Thank you for watching! If you wish to support the development of many more BPM-25 engines, you can become a supporter and fly your name to space over at www.copsub.com/support-us 🚀
I am a supporter. Make rockets for cheap missiles that Ukraine can use to destroy russian military assets. It is something that space nerds like myself would pay for. Do it. The manufacturing experience and income will greatly benefit space endevours in the end. Just do it.
What chamber pressure are you expecting to achieve here? I'm having difficulty believing you are going to get exhaust velocities that will achieve much delta V without turbopumps and staged combustion. If you are running a pressurised tank scenario. Perhaps you should consider supercritical hot water rather than trying to burn fuel.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals hells bells! Are you sure? That seems like it would be difficult to get a supersonic exhaust stream out of. You seem smart enough to understand that things like the Saturn V claiming that they got similar delta V from the same fuel being burnt at 50 bar, as everyone else gets from 250 bar or more is a load of bunk. They had to buy a bulk lot of soviet RS25s in the mid seventies for their shuttle program and pull som out of mothballs for their Artimus stunt. No need to hold yourselves back for the sake of Yank egos. Have you considered firing an MgO ceramic pressure chamber and exhaust cone and winding it with tensioned fibre? 2800C heat resistance and its easy to mold in a fired out lost plastic mesh as a cooling and fuel feeder liner. Metals are so primative. Disposible profit driven rubbish. You have to use more advanced stone age stuff if you want to really get some oomph. Even Magnesium oxide, or Aluminium oxide - KH2PO4 chemically bonded ceramic with Carbon fibre reinforcement, thoroughly outperforms any metals or high performance carbon plastic stuff. Jeez, you can put some biochar in a blender with a bit of milk protein, and get graphene nanofibres to mix in to your plaster if you want some real good playdough. 🤗
Hello I am currently in my second year of aerospace engineering and I wanted to know if I would be able to work with CS to design some hardware for my final year coming up next September? 2024
This is a good decision! High ambitions are fine, but choosing a path that involves a better match to your capabilities will make things happen more readily. I am _so_ looking forward to see the BPM25s test fired and ultimately fly 😃
Thank you! We're looking forward to it as well and working hard both on welding the engine and equipping the test stand with all the plumbing. It will be exciting!
absolutely as a machinist i cringe at the spindle just flopping around i have literally been inspired by you and scot manly to make a rocket engine myself but used better machines than you i hope you get better machines not much i can do to help
@@MattOGormanSmith Beat me to it. It looks like they have a manual lathe but I suspect that they're severely limited by their budget since their CNC mill is about 30yrs old.
Amazing video as usual. One more pro for the 25 is that if you had an engine failure it could be easier to escape, because if it was the center one you have the cluster, and if it was a side engine you can shutdown the opposite engine and remain in control. Thank you CS for the amazing work and knowledge! Can't wait for that baby to flyyyyyy.
Depends whether we go for a single valve setup, or not. :) If you look back at Firefly's first launch attempt when they lost one of their four engines, they didn't even need to shut down the opposite engine in the cluster, and all of them run on a single-axis gimbal.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals True yes! A single valve setup is simpler but the hardware would be bigger and harder to get or manufacture and integrate i imagine? Multyvalve system would also allow more people to work on the same part simultaniously which would generate more feedback reducing cost and timing and improving quality. Plus having more skilled engineers and techniciens :)
Absolutely, it's curious that he is so set on the idea that multiple engines ADD complexity and failure modes. Sort of missing the forest for the trees, as a well-designed multi-engine system (especially going from 1 to 5 engines) should DECREASE the overall risk of a launch, increase engine reliability (more hardware, more production, more testing), and maybe even give Spica engine-out capabilities.
Do you have experience building small ish rocket engines and rockets? Theres just so many things that going from one to multiple engines makes necessary. Things like, how do you ignite them at the same time? You probably need a hold down now that holds down the rocket until all engines are running. You need to make sure that the Feedsystem works, which gets really hard when you need to control four engines. With TVC you need to make sure your engines are all moving in the right direction at the same time, otherwise they hit each other and break. And there's so much more
@@msjoq6158 Look at literally any professionally made rocket in the class that Spica is, and you'll see multiple smaller engines a lot more than a single massive.
I'm super interested in your multi engine control systems. It's going to be a very interesting series of videos you'll no doubt make as it's still something of a magic box for me!
A main point to consider too is that the more a part is moved and the greater the stresses upon those parts, the greater chance of failure. One engine attempting to steer and control the roll is going to experience much more stress than say two or three smaller engines as the smaller engined can make the minute adjustments and thus avoid greater stresses where as one engine will have to make a multitude of adjustments to compensate for it's inability to make the minute adjustments so there can be accidental over correction and the resulting of other corrections to be made to the first correction and it results in the larger engine with all of that thrust power spending a lot of energy in constant corrections that result in parts wear and tear and thus eventual total breakdown.
Roll control is not possible with a single thruster, regardless of its gimbal capabilities. With a single thruster some other means for roll control would have to be implemented.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals Can't say I'm surprised :) The original one was a mid to end 80ties system designed around a 16MHz 80386 :P You could almost do better with an Arduino today.
I am curious why you are milling parts with rotational symmetry? It feels like a CNC lathe would be idea for making most of the parts shown. Anyway, I am really pleased to see LinuxCNC as part of this project.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals For the type of work that you are doing I think that a vertical spindle lathe might be appropriate. Lathes are generally fairly easy to convert to CNC, in my experience. There are some fairly cheap (well, if €25,000 is cheap) lathes intended for alloy wheels on eBay, but I suspect that they are rather limited in power (and height) for your work.
I keep forgetting that there exists modern rockets in-between massive model rockets where it's super impressive they could make it to space at all, and regular orbital rockets.
Most likely no. We tested one ten years ago, and it didn’t go too well. Our current analysis concludes that the complexity, mass and risk by unplanned failure it adds to our system outweighs the problems it could solve. But we haven’t ruled it out completely yet.
Have you ever tried to buy a rocket engine? I myself lack a reason but I think it should be possible. So many rocket companies went bankcrupt, have upgraded to newer engines etc. but their engines worked. I know it would spoil a lot of fun but I think it could be worth it.
Most of the ideas before our reconstruction in 2014 have been abandoned, though we have learned a lot from them. Just to mention one case: The "Astronaut" ("Rescue Randy" - a crash test dummy) was "killed" in three different ways during the launch of Tycho Deep Space 1: Unconscious due to extreme rise in G-forces during launch his organs was shaken too hard for comfort (read: lethal), due to extreme thrust fluctuations from the hybrid engine. Then he broke his back, hitting the surface at 150 miles/hour - which ripped of the acrylic dome resulting in a water flooded capsule and a drowning "astronaut" strapped to the seat with no ability to escape ...
The answer is the higher thrust to weight ratio the better. If it is big or small, but has equally thrust to weight ratio, they are both good. Neither is better than the other.
Engineering is all about making the best thing you can, with the materials and tools that you have. Any fool can build a saturn V if he's got the industrial might of half a continent, and a limitless budget.
Center engine with two axis TVC. I was like: "Ah, three gridfins and one in-flight restart away from The Reuse", but it's not like that at all. -At all ; )
Guess they had an 'space x' moment: Why the hell don't we put 5 engines in the new rocket, we know how to build that one, just multiply by 5. Job done.
Aviation solve this question - more engines then higher probability that one if them will goes wrong. That's why big planes now have 2 big engines and not 4 "small". From another point big engine more complicated to produce.
It gains an extra direction of freedom. (roll) Moving a whole multi engine assembly would have its own engineering issues, but totally doable. They would just need to do something else to handle roll, such as cold jets.
I'd argue to go even smaller. make these things cheap and fast to produce, so you have a constant stream of engines going through tests and checkouts. give yourself plenty of redundancy on the rocket, if 1or 2 engines fail for any reason it matters much less the lower that fraction is of the overall engine count.
For a start you'll have to be living in the Copenhagen area. Like working or studying in Denmark, which has a lot of benefits. Tell us more about yourself.
every rocket of the planet every two years -as in space as highways, make low mars orbit an earthsent pinata (the surrection of mars should give humanity infinite economy )
Definitely go with a smaller engine. Makes your startup and control slightly more complicated, but significantly reduces hardware complexity. Theres a reason SpaceX uses small engines. Work on setting up some degree of an "assembly line". I would have pushed for flight with your small initial test engines. Theres no reason those couldn't have pushed a human sized rocket to space.
Although I don't consider neither the Merlin nor the Raptor engines small I understand your view. A cluster of 20xBPM5 might have done the job despite "a plumbers night mare". An important consideration though is the ignition procedure. We have learned a lot from the Soyuz rocket ignition system with 32 engines being ignited with the same technology we are using. Igniting many engines complicates the control and safety procedures concerning proper ignition. A pyrophoric ignition system like the one used on the Merlin engines is beyond the safety limits within our organization.
@@jorgenskyt How many engines on Superheavy? 33? Rocket lab even has like 5 on the lower stage right? Seems like if you design flow control and ignition into each engine (like fully integrated) then plumbing considerations drop drastically. Would also have all your sensors integrated into watch engine. I agree that there is a probably a sweet spot between too many and too few engines though. It's easier to manufacture smallish things though. Have you considered adding a boost pump to the engines? Add yourself like a bar or two over tank pressure. Run a centrifugal pump off of a brushless DC motor. Could literally use a well tested hobby motor (especially if the engines are small). Cool the motor which your cryogenics. Centrifugal pumps are easy to design and manufacture on a 5 axis. Adding this pump would increase ISP which would be nice, but would more importantly act as a flow control valve. Though its going to add significant battery mass. Add you probably want to balance the rotor, though may be able to get away with not doing that. Let me know if you guys need any designing help, I'm one of the fastest on earth ;)
If you understand the laws of probability, you will understand that 30 engines instead of 5 is a recipe for disaster. There were 1 million parts in a saturn 5. Law of probability suggest you have 3 launches before you start pushing your luck. America got away with it. But musk wont. 33 engines is ridiculous.
Would you consider calculating, designing and building a turbopump or is this far to complicated at this stage? I mean, the Maho gives you the ability to produce an impeller...
Denmark is a very small and slightly underdeveloped country with a limited number of factories offering high quality milling/lathing capabilities. Therefore swirl injectors need help from manufacturing companies in other countries. Due to considerations regarding "dual use" (like ITAR) we cannot export detailed injector drawings without governmental permission. Impinging shower head injectors can be made in our own workshop.
Spica is a lot of things - ambitious, exciting, a truer step forward in “access to space” than anything those startups are making. But while I’m sure you guys are working to make it as safe as it can be, just cause of mass limitations I can’t imagine the thing being safe enough to ride by anyone but a daredevil.
Maybe that's why we are still watching each and every Falcon-9 launch, even though everything seems to go perfect? We KNOW by heart there is always the risk of some unknown flaw passing undetected before launch ...
Thank you for watching! If you wish to support the development of many more BPM-25 engines, you can become a supporter and fly your name to space over at www.copsub.com/support-us 🚀
I am a supporter. Make rockets for cheap missiles that Ukraine can use to destroy russian military assets. It is something that space nerds like myself would pay for. Do it. The manufacturing experience and income will greatly benefit space endevours in the end.
Just do it.
What chamber pressure are you expecting to achieve here?
I'm having difficulty believing you are going to get exhaust velocities that will achieve much delta V without turbopumps and staged combustion.
If you are running a pressurised tank scenario. Perhaps you should consider supercritical hot water rather than trying to burn fuel.
@@Maungateitei 15bar chamber pressure. We're going suborbital to an altitude of 105 km, so that's plenty Delta V.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals hells bells! Are you sure? That seems like it would be difficult to get a supersonic exhaust stream out of.
You seem smart enough to understand that things like the Saturn V claiming that they got similar delta V from the same fuel being burnt at 50 bar, as everyone else gets from 250 bar or more is a load of bunk. They had to buy a bulk lot of soviet RS25s in the mid seventies for their shuttle program and pull som out of mothballs for their Artimus stunt.
No need to hold yourselves back for the sake of Yank egos.
Have you considered firing an MgO ceramic pressure chamber and exhaust cone and winding it with tensioned fibre?
2800C heat resistance and its easy to mold in a fired out lost plastic mesh as a cooling and fuel feeder liner.
Metals are so primative. Disposible profit driven rubbish.
You have to use more advanced stone age stuff if you want to really get some oomph.
Even Magnesium oxide, or Aluminium oxide - KH2PO4 chemically bonded ceramic with Carbon fibre reinforcement, thoroughly outperforms any metals or high performance carbon plastic stuff.
Jeez, you can put some biochar in a blender with a bit of milk protein, and get graphene nanofibres to mix in to your plaster if you want some real good playdough. 🤗
Hello I am currently in my second year of aerospace engineering and I wanted to know if I would be able to work with CS to design some hardware for my final year coming up next September? 2024
This is a good decision! High ambitions are fine, but choosing a path that involves a better match to your capabilities will make things happen more readily. I am _so_ looking forward to see the BPM25s test fired and ultimately fly 😃
Thank you! We're looking forward to it as well and working hard both on welding the engine and equipping the test stand with all the plumbing. It will be exciting!
Well said.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitalscan You Help me to make a Space company
Thanks team!
Thanks for the video! Sounds like you are going back to your roots... I like that idea!!!
I hope you guys got your large CNC. I can't imagine the innovations you can make with them.
absolutely as a machinist i cringe at the spindle just flopping around
i have literally been inspired by you and scot manly to make a rocket engine myself but used better machines than you
i hope you get better machines not much i can do to help
It was a bit distressing to see that first operation (OD profiling) done on a mill, when it's a more natural fit for a lathe
@@MattOGormanSmith Beat me to it. It looks like they have a manual lathe but I suspect that they're severely limited by their budget since their CNC mill is about 30yrs old.
Amazing video as usual.
One more pro for the 25 is that if you had an engine failure it could be easier to escape, because if it was the center one you have the cluster, and if it was a side engine you can shutdown the opposite engine and remain in control.
Thank you CS for the amazing work and knowledge! Can't wait for that baby to flyyyyyy.
Depends whether we go for a single valve setup, or not. :) If you look back at Firefly's first launch attempt when they lost one of their four engines, they didn't even need to shut down the opposite engine in the cluster, and all of them run on a single-axis gimbal.
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals True yes! A single valve setup is simpler but the hardware would be bigger and harder to get or manufacture and integrate i imagine? Multyvalve system would also allow more people to work on the same part simultaniously which would generate more feedback reducing cost and timing and improving quality. Plus having more skilled engineers and techniciens :)
Progress wise the bpm25 is showing so much right now. Looking forward to more progress and its first test fire!
I see a paintball air tank . Woot. Looks like a 4500 psi and 68 or 88 ci
Thumbs up, ladies and gentlemen! Join me
Good luck team. Keep it going.
With 5 engine you can imagine redundancy, with 5 set of valve...
Maybe it's better for human flight.
Enjoy your progress
Absolutely, it's curious that he is so set on the idea that multiple engines ADD complexity and failure modes. Sort of missing the forest for the trees, as a well-designed multi-engine system (especially going from 1 to 5 engines) should DECREASE the overall risk of a launch, increase engine reliability (more hardware, more production, more testing), and maybe even give Spica engine-out capabilities.
Do you have experience building small ish rocket engines and rockets? Theres just so many things that going from one to multiple engines makes necessary. Things like, how do you ignite them at the same time? You probably need a hold down now that holds down the rocket until all engines are running. You need to make sure that the Feedsystem works, which gets really hard when you need to control four engines. With TVC you need to make sure your engines are all moving in the right direction at the same time, otherwise they hit each other and break. And there's so much more
@@msjoq6158 Look at literally any professionally made rocket in the class that Spica is, and you'll see multiple smaller engines a lot more than a single massive.
Brilliant work, guys. Wishing you every success.
Are you planning on producing a single BPM25 engined sounding rocket to flight test it before Spica?
No such plans at the moment.
I'm super interested in your multi engine control systems. It's going to be a very interesting series of videos you'll no doubt make as it's still something of a magic box for me!
A main point to consider too is that the more a part is moved and the greater the stresses upon those parts, the greater chance of failure. One engine attempting to steer and control the roll is going to experience much more stress than say two or three smaller engines as the smaller engined can make the minute adjustments and thus avoid greater stresses where as one engine will have to make a multitude of adjustments to compensate for it's inability to make the minute adjustments so there can be accidental over correction and the resulting of other corrections to be made to the first correction and it results in the larger engine with all of that thrust power spending a lot of energy in constant corrections that result in parts wear and tear and thus eventual total breakdown.
Roll control is not possible with a single thruster, regardless of its gimbal capabilities. With a single thruster some other means for roll control would have to be implemented.
Very cool concept. It makes a lot of sense
Nice to see a green Maho machine again. I used to work on the team that designed the CNC controller in those. Saw them going from green to Purple :)
Very cool! Though sorry to say we swapped the CNC controller with a home-grown one. 😁 (We have a video on it as well).
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals Can't say I'm surprised :) The original one was a mid to end 80ties system designed around a 16MHz 80386 :P You could almost do better with an Arduino today.
I am curious why you are milling parts with rotational symmetry? It feels like a CNC lathe would be idea for making most of the parts shown.
Anyway, I am really pleased to see LinuxCNC as part of this project.
You're absolutely right, it would be, but our mill is not CNC'd (yet).
@@CopenhagenSuborbitals For the type of work that you are doing I think that a vertical spindle lathe might be appropriate. Lathes are generally fairly easy to convert to CNC, in my experience. There are some fairly cheap (well, if €25,000 is cheap) lathes intended for alloy wheels on eBay, but I suspect that they are rather limited in power (and height) for your work.
@@andypughtube We have plans to convert our current lathe to CNC, because 25,000 euros is definitely outside of our crowdfunded budget. :)
Have you considered the WAM process to build the nozzle? Being aditive, no need to waste enormous stock in machining.
Every manufacturing process has its benefits and drawbacks. Our choices are based on budget and our machining capabilities.
I keep forgetting that there exists modern rockets in-between massive model rockets where it's super impressive they could make it to space at all, and regular orbital rockets.
will you have a launch escape system🚀
Most likely no.
We tested one ten years ago, and it didn’t go too well. Our current analysis concludes that the complexity, mass and risk by unplanned failure it adds to our system outweighs the problems it could solve. But we haven’t ruled it out completely yet.
Have you ever tried to buy a rocket engine? I myself lack a reason but I think it should be possible. So many rocket companies went bankcrupt, have upgraded to newer engines etc. but their engines worked. I know it would spoil a lot of fun but I think it could be worth it.
What ever happened to the tycho deep space 1 and 2 capsules? Is that idea abandoned?
Most of the ideas before our reconstruction in 2014 have been abandoned, though we have learned a lot from them. Just to mention one case:
The "Astronaut" ("Rescue Randy" - a crash test dummy) was "killed" in three different ways during the launch of Tycho Deep Space 1: Unconscious due to extreme rise in G-forces during launch his organs was shaken too hard for comfort (read: lethal), due to extreme thrust fluctuations from the hybrid engine. Then he broke his back, hitting the surface at 150 miles/hour - which ripped of the acrylic dome resulting in a water flooded capsule and a drowning "astronaut" strapped to the seat with no ability to escape ...
Speaking of hybrid engines... Not that you're making that move, but would the change to smaller engines help with that thrust instability problem?
I just don't know how much time I have before everyone has to sleep again and I am the woman doing all the work.
The answer is the higher thrust to weight ratio the better. If it is big or small, but has equally thrust to weight ratio, they are both good. Neither is better than the other.
I would have expected cooling to also be a consideration. After all, a smaller chamber has a worse ratio of volume to surface area.
what are the (expected) cost of production of the BPM25?
Love the stuff! How do you guys begin the early stages of rocket engine design?
That's a short question with an almost lifelong answer 🙂
Engineering is all about making the best thing you can, with the materials and tools that you have. Any fool can build a saturn V if he's got the industrial might of half a continent, and a limitless budget.
You're cool!
Fun fact: the F-1 engine have a baffle
Dumb question, is Forging not an option or more expensive?
The funny thing about this is I ended coming to similar conclusion for my rocketry project
Center engine with two axis TVC. I was like: "Ah, three gridfins and one in-flight restart away from The Reuse", but it's not like that at all. -At all ; )
why not use your already build and tested smaller rocket as stand alone booster to reduce cluster size for main rocket?
Dont be shy ask Elon for small donation.
Guess they had an 'space x' moment: Why the hell don't we put 5 engines in the new rocket, we know how to build that one, just multiply by 5. Job done.
Aviation solve this question - more engines then higher probability that one if them will goes wrong. That's why big planes now have 2 big engines and not 4 "small".
From another point big engine more complicated to produce.
Why can't we turn the whole frame with rocket engines? Why is it necessary to turn each rocket engine separately?
It gains an extra direction of freedom. (roll) Moving a whole multi engine assembly would have its own engineering issues, but totally doable. They would just need to do something else to handle roll, such as cold jets.
those little things could be fit on a relatively small cnc lathe and get banged out like bananas from a farm.
That's the plan once we convert our manual lathe to CNC.
Won't cold gas thrusters be needed after MECO ?
Cold gas thrusters will be needed after MECO.
is this open source?
what about roll with failure states
I'd argue to go even smaller. make these things cheap and fast to produce, so you have a constant stream of engines going through tests and checkouts. give yourself plenty of redundancy on the rocket, if 1or 2 engines fail for any reason it matters much less the lower that fraction is of the overall engine count.
I'd rather translate too, that is why I'm here.
Can I have an apprenticeship with you?
For a start you'll have to be living in the Copenhagen area. Like working or studying in Denmark, which has a lot of benefits. Tell us more about yourself.
I will sacrifice my whole Facebook account for this opportunity. but ideally, I'd learn something.
every mars garage will have orbital rockets
(to master a solar system as identity is a talent to explore )
every rocket of the planet every two years -as in space as highways, make low mars orbit an earthsent pinata
(the surrection of mars should give humanity infinite economy )
Definitely go with a smaller engine. Makes your startup and control slightly more complicated, but significantly reduces hardware complexity. Theres a reason SpaceX uses small engines. Work on setting up some degree of an "assembly line". I would have pushed for flight with your small initial test engines. Theres no reason those couldn't have pushed a human sized rocket to space.
Although I don't consider neither the Merlin nor the Raptor engines small I understand your view. A cluster of 20xBPM5 might have done the job despite "a plumbers night mare". An important consideration though is the ignition procedure. We have learned a lot from the Soyuz rocket ignition system with 32 engines being ignited with the same technology we are using. Igniting many engines complicates the control and safety procedures concerning proper ignition. A pyrophoric ignition system like the one used on the Merlin engines is beyond the safety limits within our organization.
@@jorgenskyt How many engines on Superheavy? 33? Rocket lab even has like 5 on the lower stage right? Seems like if you design flow control and ignition into each engine (like fully integrated) then plumbing considerations drop drastically. Would also have all your sensors integrated into watch engine. I agree that there is a probably a sweet spot between too many and too few engines though. It's easier to manufacture smallish things though.
Have you considered adding a boost pump to the engines? Add yourself like a bar or two over tank pressure. Run a centrifugal pump off of a brushless DC motor. Could literally use a well tested hobby motor (especially if the engines are small). Cool the motor which your cryogenics. Centrifugal pumps are easy to design and manufacture on a 5 axis. Adding this pump would increase ISP which would be nice, but would more importantly act as a flow control valve. Though its going to add significant battery mass. Add you probably want to balance the rotor, though may be able to get away with not doing that.
Let me know if you guys need any designing help, I'm one of the fastest on earth ;)
Can I ask you a question. I want to build rockets too. No one believes I can be an engineer.
If you understand the laws of probability, you will understand that 30 engines instead of 5 is a recipe for disaster. There were 1 million parts in a saturn 5. Law of probability suggest you have 3 launches before you start pushing your luck. America got away with it. But musk wont. 33 engines is ridiculous.
If you finish this rocket, can you please invite flat earthers to fly on the rocket?
More engines more fittings where things can fail… where as bigger engines generally have instability.
Imagine these guys accidentally building an orbital class rocket
Would you consider calculating, designing and building a turbopump or is this far to complicated at this stage? I mean, the Maho gives you the ability to produce an impeller...
Music sounded like Joey b's lol
F1 Kevin Magnusen Haas sponsor???
You seem to be going with "shower Head" injectors and abandoning the swirl injectors you were working on. Why?
@@mauriciosa2632 See what? The swirl injectors were being developed and tested as shown in earlier videos.
@@mauriciosa2632 They were drilling a bunch of holes used to make a shower head injector, and testing flow. Have you seen the video?
Denmark is a very small and slightly underdeveloped country with a limited number of factories offering high quality milling/lathing capabilities. Therefore swirl injectors need help from manufacturing companies in other countries. Due to considerations regarding "dual use" (like ITAR) we cannot export detailed injector drawings without governmental permission. Impinging shower head injectors can be made in our own workshop.
Spica is a lot of things - ambitious, exciting, a truer step forward in “access to space” than anything those startups are making. But while I’m sure you guys are working to make it as safe as it can be, just cause of mass limitations I can’t imagine the thing being safe enough to ride by anyone but a daredevil.
Maybe that's why we are still watching each and every Falcon-9 launch, even though everything seems to go perfect? We KNOW by heart there is always the risk of some unknown flaw passing undetected before launch ...
Nah bigger engine is better as you can get better thrust to weight ratio
*_Appolo did it without CnC machines._*
sales pitch first meh
ie why trade craft needs to exist, in vain
Not a sales pitch, an engineering justification
@@kschleic9053 well if you have to do work, then its a sales pitch
better than space X i think
rockets are a waste of money. make a space elevator with graphene
Ok, let's do this!