Craziest Rocket Concepts!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- I like the one that was big
discord: / discord
patreon: / piolet1549
merch: www.pioletshop.com/
Sea Dragon Mod: spacedock.info/mod/440/Real%2...
Convair Nexus Mod: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...
Sklyon Mod:
forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...
Orion Drive Mod: forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/...
Hazegrayart video on Orion: • Project Super Orion Nu...
Hazegrayart video on Convair Nexus: • Convair Nexus Reusable...
Hazegrayart video on Sea Dragon: • Sea Dragon Rocket: Wor...
Hazegrayart video on Skylon: • Skylon Spaceplane: Uni...
thanks to the patrons and channel members!
members:
How2BeHamsterP
Space For Everyone
Kranet
Alexandru Ciobanu
Eduardo Ferrer
Mr. Nebuuu
TheChin Long
Games Only
Storm
Tanner J. Carrigan
DKJohnson96
Pika Spin
Artificial Launch
Dawid
Hagensky
Space Dweller
CGN-Space
Tristian Speirs
Spot The Dog
OnlyJustTom
Daniel Snider
Snow Doggo
green kerbal
/LeHuH
Spaceypoopnoob
IsakTheSwede
Starship
DAVID EL DIOS DE LOS PANQUEQUES
deere crafter
MoMadenU
Would die for chomasuke
The Light
Monke musk
Bucket Mann
Lol
Jorge Flores
Matte
Robbie
Spaceflight Industries
PalowPower
patreon:
Turt3zyKSP
Riescool007
Star Gazer
I love piolet
ZWalker21
NorkleTheZee
Ian Parmley
The LightFN
MLGPure
Ethan - Ігри
The guy that designed the Merlin engine for spacex actually said sea dragon was possible (with the right type of injector face
Possible in theory only, such a big rocket would be impractical, and expensive in materials, not to mention the shockwave it would create would render its launch facility single use
@@jesusramirezromo2037 it doesn’t have a launch facility....do you even know anything about the sea dragon?
@@JSOC.1 Its in theory sealaunched i know, but you still need to hoist it up
Not to mention it will kill ALOT of marine life every time you launch, and the water won't dissipate all of the shockwaves
@@jesusramirezromo2037 you don't hoist it up, it is designed to be built in shipyards of the coast of Florida, they would assemble it horizontally and it will have ballast tanks before launch to turn it vertical, and the marine life, who cares about marine life in the 1960s, and the shockwaves, it will dissipate most of it, you won't even feel the shockwaves, mainly because the rocket would be several kilometers away.
and Hippie, yeah it would have worked, the nozzle would have been so big that the combustion instability would not be powerful enough to kill it, considering it uses pintle injectors
The concept of the Sea Dragon was that rockets were getting smaller and more expensive, so theoretically, making it bigger should make it cheaper
Smaller and more complex. The idea was for a big dumb rocket that you can launch large payloads from with less money than a lot of launches from something like a Saturn V.
@@notaulgoodman9732 exactly
the thing is that the British SSTO is possible, and there is even solid ways to do it, it is more having the fuel there to begin with and keeping it cool until its time to begin the near vacuum burn.
“Its risky Ed, that’s not just another payload that things carrying plutonium”
The Convair Nexus didn’t use the fins for aerodynamic control, it used the side engines on the bottom for differential throttling. Fins are only aerobrakes.
Edit: for anyone who wants to try differential throttling in ksp, use TCA mod (throttle control avionics), it is basically SAS but better because it controls the throttle of the engines to help with attitude control and manoeuvres. Don’t mess with action groups unless you’re one of those elitist stock only guys.
fun fact: the rapier engine in the stock game is based on the sabre
the sea dragon is a very viable idea
skylon mod: i recomend
convair mod: highly recomend
sea dragon: very very highly recomend
4:23 I recognized tat right away lmao
He returns!!!!
The nova rocket was actually a huge aero spike ish engine that was very truncated
Love this kind of videos!
As for the the plans for "reusability" in the 1960s: certainly there was naivete about the difficulty of atmospheric reentry. However, there is something to be said for the scale of the vehicles proposed back then - and therefore for better volume/mass ratios which may have enabled gentler reentry profiles, and better mass margins for heat shielding; more heat-resistant (but heavier) construction materials such as stainless steel; etc.
Notice how many of these concepts involved ocean recovery of vehicle stages. Not as crazy as it seems: tests were conducted on Saturn H-1 and F-1 engines after they were exposed to seawater, and then flushed with fresh water: they were successfully re-ignited repeatedly.
also the nexus actually was to use boosters and its sheer size to slow down for landing, not parachutes.
The Nexus mod wasn't accurate, in that it had a single huge engine underneath it. They designed later versions of it to flip over and self-land back in its own servicing and launch stand, so not upside-down in the water. It was SSTO, not a sub-orbital booster.
Basic examination of the Sea Dragon made a lot of sense. Going large is simple: The cost of a rocket is not in the amount of fuel or simple materials used, but in complexity. Regardless of size, cost is driven by parts count, design margins, and innovation. A large rocket can easily be cheaper than a smaller, more complex rocket.
It avoided complexity, not even being crewed for launch or even being reusable, either of which strongly drive up complexity and cost. Never mix crew with cargo, as the design requirements are worlds apart: For crew you want something small enough to have escape rockets to take it away from a failing booster 8 G for 1.5 seconds, and assure crew survival from zero altitude / zero airspeed up to hypersonic sub-orbital. For cargo, make it big and simple, and insure it.
Structure is steel, built in a shipyard. Towed out to sea and then fueled: apart from servicing ships, no other ground support or launch infrastructure needed.
The iffy part was the single huge pressure-fed first stage engine, and Robert Truax showed that it's plausible while he was head designer at Aerojet.
Orion is entirely plausible. Not depicted accurately in that KSP mod. A Saturn-5 booster carried it 50 miles up sub-orbital, where the pulse engine fired.
IDK where anybody got the idea that it did 70 Gs. Crewed versions did 3G.
They designed sectional versions of it which went up on Saturn-5 boosters and assembled in orbit. It fired every 20 seconds.
It wasn't just using atomic explosions: It used the nuke to vaporize a propellant which was shot at the pusher plate at the aft end of the ship to push it.
Atomic engineers / bomb designers who worked on it said that there are any number of ways to channel the prompt energies to get the reaction you want from the propellant hitting the ship. Momentum transfer stretched out over enough time for structures of common steel to withstand it and dampen the thrust for crews, yet delivered quickly enough so that temperatures don't have enough time to affect the ship.
A 560 ton ship is assembled. A cargo ship might take an 8 month Hohmann transfer to Mars, but some 86% of what is assembled is payload into Mars orbit. A crewed ship leaves when the 2 planets are physically closest, literally jumping across at cometary speeds, 21 days into Mars orbit (including starting & stopping, while other projections of wonder drives making fast transfers to Mars take the maximum theoretical top speed and extrapolate that between the two planets, ignoring time to start and stop, and ignoring having anything left to decelerate).
The hardest technical challenges involve tossing a 3/4 ton keg aft at a few hundred meters per second every 20 seconds, and spraying a grease mist across the pusher plate in between pulses.
Numbers from General Atomics, NASA, the USAF, the White House OMB and the DoE all agreed that the cost of either the engine or of the hundreds of
Skylon is possible in fact the materials engineering for the airframe is actually easier than the X33/ Venture Star in that it doesn't need composite hydrogen tanks.
The most difficult part is the heat exchanger for the air precoooler which has passed sub scale testing.
They just need funding and they probably could build it.
Wow, these are crazy
One. The bottom stage of the Convair nexas didn't land with parachutes. Two the Convair nexas use the air brakes ONLY for reentry control of the bottom stage.
"Babe wake up piolet posted a new video"
4:41 Saturn V 2.O
Piolet: Granted, the Skylon project is a high-risk, high-pay-off technology program. However, it's not "magic". The potential performance of the Skylon is based on the pre-cooler heat exchangers of the SABRE engines, which are designed to liquefy oxygen from the atmosphere during ascent, to be used once the vehicle is in space and switches to rocket mode.
The technology has actually been successfully tested: on 25 March 2019 an F-4 GE J79 turbojet exhaust was mixed with ambient air to replicate Mach 3.3 inlet conditions, successfully quenching a 420 °C (788 °F) stream of gases to 100 °C (212 °F) in less than 1/20 of a second. Further tests simulating Mach 5, with temperature reduction from 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) were successfully completed by October 2019.
In April 2015, the SABRE engine concept passed a theoretical feasibility review conducted by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. The laboratory was to reveal two-stage-to-orbit SABRE concepts shortly afterwards, as they considered that a single-stage-to-orbit Skylon space plane is "technically very risky as a first application of the SABRE engine."
The Skylon project has received funding from the UK government, ESA, and DARPA, and British company BAE Systems has bought a 20% stake in the company - though it remains to be seen whether such funding will be sufficient in today's economically-strapped times.
I'd say test a sabre engine on a sounding rocket
See if it could Make it at least to the Karman line
@@seantaggart7382 where is ur common sense
@@nastykerb34 here
Neat rockets!
Welcome back Piolet! (I know I was late by a few days)
Could have mentioned the HL-20 and HL-42, as far more approachable and likely spaceplanes, if VTOHL rocket launched.
Has the saber engine even worked at a static brcnh version?
I like the videos where you talk
Your skylon looks cool
The saber engines are kind of like rapiers honestly
the rapier is based on the saber
He's not dead yet!
there is no reason any of these concepts would not work
what visual mods are you using?
1:57 Rip surface velocity
fact : the SABRE is actually a big RAPIER
what mod on orion drive
So this channel is still alive.
yes huge rocket
Pog
I like his accent a lot
Don’t you dare talk smack about the Sea Dragon
you mean europe?
that orion engine, right there does not even remotely resemble the real life concepts. the shielding would need to be much much bigger, and also bombs would only be dropped every 3 seconds not 3 per second. the maximum acceleration would be closer to 1g instead of 70g. it is not a type of engine that would be used in earth orbit or to get to it. it is a type of engine, that would be used for interstellar vehicles, capable of carrying thousands or millions of people, as well as houses, agriculture, beaches and maybe even mountains (small ones, like 100-300m high, and also not solid, but made from bend metal mostly (like shaping the centrifuge so it would look like a mountain/hill) to provide variations in the lifes of those needing to life a whole lifetime in those ships. you would need to pack 3 times as much nuclear bombs in mass as the ships mass is. to get to 5% of c and then be able to brake again. so if the ships dry mass was X-tonnes, with nuclear bombs it would have a mass of 4X-tonnes.
Humans will not build such thing around earth if it is not doomed by a cosmic disaster that would destroy earth. on the other hand, if we would consider building it it will not happen until we have reached a substantial population around the outer planets (gas giants) there would not happen the kind of disaster that the engine would cause if it were used in earth orbit. colonies could be build to withstand that engine.
I thought it wasn't right, but I last read about it 30 years ago so I wasn't sure. Thanks for the fact-check.
Yesterday was my birthday 🎁🎉🎂
finally u are back i swear make 2 vids a day becasue of the long wait for a F***ING VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude
Why shouldn’t we use Orion drives?
Because what if it fails and all the nukes inside detonate
The 100G+ of acceleration would probably make it impractical
@@tsakeboya who says it needs to have 100g’s of acceleration? Smaller nukes and/or a bigger payload would solve that problem
@@connordaley1154 well yeah but that would also limit it's use cases so much it wouldn't make financial sense
Cause you would cause worldwide EMPs?
the Orion drive was only ever theoretical due to the fact that every time it was used you would EMP the earth, and it would likely not have had the thrust seen. keep in mind these all are mods that are created by people that might not factcheck, so before you go saing something is stupid, check the source material. it isnt hard to find since most 60-70's documents are now released to the public. the only one you may have a problem with is the British SSTO
EMP is only ever known from very large bursts at high altitude, Orion used less than .5kt. If needed it could only be fired above the Van Allen belts,
NONE OF THE MODS HER ARE FOR 1.12.x
5th!!!
like most trek fan you are pessimistic to the point of unrealistic
first
Who asked?
@@brycedarnell7395 your sister
VICT-[Redacted]
WHY DID YOU ASSKKK??!!?
*grrrr*