How Powerful is the SpaceX Falcon Heavy Rocket?

This video provides a simple procedure for estimating the peak power output of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
Support Art of Engineering on Patreon:
/ artofengineering
Shop Art of Engineering Merchandise:
teespring.com/stores/ArtofEng...
Twitter: / aoengineering
Facebook: / artofengineeringyt
Video Attributions:
“Falcon Heavy Test Flight” by SpaceX
“Live Views of Starman” by SpaceX
“Elon's SpaceX Tour - Engines” by SpaceX
Still Image Attributions:
“Falcon Heavy Demo Mission” by SpaceX
“Falcon Heavy on pad LC-39A” by SpaceX
“Merlin 1C Vacuum engine at Hawthorne factory” by SpaceX
“Three Gorges Dam, Yangtze River, China” by Le Grand Portage
Music from Epidemic Sound
#SpaceX #FalconHeavy #ArtofEngineering

[@ArtofEngineering]

For anyone wondering, 150,000,000 horsepower is about 19,679,897,290 duckpower 🦆

[@Deglychi]

ty for this info

[@fenixfox1695]

quack

[@robinsonmitchell9995]

And how many furlongs per fortnight squared acceleration of a payload massing 1100 firkins is it capable of?

[@suar99x29]

Why still using horse power or duck power. We need more fun stuff. Human power. Tiger power or lion power.

[@EgadsNo]

Wow ducks are mighty powerful, a small horse is about 537 times larger than a small mallard. Given the same strength for the weight that would be 78,750,000,000 duck sized horses ( 4x more ). Makes sense though- the duck is the fastest thing on two feet ( under their own power, yes birds of prey dive faster but for covering distance ducks are the fastest they average over 100mph on long-distance flights )

[@paulsharp695]

2:10 RP1 *is* the refined kerosene, not a combination of fuel and oxidiser.

[@xlynx9]

Right. RP-1 and oxygen are stored in separate tanks and are fed to the engines where they meet for combustion.

[@bd739]

Another great video! Every time I see the notification, I drop everything to watch. Can't wait for the next one.

[@fernand0seiti]

congratulations, your videos are explanatory, with good illustrations and bring technical information without being tiring for us lay people.

[@BloodysChannel]

8.5 tons of fuel per second? Holy.....

[@alquinn8576]

Uses almost as much fuel as a Jeep Wrangler

[@captainoblivious_yt]

The Saturn V used up about 13 tons of fuel per second.

[@notarness]

Rly

[@cat-em3mj]

Still not as much as a buick lesaber

[@dzhellek]

Let's see, A gallon is about 8.3 pounds so A ton would be 241 gallons which makes that 2048.5 gallons per second. A few years worth for a reasonably economical car.

[@TheEpcwin]

I always love these videos i'm always sad at the low initial view counts keep it up

[@blitzen9849]

Fixing to head out there and watch the launch. Should be awesome!

[@teenconservative3433]

Blitzen jealous! Enjoy yourself, you’re a part of history!!

[@cyclonefreak2568]

Same launch pad 39a is about 20 miles from launch but it's still enough to where I can see it pretty well and I can hear a crackle in the distance

[@GouldTimes]

Wow. The analogy with the dam's was impressive.

[@10Exahertz]

Dam Impressive

[@pandiyanp5816]

NICE !!!

[@alejandrobitchakoch9993]

Have they consider putting a couple of retractile wing and landing Gear to fall controlled like the Shuttle? Cos you have to climb with the extra fuel for the later Landing.

[@PEOdysseus]

can you do this calcs for the starship spaces rocket?

[@killernat1234]

So it would take 150,000,000 horses to reach Low Earth Orbit

[@willgaugler6855]

killernat1234 I feel like if you had that many horses you could stack them on top of each other then climb the stack

[@ArtofEngineering]

@@willgaugler6855 The average height of a horse is between 1.4 and 1.8 meters, so 150,000,000 horses stacked on top of each other would get you more than half way to the moon from Earth. Unfortunately, the global horse population is only about 58,000,000.

[@willgaugler6855]

Art of Engineering dang bummer😂

[@killernat1234]

Willy G we need to get breeding then

[@alquinn8576]

Unfortunately the gestational period of a horse is 12 months but if we use 12 horses it's 1 month

[@whalehands4779]

My Jeep makes 124hp, to the wheels! So, yeah! Take that Falcon rocket!

[@newworldorder4728]

Breakdown the Saturn V please...

[@theyarehere8919]

Are those free-range horses? Which ones are the best?

[@rustygear447]

i liked the video but retracted after spotting some errors. 1. FH isn't the most powerful in existence. it's the most powerful operational rocket. 2. RP-1 is just kerosene. it doesn't have oxidizer mixed in. it would be extremely dangerous if it does. RP-1 and LOX sit in seperate tanks in FH

[@ArtofEngineering]

To address these issues: 1. I did not claim that FH is the most powerful rocket ever built. I said that it is *currently* the most powerful rocket. 2. I stated that RP-1 *Is* a refined form of kerosene. However, the mass flow rate of propellant through the engines includes the mass of both kerosene and oxygen combined. Edit: After watching the video back, I see that the graphic at 2:06 is incorrect. It should show that 1 kg of propellant consists of kerosene and oxygen, rather than 1 kg of RP-1.

[@ManofCulture]

150,000,000 horsepower! ITS OVER 1.21GW! *GREAT SCOTT!!!*

[@flip66five]

1.21JW...😉

[@beckma475]

That's "Heavy" is not just a fancy name ...... In Science We Trust.

[@Terablick]

Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket of today, but certainly not in history! There were at least 4 (3 succesfull) stronger rockets in history. The most powerful rocket ever used was Saturn V, with 140 tons of cargo capacity to LEO, which is more than twice much as Falcon Heavy can do without landing, and almost three times much as he can with landing. It is still amazing piece of engineering, and much more practical and economical one, just it is not the strongest one in history, but "only" strongest still in use :)

[@toebiwankonobijuciysmooyay3400]

Get a load of this smart guy

[@adamhamid4834]

Wut about the saturn v rocket

[@patrickreidy7420]

When they say this isnt rocket science lol

[@thomaswijgerse723]

rp1 and keresine are the same thing btw.

[@deepmaths9677]

Would be great, a video about powerplants 😍🖐

[@mohamedbaza9573]

Have a nice day my dear friends

[@crashburn3292]

18,900lbs of fuel per second? That's almost as much as my 1979 Chevy Blazer....

[@stupidgenius42]

Simple it has 24,681kN (5,549,000 lb f) of thrust at liftoff

[@103798]

'Without accounting for efficiency" - Come on man, its like 75% down with efficiency

[@EmmanuelMessulam]

Not really, all fuel is being burnt, and most of the force is downwards.

[@103798]

@@EmmanuelMessulam Thats not how that works

[@EmmanuelMessulam]

@@103798 What do you mean?

[@EmmanuelMessulam]

@Zachary Martinez Unless you believe that the mass of the propellant is being converted to energy, and then is being dissipated as heat, loss to heat would be minimal, as the mass before and after the reaction is staying constant, and what moves the rocket is the fact that mass is being exhausted (Newtons 3rd law).

[@AmbientMorality]

@@EmmanuelMessulam No, he's right. A higher temperature drop implies higher exit velocity. If the exhaust exits hot, it's still storing a lot of energy that could have been converted into kinetic energy instead. That being said, rocket engines do far better than they implied - the high temperature differential makes a rocket nozzle quite a good heat engine.

[@timcent7199]

Good video thanks. Just one issue for me is you are at times hard to understand because you speak too fast. It's like you're calling an auction. Apart from that nicely done.

[@TimothyChapman]

How about we just put a super-light payload on it and see how far that'll go?

[@lifethrownoutofthewindow]

and BFR will be 6 times this!

[@popelschlucker]

1:23 only kg pls.. wtf is lbs

[@georgeragheb7497]

Keep in mind, some of us use the lbs (pounds).

[@geovanninovran6221]

Divide by 2

[@stagethree1]

111.9 gigawatts

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Beats 1 point twentyone jiggawatts!

[@OkOk-tu3gc]

This is basically real engineering with a different accent.

[@albertopajuelomontes2066]

while theorically falcon have can deliver 64 tons to orbit, it's structurall limits will not allow it to launch more than 30t

[@Chemist4271]

As far as I know that’s incorrect. The FH flying in an expendable configuration should be able to launch that much. That number for payload capacity is advertised on SpaceXs website

[@xlynx9]

I think 30t *is* expendable. In practice, these figures aren't literal, but reference points for extrapolation. The question is really "how close can you get my 6 ton satellite to this this particular inclination in GTO, because we want to save as much of the satellite's fuel as possible for orbital maintenance over the next few decades".

[@hayo7073]

Well even if so (I don't know if you are right or not) SpaceX is never going to send 64 tons to LEO anyway. You need all this power to get it to harder to reach orbits or missions where multiple different orbits are needed (just like the last mission).

[@regretthepast4776]

Балдеж

[@whalehands4779]

Why are you not working for space x or nasa? Tell me you’re doing something of that magnitude.

[@NonsensicalSpudz]

depends on his engineering skill. also he may just be very interested in engineering and has knowledge and does reach on that.

[@nicktohzyu]

great content, but please be mindful of your choice of music as the kick beat and high pitch are distracting and pulls away from the narration. also OUTRO MUSIC IS TOO LOUD

[@muhammadmuhaimin5969]

Ok im out.... This need really strong mathematics

[@aks9545]

totally agree, i would have used a different approche, using acceleration variations mass variations and real estimates of the power output of the rocket at launch

[@StefanReich]

Rockets are CRAZY inefficient, aren't they? Literal TONS of fuel consumed per second? BTW, total mass of Falcon Heavy is 1,420 tons

[@AmbientMorality]

They're efficient for what they're doing, it's just that carrying all your fuel and oxidizer with you is inherently terrible

[@goldgreatdane1]

Good video. My only complaint is I think you are too hard on the dam. While the Rocket can output a large amount of power. This power is only maintained throughout its launch. Meanwhile the dam has a much higher GW/hr which is more useful for electricity production since we do not have an efficient way to store large amounts of power.

[@paul_vlad]

I think that tesla shouldn't launch sattelllites into space because it's bad for the enviroment. Instead they should use wind energy for power like they do in germany. Dams are also bad because the fish get stuck.

[@alquinn8576]

Fortunately Tesla is not launching any sattelites into space...

[@flip66five]

No but tesla makes a sweet batery pack that will store the dams power pretty efficiently😇

[@jambunboii4537]

He literally taped 4 of his rockets together because one was too small

[@thebestboi7641]

0:16 No its not.

[@MauriceGuibot]

8573 kg of fuel every seconds omg haha that's a lot

[@goldenfloof5469]

The advantages of using a high torque, low rpm engine vs low torque, high rpm engine.

[@krishnaprajwal3672]

m* = F/(I sp x g) not f / Isp

[@Sixta16]

But you have calculated only the power input to the engine, not the power output. Awww man... youtubers these days...

[@rajtilva7853]

I wanna try a marathon with this rocket. Pray for me guys I might beat it😆!

[@QueenGloria1]

Primitive rocket like Primitive metal boxes on gumwheels just built an ufo the middel capsul is standing the outside is rotate thats it

[@rodg011]

it is powerful enough to suck tax money

[@lolpls3704]

Why don't u research before blabbering shit.... Do u know where the tax money goes to? It goes to the government and government funds NASA but spacex is privately owned by ELON MUSK so he is not getting the freaking tax money.... Though, NASA can give them contracts but it's not their MAIN funding

[@williampiergiovanni5227]

Too much babble to get to the point