How a Rocket works?

[@horizonexploration5253]

Thank you, now I'm going to build the next Falcon 9 in my garage.

[@Torkx100]

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.

[@dewiz9596]

Leonaldo Bezerra bla bla bla.

[@Sinnbad21]

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

[@GreenGoblinCoryintheHouse]

Wow science truly has progressed a lot.

[@leastbloodthirstyneocon2776]

@@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.

[@spoony8232]

"When the main engine is burned off, it's abandoned" Elon Musk: Hold my Tesla.

[@aditya_saha]

he meant from the payload. but yeah, elon is great

[@vijayathaker552]

It's spacex who make rockets. Tesl makes cars

[@spoony8232]

@@vijayathaker552 *sigh*

[@barupens8141]

@@spoony8232 he probably liked his own comment hahah

[@carikamuu]

did you mean spaceX?

[@danielzhou9968]

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.

[@dewiz9596]

Something Jeff Bezos hadn’t figured out. . .

[@camerondeatcher9668]

@@dewiz9596 Very true.

[@perfectUnique111]

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..

[@perfectUnique111]

@daniel,..altitude it's easy in our atmosphere,but in space you don't have altitude!

[@kek6126]

I always wanted to be a rocket surgeon

[@sleepyghostisme7558]

I know a horse surgeon

[@kek6126]

@Phil Olivetti yes I know 🙃

[@livethefuture2492]

Try Kerbal Space program!

[@levelivii]

O dank memer

[@joshoc422]

@Phil Olivetti he did it on purpose

[@spacecadet2226]

This narrator talks to me like I’m a toddler. Thank you.

[@ph11p3540]

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.

[@robertbohrer7501]

"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.

[@samovarmaker9673]

Yeah I was confused about that too. Thanks for clearing it up

[@Leo.Wirabuana]

so that's why JPL got their name.

[@snowshadowstar5921]

thx I was so confused

[@Workerbee-zy5nx]

Great lesson.

[@anakinskymonke3670]

3:32 _when the main engine is burned off , it is also abandoned_ SpaceX: *Hold my liquid propellant*

[@thrashingmetal]

there are types of rockets, solid, liquid, hybrid. SpaceX didn't invent the liquid rocket.

[@anakinskymonke3670]

@@thrashingmetal Who tf told you SpaceX invented liquid propellant smart ass?!

[@garikhudaverdov6873]

3:23 Elon Musk can be offended ))))

[@sarojbasnet369]

😂😅

[@lucasgrantismyrealname7634]

Waht

[@endrioinfiniti]

i am a spacex fan and i got lot offended imagine how the ceo of spacex, our great elon musk, would be offended

[@Ignisan_66]

Only soyboys get offended. True Slav never gets offended.

[@endrioinfiniti]

@@Ignisan_66 blyat

[@liambenn1214]

Rocket science: plumbing with extremely volatile liquids

[@andrewgibb8846]

A little more complicated than I initially imagined.

[@champagneeee]

"They are abandoned" *Laughs in SpaceX*

[@thomaswijgerse723]

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-osmonaut8807]

Thurst maybe, iirc they arent as much used because of safety concerns and lower specific impulse

[@zazkegirotron]

simply amazing, made me understand the basics totally, in an enjoyable way, in 5 minutes. awesome! keep it up!

[@tanvirhasanmonir1627]

Thanks for your effort in making this

[@internetguy7933]

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

[@SabinCivil]

El Moslim Thank you for your well wishes...

[@balajichandrasekaran6312]

+Learn Engineering how to reduce flame out losses in rockets and increase Thrust out of them ?

[@sebastianelytron8450]

Two years later, still no million :-(

[@SimranSingh-bw5zh]

they just did it

[@jrogertrudel6356]

Balaji Chandrasekaran - its so simple that you do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand the deception of science fiction.

[@vierv3798]

thank you, this is the easyest explanation to understand about rocket

[@3gunslingers]

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.

[@cccooooooolllllllll7344]

Thank for saying laval.

[@fiftystate1388]

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.

[@wilsonaland]

your videos are amazing keep up the good work

[@TheVirtualArena24]

Instructions unclear, made a rocket car.

[@kushagrabhatt9893]

Very nicely explained.

[@sectoro3655]

This really helped me

[@dannytechminds423]

Deadly engineering

[@joevignolor4u949]

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.

[@grmasdfII]

+Joe Vignolo It's covered in the beginning of the video, Newtons 3rd law of motion, reaction mass n whatnot.

[@geonerd]

+grmasdfII Yea, but it's a throwaway reference. Everything about this video is on the superficial side.

[@greyfell3099]

+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

[@joevignolor4u949]

+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.

[@greyfell3099]

"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

[@JoseShajiOfficial]

this video was really helpful, thank you!

[@KayoMichiels]

No Kerbal Space Program players here?

[@xXDudesterXx]

+MK3424 of course there are, right here.

[@nerdcm355]

here

[@mafumofu4251]

here m8

[@brandonfleming7118]

here m8

[@waleedahmed4591]

yep im here

[@annuelectronicsmalikcompon8799]

Post these types of video for increasing general knowledge

[@ercillor]

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].

[@person98]

How long did it take you to write this and how, please telle:)

[@v94x9]

Got kicked out of aero engineering uni 2yrs ago but after applying myself I got re admitted. Thanks for the vids

[@ДанилПанов-ь7я]

this is very interesting and useful video. Now I understand how do rockets work..

[@yem.t.3930]

Thank you veeery much !

[@thegroovesalad]

This is my new favorite channel! Keep up the good work.

[@skorpid-tm4531]

BEST EXPLANATION VIDEO FOR ENGENEERING AS WELL AS KNOWLEDGE

[@StephenCarrIsBald]

Whose here after the launching of Elon musks rocket today!?

[@MonsieurDijon]

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.

[@StephenCarrIsBald]

Legend want some tissue for your tears?

[@Iamrich00]

@@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...

[@MonsieurDijon]

Davthsee yeah people are dumb

[@StephenCarrIsBald]

Legend is that mean to offend somebody 😂

[@popedpopcorn]

I wish we had this videos few years ago in school it is much nicer and more interesting than the lectures! great job !!

[@razzakksa]

No Spacex comment? ok I guess I'm the only one.

[@VinOnline]

hi

[@llumar100]

Spacex Comment

[@talksofdharma2466]

If you're watching this z you shouldn't be in spaceX. U should be in SpaceExit.

[@er.m.sudhakarmuthiaha9283]

Awesome explanation 👍

[@WeatherWorld]

3:33 unless you’re SpaceX😂

[@davidhummel7455]

but they made it after only 4 trys

[@CarlosAM1]

@@davidhummel7455 way more... wayyy more

[@Maxgamer-fd7hv]

They also do the exact same thing, except they also recover the stages.

[@parulsingh9181]

thanks a lot..it was a wonderful explanation. really helpful and everything is crystal clear

[@creative8d14]

That rocket is called “proton K”

[@thomaswijgerse723]

not really tbh. not at all.

[@rrhone]

Excellent video. Very easy to understand. Thanks

[@kevinolesik1500]

so i learned that they use a turbo pump to pull all that fuel and oxidizer so fast , cool

[@amiranus2]

Чем больше углубляетесь в детали тем мощнее у вас видео так держать!

[@kushal8135]

Who is watching this video after our Chandrayaan launch?

[@vinu1505]

Kushal sadly, we don’t use liquid propulsion in lower stages. But CE 25 in second stage is similar engine.

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

Bsdk bass kr shmless

[@vinu1505]

@@dontsubscribeme9547 Hater DNA

[@AkashRockz]

@@dontsubscribeme9547 PKMKB tmkb

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

@@AkashRockz t m k b bkc

[@hephanos1263]

thank you. i finaly understand rocket science

[@samovarmaker9673]

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.

[@mariusmuller2420]

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--zu5xx]

I've had this question for a while as well.

[@RED40HOURS]

Samovar maker SPAAAAAAAAACE

[@Samucacamilo]

What came first? The egg or the chicken?

[@RED40HOURS]

Samuel Camilo Padilla Castro hmmmmm

[@karldavis7392]

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.

[@alibhatti1]

Is there anything you guys don't know? :D Amazing informative stuff. Helped me through my Mech. Engg. degree :-)

[@prolska]

Try this eqaution, Δ v = u ln ( m i m )

[@krishkgowda2413]

Thank for giving such good information tnkew from india

[@cherd3127]

Video is completely false! Rockets fly because of Black Sabbath being played in the combustion chamber , that's how the engine works , Heavy Metal

[@Dude31463]

Cherd ... You're actually not too far off... Hell's Bells!!!

[@jadekepler8314]

You forgot another important element, Led Zeppelin! Greatest rockers out there.

[@acrobaticcripple8176]

Idjit!!!!!!!!!!!

[@mandrake6486]

Fucking knew it

[@scotts7017]

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.

[@alokverma3311]

fully clear explanation easy to understand..

[@freXampl]

"Rocket Science"

[@onesimuspaigiri880]

Trust me if each and every subject is taught this way in aeronautical engineering,I would build the next falcon 9

[@youruncle2]

look up kerbal space program or simple rockets 2 and you can

[@onesimuspaigiri880]

@@youruncle2 oh yeah

[@youruncle2]

@@onesimuspaigiri880 you. can 'borrow' it somewhere

[@onesimuspaigiri880]

@@youruncle2 kerbal space 2 is a game

[@prolska]

@@onesimuspaigiri880 the rocket is super fucking complex dude, i highly doubt you won't because of the cost, time, rescources and patience.

[@eliaskarasik194]

0:13 t pose

[@josephdargy936]

Thank you for actually explaining the main parts of the rocket engine. I was afraid that this was going to be another concept video.

[@alphyzqrw7222]

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 💵 💵

[@caladito]

After this video I am ready for build my own rocket.

[@Anamnesia]

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...

[@tinfoilhatter]

+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!

[@willoughbykrenzteinburg]

+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.

[@100SteveB]

+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.

[@tinfoilhatter]

what? there's no combustion!

[@Anamnesia]

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.

[@maccollo]

4:43 I get that it's just for illustrative purposes, but wow, that is combustion chamber is one bendy boi!

[@SF-fb6lv]

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".

[@Zero--no8re]

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.

[@snuk374]

I hope I can work for NASA

[@dxguy]

Study hard and do summer internships at aerospace companies.

[@majdsahmarany3091]

@dxguy I am trapped in the middle east where there is no single aerospace company, any suggestion bro???

[@justinevans1852]

Majd Sahmarany move to the west

[@RyanTheHero3]

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.

[@RyanTheHero3]

Fly with SpaceX fgs

[@darshanodedara296]

My search ends here. This is the channel I was finding from a long time. Wonderful "Learn Engineering"👍👍

[@W1llDaBeest]

pretty cool that they use a turbo charger to power the fuel pump! XD

[@chanbhai1]

Very well and simply explained. Thank you sir

[@andrisszalai1261]

Title should be 'How does a rocket work?' instead.

[@manofvulture]

does it make a difference?

[@andrei877]

I don’t understand why people disliked this video?

[@raunaqsingh5907]

Ex NASA scientists in the comment section

[@valiok9880]

lmao

[@bbssssssssssssssssss]

I dislike your comment but i pressed the like button,so that you have 40 likes cause i hate the odds!

[@smritigupta986]

Amazing video.... Very informative.... Wonderful... Thanks 4 the video.

[@barocco2300]

the Earth is flat. Thanks for watching I'm joking...

[@lovepreetsingh-tb2fk]

amazing video and very easy method

[@adiletbeishenov5731]

come on every one know that rocket fly because of magic 😂

[@maverikmiller6746]

Thank you very much for this video.

[@matthewcollier4388]

i wish you didnt have a 3 second pause between every sentence

[@pakseron1]

el mejor vídeo que he visto... genial

[@geonerd]

Robo-voice reading a Wikipedia rough draft ain't really making it. :(

[@uttambanik73]

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 😍😘

[@sridharshayana6348]

amazing explanation....

[@sivag22]

Excellent details ... thank you man...

[@triplekway]

what a video making , hats off.....

[@meenarawat7579]

I want to make a scientist so I also watch your video

[@bubblezovlove7213]

That's interesting, I didn't know the fuel moves over the nozzle....

[@feelingzhakkaas]

Very nice presentation . God bless you all.

[@KOTIKE100]

Really an awesome understanding video...

[@Jee-fg5wt]

i like that he uses Km/hr as unit

[@alexechenique968]

algo que si me gustaría es que estos vídeos los subieran también en la sección que esta en español.

[@dmncm3887]

Great video, excellent explanation.

[@windlive04]

Nice explanation, thanks

[@Aviation-PlaneSpotter]

Just wow ! Nice and simple explanation.

[@3melendr]

Leave it to an engineer to explain how something works in a language that "normal" people can understand! What's the chance of explaining the chemical reaction of hypergolic fuel? Very well done!

[@harikalatheeswaran9206]

An awesome video. Thanks a lot for enlightening us on this topic. Thanks again. Keep up the good work 😊👍👍👍

[@visualize2006]

Okay let's get to work

[@shawnford9104]

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

[@saadusmani78]

Such a great explanation! Keep it up.

[@LordBruuh]

Just subbed. Love watching educational videos!

[@paulguaglardi9693]

Thank you for this. I was wondering how the velocity was brought to sonic conditions for the diverging portion of the nozzle. Initially, I only saw the diverging portion and not the converging section.

[@deanfloyd8931]

Divergence, by defefinition is a defusion device producing decreased velocity. The highest velocity "must" be at the smallest diameter of convergence.

[@jogitoegosum]

That's true for subsonic flow only.

[@justindickinson2684]

@@jogitoegosum Explain how subsonic flow transitions into supersonic flow, once it has left the combustion chamber and is now exiting a divergent exhaust tube.

[@justindickinson2684]

@Kit Canyon That is common knowledge and in my case have learned this thru practical experience. Exhaust gases pass through smaller orifices at higher velocity than larger ones. Over 40 years of championship winning engines have proven this to be a fact, over and over again.

[@nvngamergirl2730]

It was awesome !!! Thanks !! 👍👍

[@drewcompton8904]

Technically, the gimble mechanism causes a bending moment which then causes the rocket to turn, not a torque. The gimble applies a force on the axis parallel to the cross section, therefore it’s a moment. If the rocket was spinning while still on the same heading, then that would be a torque.

[@AmbientMorality]

Drew Compton That’s just a torque in a different axis. Bending moment is certainly not right because the rocket is not bending (or at least the bending is not what we are considering for the dynamic model of a rocket)