Sidereus SSTO and Raptor 3 Revealed

[@sokolum]

Raptor 3 looks amazing ❤

[@terranspaceacademy]

It does indeed. Like Tesla cars it is a study in elegant minimalism.

[@yakirfrankoveig8094]

​@@terranspaceacademyexcept for one tesla car ahem ahem

[@PowerLineRacing87]

Raptor 3 looks rad! Thank you for the run down.

[@mvot966]

Just love your TSA lessons! In your hands math becomes a beautiful language. What makes your content even more powerful is that you have a point of view rooted in reality. Keep up the good work. Everyone benefits. Respect.

[@samedwards6683]

Thanks for your continued wonderful coverage.

[@gregculverwell]

I'm so impressed by the way SpaceX works. They really are the leaders in space technology. Elon is absolutely right about no part is the best part. Some years ago I worked on the development of a piece of mining equipment. The rivals had 250 parts, 5 of which were moving and the thing weighed 34 kg. Our machine had 82 parts , only 2 of which were moving and it weighed in 18 kg. Manufacturing cost was 1/6 th. We ended up completely dominating the market. Eventually one of the rivals (a major international company) bought out the design and signed a royalty agreement.

[@terranspaceacademy]

He is the Henry Ford of this century... With similar quirks it seems.

[@WWeronko]

Looking at the Raptor 3 / 2 comparisons it looked like a turbine exhaust pipe on the right. Being the Raptors are full flow stage combustion engines where the preburner turbine exhaust is supposed to discharge directly to the combustion chamber I was perplexed that the Raptor 3 looked like a gas generator cycle engine. I am happy you identified the pipe to be the methane supply line rather than a turbine exhaust. I appreciate you clearing that up for me.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It loops around and goes back in out of view... Or was the result of my trying to fade the inside parts in and out :-)

[@bigdogboos1]

That v3 is just insane. Musk is such a gift to engineering it's incredible. "The best part is no part" has to be one of the greatest methodologies every in engineering (at least for rockets). I can't wait to see what v4 looks like ... just shroud? lol

[@AidenHere]

Got back from some artifiacial AM torture. Going to watch this next!

[@terranspaceacademy]

Glad you made it back!

[@AidenHere]

Im alive :)

[@agustinvelazques3748]

@4:22 Not an advantage, ApaceX is ahead of everyone because of its work ethic & leadership, and mission. You people are so lucky to have this company in your national territory!

[@lanzer22]

I get your argument, but advantages can be multiple things and having one doesn't invalidate the other. Or another way to look into this is that Eager Space is diving into what makes Elon a good leader, and one of the aspect is that he focuses on making things easy to manufacture while other leaderships are happy with the status quo.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Without SpaceX America is failing miserably.

[@Shattered3582]

i like the idea of a small single stage rocket, and i wish them all the best. however i am not sure if it would work as well in the current and future market, especially when ride shares would be much more common and cheeper by the time this rocket is commercially ready.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a good point. But I'm happy to see Europe in the game.

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

If they can develop and produce a working 13kg payload model, then they can upscale it. How far? No idea, I’m an anthropologist not a rocket engineer!

[@YellowRambler]

I hope the Raptor engine works as good as it looks.😊

[@Wdbx831]

Thank you for another excellent technical video.

[@observer7070]

For the Raptor 3, a portion of the cyrogenic propellents actually goes everywhere via embedded microchannels before being combusted. Thats why it doesnt need heat shielding or fire suppression. Likely every combustion pathway (ie almost every part of the engine) is complemented by cryogenic counterflows.

[@markedward4290]

That raptor is looking polished. Impressive! Is the new v3 a "cooler running" engine? Why no heat shields needed?

[@lanzer22]

The issue was that fuel was running in all those tubes and they weren't heat resistant as they have such as large surface area per volume of fuel. Kind of like how our home furnace have so many small tubes to carry the heat from burning gas. Once fuel are routed inside the housing, it'll take a lot more energy/heat to make any effect on the fuel running inside.

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's a very good question... Either the metal is durable enough to take the heat or they don't heat up as much / are better cooled.

[@iamaduckquack]

Can't wait to see these bad boys fly.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Me too!

[@dirkbester9050]

What problem is Sidereus trying to solve? Get funding for some rocket scheme, maybe a fancy car or two? Oh nm, the dude explained it. They are making rocket science just and democratic. Finally, after all these years someone is focusing on the important things.

[@TheHatManCole]

This comment makes me chuckle. Good job revising!

[@lanzer22]

I might be wrong, but I think most space startups are here to make space "more accessible and affordable". :)

[@terranspaceacademy]

Very true. The Laws of the Universe always care about our politics.

[@larryboltz2571]

Solution! An antigravametric propulsion engine! Seriously, with some further tweaks, I think they'll have a shot at lofting some moderate tonnage into orbit.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I want one!

[@larryboltz2571]

@@terranspaceacademy Indeed. Me too. Seriously. If I had a workable antigravimetric design I might be tempted to sell it to Spacex.

[@patkelley4071]

Regarding SSTO, there are non-cryogenic solutions. Using High Test Peroxide (90% H2O2) and propargyl alcohol (think of liquid acetylene gas) you can use lighter tanks that reduces the dry mass.

[@topsecret1837]

As a design, I agree on the fact Sidereus didn’t use something like propane, which can be cheaper to procure.

[@terranspaceacademy]

It seems like a good choice to me.

[@randomsh-t917]

If you have a 13kg payload, why bother. Book it on a spacex ferry rocket.

[@TheHatManCole]

Depends how low they can get the price per launch, and how reusable it is

[@vinniepeterss]

yeah....

[@lanzer22]

I think their competitor will be RocketLab. If they can be fully reusable then they can out compete in price. For SpaceX those small payloads can only ride share which often limits the schedule and trajectory of when and where they can go.

[@terranspaceacademy]

They're booked years ahead.

[@andrewgrandfield7214]

@@terranspaceacademy That seems silly on SpaceX's part given their launch capability.

[@TheWadetube]

If you add disposable boosters, I mean on the sides, made of paper composite, expendable then it might work well. Small rockets are not as capable of SSTO as larger rockets. Also I believe there is a fuel and design that could get over 700 seconds of impulse if done right, through many iterations and experiments, but doubling the isp would make SSTO a snap.

[@richardknapp570]

Excellent episode. Thank you! Doesn't seem like the SSTO would be cost effective...but would have good response time (from booking to launch)

[@terranspaceacademy]

That's true...

[@Theodorus5]

Agreed, SSTO is clearly not cost effective (on Earth). But often whether or not something is cost effective is not the deciding factor in if it is economically feasible. That's because it's also about other things too, social prestige, style, convenience etc etc (many reasons!). Folks and societies are willing to pay for that. So SSTO does ultimately make sense as one part of the ecosystem of launch systems.

[@Theodorus5]

OK I just read your second sentence after "..." ! Yes, I would add that too as a reason to my previous comment

[@Wdbx831]

I guess each generation has to re-learn thruster idiosyncrasies. My team experienced the thermal issues with the doghouse and Teflon swelling issues in the mid 80's. We had a great propulsion and thermal group of engineers. We mitigated with operational changes for the first unit and used lessons learned to address the root cause for future iterations. It was interesting, challenging and rewarding work. Yes, unrelated and just rambling.

[@TheHatManCole]

I want to build a micro satillite in my basement now

[@terranspaceacademy]

Me too!

[@waynesworldofsci-tech]

Me three!

[@AbeDillon]

I think Sidereus's plan makes sense if they can nail low latency. Right now, if you want to get a rideshare payload on a SpaceX rocket, you need to wait at least 12 months.

[@eddjordan2399]

criminally under subbed.

[@stevenkarels1701]

Does water injection into a running rocket motor make sense? Perhaps to increase thrust during lift-off when the rockets mass is greatest?

[@terranspaceacademy]

It is indeed an effective technique. Just a little mass intensive.

[@NexusVR_heinzbeanz]

Sicl intro

[@tazerface8659]

Do they have to requalify falcon 9 for human spaceflight after deleting the sensor line?

[@dmurray2978]

I wonder if the successful flights they've already had without the sensor, would be considered fine by nasa

[@varietyegg]

I mean if it works it works "The best part is no part"

[@lanzer22]

I'm sure there is an internal review process that NASA goes through, and they will likely give a thumbs up after X number of successful flights. Likely someone smart that works for NASA will already be convinced that the risk is minimal at most.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Shouldn't need to. There'll be plenty of cargo flights but that is a good question.

[@theelf152]

The cracked line in the Falcon Line was Not a V3 Raptor. V3 has not been used yet. Just clarifying because your eg is misleading

[@terranspaceacademy]

I thought I made that clear. Apologies.

[@benjaminrickdonaldson]

Sidereus is going bankrupt. calling it now

[@lanzer22]

For how experimental they are, they are likely to need a lot of money to iron out all the potential issues. So I agree that they are likely to run out of money first. It makes sense how SpaceX started with a tried and true design, only focus on optimizing on cost, earn all the money they can, then go and do something crazy like Starship. It's the same story for a lot of the EV startup that compare themselves to Tesla.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Always a good bet in the space industry... Tough market.

[@jamieanderson6786]

The SSTO is not achievable at that size without a lot of exotic materials, and so far all I'm seeing from them is rolled sheet metal structures and lots of stainless steel plumbing. To me they look like another version of ARCA Space, and we all know how his SSTO claims worked out.

[@GrigoriZhukov]

What i think is that some days, i am no smart enough.

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

you brain and me brain smash together, make sorta bigger brain, brain better

[@lanzer22]

@@FoxtrotYouniform Wait do you mean that if the whole comment section smash our brains together we can start a rocket company and make our own fully re-usable rocket engine? I'm down!

[@terranspaceacademy]

No smash! Family channel! Get banned! BAD brains!

[@FoxtrotYouniform]

@@terranspaceacademy brain pout

[@withoutstickers]

Seems odd to build an Ssto rather than a reusable second stage. Why go to all that trouble for such poor performance?

[@Theodorus5]

Because it's **SSTO** ;-)

[@terranspaceacademy]

Simplicity :-)

[@alt5494]

Can only think of two useful payloads for 13K weight. Extremely secure storage servers or prototype vacuum engine testing. Possibly also horrible novelty uses but limited market to build a business on.

[@Mike-tv9rk]

Why did NSF never explain that the outer engines cannot be re- lit.? Not that I saw

[@terranspaceacademy]

the gas cannisters to spin them up would be too much mass. Plus since the returning booster is so light they would never need those outer 20

[@noe616]

The big problem Sidereous hasn't solved is reusability.

[@lanzer22]

Or getting to orbit. :)

[@terranspaceacademy]

That comes after orbitability... "-)

[@locutusofzork4630]

SSTOs will make a lot more sense once we begin manufacturing things (ships, facilities, etc.) in space. At that point, we'll only need to get humans to LEO and can transport to other locations from there.

[@J7Handle]

SSTOs make sense when you're not on EARTH. On Earth, they're extremely inefficient. The only selling point was reusability, but SpaceX has shown that two stages are even more reusable than one. What's the point?

[@terranspaceacademy]

RDEs will make SSTOs reasonable, especially for people, but multistage systems will always be best for high mass cargo.

[@Theodorus5]

@@terranspaceacademy "especially for people" that's an important point..

[@KamalaChameleon]

At the rate they delete engine parts starship won't have any engines! Like the saying goes the best part is no part!

[@setituptoblowitup]

it's a PFTO payload faring to orbit....

[@AbeDillon]

Elon Musk did NOT invent "Keep it simple stupid" (KISS). That's like the first thing they teach you in engineering 101. Everyone is so impressed that he reworded it to, "the best part is no part", but even that isn't true in aerospace engineering. Often times redundancy is key.

[@GreyDeathVaccine]

The only SSO that makes sense is Skylon, but its development is extremely underfunded and it will likely never take off.

[@karlthemel2678]

RP-1 is old space!

[@markmaz56]

With the reusability pioneered by SpaceX, SSTO makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Just too much unneeded dead mass.

[@HensleyTG1]

🤔🌠👍

[@terranspaceacademy]

:-)

[@r-saint]

SSTO is stupid. On the other hand, if they can convert it to a reusable 2nd stage of a booster like Falcon 9, it would be a great idea, and you could reuse both stages.

[@Theodorus5]

is there a place for SSTO in the ecosystem of space launch?

[@r-saint]

@@Theodorus5 For now, no, but point to point space planes have potential and in far future could use Sky Hooks to reach orbit, it would be wiser.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I agree. Stokes space style.

[@MissilemanIII]

The SLS is a total waste of money.

[@ankursahu269]

increase your rocket engine power please sir please

[@terranspaceacademy]

It's supposed to be 250 now I think.

[@ankursahu269]

@@terranspaceacademy thank you

[@marklepo6577]

SpaceX did too much for the Raptor 3. I can make a bet they will take a step back in some areas because the rocket like that cannot be maintained and ends up trash if something internal goes wrong.

[@RogerM88]

I still don't get it. You're so cautious and skeptical approaching other Rocket Companies claims, but all in with SpaceX claims, especially coming from Musk. Raptor costing less than 1M? That will take a long time. Starship has plenty of design issues, still far from being operational and underperforming in thrust levels.

[@terranspaceacademy]

Raptor costs less than one million right now for SpaceX to build... one of the things that distorts these comparisons is how much does it cost to build an RS-25? We know what they charge for it... but that's not the same. The SLS probably should have used the RS-68 anyway. Although retired with Delta IV these were very effective engines that were made to be disposable. With the RS-25 we are throwing away Ferraris with every trip to the grocery store. I would have loved to see a space plane with RS-25's.

[@RogerM88]

@@terranspaceacademy The RS-25 cost include the hardware, assembly, and Crew rated certification. Also more powerful per unit than the Raptor. Too soon to compare both Rockets and getting into the hype train.

[@dmurray2978]

@@RogerM88 even if raptor cost ten times its current price, it's still a better deal than anything nasa or Boeing or anyone else is doing. Some ppl exist only to hate on musk and his companies lmao

[@RogerM88]

@@dmurray2978 This not about hating on Musk, it's being unbiased. Plenty of hating coming towards Blue Origin, ULA, and NASA. The more Rocket Companies to succeed in launching their rockets the better for Space exploration.

[@noahgossett6134]

I remember tim dodd with elon in the first starbase tour that the goal was to get the engines priced under 500k in the distant raptor timeline. I think lol ​@@terranspaceacademy

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

'Sidereus'? Have they missed several hours of Latin education?

[@mememaster69-n4x]

Raptor 3 simpler than my car engine!!!!!!!! why not let spacex make combustion engines

[@Nuke-MarsX]

i dont think SSTOs are a good idea

[@catsupchutney]

Comparing a 2020 era design to a 1970s design is a low way to brag about how advanced something is. Instead compare Raptor to its peers.

[@lanzer22]

True, he should compare to the Blue Origin's BE-4 which is $8million each, and also not re-usable. The BE-4 is similar to Raptor V2's performance but the V3 will trump the BE-4 in performance. Chamber pressure on V3 is bonkers. 2.5X of the BE-4.

[@williamcrawford7621]

Sadly, those 1970's designs remain a peer of the raptor. They are essential to NASA's latest rocket design intended to be used in the same lunar missions as the raptors. That makes them peers.

[@terranspaceacademy]

I have my friend. Many times. The only true competitor to the Raptor is the RD-270. The 70s was the pinnacle of rocket design. There are several lessons looking at BE-4 and Raptor... And others comparing the RS-68 to Raptor.

[@grahammonk8013]

@@terranspaceacademy I think I'm right in saying the fuels for RD-270 were hypergolic, and probably very expensive? (not to mention difficult to handle) Raptor fuels are probably the cheapest you can have right now, and can be made comparatively simply.

[@adammcgregor-d3y]

This channel is not recommended.

[@rik94sivie]

By who?

[@williamhoward7121]

By who? . Why?... Stupid open opinion. This channel is highly recommended to anyone who actually wants to learn about rocket technology. If you're not smart enough to follow it, there are plenty of channels out there that are dumbed down.

[@anonymoususer3561]

"humankind" Redditor detected

[@dansegelov305]

With reusable rockets, SSTO's are pointless. I imagine Siderius' vehicle will eventually be seen as the test article for a future reusable second stage

[@terranspaceacademy]

Most likely