How SpaceX Reinvented The Rocket Engine!

Get yourself a Displate deal using my link www.displate.com/spacerace or my discount code SpaceRace to access my special promo on all designs | 1-2 - 27% OFF 3+ - 37% OFF available until May 14th excl. Limited Editions, Lumino and Textra.
Last Video: NASA Reveals NEW Lunar Starship!
• NASA Reveals NEW Lunar...
►Become a member today: / @thespaceraceyt
►Support the channel by purchasing from our merch store: shop.theteslaspace.com/
► Join Our Discord Server: / discord
► Patreon: / theteslaspace
► Subscribe to our other channel, The Tesla Space: / theteslaspace
Mars Colonization News and Updates
• Mars Colonization News...
SpaceX News and Updates: • SpaceX News and Updates
The Space Race is dedicated to the exploration of outer space and humans' mission to explore the universe. We’ll provide news and updates from everything in space, including the SpaceX and NASA mission to colonize Mars and the Moon. We’ll focus on news and updates from SpaceX, NASA, Starlink, Blue Origin, The James Webb Space Telescope and more. If you’re interested in space exploration, Mars colonization, and everything to do with space travel and the space race... you’ve come to the right channel! We love space and hope to inspire others to learn more!
► Subscribe to The Tesla Space newsletter: www.theteslaspace.com
Business Email: [e-mail]
#Spacex #Space #Mars

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Get yourself a Displate deal using my link www.displate.com/spacerace or my discount code SpaceRace to access my special promo on all designs | 1-2 -> 27% OFF 3+ -> 37% OFF available until May 14th excl. Limited Editions, Lumino and Textra.

[@typerightseesight]

you gotta think of how america came to be and how many people will die trying to settle on mars.

[@maconcamp472]

A massless particle is more like Saturn!!🪐 We’re particles evolving!! Photons!! Stars!!⭐️ This is the quantum age!! We’re the universe going quantum!! We’re ghost particles!!👻👻👻👻👻👻 Dream of world peace and we’ll get there faster!!😇 We’re the universe dreaming!!🛌 Galaxy collisions!!!🌌 Twin flame connections!!🔥🔥 Quantum entanglement!!💫 It’s all connected!! We’re the universe dreaming and awakening!!🦕🧊🦖🧊🦣🧊🍄🧊 Black holes 🕳️ are like moons!! They’re seeds!! They’re our thoughts!!💭 We’re storytellers!! 📚

[@jamesbarry1673]

SuperDraco is a hypergolic propellant rocket engine designed and built by SpaceX. It is part of the SpaceX Draco family of rocket engines. A redundant array of eight SuperDraco engines provides fault-tolerant propulsion for use as a launch escape system for the SpaceX Dragon 2, a passenger-carrying space capsule.

[@MoempfLP]

“Everyone knew it was impossible, until a fool who didn’t know came along and did it.” - Albert Einstein

[@i-love-space390]

Naaah. It was just that the industry was risk averse because of monopoly government contracts and stockholders that insist on immediate return on investment. Now that SpaceX has unleashed the venture capitalists, look how many little companies are developing their own rocket engines. Many are every bit as innovative as SpaceX. Stoke Space is one. They are developing full flow staged combustion engines with deep throttle capability and marrying them into a ring aerospike design around a heat shield for a fully reusable design for first AND SECOND stages of their vehicle. It's all about unleashing the money.

[@ptanticar]

Einstein said no such thing.

[@Sugarsail1]

@@ptanticar "Yes I did." - Albert Einstein

[@LizBrowne-do2li]

@@Sugarsail1 Did you use a OuiJa board to ask Einstein? He may have repeated it, but he did not invent the quote

[@lawrencenoyman350]

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." -- Abraham Lincoln

[@AM-tu1rc]

I'm an engineer on Starlink and I always get lost when talking to my colleagues who work on Falcon and Starship. This really helped out!

[@Yuhyuhmuhmuh]

What do you do if you don't mind me asking?

[@RedRyan]

Well said!

[@davidplaysalot8726]

They're not your colleagues... noob 😂

[@wyattnoise]

Press "X" to doubt.

[@party4keeps28]

​​@@wyattnoise Why does this seem unlikely to you? I work on Starlink as well.

[@jdjr3640]

“If you didn’t have to put back at least 10% of what you removed, you didn’t delete enough.” WORDS TO LIVE BY

[@TheNobbynoonar]

SpaceX did not reinvent the rocket engine-they have made big improvements to existing rocket engine technology and deserve the credit given to them.

[@ct1762]

you mean the 5x Starship disasters in a row? Musk saying it will have "lecture halls and game rooms and hld 100 people" that one?

[@Deontjie]

Pretty soon some idiot will compare the major technological advantages of SpaceX, Starlink, Tesla and Neurolink with their personal jealousy of Elon Musk.

[@chaneysheffield8185]

@@ct1762 disaster? 🤣dude they are TEST flights. the whole point is to get as far as you can and find the flaws. dummy.

[@Holyyew]

More like they have made an over complicated engine that is not powerful enough to get their oversized tin-can into orbit whilst empty

[@456MrPeople]

Do you know how many Falcons and Merlins they had to go through to reach where they are today? Now the Falcon 9 is the most reliable rocket in history. Why do you think Starship won't eventually reach the same level of success, even if it takes longer to do so because of the complexity of the design?

[@philip8201]

The voice is back!

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

The Voice would never leave you

[@kirillperov3843]

@@TheSpaceRaceYT don't do that anymore

[@nth7273]

@@TheSpaceRaceYT How dare you use the Voice on me.

[@JoelSapp]

Computer generated voice? Merlin was pronounced super oddly

[@joshthalheimer]

@@JoelSapp Yes, stress on the first syllable, please.

[@AlexandruVoda]

6:53 Correction, SpaceX were certainly not the first to use methalox as a propelant (they are the first at the scale of Starship). At the very least, NASA's Project Morpheus is a precursor for both propulsive landing and for use of methalox. RS-16 and RD-0169 are also methalox engines that predate SpaceX's Raptor. The Full Flow engine however is indeed a world first by SpaceX AFAIK.

[@aDifferentJT]

Raptor is the first FFSC engine to fly, but the 3rd to be test fired

[@AlexandruVoda]

@@aDifferentJT Oh. interesting. Which are the other two?

[@foxmccloud7055]

Now, SpaceX has reinvented the spacesuit.

[@RedRyan]

That spacesuit looks insanely perfect! I guess the best exoskeleton is no exoskeleton? I'm loving it

[@TheSteveSteele]

Yeah, I don’t know about that. My father was head of NASA’s Spacesuit Reliability Division back in the Apollo and STS days. Spacesuits are no joke. Very high end technology. They use materials that us ordinary humans have no access to. He once brought an Apollo era spacesuit home with some of the proprietary materials. It was interesting to see. The point is though, a spacesuit has to be proven to be successful. It has to be perfect. The tests they run on spacesuits are incredibly harsh. From extended exposure to +- 250° F to +- -250° in a matter of seconds. There are several companies who are attempting to win that sweet NASA contract money. NASA isn’t going to give out the contract to SpaceX unless they deserve it, (unlike the near treasonous underhand deal that the traitor Kathy Lueders made with HLS. A rocket that uses 33 engines and has yet NOT to blow up, kinda like the Soviet N1, huh? Blue Origin should have received that contract.) Human lives are at stake and no fancy spacesuit is going to win because Elon thinks it will look cool. We’ll see.

[@Overmotor]

@@RedRyan It will need to be redesigned again (which I'm sure they're working on) to allow the suit to function by itself. As it stands right now it's sleek and compact but still tethered to the spacecraft. Once you add life support systems built in the design will change to accommodate the "backpack", however it will be much sleeker than anything we've seen so far. Very cool!

[@RedRyan]

@@Overmotor thank you for the great response. I is great to see a company with the resource of SpaceX to be giving this their all

[@nathannault2239]

​@@TheSteveSteeleAnd how's NASA getting its equipment to space now? Bloated government bureaucracies will NEVER be as efficient as private corporations. Period.

[@alexdylan04]

THANK GOD UR VOICE IS BACK

[@TheMightyToshibaLad2012]

Correction: the most powerful rocket engine is the Soviet-built RD-170(has 4 chambers). The F1 is only the most powerful single-chambered engine.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Some also set the criterium that it has to have flown a successful mission. The RD-170 does not have that honour.

[@Raoul_Volfoni]

The RD170 did fly on Energia

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@Raoul_Volfoni Are we mixing up RD-170 and RD-270?

[@TheMightyToshibaLad2012]

@@Raoul_Volfoni twice.

[@TheMightyToshibaLad2012]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 !?

[@jrf870]

Thank you for all the hard work you put into these videos!

[@adam_belounis.]

Can't be more exited , what a wonderful time to be alive ❤

[@MosesMatsepane]

What people don't appreciate about Engineering at this level is the insane amount of tools, modelling, Simulation, mathematics, physics, and software engineering(not the cute app stuff, real software engineering) involved. Engineering and Physics can be borderline Magic at the highest levels, where the practitioners are blown away and marvel at their own creations.

[@SLane249]

I was always confused about open/closed cycles and full flow. Your explanation has helped me understand. Thank you.

[@peterfireflylund]

Everyday Astronaut has some really good videos about it. He also has one about the entire (huge) family of Soviet rocket engines. They were quite impressive! (But Raptor is better.)

[@MBSfilms77]

I feel really bad about the feedback (including mine) on the last video about thinking that guy’s voice was AI

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

All good!

[@zam6877]

Great explanation Simple, so not burdened with alot of terminology and hitting all the main introductory points Thanks

[@Pocketkid2]

This is a most excellent video! It is simple and visual and has enough detail that an engineer such as myself who appreciates science but does not know that much about rocket technology can appreciate what is going on at SpaceX!

[@im_agine852]

That was f'n GREAT. Thanks

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

We're really glad you liked it. Thank you!

[@Randommemers]

Well constructed video ❤

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Thank you

[@bournejsn]

So relieved when you started from the Merlin engine and not the beginning of Rocketry LOL phew!

[@johnstewart579]

Thank you for this educational video. Keep up the good work

[@roqua]

8:52 until the end of the segment (3-4 minutes later) is a great explanation for newbies who are excited to learn about rocketry, cycle types and Raptor's innovations, but who run into a proverbial brick wall with many dizzying attempts to describe these things elsewhere. Great work! 👍

[@Intellistan]

Outstanding production. Absolutely awesome

[@weed...5692]

9:16 "Unlike every previous engine, which had used a single turbine [....], the Raptor is the only engine with dual gas turbines" - but the Soviets were the first to do that. Most people watching space documentaries have seen that documentary - "The engines that came from the cold", about soviet closed-cycle rocket engines.

[@Aexorzist]

Soviet engines are not full flow staged combustion. There is a big difference.

[@weed...5692]

@@Aexorzist Soviet engines were full flow staged combustion. There is no big difference.

[@ct1762]

@@weed...5692 the Muskrats are out in full force! Long live utter delusion!

[@peterfireflylund]

@@weed...5692no. Absolutely wrong. Look those engines up, look at the diagrams that describe the pumps and the plumbing.

[@woopsserg]

@@weed...5692 The only known Soviet full flow staged combustion engine was RD-270 (powered by N2O4 / UDMH) and it did go nowhere as they were not able to make it work properly.

[@Vermiliontea]

The Merlin 1D represents what could be done with the available time and money at the time, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a demanding and specific mission requirement. SpaceX rocket design starts with the goal of lowest possible cost of payload to low Earth orbit. This requirement trumps everything else. The consequence is that you find yourself with a set of artificial "musts", because otherwise there's no point in doing it at all. So the question is not so much if it's "possible", but *_how_* it can be possible. What enters into this process is that you must reuse as much of the rocket as possible. What eventually comes out of it, is a two-stage rocket, without solid-fuel boosters, a single rocket fuel that must be not hydrogen, and not hypergolic. A rather small rocket engine that need a very high thrust to weight ratio, must be throttleable, and must be a mass-production item. The Raptor is a product of the exact same process, only this time there are no compromises involving time and money. And it has to be the extremest thing possible, because otherwise it would not reach the required thrust to weight ratio with the methane fuel, nor would it reach the required thrust per nozzle area. Its thrust-performance for a first stage is a must, and reaching that with methane as fuel is not easy. Which is why ULA Vulcan is effectively a three-stage rocket with its solid-fuel boosters.

[@billthomas8994]

Nice analysis

[@user-ud6ui7zt3r]

I look forward to seeing _Falcon Heavy_ show-up intimately tied into the action of either an upcoming _Mission Impossible_ movie or a _James Bond_ movie. I'd like to see Tom Cruise cling to the outside of a _Falcon Heavy_ while it hovered sideways over the rooftops of a neighborhood.

[@TheQuietStorm6000]

This is one of the best explanations of the starship engine design process. Elon Musk reminds of Thomas Edison and Peter Weyland (the industrial fictionsn entrepreneur in the Alien and Promethius Movies). He is a genius. That said all men have their faults. That said the Cyber Truck is one if the stupidest vehicles on the road. I'm still trying to like it.

[@gamereditor59ner22]

Thank you for the information and keep it up!

[@kennylandro5350]

Good video, welcome back ❤

[@TimRobertsen]

13:03 - The F-1 had a bit more than twice as much thrust:p About 680-790 metric tons. It had all the tons of thrust:p Credit given where credit is due;) And, the RS-25 had an efficiency/specific impulse of around 450s, which is unmatch by any rocketengine ever produced/used. The F-1 and the RS-25 are both unmatch in their domain. The Raptor is an incredibly good mix of power and efficiency :)

[@woopsserg]

The only major reason RS-25 has that high specific impulse is that it runs on hydrogen. RL10 has higher specific impulse, for example. And it's thrust-to-weight ratio is not that good. The problem with hydrogen is low density so you need enormous and heavy fuel tank, also it leaks through anything, even metal. Saturn V had very poor thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2 at liftoff, so it accelerated very slowly and wasted a lot of propellant on just overcoming the gravity,

[@TimRobertsen]

@@woopsserg Yeah, you're right. The RL-10B-2 does have 13s higher SI compared to the RS-25 (it's just that the RL-10B-2 was designed and optimized for vacuum-only, the RS-25 is sea-level and vacuum:p). Hydrogen is hard to beat because of its high(est) energy density, only beaten by nuclear fission, fusion and anti-matter :p

[@woopsserg]

@@TimRobertsen Yes, you cannot beat hydrogen. However what really matters is performance of the system overall. And hydrogen has so huge storage downside that basically negates all the performance benefits. It's like having 20% more efficient engine but having 30% heavier car to fit the fuel. It is really beneficial only in upper stage as allows higher mass to high energy orbits and where storage tank size is of less detriment.

[@TimRobertsen]

@@woopsserg Yes, hydrogen is, despite its energydensity, tricky to work with: leakages, hydrogen embrittlement etc. Which has for years puzzled me why Toyota is pushing the hydrogen-fueled cars (they must know something I don't:p). The overall system functionallity and performance is ofcourse the most important factor, and, to me, it seems that SpaceX has developed a solid design with the Raptor engines. It remains to be seen how it performs with regards to re-ignitions on descent and in space, I guess we'll see in the next days.

[@nealkonneker6084]

I am curious why the Raptor isn't bigger. Fewer larger engines would seem to reduce the complexity, fewer parts to fail. 33 engines on the starship just seems like asking for trouble.

[@markbrown8097]

And has proven to be troublesome.

[@ct1762]

yes and did you know it needs a minimum of 8x refuel missions before going to the moon> ? meaning it will sit there in space like a bloated grain silo getting rammed with fuel for over 6 weeks, then takes the astronauts. utter stupidity!

[@chaneysheffield8185]

@@ct1762 you just hatting to hate. wow you really must be a failure if you are this bad.

[@chaneysheffield8185]

its interesting, but i believe the size of the actual motor is for production ease reasons, smaller motor easier to move and has a smaller assembly team and time. just a guess willing to debate the topic.

[@peterfireflylund]

Bigger combustion chambers are generally harder (combustion instabilities are worse). Bigger things are also harder to make (and might require bigger tools).

[@nicholashenning9034]

You got your voice back

[@mrsimo7144]

Thanks for this. Much appreciated.

[@pleb1985]

Gonna say it even though someone else already has, however oxygen is not the only feasible oxidizer that the rocket industry or combustion in general has taken advantage of. The most notable ones that have been tested are the oxides of nitrogen (eg DNTO), oxygen as mentioned in the video, and fluorine. A reducing agent can burn with anything as long as there is free oxygen or a free halogen for it to react with, and by free i don't mean diatomic molecules of only the element, i mean still able to react with other substances regardless of other chemical bonds within the respective molecule.

[@Dave-dh7rt]

Yes, fluorine and methane is very safe Man fluorine is so toxic to humans that any bit that any person touches will fuck their bones up. I just do not think fluorine is a realistic oxidizer, but maybe ozone, or other oxidizers will work.

[@71degrees]

They aren't crazy ideas. They are just ideas. But, most humans don't have the backbone to follow thier dreams, they play it "safe" (whatever safe is)

[@clavo3352]

Grateful for this video! TY !!😊

[@Martin-ld3wn]

Worth mentioning that the main motivation for methane is that, unlike kerosene, you can produce it on Mars (using the Sebatier reaction)

[@jimnichols2277]

The Raptor engine cycle concept was taken from an Air Force program started in the early 90’s. Which was adapted from Aerojet’s NASP tail rocket.

[@russellhays4982]

great simple breakdown and nice video

[@selectedvideos6180]

I believe this closed cycle engine is not new. The Soviet/ Russian RD180 was a closed cycle rocket engine designed in the 70's or 80's.

[@ironicplaid]

It’s also not the only engine with multiple shafts driving pumps. I’m pretty sure the RS-25 on the space shuttle and now SLS also has two shafts.

[@chaneysheffield8185]

that engine was designed for one use due to the pyrotechnic ignition.

[@squireson]

In general the over-hyped misstatements are a product of the narrator's ignorance of rocket engine history. These designers still stand on the shoulders of decades of work over a wide variety of approaches with all of the lessons learned (mostly) available as guidance. The incremental improvements and rebalancing have produced an excellent engine. From this we can conclude that Elon Musk is a super genius who should run the whole world.

[@peterfireflylund]

Full flow staged combustion isn’t just “closed cycle” combustion. There have been a few experimental FFSC engines before but Raptor is the only one that has actually flown.

[@vyacheslavvorobyov22]

@@peterfireflylund Still "reinvention" is quite wrong word here in the title. Actually Elaon mask engineers learn a lot from Soviet rocket engines and they made a next step in a long sequence of improvements already made by previous genterations of engineers. Too much pathos and propaganda as always in US movies.

[@The-KP]

It doesn't matter how efficient your engines are when just getting a ship to the next object in space multiples your mission complexity and raises your disaster risk by two orders of magnitude. One of the missing terms to the Starship equation, in this video, is how much fuel is needed to power your rocket on the mission for which it was designed? A dozen Starship tanker trips, it turns out. The Starship system offers the process for determining just how large a superheavy launcher can be and still be reliable, but you cannot change any of the variables in that equation! 33 engines, one large (and getting larger) ship, and a whole lot of hope that it will be not explode once people are onboard

[@moderngentlemanschool]

Cry me a river.

[@edwardturner1282]

This was so beautifully explained. It felt good to be able to follow along and understand most of it. Well done. Kudos to the entire production team. I am subscribed and will visit DISPLATE. Magnetic wall mounts... pure genius.

[@RawandCookedVegan]

Great video. Thanks

[@mikefiell8103]

Excellent video! Recommended watch!

[@user-pw4mj2tz2h]

Thanks GOD!!!! THE VOICE IS BACK!!!!!!❤

[@yougeo]

Good shirt excellent video with plenty of detail. Best one I have seen on the raptor engine.

[@ophthojooeileyecirclehisha4917]

thank you

[@MyEthan1998]

We feel the same way as we did when the Wright brothers created the first air plane. Difference now is that we know the impossible can be done when we try hard enough.

[@woopsserg]

Most people in the industry laughed when Musk/Spacex said they will be landing rockets. Today 241 successful landings in a row and about 300 overall. So "it's impossible", mindset still stands today.

[@drakeallen3501]

hey- i LOVE this stuff! i could get behind this! (not LITERALLY, of course)

[@hoodedcreeper2465]

The throat is actually where the gas hits supersonic speed. Normally a narrowing the opening like in jet engines would accelerate the gas because of Bernoulli's principal. However at supersonic speed that works backwards.

[@jaikaran6427]

Amazing explanation!!

[@DaT0nkee]

Actually Raptor originally was designed as a hidrolox engine, they switched to methane for economic reasons. As well as the rest of the industry.

[@jswebbproductions9785]

wow, what a awesome video! very well designed and researched and the original voice IS BACK!! One of the best videos I've seen from this channel! And great job explaining how rocket engines work, I finally can begin to understand it! btw, much love to the voice of the last video, nothing personal against him, just prefer your voice!! congratulations on a job well done!

[@kirillperov3843]

A live voice is always better than AI

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@kenxiong6830]

Great video. Awesome breakdown

[@Nerdmom1701]

Great to hear your voice again!😂 👍🏻🙏🏻❤️

[@ScatterlingOfA]

Well done!!

[@jamestregler1584]

Thanks this explains the new rocket's inner workings ; from old New Orleans 😇🇫🇷

[@adamgrundy4327]

the amazing part is the raptor 3 which is still in testing and not on starship yet has reached up to 350bar. its amazing how much they are improving it and at an incredible speed.

[@michaelmillar9796]

I’m disappointed that you didn’t mention the engineer who actually designed, built and tested these engines for Mush…SpaceX employee #1, Tom Mueller. Without Tom, there would not be a Merlin or Raptor or even SpaceX.

[@LeonAust]

5 years many competitors will catch up and Starship isn't looking to good at the moment when one truly scrutinises it.

[@nickmiladinovic500]

Thank god the narrator is back

[@dosmastrify]

4:00 but based on what you just said, we should want the biggest nozzle possible even if that causes separation from the walls

[@johntomasik1555]

Interesting. Rockets are relatively simple compared to some propulsion sources. The solution of pre-burning isn't a new concept, either. What I found interesting was the change in fuel. The fuel selection made was the smartest thing they did for the whole system. Removing many issues (cleanliness, efficiency, availability) at the root of a design really opens up the opportunities for the design groups.

[@uchechukwuekemezie]

Thank God!! The voice is back😊

[@anthonylaiferrario]

One quick correction. Raptor doesn’t require stage 0 spin start support. We see all stage 2 raptors start in flight and we see a number of stage 1 raptors restart in flight

[@BagelmanSupreme]

This is true, but it requires fuel and some special engineering to spin them up, and you can only do that a limited number of times depending on mission parameters. So yes, the starship booster COULD do its own spinprime at launch (and does when landing), but stage zero still does this as an integral part of the launch process, reducing the number of restarts the booster needs to be able to accomplish solo by 1

[@sauceboss1846]

@@BagelmanSupremeyou both are right and wrong. The outer 20 engines have no ability to relight so they rely on stage zero start them up while the inner 13 gimbal engines have the ability to spin up multiple times during flight so they aren’t hooked into stage zero like the 20 Outer

[@alexanderSydneyOz]

@@sauceboss1846 good info. thanks

[@micheljauvin3536]

well done

[@44JohnDoe]

Great stuff, as always

[@user-gp6iq5qe1o]

Yay! Favorite narrator is back!

[@kevinoneil7532]

If you compress oxygen or methane into a pressure bottle or chamber at a high enough pressure, they will liquify. You don't have to "cryogenicly" freeze them. Liquid oxygen is what's in the other bottle in an acetylene cutting torch for instance. A bic lighter is full of liquid butane for instance.

[@xinzeng-iq7zv]

why can't all this be in a book, why have it scattered all over the internet

[@StephenMattison66]

Great video, well done, ty!

[@apachetamizha]

Marvelous engineering 😊

[@CyberSamurai4Life]

Well done. One small comment. Use of the term fuel would be better served with the term propellant

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

propellant is very difficult to say lol

[@EightiesTV]

"Fuel" and "propellant" are not interchangeable terms. Propellant consists of mixed fuel and oxidizer. Common in solid fueled rockets. Doesn't exist very long in liquid fueled rocketry because it's burned immediately after mixing.

[@CyberSamurai4Life]

@@EightiesTVcorrect. Which why I made the suggestion.

[@pauljcampbell2997]

Great video!

[@johnstraley9057]

Educational, to say the least.

[@Warley.Araujo]

Great Video!!

[@bazoo513]

16:40 - The starship cannot "connect the solar system", when it needs dozens of (yet to be demonstrated) refuelings to even reach the Moon. Raptor is a great engine. However: - It is still woefully unreliable; improving its reliability will be a monumental challenge. - The design goal was, of course, not to design "the most complex engine", but the one with the greatest specific impulse, as small and light as possible. It was only possible through this complex cycle. -This is not the first time that full flow staged combustion cycle was tried (but it is the first such engine that actually flew.) - Other people use methane; there are at least two other methalox engines that already successfully launched actual payload into orbit - Making a video on SpaceX engine development and not even mentioning Tom Mueller is absurd.

[@SpaceAdvocate]

Raptor reliability seems great. As far as we know, it's been perfect for IFT-2 and IFT-3. There have been some failed engine relights, but it seems unrelated to the engines themselves, rather being the result of sloshing, ullage collapse, blockages in the propellant supply or the like. And maximizing specific impulse clearly wasn't the primary goal. They've been increaseing the throat diameter for new versions, increasing thrust but reducing specific impulse. I think their objective was something along the lines of: - Make an engine that is as cheap as possible per ton of thrust, while being reusable without a need for refurbishment, and only requiring propellants/consumables that are readily available on Mars. The goal can be tweaked a bit more, but it pretty much results in the Raptor engine. You want methalox, autogeneous pressurization and torch igniters for Mars. You want full flow staged combustion for ease of reuse and a high amount of thrust relative to dry mass/cost.

[@bazoo513]

@@SpaceAdvocate Well, I do hope that those failed relights have nothing to do with the engine itself...

[@mtstachowiak]

The voice is back, awesome :)

[@mtb5778]

excellent video and an advert that I am interested in.

[@AmericanCrusader222]

Now we gotta do one on the new EVA suit!!

[@ballerdoc]

I actually find the guy's voice quite similar to yours . Taking some time off might be beneficial; people often respond negatively to change, so it's important to allow things to settle. The speaker just needs to refine his delivery a bit more to sound less ai-ish.

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

We sound very similar in real life. We might have a little something coming soon where you can see both of us together on camera... Stay tuned

[@RedRyan]

​@@TheSpaceRaceYTthat would be super awesome! I love seeing people on camera even when it's scarcely

[@amanichristopher719]

​@@TheSpaceRaceYTwe need to see you on camera. Big fans

[@martinlastname8548]

Great video dude

[@En1Gm4A]

Awesome video

[@jameswoll]

Good one, dude!

[@averyjeromekelly5735]

Keep up the good deal and the way ;!

[@jesusbermudez1764]

The key to super-high pressure is the CLOSED system in which a portion of the high pressure combustion product goes back to drive the booster pumps. Not an open system. This technology came from the abandoned USSR rocket engines that Ellon used.

[@davejoseph5615]

Yeah, let's build everything like this 12:21 so we can have lots of explosions just like a Michael Bay movie.

[@MattH-wg7ou]

FULL FLOW STAGED COMBUSTION!!!

[@jamesgeorge8915]

That boy is crazy!

[@ThomasButryn]

Great show!!

[@paulwikstrom]

I would give this video a 9 on a 10-pt scale. Only one error: it’s rocket *engineering!* 😂😂😂 Okay, it’s a 10!

[@jackdoe7933]

The Germans where the first to use methane as rocket fuel in 1930. The benefits of using methane in rocket engines has been known forever just as the idea of using a closed cycle engine which was perfected by the Soviets . Of course if you're using a oxy hydrogen engine then there is no coking ... water being the by product of combustion.

[@aurtisanminer2827]

“Simple and cheap”. Sure sounds fitting!

[@DansHobbies]

easily the best explanation i have seen.

[@wolpumba4099]

*SpaceX's Raptor Engine: A Rocket Engine Reinvented* *Here's a summary of the video's key points about the Raptor engine, including starting timestamps:* * *[**0:02**] From Merlin to Raptor:* SpaceX began with the Merlin engine, designed for simplicity and cost-effectiveness. It was crucial for early successes, but needed to evolve. * *[**7:07**] Raptor's fuel: Methane* - A switch from kerosene to methane offers advantages: * Clean burning, leaving no residue. * Enables high reusability for Starship. * *[**9:03**] Raptor's cycle: Full Flow Staged Combustion* * Extremely complex but highly efficient. * Dual gas turbines compared to single turbines in previous engines. * Closed cycle, using all the pressure from gas generators. * Full flow, with both fuel and oxygen passing through pre-burners before the combustion chamber. * *[**12:36**] Raptor's performance:* * Delivers 230 metric tons of thrust at sea level. * Has an unmatched power-to-weight ratio. * Achieves high chamber pressure (300 bar). * *[**14:22**] Future of Raptor:* * Simplification and cost reduction through component integration and removing unnecessary parts. * Mass production for Starship's ambitious goals. * *[**15:53**] Starship's impact:* * Aims to become as commonplace as jetliners. * Will be used for travel between Earth and Mars, Earth and the Moon, and even point-to-point transportation on Earth. * Could be one of the most important vehicles ever created in human history. *The video emphasizes SpaceX's innovative approach to rocket engine design, pushing the boundaries of what's possible.* i used gemini 1.5 flash and pro to summarize the transcript

[@karthikumarsambasivam8191]

At 03:00 the animation puts LOX and RP1 at the same time of arrival at the chamber, which will most likely end up with a detonation. LOX has to lead and RP1 comes a few milliseconds later. Incredible video though

[@aggonzalezdc]

It was later, but you didn't notice the 30 milliseconds.

[@karthikumarsambasivam8191]

@@aggonzalezdc thanks. I got it later. I correct my mistake. if it's okay, I would still leave the comment for people to understand what happens when this happens, so they at least find out the kero-lox hardstart before actually hardstarting a kero-lox engine like me. haha

[@maxheadrom3088]

Next week: how Americans reinvented the ball and created a game played using the hands and named it "football"!

[@aienthusiast618]

lets go the normal guy is back the lord is great

[@jayman488]

Nice video, but the Raptor is not the first engine to use two turbines. The space shuttle's RS-25 engines have two fuel rich preburners and turbines. The Raptor is, however, the first full flow staged combustion cycle engine to actually fly, although others have been tested.

[@mgman6851]

Great video. Thanks. Can u provide more detail in the raptor design in another video please ?