The How and Why of Rockets' Staging

[@NetRolller3D]

Atlas-D's booster was a "half-stage" not because it separated vertically, but because it didn't have its own tanks. It was just extra engines feeding off the main tank. By contrast, the Falcon Heavy side cores or the Shuttle SRBs are full stages, as they have both their own engines and their own propellant.

[@Patchuchan]

More so because all engines were ground lite so the the boosters become stage zero. The Shuttle was stage and a half and Falcon Heavy is two and a half stage.

[@NetRolller3D]

Patchuchan No, a parallel stage is still a full stage. Also, counting from 0 vs 1 doesn't change the number of stages. What makes Atlas-D a "half-stage" is that it doesn't carry its own propellant, it just siphons off the main tank - an engine without a tank. Another type of half-stage would be an external tank feeding into the internal tank of another stage, i.e. a tank without an engine. Technically the Space Shuttle is two-stage: the SRBs are a full stage (with parallel staging), the orbiter carries a half-stage (engines without a tank), and the ET is the other half-stage (tank without engine). Were the Shuttle to have a smaller internal tank feeding into the SSMEs, and the ET feeding into that tank, it would've been 2.5-stage.

[@RussianThunderrr]

Maybe I should post this question right here to get the debate going... If anyone cares... I just been trolled about Soviet space rocket Soyuz, my opponent claims it was a "collection of boosters"(he was talking about first stage), while I been thought that its main engines called blocks(I guess just like in the car engine block that consists of the banks of cylinders in different configurations - in line 4, V-8 and ect.) due to the collection of combustion chambers analogues to cylinders), so back then(before Shuttle and Buran space programs) there were no concept of boosters, and first stage of Soyuz rocket consisting of five main engine blocks, four of PД-107(BTW "P" in Russian "R" called Rocket, "Д" or "D" in English, stance for "Двигатель"(or "Engine" - or literally Rocket Engine) with only two steering nozzles, while РД-108 is the same RD-107, but with two more(for a total of four) steering nozzles. So RD-108 called BLOCK - A and located in the center surrounded by four RD-107 called BLOCKS - B, C, D and E strapped on the perimeter of BLOCK - A engine. So the question is - does blocks B, C, D, E - are considered to be boosters(and if NOT, then why it is not a boosters?) or blocks of main engine? Thank you in advance. Here is the diagram of Soyuz rocket: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Soyuz_rocket_and_spaceship_V1-1.svg

[@agenthambo]

Always remember to check yo staging?

[@mattmatt516]

When you forget to check and you light your engine and separate all your stages at once...

[@herbbluntman2287]

First rule of Kerbal SP. Check your staging!

[@zipper761882]

Let Jeb handle it;)

[@k1productions87]

He would.... Fly safe o_~

[@kobusdowney5291]

Lol I also wanted to say that. Amen brother!

[@Peter_S_]

With the advance of S.T.E.M. and greater equality in science, Amy is a *_PERFECT_* educator for a curriculum including all this amazing information. These episodes could be edited into a curriculum fairly easily and the written material would also be fairly easy to assemble by just following the line of Amy's research and presentation. I don't know if this is an educational series about reaching into space, or a gold mine of educational potential? Both I recon.

[@dafydd2277]

Ack! Editing blooper! You describe series staging, then you describe combination series/parallel staging using wording that suggests you've already talked about parallel staging, AND THEN you introduce parallel staging. It looks like you got the combination and parallel segments switched, before you went on to stage-and-a-half.

[@rjallenbach1]

Those bangs though, and incredibly smart 😍😍😍

[@rjallenbach1]

Erwin Rommeow go be edgy someplace else

[@bobbyharper8710]

I worked at the space facility that manufactured those Saturn boosters. People lost interest in men walking on the moon and the program was cancelled. Entire completed booster stages were simply parked outside and other parts of the country as tourist attractions. Which in itself is cool because I can go up and actually touch the massive engines, examine their lockwire techniques, read pressure tube tags. Fascinating!

[@WestOfEarth]

I want to thank you for your work. For many years I feared Apollo would be the last 'hurrah', or the pinnacle of space exploration. But we have SpaceX and Blue Origin, and others working toward space. This pleases my heart.

[@jamese9283]

What was your job there?

[@bobbyharper8710]

James E Sadly my job when I first started was to throw Saturn era materials in the dumpster as we transitioned to building the Space Shuttle external Fuel Tank. I could only dream as I walked through the myriad of cables, hydraulic and gas flex lines that would have been used to test the completed boosters. Old test consoles sat vacant. Ghost house.

[@jamese9283]

+Bobby Harper Fascinating to hear from you as someone belatedly connected to the mighty Saturn V and ushering in the still impressive Space Shuttle external tank. I would have been fiercely tempted in your shoes to snag a few throwaways to keep. I will always look up to the marvel of the Saturn V, as everyone does even when it is lying on its side because it is so big ;-) Had the pleasure when I was young to see the one on display at KSC and plan to go again. Maybe the SLS will achieve great things and we will have another achievement to look up to in the future.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

I feel compelled to get near them with a lighter like James May.

[@marcsmerlin]

Amy - It might be nice one day to do a video on the difference in efficiency between rocket nozzles used at sea level versus those used in vacuum. My understanding is that this is one of the main reasons behind rocket staging. Maybe a video on NASA's attempts at single-stage-to-orbit like the VentureStar, too, if you haven't already done one. Thanks!

[@AthAthanasius]

Indeed this very high level overview doesn't really feel convincing about why staging is done. After all, why throw away the 1st stage engines and structure only to burn fuel in a 2nd stage, when you could be burning that fuel in the first stage and instead not have the 2nd stage mass of engine ? Different nozzles and fuel types used is probably the answer. I think this is also something that needs some hard numbers to be truly convincing. NB: I *know* staging is done for good reasons, I'm just saying this video, sadly, fell short of explaining why.

[@gordonrichardson2972]

Ath Athanasius Explaining a lot of space stuff requires mathematics, Amy tries to keep the videos simple for a broad audience.

[@jvqn6581]

That's kind of a bad feedback loop though. No broad audience for maths -> don't explain any maths in videos -> even narrower audience. I think the rocket equation definitely belongs in a video on staging. There are good ways of explaining it to people without prior knowledge. In fact, Marc got half of the explanation and the rocket equation shows why: Delta-v = Isp * log(wet mass / dry mass) Delta-v measures what your rocket achieves, you want as much of it as possible. You need 9.4km/s for low earth orbit, 12.6km/s to escape earth. Google "delta-v subway map" for great illustrations. Isp (specific impulse) measures the efficiency of your engines. Making an engine efficient is very different depending on the thickness of the atmosphere and how much thrust is needed. On lower stages you have short nozzles because there is plenty of air pressure and you need high thrust (or lots of engines) because your rocket tends to be huge at this point and you have to overcome gravity. In space, you can build longer nozzles which are better in vacuum and the engine(s) can be quite weak since you can just burn them longer. This is one reason why staging helps a lot - the same engine won't be good at both. Finally, there's the logarithm term. This captures the fact that packing more fuel in your rocket gives diminishing returns. For every extra litre of fuel you have to add even more fuel, to get that litre up to the point where you actually burn it. You can look at the equation from the other side (solve for the bracketed term): To get more delta-v, the percentage of your rocket that needs to be fuel grows exponentially! That's impossible to do, after all you can't have a rocket that's 100% fuel, you need engines and tanks, not to mention the actual payload. Again, staging to the rescue: By ditching stuff as it becomes useless (empty tanks, superfluous engines etc.) you can push your fuel percentage higher during the flight and thus increase delta-v.

[@stevengeorges9046]

You beat me to that point. The size and shape of a rocket engine nozzle at sea level would be very inefficient at higher altitudes and in space.

[@twirlipofthemists3201]

Might be good to go through the steps with a simplistic mock design. Start with minimum rocket with no payload, add an astronaut, add their weight, add fuel to compensate, add the weight of the fuel, add more fuel to compensate, realize your rocket is no longer providing sufficient acceleration, add bigger rocket, add weight of rocket, add fuel to compensate, realize your fuel tank isn't big enough, add bigger fuel tank, add weight of tank, add fuel to compensate, realize your rocket isn't big enough again, add bigger rocket, add fuel...

[@americanswan]

Proud to sponsor your awesome hobby.

[@lilyride7865]

I bought your book and it just arrived in the mail today! Can’t wait to read it!!!

[@SteveChisnall]

I'd like to see a video from you about the United Kingdom's short-lived orbital launch-vehicle, which was officially capitalized in all-caps as "BLACK ARROW". It's a pretty interesting story.

[@RSLpunk]

Everything is beautiful and lovely!!!!

[@darkestkhan]

You missed asparagus staging :) Although it was never put into practice so far due to complexities of fuel crossfeed.

[@teddykgb3865]

My little Kerbals swear by it. :D

[@Widestone001]

And more than one of mine died by it. ;-D

[@vel0city96]

Basically, you have tanks with engines on the outside of a center core (kinda like the Soyuz rocket or Falcon Heavy) but with fuel cross-feeding into the center core so it always stays topped off with fuel. When the side boosters run out of fuel and detach, you now have a rocket travelling at speed but with a fully fuelled center core that can now burn said fuel for longer while also pushing less mass that you just dropped with the side boosters. The name stems from the fact that you can do this with multiple boosters, one booster fuelling the next which fuels the next and so on. You're dropping off stages kinda like how you peel an asparagus.

[@dr.paulwilliam7447]

Actually, that works! The Space Shuttle was able to do just that...

[@jacobspadt2567]

Dr. Paul William Not quite. The space shuttle had crossfeed, but did not have engines on tank, nor did it have tanks on the orbiter for the main engines.

[@djblanton]

loved this one. 5:35 min and I learned a semesters worth of content. AST rocks. Was excited to go to the mailbox yesterday ... your book arrived. Looking forward to starting it tomorrow evening. have a great rest of the weekend and productive next week.

[@crazybrit-nasafan]

Another awesome and informative video. Any chance on a vid about the vehicle assembly building and the crawler? Most importantly. WHERE'S PETE?

[@CraigBaumer]

Love to see some more detailed "nuts and bolts" type videos, like how did the sections stay together? powered latches, explosive bolts etc. As a former A/C mechanic with the USAF I love the more engineering type of videos with the actual hardware.

[@aliozanerbektas]

I knew moonlanding was staged... I need friends. 😭

[@char2c584]

Ozan Erbektaş ...

[@kobusdowney5291]

Lol

[@DarkDennis1961]

hahahahaha nicely done

[@tecnocato]

Good one.

[@zonnekat1]

Ozan Erbektaş Go too a flat earth KZbinr...☺

[@dreasonf]

Your one of the personns that maked me like space history . Now i love everything related to the space exploration . Thanks you .

[@petersherman4383]

Thanks for making this video Amy! You did a much better job than I ever could of explaining the techniques and reasons behind staged rockets, and I'm looking forward to sharing this video with my wife.

[@__GaryHarris]

Can you do a follow up about when the propellants become unbalanced and the Pogo effect comes into play?

[@Shell1850gb]

Found this - Douglas Aircraft's SASSTO, short for "Saturn Application Single Stage to Orbit", was a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) reusable launch system designed by Philip Bono's team in 1967. SASSTO was a study in minimalist designs, a launcher with the specific intent of repeatedly placing a Gemini capsule in orbit for the lowest possible cost. The SASSTO booster was based on the layout of the S-IVB upper stage from the Saturn family, modified with a plug nozzle. Although the SASSTO design was never followed up at Douglas, it is widely referred to in newer studies for SSTO launchers, notably the MBB "Beta" design, which was largely an updated version of SASSTO.

[@gnphoto21]

Did not know about stage and a half staging. Interesting as always.

[@RobKMusic]

I was at KSC last Sunday and as I was wandering around the Apollo/Saturn V center I couldn't help but remember your live streams from there and I kept saying to myself "Amy stood right here!!!!" LOL On a side note, KSC is SO "Disney" now. I remember when the Saturn V was laying in the parking lot of the VAB and the bus tour would actually let you off there for 10 minutes to take photos (mostly of the birds nesting in the engine bells). The tour bus also used to drive right up on to 39A/B if one was available and let you get off the bus there for a short time and take pictures as well. The old pre-terrorism tour really made you feel like you were actually seeing something REAL... like getting a real, VIP, behind the scenes look. Another stop was the Multi-Payload Processing facility (I believe). There was an elevated gallery that you would walk through while looking down on the "clean" area where they were prepping payloads for launch. The last time I went through this they were prepping modules for the ISS to be lifted by the space shuttle. I need to find those pictures. :)

[@ronlochocki605]

Nice graphics in this video. Thanks for your hard work. I didn't know that about Mercury.

[@kabkab8441]

Another QUALITY video done by VS. VERY GOOD!!!🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀- Five Rockets Review!!

[@TheWeatherbuff]

I'm going to call my mood swings "staging" now. Like the "Before Morning Coffee Stage". Seriously, your channel rocks the house! Another great video... Thanks!

[@dmac7128]

Good video. One aspect of staging taken into consideration for man rated rockets is the maximum amount of force, that astronauts can safely experience. For each stage as fuel is consumed, the mass decreases over time. That will cause acceleration to increase if thrust remains constant (Newton's 2nd law, Force=mass x acceleration). Early rocket designs like Atlas and Titan were designed as ICBM's, not for people. They had a max G of around 6-7. The Saturn V had a max G at around 4 before 1st stage cutoff (The center engine would cutoff early to limit max G). The Space Shuttle's main engines had variable thrust to mitigate maximum dynamic pressure and limit the max G's to about 3.

[@quinsomnia4934]

Thank you for this- Working on a space animation and need lots of reference info.

[@demetrialaird937]

Loved your latest commentary. You do a great presentation. One comment: When you were talking about the staging of the first stage of the Saturn V you were showing a video of the separation of the second stage. "All that being said" it is a minor point. Also, PLEASE tell up about your meeting the VINTAGE AGE ASTRONAUTS. I'd love to hear your experiences and some of your insights to these space heroes!! Keep up the great work!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@VincentVader]

I live pretty close to Huntsville & the US Space & Rocket Center. You'll never appreciate just how massive the Saturn V is until you're standing next to it. The one they have hanging from the ceiling indoors, separated by stages, is amazing too. The size of the F1 engines are just as amazing. It blows my mind every time I go there. I have yo recommend it to any space enthusiast.

[@retrofan42]

Some good information about single stage to orbit concepts can be found in the book Frontiers of Space by Philip Bono and Kenneth Gatland (1969, revised in 1976). Philip Bono was an engineer who worked for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas during the 60's and 70's. Among his ideas included a plan to reuse the first stage of the Saturn V and the development of SSTO transport to places around the world.

[@michaelreece458]

Your videos are fantastic. Plus you're very good looking and stunningly smart....a true knockout combination. Keep up the great videos, thanks for producing them.

[@matthewcreech8259]

Wonderful video yet again Amy. Once again your hair is looking awesome as well.

[@davidcollison8973]

I really enjoy these videos. Thank you for producing these.

[@RedSamurai84]

Hello Amy! I really enjoy your informative and educational videos! I have a request, can you do a video on the 1985 rescue of the dead Soviet space station Salyut-7?

[@Miata822]

See? You said "Space Shuttle" w/o cringing :)

[@beaclaster]

What? Idk

[@VRFSC]

Hi Amy, love the channel. Can we have a video on explosive bolts please. Keep up the great work.

[@Jatheus]

Excellent video as always! I especially appreciated the nod to single stage to orbit. I think the biggest problem is doing it cost effectively, as you indicated.

[@richardroddenberry2079]

I was a Senior Supplier Quality Engineer for Aerojet in Sacramento that made the second stage for the MX Peacekeeper Rocket during the 80s and 90s. Have you done a video on this Rocket?

[@billchambers1456]

There was another kind of staging that saw VERY limited use back 60 years ago. I call it "cluster staging." It was used on the Jupiter-C and Juno II rockets. They were 4-stage rockets which used the Redstone and Jupiter missiles as the first stage. The other 3 stages were comprised of small solid-fuel rockets -- 11 in the second stage, 3 in the third, and 1 in the fourth. They were enclosed in a "tub" that spun at the top of the missiles. The stages were nestled in each other, the third inside the second, and the fourth inside the third. Naturally, their payload capacity was extremely limited; the two Pioneer moon probes launched by the Juno II each weighed less than a bowling ball.

[@jean-jacquessmit9981]

Hi Would you possibly make a video on the progression of software used in the apace vehicles? Great content🖖

[@claybenjaminsmook7471]

Amy, These are fantastic videos! Well thought out and produced.

[@mattmatt516]

I know it’s not vintage, but I’d love to see you talk about SpaceX some! Like your general thoughts on them or just about the falcon heavy, maybe

[@rekunta]

Any woman who digs the Saturn V rocket has a pathway straight to my heart.

[@jaimeduncan6167]

Very good explanation​, as expected I will prefer using the basic math to explain but this work pretty well.

[@maxximumb]

Very interesting, I never knew about stage and a half.

[@nucleargandhi2709]

Parallel staging description came before its mention in mixed staging? Check yo' video staging!

[@artmackiewicz8346]

Amy, I feel like you can dive deeper into the staging subject. Awesome video anyhow!

[@nickmuffin1722]

Oh my God you're the best! I had to give a project presentation and you taught enough! Thank you so much!

[@mike-lo4rt]

Very well presented .

[@jeremy__3909]

I always knew they were STAGED!! Lol great video!!!

[@bkearns34]

Graphics are getting better!

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

Thanks! It's all NASA art from the 60s that I'm slowly learning to manipulate. Also, archive footage is the BEST!

[@semipenguin]

Great video, Amy 😊

[@GreenichViper]

Ami, thanks for the vid - great overview on the types of staging!

[@Archaeopteryx128]

I've long been fond of the semi single stage to orbit concept. This is basically a system like the X planes, loft the vehicle on a conventional air-breathing aircraft. This provides a head start in speed, and more important lifts the rocket above most of the atmosphere. This vastly reduces the energy needed to achieve orbit, making the "single stage to orbit" more doable.

[@MrJTCraig]

Good Stuff... thanks Amy!!!

[@SroedingerCat]

A little dissapointed that you didn-t mention R-7 and its derivatives, which carries all the manned soviet and russian missions for at least fifty years already. The point is that the first stage there is generally 4 boosters around the second stage and all its engines are ingnited simultaneously on the launch, but up to the separation the second stage engines are working on minimal power just to keep fire and only at the moment of separation it goes to full throttle.

[@asarand]

Голубев Андрей that qualifies as 1.5 staging, doesn't it?

[@SroedingerCat]

Not quite as the 2nd stage provides almost no thrust for first minutes of the flight. Soviet rocket engineers were not 100% sure, if the engine will ignite at the 50km altitude, so they preferred not to take any risk at all. As for the 1.5 staging the clear example is ICBM SM-65 Atlas. It had one set of fuel tanks and detachable extra launch engines. Not separate thrusters with their own fuel, just engines.

[@TransCanadaPhil]

I don't know why Amy doesn't tend to talk much about Russian/Soviet spacecraft and rockets as much. As a bit of an armchair space nut myself, I've always found the Russian/Soviet space tech more interesting. Partly because western commentators, writers, etc tend not to focus on it as much, so that's always made it even more desirable for me to research into myself. Wish Amy would talk more about stuff like the Salyut stations, MIR, Buran, and the variants of the Soyuz. I find Amy tends to focus too much on NASA and the American programme. More russian and esa coverage would be good, like Ariane, the French Guianna spaceport, etc.

[@SroedingerCat]

Well, I think partly it is a simple lack of detailed information, as all that soviet stuff is relatively recently declassified (e.g. information about N-1 super heavy rocket became public only in late 80s under Gorbachev's revealance policy, and i mean not the tech specs-the very existence of this space project was hidden from soviet citizens) and not yet fully translated into english. But in general soviet space tech inherited basic principles of all our military tech of that time-make it as simple and reliable as possible. Hell of a job when you are on the cutting edge of technology))

[@TransCanadaPhil]

Голубев Андрей yes one of the facinating facts that I always mention to people but nobody ever seems to mention is how the cold weather and ice was blamed as causing the O-ring failure on the American Challenger. Everyone blamed Nasa for launching on a cold day. The irony is, the Soviets/Russians launch the Soyuz in snow and ice and freezing temps all the time with no issues. Nobody seems to notice or mention it. It's always seemed to me that the Soviet/Russian hardware is more rugged. It may not look as "Pretty", but it seems tougher and more reliable.

[@PagsPayback]

Hi, while losing dead weight is the basic idea behind staging, I think it is important to point out why it is important to lose the dead weight. Normal rocket engines are designed to work very well in a specific environment. For example sea level or vacuum. An engine that works well in one environment does usually not perform that well in the other. So the idea is to have engines on board that work very well at sea level and switch to engines that are designed for space once you've reached a certain height. Now the sea level engines and their thrust structure are dead weight and instead of just ditching them (like in the atlas rocket) you can also get rid of the tanks, saving a bit of extra weight. Single Stage to Orbit designs try to prevent this by using engines that have the maximum amount of thrust in all conditions. For example by using linear aerospike engines.

[@10OF9OFBORG]

Hi Amy! Interesting video about staging. One question what about future spaceship like Orion and others? You didn't mention about them. Take care!

[@brettearl1382]

Hi Amy. I'd love to see an explanation of exploding bolts. What they contain and how they fire. As well as what pushes the stages apart.

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

That's on the to-do list -- I honestly just haven't had to time to dig in to that yet, but soon!

[@mikecowen6507]

Vintage Space Amy, can we *please* be done with the flawed description of using explosive bolts in Saturn V staging? They used linear shaped charge explosives to slice solid metal apart at the separation plane. We've discussed all this before! *You* even did a video on the exploding bridgewire detonators used to trigger the shaped charges (an EBW detonator is *only* used with shaped charges!), yet you keep talking about explosive bolts in Saturn V staging! WTF? The only explosive bolts used on the mission for true staging were in jettisoning the LES, and for separating the ascent stage of the LM. There were several other explosive bolts used on the Apollo missions, but none for *staging* .

Korelev was the Pioneer of Rocket staging; A feet that was revolutionary and never seen in the west

[@KnockOffGandalf]

I'm a huge fan and You should totally do a video on Kathrine Johnson

[@David-iu7ue]

Aero Spike as a future topic? Not quite vintage, but I'd love to know what befell it's development. Thanks as always!

[@benjaminbee4788]

Hey Amy, I've always wondered why the Saturn V's payload fairings had hinges on them instead of the entire fairings just being jettisoned?

[@Schultz-ko3ve]

Maybe you’ve covered this but when the Apollo 1 mission was scrubbed following the fire, the capsule, being ruined and unusable was understandably put out of service, but what happened to the remaining Saturn V rocket? Was it used in a subsequent mission?

[@gordonrichardson2972]

Schultz6325 It was a Saturn IB. Wikipedia says it was used as the launch vehicle for AS-204, the first LM test flight, Apollo 5.

[@AmyShiraTeitel]

Yup, Gordon is right on that -- the rocket was a Saturn IB reused on Apollo 5, which was an unmanned test of the LM!

[@d0oz3yduck48]

I know it might sound dumb, but I'm a bit of a noob when it comes to space stuff... how come when you watch videos of things in space you never see any of that space debris? Supposedly it's this huge problem, yet you can't see it? I don't mind who answers but I'm really curious....

[@crazybrit-nasafan]

GamersOnline . Certainly not a dumb question. There is a hell of a lot of debris up there but the thing about space is, there's a hell of a lot of that too. It's spread out quite a bit plus it mostly orbits at around the same speed and direction. When it doesn't it can be a major hazard. Just need to look at what a fleck of paint did to an orbiter windshield at 17000 mph to see that. A google search should show it up. Hope this answers your question.

[@d0oz3yduck48]

Thank you!

[@Bam196413]

crazy brit nailed it, Space is mind numbingly huge, just fantastically really, really big. Most of the time pieces of 'space junk' have miles and miles of separation. And it was a great question.

[@RussianThunderrr]

Hello, Amy! I just found your channel after been trolled about Soviet space rocket Soyuz, my opponent claims it was a "collection of boosters"(he was talking about first stage), while I been thought that its main engines called blocks(I guess just like in the car engine block that consists of the "banks" of cylinders - in line 4 or V-8 and ect. analogous of banks of combustion chambers in rocket engine BLOCKs), so back then(before Shuttle and Buran space programs) there were no concept of boosters, and first stage of Soyuz rocket consisting of five main engine blocks, four of PД-107(BTW "P" in Russian "R" called Rocket, "Д" or "D" in English, stance for "Двигатель"(or "Engine" - or literally Rocket Engine) with only two steering nozzles, while РД-108 is the same RD-107, but with two more(for a total of four) steering nozzles. So RD-108 called BLOCK - A and located in the center surrounded by four RD-107 called BLOCKS - B, C, D and E strapped on the perimeter of BLOCK - A engine. So the question is - does blocks B, C, D, E - are considered to be boosters(and if NOT, then why it is not a boosters?) or blocks of main engine? Thank you in advance. Here is the diagram of Soyuz rocket: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Soyuz_rocket_and_spaceship_V1-1.svg

[@kab4]

Nicely Done.

[@chadportenga7858]

Have you done an episode on the solid rocket boosters? Most of us know about the failed O-ring and the issue of not being able to "turn them off" once they're lit. But, just how do they function? Is it like the old Estes engines we launched rockets with in the neighborhood fields when we were kids? Do they actually burn all the way up inside the housings? Can I get one to play with in the neighborhood field? (OK, that last one was just to see if you're really reading this.)

[@Koxi73]

Does having stages also makes it easier to calculate the mass of the rocket during start ? If you only have 1 stage, you have a big mass difference between start and short before the tanks are empty. I assume you need to permanently recalculate this for your ascent. If you have stages, you only need to calculate the mass loss from the propellant for the specific stage (smaller) and you can start again when igniting the next stage (where mass is back on an known level).

[@peanutbutteronmyguitar7005]

Wasn't there something called asparagus staging? Where side stages would fuel the inner stage (which engine would fire from the start as well). I don't know if that ever happened in space flight history but it happens in KSP.

[@jamesfarnham1976]

Great video, thank you!!

[@donsample1002]

How about a video on the McDonnell Douglas DC-X, which was meant to be the first step in developing a fully reusable single stage to orbit vehicle.

[@tonyhaines1192]

Have you ever done a video on "free-fall trajectory"?

[@gravelswitch9697]

When I was a kid I used to subscribe to Final Frontier magazine. I think it is long out of print but I seem to recall an article on a proposed single-stage-to-orbit vehicle that also did verticle take off and landing from the early 90's. I tried to look it up and I think it was the Phoenix project. Given recent developments, it looked to be ahead of its time in some respects. It obviously didn't make it to orbit but if you haven't done a video on this project it may be one worth considering.

[@lonniepaulson7031]

When I was a kid I built some model rockets with multiple stages. The engines were taped together and when the first stage finished burning it would ignite the second engine in the second stage.

[@centaur1a]

Don’t forget the Soviet launching rocket which uses four boosters also the center stage to send the cosmonauts/ astronauts into space, and the Delta rockets which uses several solids motors to send unmanned payloads into space too.

[@henrytjernlund]

Why does it seem that the vast majority of the people who give Amy grief, are guys? Make your own series of videos. Amy's doing great. We need more like her.

[@ianburton5624]

Wasn't the ascent module of the LEM an example of a single stage to orbit vehicle?

[@noswonky]

How about the LM's staging? One stage to descend and another to ascend. I guess it's serial staging used in a different way.

[@v_torserr1223]

Will you be talking about the SR-71 or rockets from the soviet space program?

[@mamamheus7751]

Love the channel :) Forgive me if you've covered this, but I would be interested in your thoughts/knowledge of the possibility of building a moon-base. I think it's the most sensible way to proceed in our venture into space beyond the moon. There are many raw materials on the moon, including He3 which I've heard can be used as fuel (but I'm not a scientist so I have to leave that statement where it lies). In the meantime, enjoyed the video - thanks!

[@olivergs9840]

Hey, did the Apollo astronauts wear pressure suits during their descent onto the lunar surface? Love your videos by the way

[@fumedrummer]

On the Saturn V, between the stages are rings that fit between an upper stage and lower stage. I wonder why the decision was made to use a ring rather than make the wall of the lower stage taller. From video I've seen, the lower stage first detaches from the ring. When the upper stage is ready to fire, the ring drops away as well. I don't understand the need for that ring. Any clues?

[@BedsitBob]

There was no staging with the Redstone rocket, used in the Mercury-Redstone missions.

[@gordonrichardson2972]

BedsitBob True, but Mercury flights were ballistic sub-orbital, not really into space as we know it today.

[@scottrowe5383]

agreed sub orbital.

[@BedsitBob]

Both astronauts experienced weightlessness (however briefly), so I would say they were in space.

[@jimbobeire]

You can achieve brief weightlessness in a hyperbolic flight within the troposphere. They got high enough to be in space, so they were in space, just not on an orbital trajectory.

[@jamese9283]

+BedsitBob You are correct. She should have said "orbit" instead of "space." Reaching space is relatively easy. Reaching orbit is the high speed kicker that needs staging.

[@nicolaj9510]

Please make a video on SSTO's. And include launches from airplanes, like that one private company (I can't remember the name).

[@RealLuckless]

Another important aspect to staging are all your Engine Design/Thrust-to-weight/Efficiency considerations, rather than purely the mass of the spent fuel tanks. An engine designed for effective thrust at sea level atmospheric pressures on earth is not going do perform as well in hard vacuum. - This is why there have been very few designs focused on drop-tanks attempting to use a single engine from launch to orbit, as you can readily gain overall payload capacity even if you're now lugging the weight of a whole other engine up from ground level. (Plus all the safety and engineering issues. Effective drop-tanks feeding a long burn engine aren't a trivial design concept.)

[@Firstclassdrink]

You should do a video about the Saturn V hold down pins.

[@Bluesnipible]

Could you talk more about the Saturn-IB, as it is often overshadowed by it's bigger brother, the Saturn V

[@skeelo69]

In addition to getting the whole mass of the rocket away from the launch pad the other function of the first stage is to accelerate the entire stack through the lower atmosphere and through the region where the rocket experiences 'Max-Q' or maximum dynamic pressure, i.e, the forces which are greatest at that lower altitude which causes maximum stress on the rocket, after this has happened the rockets engines are throttled up to maximum power (throttle - up)when the air is less dense and not able to cause maximum stress on the rocket, this tragically you will remember the call 'Challenger, you are go with throttle up' before the shuttle exploded some 73 seconds after lift off.

[@NaginnahNibor]

Has there been any research into rockets where the structure itself forms part of the propellant? For example, using the heat of the burning propellant to cause the structure to systemically vaporize, causing additional thrust and lowering weight?

[@karlhenriksson9394]

Look up the Chrysler SERV, proposed in 1971 as an alternative single stage to orbit design for the space shuttle then being designed.

[@caricue]

It might have been interesting to do an approximate weight calculation since the tradeoff of dropping a stage is adding more engines and the support equipment to the upper stages. The math obviously works out really well or they wouldn't do it.

[@FlaxTheSeedOne]

And what about the theories about asparagus staging? I know so far no space craft has used it yet because of its technical difficulties it should have been mentioned though.

[@rollingtones1]

I would like to make a book suggestion for you, you would love it. It’s called SPACESUIT and is published by the MIT Press. It’s a fascinating and in-depth history of the development of the spacesuit.

[@mr88cet]

The various schemes proposed (aerospike, for example) for SSO might make a good topic. I guess technically there have been some SSO rockets, but not for manned missions.

[@michael3263]

I love this channel. 😊

[@stevenhull4425]

Thanks Amy, great video as always.

[@HalfassDIY]

Looking good !

[@timrobinson513]

I would like to see a video on the venture star.

[@scharkalvin]

I've read that the second stage of the upcoming SpaceX BFR (the Big Falcon Spaceship) by itself will be capable of single stage to orbit. It will need the lower stage to lift a sizeable payload into orbit, or get to the moon or mars, but it COULD reach orbit alone if lightly loaded.