanent stall ?
This was so beautifully explained. It felt good to be able to follow along and understand most of it. Well done. Kudos to the entire production team. I am subscribed and will visit DISPLATE. Magnetic wall mounts... pure genius.
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.
The BE-4 is a cool engine, but not full-flow, operates with only half the chamber pressure and has a lower specific impulse. So much less efficient than Raptor.
So if the booster / Raptor engine needs the launchpad to (jokingly) crankstart the motor, how will Starship take off from the surface of mars? In what way are the Raptor and (is it Raptor Vacuum?) engines different?
"Fuel" and "propellant" are not interchangeable terms. Propellant consists of mixed fuel and oxidizer. Common in solid fueled rockets. Doesn't exist very long in liquid fueled rocketry because it's burned immediately after mixing.
In addition to cost and technical performance, methane is planned to be produced in situ on Mars. RP-1 would be right out, and liquid hydrogen would be harder to store, need larger tanks and require more hydrogen which is likely to be the supply bottleneck even with Martian ice. Methane is only 20% hydrogen by weight.
Scalable, easy manufacturing, replacement, maintenance. Elon is 10 steps ahead and if i could contribute, i would buy shares of spaceX to ensure mission accomplished. ❤😊
It's so nice to come across something on the Internet, not shitting on Elon and actually understanding what he's really trying to do. Everybody has their faults and things that can be validly criticized, but when someone's doing great work, we should have a proper reverence for that. You've done an amazing job explaining things so clearly, not politicizing anything, and really just telling the story of what's going on and expressing things in a proper empathetic space understanding the work that's being done. Great video.
I enjoyed the video, but have to point out a few glaring faults. The Raptor is not the first Methane/Oxygen rocket engine. There were a few before Raptor. I will just name two as it also relates to the rocket engine cycle, which is also not a first. The Soviet RD-270. This was a Full flow staged combustion engine built and fired in 1969. The Morpheus HD5 was a methane/oxygen rocket engine used in 2014.
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!
2 questions for you SpaceX rah rah; why call it "Raptor?" and you didn't say anything about why 33 engines on the stage 1 booster. Anything to do with probability of the closed pump system staying exactly in tune to continue maxing thrust? Do you know the reliability of these? CH4 is 22.5 MJ/l and the once thought best LH2 is 8.5MJ/l But at 300 bar I don't see other applications for it like ICEs
I still dont understand how raptors light the engines while in space or when the booster is trying to land.. why is stage 0 spin prime needed for launch but no other steps??
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.
One think I was left confused is how does SpaceX restart a Raptor in flight? For example when Starship did 10 km belly flip and landing, or for reentry from orbit. The comment regarding ground support and stage-zero at 10:15 seems to be overlooking something.
The outer 20 Raptor engines on Super Heavy booster are started using the launch mount. The inner 13 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster and the 6 Raptor engines on the Starship upper stage are started using high pressure gas stored in high-pressure tanks. You spin up the turbines using this stored gas, and then you ignite the preburners which then take over. This means that the outer 20 engines on the Super Heavy booster can't be restarted in flight.
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.
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 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 kero-lox hardstart before actually hardstarting a kero-lox engine like me. haha
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?
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.
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.
SpaceX has really pushed the boundaries of rocket technology! Their work with reusable engines and innovations like the Raptor engine's full-flow staged combustion cycle are game-changers for space exploration.
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.
@@vincentwilliams363 oh, how simple your mind must be to honestly suggest that Space X engineers would have no other option besides making “garage openers” if it wasn’t for Elon Musk…
9:31 Raptor is NOT the only engine with dual turbines. In fact it's not even the only full flow staged combustion engine either. The first full flow staged combustion engine was the soviet RD-270 rocket engine. It was fully developed and test fired. The only problem was that rocket it was supposed to lift got canceled. And even the famous space shuttle main engine RS-25, while not a full flow combustion cycle, it still used dual preburners and turbines to match the different speed of pumps needed for the two propellants.
I don't think your explanation is correct. The pre-burners drives the turbo-pumps by cumbusting some fuel, yes, and the exhaust of the pre-burners is gas that enters the main chamber somewhere... But most of the fuel is still being pumped around the nozzle bell and into the main combustion chamber as liquids, not as a gas. The pre-burners will not be sending their exhausts through the same system as the main burner, the fuel rich likely going closer to the combustion chamber walls, and the oxygen rich more centered.
You're correct. Then we would have had to also explain the cooling system for the nozzle and the fuel injection system and the video is already on the long side for us. We like to think it's more about the concept than the actual technical details. It's always a tough call, but we'll sometimes sacrifice a bit of accuracy in favour of accessibility.
Wow, we’ve come a long way from the humble beginnings of the black powder rockets of the ancient Chinese. Great video. Just enough technical information to tell the story without becoming “bogged down” in technical data. Keep up the good work!
This is one of the best explanations of the starship engine design process. Elon Musk reminds of Thomas Edison and Peter Weyland (the industrial fictionsn entrepreneur in the Alien and Promethius Movies). He is a genius. That said all men have their faults. That said the Cyber Truck is one if the stupidest vehicles on the road. I'm still trying to like it.
I marvel at all of this, and have deep respect for the skill it takes to envision and create it. I also lament my own limitations when I see something this brilliant.
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.
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.
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.
OK so if the fuel turbines are started by equipment integrated into the launch mount, I presume you could not reignite the Raptor engines on Mars. Does anyone know what the plan is for the return trip, or will they revert to Merlin designs?
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
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.
We feel the same way as we did when the Wright brothers created the first air plane. Difference now is that we know the impossible can be done when we try hard enough.
Most people in the industry laughed when Musk/Spacex said they will be landing rockets. Today 241 successful landings in a row and about 300 overall. So "it's impossible", mindset still stands today.
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.
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.
@@qwerty112311 Elaborate that ridiculous "lol", please. It would need "only" about eight tanker launchers _if_ their payload was 120-150t instead of the current ~40t, _and_ it they could be launched almost simultaneously, so that propellant boil off would be negligible.
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.
you gotta think of how america came to be and how many people will die trying to settle on mars.
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!! 📚
SuperDraco is a hypergolic propellant rocket engine designed and built by SpaceX. It is part of the SpaceX Draco family of rocket engines. A redundant array of eight SuperDraco engines provides fault-tolerant propulsion for use as a launch escape system for the SpaceX Dragon 2, a passenger-carrying space capsule.
What😮@@typerightseesight
excellent report .. BUT .. Rockets .. have "MOTORS" NOT engines .. a motor by definition is a simple motive of power being of one or fewer moving parts .. ignoring ancillaries which aren't principle to its design .. in its simplest form while being highly effective .. can & is made in a cardboard tube .. an "engine" is a complex machine in principle have many moving parts .. just like many current engineering channels explaining something being 100 times less than .. "times" being a multiple of .. not a fraction or reduction .. ffs get the language right for credibility .. amazing machines .. excellent report
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!
What do you do if you don't mind me asking?
Well said!
They're not your colleagues... noob 😂
Press "X" to doubt.
@@wyattnoise Why does this seem unlikely to you? I work on Starlink as well.
“Everyone knew it was impossible, until a fool who didn’t know came along and did it.”
- Albert Einstein
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.
Einstein said no such thing.
@@ptanticar "Yes I did." - Albert Einstein
@@Sugarsail1 Did you use a OuiJa board to ask Einstein? He may have repeated it, but he did not invent the quote
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."
-- Abraham Lincoln
What people don't appreciate about Engineering at this level is the insane amount of tools, modelling, Simulation, mathematics, physics, and software engineering(not the cute app stuff, real software engineering) involved. Engineering and Physics can be borderline Magic at the highest levels, where the practitioners are blown away and marvel at their own creations.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke ;)
Perfectly stated. Sums up my feelings sometimes about my industry AI ASC. 😊
I do and it’s why I love decided at 28 to get back to school to do it for a living!!
@@TurbettmaAny sufficiently advanced jank is indistinguishable from wizardry 😂
Add the testing program - Test often and learn. Simulations can only get you so far. You need to test to validate the sims, and correct the sims. Testing tells you what you dont know.
In the past, I had the privilege of working for a leading turbomachinery consulting firm located near Boston. As an aerodynamicist specializing in turbomachinery, I take great pride in my contributions to early aero-thermo performance maps, required in the cycle analysis of this and other innovative rocket engines under study at that time.
The period was marked by significant advancements in turbomachinery technology, including Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, and systems analysis. This confluence of this technology spurred these ambitious projects.
As I reflect on those times, I extend my best wishes to all the companies rising to conquer the challenge. May they continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible.
How does the space X rockets reverse land?
@@kareemsambrano2258 Very carefully, with control of the thrust vector to counter balance: gravity, wind, polar moments along with a few other factors. Imagine a circus aerialist balancing atop a ball, now add a second ball. The turbomachinery aero design and performance is only a small piece of this complex system.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind". NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong July 20, 1969 at 10:56 PM from the surface of the moon.🇺🇲🙏🇺🇲
Can you elaborate was software were you using?
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.
Raptor is the first FFSC engine to fly, but the 3rd to be test fired
@@aDifferentJT Oh. interesting. Which are the other two?
The operational FFSC part is where the real shit lies at. Some other propellant could have worked as well.
@@stevenhe3462 Not that many other fuels. The other two examples used either liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen or hypergolics. You can not use RP1 due to soot. Soot is why the only RP1 staged combustion engines were oxygen rich.
The soviets were doing closed cycle in the 1950s...
Update: SpaceX has now caught a Starship booster with the toothpick retrieval structure, after safely operating the return booster for reentry and precise maneuverability. Truly a marvel for mankind. Congratulations to everyone at SpaceX, from the housekeepers who keep it a clean environment, to the programmers, to the engineers, to Musk himself, and everyone in between. You all are helping in changing the course of the future. Your work has not gone unnoticed.
You said ”toothpick”. Do you mean ”chopstick”?
“If you didn’t have to put back at least 10% of what you removed, you didn’t delete enough.”
WORDS TO LIVE BY
Shame I can’t get my toes back from my amputated leg
yes words to live by that make absolutely no sense.....lollol
mmm, I wonder if he is talking about a royalty fee for my designs that where used, and the difficulty of changing a past greed method that was used.
my dad would say "that's a lot of BULLSH*T ! and he'd be right !
Not words to live by, but certainly a good approach to process redesign.
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.
Some also set the criterium that it has to have flown a successful mission. The RD-170 does not have that honour.
The RD170 did fly on Energia
@@Raoul_Volfoni Are we mixing up RD-170 and RD-270?
@@Raoul_Volfoni twice.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 !?
So relieved when you started from the Merlin engine and not the beginning of Rocketry LOL phew!
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self
Hmm. Spot on.
Now, SpaceX has reinvented the spacesuit.
That spacesuit looks insanely perfect! I guess the best exoskeleton is no exoskeleton? I'm loving it
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.
@@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!
@@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
@@SteveSteeleSoundSymphonyAnd how's NASA getting its equipment to space now? Bloated government bureaucracies will NEVER be as efficient as private corporations. Period.
SpaceX did not reinvent the rocket engine-they have made big improvements to existing rocket engine technology and deserve the credit given to them.
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?
Pretty soon some idiot will compare the major technological advantages of SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla and Neurolink with their personal jealousy of Elon Musk.
@@ct1762 disaster? 🤣dude they are TEST flights. the whole point is to get as far as you can and find the flaws. dummy.
More like they have made an over complicated engine that is not powerful enough to get their oversized tin-can into orbit whilst empty
Do you know how many Falcons and Merlins they had to go through to reach where they are today? Now the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in history. Why do you think Starship won't eventually reach the same level of success, even if it takes longer to do so because of the complexity of the design?
I was always confused about open/closed cycles and full flow. Your explanation has helped me understand. Thank you.
Everyday Astronaut has some really good videos about it. He also has one about the entire (huge) family of Soviet rocket engines. They were quite impressive!
(But Raptor is better.)
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.
Soviet engines are not full flow staged combustion. There is a big difference.
@@Aexorzist Soviet engines were full flow staged combustion. There is no big difference.
@@weed...5692 the Muskrats are out in full force! Long live utter delusion!
@@weed...5692no. Absolutely wrong. Look those engines up, look at the diagrams that describe the pumps and the plumbing.
@@weed...5692 The only known Soviet full flow staged combustion engine was RD-270 (powered by N2O4 / UDMH) and it did go nowhere as they were not able to make it work properly.
NASA paved the way, but SpaceX has taken it way beyond anything a government agency could take it .
Then why did Nasa recently orbit the moon with its lander while SpaceX hasn't even gotten a Starship into orbit yet?
@ Starlink has been in orbit since 2019.
@lex_DO Starlink is not Starship. Musk promised Starship would visit Mars by 2022. It's now the end of 2024 and it hasn't even been in orbit.
*SpaceX's Raptor Engine: A Rocket Engine Reinvented*
*Here's a summary of the video's key points about the Raptor engine, including starting timestamps:*
* *[**0:02**] From Merlin to Raptor:* SpaceX began with the Merlin engine, designed for simplicity and cost-effectiveness. It was crucial for early successes, but needed to evolve.
* *[**7:07**] Raptor's fuel: Methane* - A switch from kerosene to methane offers advantages:
* Clean burning, leaving no residue.
* Enables high reusability for Starship.
* *[**9:03**] Raptor's cycle: Full Flow Staged Combustion*
* Extremely complex but highly efficient.
* Dual gas turbines compared to single turbines in previous engines.
* Closed cycle, using all the pressure from gas generators.
* Full flow, with both fuel and oxygen passing through pre-burners before the combustion chamber.
* *[**12:36**] Raptor's performance:*
* Delivers 230 metric tons of thrust at sea level.
* Has an unmatched power-to-weight ratio.
* Achieves high chamber pressure (300 bar).
* *[**14:22**] Future of Raptor:*
* Simplification and cost reduction through component integration and removing unnecessary parts.
* Mass production for Starship's ambitious goals.
* *[**15:53**] Starship's impact:*
* Aims to become as commonplace as jetliners.
* Will be used for travel between Earth and Mars, Earth and the Moon, and even point-to-point transportation on Earth.
* Could be one of the most important vehicles ever created in human history.
*The video emphasizes SpaceX's innovative approach to rocket engine design, pushing the boundaries of what's possible.*
i used gemini 1.5 flash and pro to summarize the transcript
Can't be more exited , what a wonderful time to be alive ❤
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 :)
The only major reason RS-25 has that high specific impulse is that it runs on hydrogen. RL10 has higher specific impulse, for example. And it's thrust-to-weight ratio is not that good. The problem with hydrogen is low density so you need enormous and heavy fuel tank, also it leaks through anything, even metal. Saturn V had very poor thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2 at liftoff, so it accelerated very slowly and wasted a lot of propellant on just overcoming the gravity,
@@woopsserg Yeah, you're right. The RL-10B-2 does have 13s higher SI compared to the RS-25 (it's just that the RL-10B-2 was designed and optimized for vacuum-only, the RS-25 is sea-level and vacuum:p). Hydrogen is hard to beat because of its high(est) energy density, only beaten by nuclear fission, fusion and anti-matter :p
@@TimRobertsen Yes, you cannot beat hydrogen. However what really matters is performance of the system overall. And hydrogen has so huge storage downside that basically negates all the performance benefits. It's like having 20% more efficient engine but having 30% heavier car to fit the fuel. It is really beneficial only in upper stage as allows higher mass to high energy orbits and where storage tank size is of less detriment.
@@woopsserg Yes, hydrogen is, despite its energydensity, tricky to work with: leakages, hydrogen embrittlement etc. Which has for years puzzled me why Toyota is pushing the hydrogen-fueled cars (they must know something I don't:p).
The overall system functionallity and performance is ofcourse the most important factor, and, to me, it seems that SpaceX has developed a solid design with the Raptor engines. It remains to be seen how it performs with regards to re-ignitions on descent and in space, I guess we'll see in the next days.
THANK GOD UR VOICE IS BACK
Gonna say it even though someone else already has, however oxygen is not the only feasible oxidizer that the rocket industry or combustion in general has taken advantage of. The most notable ones that have been tested are the oxides of nitrogen (eg DNTO), oxygen as mentioned in the video, and fluorine. A reducing agent can burn with anything as long as there is free oxygen or a free halogen for it to react with, and by free i don't mean diatomic molecules of only the element, i mean still able to react with other substances regardless of other chemical bonds within the respective molecule.
Yes, fluorine and methane is very safe
Man fluorine is so toxic to humans that any bit that any person touches will fuck their bones up. I just do not think fluorine is a realistic oxidizer, but maybe ozone, or other oxidizers will work.
Don't tell me you are suggesting to use FOOF as oxidizer?
.
.
.
Official chemical name: di-oxygen di-fluoride.
Most sane chemists won't work with it.
I saw a video of the most powerful rocket engine tested, where they (Rockadyne I believe) did it with liquid lithium and fluorine. However, the rocket ticked all the boxes for hazard and there weight of insulation needed to keep the lithium in liquid for offsets the output.
@@spenzlee7191 Its spelled "Rocketdyne" but that doesn't matter to much. As to it being the most powerful rocket engine that is incorrect. It was the most efficient traditional rocket engine ever tested with an ISP of roughly 850. It had good thrust however the most powerful rocket engine tested goes to the RD-170 which was a 4 nozzled Russian engine burning kerolox. It had around 1 million lb/f thrust over the F1.
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
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
@@Nathan_Higgensyou 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
@@sauceboss1846 good info. thanks
@@sauceboss1846how do the inner engines get spin up in flight? Electric, hydrolic, with a gas?
1:30 I encourage you to be mindful when using absolute phrases like "nobody," "everyone," "always," or "never," as they are rarely accurate. This is why PhD students are trained to avoid such generalizations in their writing and speaking, and it’s something you’ve likely noticed among high-level scientists and researchers. While I understand that UA-cam often thrives on hyperbole and dramatic statements, I bring this up not to criticize or highlight mistakes, but because you strike me as an intelligent creator who values credibility and trust.
Research in psychology suggests that overly absolute statements can erode credibility among more discerning audiences. For example, adjusting a phrase like "nobody invested in Space-X early on" or "nobody thought they would succeed" to "very few people invested in Space-X early on" retains the strength of your point without risking inaccuracy. Arguably it strengthens the point you are trying to make because the way you said it in the video is inaccurate, and based on the intelligence level of the comments I've seen from your viewers most of your fan base more than likely realizes that.
Lastly, consider that an unintended misstep could alienate a potential viewer, sponsor, or investor-like someone who actually invested early in Space-X. By refining these details, you enhance your professionalism and trustworthiness while still delivering impactful content.
The voice is back!
The Voice would never leave you
@@TheSpaceRaceYT don't do that anymore
@@TheSpaceRaceYT How dare you use the Voice on me.
Computer generated voice? Merlin was pronounced super oddly
@@JoelSapp Yes, stress on the first syllable, please.
The engineering behind the Raptor engine is mind-blowing. From the dual turbines to the unmatched power-to-weight ratio, it’s a testament to SpaceX’s commitment to excellence. Achieving over 99% combustion efficiency is no small feat and demonstrates how cutting-edge technology can revolutionize space exploration.
Great explanation
Simple, so not burdened with alot of terminology and hitting all the main introductory points
Thanks
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?
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.
Thank you for this educational video. Keep up the good work
Truly an amazing feat of engineering, this thing just wants to blow itself up at any given moment. Imagine you mill a workable piece of metal and then stack 4000lbs of weights at every square inch of it but it doesn't bend or break or melt, mind blowing!
Thanks GOD!!!! THE VOICE IS BACK!!!!!!❤
Question: If they need a stage 0 to start the engines, how do they restart mid-flight for boost-backs and landing?
So the outer 20 engines can only be lit by the launch facilities on the ground, however for the 13 inner engines on superheavy there are on board systems to relight. On the ship, all 6 of the engines can be relit.
That was f'n GREAT. Thanks
We're really glad you liked it. Thank you!
If you spin start the pumps from the launch mount doesn't that make it harder to launch from the surface of the moon or mars?
The upper stage (Starship) raptors and the inner raptors on the first stage booster are capable of self-starting. Elon has been quite evasive about revealing how exactly they achieve this.
Outstanding production. Absolutely awesome
What is the difference in volume requirements between RP-1 and methalox ? Also, has nitromethane ( CH 3NO2 ) been tried as a fuel , as its makeup carries its own oxygen ? Just asking.
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!
A live voice is always better than AI
Glad you enjoyed it!
If the launch pad is stage zero what restarts the raptor engines when the booster comes back in for a landing ?
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.
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.
that engine was designed for one use due to the pyrotechnic ignition.
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.
Full flow staged combustion isn’t just “closed cycle” combustion. There have been a few experimental FFSC engines before but Raptor is the only one that has actually flown.
@@peterfireflylund Still "reinvention" is quite wrong word here in the title. Actually Elaon mask engineers learn a lot from Soviet rocket engines and they made a next step in a long sequence of improvements already made by previous genterations of engineers. Too much pathos and propaganda as always in US movies.
What is the technology used for navigation for rocket to come back at its position????
Good video, welcome back ❤
apart from the size of the bell, are there any differences between sea level raptors and vacuum raptors?
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.
And has proven to be troublesome.
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!
@@ct1762 you just hatting to hate. wow you really must be a failure if you are this bad.
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.
Bigger combustion chambers are generally harder (combustion instabilities are worse). Bigger things are also harder to make (and might require bigger tools).
Soooooooooooooooooo,
If a booster stalls , you can't restart it mid launch.
There is no saving a launch if a booster stalls. You must immediately go into a scuttle protocol.
any kind of temporary hick-up in fuel flow can cause a permanent stall ?
@12:25
Super powerful rocket engine blasting away.
Cow: I'mma eat this grass. 🐄
Literally what I thought. Cows aint having any of it
If the OLM is stage 0 and is required to kickstart the engines, how do they fire up upon landing?
Only the outer ring of engines on the booster use stage 0. The rest uses COPV's
They aren't crazy ideas. They are just ideas. But, most humans don't have the backbone to follow thier dreams, they play it "safe" (whatever safe is)
This was so beautifully explained. It felt good to be able to follow along and understand most of it. Well done. Kudos to the entire production team. I am subscribed and will visit DISPLATE. Magnetic wall mounts... pure genius.
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.
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
@@TheSpaceRaceYTthat would be super awesome! I love seeing people on camera even when it's scarcely
@@TheSpaceRaceYTwe need to see you on camera. Big fans
Everything will be fine and you will shine like a rising star, achieving great success and wealth
Expect Blue Origin was first (Jan 2024) to use LNG/LOX engines (on ULAs Vulcan) to put a payload into orbit.
The BE-4 is a cool engine, but not full-flow, operates with only half the chamber pressure and has a lower specific impulse. So much less efficient than Raptor.
So if the booster / Raptor engine needs the launchpad to (jokingly) crankstart the motor, how will Starship take off from the surface of mars? In what way are the Raptor and (is it Raptor Vacuum?) engines different?
Well done. One small comment. Use of the term fuel would be better served with the term propellant
propellant is very difficult to say lol
"Fuel" and "propellant" are not interchangeable terms. Propellant consists of mixed fuel and oxidizer. Common in solid fueled rockets. Doesn't exist very long in liquid fueled rocketry because it's burned immediately after mixing.
@@EightiesTVcorrect. Which why I made the suggestion.
If the base or stage zero is needed to start up the Raptor, how visit restarted on landing?
Actually Raptor originally was designed as a hidrolox engine, they switched to methane for economic reasons. As well as the rest of the industry.
A big reason was also the fact that methane is the only fuel that you can produce on mars
In addition to cost and technical performance, methane is planned to be produced in situ on Mars. RP-1 would be right out, and liquid hydrogen would be harder to store, need larger tanks and require more hydrogen which is likely to be the supply bottleneck even with Martian ice. Methane is only 20% hydrogen by weight.
Scalable, easy manufacturing, replacement, maintenance.
Elon is 10 steps ahead and if i could contribute, i would buy shares of spaceX to ensure mission accomplished.
❤😊
It's so nice to come across something on the Internet, not shitting on Elon and actually understanding what he's really trying to do.
Everybody has their faults and things that can be validly criticized, but when someone's doing great work, we should have a proper reverence for that.
You've done an amazing job explaining things so clearly, not politicizing anything, and really just telling the story of what's going on and expressing things in a proper empathetic space understanding the work that's being done. Great video.
Actually elon IS shit and what he's trying to do is stupid. Its just that he has a lot of money + it's not him doing all this stuff
I enjoyed the video, but have to point out a few glaring faults. The Raptor is not the first Methane/Oxygen rocket engine. There were a few before Raptor. I will just name two as it also relates to the rocket engine cycle, which is also not a first. The Soviet RD-270. This was a Full flow staged combustion engine built and fired in 1969. The Morpheus HD5 was a methane/oxygen rocket engine used in 2014.
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!
2 questions for you SpaceX rah rah; why call it "Raptor?" and you didn't say anything about why 33 engines on the stage 1 booster. Anything to do with probability of the closed pump system staying exactly in tune to continue maxing thrust? Do you know the reliability of these? CH4 is 22.5 MJ/l and the once thought best LH2 is 8.5MJ/l But at 300 bar I don't see other applications for it like ICEs
I feel really bad about the feedback (including mine) on the last video about thinking that guy’s voice was AI
All good!
What is the Isp of Raptor engine ,pl.enligheten us about the same.The thumb rule for throat should be 1/3 of exit diameter.
Well constructed video ❤
Thank you
I still dont understand how raptors light the engines while in space or when the booster is trying to land.. why is stage 0 spin prime needed for launch but no other steps??
Good point. For this they use compressed gas from COPV tanks to spin up the turbo pumps - same as with Falcon 9 Merlin engines.
Thank you! I read that somewhere before but I forgot and couldn't find it again.. keep up the stellar work!
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.
Nice analysis
One think I was left confused is how does SpaceX restart a Raptor in flight?
For example when Starship did 10 km belly flip and landing, or for reentry from orbit. The comment regarding ground support and stage-zero at 10:15 seems to be overlooking something.
The outer 20 Raptor engines on Super Heavy booster are started using the launch mount. The inner 13 Raptor engines on the Super Heavy booster and the 6 Raptor engines on the Starship upper stage are started using high pressure gas stored in high-pressure tanks. You spin up the turbines using this stored gas, and then you ignite the preburners which then take over.
This means that the outer 20 engines on the Super Heavy booster can't be restarted in flight.
@@SpaceAdvocate Thank you for the added clarity. This really helps to understand some things observed.
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.
This was a great video. Informative and quick without fluff. I prefer higher density information. Still gained value for my time.
Thank you for the information and keep it up!
7:16 why is a diagram of naphthalene labeled "kerosene"?
The fact that anyone can hate this man is astounding.
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
It was later, but you didn't notice the 30 milliseconds.
@@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 kero-lox hardstart before actually hardstarting a kero-lox engine like me. haha
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?
Only the outer 20 engines started by stage zero. The rest uses on board high pressure helium to start.
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.
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.
SpaceX has really pushed the boundaries of rocket technology! Their work with reusable engines and innovations like the Raptor engine's full-flow staged combustion cycle are game-changers for space exploration.
You got your voice back
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.
Respect for Elon just went even higher
I respect the engineers that work for him. Elon is just a super rich guy with big goals.
@@ROVA00 What would they be doing without him? A better garage opener?
@@vincentwilliams363 oh, how simple your mind must be to honestly suggest that Space X engineers would have no other option besides making “garage openers” if it wasn’t for Elon Musk…
@@ROVA00 You got me!
9:31 Raptor is NOT the only engine with dual turbines. In fact it's not even the only full flow staged combustion engine either. The first full flow staged combustion engine was the soviet RD-270 rocket engine. It was fully developed and test fired. The only problem was that rocket it was supposed to lift got canceled.
And even the famous space shuttle main engine RS-25, while not a full flow combustion cycle, it still used dual preburners and turbines to match the different speed of pumps needed for the two propellants.
Cheilis chaina ford electric trok
Who knew investing a lot of money into R&D would benefit a company...
If stage 0 spins the turbines up to start the engine, how is the engine restarted for descent & landing?
I don't think your explanation is correct. The pre-burners drives the turbo-pumps by cumbusting some fuel, yes, and the exhaust of the pre-burners is gas that enters the main chamber somewhere... But most of the fuel is still being pumped around the nozzle bell and into the main combustion chamber as liquids, not as a gas. The pre-burners will not be sending their exhausts through the same system as the main burner, the fuel rich likely going closer to the combustion chamber walls, and the oxygen rich more centered.
You're correct. Then we would have had to also explain the cooling system for the nozzle and the fuel injection system and the video is already on the long side for us. We like to think it's more about the concept than the actual technical details. It's always a tough call, but we'll sometimes sacrifice a bit of accuracy in favour of accessibility.
Wow, we’ve come a long way from the humble beginnings of the black powder rockets of the ancient Chinese. Great video. Just enough technical information to tell the story without becoming “bogged down” in technical data. Keep up the good work!
This is one of the best explanations of the starship engine design process. Elon Musk reminds of Thomas Edison and Peter Weyland (the industrial fictionsn entrepreneur in the Alien and Promethius Movies). He is a genius. That said all men have their faults. That said the Cyber Truck is one if the stupidest vehicles on the road. I'm still trying to like it.
Note: he used several designs which are not his.
He isn't a genius, nor is he a good guy. Please do some research into this pathalogical liar.
I marvel at all of this, and have deep respect for the skill it takes to envision and create it. I also lament my own limitations when I see something this brilliant.
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.
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.
So how is the Raptor going to re-start on the moon or mars?
the re-start mechanism is far to complicated. for regular missions to space
and back.
Next week: how Americans reinvented the ball and created a game played using the hands and named it "football"!
america lives rent free in your head its crazy
4:00 but based on what you just said, we should want the biggest nozzle possible even if that causes separation from the walls
Hey SpaceX: kerosene is NOT the same as naphthalene, which is what you show at t~7:20 on the left. Perhaps you need a chemist on the team?
Where do they get the oxygen? Do they use water and split the hydrogen and oxygen? I was curious.
I hope that Space X creates rotating detonation engine
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?
It’s external on most of the engines on the lower stage, simply to save mass. Others can start up away from the pad.
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.
OK so if the fuel turbines are started by equipment integrated into the launch mount, I presume you could not reignite the Raptor engines on Mars. Does anyone know what the plan is for the return trip, or will they revert to Merlin designs?
easily the best explanation i have seen.
Is this a repost? I feel like I listed to an identical video a few weeks ago...
Yes I also saw this exact video some weeks ago. Must be a reupload
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
Cry me a river.
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.
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing
We feel the same way as we did when the Wright brothers created the first air plane. Difference now is that we know the impossible can be done when we try hard enough.
Most people in the industry laughed when Musk/Spacex said they will be landing rockets. Today 241 successful landings in a row and about 300 overall. So "it's impossible", mindset still stands today.
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.
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.
@@SpaceAdvocate Well, I do hope that those failed relights have nothing to do with the engine itself...
“Dozens” lol
@@qwerty112311 Elaborate that ridiculous "lol", please. It would need "only" about eight tanker launchers _if_ their payload was 120-150t instead of the current ~40t, _and_ it they could be launched almost simultaneously, so that propellant boil off would be negligible.
@@bazoo513EagerSpace has calculated this, refueling and boil-off are relatively minor issues.