SpaceX’s New Raptor V3 Is Changing Starship's Design

[@FerociousPancake888]

Man that raptor 3 engine is attractive. Can’t wait to see them fire.

[@kevinrose8568]

Short, sweet, and to the point. I like your presentation style.

[@samrusoff]

Seriously. It really stands out how direct and efficient he gets information across in the video without all the unnecessary fluff and video length padding that other channels do to game the algorithm. Keep up the great videos

[@737smartin]

Reminds me of my Air Force training. Tell the what you’re going to say, say it, then tell them what you said.

[@vueport99]

Now if he can find a better AI voice, it'll be perfect

[@paranaenselol]

​@@vueport99 this is AI? Pretty sure he siad its hes own voice

[@SebastianWellsTL]

Raptor V3 will be a huge improvement from V2! Really looking forward to seeing them in use on a Starship!

[@marksinclair701]

I believe the 10 tons of “heat shield” is more the result of needing prevent a single engine RUD from taking out its neighbors, and potentially so on and so on. Raptor 3 is supposed to survive RUD without firing pieces of shrapnel everywhere. That seems like a hard thing to validate to me, give all the different and violent ways a rocket engine can explode. It’s not such a big deal until they try to human rate Starship. SpaceX are proposing no launch escape system, so the booster and ship (and therefore the Raptors) must be incredibly reliable.

[@acasualviewer5861]

I'm wondering how they'll get away with the no launch escape system. To me it sounds like the no need for a water deluge system that they originally came up with. I think they'll have to back track it. But we'll see how it goes. SpaceX never fails to surprise and do amazing things.

[@longboardfella5306]

@@acasualviewer5861yeah. However Starship IS the launch escape vehicle for the combined booster+starship stack as Musk has explained a few times. Those raptors can power the Starship away from the booster faster than an explosion can get to it. The real problem is that the Starship itself has no escape system - but then again neither do other spacecraft once the escape system is jettisoned - the plan is HUNDREDS of flights without failure to prove out the human rating. I reckon that’s a decade away

[@AliHSyed]

We will have to wait and see how it progress and the impact it has on the space industry. Thank you very much for posting.

[@eddjordan2399]

love your end of vid round up every time. great channel

[@antoninbesse795]

Presumably the cows at 5:07 are there to produce Starship methane?

[@paranaenselol]

Yup, they actually do it, searched a bit and its true

[@andrewdillon7837]

He was told at the start not to use methane , It's all new tech ,,just go with the usual,,, H2 leaks , helium runs up walls, ,,3rd version is powerful,and quick an easy to build ,,, The stainless steel use proved itself too..

[@MyKharli]

Except its not reached apollo 4 level yet .

[@TimCortesi]

Nearly all new rocket engines under development use methane as the fuel. Blue origin, rocket Lab... Etc. SpaceX is by no means unique in that regard.

[@MisterJooch]

The raptor three model looks unsettlingly simple

[@gregaiken1725]

exactly. would be interesting if someone explained the mods between v2 and v3. though im hearing its involving some core vacuum tech changes.

[@Goliath83]

great video quality as always, some constructive criticism from me though would be maybe looking into reducing that white noise every time you talk, its not really annoying but i found it a little distracting sometimes, have a nice day :) Edit: I've gone and listened to it on my phone and the noise isn't audible, i guess you can only hear it on pc

[@oberonpanopticon]

What white noise?

[@Scaliad]

​@@oberonpanopticonI think it's in his voice...

[@filonin2]

@@Scaliad I think it's in his head.

[@Scaliad]

​@filonin2 I enjoy the presentation, but go back and listen... this guy isn't wrong. There is a wispiness to the presenters voice.

[@Saivarun11]

Those cows running for their lives 05:08

[@julianfp1952]

As I see it - and maybe seeing what I want to see rather than reality - even more recent Raptor 2s have been incredibly reliable. We can't know all the details but discounting IFT-1 I'd say it's entirely possible that out of 117 engines (3 flights with 33+6 Raptors each) there might well have been only a single failure that is down to the engine - the one that shut down almost immediately after OLM booster ignition on IFT-4. It's entirely possible that all the other failures (and maybe even that first IFT-4 failure) were down to issues further upstream (fuel slosh, clogged filters or other issues that weren't actually in the engine itself). Obviously all those non-engine issues are critical to identify and fix but the more of the failures that we have seen in the IFTs that were upstream issues rather than engine issues does bode very well for where SpaceX is already at re engine reliability.

[@dissaid]

Thanks Man!

[@acasualviewer5861]

Just to put it into perspective, Raptor 3 at $250,000 will cost LESS than many small jet and turbo prop engines!

[@fionajack9160]

These sites are something, either soulless AI bot voiceover with mangled words and grammar, or maybe real guy reading too fast, and monotne

[@lordgarion514]

"We've got more Raptors than we know what to do with". What a coincidence, Boeing has more Starliners than they know what to do with. 🤣

[@k.c.sunshine1934]

I love how Elon's company does engineering!

[@oberonpanopticon]

Elon’s the idea guy and business man, but the engineers who work for him are the ones doing the real magic

[@k.c.sunshine1934]

@@oberonpanopticon Are you denying that Elon created the highest-level design process? THE 5 STEPS. (1) Make the requirements less dumb. (2) Delete the part or process. (3) Simplify or optimise the design. (4) Accelerate cycle time. (5) Automate. It seems to me that the SpaceX engineers continue to execute according to the 5 steps to a high degree of accuracy and success. As a retired engineer, I assure you that Elon is different than the "typical business CEO" at other companies. It's absolutely true that SpaceX deserve a lot of credit for the great work that they are doing, however, I am sure that the engineers that don't live up to the 5 steps are gone.

[@konfunable]

I love how Elon's fanboys will always love him no matter all the facts.

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

@@konfunableuhh what

[@konfunable]

@@Fyrem0th-was-taken Moon in 2022 and Mars in 2024!

[@simonhampton1304]

I am just impatiently waiting for starship 5 launch,OMG that last one was amazing. Im hoping to see a hard landing very soon eapecially of that booster rocket. We are seeing history in the making with this starship. Im 44 now and i could see a human going to mars before i leave this world.

[@ricardoabh3242]

V2 is impressive

[@robertorzech8922]

Great topic but I can't handle your reading .You dont separate your words making it hard to understand ! Learn how to read !

[@julianfp1952]

So does that 10+ ton weight saving from removing the current fire suppression behind the heat shields involve the removal of those huge CO2 tanks housed in 2 of the very long chines on the booster? If yes then not only is that a good weight saving but I would think that it will also be a very useful cost and time optimisation when building a booster. Those huge CO2 cylinders are I believe manufactured elsewhere and trucked to Boca so that's probably a relatively costly component and then when you see them being fitted to a booster in a Megabay it looks like a pretty serious lift (2 lifts actually - one for each cylinder) that probably needs a lot of prep (making space, establishing bigger-that-usual health and safety exclusion zones because of the swept space taken to lift the cylinder from horizontal to vertical etc). It's probably a Megabay operation akin to installing a methane downcomer so getting rid of those CO2 cylinders entirely would be nice for the production process too.

[@marks7502]

thnx

[@scottymoondogjakubin4766]

Im still curious to what and when will be the first payload ! So many things happening so quickly ! Most likely a load simulator or a bunch of starlink satillites !

[@TopGear543]

When is the 35 engine booster coming?

[@bluesteel8376]

Long time. That is version 3 of the booster. They are still making version 1s.

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

They’re adding 2 extra raptors to super heavy in V2

[@caimanaraujo479]

​@@Fyrem0th-was-takenwhere did this info come from?

[@saumyacow4435]

Call me a sceptic, but removing safeties like shielding between engines sounds reckless. Also, the continued engine failures don't instill confidence. Maybe continue to push the engine to extremes for the sake of a few percent performance is not the way forawrd?

[@caimanaraujo479]

The lack of safety is justifiable when there is nothing in danger. If it wont be a problem, it simply won't, there is no reason to treat it as a risk. Saying the lack of safety there is risky is just like saying the lack of heat shield on fighter jets is dangerous, or the lack of refirbishment in airline planes is dangerous. There is no reason to spend money and resources on something thats proven to work without those expenses. "Continued engine failures" Which ones? There were what, 3 engine failures on the last 110 test flight engine ignitions, and 5 on the last 1000 engine ignitions including ground firing. The reliability of the raptors is simply undeniable, and the amound of failures is impressively low.

[@saumyacow4435]

@@caimanaraujo479 So what you're saying is that Starship well never have humans onboard? I'll buy that 2 Raptors failed on the most recent test Planes don't drop like bricks when their engines fail so that's a bad analogy.

[@ArethaDawn]

💫 happy birthday 0:30

[@gnarly706]

I think the catch tower should be a tall platform with a hole in the middle.

[@oberonpanopticon]

ah yes, let’s make threading the needle even harder

[@caimanaraujo479]

Amd then the booster gets stuck there forever lol

[@ricardoabh3242]

Up to test flight 5, these are v1, no?

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

Flight 8 will be the first V2 flight

[@paranaenselol]

5:44 enderman

[@caimanaraujo479]

Lmao I see it

[@jiiji_jp]

人類を月に！に向けてのアップデートを優先して欲しい！！！現状のアップデートの方向性に疑問...

[@kc10man]

That's not the new Raptor design💩

[@weissmorris8822]

Again, excellent video much appreciated with the worst narrative (presumably AI) ever. Can’t you please do something about that?

[@darkkennny1]

🤣 that is he himself

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

Not AI lol

[@Thoran666]

The Raptor V3 is going places. Can't wait to see some videos of it. But at the same time it pains me to see how much fuel is required for each start. It doesn't help our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and I can't afford a ticket on a rocket.

[@thomasreese2816]

The fuel (methane + oxygen) can be obtained via processes powered by solar panels or wind turbines. This is more renewable than existing fuels

[@oberonpanopticon]

I’ll start being concerned when rockets are flying through the stratosphere as frequently as planes are

[@johnstephenson5158]

My understanding is that Raptor uses methane that would otherwise have been burned off into the atmosphere anyway or just released into the atmosphere. Raptor is carbon-neutral, and one could even argue that it benefits they environment by burning methane that could of otherwise been simply released in the atmosphere (way worse for the environment than some CO2)

[@filonin2]

​@@johnstephenson5158 Your understanding is wrong. Methane is not a waste product and is in fact a valuable fuel. What do you think gas stoves use? It is vented to the atmosphere during fossil fuel refining because it's easier than storing it but it doesn't need to be and still is. Raptor is not carbon neutral as that methane comes from fossil fuel. A carbon neutral rocket wouldn't be putting new carbon from the ground into the atmosphere and they sure af are not offsetting the carbon with anything else.

[@TwitterAR3]

lmfao

[@wyattnoise]

Casual reminder that Starship V.1 was supposed to carry 100 tons to orbit but has only ever flown empty and the entire program has already expended more rocket engines than the entire shuttle program did over decades of flight, even factoring in their two vehicle losses.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

No. Thats not how it works.

[@blakemcalevey-scurr1454]

It has flown empty but with less fuel, so it clearly has capacity. I think the main reason they haven't flown payload yet is a combo of: - not entirely reliable yet, many changes each flight, wouldn't risk payload - being paid for development milestones for Artemis - focus on long term reusability, which dominates the returns of a few deployments during testing The latter two come into play when there's any conflict between deploying a payload and demonstrating reuse. There's the obvious tradeoff of limited engineering time, but there are probably many in-the-weeds reasons. That said, I feel if I were in charge I'd be trying to deploy starling satelites by now.

[@blakemcalevey-scurr1454]

Loss of engines doesn't really matter compared to cost. It's too early to say if the starship development program will be capital efficient, but I think it's fair to guess that they will deliver far more than the space shuttle at far less cost. They're currently sitting a like 10-20x less than shuttle's cost.

[@tedarcher9120]

The cost of engines for the whole starship programm is still less than 1 (one) RS-25. The number of engines is irrelevant

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

Obviously it’s expended more engines, starship has 39 total and the shuttle had 7. Not to mention the shuttle reused all of its engines: the SRBs parachuted down, and the OMS and SSMEs came back with the shuttle to be removed and reused. Not a good comparison. The raptors are also far cheaper than any shuttle engine. Also, plans have changed: V1 used to be meant to deliver 100+ tons to LEO, but is now delegated to be a prototype for the first operational version: V2, due to them finding improvements and deciding to improve the design before launching with payload.

[@wyattnoise]

Starship is funny. Just like the Cybertruck, it feels like a vehicle Musk actually did have a lot of input in, which is why it is absolute dog shit.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

That makes no sense.

[@blakemcalevey-scurr1454]

Is it dog shit though? It's already clearly capable of deploying massive payloads, and it's closer to full reuse than any rocket in history except arguably the Falcon 9.

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

This guy actually commented three times on one video just to shit on musk lmao. Actually pathetic

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

Bro actually commented three times on one video thinking people would care about his opinion lmao

[@hypercomms2001]

33 engines and now we find out from Enron Musk that the thing can only lift into orbit 40-50 tons instead of of the original 100 tons that he originally claimed … what an absolute fuck up!

[@thomasreese2816]

As compared to the

[@oberonpanopticon]

He’s doing the opposite of the Scotty approach, he’s promising way too much so that even if reality falls short of expectations it’s still better than the competition

[@filonin2]

It's not done yet kiddo. If you'd huff a little less gasoline maybe you could understand that.

[@hypercomms2001]

@@filonin2 Ha Ha HA...! This is especially for you!! PS: How is the uncrewed Lunar Landing coming along, that was supposed to have occurred in Q1 2024????? kzbin.info/www/bejne/o2OWpXqnotKcd5osi=SzuY5xKpf-9E2wsr

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

These are test articles, you clearly don't actually understand whats going on or why.

[@wyattnoise]

Casual reminder that SpaceX the longest-running private space flight company and still hasn't launched a single payload outside of LEO.

[@reyviqueira3159]

Did you forget about a falcon heavy launching a tesla roadster all the way out to Mars orbit? Go Google it.

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

@@reyviqueira3159 haters tend to ore than a little dishonest.

[@blakemcalevey-scurr1454]

Nope. From wikipedia: Launches to higher-orbits have included DSCOVR to Sun-Earth Lagrange point L1, TESS to a lunar flyby, a Tesla Roadster demonstration payload to a heliocentric orbit extending past the orbit of Mars, DART to the asteroid Didymos, Euclid to Sun-Earth Lagrange point L2, and Psyche to the asteroid 16 Psyche.

[@zatheriz]

As all already pointed out you are wrong and I don't think that's any sort of goalpost. They are the industry leader, like it or not. The push for reusability can be directly attributed to the success of the Falcon 9 rocket.

[@blurpsiez]

No You forgot Blue Origin dude, they run longer than SpaceX and not even single orbital launch yet

[@konfunable]

Just face it. It is Space Shuttle 2.0. And it is going to have the same fate. Exactly same idea just different form.

[@TheNheg66]

Miles off target

[@konfunable]

@@TheNheg66 We will see.

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

I dont see any wings

[@Fyrem0th-was-taken]

I dont see any wings on that thing lmao

[@konfunable]

@@Fyrem0th-was-taken The level of intellectual depth of Musk cult.