In ProjectRho, there is a colleague of Dr. Zubin, who proposed a less radioactive variant of the NSWR, the Lithium SaltWater Rocket. Could you please explain on that design?

Why not position the heat shield facing the sun? I haven’t done the math but those tiles are excellent insulators. The black surface will be hot but most of that heat will stay on the surface and not transfer to the tanks. Does the depot not have a heat shield?

Agreed. He contradicts his own ratios. This entire piece is a waste of our time and a stroke of his ego.

peak cognitive dissonance is how i describe the shuttle. worst megaproject of all time

There is no race. It's like saying who is going to dominate delivering supplies to the south pole. It's a nothing burger industry. All of these companies are competing over just a few billion dollars in private launches each year.

It would seam to me that we are closing in a on a price that would make commercial only space tourist somewhat viable. If they only want to be in space for a shorter period of time, there is really no reason to go out to ISS orbit, and then a lower orbit would be viable, hence a considerably larger crew capsule could be used. The trajectory of launch could also be cost optimized with a boaster ground landing. Of cause, we still talk about multiple millions of dollars, but then on the other hand, this is still falcon 9 numbers and not starship numbers.

I love the "life and consciousness of the crew thing". Like the spacecraft maker would be like "wut, yeah they're passed out from hypoxia, but they're not DEAD! We're compliant! They'll be fine!"

RL10 can run at different mixture ratios. When you hear "propellent utilization" called out they switch from max thrust mix ratio to best-depletion mix ratio to minimize burnout mass.

N A S A

What about the Chinese? They are already test flying a rocket with the Falcon 9's octaweb 9 engine configuration and landing legs. They have also copied the Mechazilla launch tower in 6 months and will be attempting a tower catch next year. The CZ-9 is now just like the Superheavy with both expendable and reuseable upper stages.

The main objective of the federal government is to have as many people as possible on payrole

Although this video has been nice and informative, it rather misses the mark with one important point: the question is, "why no space PLANES", not "why no SSTOs". One nice cheat offered by a space plane is that it does not need to LIFT all the mass at start. Unlike conventional rockets, it can begin with horizontal take-off acceleration. You have 2 components to the required delta V: horizontal and vertical. In conventional vertical launch rockets, any thrust insufficient to launch is wasted. In planes, however, can accumulate the horizontal delta V before adding in the horizontal once the overall mass is low enough. Another nice thing about planes is that they have wings. These have a considerable amount of surface area that can actually help to reduce reentry heating, decreasing the mass necessary for heat protection. These wings can also allow for aerodynamic reentry/landing, which decrease the required return fuel mass. Of course, actually dealing with PLANES adds a LOT of complexity that is difficult to cover, even with a much longer video. Oh, yeah, the benefits of airbreathing rockets deserve much more intensive treatment. Not to mention some of the other benefits, as well as some downsides, of aerodynamic forces in launch.

nice video thanks for your time.

Disconnecting the piping on the Vulcan Rocket to eject the Main Engines for recovery is going to be a HUGE nightmare for leaks and failures. If they try this I see a tone of delays and scrubs for every attempted recover.

SpaceX, they already have a REAL reusable first stage and now a fully reusable super heavy lift vehicle in development while any other company is still on the testing phase before trying to even recover (except blue origin with the new Shepard and now new glenn and technically ULA since they flown the Vulcan twice)

One thing Peter Beck (Rocket Lab CEO) said in an interview not long after the original announcement of Neutron is that only a third of the cost of a launch is the vehicle. The rest goes into operations. Therefore what actually matters is having a rocket that facilitates a high cadence. Neutron's design spec was for reuse within 24 hours. that makes perfect sense given that there is no recovery/refurbishment of the second stage. You just drop a new second stage (with payload attached) and away you go. The other thing rarely understood is that Neutron's design means the second stage is minimalist in cost. Most of the vehicle cost is recovered with the first stage. I think that a lot of people are so fascinated by the idea of "fully reusable" that they ignore the economics. It's going to be cheaper to have a small expendable part (second stage) if what you get in return is a lighter vehicle that doesn't spend weeks in recovery/refurbishment phase. Also there is a price in full reusability that scarcely gets mentioned. A fully reusable second stage means a second stage with both the mass of thermal protection and structural mass needed for surviving re-entry. The consequence is doubling the mass of the first stage for a given payload, since all that mass needed for the second stage to be reusable means more mass in the booster. The whole thing (yes I'm talking about Starship) becomes even more expensive as a result because (see above) operational costs.

There is a function in the grapth plot to make the grapth smooth, so the ridges from the calculation is not vissible

Does the placement of the catch point introduce an additional element to the landing difficulty? The Starship and Super Heavy booster are caught at a point above their center of mass, whereas the Falcon 9 lands with support below its center of mass, making that method inherently unstable. Doesn't this imply that for the Super Heavy catch, only the positional accuracy needs to be extremely precise, while slight deviations in angular and linear momentum may not have significant consequences, since the booster will naturally settle into a stable rest position?

As a backend developer, your website is perfection.

2:03 Note, The inaccuracy of the GPS will effect the droneship and the rocket in the same direction and amount to over 90%. So if the inaccuracy is 5 meter, the actual differential between them will be lower than 50cm, and probobly even less so

To put it bluntly. Falcon 9: Just make it work with mostly traditional method. Star ship: use more hightech engines and fuel, and use the scale advantage. Neutron: Use high tech building material throughout to make it all over a better rocket My guess is that Neutron is going to start to pick up Falcon 9 market when it start to ramp down. It seams like its the most optimal solution. But eventually someone probobly figure out a way to land a downrange rocket that is not on a drone ship. What about just a small island with a landing pad. Could theoretically just fuel it and fly it back, it would even need that much fuel. Using aerodynamics could probobly hit very close to the pad on the way down and only a tiny amount of fuel would be needed to actually stop the rocket.

Without SpaceX rocket reusability was out of the question. Now it is the core issue. SpaceX is not the typical money making machine for the board members, it is the gift for humanity. Only SpaceX can make human multiplaneterry species.

at this point, not having Elon involved in your company should triple its worth

Cute little channel you got here. I'll subscribe.

Hi! Thank You for posting. This is an nice clip... so I did check your channel. I'm sorry but with titles like "Orion Capsule Coverup?" you'll only pull the flim flam wich is not what I'm looking for.

I think stoke space are developing the special efficient 2nd engine precisely because otherwise they can't get any payload to orbit

I think stoke space is developing the special efficient 2nd engine precisely because otherwise they can't get any payload to orbit

I think long term Rocket Lab will win z

Could you look at and discuss the Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket engine and it's cousin the Lithium Salt-Water Rocket? ProjectRho has a good description.i would be interested in seeing your math on an economy utilizing it.

Love being a RKLB investor, we are going to dethrone Musk.

We all won son we all won we all have a rocket that we realise more or less around 16 that its reusable

Here is a crazy idea: how about using the Neutron Booster stage paired with a Stoke Orbital Stage that could fit inside the Booster's "hungry hippo" Fairings? No need for the orbital reusable stoke booster to carry fairings or the sturdier payload support, Also since there is no need for a huge vacuum Nozzle (which takes up a lot of space) perhaps you could have bigger fuel tanks in the booster. Any feedback on a Hybrid of the Two of your rockets systems you have reviewed?

Why is this video pretending tha SpaceX hasn't already won the race? They are launching 4 times a day! Reusing all the rockets.

Version 1, variant 2, block 3 😂

Spacex won

24:28 "Version 1, Variant 2, Block 3" 😂

Space X Next question

25:00 You used mass average molecular weight when you should have used number average molecular weight. 6790g/18g/mol = 377mol. 240g/2g/mol = 120mol. (377mol*18g/mol + 120mol*2g/mol) / (377mol + 120mol) = 14.1g/mol. Doing the same for Raptor it is 26.8g/mol.

I think the race ended about 6 years ago with a reused Block 5 being launched for the first time.

I think they should make one out of ABS and rhino lining

I’d have to disagree on the 2 rockets thing. The problem isn’t that they had multiple rockets, the problem was that said rockets were in the same weight class. If SpaceX wanted to launch more falcon 1s for sole reason they could do it without effecting the falcon 9 market that much

Will be crazy if both Starship and Super heavy are caught and reused before anyone else even challenges F9 which is partially reused, lol.

Sloths play the long game.

NEUTRON

I think that starship advantage to new glenn is that the whole ship is recoveryable and reduce the cost immeasurable because a second stage build won't be needed to be build

Seadragon was an interesting reusable concept. Sadly it disn't go anywhere

The space shuttle program destroyed NASA's ability to inovate and create better technology and instead turned into a way for established companies to cash in on the NASAs budget. The resulting government produced flight hardware is as desirable as hot garbage in your living space.

Great video. Very good at illustrating the pros and cons of the different types of liquid rocket fuels.

Excellent video. I am surprised I do not see other creators producing videos like this in my feed which is very unfortunate. It is not good to focus all hope on a single entity. Having several competing products is best. Can you imagine if we standardized all cars on the Ford model T. It was a great car that revolutionized transportation. But competition pushed technology to even higher achievement. It seems all the videos I watch have narrowed their coverage from all space vehicles and satellites to SpaceX, which is sad. I think it is crucial that there be many competitors in both the transportation to orbit/beond, and satellite/space habitat production and use, to assure sufficient competition, efficiency, and capability. SpaceX is doing well in showing us what is possible. But is by no means going to be the most efficient solution given sufficient real competition. Thanks for the great video.😊

If you think this is even a contest, then I assume you have a personal beef with Elon Musk, because SpaceX is the obvious leader in reusable rockets.