How SpaceX Builds A New Raptor Engine Every 24 Hours!

How SpaceX Builds A New Raptor Engine Every 24 Hours!
Last video: The 2023 Tesla Gigafactory Update Is Here!
• The 2023 Tesla Gigafac...
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Space Race: / @thespaceraceyt
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Subscribe: / @theteslaspace
Welcome to the Tesla Space, where we share the latest news, rumors, and insights into all things Tesla, Space X, Elon Musk, and the future! We'll be showing you all of the new details around the Tesla Model 3 2022, Tesla Model Y 2022, along with the Tesla Cybertruck when it finally arrives, it's already ordered!
Instagram: / theteslaspace
Twitter: / theteslaspace
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Tesla #TheTeslaSpace #Elon

[@jacquesmulder8041]

There was very very little on how they build a Raptor every 24hrs

[@jerrycordova1971]

But the fact remains....they build 1 raptor engine every 24 hours, trust them.

[@elitecol69]

@@jerrycordova1971 Same as all the moon talk, they don't even have a deep space capsule for this at all, so 10 years away still for that at least. There's a massive difference between a Dragon capsule, and a deep space capsule that can carry to the moon.

[@fish2468]

@@elitecol69 true, so…what’s your point? that spaceX is lazy and unproductive?

[@rimiadoss9792]

@@elitecol69 yep 👍

[@trickeruniverse1979]

@@elitecol69​lol space was literally contracted by NASA for a Human Landing System for The Artemis 2 mission in 2025. they have been working in doors on the HLS version of the starship and they’ve said they’re making good progress. So that particular starship would be deep space Capable and will take astronauts to the moon. Nobody ever said they’d be using dragon capsule for deep space missions, because that is literally what starship is currently being Made to do. Do your research

[@tobyihli9470]

I still can’t get over how the booster lands to be reusable. I can sit and watch it over and over, never getting over how quickly it adjusts right at the very end to center itself on the landing pad. Incredible!

[@Nill757]

It seems implausible because we think of the booster as very heavy, several hundred tons, which it is at take off when full of fuel and oxidizer. At landing, its not.

[@FizzleFX]

This is not a new technology NASA did the same years prior

[@Canadazeus]

It's done with a smartphone. All you have to do it connect it to all the engines at once. Simple.

[@Nill757]

@@Canadazeus it’s not simple to retro land boosters

[@TheNheg66]

​@@Nill757it will arguably be a bit easier with superheavy than with falcon9. An almost-empty falcon 9 with a single engine running at minimum thrust has more than 1TWR so it can't hover, however an almost empty Superheavy at minimum thrust can.

[@Mallchad]

2:00 Go watch the EveryDayAstronaut's videos on Raptor and Engine cycles, it's literally his shots being used in the video, and he does a much better job of explaning everything. 4:22 - The Stage 0 Launch Mount spin starting the engine only applies to the Superheavy Booster's outer ring of engines, or maybe all of them. Uncedided by SpaceX. The external engines don't need starting twice so only the inner engines can relight themselves for landing, the booster and ship uses high pressure fuel in so called, "COPV's" (Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels) to spin up the turbines. 4:50 - It's a misnomer that not using a pressure vessel is more simple. Arguably its more complicated to have the Launch Mount spin start the engines because of the extra plumbing and the tens of quick disconnect points. It's really about moving complexity from the rocket to the ground, saves weight and simplifies flight hardware. 6:00 - We suspect SpaceX will replace the torch igniter with a much simpler spark gap igniter. You could supersize this for a rocket if you wanted. 7:00 - Raptor 1 uses a lot of flanges to connect up pipes and chambers. Raptor 2 will use as many welds as possible, all of them if need be. Rocket engines have very large temperature differences, over 3,000 C of temperature difference, it causes a lot of thermal expansion and contraction, which moves the flashes and fastenes and causes them to loosen and to leaks. leaks between flanges create a sudden pressure increase in the gap and makes it liable to explode.

[@joshgray1331]

no torch ignitors in R2. Elon says their solution to not having them is "secret sauce" in Tim Dade's tour (I think part 2)

[@Mallchad]

@@joshgray1331 That video I believe, I didn't say but yeah they're keeping it a secret, first ideas of ignition methods is compression, spark gap, TEATEB, another similar spontaneous ignition mix.

[@faytaliti]

Hey! This insightful commentary is a cool companion to some of the long form content that Everyday Astronaut publishes. Having said that, It isn't cool that you don't link his video from which you sourced some of your video clips. You could easily link it in the video description for anyone looking for a more detailed look into the engine mechanisms or even the SpaceX tour.

[@jazekerxx7535]

always nice to watch video's and informative, but i was hoping to see how they build a raptor every 24 hours, like the title says... maybe you have to do this one over..

[@camgere]

If mom is a production operations engineer, her daughter in junior high school could figure this out. Takt time = time to produce another engine = Quantity/Hours available. If you run two shifts a day, 16 hours, and need 4 engines a day Takt time = 4 engines/16 hours or 1 engine every 4 hours. Factories use pipelined production where work is done simultaneously in multiple stages. Minimum Number of Stages = Work Hours per engine/Takt time. Say 160 Work Hours per engine. Minimum Number of Stages = 160 Work Hours per engine/4 Hours Takt Time = 40. Due to roundoff and overhead this number will get larger. Mom gets paid to keep the increase small. Don't thank me, thank Henry Ford.

[@rays2506]

What you say is true. All we know about the Raptor 2 production rate is that 7 engines are final assembled per week. We don't know what the total work hours per engine are and so we don't know how many production stages are required to reach that final assembly rate.

[@Alarix246]

Multiplication of lines doesn't increase efficiency. Simplification of design and robotics does.

[@linuxgeex]

@The Tesla Space - My guess for how main chamber ignition happens is that they asymmetrically burst the throttles to the turbo pump pre-burners. That would cause them to belch a variety of mixture ratios and pressures, which would cause the main combustion to backfire the same way older car's exhausts would under similar conditions.

[@clavo3352]

LOL "3 doz. beating hearts." I think I felt a tear welling up! Great video! *really loved the combustion chamber metallurgy lessen.* That was a great informative detail!

[@motodudu]

It’s amazing how Elon manages all these companies.

[@charlesvandenburgh5295]

A rocket with 30+ engines? Making the odds heavily in favor of a fatal rocket engine explosion.

[@nigelpalmer9248]

It doesn't matter how many engines if every time the light one off half th bloody heat shield falls off

[@rays2506]

Starship heatshield tiles fall off during static firings on the test stands that place the bottom of the vehicle a few meters above ground level. When the Raptor engines are fired in this configuration, the acoustic forces on those tiles are very large and result in a few tiles becoming detached (not half of the bloody tiles). During a launch, the Starship (the second stage) is attached to the top of the booster and the engines are about 220 feet (67 meters) above the booster engines. So, the tiles will not experience the damaging acoustic effects that occur in those static firings near the ground. There are about 15,000 tiles on Starship and maybe 10 tiles become detached (10/15,000 = 1/1500). Elon has added a flexible ceramic fiber mat between the backside of the tiles and the Starship stainless steel hull. This mat has use temperature capability approaching 3000F (1630C) and provides a backup for the tiles.

[@Nill757]

Query: where is the mechanical support in R2 to transfer that impressive 230 tons into lifting the rocket body above? Seems like a lot more steel would be needed in the R2 engine mounts, esp w that vibration environment.

[@costrio]

Elon Musk is the Henry Ford of the rocketry industry, IMO. After a few flights they only come in black.

[@peanuts2105]

As an aircraft engineer, I am interested to see how SpaceX engineers screwjacks for flight control actuation. All the screwjacks I've seen in operation are quite slow which is the exact opposite of the required task. Either the thread per inches or foot needs to be really course or the drive motor is a 3 phase beast that has to be lubricated really well under those loads and axial speeds. 🤔

[@CATA20034]

ActualLy you don't need that fast actuation. You can break the rocked if you slam it hard. At it's size the loop is slow.

[@Steven_Edwards]

@@CATA20034 I think in a perfect environment this is true, you have time during decent to adjust by however many degrees per minute and nail the landing, however I am curious to see how well that holds up in the real dynamic atmosphere. Of course, it's not just the gimbling but the throttling that can be leveraged for control, so I imagine given all of their experience they have with landing Falcons (at sea no less) that they not only have software that has it modeled perfectly, but that they can stimulate almost any landing condition. I have more concerns about other aspects of the StarShip design. The Raptors are about the least troublesome part I see.

[@peanuts2105]

@Steven Edwards you are right when it is descending in the upper atmosphere where coarse actuator corrections are satisfactory but I should been clearer with my thoughts. Those raptors on final decent burn, you can actually see them gimbaling on the XZ axis pretty aggressively just before touchdown which hydraulics can only do. Just look at large flight control surfaces on B777 and A380 etc. Those large slabs move very quickly which is very impressive to watch during function checks. Either way, I'm intrigued to see SpaceX get around this problem 🤔

[@peanuts2105]

@A Z nerds rule the world you little tosser. Now finish wanking in your sock

[@yougeo]

That's super alloy is an amazing development. Copper aluminum and steel that can withstand 12,000 PSI in an extreme oxidizing environment is just incredible. That development alone is something that could launch whole new product lines and industries in many many other markets. It would allow the development of products that today are not possible. Things like jetpacks and other things. Not to mention all kinds of incinerators and hydrolysis technologies maybe even car engines

[@davidchang8428]

obviously musk is an alien

[@whoguy4231]

Perfect Engineering principles ... KISS and having single parts perform multiple tasks. Less Parts = More Reliability = More Efficiency

[@aarondyer.pianist]

Good content, thanks. I'm seeing so much repetition of SpaceX stuff so it's nice to find something I haven't seen, yet.

[@manoelvalerio]

Elon is a very smart guy. I like his approach.

[@foremasp]

Raptor will be an engine tailored with the most perfect of comprises.

[@yougeo]

They've ditched the hydraulic gambling system for electric. Apparently they're using the electric actuators that were developed for the Optimus robot which famously lifted the piano in the Optimus reveal

[@apw1975]

39 engines, 36 sea level and 3 vacuum.

[@irrefudiate]

Good point. Depending on the mission, the Starship could have only vacuum enigines.

[@xploration1437]

42 total. There are 3 regular and 3 vacuum engines on starship.

[@dancingdog2790]

@@xploration1437 3 RS, 3RVac on Ship, 33 RS (20 fixed, 13 gimbal TVC) on the Booster = 39 engines; a potential upgrade to 6 RVac on a stretched Ship would take the stack to 42 engines.

[@TheHeavenman88]

There is NO way you actually have that info.! lol

[@CyberSamurai4Life]

The electric gimbal was tested this week as well.

[@Nill757]

Yes the question is not whether an e motor could turn a screw but where does one get the very high amp electric power with out adding more weight than the hydraulic system? Battery? Generator running off that zillion rpm engine turbo?

[@simonlesec]

WOW! You are the best!!!

[@michaeljaneschitz-kriegl9598]

At 10:10 : This is not a Raptor but a V2 rocket motor. Chamber pressure 12 bar or so..

[@sproctor1958]

What everyone forgets is that although currently Boosters require 33 engines, and Starships 6... only the Starships will go to the Moon or Mars, because the Boosters will land for rapid reuse. Once a set of Boosters is complete, only replacement Starships (and their engines) will need to be manufactured to be sent out into the Solar System! Every 26 months a 1,000 ship fleet could be sent to Mars. Approx. 6,000 Raptors needed every 2 years for that. I think they are going to need more Raptor factories.

[@rayRay-pw6gz]

What kind of air pollution does this endeavor create ? Plus the cost to taxpayers for the last 75 years ? And how has this program aided our society ? Not only the space program but, also all the satellites sent to deep space and space exploration programs. Many are jobs programs that state elected officials fight over to send federal tax money to their state . FREE MONEY ! Same with defense programs. $$$$$$🙈🙈🙈

[@United_Wings]

Nice

[@edmondhung6097]

5:32 This doesn’t look like a full flow staged combustion to me

[@yougeo]

I love how they came to the conclusion that if something is only used during launch then you should leave it on the launch pad defying all previous expectations that a rocket needs to carry with it the means to self start. Being willing to totally throw away all conventional ideas is what has allowed SpaceX and many other musk companies to LeapFrog current technology. He always brings it back to the most basic things which is actually hard to do once your brain has been trained on existing technology.

[@Luffchild]

This was a lesson on how the engine works, not how SpaceX makes them. One, two, three or four a day depends on the assets applied. They make many more than four Tesla cars a day! Please redo the video with a focus on production - materials, techniques, number of lines, bottlenecks, quality control, number of days between start and completion of a single engine.

[@danielwhyatt3278]

I think they can achieve this. It’ll just take little more time, perhaps 1 or 2 years to reach the end result so they can start true mass production.

[@bearlemley]

11:00 I believe you made an error here. This particular award of One Billion (with a capital B) was to restart the production line. NASA will still have to buy the RS25’s.

[@goldviper5280]

Very intriguing video. Amazing engineering.

[@mrdavevachon]

Probably use the screw type actuator they patented for their robots

[@maxramirez1141]

Well.....How do they build one every 24 hours??

[@CC-iq2pe]

SpaceX is already out pacing all other rocket manufacturers in the number of engines they produce annually.

[@w8stral]

No, they do not build a raptor engine every 24 hours. They build a block of metal that might, after testing, turn into an engine

[@elitecol69]

Same as all the moon talk, they don't even have a deep space capsule for this at all, so 10 years away still for that at least. There's a massive difference between a Dragon capsule, and a deep space capsule that can carry to the moon.

[@malcolmrickarby2313]

They will need more than a thousand new rocket engines a year to supply a thousand rockets in ten years. 🤔🚀

[@wegder]

Is musk going to export?

[@will2see]

3:00 - 9 is about half ??? wtf?!

[@randreas69]

It's badly subtitled but I'm used to it. He says the Raptor II is the muzzle of Spacex but the sub says "muscle", go figure.

[@RAGHAV_SINGH_1519]

❤❤❤❤

[@alokinzna]

So did they actually make over 300 of them in the last year ???

[@oatlord]

Seems kind of odd to go full production mode without having a proven system yet.

[@radofenix]

This is pure speculation.

[@GrahamDIY]

“More power, FEWER parts” (Not ‘less parts’) Who wrote these slides ???

[@williamvaughan1218]

Adhering to the keepitsimplestupid engineering concept anything is possible. As a mechanic I can say it's about dam time!

[@Sonderax]

The scary thing is, it isnt a rate of 1 engine per 24 hours but 24 hours per engine. They are cranking several engines out per day and are only getting faster. Easily 3-4 per day meaning 100 per month

[@SjMk1.]

I struggle to find how anything can cost over $/£250,000

[@FizzleFX]

Musk: they melt on the Teststand Musk: Let's mass produce! Fabs: GENIUS!!!! Me: jeez. Model 3 all over again

[@jgpudlum8899]

So reusable rockets, disposable engines?

[@rogermills9128]

250K? Damn dirt cheap…

[@wayneparkinson4558]

It's all about who you know when getting advanced technology someone favours this guy and oversight is needed to ensure he's not working with a divine power ?

[@soundslight7754]

Great info, thanks a lot for sharing. We (SpaceX) need better rocket engines and to bring them back for reuse

[@alanmay7929]

So…….what!!

[@soundslight7754]

@@alanmay7929 Watch the video first, then my comment makes more sense

[@user-tp6iu9jg1s]

โถไอโฟ่น โยกซ้ายขาว มันจะไม่ทำไห้เกิดการเสียหายในการยกตัวของวัตถุรึ ไม่ใช้การคำนวนในการปล่อย แยกไอโพ้น มันจะง้ายกว่ามั้ย ปล่อยตาม การเหวียงของวัตถุ เเล้วบังคับเอา เหมือนรถบังคับ มันง่ายกว่า น่ะ

[@saamsaheb9985]

He already replaced the hydraulic system by electric and he used Tesla's batteries 🤣

[@michaelhband]

👍👍👍❤❤❤🚀🚀🚀

[@diraziz396]

Thumbs U guys. Thank you

[@thesilentone4024]

Diesel just uses very high pressure to ignite it why cant exstrem pressure do the same even with a open gape the pressure is insane. I think elon should build his factorys at old abandoned mines so he can fix the land as he goes but the government can't go your destroying the land. No not rockets I mean batteries solar new technology any new factory to help him out and ya I guess rocket engines too. Ps Texas is full of old abandoned mines so is nevada and Arizona.

[@carl9901]

doesn't this belong on the space race channel?

[@linuxgeex]

Yes I think it's doable. And they really do need 1000 per year to hit their goal of 1M people on Mars by 2050. At first glance, the majority consumer of Raptors might appear to be the Heavy Booster. But the goal is to get them "rapidly reusable" - flying 6 or more missions per day, and getting an average of 100 launches per Raptor. If it requires 6 launches to refuel a Starship for the voyage to Mars, and if on average a Starship carries 40 people every 2 years and we start sending people in 2030, then there needs to be 1M / 40 / 10 = 2500 Starships on average between 2030 and 2050, each with 6 Raptors = 15,000 raptors. And for the boosters - 1M / 40 / 10 * 6 / 100 = 150 Heavy Boosters each with 33 raptors = 4950 Raptors. So 20,000 raptors delivered by 2040, the middle year... 1000 raptors per year if they'd started in 2020, lol. I think in reality they will manage to refuel in 5 launches instead of 6 due to efficiency improvements, and that will get them back on schedule with "only" 1000 per year! Another consideration is how many Heavy Boosters you need to hit the launch window. With 150 doing 6 launches per day that's 150 Starships ready to go per day, so it would take about 17 days to refuel all the interplanetary Starships. 17 days fits a variety of launch windows. The range of options is restricted mainly by transit duration and free return parameters, but they're all easily within Starship's loiter capability. But I think they'd also need at least 75 Orbital Launch Mount / Mechazilla combos, operating 2 Heavy boosters each, with launches every 2 hours!!! Imagine that!!! A launch every 96 *seconds* for 17 days !!! Imagine the global celebration / contempt !!!

[@alanmay7929]

In your dreams lol… keep dreaming!

[@linuxgeex]

@@alanmay7929 Indeed, I shall. 🙂🚀

[@TheLastAlexander]

these are just the new LS Moter

[@mariolis]

How is 3D printing making scaling harder ? It literally removes labor as a factor of production...

[@jazzmusiccontinues1134]

It’s orders of magnitude slower than other production methods. Great for prototyping new parts, not great for rapid production. “JuSt iNcrEase tHe nuMber of 3d pRinTers” Yeah? What’s that going to cost? For a process that’s still too slow? Better to invest in manufacturing methods that can crank out high quality parts 10x quicker. Until there’s an advancement of the state of the art in 3d printing anyway.

[@jamesherring1166]

Yes I think they can!

[@LG-qz8om]

Take one rocket engine manufacturing line and replicate it time 4 and you have over 1200 engines per year. That's all it will take. But perfect a single line then replicate that.

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

I thought elon tweeted 1 raptor every 12 hrs. ?

[@joshgray1331]

Lots of misinformation here. One example: gimbal actuators are now all electric. Elon even mentions this in Tim Dade's tour. Sooooo many other problems in this vid. Might want to take it down or do more research next time.

[@joshlewis575]

It's all just gobbledygook anyways so who cares if ya lie about the lie. Musk is nothing more than a snake oil salesman through and through. But instead of scamming local rubes he scams uncle Sam to the tune of billions annually. Weren't they supposed to be going to Mars just next year initially? Yet they've never even gotten it off the pad without catastrophe. Sure thing this will happen 😂😂

[@akira28shima32]

Tim Dodd. Why so quick to shiit on other people’s work! ??

[@davidchang8428]

I thought Elon Musk was asking for 69 engines per day

[@Princey2k24]

Ok, so how do they build one every 24 hrs?

[@godagon97]

*39. Soon to be 42.

[@ryantaylor1142]

My name is mud

[@user-nk1eg4rk8f]

พัตรถะนาถึงไหยแล้วน่อ

[@ericblanchard5873]

Great job on making this video, keep it up, don't listen to the Karens. Your videos are positive, but most people's reactions are negative these days, why? I have no freakin clue. You made free videos for people to watch and they all have great information but it's never enough for some people.

[@ericblanchard5873]

@Adam Braunbeck you just believe in the misinformation like all the other dumbasses! Good luck with that!

[@wayneparkinson4558]

A.i project will pay for his ambitions which are illuminate indeed and government seems to be on side so i say who's side are they all on when dealing with the unknown?

[@ljprep6250]

If anyone can build 1k rockets within a year, it's Elon & Crew. They've created/become a supreme company.

[@rcosnett]

Well done Tesla. Bob

[@MickeyMouse-kh2gj]

maybey Elon will do the same when he starts making the c t

[@q4od]

🧐

[@mibo747]

1 a dah 4 per year... Taxpayers pay for the second

[@KingLarbear]

This was better at 2.0x

[@chucktaylor4958]

Elon just practices an old technique call redundancy.

[@SJR_Media_Group]

*_FORMER BOEING - LEAN MANUFACTURING_* 4 engines per day seems like a big stretch goal and won't happen overnight. Not long ago, they were making 1 per month. That increased to 1 per week. Currently they are making 1 rocket engine per day. At Boeing Everett, engine specialist can complete a giant GE9x Turbofan Engine in less than 1 day. At one time it took three 8 hour shifts over several days to make one engine. Lean Manufacturing, Just In Time Inventory, and workforce training are responsible for the increase in production, improved quality, and reduced cost to customer. Simplifying designs, components, and manufacturing processes in incremental improvements will allow SpaceX to reach it's goal of 4 engines per day. Due to the complexity and very precise tolerances, skilled technicians are needed. Theoretically they could move towards 1 engine per 8 hour shift. That would net 3 engines per day x 5 work days = 15 engines per week x 4 weeks per month = 60 engines per month. It could be higher if they run weekend shifts and work month as high as 4.5 weeks per month. Keep in mind, this is ONE production line. Once all the processes have been improved, ADDITIONAL production lines could be brought up quickly. SpaceX VENDORS will also have to increase their own volumes to meet SpaceX's production rate. When I was with Boeing, we went to the different vendors and helped them increase their production just as did ourselves. SpaceX needs lots of rocket engines. The Booster uses 33 and the Upper Stage uses 6 for a total of 39 per rocket. Keep in mind if all goes well, these engines will be reused after the Stages return and land. Engines will be rebuilt / repurposed and used a number of times. *_If Tesla can make 1,000 Model S Cars each day, SpaceX will be able to make 4 Rocket Engines per day._*

[@AlexSchendel]

I still don't understand *why*. Given that the goal is a fully reusable rocket, that would obviate the need for such ludicrous production rates.

[@andrewvercillo6225]

I just did a quick Google search and Toyota had $200B in debt in 2020, I can only imagine that number is much higher now!! What a shame. They can not recover. They got two big, and can never change.

[@markkoons7488]

If anyone can do it, Musk/SpaceX will be the one.

[@lucidmoses]

Are they not using the same engines on StarShip as on the Booster? If so, how could an external startup system work on mars?

[@shrikedecil]

Consider it a "starter motor". For booster, leaving the starter motors for the outer engines off saves tons of mass. For Starship ... they "just" put the motors on the ship. Sure they're "The same rocket engines", but they can have different sets of "accessories". People are continually confused about things that are simply irrelevant to any current model. A *Mars* Starship is going to have piles of differences. And there's like five or so clear variant models already. But none of that is relevant to figuring out the very first problem: "Can it go *up* "

[@lucidmoses]

@@shrikedecil I see. So it's just a word game as to where you draw the line as to what's part of the engine. Most people would think the turbopump is one of the main components of 'the engine' but it's technically not required as long as you feed fuel to the engine with enough force. So Tubopumps, Starters, Control Computers, etc I think most people would thing the 'engine' is the parts that make the flamy stuff come out, that is not part of the consumables. But that's just colloquial meanings. As per his target audience. I'm sure the people installing them think it's what ever got sent from the manufacturing site. I'm sure the engineers working on the engine have their own definition as to what part 'the engine' is. And then of course there is the people that call them motors. :p

[@shrikedecil]

@@lucidmoses Although I inferred sarcasm from that, you described it very well but for one part. The turbopumps/computers are needed for both "starting" and normal operation during flight. But on the ground, the turbopumps can be chilled and spun up with gases from hoses that disconnect on launch. And there are closeup shots of the launchmount detailing this. If you look at the *outer* engines in flight, from what we've heard, they simply don't have the right plumbing, valves, connections, tanks etc to *re*start in flight. The outer engine's "starter motor" is on the ground, as part of the mount itself. They still have turbopumps and the electronics. The inner engines, the 'boostback burn engines', they do have whatever they need for starting in flight. On earlier flights, part of that "relight" capability is from the carbon overwrapped pressure vessels of helium. Their starter motor was packed along for the flight.

[@lucidmoses]

@@shrikedecil Sarcasm? Yes, I could accept that. Honestly it seemed like you misunderstood the meaning behind my original comment and thought I knew very little about how starship is suppose to work. Since you where nice about it and seem like you where genuinely trying to help, I just ran with that and had a bit of fun. So here, I’ll reword the original comment into something more youtube normal (hostile) so you can get my meaning. - You idiot, there are more then just two versions of the engine. Based on your goofy statements how would they get off Mars. - I’m not one for getting all upset so I took a more pleasant tact. Not being that great at English yet I didn’t notice it could be taken another way until I read your reply. So Sarcasm? Well a bit of fun anyway. I did make sure that what I wrote was accurate. I trust that what you wrote was accurate at some point. Maybe even the current plan. But they change things so much and he keep stating that it’s not finalized yet so I’ll take it as such. I’m not that bothered about it being current or not. I’ll wait till the finalized one. Musk has stated that the base design of the engine was based on restarting. It’s a very long multi step process to get the engines to start. Your talking about one piece in one of the steps that they don’t add to all the engines. But the rest of the startup stuff is there. It’s not really possible to remove the starting process from the engine. It’s not like a car which has a “starter”. It’s more like a jet where as long as you can get enough flow the engine will take over the starting duties on it’s own. You can get that from a truck on the ground or by hurling through the air. So sure. You can take the starter off and it won’t start, but that’s just one (heavy) piece in a much more complex system. There is a video with Musk talking about the Raptor 2 and how one of his biggest problem in recusing the plumbing and pipes was that they still needed to allow them to start. I would point out that turbopumps/computers are not required. There are plenty of rocket engines that don’t have either. That and the Raptor 2 has most of it’s starting stuff backed into the design of the engine. Things are not so cut and dried. Incidentally there are rockets out there that huck out parts as they are not needed anymore. Starship could drop parts they no longer need but I don’t think they would need to.

[@donfields1234]

Having a dream and creating it is Elon's masterpiece. He has so many masterpieces now and I am happy and proud to be a part of his mission since ours allign so well.

[@alanmay7929]

Lol….. which mission!?

[@jjojo2004]

I’m no engineer--but 36 engines in the 1st Stage of the Starship is a POOR DESIGN to begin with. The Russians couldn’t do it 50 years ago and they had the financial backing of the STATE to fund that N1 Program. 🤔🤔🤔 Meanwhile, the SLS/Artemis has ALREADY orbited the Moon. Starship is way behind schedule.

[@viggo48sam]

Totalt vildt 🏁🏁🏁🏆👍❤️🇩🇰dk

[@johnmccourt]

This is what happens when you let Elon Elon.

[@AR_Wald]

All hail to lord Elon!🙌

[@peaceful9007]

Are you crazy that’s a human Beeing don’t ever disrespect your self

[@user-wp8kz5uk4t]

схемы не верны.

[@user-su6ts9wm1h]

lets hope we won't use these engines for war

[@flyingpictures1100]

So not one an hour.

[@ingemar_von_zweigbergk]

could starship breathe in air and feed that air to the raptor engines instead of feeding raptor engines with oxygen from oxygen tanks to save weight or would it be difficult to split air into oxygen from nitrogen

[@shrikedecil]

The core problem is that the atmosphere gets a lot less dense very quickly. Ramjets/scramjets/etc are explored for *jet* like things. And it's arguably useful ... for jets. But. The second you've decided to 'go to space', then the air-breathing gear is "dead weight" beyond some point (depending on exact gear). And rocketry is entirely about minimizing dead weight. The weight of the gear (including structural reinforcement!) needed to compress/liquify/etc air ends up being a significant slice of the **empty** weight of the rocket. "Just" replacing that same weight with fuel+tank ... when you compare the two you're going to choose "larger tank".

[@StephanAhonen]

A British company is working on this. Look up the SABRE engine.

[@IzanRamos]

Hey, would be cool if you could credit me for the stolen Raptor renders and credit Everyday Astronaut too for the graphics I made for his video that you also put here.

[@bshn10]

Sure

[@quinwatier4281]

That’s to much money for me to put one on my car can this be subsidized by Elon

[@johnathansmith9059]

No these rockets dont produce pollution at all ....

[@amirsafari7140]

I'm coming after watching bunch of scatt manlys videos, after those, these videos look like children essays