What Is The Most Powerful Rocket Motor?

To quote from clickbait 'The answer might surprise you' - lots of references still say the mighty F-1 engine used on the Saturn V is the post powerful rocket motor ever, but, there have been more powerful motors, depending on how you define your question.

[@samuelcarvalho3691]

He literally just pulled out his camera and started talking without any cuts and it got him 650k views. and this video was great!!

[@everydayspacenerd8192]

Very impressive.

[@kylewright8512]

I'm pretty sure he had a script, and he obviously edited it.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Scripted or not, Scott is quite the savant when it comes to rocket engine history and knowledge.

[@PsychoticSmith]

Legend

[@AsbestosMuffins]

funfact about the Aj260, it required a minuteman first stage srb fired downwards into the motor to evenly ignite it. One can imagine the concern at nasa had this ever gone forward with pointing one big srb up into the bottom of their 3000 ton rocket sitting ontop of their even bigger SRB.

[@winturner7681]

I remember going outside as a kid and seeing the glow from the Rocketdyne test site 70 miles away in Everglades City

[@johannesgaida3137]

Doesn't get more kerbal than this

[@MrRandomSuperhero]

I'm just imagening they somehow fit it upsidedown and it flew off... Hollywood don't steal!

[@JamesF0790]

I... that is the best thing I have ever heard.

[@dimitar4y]

I laughed for a few minutes. That's so stupid to imagine. There's no way that's scientific, right?

[@texasyojimbo]

The AJ260 is extremely kerbal. Of course it looks like an environmental catastrophe in a can.

[@operator8014]

I want them to add it to KSP with a 50% chance of just exploding when started. For authenticity.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

@@operator8014 33%

[@operator8014]

@@antediluvianatheist5262 How about 50% chance it explodes, but uf it does, you get 20 science?

[@devial9879]

Bill: "So we'll be adding these 12 MN SRB's" Jeb: "ok, yes, but, what if, hear me out on this, what if, we made it bigger"

[@akthethotboi9711]

James Dallas I love this

[@RBsRealm]

See guys? As per KSP fortold us, clustering engines work.

[@SupremeRuleroftheWorld]

KSP also fortold they tend to explode.

[@therealh0ffi424]

i build a big cluster rocket in KSP yesterday. 5m diameter and around 30 Engines (Booster included). That thing could lift the entire ISS into Orbit.

[@oldfrend]

welcome to 60's soviet rocket design. coincidentally the N-1 also had a tendency to blow up shortly after liftoff XD

[@coffeecatto3375]

NASA should change their motto to MOAR BOOSTERS!

[@observingtheq8810]

Nah, you should definitely leave it to Soviets. Just look up UR-900, that kerbalized beauty of a rocket.

[@adarshsr8015]

Imagine you are walking in a park and suddenly a guy shouting about rocket engines

[@WillowK.]

And specific impulses

[@emmata98]

just join him

[@damotharanp9399]

​@@emmata98yeah

[@LeoVideoProduction]

In a sense, the AJ260 tests were basically the most epic bonfires in history.

[@Tekfamily]

Yet probably only the 2nd loudest. I hear burning man gets pretty wild.

[@CapitaoAmerica737]

5:57 And that's why we have leap years.

[@СергейБолдин-в9м]

Earth got off the orbit and is falling on the Sun.

[@amyshaw893]

"The biggest rocket ever flown" * Sad n1 noises*

[@raffaeledivora9517]

Incorrect, the N1 did fly... just not well xD

[@amyshaw893]

@@raffaeledivora9517 I mean, it went up, and it came back down again. what more can you ask for in a rocket? :P

[@closetman7757]

tha saturn V was bigger. but the N1 had more thrust.

[@ajay_constantine]

It did went 40km in altitude in the last launch

[@ethannorton564]

@@closetman7757 I'm pretty sure the n1 was bigger than the Saturn V

[@Axodus]

*"ThE aNSwER mIgHt sUrprISE yOU!"*

[@pierregabory8772]

someone is reading the description...

[@andysim232]

¡uᴉɐƃɐ oƃ ǝʍ ǝɹǝɥ

Axodus TENSERIHUISEOU?

[@mudtherapync7934]

im confused

[@Wombattlr]

Lucky likes

[@thecapacitor1395]

5:54 When your boss tells you to move the Earth.

[@Coco-td2ty]

So true lmao

[@WiggleThemNibblets]

You pick up some dirt and hand it to him and say "Done, what next?"

[@dickJohnsonpeter]

There is a video that shows what it would take to do that with rocket engines. It's ridiculously impossible as you can imagine lol

[@duken3767]

Without the atmosphere, earth orbit may have shifted.

[@chanakyasinha8046]

The boss was sitting his ass on the nozzle

[@evilreddog]

Need AJ260 in Kerbal space program..... because science!.... yeah science.....

[@theperpetual8348]

Tweakscale a hammer

[@drewtreptow929]

I second this!

[@cybercat1531]

During the 3 test firings the light, flame & roar from the rocket exhaust was seen & felt from 50 kilometers away, all in all the AJ/ SL solid fuel motor was about as controllable as an earthquake.

[@cybercat1531]

Oh and it burned 840 tons of fuel at a rate of 6 tons per second

[@evilreddog]

Cool, i'll take 5 of them for my first stage. Just to get off the pad at creeping velocity

[@volvo245]

It did fly. ON SPACESHIP EARTH!!! Probably changed the orbit few widths of an electron...

[@thearmadilliestone]

Those booster tests must be been a sight to behold

[@josephgroves3176]

The Armadilliest One. I think you have to stand a long way back

[@coffeecatto3375]

Waaaayyy baaack

[@craazyy22]

2:17 it did a 360? so it did a full flip and was pointing upwards when it came back down?

[@scottmanley]

The payload was mounted upside down and needed to perform a 180 flip before orbital insertion.

[@craazyy22]

Thanks for the answer :)

[@tiaxanderson9725]

Obviously the Soviets put the rocket upside down on the pad, so they wouldn't have to do the 180 flip of the payload before orbital insertion, instead opting to do it on the pad. Sadly they made it a 360

[@charlescsmith1213]

Tiax Anderson) No they had to mount the payload nose down (retrograde,) something to do with its engines I think. Anyways, after the payload (Polyus) separated it needed to flip 180 to face nose forward (prograde) and roll 90 degrees to perform its orbital burn. Instead of stopping at 180 and doing the burn, it continued until it had done a complete 360 and THEN did it’s burn. It promptly fell back to earth.

[@orbitalvagabond3297]

I was waiting for someone to ask this.

[@StreetIrregular]

Hi Scott, it would be really cool to see a video breaking down the elements of a modern Spaceport. Thanks!

[@TheTravelingTank]

Could you please do a video where you teach us how you research and find new topics? I have no idea how and where you find all these amazing pieces of history

[@DowzerWTP72]

Jared Peterson Doing that would somewhat diminish the likelihood that people would watch the videos, if they had the sources where he makes the videos from.

[@pegasusted2504]

Google? ;~)

[@manlyastronaut6984]

old rocket books I bet

[@Jehty_]

DowzerWTP72 having the source and having the patience to do the research are to very different things. I am willing to watch a 10 minute video about space every day but i would never do hours and hours of researching.

[@TheTravelingTank]

@@Jehty_ but I'm the kind of person who wouldn't mind at all spending a couple of hours to learn the complexities and history of all these things he talks about, so I'd love to know where he gets it

[@martinmccomb5462]

Must admit the F-1 was the first thing that came to mind when I read the tag line. Thank you for sharing your knowledge. I learned something new, so that automatically makes today a good day!

[@elzarcho]

Energia was such a cool system. It's up there with, say, the VentureStar on the list of "what might have been" projects.

[@nardgames]

The rd-170 has been quite reliable, the Engeria failure had nothing to do with the engine, and all Zenit rockets used one.

[@scottmanley]

Oh indeed, the engine and its derivatives have a stellar reputation.

[@TheArklyte]

Energia aka ENERGy. Seriously, man? That's bordering on purposely botching it when you mispronounce something that exists in English as well.

[@josephgroves3176]

nardgames. The Energia was a beautiful design. If only it had continued or revived instead of the milquetoast that is Angara. Still better than SLS

[@TheArklyte]

+Joseph Groves Angara is the ultimate monument to laziness and corruption. They've basically held military and space hostage and presented the end result with "deal with it" attitude. Not saying SLS is better, but it at least had some potential. Angara is an insult.

[@josephgroves3176]

TheArklyte yeah. Angara was used rather than Energia due to political reasons: a lot was manufactured in Ukraine not Russia. :(

[@typograf62]

I remember an old science-fiction movie where Earth is threatened by a stray planet from outer space. The solution is to build a giant rocket motor on Antarctica and fire it for weeks to move Earth out of harms way. I assume that such a motor would cause at least as much destruction as a direct hit. And then there is Space 1999 where an explosion in nuclear waste causes the Moon to leave Earth orbit at relativistic speed. Realistic space operas would have to include a lot of waiting.

[@MichaelAnthonyStiber]

Awesome video Mr. Manley Man! I never heard of the AJ-260 prior to this; that must have been one heck of an experience testing that thing. Having recently moved to the Bay Area, I’m curious where you were walking around filming this video?

[@scottmanley]

That's Salesforce Park - on top of the newly opened Transbay Terminal in SF

[@jeffvader811]

I bet you'll be hanging around there quite a bit now eh Mike ;)

[@oldfrend]

eh scott's famous enough to have his own fangirls i feel XD

[@AimlessSavant]

Solution to all problems: Toss a feckin solid booster on et!

[@Kikabopom]

The most powerful rocket engine is when one goes wrong, then it produces so much thrust, it has to send it in *all* directions, including into the rocket itself, and then burning a lot of its fuel in a short time, again, in all directions.

[@dougball328]

Thrust is a vector quantity. Your definition doesn't account for that. It's the difference between vibration and translation. One goes somewhere , the other is just confusion.

[@kercchan3307]

I want to see how fast a AJ260 could go with only a aerodome cover on it.

[@fieldadmiralspartanryseb-8293]

Scott you make very efficient use of your time lol. Filming entire episodes with no script while walking to your next destination. I respect that.

[@leerman22]

You don't say I have 4 engines in my car because it happens to be a 4 cylinder engine block. They share the same turbo, too!

[@Katniss218]

Good one.

[@whiplash7400]

An even better comparison would be having 4 exhausts

[@am17frans]

Or perhaps four wheel drive...

[@Invisifly2]

I disagree with this sentiment. All of that plumbing is just a really fancy fuel pump. If you hooked four car engines together to a single fuel pump you wouldn't suddenly have only a single engine.

[@leerman22]

I really do have 4 engines in my car :P

[@Maeyanie]

The Titan IV-B SRBs were pretty impressive too, at 15.12 MN thrust according to Wikipedia. But I think that's for both engines combined, so still doesn't beat the Shuttle SRBs. I've always loved it just for the fact that the SRBs were each roughly the same size as the main rocket body between them, though.

[@adamrdcp]

The F-1 is beautiful, that exhaust is absolutely stunning.

[@CrossWindsPat]

Yea that footage is marvelous. Theres a video floating around with one of the engineers breaking it all down for like 10 minutes. Amazing stuff.

[@carloskarbat]

I totally disagree with you, I would compare the R170 to a car with four combustion engines that transmit the driving force of that force to the 2 wheels of the car. Therefore, the R170 and the 4 combustion chambers are the 4 piston engines of the car. and the car’s wheels are equivalent to a nozzle or bell on the R170. summarizing the reasoning about the R170, there are four that explain its buoyancy force through a single TUBE OR BELL, as well as the 4-engine car puts all the power on the 2 wheels that would be equal to 1 bell or nozzle of the R170 and remembering that the R170 came after the failure of the N1, WHERE Apollo 11 had already reached the moon, the R170 was a technology after the 70s, where F1 was extinguished by Nixon without a chance to improve them, nixon destroyed F1 without continuing to update them

[@ti994apc]

I heard that the M-1 Aerojet engine was expected to be 8 MN after upgrades. Of course there is something to be said about smaller more serviceable engines in a cluster.

[@jlparcerisa]

What a great video Scott!, it would be great to compare the F1 and RD-170 against the merlin, raptor, BE-4, Rutherford and so on from a Thrust-to-weight ratio perspective. I think it will be interesting to see how things have evolved and the reasoning behind each design choise.

[@thethirdman225]

The RD-180 has significant efficiency advantages against even the Merlin. That's not a put down of the Merlin - not in any way - it's just that the RD-180 is such a brilliant rocket motor.

[@simongeard4824]

@@thethirdman225 That, and Merlin wasn't designed to be the most powerful or most efficient engine. It was designed to be the best engine that would meet a whole lot of conditions that were - and years later, still are - unique to SpaceX operations. The RD-1xx designers didn't need to worry about things like throttle control for landing, or ease of post-flight servicing... they just had to build the best single-use engine they could.

[@thethirdman225]

@@simongeard4824 Well… the RD-180 was designed in the early 1980s and the Merlin about ten years ago. They RD-180 was designed on a completely different principle and yes, on a completely different design brief. The Merlin is basically a modern version of a V2 engine. The RD-180 is the muse for the Raptor engine.

[@dataman6744]

It's amazing how the Soviets could build rocket engines that are being compared to modern engines and STILL remain superior

[@simongeard4824]

@@dataman6744 Not that amazing, considering that until SpaceX developed Merlin, most of the "modern" engines are actually of similar vintage to the Soviet designs. Look at SLS, for example... Shuttle-era engines and solids dating to the 1970s. And the RS-68 engines on Delta IV were a bit newer, but still far from modern.

[@jamesgibbs4151]

Awesome stuff scott as always! A wee bit of info goes a long way!

[@TheDecguy]

Maybe the AJ260 was the most powerful engine ever flown. It could be a matter of perspective. Think of the engine being strapped to the test stand pointing downward, the payload was the earth. Once fired it went on a very short flight. Also the last I knew the test pit is still there at the old Aerojet site.

[@ZILLION4EVER]

AND there is still a rocket inside! (but capped off by the gov and big ditch/trench filled with water to keep curious droids and scott at a distance :P

[@Icepacalapse]

@@ZILLION4EVER The fishing there is totally sweet.

[@kewaso_5313]

Glushko originally meant for his rd-270 (aka. Hypergolic F1) to run on Diborane instead of UDMH, which would have made it a bit more powerful than the rd-171, but they cut the funding before they made that happen

[@jackandersen1262]

The SRB is still there, although they did cover the hole with steel plating and concrete I beams (however you can crawl between the beams and shine a light through some of the gaps into the pit and still see it).

[@alexsiemers7898]

So it's kinda like how the Mammoth engine in KSP is technically the most powerful engine, but the Rhino is the most powerful single nozzle engine

[@DanielDornekDorda]

isn't mainsall better?

[@whiplash7400]

@@DanielDornekDorda no

[@alexsiemers7898]

Daniel Dorda mainsail has better sea level thrust, but Rhino exceeds it in space.

[@valeriyproklov2868]

As the description of the mammoth tells the Mammoth is 4 Vectors stuck together. So, no, because they have separate pumps. It’s like the SLS

[@xa-xii4865]

SpaceX Raptor is currently the most powerful and efficient engine

[@trm7782]

They could have just installed tweak scale

[@DanSlotea]

Without JointReinforcer?

[@lilnut9423]

You won’t believe number 4!

[@thetitan6965]

That would have been a nice clickbait title.

[@mldlaw090155]

Hey, Scott. What’s up aerodynamically with rockets with bulbous noses? Increased payload size, but doesn’t the bulge have a negative effect on the fluid dynamics, creating a separation of the airflow from the surface?

[@isaacwayne4738]

I recognize that area behind him, to the right is the building I work in and hes walking down the saleforce park lol

[@Lathnor]

imagine you walk by scott when he talks, that whould be my dream come true

[@buffaloc20]

Thumbnail: rs 88 “phantom” Engine Noteable uses: cst-100 starliner and testing engines

[@harbingerdawn]

Regarding the Energia-Polyus flight, you implied that due to the failure of Polyus to insert into orbit that _Energia_ didn't have the best service record. But the Polyus failure was solely a failure of the payload, not the launch vehicle - Energia itself performed quite well on both of its flights.

[@derrikl12]

Imagine if the Soviets and the Americans worked together on the space program... the progress would have been astounding... granted ideologies...

[@tycho_m]

I think about this every day. What if the time of the enlightenment also brought forth international cooperation that transcends national borders and political convictions and superficial differences between people? We could have had orbital shipyards by now.

[@jomaloro1492]

Yes, but the wouldn't have the incentive to progress the technology, se what happened after with the ISS. Not very much advancements until private companies started to appear.

[@handsomecat2465]

They actually are working together

[@jomaloro1492]

@@handsomecat2465 well yes now they are, but at what rate do they progress, from 1950 to 1969 the did much more than now, Soviets still use the Soyuz and NASA doesn't even have a vehicle. At least now private is going big and advancing some things.

[@quantummechanist1]

What would have happened was the Americans would have wanted everything their own way, as they always do, and progress world have been hampered rather than helped. See Breton woods for an example of this.

[@tryhardfpv5351]

If you consider the project Orion propulsion method to be a "Rocket Motor" then I wonder what sort of thrust it could have generated?

[@sergey1519]

tryhard fpv well i can't really say but i think something from ~4,5 MN to 100GN.

[@RCAvhstape]

That can be computed easily by multiplying the mass of the spacecraft with the acceleration created by the drive. Would have to look it up, but it would vary based on which version you were talking about. The smallest design was a 10-meter diameter pusher plate vehicle designed to be lofted on a Saturn V class launcher and used for Mars missions; the largest was the size of a small city that was designed as an interstellar generation ship firing fusion bombs out the tail. That would undoubtedly be the most powerful thruster ever built, insane mega-engineering at it's finest.

[@johnfrancisdoe1563]

Helium Road Wait, Orion actually designed their systems to be fired at a safe distance from Earth? All the previous mentions I encountered suggested they were crazy enough to use this inside the atmosphere, and that's why there got canceled.

[@RCAvhstape]

Read George Dyson's book about it, it's fascinating stuff. If you can't use them at a distance from the Earth than what's the point?

[@MrMattumbo]

@@johnfrancisdoe1563 Well for the big ones that could go to other solar systems there is still today no other way to get them into orbit. Now the smarter way is with orbital construction using material from the moon, but that itself is a tall order today and thought impossible at the time. As it stands the ideas those crazy bastards dreamt up are still our only Earth-based way of getting humans to another habitable planet if the need arose to abandon Earth.

[@Sphere723]

If you play enough Kerbel, you know the answer to any question is boosters.

[@CrossWindsPat]

All booster first stage followed by like 8 aspargus stages. I can go anywhere with that shit.

[@rock3tcatU233]

The thrust of a solid rocket motor is mostly determined by its length, this means that in its full configuration the AJ260 would have produced 40+ MN.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

3:37 - Although it _does_ make the space shuttle SRBs the most powerful rocket engines ever _flown._

[@LeCharles07]

Ok, really, I love the "Manly in Nature" videos. You should officially make it a series.

[@fenchurchmarie5224]

At 2:23 "(the RD-170) doesn't have the best service record" Kinda depends what you mean by "service record". The RD-170 engines installed on the two Energia strap-on boosters performed flawlessly in both flights they participated in. The Buran flight was pretty much a perfect technical success. Polyus did indeed rotate too far and rocket back into the atmosphere, but that had nothing to do with the launch vehicle. It's kind of like saying that the Saturn V moon rocket "didn't have the best service record" because it was associated with the failure of the O2 tank on the Apollo 13 service module. Or the time that 2 engines shut down on the 2nd stage due to an issue, but the payload still made it into orbit (burned the other 3 engines longer).

[@ShadowFalcon]

Fenchurch Marie What's meant is probably length. It didn't serve that long, compared to other engines.

[@nagantm441]

RD-170 and variants have been used longer than F-1.

[@ShadowFalcon]

nagantm441 It's the variants which have the long career. The RD170 itself only flew on the Energia, which itself only flew twice.

[@nagantm441]

@@ShadowFalcon rd-171 flew on zenit for many years. It is an rd-170 gimballed so that it could maneuver a rocket alone.

[@ShadowFalcon]

nagantm441 Yes, but that's the RD171, not the RD170. Again, it's the variants which have the long career.

[@onogrirwin]

And then you've already made a video on Sea Dragon, right? Best rocket channel on youtube.

[@semibreve]

I wonder where Scott is filming this video! It looks very scenic and modern

[@TheRealMartin]

The newly opened transbay terminal in San Francisco. His office is right next to it, opposite my work building.

[@CrossWindsPat]

@@TheRealMartin Well I guess when we find Scott stabbed to death with office products we know where to look :D

[@gagegr]

Late to this party, but it’s Salesforce Park.

[@johnfrancisdoe1563]

When you said Submarine, I was expecting you to say house ! Like that giant cylinder behind you.

[@coontent-tv]

"fly safe" yes I have a space shuttle iny garage

[@Itoyokofan]

Some years ago "Saturn" factory announced they would make PD-175 engine, with five chambers, thus adding another 25% of power to RD-171M. I don't know if they continue the development, or gave up on that, now, but that would've been interesting to see.

[@Treblaine]

So, if the Sea Dragon had ever been built...

[@ProtruckR]

Now that was cool. Wow could you imagine the force you put on the sphincter when you 3.2.1. I can't even imagine the blast start up with that huge solid booster they were going to make fly. Shame they did not do this. I have no problem volunteering my sphincter for test flight on that solid booster rocket Moter. Wild ride !!!

[@edwinrobert7192]

*Legend has it that when the AJ260 fired, it changed Earth's periapsis*

[@Shoorit]

I Know earth is huge and the aj260 is small compared but always wondered how many would be needed to effect earths orbit.

[@jamesowens7176]

Earth is roughly 6 x 10^24 kg. The force of the last test (according to the video) was 24 x 10^6 N. A Newton is (kg - m)/s^2. Force/mass equals the acceleration of the mass due to that force (F/m = a). So a = 4 x 10^-18 m/s^2 I doubt such a tiny acceleration would be noticed. Even perturbations due to tectonic plates shifting in earthquakes are barely noticeable (The magnitude 8.8 earthquake in Chile shortened the Earth's day by 1.26 millionths of a second.)

[@CrossWindsPat]

@@jamesowens7176 I mean, the gasses don't even leave the atmosphere so would it change at all?

[@ohger1]

@@CrossWindsPat The thrust doesn't push against the atmosphere. But if a rocket is locked down, all of it's thrust is transferred to the planet.

[@patbak235]

it did but by a very very very etc small amount

[@xEclipse56x]

That picture of the AJ260 on the boat actually made me spit all over my screen xD

[@CrossWindsPat]

Yea my jaw was hanging!!

[@GeneralBrae]

Don't suppose there would be any chance of you doing one of your 'rundown' videos on the old X-15 rocket plane? Seems like there are some technical challenges in using a non- throttleable engine on a plane vs. an actual rocket which would be interesting to hear you go over.

[@jarno_de_wit]

What about the engine that was to be used for the sea dragon (which was never built). Is that the most powerful engine seriously thought about by man or are some other engines even bigger than the one which was planned for the sea dragon?

[@jeremyhall7259]

I mean there were proposed engines that shot nuclear bombs out the back for propulsion

[@44R0Ndin]

TBH I seriously doubt the Sea Dragon could have gotten away with one gigantic single-chamber engine. Same reason it took so many tries to get the F-1 to not explode, combustion instability. Also problems with just hooking to an aircraft carrier's power grid for providing power to electrolyse seawater, I mean it's not like uninsulated tanks are going to hold that LH2 for long enough to fill the rocket up, it'll boil off as fast or faster than you're able to make it unless you're using literal gigawatts of power solely for electrolysis and liquefaction of propellants, and an aircraft carrier of that period didn't have gigawatts of power for anything. Bottom line is there were a lot of problems with Sea Dragon that would have driven up costs, and I'm not entirely sure that the whole BDB concept is viable. Still useful if you've gotta put a lot of stuff into space in one go, maybe use the first stage of Sea Dragon to launch a spacecraft with a Project Orion propulsion system (nuclear bombs shot out the back).

[@justinhiggins2210]

Isn't there one of those aj 260s still in the ground somewhere in Florida.

[@TheJimtanker]

Ever fired, but how many newtons of thrust would the engine on the Orion produce?

[@toolhog10]

I think I've seen a video of those testing pits in Florida today. A couple guys crawled between the giant cement blocks on top of the grate that covers the hole. There was still a rocket sitting inside the chamber. It looked pretty awesome, but it may not be the same testing thing mentioned here.

[@scottmanley]

It’s the same.

[@jessetheunending9357]

Dang Scott, I'm giggling like a school girl at the thought of 21MN of thrust

[@carloskarbat]

I totally disagree with you, I would compare the R170 to a car with four combustion engines that transmit the driving force of that force to the 2 wheels of the car. Therefore, the R170 and the 4 combustion chambers are the 4 piston engines of the car. and the car’s wheels are equivalent to a nozzle or bell on the R170. summarizing the reasoning about the R170, there are four that explain its buoyancy force through a single TUBE OR BELL, as well as the 4-engine car puts all the power on the 2 wheels that would be equal to 1 bell or nozzle of the R170 and remembering that the R170 came after the failure of the N1, WHERE Apollo 11 had already reached the moon, the R170 was a technology after the 70s, where F1 was extinguished by Nixon without a chance to improve them, nixon destroyed F1 without continuing to update them

[@ZacLowing]

@@carloskarbat ain't nobody running 4 engined cars, wtf

[@forksandpopsticles9183]

@@carloskarbat dissagre on what? This is talking about the biggest SRB ever built, not the r170

[@someoneidk6303]

@@ZacLowing ima just say drag tractors

[@coastermania17]

Just out of curiosity, does the AJ in AJ260 have anything to do with the impulse class nomenclature that is seen in hobby rockets?

[@Zer0n3]

24 meganewtons, how can you get a sense of that amount of force?

[@massimookissed1023]

I'm wondering if they measured how much Earth's orbit changed :)

[@alexsiemers7898]

A little over 3 F-1 engines.

[@klosskopfder1.762]

@@massimookissed1023 by nothing. The fumes probably didn't left earths sphere of influence

[@pegzounet]

through you vibrating teeth ten miles away i would guess

Headbutt a brick wall as hard as you can, it's about 18,000,000 times the thunk if you really give it socks.

[@enzofitzhume7320]

I like the 5:39 shot when the guy is looking directly in the engine and it ignites. Was this planned when you edited the video?

[@marioq70]

Nah! the most powerfull engine is the "Mammoth" by Kerbodyne!

[@tackyinbention6248]

4 times more powerful than a vector

[@koyamaczech5884]

Clysdale Is stronker by numbers of nozzles less =better Except most boosters

[@michaeldunne338]

Good commentary. Liked the F-1 and RD-170 comparison. Interesting about the AJ260 and M-1. How about NERVA tests, for nuclear engines, when it comes to powerful rockets tested (how did they compare?)? Otherwise, was that a shot of Polyus with Energia at the beginning of this clip, when introducing the RD-170 (about 1:00 in)?

[@sebastiaomendonca1477]

That is indeed Polyus

[@michaeldunne338]

@@sebastiaomendonca1477 An intriguing, little talked about project - a test bed for lasers in orbit (likely for anti-satellite purposes?). If the satellite didn't go in the wrong direction (back towards Earth), it would have been one of the largest objects sent into space all at once, at 80 metric tonnes (beating out the Skylab Cluster of 70 or so metric tonnes). Luckily there was a glitch - if it made orbit, it could have really placed the two Cold War powers on a path of intensifying the Cold War in space at a whole different level ...

[@Shoorit]

Anyone who’s interested in space and rockets knows the rd-170 is most powerful multi chamber engine and f1 is most powerful single chamber engine. As always interesting video though :) Would have been phenomenal to see two of them rocket motors attached to a Saturn 5 haha.

[@scottmanley]

And yet those are both weak compared to SRBs

[@Shoorit]

Scott Manley yeah they seem like a powerful fart compared to that srb...

[@nathanaelvetters2684]

Wayyy better Isp though

[@manwithagun89]

I think i need to build one in KSP. With M-1 upper stage, F-1 lower stage surrounded with 4 RD-171 wich is surrounded with 2-3 AJ-260 each. I hope 300 tonnes to LEO in RSS can be easily acheved.

[@fromagefrizzbizz9377]

+ManWithAGun As a personal preference, I wouldn't mix similar complex technologies (F1 vs RD-17x) on the same stage. Solids are no big deal/don't really matter, you light them, they go, entirely self-contained. Unless you screw up with O-rings. Liquids are far more fussy, and more things can go wrong. A F1 or RD171 is far more complex, and if you mix them both, you'll run into subtle differences that are more difficult to handle. Even something as simple if the Russian "RG1" fuel isn't quite perfectly equivalent to RP-1. Or vibration harmonics. Or thrust curve. Or pumping/plumbing requirements etc. Use the same liquid fuel engines. There is also a problem with overpowering the lower stage relative to the upper and payload. Rockets of this type simply don't like traveling thru low altitude atmosphere at high mach numbers. Nor would the astronauts. Efficiency/success relies on a bit more than just spitballing the first stage to be high enough power to lift 500 tons upper/payload to Mach 10 by 1000'. You'd squash the astronauts just before the structure tore itself apart.

[@OzzyTripping]

God I just love listening to this man talk about science. I don’t even have to watch just set play and listen while driving. Great channel Mr. Mannely

[@mariebcfhs9491]

MOAR BOOSTA!

[@raixbox360]

where did you film this? 2:37 how far did she follow you?

[@donjones4719]

5:40 Rocket scientist's wife, in sexy lingerie, "I want to feel the Earth move." Rocket scientist, "I'll get to work on that right away."

[@solarpowered3364]

I would like to hear about the history of rocket engine efficiency.

[@kaihang4685]

Haven't seem the video yet, but I'm a fan of Buran-Energia, so I'm guessing he'll talk about the RD-170. Edit: Soviet engineering FTW!! Take that F1 Fanboys!!!....oh wait there's more!?!? Edit2: Wow Scott Manley liked my comment!!!! I guess I should reveal the video that made me a fan of Buran-Energia, by Curious Droid: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jn2ydIStathsi9k&ab_channel=CuriousDroid

[@ryanm9371]

And yet there are no Soviet flags on the moon 🤔. US systems engineering FTW

[@jugganaut33]

The Russians truly are terrific engineers. Just a shame they never get the right economic support.

[@kaihang4685]

You're right. American engineering does have its merits, because the might of the US economy allowed their engineers a lot more "wiggle room" to design the machine exactly to specifications. Presumably this is where the "America, land of opportunity" quote applies. However with the Soviets/Russians, they don't have the economic might of the US and therefore when designing and engineering new machines, they simplify the engineering where they can without compromising too much of the end product functionality, and often this decreased complexity increases reliability and predictability of the product. While the Americans have amazing scientists and engineers at R&D to attack problems head on, I admire soviet engineering for their "work around" approach to problems, because it's necessary with their lesser economic backing and the solutions are often simple and straightforward. Take the F1 and RD-170 for example. Combustion instability was an issue for both sides trying to develop an insanely powerful rocket motor. The American approach attacked the problem head on, and eventually solved the problem. The Soviets took a step back, and asked themselves, "who says a turbopump can only have one combustion chamber?", and ended up not having to encounter the problem in the first place. The Soviet Tupolev Tu-95 bomber is another example. At the time of its conception jet engines were still notoriously unreliable and inefficient. The soviets took a step back and realised why they needed jet engines in the first place, when they can pump out similar performance with contra-rotating propellors. The result is a turboprop strategic bomber that rivals the B-52 in payload, range and speed, but ended up being TWICE as fuel efficient. I know my profile picture is of an American X-43A, but that's because I admire engineering ethos from all countries, but I had to make a point here because Soviet engineering often under appreciated. Thanks for reading and have a good day Jugganaut! TL;DR The lack of such a powerful economic backing forces Soviet engineers to come up with creative workarounds to problems that equivalent US engineers could tackle head on by phat stax into R&D.

[@jlparcerisa]

@gacekky1 ouch, neverless good point

[@Melanie16040]

In the Tu-95 they also made an aircraft so loud that it could be tracked by hydrophone networks designed to track submarines...

[@SpydersByte]

7:02 that picture is amazing

[@druze3210]

Probably f-1 or something (correct me if I'm wrong) Or just watch the video

[@druze3210]

Yay I was right

[@druze3210]

Oh I was wrong

[@scottmanley]

Exactly the reaction I expected.

[@wanderin1898]

Ha HA! Fooled by more sciencey things!

[@nicolasdiaz5058]

Scott Manley Twitter works better than the youtube notifications...

[@rebecamugwort862]

I can’t wait for the day when it’s entirely normal to walk around and talk to a camera. That day, the Great Scott manly will no longer have to feel awkward when people see him making a video. 🤓🙃😊

[@gunslinger2566]

Seinfeld covered this, rd170 did a 180 to crash. Doing a 360 would just be showing off while heading to space.

[@scottmanley]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqTUlmarqblpqNU

[@gunslinger2566]

Awesome.

[@mandysontakke]

Hi Scott, can you please cover the topic of converging diverging nozzles? I want to understand the actual mechanism that allows the gas to expand and become supersonic in the expanding part of the nozzle. I cant seem to find an answer for this.

[@vikkimcdonough6153]

Why haven't there been any liquid-fuelled rocket motors on par with the most powerful solids?

[@johnbrown9181]

Because there is very little reason to. 1) Most solid rocket motors (SRMs) have relatively short burn duration, which is mostly due to the limits imposed by getting a high efficiency out of the fuel. 2) An engine with the same thrust as a Shuttle SRM would be overpowered for almost every rocket ever flown. Since SRMs are much vastly efficient than liquid-fueled engines, they are generally used as boosters jettisoned early in the launch process, to help get the rocket quickly up to speed to minimise gravity losses, and thus require very high thrusts. 3) Due to how difficult it is to develop large and efficient turbopumps (which is why in 30 years, despite advances in technology that would make building such an engine much easier, it's still the best of it's kind), it's usually much cheaper to build many small engines.

[@hoghogwild]

The F-1 and shuttle Solid Rocket Motors(which comprise the SRBs) are BOTH considered "booster" engines. They are designed to produce maximum thrust off he pad and are jettisoned once out of most of the atmosphere. Then then the much more economical J2 engines of the SaturnVs 2nd stage take over, they burn hydrogen and oxygen. In shuttle the rs25s continue to thrust after the 2 SRBs are gone. The RS25 is considered a sustainer engine and ISP is the name of its game. The most powerful rocket engine ever used operationally is The Shuttle 4 segment SRB(3.05 million pounds of thrust) will be bested by the 5 segment SRB which will produce approx 3.8 million pounds of thrust to be used for SLS/Artemis missions

[@alexbuss3377]

I think it’s when you fart after eating some spicy food, at least in my experience

[@pluto8404]

The thrust generated from taco bell is greater

[@ΑΡΗΣΚΟΡΝΑΡΑΚΗΣ]

Dawid Dziedziak Milko with tyropita. May not be a powerful fart producer, but the trust can break the throne

[@epicentertattoos]

That park you’re in is the most surveillled location I’ve ever been in. There’s a camera in every other one of those poles. And at least one movable FLIR camera at the yoga/open end of the park. I was shocked by how many cameras there were.

[@mlok4216]

It is not mentioned mainly because it's russian...

[@dubsy1026]

That's why you never hear about the AJ 260

[@RealityIsTheNow]

Nobody cares if it's Russian. The simple truth is that it is 4 enines clustered together with shared plumbing. The chamber defines the engine, not the pumps.

[@Johnny_OSG]

The while assembly defines the engine, meaning, the pumps and plumbing. Example: If you put a V8 in your car do you have one engine or eight?

[@RealityIsTheNow]

That's a nonsensical analogy. Rocket engines don't have blocks. If we took at a couple of F1 engines, mounted them side by side and fed them from shared pumps, would that magically be one engine? If we took a couple of single cylinder gasoline lawn mower engines and ran them from a single a carburetor, would they then magically be one engine? The simple truth is that because of the different nature of a rocket engine, those clustered chambers can be easily separated and turn into single engines. And they did exactly that. The same is not true of a V8 engine, where in order to make individual single or twin engines from it...it would have to be completely re-designed as entirely new engines.

[@kavian9620]

+RealityIsTheNow Absolute nonsense. RD-170 is ONE FUCKING ENGINE. First time ever I'm seeing someone call it 4 engines! LOL yeah as if downplaying and ridiculing Soviet/Russian technologies is unheard of and never happens. It's exactly because it's Soviet. Like how after Falcon Heavy launch everyone in the media reported it as the second most powerful rocket after Saturn V and completely ignored Energia. How do you explain that? I guess it's because Energia is actually 2 rockets or something?!

[@denysvlasenko4952]

AJ260 tests revealed severe vibration instability. Last test cracked the foundations of the test silo...

[@rossh2386]

Those Russians showing they were better earlier but they've stagnated in design and vehicles, though the Soyuz craft are awesome

[@ant9944]

Ross h23 they’re designing new launch vehicles, and iterations of the Soyuz, but, they have slowed down lately. However, I agree the Soyuz is great if you want reliability.

[@rossh2386]

@@ant9944 I didn't know that, is there any info available? Or a name to search?

[@TheArklyte]

A lot of names. First it was Angara, then people realized that flop doesn't work to get money anymore and plan to make Phoenix. Meanwhile Proton is getting sabotaged by it's own creators to hide the scale of stolen money by making empty launches and claiming that payload was sadly lost due to accident... They still can make good rockets, but nobody in Russia needs it anymore and nobody will fight the corruption since by now it's impossible.

[@world-traveler880]

*Soviets

[@rossh2386]

@@world-traveler880 fine if we are arguing semantics lol

[@minimalist6276]

I like how he refers to F1 engine as “low tech”

[@ryanwolfenberger]

How do you present this off the top of your head? Genius!

[@SurgeMMO]

I’m just gonna say it. My butt

[@scottmanley]

I wonder if Chuck Tingle has written anything about rocket science.

[@Tramseskumbanan]

Thomas Stafford talked about the powerful 260 engine in the annual John Glenn lecture series at the Smithsonian air and space museum some ten years ago or so.

[@jgunther3398]

my uncle was a mechanical engineer employed in testing the f-1 in huntsville. i would see him every three or four years, up until the early 2000s when he died. it would have been interesting now to talk to him about the f-1 and get real inside stories about the goings on and the special problems they had with development, but i wasn't into space while he was alive. i only knew his work with the f-1 because i asked once what he did there and he replied test engineer for first stage engines. there is always a lost history along with the "official" history. the latter is always superficial because of so many people involved and much missing information. the history, not the science

[@lawrencejob]

Where do you film these recent videos? It looks super nice

[@michaeldunne338]

What about test engines from the NERVA program for specific impulse (during the hour of power test or set of tests)? Otherwise, nice list, with the F-1 for most powerful single chamber, RD-170 for the most powerful rocket engine; and for SRBs, the shuttle boosters and the AJ260

[@sailorgeer]

Curious that submarine tech would be relevant, since submarine pressure hulls act in compression (pressure is high outside and low inside) whereas with SRBs the high pressure is inside and the casing acts in tension. A ring shape in compression is some of the oldest tech around - eg a stone archway. A ring in tension is much more challenging to make work as the material properties are key.

[@NozomuYume]

How's the new Transbay terminal there? I haven't gone by to check it out yet -- the park looks pretty in the vid!

[@josephius]

I like how he's just waltzing through Salesforce Park talking about rocket engines. I'm surprised no one gave him funny looks

[@sixstringedthing]

Mother Nature glances at your AJ260 solid rocket test fire, unimpressed. With a small smile on her face she gives a tiny shake of her head and says "Krakatoa. Vesuvius. Mount St. Helens. Ring any bells? ..... You still got a lot to learn, rocket boy".

[@scottmanley]

Pfft all that fury and no nozzle means almost no net thrust

[@sixstringedthing]

@@scottmanley True that, but still a hell of a lot more energy being released. I wonder, if it were somehow possible to focus all that energy out into space via some kind of enormous unobtanium nozzle, would a Krakatoa-sized volcanic event release enough energy to cause a deviation in Earth's orbit, and how big would it be? I guess one could work it out in very broad back-of-an-envelope terms, but my maths isn't that great....

[@JKTCGMV13]

I’m interning for Aerojet Rocketdyne right now and it’s so cool to hear you talk about our products :)

[@realisticthinking3019]

doubt. ive seen companies like that fire interns for less than just having gaming channels. and just because you are an intern does not mean you get to say our products.

[@JKTCGMV13]

@@realisticthinking3019 The comment you replied to is 2 years old. I’ve graduated college and have been working full time with AR for over a year now.

[@realisticthinking3019]

@@JKTCGMV13 man, honestly i was just tired and grumpy like most of the other people online that act like jerks. i regretted typing it as soon as i went to bed. but you have to admit, the king of dongles does not sound like a rocket scientist lol. anyway, i hope you really do work for them, i think that would be really cool and congratulations on that.

[@JKTCGMV13]

@@realisticthinking3019 I got the name “King of Dongles” from a professor in college when I was able to run to my dorm in the middle of class and get an adapter for her laptop haha I work for them as a software engineer. No hard feelings and I hope you have a good day ✌️

[@realisticthinking3019]

@@JKTCGMV13 oh lol like an adapter dongle, gotcha. what kind of software have you done for them?