SpaceX CRS-4 Launch - Fuel Slosh, internal fuel tank camera (5G to 0G)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2014
- A new and awesome internal fuel-tank camera on the latest SpaceX launch show how fuel behaves in the second stage after engine cutoff. (1:05) It's really cool!
- Наука та технологія
SLOSH CHAOS would be a great band name.
Sloshed chaos is what I experience on Saturday night drinking binges.
@@RCAvhstape LOL😁🤣! Just like an engineering party😉😁🤣.
1:09 The Stargate opens...
I like how this video is edited in some places in line with the music. Like at 1:08 Things get trippppy
That's Elon Musk for you. The Show! Otherwise you can't wring money out of the morons in the government.
The music was added by the creator of this channel and the video edited to synch. The video quality is horrible, so this would never fly as an actual "sizzle reel" for getting funding. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but this isn't an example of that in action. ;)
"see a glimpse inside the pool it's hollow..." very fitting song! And great job, cutting the video to it.
That music though. It was exciting.
I never knew fuel was carried like that. I've always assumed they had a bladder to keep the fuel from sloshing and floating. Hmm. Learned something new.
Fuel still sloshes inside a bladder. Only bladder would deform creating more "rifts" for fuel to bounce off. :-)
somewhat surprised they don't use some sort of pressurized bladders in the tank
Small tanks for use in space sometimes do have bladders to keep the propellants from floating around.
That's liquid oxygen. It's freaking cold. Finding a material that would stay flexible, not to mention stretchy at that temperature is near impossible.
Mass is everything. Every pound you save (And considering that it's 27,600 liters, or "7,291 gallons", of liquid oxygen in a tank the best part of 3.66 meters ("12 feet") across) is *more* than one extra pound to orbit. This is why rockets stage and why they use different types of engines: No sense in dragging an empty tank or an engine better suited to atmospheric flight all the way to orbit.
If you want the math, "Tsiolkovski's rocket equation":
dV = Ve * ln (M0 / M1)
where dV is your total change in velocity, AKA "Delta V". (How much you can change your speed)
Ve is your exhaust velocity (This is why hydrogen engines are used in vacuum: Cheap, better efficiency due to higher exhaust velocity)
M0 is your starting mass (Fuel, structure and payload)
and M1 is your ending mass. (structure and payload, no fuel.)
Why drag a bladder along when you can use slosh baffles and vortex dampers? Bladders have huge problems compared to a hard tank and baffles: Center of gravity shifts get magnified if you aren't "damn careful" in design and attachment of your bladder, Why put a bladder in a tank, and designing a baffle to handle -182.96 °C (or " -297.33 °F", or "Forget the balls, the brass monkey left".) is *easy*. You only have to use almost any light structural metal (Titanium, aluminum, magnesium) or cold-rated composite in thin sheets.
Good stuff. It's nice to learn something new. Thanks for sharing.
I watched *one* video about clever prevention of sloshing in trucks. One. Now I get 3 related videos every time I open youtube.
During the Apollo program the Saturn V vehicles would use "ullage" engines to settle the fuel back to the bottom during staging right before the main engine would start (on the second stage and I believe, third stage).
Marilyn Rangel COOL! I can use Wikipedia and Google too!!!!!😂😂😂😂
@@dphorgan Awesome! I can be a condescending asshole too! Pisstart!
@@dphorgan Some of us experienced just know things boy! You probably never will.
Most rockets do use some form of a thruster to help settle the fuel
perfect music choice! cheers.
Fuel sloshing was a concern for Apollo engineers as well. They used baffles on the tank inner walls to reduce sloshing
... and ullage motors to settle the fuel and oxidizer into the bottom of the tanks.
That truly amazing
Good music video.
Incredible. Created from the thought substance.
Created by NASA over 50 years ago. There is a video here on YT that shows the internal of the mighty Saturn 5 rocket. It explains fuel slosh and how NASA prevented it.
I have a similar problem in the Subaru between corners.
UA-cam algorithm recommendation is op😜
What does fuel slosh do for orientation? It seems like there would be some movement of the orientation of the rocket with mass sloshing around like that. Are there reaction control thrusters or wheels to compensate for it or something?
the fuel has the same overall momentum vector so any deviation is minimal
Damnnn that was epic with the music
Cool! So can the people on board "feel" this sloshing? Or "hear" it? Does it cause the ship to jiggle a little?
That's a lot of fuel entering that chamber. Big bada boom.
FYI, this isn't fuel. It's the oxidizer, liquid oxygen (LOX)
Great video! Nice composition and great music!
video should show what happens when the cold gas thrusters fire to push the fuel back down to the drain tube.
Is that green flash at ignition a TEB flash?
I wonder if a video of the fuel-tank being emptied in a de-orbit burn has been uploaded?
Do they keep some fuel inside a closed pressurized tank in order to give the first few seconds of acceleration during the restart just to let the fuel in the main tank feed the engine again ? That intrigues me ;-)
They use a separate motor to push it back down. It could be thrusters or a very small solid rocket booster.
Small rocket motors provide "ullage" to settle fuel back down enough to fire mains.
actually its the liquid oxygen (cerosene is not transparent blue ;))
fuel = propellant+oxidizer (propellant being kerosene, so it's still technically "fuel")
That's actually true. The poster is an idiot. Kerosene empties MUCH quicker. It goes like the bottom of the tank fell off.
Yeah and the O2 tank is above the fuel tank, so if it was fuel you would see the O2 pipe running down through the centre of the tank.
Dumbass
yourlydontknowjack p
Am I wrong to think the fuel going crazy at the end isn't slosh "chaos" but the fuel reacting to hitting zero G? I mean still would be slosh chaos I suppose LOL.
This is what ullage motors are for. To provide just enough acceleration to settle the fuel so the pumps are fed.
Why is it so out of focus?
NASA had internal cameras on the mighty Saturn 5 rocket. There is a video here on YT, without idiotic music. The NASA video had an engineer explaining fuel slosh and how NASA prevented it. NASA did all this and much more over 50 years ago.
Slosh Chaos: my guts after eating Taco Bell on beer night.
Look look similar from the expense using acceleration gravity
How do they get the fuel back to the bottom of the tank to restart?
Ullage Motors!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ullage_motor
I think they use the cold gas thrusters also used for maneuvering.
spin gravity also is used in some rockets
@@toninhosoldierhelmet4033
eh... I don't think so.
The only spin stabilized rocket stages I know are all solid fueled, which don't care about gravity at any point.
Holy Floating
Did they install anti-slosh baffles on future iterations?
P.S. Great music and editing.
You see inside of LOX tank for a split second in Falcon Heavy second flight. It looks similar. Both have some sections of the perimeter which look like baffles to my eye. Please correct me if you know better.
It does have baffles, empty space in the top. center hole, then multiple layers like that stacked the length towards the bottom. Prior to any engine restart they use thrusters to accelerate the craft forward called an ullage burn that settles the fuel in the bottom of the tank so the pumps can draw fuel for the main engine.
The vehicle performs what is know as a ullage burn e.g. A short blast from the oms. This is to settle the fuel back at the bottom before engine relight.
NASA fixed fuel slosh 50 years ago with the gigantic Saturn 5 rocket.
That thing is a heavy drinker
"Sloshing" is an engineering term ? Who knew ?
WootTootZoot
This isn't an engineering forum.
@@jshepard152 it is now.
I mean...
What else are you going to say?
So is "twang".
The music doesn’t help with my taking this in.
Won't the propellant vapors rupture the camera?
Why would they? They are vapours.
I think they use fiber optics to peer into fuel tanks
Pretty sure thats a song from EVE online right?
It was used in the Eve Never Fades trailer. The song is Beauty Never Fades by Junkie XL. The version in the trailer was a slightly remixed version.
I guess the fuel tank in my car won't be able to handle this. No Subaru in outer-space. :/
looks like old Saturn IV footage to me.
I wanted to see when the TEA-TAB went off to relighy the engine lol. Oh well
Why did they not use a screen propellant acquisition device (PAD)? Those can keep sufficient fuel for restart in the propellant channel, and then once the engine relights the rest of the propellant resettles very quickly!
The music should have been liquid drum and bass
I see why they use solid rocket fuel now
well...they dont
Solid rockets aren't necessarily better, and they're not used in orbit hardly every because their efficiency is terrible, and no on/off or dynamic throttling capabilities (they can technically throttle but only by design in how the fuel is packed. Can't throttle whenever you like, it's a fixed system.)
Solid rockets are used to be lazy or give the first stage a kick for heavier payloads, instead of using more liquid fueled rockets on a larger vehicle. It can be advantageous if using hydrogen fuel to use solid rockets on the booster stage because of its high thrust, like the shuttle did.
The only example I can think of that's almost all solid rocket is China's Long March, they do it because it easy and cheap. But SRBs are dirty and toxic as hell
@@Jaker788 yes, another example could be the Minotaur rocket, which is a converted ICBM and has to use 5 stages just to launch small satellites.
'Member Animatrix? i 'member
Thank goodness there is a mute button. Some club? SMH
Mute
Whats the name of song?
I did a quick search using some of the lyrics and it turns out it is "Beauty Never Fades" by Junkie Xl.
Darude - Sandstorm
Thanks Fremandn =)
fookin lol
It's called "Shazam."
Interesting...but why the silly music?
Just use giant pistons instead of tanks. Problem solved!
Erik Bakker or like in some airplanes or helicopters where the fuel is in a bladder. Then you could pressure up the tank applying more pressure to the bladder if need be but hell I could be wrong and that would be more weight in the end
Heavy and cuts significantly into the payload. They can just use thrusters to push it down before they re ignite
Weight is a very important consideration in rocket design.. Every additional ounce requires that much more fuel, so they try not to complicate things by adding more weight.
Dump the music,
The music ruined this video.
Best watch muted...
Take out that bad music, no music is best.
Video ok
Music 👎
Cool vid but the music is annoying
cgi gaslight
CGI? Interesting! I have absolutely no concern of giraffes with lions heads because they don't exist. Odd how your interest is so deeply vested in space and such subjects.
The wandering freeze definitely crash because fiction concurrently rejoice past a sore bite. crazy, mellow frog
Lose the music, and perhaps educate with words as things happen? I dont need to dance right now, so I also dont have music playing.
Does life come with a soundtrack?
For cryin out loud get rid of the music...please.
This ancient technology is the best we humans have every come up with for space travel; therefore, humans will never travel to other solar systems.
youchris67 then invent a better propulsion method. Science is iterative.
The math just kills any attempts. If we used current rocket technology, it would take 165,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star system at 4.5 light years away from Earth. Then what about light speed technology? You may ask. Well, we don't have it and never will because matter cannot travel at the speed of light even if we had the energy source which would have to be as big as the sun. The problem is, the faster you send an object, the more mass that it gains until its mass becomes infinite, therefore requiring an infinite amount of energy to power the spacecraft which can never be provided. Estimates are that the technology of humans could only reach about 4.5% of the speed of light and it would take a spacecraft a decade or more to build up that speed and requiring huge amounts of impossible to provide energy sources. Anyway, even if such a speed could be reached, it would still take 100 years to get there. Humans live only 70-years on average. Therefore, only corpses that died 30-years before would get to the star system. Also, once past the heliopause--the most distant reach of our solar wind into deep space, the cosmic radiation from thousands of light years away supernovae would bombard ever single cell in their bodies causing death of cells that would wipe out the crew very rapidly. Also, think about food and water. How will that be provided for such a long journey? Face it: Mars will be as far as we humans will ever go and that will be thousands of times more difficult than the moon landings.
meh. you just have multiple generations
Why should we worry about that if we haven't colonized Mars yet? A lot of advances in science and engineering must be made, while expanding our horizons. You don't start building a house by the roof.
Alberto Torres Why should someone worry about colonizing Mars (A waterless airless alien wilderness far far away) when they haven't got the climate under control (still worrying about carbon emissions and global warming) and transformed the deserts yet(located right beneath their chin at hours of drive with atmosphere and other conditions favourable and resources at hand). You don't start building a house by the roof!
Great video but awful music so I disliked
Moronic montage. Everything Musk touches turns to crap.
wtf does that mean? Every thing Musk touches turns reusable/more efficient.
On his websites and his own company's statistics, yes. In real life, it turns out more expensive, stupid and a step back. And his "inventions" explode in both those worlds. He hasn't invented a way to conceal that. Yet.
To conceal things exploding? Only two of his rockets have exploded and about 10-12 have landed and can be reused.
Ethan, you're describing a 20% failure rate. Even the "I'll only put it in halfway" contraception method has a better rating.
Only 2 rockets failed and how many have been successful? 36. 2 out of 36 is about 5%. Thats four times smaller than your estimate.