1000 Starship Engine Tests (on a graph)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2023
- ⚡ Use NSF's link to install PIXEL STARSHIPS for Free: go.onelink.me/8GqS/nasaspacef... & receive a 100 free Starbux on arrival [Available for the next 30 days]. For this special event, also enter the promo code NSF125 after registering to get an additional 125 Starbux! ⚡
Is the Starship Raptor rocket engine reliable enough to move humanity to the stars? In this video, John 'Das' Galloway explores the reliability of SpaceX's Raptor engines by analyzing over 1600 engine tests recorded at SpaceX's McGregor Engine Test Facility. Data is captured from McGregor Live, a lesser-known 24x7 livestream sharing live rocket engine tests. By looking at test durations and patterns, John uncovers SpaceX's target test duration and highlights outliers. Join him as he dives into the data to reveal and explains how McGregor is critical to the success of SpaceX.
Want to join the NSF Team? Check back soon for a link (sorry it's not ready yet - Das)
🔗 Need a Raptor Wrangler shirt?: shop.nasaspaceflight.com/sear...
MCGREGOR LIVE WENT PUBLIC IN APRIL OF 2022. (Gotta have one bug, I guess heh)
Click to confirm for yourself:
nsf.live/mcgregor
⚡More McGregor Raptor Videos:
🔥 • SpaceX's New Raptor 3 ...
🔥 • SpaceX's New Raptor Te...
🔥 • SpaceX Conducts Record...
🔥 • SpaceX Fires Raptors I...
🔥 • Why Does SpaceX Blow U...
🔥 • 1000 TESTS! No Brakes ...
⚡ Become a member of NASASpaceflight's channel for exclusive discord access, fast turnaround clips, and other exclusive benefits. Your support helps us continue our 24/7 coverage. Click JOIN above to get started.⚡
🤵 Hosted and Produced by John Galloway (@kspaceacademy)
🎥 Video from Adam Cuker (@AdamCuker) and McGregor Live (nsf.live/mcgregor)
✂️ Edited by Thomas Hayden.
🔍 Original video content copyright NASASpaceflight LLC. Not to be used without written permission.
L2 Boca Chica (more clips and photos) from BC's very early days to today.
🔗 forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...
(Join L2 and support NSF here: www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/)
#SpaceX #RaptorEngine #EngineReliability #McGregorLive #EngineTests #PerformanceAnalysis #DataAnalysis #SpaceXTests #McGregorFacility #RocketTechnology #SpaceExploration #AerospaceIndustry #ScientificResearch #TechnologicalAdvancements #EngineeringMarvels #SpaceXSecrets #RocketScience #FutureTech #Reliability #TestDurations #SpaceXFacility #SpaceXTesting #TargetDuration #EngineTestPatterns - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Help defeat Jack Beard Black Sparrow Whatever: Use NSF's link to install PIXEL STARSHIPS for Free: go.onelink.me/8GqS/nasaspaceflight & receive a 100 free Starbux on arrival [Available for the next 30 days]. For this special event, also enter the promo code NSF125 after registering to get an additional 125 Starbux! ⚡
so when are we getting the NSF fleet for Pixel starships ?
Hrmmmmm. - Das
btw pvp is by far the easiest way to farm loads of resources.
Yeah, but I feel BAD just trolling for fights I can easily win. 😪 - Das
@@NASASpaceflight Good video. You confirmed what I already strongly suspected which was that the problem with the raptors, which you should know was more than a couple and more like about 8 raptors that failed, was more to due with the integration into the booster and not as much with the raptors.
And I have one suggestion that Jack's 'name' on your video game should be a bit more concise than Jack Beard Black Sparrow Whatever!! 🙄
I don't understand how you could think a bunch of rocket nerds wouldn't want to see graphs in a video. I vote for more graphs!
Yes John, I watched a video on graphs and enjoyed it, lol. You guys do a GREAT job and you're all very much appreciated.
Well, shucks. Thank you. We do have fun making the videos - Das
Jeg må takke dere for et interessant pg. Se dere nesten hver dag 1030 /1400 takk til dere
I love that this is, at its root, a 25min advert for Mcgregger live! I am so here for it because in true NSF style, it is chock full of great ‘tank watcher’ information ❤
Drat! My plan has been discovered! - Das
You do a FANTASTIC job narrating these videos! Well done.
Yay!! New Das vids are my fav (sorry, not sorry)
Yer only NSF videos I watch with commentary are Das' ones.
Minor correction around 15:00. You mean "acceptance test" not "qualification". An acceptance test is done on every production unit, or a representative sample, in relatively benign conditions to confirm basic functioning.
Qualification tests are done on design-representative, usually near-production prototypes, at extreme conditions of environments, mechanical shock and vibration, etc. They are relatively one-off tests to ensure the design will meet worst-case conditions.
MacGregor does both kinds of testing, but qualification is the "experimental" side, and acceptance testing is the "operational" side.
A good example of this is in Vulcan. ULA had a *qualification" test failure of its Centaur tank. This is somewhat of a big deal because it means a deep dive into the design.
Meanwhile, Blue Origin had an *acceptance* test failure of a BE-4 engine. It was a relatively routine test of a production engine to ensure it basically worked. The BE-4 design has completed all its qualification testing, but some kind of defect caused a failure of this particular unit. The solutions do not necessarily halt BE-4 production or usage, although there will be an investigation and an examination of production and testing approaches. They had a bad unit, and they must find out how that unit was made wrong.
Both these test classifications do not cover more purely experimental testing. They are related to a design intended to be produced.
13:19 Green flame, also known as "Engine Rich Exhaust" -that means that the engine is running on liquid oxygen, methane, and the engine itself until it goes kablam.
Yes, the distinctive color of copper on fire!
Great video. Point of clarification: ‘qualification’ tests the engine design, ‘acceptance’ tests the individual engines. When you make a batch of engines in a particular design, you set aside one unit as the qualification unit, which undergoes acceptance test, then qualification test. This qual engine then never flies on a vehicle. Now you acceptance test all the other engines before they go on the vehicle, and you have confidence from the qualification test that the design is good to a certain life following a successful acceptance test.
A fascinatingly detailed analysis. Also, I loved the graphs!
Excellent video! Thanks for all you do so we can watch history being made. Incidentally, a long time ago, I was born in Hawthorne, Ca. where the video says the Raptor is built, and as a child never even dreamed of this kind of work that would be done there in the future. I saw live on TV the failures of the Vanguard rockets and then the successful launch of our first satellite aboard the Jupiter C, which of course were not built there (at least I don't think they were). I always thought the gimbaled Vanguard rocket was a stupid design, but SpaceX has proven me wrong. It did take a long time to perfect that system though.
I would love to see a compilation of the 9 explosions! Also maybe some of the different outlier types of tests, engine wiggles, early shutdowns, etc.
Thanks, Das et al, nice video. And entertaining cameos by Jack. 😆
Thanks for the vidja!
ALSO thanky for all that you guys do for the Space Enthusiast Community!!! :)
Watching McGregor stream is a REALLY nice add in to what you guys do all the rest of the time. Often I will keep a window open monitoring on a second or third screen.
CHEERS!
Haha! "Raptor Jump Scare!" Funny on multiple levels. That's a T-Shirt idea if I've ever heard one!! Even a series!
Very informative video! Thank you! 🙏 I was getting heartily sick of people saying about how “unreliable” Raptors were because so many of them failed. Great explanation! They just need to iron some kinks out with full in flight tests. I’m guessing the pad upgrades will definitely help! Plus the new electronic thrust vector control and shroud mods for each engine. It’s going to be such an exciting test, the next one! 🚀
13:50 I love how the cows in the foreground are like, "Whatever!"
I look at Raptons as a work in progress, they are constantly making revisions and improvements.
This is a totally new type of engine, it is going to take some tweaking.
NASA didn't build any of their engines overnight.
Exactly. "Fail Fast" is the mantra from software engineering that Elon brought over and it's been an amazing strategy for development. I.e., build it as simple as possible, test, redesign what breaks, repeat.
LoL, It's just a new type of upgraded NASA engine.
It's crazy that Raptor 3 actually managed to exceed the BE-4 in thrust despite being smaller, lighter, and more efficient.
Exactly! Raptors are about as cutting edge as you can get, so we can expect some exciting launches 🚀 that’s for sure!
@@Tanks_In_SpaceWhat exactly is a "NASA engine?" Nobody has used this cycle type on a flown vehicle before. It's as similar to other rockets as an RS-25 is similar to an F1.
I live across the highway from the McGregor site so I hear them all day. You can sit on highway 84 and watch the test stand.
Great video, I love that you constantly keep track of all those tests!
I would give 2 thumbs up if I could.
Data is KING
I think the most important videos are the engine testing videos at McGregor. Thanks to NSF we can watch the development process with actual data all be it a bit fuzzy it is still data. Thanks to the whole team.
I remember the stream where Das learned how to pronounce Beyer. Good times.
Its Buy-yarrr, now. 🏝 - Das
...and easy to stamp your answers with you short nickname 😀- thanks btw for good insight information on the subject!
effin LOVE useful graphs!!!! my JAM! PLUS the narration is sugar on top of the icing! thanks for keeping it intriguing!!
Great video! An incredible amount of data you've collected. It would also be very interesting to get some data on the cost of these tests - consumables, man-hours, etc.
Pop quiz answer - Horizontal test stand, also nice work as always.
Awesome! Thanks NSF! A large compilation of meaningful data about lots of Raptor engines, followed by meaningful perspectives on conclusions about the raptor engines and their reliability, thanks!
Superb data gathering and analysis on the limited information (with respect to the test objective and telemetry they have for sure). A task that could easily be abandoned only based on the asymmetry of information you deal with. You must be an exceptional team!
Consider sorting your engine fire duration histograms by duration, with the shortest test fires on the left, increasing to longer and longer test fires as you move right. I think this will show you other tests that come out at one of the magic firing durations (40, 47, 115, etc), and may also help you identify other magic firing durations you don't yet know about.
Not a bad idea at all! - Das
Ask and you shall receive! twitter.com/KSpaceAcademy/status/1677316673798283264
The video was rather... graphic....🎉
Good info on MacGregor live too, ill definitely check it out for the first time and more!
Please NSF, make a "behind the scenes" video showing all your staff, your hardware (vid and comp) and the software you use. It’s astonishing how your channel and your network developed over the years. And greetings to Mary please..
This is really DAS's channel, featuring NASASpaceflight😂
Really good info on the testing and reliability of the Raptor engine. Liked your explanation of the time graphs. Next flight of the StarShip and Booster should be very interesting. Hoping this one goes more to plan, and the StarShip will splash down in the Hawaiian Is.
Always enjoy your engineering oriented presentations of SpaceX developments Das .
9:34 Jack absolutely cracks me up! 😂
Another awesome video John and some great analysis; keep 'em coming 👍👍👍👍
I really like these video's from Das talking about Starship. Really helps waiting for ITF 2!
Unfortunately, I only have 2 weeks left to make videos. 😧 - Das
@@NASASpaceflight Did SpaceX hire you too?
It was an Elon timeframe joke 😅 - Das
@@NASASpaceflight If only it were true lol.
To clarify, Acceptance testing is purely for the production line to verify materials and workmanship are sufficient. Qualification test is typically done on non-flight engines, to tougher setpoints than are expected in flight, and those engines (having been stressed beyond normal limits) are set aside and not used for flight, or sent back for teardown, inspection, and rebuild to partially reset the clock.
Engines off the line are assigned to flight or qual, then AT, then only qual engines go through QT.
It's also acceptable to run AT, then decide between Flight or Qual.
Interesting, is that the general industry usage, or specific to SpaceX's processes? Thanks for the insight! - Das
Another great breakdown with Das. The sponsor bit was so funny haha! Thank you NSF.
I think the graph would have looked better if they had like 5 or 6 dates on the bottom of it.
Nice informative vid Das
I try. Thanks for watching! - Das
i love the pixel starships ad segment XD
Another telling thing is on the horizontal test graph, you can see very clearly that in the last one-sixth block of tests, everything is suddenly a lot more consistent. There's more average duration burns, there's almost no gaps, and almost all the short duration burns (and/or premature shutdowns) are much longer AND growing in duration. Even in the vertical test graph, which is a inherently more consistent since it's a later stage test, you can still perceive a decrease in duration gaps within the right half of the graph.
This guy is good. I mean I even watched the starship pixel infomercial instead of skipping it like usually do. I will need to check out this mcgregor live feed and favorite it.
Here you go! nsf.live/mcgregor
-Das
Firing 1 engine is a lot of difference to firing 33 at once , the vibrations and forces must affect neighbouring engines
Great update as always NSF!!
I love this kind of analysis. Straight up palaver isn't so informative as it feels like making sound for a duration of time (kinda like modern news channels). This kind of presentation really floats my boat (er, flies my ship?). Good job on the ad spot as well. Very nice - good deadpans - fun all around.
Thanks Greg! - Das
I always enjoy your info ladened videos, Das. Much appreciated and very intertaining. 😀👍
Fantastic content John, as always.
Very well presented Das, much improved! You did start off at a good pace, but your exuberance came though and started talking too quickly.
But you did present a complicated data set very well. Going through the raw data and teasing out the testing methodology and structure.
But try and slow down next time.....your passion shines through...
Fantastic, love the graphs
Dang, that was an incredible video. I love videos and graphs and videos with graphs!
Great documentary. Learned a lot from this thanks
That is actually a great T-Shirt idea. An "engine approved" shirt
Love the graphic content, keep it up!
Das, fantastic job. I really enjoy your videos. Keep them coming!
Thanks, it's great to see a cogent analysis turn data into knowledge, with full awareness of its limitations. Well done.
OK hero, can you do better?
Thanks Das, Adam and Thomas. I enjoy your enthusiasm Das. It's infectious.
I honestly love the graphs and also I'm very thankful for the energy you put in them to collect data. thats a huge feat
Always enjoy listening to you. Great content 👍😎
It would be interesting to see those tests grouped by engine. Of course, tracking which engine is which isn't practical, but catching when a swap-out occurs would at least allow grouping by a series of tests on a single engine
Great content! Thanks from Titusville.
Pure Texas Tank Watching Goodness! Well Done!!!! Keep these coming!
Nice video. I was impressed by the cows, who no longer react to the engines. They casually 🐄🐄🐄🐄 go about their day.
Always enjoying your videos Das!
Thanks! - Das
Everyday something new and great info from NSF
Anyone who has worked in engineering knows that you learn far more from failures than from success. Success may be just luck. One of the concerns with the traditional design process used by ULA, Boeing, and Arianespace is that they avoid failure too much.
Very fascinating, I could watch these guys talk for hours without getting bored!
We won't really know how reliable they are until they're not being pummeled with concrete from a disintegrating pad. Next launch will tell a lot more about the Starship booster.
Elon already said that they saw no evidence of debris impacting the booster
Doubt alot of debris was able to overcome the amount of thrust and actually hit the engines itself.
Swimming upstream is kinda tough.
@@Raptor2 he also said it was still possible.
This next launch will be different with regard to concrete but will probably be entertaining. The changes might be “considered good enough” from spacex perspective and thus a success from spacex perspective even if there is some steel erosion and damage.
@@samuraidriver4x4 that assumes all engines producing equal thrust from the moment of start. It’s unlikely that the damage was inside the bell.
I love the clean exhaust and being able to see the engines without soot
Anything with DAS in it is awesome!
Hey Dos great video. I learned a few things
Das' intro always made me hit 👍before NSF jingle.
Great video! Next time, I suggest using a scatter plot for the timeseries data.
I love data visualization and it should be more common.
Has any other rocket engine been tested this much and pushed over the limit as much? Maybe Merlin if you include all the operational flights.
Do you share this data or is that member exclusive? I do have some additional ideas on how you could analyse it to extract patterns.
Check this link out. Part of the data set is publicly available via one of our McGregor team members. - Das
mcgregor.nerdpg.live/dashboard
@@NASASpaceflightawesome! Might find the time to peek at it the coming week. Also consider that runtime might not be their target but a specific thrust level which could be reached at different acceleration profiles.
Thank you for this video, it was amazing! Also for free 🤯
Excellent content
Great video 🧡
Great video Das!
I loved the sponsored portion of this 😂 That's how you promote a game.
Great details John! Just a tidbit....there are ML chat/mods consistenly online who hang out watching, waiting, and commenting on activity. 😊
Love these videos as they are so informative
A thing i heard, that if true(may not be), is a very important factor here.
On IFT, apparently predicted heatload was several times higher than what SLS experienced on Artemis 1, while Superheavy had much thinner thermal insulation.
Engines cooking themselves due to being too close to eachother without enaugh insulation could be a cause for some of the failures.
Of course there are also the 3 that failed instantly, doubt heat could do anything here.
"At the end of the day, you can't claim Raptors are unreliable because you saw a a couple of them not light or give out the first time they flew...."
While I appreciated this video for all the points it countered on Raptor being unreliable, I can't help but feel like it's trying to imply that they will eventually become reliable. I also am not sure that MacGregor is useful at all for determining anything other than what SpaceX is trying. Like Das said, it'll take real-world flights to determine that. However, IMO, no one should be claiming/implying that they are reliable (or not) at this point in their process.
Exactly. They could become the most reliable engine ever. It could just as easily become obsolete if they simply cant make it strong enough and relight when needed.
Yes, you can have a theoretical engine that never ever fails, but if the rest of the MPS isn't up to the task of feeding them, said engine will be deemed "unreliable". Be it right or wrong, the engine is the flamey/boomy thing on the end, it gets all the blame and all the glory.
Love this videos!
What a great piece of work. NASASpaceflight has developed so much over the last few years.
Good job Das and NSF! Maybe you cant know this but how many times is an engine fired before it is certified?
Well done. Excellent video and info. I learned some good stuff. Thanks.
l
Thank you NSF!
This video was good but the graphs could use work to be more clear. I like the way that you classified the test data in to categories: Merlin Vs Raptor;
I really did look at way more in-depth analysis, but without knowing the INTENT of each test, felt it was best to leave it at very broad numbers (and generally show that SpaceX has fired an awful lot of Raptors.) - Das
Great video. You mentioned testing in horizontal vs vertical mode. Any thoughts on the crazy gyroscopic forces on turbopumps/bearings when the Starship flips from horizontal bellyflop to vertical landing? That seems to be a point of engine failure during previous suborbital flight tests. It's also a mode that is only practical to test in flight.
Ayyyyyyye another das video these are funny and deserve to get every view they get
Thanks, Trains! 👍 - Das
@@NASASpaceflight no problem
Thanks for your excellent video on Raptor 2 testing.
120 second tests: My guess is that 120 seconds is the time between booster liftoff and start of throttle down prior to staging. That's essentially a full thrust/full duration ground test of the booster engines one at a time. Starship staging occurs at ~150 seconds after liftoff.
I assume that all 33 booster engines will be tested like this for the next Starship test flight in August.
120 sec RBoost and other booster engines
Longer 5min fires are SS Raptor or RVac
@@wolframreactor74 That's right.
Awesome data collection. That many engines apparently hitting their test goals is really encouraging.
Is there any way to get at the McGregor stream of previous days? All I can find is one stream that has been going supposedly since April 28 but only seems to have the last 12 hours available.
We retain all the engine tests independently of the stream itself. The stream is available on a 12-hour rolling basis (youtube thing) -Das
The 120 second test mark. engine fire is ramped-up to simulate reaching Max q during a nominal flight. Takes 120 seconds after launch to reach Max q
To me it feels like an engine that is a prototype. It feels like it isn't where it needs to be yet, but as they continue to iterate from Raptor 1 to Raptor 2 and now to Raptor 3, it will keep getting better, but I think that there will be quite a few more iterations before it is perfected to the point where Merlin is.
Curious, why does it feel like a prototype to you? I think we get tricked because there are "production" raptors, and "experimental" raptors, but they're all raptors. - Das
@@NASASpaceflight I meant how it is now. Think about how Merlin evolved from Merlin 1a to Merlin 1d. Merlin 1a flew twice, before being upgraded to Merlin 1b, then Merlin 1c without 1b ever even flying. Merlin was of course a much easier engine to develop than Raptor since Kerolox engines were far more common, and they also had the experience of Tom Mueller who had previously worked on other rocket engines like the TR-106. But now look how reliable Merlin 1d is! Raptor will get there someday, and I guess maybe "prototype" isn't the right word to use, but I would say it is still very much so in development. Btw, nice graphs!
@@Kerballistic
Remember that the hard part of Merlin (the turbo machinery) was designed by an outside company totally separate from spacex. So even with the internal experience within spacex, that experience directed spacex to go outside for Merlin.
@@KerballisticAs noted in this video the raptor 2 has generally tested pretty good, but when it is integrated into starship and especially the booster as in the first test launch there were several engines that were shut down or failed. That may be due more to the problems of integrating the raptors together onto the booster then problems with the raptor itself.
Yes John, but we have information about RaptorEngine because of you. We have no information about others at all, and during this time they launch satellites into orbit some even "casified". So it's good that we have this information with success and failures.
I enjoyed the graph info., quite interesting. I must say that McGregor must have the most laid back cows in the US. Keep up the great work.
NSF y'all rock! Peace
I really enjoyed this thanks Das and NSF.
You're graphs are cool!
Love the Video!
If I may make one small suggestion, you really need some x-axis labels on those graphs.
"TIME"
- Das
The x-axis is a little weird on these since it's not actually showing anything. Each line is a test and they're just stuck in chronological order on the graph. This means though that it's not tests over time or anything like that, since they're not spaced proportionately to what times they occurred. I put "Test Firings" to try and say that each line represents a firing, but that no additional information is conveyed by the x-axis, but I'm far from a graph expert so maybe there's a better way to handle this sort of scenario
@@thomashayden804 If you have the dates of each test you could organize them by quarter, so you could have year labels and four smaller tick marks in between. It would make the overall picture easier to understand.
does the data really need it?
Test firing 1
Test firing 2
Test firing 3
...
Test firing 42
Kinda meaningless