How SpaceX Reinvented The Rocket Engine!

[@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.

[@honor9lite1337]

What😮​@@typerightseesight

[@Errol.C-nz]

excellent report .. BUT .. Rockets .. have "MOTORS" NOT engines .. a motor by definition is a simple motive of power being of one or fewer moving parts .. ignoring ancillaries which aren't principle to its design .. in its simplest form while being highly effective .. can & is made in a cardboard tube .. an "engine" is a complex machine in principle have many moving parts .. just like many current engineering channels explaining something being 100 times less than .. "times" being a multiple of .. not a fraction or reduction .. ffs get the language right for credibility .. amazing machines .. excellent report

[@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!

[@Thatonepersonyouheard]

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.

[@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.

[@Turbettma]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke ;)

[@keithgipson8965]

Perfectly stated. Sums up my feelings sometimes about my industry AI ASC. 😊

[@superuser8636]

I do and it’s why I love decided at 28 to get back to school to do it for a living!!

[@superuser8636]

@@TurbettmaAny sufficiently advanced jank is indistinguishable from wizardry 😂

[@youtubemademecreateanewcha6965]

Add the testing program - Test often and learn. Simulations can only get you so far. You need to test to validate the sims, and correct the sims. Testing tells you what you dont know.

[@mkoronowski]

In the past, I had the privilege of working for a leading turbomachinery consulting firm located near Boston. As an aerodynamicist specializing in turbomachinery, I take great pride in my contributions to early aero-thermo performance maps, required in the cycle analysis of this and other innovative rocket engines under study at that time. The period was marked by significant advancements in turbomachinery technology, including Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, and systems analysis. This confluence of this technology spurred these ambitious projects. As I reflect on those times, I extend my best wishes to all the companies rising to conquer the challenge. May they continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible.

[@kareemsambrano2258]

How does the space X rockets reverse land?

[@mkoronowski]

@@kareemsambrano2258 Very carefully, with control of the thrust vector to counter balance: gravity, wind, polar moments along with a few other factors. Imagine a circus aerialist balancing atop a ball, now add a second ball. The turbomachinery aero design and performance is only a small piece of this complex system.

[@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?

[@stevenhe3462]

The operational FFSC part is where the real shit lies at. Some other propellant could have worked as well.

[@AlexandruVoda]

@@stevenhe3462 Not that many other fuels. The other two examples used either liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen or hypergolics. You can not use RP1 due to soot. Soot is why the only RP1 staged combustion engines were oxygen rich.

[@matheuscerqueira7952]

The soviets were doing closed cycle in the 1950s...

[@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

[@bonkerzisgood]

Shame I can’t get my toes back from my amputated leg

[@christopher480]

yes words to live by that make absolutely no sense.....lollol

[@lukemarzola1111]

mmm, I wonder if he is talking about a royalty fee for my designs that where used, and the difficulty of changing a past greed method that was used.

[@jaxdragon1723]

my dad would say "that's a lot of BULLSH*T ! and he'd be right !

[@MiataBRG]

Not words to live by, but certainly a good approach to process redesign.

[@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.

[@bournejsn]

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

[@VietnameseCosmonaut]

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?

[@VietnameseCosmonaut]

@@Raoul_Volfoni twice.

[@VietnameseCosmonaut]

@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 !?

[@alexdylan04]

THANK GOD UR VOICE IS BACK

[@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.

[@PaulCarl-q5l]

There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self

[@alantripp6175]

Hmm. Spot on.

[@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.)

[@DenMarket-uc1nq]

This was a great video. Informative and quick without fluff. I prefer higher density information. Still gained value for my time.

[@ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣΓΕΩΡΓΑΝΤΑΣ-χ2θ]

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

[@terryeaster1]

That was incredible! Thank you!

[@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?

[@adam_belounis.]

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

[@im_agine852]

That was f'n GREAT. Thanks

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

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

[@johnstewart579]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@Nathan_Higgens]

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]

@@Nathan_Higgensyou 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

[@nicolasblume1046]

​@@sauceboss1846how do the inner engines get spin up in flight? Electric, hydrolic, with a gas?

[@StevenS.-up2pp]

Truly an amazing feat of engineering, this thing just wants to blow itself up at any given moment. Imagine you mill a workable piece of metal and then stack 4000lbs of weights at every square inch of it but it doesn't bend or break or melt, mind blowing!

[@Intellistan]

Outstanding production. Absolutely awesome

[@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.

[@Randommemers]

Well constructed video ❤

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

Thank you

[@utube11235]

Great video. How one man commands so many companies at the bleeding edge of innovation and actually delivers on the seemingly Impossible visions he has is just mind-boggling. Amazing to live during a time such a human exists. Musk is magic.

[@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.

[@morpheus_9]

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.

[@apveening]

Don't tell me you are suggesting to use FOOF as oxidizer? . . . Official chemical name: di-oxygen di-fluoride. Most sane chemists won't work with it.

[@spenzlee7191]

I saw a video of the most powerful rocket engine tested, where they (Rockadyne I believe) did it with liquid lithium and fluorine. However, the rocket ticked all the boxes for hazard and there weight of insulation needed to keep the lithium in liquid for offsets the output.

[@pleb1985]

@@spenzlee7191 Its spelled "Rocketdyne" but that doesn't matter to much. As to it being the most powerful rocket engine that is incorrect. It was the most efficient traditional rocket engine ever tested with an ISP of roughly 850. It had good thrust however the most powerful rocket engine tested goes to the RD-170 which was a 4 nozzled Russian engine burning kerolox. It had around 1 million lb/f thrust over the F1.

[@KennytheG]

Good video, welcome back ❤

[@zam6877]

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

[@jacobsnodgrass1888]

This isn’t Musk’s work, it’s the people’s work.

[@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!

[@FinleyBailey-e4j]

Everything will be fine and you will shine like a rising star, achieving great success and wealth

[@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!

[@billger5710]

Excellent presentation

[@SkyWriter25]

@12:25 Super powerful rocket engine blasting away. Cow: I'mma eat this grass. 🐄

[@gnanasabaapatirg7376]

Literally what I thought. Cows aint having any of it

[@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.

[@nicholashenning9034]

You got your voice back

[@robertharker]

Feed the KZbin algorithm with a comment. Great video. Thanks!

[@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.

[@roberts.5790]

YES! I like the philosophy of not being limited by nonsense.

[@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.

[@gamereditor59ner22]

Thank you for the information and keep it up!

[@dag2014]

Excellent! Very, very well explained

[@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

[@SaboStyle]

I didn't know about your channel. This is pure gold!!!

[@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!

[@dweeder1453]

Amazing video.. very well explained.

[@BOMBON187]

Who knew investing a lot of money into R&D would benefit a company...

[@monkeyfinger7949]

I marvel at all of this, and have deep respect for the skill it takes to envision and create it. I also lament my own limitations when I see something this brilliant.

[@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).

[@adamchurvis1]

**DAMN** ! ! ! That was WONDERFUL! Subbed, liked. Keep up the excellent works, folks.

[@AN1Guitarman]

It's so nice to come across something on the Internet, not shitting on Elon and actually understanding what he's really trying to do. Everybody has their faults and things that can be validly criticized, but when someone's doing great work, we should have a proper reverence for that. You've done an amazing job explaining things so clearly, not politicizing anything, and really just telling the story of what's going on and expressing things in a proper empathetic space understanding the work that's being done. Great video.

[@DeLoRiAnEc]

Actually elon IS shit and what he's trying to do is stupid. Its just that he has a lot of money + it's not him doing all this stuff

[@nosoboringbrain6283]

The best explanation ever, thank you very much, I was thinking I would never understand it, and wouldn't even try!!

[@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.

[@nicolasblume1046]

A big reason was also the fact that methane is the only fuel that you can produce on mars

[@BobMcBurger1]

And now the raptor 3 looks really sleek.

[@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

[@ty2u]

Wow, we’ve come a long way from the humble beginnings of the black powder rockets of the ancient Chinese. Great video. Just enough technical information to tell the story without becoming “bogged down” in technical data. Keep up the good work!

[@justinschnepf]

Expect Blue Origin was first (Jan 2024) to use LNG/LOX engines (on ULAs Vulcan) to put a payload into orbit.

[@yannisws]

The BE-4 is a cool engine, but not full-flow, operates with only half the chamber pressure and has a lower specific impulse. So much less efficient than Raptor.

[@simjos]

Liquid oxygen - it's pretty cool 😎 ❄️

[@DansHobbies]

easily the best explanation i have seen.

[@Danny-fs1hk]

Say what you will about Elon, but his accomplishments are extremely admirable and outstanding!

[@muhammadwibisonojanuar7793]

I hope that Space X creates rotating detonation engine

[@damarismaldonadorivera5037]

SOOOO BEAUTIFUL!,TO SEE ALL HIS HARD WORK, PERSEVERANCE & FINALLY COMING TO FRUITION. KEEP GOING✨️

[@TechTips437]

Respect for Elon just went even higher

[@ROVA00]

I respect the engineers that work for him. Elon is just a super rich guy with big goals.

[@vincentwilliams363]

@@ROVA00 What would they be doing without him? A better garage opener?

[@ROVA00]

@@vincentwilliams363 oh, how simple your mind must be to honestly suggest that Space X engineers would have no other option besides making “garage openers” if it wasn’t for Elon Musk…

[@vincentwilliams363]

@@ROVA00 You got me!

[@Computeraidedautomation]

SpaceX has really pushed the boundaries of rocket technology! Their work with reusable engines and innovations like the Raptor engine's full-flow staged combustion cycle are game-changers for space exploration.

[@marcelomendonca2540]

Wait a moment. You've said that Raptor engines require external stuff on the launch pad to get started. However SpaceX has turned Starship booster engines off and on again on the fly by them own. How is that possible?

[@martin830319]

Only the outer 20 engines started by stage zero. The rest uses on board high pressure helium to start.

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

That's a good point. There's never enough time to cover all of the technicalities - the booster engines get a spin start from the launch mount, the engine relights and upper stage Raptors are spun up by pressurized gas.

[@aggonzalezdc]

Yea any of the reused engines have an onboard system for spin priming. But the ones that don't need to relight? Might as well leave it on the ground. Clever.

[@bradcole4693]

Best explanation that I’ve seen to date. Would’ve liked to have a bit more about the Soyuz motor that Merlin replaced, and the role of metallurgy, but only because it relates to current affairs.

[@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)

[@pretty_birb__]

My dream company. Studying for engineering, mechanics, and physics hoping one day I can make it and be a part of the team.

[@PhilfreezeCH]

13:15 including the engine bell in the size comparison is a super weird move. The RS-25 also operates in space and just needs a larger engine bell than the first-stage Raptors. The second stage Raptors are also bigger.

[@spacedad1853]

Great video, very well/easy explanations. Can't wait to watch more of your videos. 👏👏

[@uncleal]

The de Laval nozzle is a thermodynamic thing of divine beauty. Appreciate a rocket "engine" from its elegant thermodynamics. BTW, "kerosene" That was naphthalene, a high-melting solid and perhaps the worst class of fuel imaginable (including massive loss of internal energy via 4n+2 aromaticity, plus graphitization). CH4 is hydrogen with a built-in supercompressor. All the fun is in the footnotes.

[@troyjean9850]

THANK YOU!! Amazing piece of information 😊

[@maxheadrom3088]

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

[@YukariAkiyama]

america lives rent free in your head its crazy

[@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.

[@CharlesIsMyName]

People seem to criticize the private space industry but I genuinely believe it's the future.

[@bazoo513]

0:08 - I beg to differ. It's not that those "crazy ideas" were thought impossible, or haven't been tried before - its that other companies stuck to easily to the conventional wisdom that they are not economically viable.

[@aggonzalezdc]

Thank you. SpaceX didnt reinvent anything. They made incremental improvements that made the difficulty of full flow staged combustion more viable. Which is impressive! No need to bend the truth, it's still awesome. But don't act like they were the first to come up with this.

[@pigslefats]

Excellent explanation

[@muuubiee]

I don't think your explanation is correct. The pre-burners drives the turbo-pumps by cumbusting some fuel, yes, and the exhaust of the pre-burners is gas that enters the main chamber somewhere... But most of the fuel is still being pumped around the nozzle bell and into the main combustion chamber as liquids, not as a gas. The pre-burners will not be sending their exhausts through the same system as the main burner, the fuel rich likely going closer to the combustion chamber walls, and the oxygen rich more centered.

[@TheSpaceRaceYT]

You're correct. Then we would have had to also explain the cooling system for the nozzle and the fuel injection system and the video is already on the long side for us. We like to think it's more about the concept than the actual technical details. It's always a tough call, but we'll sometimes sacrifice a bit of accuracy in favour of accessibility.

[@greybuckleton]

I enjoyed the video, but have to point out a few glaring faults. The Raptor is not the first Methane/Oxygen rocket engine. There were a few before Raptor. I will just name two as it also relates to the rocket engine cycle, which is also not a first. The Soviet RD-270. This was a Full flow staged combustion engine built and fired in 1969. The Morpheus HD5 was a methane/oxygen rocket engine used in 2014.

[@MickHenry-p9y]

Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing

[@zqwas6306]

Time to sign up for aerospace !

[@domenicobarillari2046]

Hey SpaceX: kerosene is NOT the same as naphthalene, which is what you show at t~7:20 on the left. Perhaps you need a chemist on the team?

[@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.

[@mihaischitcu1917]

Same as how Tesla reinvented the wheel!

[@Mytube8I]

THIS folks, is why the private sector is so crucial. It rivals any government controlled enterprise by mitigating waste and maximizing efficiency. Elon Musk is a modern day genius, pioneer and cultural icon.

[@SKRUBL0RD]

Cool! I'm going to build ICBMs now!

[@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.

[@lukemarzola1111]

Note: he used several designs which are not his.

[@Rickcarleson2152]

He isn't a genius, nor is he a good guy. Please do some research into this pathalogical liar.

[@kanishka.b8550]

Everyone into rockets should watch a documentary goes by the name "engines out of the cold" or smothing like that where they talk about the development of closed cycle engines far ahead os USA when they though it was impossible. It's really mind boggling. A must watch.

[@daveoatway6126]

I find it strange that NASA and the USSF depended on Russian engines for 20 years and never developed it's own engine. It took Elon to have that vision and effort.

[@andriescorneliusnienaber]

Great episode

[@Mike20464]

Great video! Thank you

[@tekteam26]

The Raptor engine was originally developed by NASA. SpaceX bought the license from NASA then further developed it into its current form. I learned this from a friend of mine who is a senior NASA engineer.

[@polobbie]

Yes, just like Xerox invented the computer "mouse" able to move a cursor and click "Icons" on a monitor. They thought so little of that invention that they licensed it to Steve Jobs in 1979. NASA's version of the Raptor would be a distant relic collecting dust in a warehouse if not for Elon.

[@Ori-lp2fm]

Well made video

[@yukon4511]

The Soviets pioneered closed cycle rocket engines in1967.

[@saulnier]

Not only pioneered. Little known fact is the Atlas III & V rockets fly on the Russian made RD-180's ("Raketnyy Dvigatel-180" manufactured by Energomas). Pratt & Whitney got the production license for it, but it never panned out. So those US rockets are indeed powered by Russian closed cycle engines.

[@peterfireflylund]

There are many kinds of closed cycles. Full-flow staged combustion is rare - and raptor was the first one of those that actually flew.

[@yukon4511]

@@peterfireflylund Pioneered by the Soviets. Period.

[@peterfireflylund]

@@yukon4511moron.

[@271828epe]

Love this explanation

[@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...

[@qwerty112311]

“Dozens” lol

[@bazoo513]

@@qwerty112311 Elaborate that ridiculous "lol", please. It would need "only" about eight tanker launchers _if_ their payload was 120-150t instead of the current ~40t, _and_ it they could be launched almost simultaneously, so that propellant boil off would be negligible.

[@yannisws]

​@@bazoo513EagerSpace has calculated this, refueling and boil-off are relatively minor issues.