Thank you, now I'm going to build the next Falcon 9 in my garage.
@Torkx1005 жыл бұрын
Rockets based on this principle do not work in a vacuum because they do not have a mass behind it to react and push it forward (Principle of action and reaction). Think outside the box, imagine two pendulums that stand on their stems are parallel, but as they move they make opposite movements, when one goes left the other will go right, when the first goes right the other will go left and like this in succession. These pendulums will be oscillated at 2,400 times per second in an arc of maximum 90 degrees. Imagine that these pendulums have a mass of 250 grams and are 20 centimeters from the support. Now calculate the sum of centrifugal force force in this proposed system. There are numerous patents overdue with this idea. George Gugo Constantinesco was the only one to put it into practice, he installed it in a car, truck, train and a train car without the locomotive. There is a manuscript attributed to Tesla where the principle is as described above, but in the drawings the pendulums do not swing, they rotate. The Vimanas, flying vehicles of ancient India were powered by a strong centrifugal force capable of overcoming gravity. Make for your cars, tractors, vans and trucks. Good research.
@dewiz95965 жыл бұрын
Leonaldo Bezerra bla bla bla.
@Sinnbad215 жыл бұрын
Leonaldo Bezerra Are you a flat earther? Also they do not need a mass behind them to work. Simply pushing out energy behind it creates the opposite reaction of getting thrusted or pushed forward. Vacuum or not. Newtonian Physics
@GreenGoblinCoryintheHouse5 жыл бұрын
Wow science truly has progressed a lot.
@leastbloodthirstyneocon27764 жыл бұрын
@@Torkx100 misinformation. You dont need matter behind you to make action reaction. If you release something in a direction opposite to you the matter you release does a action reaction to the rocket. This makes it move on even in vaccum.
@spoony82324 жыл бұрын
"When the main engine is burned off, it's abandoned" Elon Musk: Hold my Tesla.
@aditya_saha4 жыл бұрын
he meant from the payload. but yeah, elon is great
@vijayathaker5523 жыл бұрын
It's spacex who make rockets. Tesl makes cars
@spoony82323 жыл бұрын
@@vijayathaker552 *sigh*
@barupens81413 жыл бұрын
@@spoony8232 he probably liked his own comment hahah
@carikamuu3 жыл бұрын
did you mean spaceX?
@kek61265 жыл бұрын
I always wanted to be a rocket surgeon
@sleepyghostisme75584 жыл бұрын
I know a horse surgeon
@kek61264 жыл бұрын
@Phil Olivetti yes I know 🙃
@livethefuture24924 жыл бұрын
Try Kerbal Space program!
@levelivii4 жыл бұрын
O dank memer
@joshoc4224 жыл бұрын
@Phil Olivetti he did it on purpose
@danielzhou99687 жыл бұрын
A point should be noted where there is a huge difference between getting to space and getting to orbit: altitude is easy but velocity is not.
@dewiz95965 жыл бұрын
Something Jeff Bezos hadn’t figured out. . .
@camerondeatcher96683 жыл бұрын
@@dewiz9596 Very true.
@perfectUnique11111 ай бұрын
yeah,i think that too,...they can't travel in space if they don't put themselfs on a orbit to be pushed by orbit's force,that's how the got to the Moon,they were on the moon-earth orbit and wait till the moon arrives in their point,so they can enter the moon's orbit..
@perfectUnique11111 ай бұрын
@daniel,..altitude it's easy in our atmosphere,but in space you don't have altitude!
@spacecadet22264 жыл бұрын
This narrator talks to me like I’m a toddler. Thank you.
@robertbohrer75018 жыл бұрын
"The greater the momentum the rocket loses, the more force, or thrust, on the rocket." @ 0.28 seconds That's not correct. I think you meant to say mass, not momentum. The rocket is *gaining* momentum as its velocity increases. Its momentum gain is exactly equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the momentum gained by its exhaust. It is, however, losing *mass* to do so. Combustion provides the energy necessary for the rocket system's overall increase in the magnitude of its momentum.
@samovarmaker96738 жыл бұрын
Yeah I was confused about that too. Thanks for clearing it up
@Leo.Wirabuana4 жыл бұрын
so that's why JPL got their name.
@snowshadowstar59214 ай бұрын
thx I was so confused
@ph11p35408 жыл бұрын
It's black magic. It's rocket science. Even to this day rockets are still a heroic feat of engineering because so much can go wrong even with the very best craftsmanship and attention to detail. You still can't take a rocket for granted even though safety and quality control have improved.
@garikhudaverdov68735 жыл бұрын
3:23 Elon Musk can be offended ))))
@sarojbasnet3694 жыл бұрын
😂😅
@lucasgrantismyrealname76344 жыл бұрын
Waht
@endrioinfiniti4 жыл бұрын
i am a spacex fan and i got lot offended imagine how the ceo of spacex, our great elon musk, would be offended
@Ignisan_664 жыл бұрын
Only soyboys get offended. True Slav never gets offended.
@endrioinfiniti4 жыл бұрын
@@Ignisan_66 blyat
@liambenn12143 жыл бұрын
Rocket science: plumbing with extremely volatile liquids
@internetguy79339 жыл бұрын
amazing channel and website for engineering ... please also focus on small and new details not just the main principle ... I hope you reach 1 million subscriber soon
@SabinCivil9 жыл бұрын
El Moslim Thank you for your well wishes...
@balajichandrasekaran63129 жыл бұрын
+Learn Engineering how to reduce flame out losses in rockets and increase Thrust out of them ?
@sebastianelytron84507 жыл бұрын
Two years later, still no million :-(
@SimranSingh-bw5zh7 жыл бұрын
they just did it
@jrogertrudel63566 жыл бұрын
Balaji Chandrasekaran - its so simple that you do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand the deception of science fiction.
@champagneeee3 жыл бұрын
"They are abandoned" *Laughs in SpaceX*
@Workerbee-zy5nx8 ай бұрын
Great lesson.
@anakinskymonke36704 жыл бұрын
3:32 _when the main engine is burned off , it is also abandoned_ SpaceX: *Hold my liquid propellant*
@thrashingmetal3 жыл бұрын
there are types of rockets, solid, liquid, hybrid. SpaceX didn't invent the liquid rocket.
@anakinskymonke36703 жыл бұрын
@@thrashingmetal Who tf told you SpaceX invented liquid propellant smart ass?!
@zazkegirotron8 жыл бұрын
simply amazing, made me understand the basics totally, in an enjoyable way, in 5 minutes. awesome! keep it up!
@3gunslingers8 жыл бұрын
0:45 That is *clearly* not the combustion chamber. This is the oxidizer dome. The combustion chamber is below the fuel inlet. It's basically the the subsonic part of the *laval* nozzle.
@cccooooooolllllllll73448 жыл бұрын
Thank for saying laval.
@fiftystate13887 жыл бұрын
Yeah, "combustion" occurring above the fuel inlet. I think the clip's producer just wants to publish examples of their 3D modeling work and is going light on the research. Basically a half hour spent on Wikipedia would have dispelled their misconceptions well enough for an introduction to the subject.
@andrewgibb8846 Жыл бұрын
A little more complicated than I initially imagined.
@sectoro36556 жыл бұрын
This really helped me
@wilsonaland Жыл бұрын
your videos are amazing keep up the good work
@ДанилПанов-ь7я9 жыл бұрын
this is very interesting and useful video. Now I understand how do rockets work..
@JoseShajiOfficial4 жыл бұрын
this video was really helpful, thank you!
@KayoMichiels8 жыл бұрын
No Kerbal Space Program players here?
@xXDudesterXx8 жыл бұрын
+MK3424 of course there are, right here.
@nerdcm3558 жыл бұрын
here
@mafumofu42518 жыл бұрын
here m8
@brandonfleming71188 жыл бұрын
here m8
@waleedahmed45917 жыл бұрын
yep im here
@tanvirhasanmonir16273 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your effort in making this
@thegroovesalad9 жыл бұрын
This is my new favorite channel! Keep up the good work.
@yem.t.39303 жыл бұрын
Thank you veeery much !
@WeatherWorld5 жыл бұрын
3:33 unless you’re SpaceX😂
@davidhummel74555 жыл бұрын
but they made it after only 4 trys
@CarlosAM15 жыл бұрын
@@davidhummel7455 way more... wayyy more
@Maxgamer-fd7hv4 жыл бұрын
They also do the exact same thing, except they also recover the stages.
@parulsingh91812 жыл бұрын
thanks a lot..it was a wonderful explanation. really helpful and everything is crystal clear
@joevignolor4u9499 жыл бұрын
This is an excellent video. However, I would suggest one addition. Many people have trouble understanding rocket propulsion, especially outside the atmosphere, because they can't understand what the rocket "pushes against". They are under the misunderstanding that rockets push against the earth's atmosphere initially but then once in space they have nothing to push against. So it is often wondered how do they work in space. Most explanations of rocket propulsion appropriately include a reference to Newton's 3rd law of motion. But actually, all three laws are involved in rocket propulsion and the first law is as equally important as the 3rd. This is because it established the "dual role" of the propellants. Of course one role is to cause the combustion necessary to accelerate the propellants through the nozzle. But the other role is to supply the mass, along with its corresponding inertia. To clear up the confusion, it needs to be more strongly emphasized that it is the inertial mass of the propellants that the rocket "pushes against" while changing its velocity in space.
@grmasdfII9 жыл бұрын
+Joe Vignolo It's covered in the beginning of the video, Newtons 3rd law of motion, reaction mass n whatnot.
@geonerd8 жыл бұрын
+grmasdfII Yea, but it's a throwaway reference. Everything about this video is on the superficial side.
@greyfell30998 жыл бұрын
+Joe Vignolo Rocket engines can not work in space. Infinite void will suck out all the fuel. And i dont know you logic, but mine says that if there is nothing to push against, no oposite force will be generated, so you would burn fuel, wich escapes the engine with great velocity and the void will suck it almost instantly, so no thrust there, sorry for NASA, but they can not fool every man
@joevignolor4u9498 жыл бұрын
+Greyfell 309 - Rockets work in space by pushing against the inertia of their own propellants. The propellants have mass just as all matter does. And all mass has inertia. So as the burned propellants accelerate out through the exhaust nozzle they try to remain at rest according to Newton's first law. Therefore, accelerating the propellants against their own inertia creates an equal and opposite force according to Newton's third law. It is this reactive force that pushes the rocket in the other direction. Another way to envision it is to imagine firing a rifle in space. Initially the loaded rifle, the gunpowder and the bullet will all be at rest together at some initial starting point. Then fire the gun. As the gunpowder burns and expands in the rifle barrel the gun pushes the bullet in one direction while at the same time the bullet pushes the gun in the opposite direction. Afterwards the rifle will be in motion going in one direction and the gunpowder and bullet will be in motion going in the other direction and both will be moving away from the initial starting point. In a rocket, the rocket's structure is like the rifle. The propellants are like the bullet and gunpowder. The action-reaction principle is the same. It's true that eventually the propellants will defuse out into the void of space, but only after being accelerated out the nozzle at high speed, which produced the reactive thrusting force in the opposite direction.
@greyfell30998 жыл бұрын
"Rockets work in space by pushing against the inertia of their own propellants. " I'm no scientologist, but this statement is.. eeeh.. If that's the case, then the rocket would go faster and faster, how do you stop this in space. Another issue with that is inertia is not matter, so you can not push against non material things.. Another issue is that in void, the exhaust gasses will expand so fast, it will vaporizes almost instant. "The propellants are like the bullet and gunpowder. The action-reaction principle is the same." This analogy is not true. In a rifle, .The gunpowder expands very very fast, this expansion will push the bullet out. No rocket science there, how is that similar to rocket engines? I'm tellin you, rocket will never work in space, but that's not the reason NASA never went to the moon, not even close
@kushagrabhatt98935 жыл бұрын
Very nicely explained.
@razzakksa6 жыл бұрын
No Spacex comment? ok I guess I'm the only one.
@VinOnline6 жыл бұрын
hi
@llumar1006 жыл бұрын
Spacex Comment
@talksofdharma24665 жыл бұрын
If you're watching this z you shouldn't be in spaceX. U should be in SpaceExit.
@vierv37984 жыл бұрын
thank you, this is the easyest explanation to understand about rocket
@StephenCarrIsBald4 жыл бұрын
Whose here after the launching of Elon musks rocket today!?
@MonsieurDijon4 жыл бұрын
ITS NOT ACTUALLY ELON MUSK’S ROCKET. ITS A SPACEX ROCKET. HE OWNS THE COMPANY, BUT ITS NOT LIKE HE BUILDS EACH ROCKET HIMSELF. WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THIS. ITS SO STUPID.
@StephenCarrIsBald4 жыл бұрын
Legend want some tissue for your tears?
@Iamrich004 жыл бұрын
@@MonsieurDijon but if a rocket explodes with people or anything inside all the people will blame elon musk, even tho he doesnt build the rocket...
@MonsieurDijon4 жыл бұрын
Davthsee yeah people are dumb
@StephenCarrIsBald4 жыл бұрын
Legend is that mean to offend somebody 😂
@skorpid-tm45316 жыл бұрын
BEST EXPLANATION VIDEO FOR ENGENEERING AS WELL AS KNOWLEDGE
@TheVirtualArena243 жыл бұрын
Instructions unclear, made a rocket car.
@popedpopcorn9 жыл бұрын
I wish we had this videos few years ago in school it is much nicer and more interesting than the lectures! great job !!
@samovarmaker96738 жыл бұрын
Wait So if the gas generator takes bypassed fuel and oxidiser from fuel and oxidiser pumps And the pumps are driven by the turbine And the turbine is driven by the gas generator Then how does the gas generator get the bypassed fuel and oxidiser in the first place, if the bypassed fuel and oxidiser come out of pumps which are driven by a turbine which is driven by the gas generator itself? I'm confused and so are you probably.
@mariusmuller24208 жыл бұрын
On earth, while starting the rocket, the fuel in the fuel tanks is pushed down by gravity and flows into the gas generator. In addtion to that fuel tanks are sometimes pressurized, mainly by helium, which again forces the fuel down the fuel pipes. If the engine is stated the acceleration upwards is the main mechanism to bring fuel to the turbopump and the gas generator. In space it pretty much boils down to the same priciples. One difference is that in space the fuel isn't held down like on earth thus so called ullag motors or the reaction control system (in the form of cold gas thrusters) are used to give the rocket a little push, forcing the fuel to gather in the bottom of the tank thus flowing into the turbopunp/gas generator, before igniting the main engine. There are other ways to archieve these results, but they are a bit more complicated so i won't adress them here. I hope this can help.
@FI--zu5xx6 жыл бұрын
I've had this question for a while as well.
@RED40HOURS6 жыл бұрын
Samovar maker SPAAAAAAAAACE
@Samucacamilo6 жыл бұрын
What came first? The egg or the chicken?
@RED40HOURS6 жыл бұрын
Samuel Camilo Padilla Castro hmmmmm
@thomaswijgerse7233 жыл бұрын
nice video. got soem remarkts though 0:30 It's not the momentum the rocket loses that defines its thrust, its the momentum *per second* it loses. big distinction. Thrust is calculated by T [N]= Mass flow [kg/s] * velocity [m/s] 2:37 actually solid rocket motors are the most powerful currently available. 3:53 thats a really... interesting... fairing design.
@k-osmonaut88073 жыл бұрын
Thurst maybe, iirc they arent as much used because of safety concerns and lower specific impulse
@ercillor8 жыл бұрын
It's really very simple! Think of a balloon. If you blow one up and then tie off the "nozzle" it goes nowhere. If you place it on a table in calm air it just sits there. Why, when there is so much pressure inside the balloon, does it not move? You can best answer the question for yourself if you visualize little arrows for the forces operating inside the balloon. For each arrow of force which you imagine you will immediately recognize that there is an equal and opposite force arrow cancelling it out. How do we know this? Because if that were not true there would be at least one force arrow without anything holding it back --- and then the balloon would move under the influence of that unbalanced force arrow inside of it. Since the balloon doesn't move all the force arrows must be balanced and cancel each other. Now what happens when we open the nozzle? Well now the force arrows which had been pressing against that part of the balloon (where the "nozzzle" was) have nothing to press against and so they simply disappear. But this leaves the -- now unbalanced -- opposite force arrows without anything to oppose them and so they simply push the balloon across the table. This is simply an observation. In an actual chemical rocket engine we use burning fuels and the expanding gases which result to create the very same force arrows inside a strong container which has a "nozzle" on one end. The engine does just what the balloon did. The only difference s that the rocket engine is usually made of strong materials and so it does not change its shape as the balloon did and it does not move in an unpredictable way as the balloon did. Now you may well understand why it is that a rocket engine does not require an atmosphere against which to "push" in order to function. The "push" comes from within. [This is NOT the case with a jet turbine engine ("turbojet," or simply "jet") which works by inputting air from its front end, compressing that air, and then expelling it with a higher pressure from its rear. Such an engine DOES require a surrounding atmosphere in order to function].
@person985 жыл бұрын
How long did it take you to write this and how, please telle:)
@krishkgowda24135 жыл бұрын
Thank for giving such good information tnkew from india
@kevinolesik15008 жыл бұрын
so i learned that they use a turbo pump to pull all that fuel and oxidizer so fast , cool
@v94x95 жыл бұрын
Got kicked out of aero engineering uni 2yrs ago but after applying myself I got re admitted. Thanks for the vids
@alibhatti18 жыл бұрын
Is there anything you guys don't know? :D Amazing informative stuff. Helped me through my Mech. Engg. degree :-)
@prolska3 жыл бұрын
Try this eqaution, Δ v = u ln ( m i m )
@dannytechminds423 Жыл бұрын
Deadly engineering
@creative8d144 жыл бұрын
That rocket is called “proton K”
@thomaswijgerse7233 жыл бұрын
not really tbh. not at all.
@rrhone6 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. Very easy to understand. Thanks
@kushal81355 жыл бұрын
Who is watching this video after our Chandrayaan launch?
@vinu15055 жыл бұрын
Kushal sadly, we don’t use liquid propulsion in lower stages. But CE 25 in second stage is similar engine.
@dontsubscribeme95475 жыл бұрын
Bsdk bass kr shmless
@vinu15055 жыл бұрын
@@dontsubscribeme9547 Hater DNA
@AkashRockz5 жыл бұрын
@@dontsubscribeme9547 PKMKB tmkb
@dontsubscribeme95475 жыл бұрын
@@AkashRockz t m k b bkc
@er.m.sudhakarmuthiaha92833 жыл бұрын
Awesome explanation 👍
@W1llDaBeest9 жыл бұрын
pretty cool that they use a turbo charger to power the fuel pump! XD
@annuelectronicsmalikcompon87997 жыл бұрын
Post these types of video for increasing general knowledge
@alphyzqrw72225 жыл бұрын
I need a rocket so that I can go to the atmosphere and collect all those engines that are been dumped at the air and put them on sale 💵 💵
@amiranus29 жыл бұрын
Чем больше углубляетесь в детали тем мощнее у вас видео так держать!
@cherd31277 жыл бұрын
Video is completely false! Rockets fly because of Black Sabbath being played in the combustion chamber , that's how the engine works , Heavy Metal
@Dude314637 жыл бұрын
Cherd ... You're actually not too far off... Hell's Bells!!!
@jadekepler83146 жыл бұрын
You forgot another important element, Led Zeppelin! Greatest rockers out there.
@acrobaticcripple81766 жыл бұрын
Idjit!!!!!!!!!!!
@mandrake64866 жыл бұрын
Fucking knew it
@scotts70175 жыл бұрын
Cherd there’s another design also being used that has Chuck Norris in its combustion chamber. I think those land themselves if I’m not mistaken.
@hephanos12634 жыл бұрын
thank you. i finaly understand rocket science
@freXampl8 жыл бұрын
"Rocket Science"
@alokverma33117 жыл бұрын
fully clear explanation easy to understand..
@Anamnesia8 жыл бұрын
0:17 It's not the mass of the propellants being "ejected" that causes the thrust, although in part it is; Thrust comes from the force of the rapidly expanding gasses, following their ignition. You wouldn't get very far off the ground if all you did was "eject" the propellant mass out of the rocket engine...
@tinfoilhatter8 жыл бұрын
+Anamnesia no! people think it's 'the air' that pushed that giant saturn-5 rocket all the way up out over the ocean.! ....shyeah! except for ,how and why rockets work!
@willoughbykrenzteinburg8 жыл бұрын
+Anamnesia You're incorrect in saying that ejecting mass alone does nothing. For starters, you can't eject mass without exerting a force on that mass - and without that mass exerting an equal and opposite force on the remaining mass (the rocket), so simply ejecting mass will result in thrust. It's the law of the conservation of momentum (which is very closely related to Newton's third law). If you have a system with a certain momentum, that momentum is ALWAYS conserved as long as there are no outside forces acting on the system. If you have a rocket with a mass of 10,000 kg that is resting motionless in space (v = 0), then the momentum of that system is zero (p = mv = 10,000kg * 0 m/s = 0 kg m/s of momentum). If that rocket ejects 1,000 kg of mass at 3,000 m/s, then you must conserve that momentum. The total momentum of the system must remain at zero. For simplicity's sake, let's think about this in two dimensions. The rocket is pointing up. The ejected mass was ejected downward - we will call this the negative direction. So, 1,000 kg of mass was ejected at -3,000 m/s giving the ejected mass a momentum of p = 1,000 kg * - 3,000 m/s = -3,000,000 kg m/s of momentum. Since we know that the total momentum of the system is zero, then the momentum of the remaining mass - the 9,000 kg remaining - will be 3,000,000 kg m/s. We can easily calculate the resulting velocity of the rocket - which will be upward - in the positive direction : v = p/m = 3,000,000 kg m/s / 9,000 kg = 333.33 m/s This is the conservation of momentum at work. The only thing the rapidly expanding gases accomplish is in increasing the velocity with which the mass is ejected. The faster it is ejected, the more thrust it will create because it gives the ejected mass more momentum - which in turn will thrust the rocket at a higher rate to conserve the initial momentum of the system. Sit in a swivel chair with something massive and throw that object. You will roll backward in your chair - BOTH because of Newton's third law AND the conservation of momentum. The more massive the object is that you eject, the more momentum it will have resulting in more momentum for you in the opposite direction to conserve the initial state. The harder you throw the object, the more momentum that object will have resulting in more momentum for you in the opposite direction to conserve the initial state.
@100SteveB8 жыл бұрын
+Anamnesia I also feel that this very important fact was not mentioned in the video, people do not realise that it is the force of combustion pushing against the engine itself that produces the thrust, not the gasses pushing against the atmosphere. This video fails to correct that misconception.
@tinfoilhatter8 жыл бұрын
what? there's no combustion!
@Anamnesia8 жыл бұрын
Willoughby Krenzteinburg I believe you've overlooked my qualifying statement, "although in part it is". Of course expelling mass will exert a force, but it is not the force of expelling the propellant which lifts the launch vehicle; it's the chemical reaction & the rapidly expanding exhaust gas that provides the majority of thrust. In essence; conservation of mass is maintained by the propellant - meaning the weight of the propellant prior to ignition *is equal to* the weight of the gasses after ignition. What provides the majority of thrust is the energy released in the chemical reaction. So while the mass of the propellant cannot be ignored, my initial statement "It's not the mass of the propellants being 'ejected' that causes the thrust" remains valid when you understand that it's not the propellant which causes thrust, but the chemical reaction. And this is the information overlooked/omitted in the video.
@caladito5 жыл бұрын
After this video I am ready for build my own rocket.
@eliaskarasik1945 жыл бұрын
0:13 t pose
@chanbhai15 жыл бұрын
Very well and simply explained. Thank you sir
@SF-fb6lv7 жыл бұрын
It's not "How a Rocket Works?"; you are not asking a question; you are making a statement. The title should be: "How a Rocket Works".
@harikalatheeswaran92066 жыл бұрын
An awesome video. Thanks a lot for enlightening us on this topic. Thanks again. Keep up the good work 😊👍👍👍
@raunaqsingh59076 жыл бұрын
Ex NASA scientists in the comment section
@valiok98805 жыл бұрын
lmao
@bbssssssssssssssssss4 жыл бұрын
I dislike your comment but i pressed the like button,so that you have 40 likes cause i hate the odds!
@minazmadhani66235 жыл бұрын
Please upload more videos on rocket science.
@snuk3748 жыл бұрын
I hope I can work for NASA
@dxguy8 жыл бұрын
Study hard and do summer internships at aerospace companies.
@majdsahmarany30917 жыл бұрын
@dxguy I am trapped in the middle east where there is no single aerospace company, any suggestion bro???
@justinevans18526 жыл бұрын
Majd Sahmarany move to the west
@RyanTheHero36 жыл бұрын
sasha ford why the FUCK would you want to??? NASA is a space company that has failed in many ways even if they did get to the moon.
@RyanTheHero36 жыл бұрын
Fly with SpaceX fgs
@maverikmiller67464 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this video.
@andrisszalai12615 жыл бұрын
Title should be 'How does a rocket work?' instead.
@manofvulture5 жыл бұрын
does it make a difference?
@josephdargy9364 жыл бұрын
Thank you for actually explaining the main parts of the rocket engine. I was afraid that this was going to be another concept video.
@adiletbeishenov57316 жыл бұрын
come on every one know that rocket fly because of magic 😂
@lovepreetsingh-tb2fk8 жыл бұрын
amazing video and very easy method
@barocco23005 жыл бұрын
the Earth is flat. Thanks for watching I'm joking...
@sridharshayana63487 жыл бұрын
amazing explanation....
@geonerd8 жыл бұрын
Robo-voice reading a Wikipedia rough draft ain't really making it. :(
@Aviation-PlaneSpotter5 жыл бұрын
Just wow ! Nice and simple explanation.
@matthewcollier43885 жыл бұрын
i wish you didnt have a 3 second pause between every sentence
@sivag225 жыл бұрын
Excellent details ... thank you man...
@LordBruuh9 жыл бұрын
Just subbed. Love watching educational videos!
@triplekway8 жыл бұрын
what a video making , hats off.....
@feelingzhakkaas8 жыл бұрын
Very nice presentation . God bless you all.
@smritigupta9866 жыл бұрын
Amazing video.... Very informative.... Wonderful... Thanks 4 the video.
@dmncm38876 жыл бұрын
Great video, excellent explanation.
@KOTIKE1009 жыл бұрын
Really an awesome understanding video...
@windlive044 жыл бұрын
Nice explanation, thanks
@Chapali9a8 жыл бұрын
Great video. Thank you very much indeed.
@onesimuspaigiri8804 жыл бұрын
Trust me if each and every subject is taught this way in aeronautical engineering,I would build the next falcon 9
@youruncle24 жыл бұрын
look up kerbal space program or simple rockets 2 and you can
@onesimuspaigiri8804 жыл бұрын
@@youruncle2 oh yeah
@youruncle24 жыл бұрын
@@onesimuspaigiri880 you. can 'borrow' it somewhere
@onesimuspaigiri8804 жыл бұрын
@@youruncle2 kerbal space 2 is a game
@prolska3 жыл бұрын
@@onesimuspaigiri880 the rocket is super fucking complex dude, i highly doubt you won't because of the cost, time, rescources and patience.
@saadusmani782 жыл бұрын
Such a great explanation! Keep it up.
@Zero--no8re6 жыл бұрын
You missed Maximum Dynamic Pressure. This should be discussed because if you don't make it past max Q there won't be a mission. Great video please include Max-Q and why it is important.
@darshanodedara2964 жыл бұрын
My search ends here. This is the channel I was finding from a long time. Wonderful "Learn Engineering"👍👍
@uttambanik737 жыл бұрын
Wow wow wow wow wow wow wow thx thx thx i was confused how the rocket reach to destination ...but today i got it.....Thx 😍😘
@chiragatwal99226 жыл бұрын
Explain very good. 😃😃
@karldavis73928 жыл бұрын
I think it would be interesting to build a vertical launch rail. If it started 200 m below ground and extended 100 m above ground, and had an acceleration of 15 m/s^2, the exit speed would be about 94 m/s. Obviously that's small by the scale of what's needed, but it could increase the payload and be worthwhile. The downside is you can't really abort a launch if the stage 1 engines fail.
@itsmeayan17285 жыл бұрын
Awesome video
@pakseron14 жыл бұрын
el mejor vídeo que he visto... genial
@tombrennan78956 жыл бұрын
I like how the gimbal stretches the engine
@renatobritto40969 жыл бұрын
Awesome video, nice job
@MegaFaisalpk7 жыл бұрын
Excellent.. Very informative
@nothing92203 жыл бұрын
Now i can build my own.. Tynx
@shawnford91044 жыл бұрын
The people who came up with these ideas to create such awe inspiring things really make you sit there and think to yourself how people came up with this stuff overtime lol
@nvngamergirl27302 жыл бұрын
It was awesome !!! Thanks !! 👍👍
@alexechenique9689 жыл бұрын
algo que si me gustaría es que estos vídeos los subieran también en la sección que esta en español.
@purepsychology26457 жыл бұрын
Thank you guys
@maccollo4 жыл бұрын
4:43 I get that it's just for illustrative purposes, but wow, that is combustion chamber is one bendy boi!