Please give me your money. I'll talk like a pirate even more. (Some clarifications in the description.)
@IbnBahtuta5 ай бұрын
That wasn't Pirate, that was Irish, me hearty.
@Humongous_Pig_Benis5 ай бұрын
As a Portuguese, I am humbled by the use of the Caravela name for your rocket. May it someday make History by sailing Space!
@serphorus5 ай бұрын
do Kofi terms & conditions allow actual rocket companies? i would buy merch if it supported an actual smallsat launcher o.o
@IbnBahtuta5 ай бұрын
Another thought, 3d print the best of your cgi and sell it on your merch thingy. You be flying to Mars before Mr Ketamine. No, please don't thank me. ROFL
@legitusername-zl7to5 ай бұрын
you need to ask nasa to fund you or something lmao
@damienkramer5 ай бұрын
I love how the very first thing you needed to build your rocket was a garage, and you couldn’t even meet that requirement. Feels
@jmstudios4575 ай бұрын
LADIES AND GENTLEMAN ITS THE MOMENT YOU'VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR
@kaltenstein77185 ай бұрын
If Wernher von Braun had been a youtuber instead of using Disney to communicate his space infrastructure ideas:
@MimeHTF55 ай бұрын
If KZbin would have exist backe then. He would propably have a KZbin Chanel
@georgethompson9134 ай бұрын
@@MimeHTF5if youtube existed back then Disney KZbin would have stuff like this.
@jackee-is-silent29385 ай бұрын
Good to see ideas based upon reality, not over-funded fantasies.
@Kerballistic5 ай бұрын
This is absolutely awesome! You're doing what all space nerds want to do. I wish you the best!
@electroskylightgaming40855 ай бұрын
Dont be shy and release the IFT 4 video...the people yearn for analysis!
@Mole.mp45 ай бұрын
He cant muster up the courage to call it a success
@casualology.5 ай бұрын
I thought this was really neat, then I got to the ending. Those big dumb ideas look great lol
@wolfie36575 ай бұрын
I like it, it's simple, it feels like home, I hope you succeed
@HalNordmann3 ай бұрын
Can't wait to see more on the satellite and advanced rocket concepts!
@jofreddy86435 ай бұрын
this is VERY exciting! I look forward to seeing its progress
@johntheux92385 ай бұрын
When IFT-4 video?
@saltboi63745 ай бұрын
You could name the 2nd & 3rd stage engines after sailing ship parts like the Mainmast, Carronade, Bowsprit, Lateen etc
@markusjuenemannКүн бұрын
Fun fact: Roger Corman actually starred in Apollo 13...
@limo17955 ай бұрын
if you lanched from brazil, i can see your business go boomin'
@5000mahmudКүн бұрын
Wonder how this would do if it used a pistonless pump press-fed system
@yewtoob20075 ай бұрын
Missed partnering with Carvel ice cream by one letter.
@Zhangir-Spontaneously-Combusts5 ай бұрын
"Oh, quick note: the first stage splashes down off the coast and is recovered that way. Propulsive landing is complex and unlikely to be efficient for a small-lift vehicle. Don't know why I didn't say that in the video. And when I say launch anywhere, it's obviously within reason. No spaceports in Central Park." Limited entirely to coastal locations? Curious about whether you see helicopter catches or landing in large purpose built freshwater pools (to avoid saltwater necessitating more refurbishment. Requires guidance system through re-entry though) as viable alternatives?
@mikedicenso27785 ай бұрын
I'm really very surprised you've never mentioned Beal Aerospace (1997-2000) and the Beal BA-2 which was in many ways a classic pressure-fed "Big Dumb Booster" with 17 metric tons to LEO. The kerolox BA-810 engine reached the test stand in a full-scale configuration and produced 3.6 MN (809,000 lbf) of thrust.
@astro02245 ай бұрын
Turbopumps?! Where we're going, we won't need turbopumps!
@Blakearmin5 ай бұрын
How have I not come across your channel yet. Subbed after the first video and now have a backlog to watch!
@BCriger5 ай бұрын
I would like to know more!
@adamlis81125 ай бұрын
I'm interested in that "huaauah" at 13:32
@Humongous_Pig_Benis5 ай бұрын
Get to da Caravel!
@buddy.boyo885 ай бұрын
probably an Arnold reference
@georgethompson9135 ай бұрын
I think your already entering into a crowded market with many competitors. It may be wiser to look at payloads instead.
@detective_yeti5 ай бұрын
I’m a bit confused. If you’re having it splash down in coast and therefore i assume also using a boat for recovery, doesn’t that kinda defeat the point of the pop-up? Why not just go all way and have it land further downrange, and save yourself the pop-up payload hit?
@TurbulentSphere5 ай бұрын
Love this, let me know if you want help with the engines.
@allyputira39865 ай бұрын
I do wish there was greater detail in your concept like how you break down the design study for building a better OTRAG.
@MimeHTF55 ай бұрын
The 2 or 3 Stage engine could be called Störtebeker
@ThrownCarp5 ай бұрын
Omg. I'm studying aerospace engineering already too... this shit is epic btw
@MimeHTF55 ай бұрын
How will the 1 stage land with engines or on a parachute?
@ggez81175 ай бұрын
parachute most likely as the video says propulsive landing would be too complex to develop
@MimeHTF55 ай бұрын
@@ggez8117 then he would need a ship
@ggez81175 ай бұрын
@@MimeHTF5 yeah but that would still be simpler than propulsive landing
@MimeHTF55 ай бұрын
@@ggez8117 i know.
@HalNordmann5 ай бұрын
I was wondering, wouldn't it be possible to replace the Stage 3 engine with one or more vacuum-optimized Vane engines? Sure, pressure-feds are relatively simple to develop, but it seems close enough to work
@PanzerschrekCN5 ай бұрын
How do you plan to protect sensible equipment (like engines) from salty water after splashdown?
@PeteSty5 ай бұрын
I made a rocket myself once. I put a minnow in a glass tube and some Alka Selzer pieces so it could breath. I lit it off next my garage (I was 10 ish), with the biggest Estes engine I could get. It went up 1 foot. The minnow didn't make it.
@Ithirahad5 ай бұрын
Why not propane for just the third stage? Every second of I_sp counts up there.
@Civilized-Joke5 ай бұрын
My guess is it may be more trouble than it's worth for a startup to work with 2 fuels out of the gate.
@dagobertkrikelin15875 ай бұрын
I'm sold!
@ravener964 ай бұрын
Why doesent pop up require downrange clearance? The range clearance seems to be more for "in case of failure" than "stage falls here". With pop up you will still have potential for falling second stages downrange, but you also expose yourself to failures that drop stages in basically any direction during the pop up, giving you a large circular exclusion zone around the launch site, not just a cone as we see with normal flights.
@pilotnl5 ай бұрын
When are you going to nasdaq? I want to buy shares :)
@artemplatov19825 ай бұрын
Why would the animation go down in quality
@IbnBahtuta5 ай бұрын
Watching the crowdfunder will be so much fun. Thanks for the upload, but I'm still not sold on having 3 letter names when the first two are B and F. rofl
@isaktheswede5 ай бұрын
I see an opportunity for a hypersonic testbed variant
@mediummanager79805 ай бұрын
Impresive, very nice. Let see your video about IFT 4
@mattkingston61575 ай бұрын
Easy. Still suborbital with 0 payload. No zero g vacuum ignition. Both stages made it back to earth. So did the Russian mir space station. Still a failure, still no mars in the next 20 years
@FrankyPi5 ай бұрын
@@mattkingston6157 We'll be lucky if NASA pulls off a few crewed missions after 2040.
@SpaceAdvocate5 ай бұрын
@@mattkingston6157 They achieved everything they were attempting to achieve on flight four - nominal orbital insertion and soft splashdown of both stages, plus a lot of data gathered on heat shield performance.
@sdem95 ай бұрын
@@SpaceAdvocate nothing they said was wrong. It was the first flight that nominally reached all its objectives( the fourth attemp at those objectives), but a very marginal success. "Gathered a lot of data" is just stan excuse for "we don't know what we are doing and got lucky this time". Their design was obviously rubbish. "Nominal orbital insertion" is just BS, the flight was suborbital and always planned to be, there was no "orbital insertion". And there's a plausible leak of SH exploding during or shortly after splashdown. Not that great either.
@SpaceAdvocate5 ай бұрын
@@sdem9 The trajectory was intentionally slightly suborbital, but it's really just a technicality. It has no practical significance to the accomplishment. If Starship had pointed the engines slightly differently during the ascent, it would have been in orbit. And mattkingston did say things that were at the bare minimum misleading, if you accept they weren't directly wrong. For one thing - the Mir space station did not perform a soft splashdown, while the Starship stages did. His statement that they were similar events is false, as far as I am concerned. And it's false that it is a failure when it succeeded. As for the Super Heavy exploding - that was not unexpected. It was thought that the stage *might* survive toppling over into the water, but clearly the force of the top of the booster slamming ~70 meters into the water imparted too much force on the vehicle. If it had survived, they would have had to open up on it with a .50 cal or something, to get it to sink, so the explosion saved them some trouble.
@lefishe77025 ай бұрын
Why not use high test peroxide?
@captainnope7475 ай бұрын
Thank god, someone else out there who's remembered the teachings of the BDB. Has there been any consideration in using solids in the first or second stage?
@SpaceAdvocate5 ай бұрын
Cool video. RS1 is cheaper per kg, though. Can't really see that pressure fed is better in comparison.
@somerandomnameiguess5 ай бұрын
I vote for the engine name to be 'Vindication'. Too on the nose? I don't think so.
@fireshredder245 ай бұрын
What's your plan for booster recovery? Parafoil catch like Electron could be nice. P.S. This concept tickles my fantasy of launching to orbit from FAR.
@legitusername-zl7to5 ай бұрын
hope this becomes a real LV
@theevilcottonball5 ай бұрын
Seems more likely to happen than some of SpaceX's promises... Anyway, I really liked the video. Is the fuel for the upper stages also Jet-A? Your video title does not give away that this is your rocket, it looks like it is just part if the know your rocket series... My route to space was always a huge cannon firing a small two stage rocket... (something like Project HARP) But I never did the math on that... But I have
@pseudotasuki5 ай бұрын
Why Jet-A when LNG is so inexpensive?
@theevilcottonball5 ай бұрын
Use a tripropellant engine with hydrogen, lithium, and fluorine.
@pseudotasuki5 ай бұрын
@@theevilcottonball What could possibly go wrong?
@ILikeAlotofThings-SLS5 ай бұрын
Nice rocket
@matjazzorko40935 ай бұрын
I was there
@mobiusfanblade5 ай бұрын
Did you ever get hired?
@photosynthescythe29395 ай бұрын
How do you plan on funding this? Is this a company you’re looking to start?
@Hexagonydrawings3 ай бұрын
Mr. Pressure fed astronaut, I too want to start a low cost reusable rocket company, when you eventually start launching Buccaneer, if the launch pad next to you has a rocket called Black Knight, that’ll be MEEEEEE
@YoungAstronomicalReaserc-zf8zy3 ай бұрын
first, it won't launch, second, I know exactly where you got the name lol. Sadly, some other british company already took Black Arrow.
@Hexagonydrawings3 ай бұрын
@@YoungAstronomicalReaserc-zf8zy firstly, be specific on what’s not launching. Second, Black Knight is a reference to Monty Python and the Holy grail.
@YoungAstronomicalReaserc-zf8zy3 ай бұрын
Caravel is a concept made by PFA, and he makes it clear in the description that it won't ever launch (unless maybe some african dictator asks him to do it). Black Knight is also the name of an older british design for an orbital launch vehicles, which was cancelled and replaced by the Black Arrow.
@Hexagonydrawings3 ай бұрын
@@YoungAstronomicalReaserc-zf8zy ok. I’m still gonna do black knight at some point
@YoungAstronomicalReaserc-zf8zy3 ай бұрын
@@Hexagonydrawings just wondering, do you have any current plans for it? Like what fuel is it going to use, or what engine cycle it uses?
@artemplatov19825 ай бұрын
Why not use solids as prop
@jmstudios4575 ай бұрын
Solids are a pain in the ass to develop
@ggez81175 ай бұрын
@@jmstudios457 its orders of magnitude easier than a liquid engine no matter how you spin it
@jmstudios4575 ай бұрын
Not a pressure fed one
@ggez81175 ай бұрын
@@jmstudios457 yes its still far simpler
@SpaceAdvocate5 ай бұрын
@@ggez8117 It's not easier in terms of production, handling, transportation, storage, etc. Solids mean handling huge quantities of what's basically gunpowder, and all the associated safety considerations really complicate things. As an example, just the fact that you can't legally work on meaningful solids in your garage.
@PanzerschrekCN5 ай бұрын
Why building sub-scale prototypes? It's not very common nowadays.
@SpaceAdvocate5 ай бұрын
It's not uncommon. Particularly if you don't have money. If you want to be able to approach investors, it's good to have some tangible achievements to be able to point to. If you look at Rocket Lab, they started with the Ātea sounding rocket.
@KarpKomet5 ай бұрын
Avast Ye! I set sail with me blueprints to plunder and hornswaggle small sat launch VC doubloons
@polishkerbal69205 ай бұрын
THIS IS BEAUTIFULL 🤤🤤🤤
@faceofsarcasm49475 ай бұрын
Shut up and take my money!
@DaFinkingOrk7 күн бұрын
Seeing your most recent video, why not just buy some Scuds or similar (somehow, maybe ask Yemen they need cash) and stick them together with explosive bolts lol? You only need to make the guidance system then, which you could use a smartphone and write a program for it. I'm joking of course and it would suck compared to your design but it'd be funny if someone made that actually work, it'd be the most "that'll do" thing in the world.
@xavermaier96255 ай бұрын
So building a rocket engine is actually quite hard, because you REALLY get into machining. Starting with really small engines and working the thrust up might be a good approach. Also, in the early stages the LOX is a real problem, when you're on a budget. My approach would be LOX making from scratch, because in the process you learn a ton about propellant management, system design, safety hazards and most important of all, manufacturing. I wish you the best of luck!!!
@buddy.boyo885 ай бұрын
reject modernity (composites) return to tradition (turbopumps) ! the v2 vas built by slave labor inside a mountain tunnel in the 40s, making turbopumps cannot be harder than weaving composites ! they are 80 year old technology
@theevilcottonball5 ай бұрын
Still the most expensive part of the rocket, if you want to sace money this can be a place to start...