No. Because raptors commonly optimize for small agile males and larger females able to carry more. Thus, they would be queens. Good job on those animations!
Elon watched the video and provided some additional input in this tweet - twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132386984444383233?s=20 "Great video. Couple notes: Raptor designed for subcooled CH4/O2, so propellant density & thrust increase up to ~8%, as needed for mission. 380 Isp & up to 50% thrust/weight improvement over time. Merlin thrust/weight doubled from V1, but Raptor is closer to optimum." and this one - twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132389917722419200 "Propellant stays same, but almost everything else improves. Fundamental goal is minimize cost per ton to surface of Mars."
I'm retired from a technical career. Over the years it was clear, whenever I was given a technical briefing on a subject I was unfamiliar with, and the person giving the briefing was unable to adequately explain the subject in "layman's" terms, it indicated that the person doing the briefing did not truly understand the technology. It is obvious that that is not the case here. Excellent orientation! Very impressive!
@@MFKR696 Actually, technical careers are some of the best careers for Dyslexics. Dyslexics also make up a whopping 25% of CEOs. So, it's safe to assume that they could easily be Dyslexic.
The fact that the F-1 holds up as well as it does despite how old it is speaks volumes about the sheer engineering that went into the Saturn V. Truly a beautiful craft that I hope will always be remembered in this new era of spaceflight ushered in by SpaceX and beyond.
I mean, the F-1 did have 2 total military fundings, the first was for ICBMs, and the second for Apollo. So it's numbers are insane in even more ways, sadly that also includes price.
@@Gaming1Doge It was developed for the Air force, then shelved because they didn't need it. Then along came NASA and gave it new life. The F-1 was, and still is, the most powerful single chamber rocket engine ever produced.
Insanely great production, including the animations and footage. Just as a general comment on the growing quality of the better youtube channels ... it's the clearest indicator yet that the end is nigh for broadcast TV. On TV this would be dumbed down to moronic levels, while advertisers would be scattergun-blasting to a dwindling and fragmented audience.
Agreed. If only he could learn when to use 'there are', instead of 'there's', and stop using 'literally' when there is no literal reference, then I'd stop questioning if the rest of it is based on wrong assumptions.
@@madintheheid Imagine disregarding the entirety of an hour long video about literal rocket science because you don't understand that language changes over time.
As an aerospace engineering student, I can say that some of this video is basically a sophomore class, but the real propulsion stuff, that’s straight up senior year content, this video is a senior year Aerospace engineering lecture. Here’s the classes you hit on: Intro to Aerospace Engineering 2 Thermodynamics Propulsion Advanced space propulsion
I'm at Swansea University and I'd say this was a nice summary of a view of the early lectures in my Rocket and Space Technology module in 2nd year. Great video, really well presented!
Wtf is wrong with you people? Why everyone keeps saying that. And they are saying that more and more often every day. WTF?! Do you really want TH-cam to shift to paid platform? I mean it - TH-cam is already WAY more commercials rich than ever before. 💰 just keep reminding them how ready you are to pay them.. F**k sake... Can't you just admit that particular author of the video is great and is making great content, period? What is wrong with you people 💲 💵 💸
@@mastershooter64 the thing is, it's not about him (as I stated clearly in my comment). It's about general "trend", call it anyway you want, that people are putting this comments under every long, good quality video. Come on, seriously?
Ich: klicke auf ein Everyday Astronaut Video Sehe Don Guru de Bro & Paul Paulson als Top Comment Checke ob ich mich nicht verklickt hab und bei PietSmiet gelandet bin :D
There are people that try to stretch a 1min topic into 15min to gain more watch time and then there is cramming a 3 hour lecture on ROCKET SCIENCE into 49 minutes...
@@andrewzhang1290 The problem is that videos of less than 10 minutes are not considered as much by the youtube algorithm. It's Google's fault for forcing people to make 10min+ videos or risk disappearing from feeds (even of people who already subscribed!). If youtube is your income, you better do what you need to survive and not get drowned out by the masses of content uploaded each day.
@Gmail X "and is triumph of marketing" and "you must educate yourself moron" is a double negative and cancelled each other out... one of us need to get an education Comrade... 🤭
"Rocket science, like all things, is a complex set of compromises." -- best line of the whole video. One should not take lightly the expression, 'It's not rocket science.' again. Rocket science ought to be applied to every day thinking really. Balancing proportion, Goldilocks principle. Deep video. New sub.
My sister asked me today to help her with a presentation about rocket engines, so this video came at exactly the right moment. It's really impressive how you managed to explain that deep topic with so much detail, but in a understandable way. Most videos about engines I know are to basic and don't go into so much detail. Amazing work putting this together! Thank you very much for this.
Kudos to Tim. He's really studied hard and has come up to speed on rocket technology. He's now a good resource on the topic and is entertaining at the same time.
jou-na-li-sam... what is that? i havnt .. Oh.. Yes, now i remember, it was that thing the news did over 20 years ago where they presented facts on different subjects or investigated problems. Nice to see it existing, sadly never on the news channels, those just lies and clickbait BS...
@@linecraftman3907 I don't know, but he is definitely a victim of SpaceX's PR and hype. None of Musks companies has ever invented any groundbreaking/new technology. Landing is a maneuver not a technology, this should tell you everything you have to know about Musk and his companies. A lot of bullshit claims and promises, but no substance. Highest paid CEO but he is doing it for mankind.... dear god you guys are naive. www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/02/tsla-median-pay-musk-compensation.html He is also a union busting drug addict and convicted fraud. Do you want me to stop now?
@@clausejoke1985 it's not about inventing new technologies, it's about making it work in real life. Drug addict? People don't choose to be drug addicts most of the time. However I do agree about shady business practices and bad work conditions , but who is holding the workers in the companies?
Amazing how you were not only able to inform me of the basics of rocket engines, but you kept my attention for the entirety of the video. Tough thing to do these days, absolutely wonderful video.
Blah Cga our ludicrous future. Look it up as our ludicrous future it’s a podcast with joe Scott(answers with joe), Tim(everydayastronuaght), and Ben sullins(teslanomics)
This is the second time I am watching this; I am slowly educating myself (or NASA and others are educating me at You Tube) in orbital mechanics and you are educating me in rocketry--for starters. I also want to complement you in the way you present. As an ESL instructor in Asia for nearly 20 years, I understand the challenge of explaining ideas to people which are complex--in your case, because it's rocket science, in mine, because I only use English--and my point is, you have a way of talking that is clear, emotional (difference in voice pitch and expression delineates concepts more easily than in monotone--the way many science teachers speak)--and you repeat, Tim, which is essential. I could probably help you with the writing; maybe when I have extra cash, I will join on Patreon and give ideas. But, thank you, and excellent job. Your knowledge alone earns you a valuable seat on the Dear Moon flight. Congrats on that! You deserve it.
The reason they use seconds is because the math works out to being the equivalent of "how many seconds would sea level gravity need to pull on the exhaust to counter its acceleration" If gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, then a fuel with an exhaust velocity of 980 meters per second would have a specific impulse of 100 seconds.
@@andrew34765 I get that now, but no one ever explained that. And wikipedia wasn't much help either. People would stop their explanation at, that's just how the math works, and not go any further.
The professors in my aerospace engineering program didnt deliver this info a 10th as well as you have. And this video was free, where as my degree... was not.
I don't think any given professor has five months to prepare for a single lesson. Sure, he should know his field in general, but consider this: how do you keep up with the fast pace of science if you have to teach students, plan lessons and correct tests and essays full-time? While you would also love to advance your own research?
I can fill in some of the knowledge on Metallurgy, if you are interested. Basically, the mechanism by which metals fail, or "yield," is by the propagation of imperfections in the crystal lattice. The imperfections are called "dislocations" and there are usually millions of them in any cubic millimeter of metal. Dislocations tend to move more easily as you raise the temperature of a metal, causing yield strengths to decrease with higher temperature. The methods of strengthening metals generally center around trying to halt the motion of these dislocations, either by adding alloy elements which tend to stabilize dislocations at the atomic level (such as adding carbon to steel), or by precipitating secondary phases (like small crystals within the crystal) which act as roadblocks to dislocation movement. Secondary phases are usually precipitated by raising the temperature of the metal and aging it for a certain duration. Aluminum is an example where this is very common. Metallurgists have determined the proper time and temperature to age metals to get the maximum strength. The longer you age, the larger the precipitates grow. If the precipitates are too small, dislocations cut through them. If they are too large, dislocations will bend around them. If you age at the wrong temperature, or the wrong combination of elements, precipitates will form along grain boundaries instead of inside crystal grains, which doesn't add strength, and can weaken the metal. Precipitates must be fairly small, and uniformly spread throughout the crystal in order to add strength to the metal Precipitation hardening is especially common in Aluminum alloys. Part of the reason aluminum is fine for airplane skins but not good for engines revolves around the fact that precipitation hardening is lost once you raise the temperature above a few hundred degrees, as the high temps will cause precipitates to grow, combine, and migrate to grain boundaries. You mentioned work-hardening of stainless steel. Work hardening is a mechanism where you basically limit dislocation movement by adding a whole lot more dislocations, and forcing them to move until they run into each other. By deforming the material, you push the dislocations until they start to stack up, which gives resistance to further propagation of dislocations. The downside of this is that you lose some of the metal's ductility, which is the ability to "bend before breaking." This means that if you have sudden, large force on your structure (shock load), it is more likely to fracture rather than bending or denting. No doubt the engineers at SpaceX are aware of this, and have adjusted their safety factors and fatigue analysis numbers to compensate.
I'm two months late, but I'll say it anyway, as a fabricator who is very much NOT a metallurgist, I appreciated reading your comment and learned a bunch. Cheers!
Popular Science had a great article back in the day about turbine blades in jets and how they would specially heat the blades and then cool them from one end to the other producing a blade that was essentially a single crystal.
@@MaxMustermann-bm7qt Oh my goodness! Rocket science is so simple compared to music theory. I can read music and play guitar. Still I have almost no comprehension of music theory in general, and guitar theory in particular.
Amazing work on a complex topic. Fanatically educating. Really appreciated the quality of your production and script. Great work. I know you put a lot of effort into, first learning the details of the cycles, but also then gathering all the information together on the different rocket engines and putting into tabular and graphical form to help us understand. Your enthusiasm showed through. Your explanation is next level excellent for people approaching this topic for the first time. I found this interesting and completely engaging to watch. BTW I was in high school during the Apollo program, living only 40 miles from the NASA test facility in Mississippi. I got to see an S-1 stage test firing, full duration of those incredibly deafening F-1 engines, from one mile away with the press. The sound pressure rocked the NASA bus from side to side. I chipped my hands around a friend’s ear and shouted instructions from one inch away at the top of my lungs on the photography we were doing. He was unable to hear me. The legs of the slacks I was wearing were flapping as if a wind was hitting them. It was completely calm. The flame shooting sideways out of the flame bucket was a few stories High and I guessed about 700’ long horizontally. It was wickedly ferocious looking. It’s been a little over half a century now but I’m still impressed by my memory of it. I later flew down to the cape and watched the final flight of Apollo, Apollo 17, lift off at night from 10 miles away. We could barely hear it by comparison at that distance, but it lit the sky up like a sunrise. After staging with the hydrogen burning second stage engines, it looked like a breeding start moving rapidly through the constellations. Many years later, during the Shuttle program, I saw one reentering the atmosphere late at night from Gulfport Mississippi heading south to fly over the Gulf of Mexico toward Florida at an altitude of 35 miles at a speed of 5000 mph. I got that information the next day via a phone call to the Johnson Space Center. It looked like an orange meteor with a long white tail of ionized gas. It casts moving shadow under a bright streetlight. Two minutes after it faded out over the Gulf I heard a characteristic double sonic boom. I never saw it launched though I drove down to KSC and waited once. I never had another proper opportunity. Hopefully the SLS will become a flying vehicle one day, assuming a lot of things, and I can go see it. I have a much longer way to go to beer there these days. I now live in Iowa, only about 2-1/2 hours south of you! SRBs are very very bright. I saw the launch of Voyager 2 in 1977 from 4 miles away on a tour bus on a sunny summer Saturday. It like looking at two Suns, the pair of solid rocket boosters strapped on the Titan rocket. Of course those were much smaller than the ones on the Space Shuttle and what will be on the SLS. I’m looking forward to seeing if I can get as close or closer to a launch and get “blinded” by the light. We’ll see…🤷🏼♂️(Wow WOW would I like to see a full up flight of Starship some day too. That would be incredible. The noise!)
I would just like to say that I appreciate the production value of your videos. You make it easy to follow along, even though you're explaining highly complicated topics to lesser thinkers like me lol
This is a whole new level of quality and the work on the animations really payed off! Looking forward to seeing some more of those technical videos on engine design! Thanks for putting all this together.
Info #1 and #2 RD171 actually flew almost 100 times. Much more than F1 Also, the RD170 (differs from RD171 basically with relation to the gimbal direction) was able to achieve a peak pressure of 306,2bar at chamber pressure.
This video is amazing. I'm currently in a class studying chemical rocket engines and all of your videos are such a great resource. Please don't stop making them!
Brilliant explanation of the different types of rockets in a simplistic yet informative manner. Great work, looking forward to seeing the future of rocket development thru your eyes.
I actually watched this through twice. The second time was really to have a closer look at how the different types of engines worked, but the video was interesting enough that I ended up watching the whole thing again! This was really well done. We live in exciting times and I am pumped to see that happens with Starship and New Glenn in the next couple of years. It seems like we have stagnated in this field for so long, and the last 10 years have been so fun to watch. Thanks for the video!
Hay, Tim. Like everyone else said, I love this video! You did an amazing job on everything. And I have to say, you even did a great job with placing the midroll ads.
This is the finest rocketry tutorial and technology comparison video that I have seen. E.A. has struck just the right level for teaching his enthusiast audience. Thanks for this, Tim!
The best technical video I've seen on TH-cam in 2019! And...it's about rockets!! Excellent job! I could actually follow along with your explanations and data without getting bored. Keep producing more videos like this.
You should consider including the number of engines per flight when counting the flight record as you did for reliability. The flight record changes drastically with over 700 flights for the Merlin.
Yeah, employing multiple engines is the most efficient way to test reliability, since each unit can be worked on individually and only share fuel and oxidizer feeding systems. Also, a lot of variable for testing only exist on actual flight, risking the rocket as well as its potential payload (be it expensive machinery or the immensurable value of academic grade scientists). Having multiple engines makes sure that none of those will be lost when dealing with failures, as long as there is no chain effect (such as violent explosions), as well as making less likely that a chain effect will happen after the catastrophic failure of a single engine.
Mission success or failure is the matrix that should be used. Comparing engines of one platform, to different engines of a different platform is silly. Simply compare the platforms themselves. Did it get the payload into space and onto the correct trajectory? That's what's important.
Because we are able to produce it fairly easily, unlike hydrocarbons like traditional rocket fuel..if we find the right materials we could make it on Mars..
Watched your channel grow over the last couple of years Tim. This (so far) is your highlight presentation. I thought I knew a lot about space and rockets, but every one of your shows I watch teaches me something new and exciting. I'm approaching 70, but I hope the +600,000 views so far are being watched by the youngsters. We need them to be inspired to participate in technology & science. This channel is a critical catalyst in that effort. Thanks for all you do here.
Just saw this video now. One of THE best videos on this subject I could imagine. I really didn't think I would watch the whole thing, but you kept it interesting and on point the whole way through. It was over before I realized it. Really informative, really interesting and really well done.
50 min vid went by very quickly, very interesting and hope you do this type of in-depth analysis again, excellent work, the effort you put in really shows, thanks
Excellent! When comparing fuels, it’s more appropriate to compare characteristic velocities as the specific impulse is dependent on engine architecture. Keep up the great work!
Sufficiently content dense to keep me around to watch the whole thing and easily palatable, probably best description of each topic I've seen, all compiled into one great video. Big ups my dude. Now off to patreon.
First let me say that this is an awesome video, I don't want to nit-pick it to annoy anyone, just to inform people who might not know this, but find it interesting: At 23:18 , you talk about the oxidizer/fuel burn ratio for hydrolox. Now, while it's not the point of the video and you're not actually saying anything that is wrong in any way, it did, at least to me, give the impression as though 1:1 was the stoichiometric ratio, where all oxidizer and fuel is burnt and nothing gets left over. This would make it seem as though hydrolox ideally burns oxygen-rich. However, the opposite is the case. The stoichiometric ratio for hydrolox is 8:1, so actually rockets carry more hydrogen than that, burn fuel rich and push unburned hydrogen out of the exhaust. The reason for this is that hydrogen is such a small molecule, and this means that it is much better at turning thermal energy into kinetic energy than heavier molecules, such as oxygen or water vapor. Basically, unburned hydrogen gets accelerated to much higher speeds in the combustion chamber than anything else, and the difference is so large that it's more efficient to run fuel-rich. For the highest ISP (specific impulse), the ratio would actually be 4.7:1! This also comes with the advantage of burning cooler, making it easier for the materials. But since hydrogen takes such large tanks to store, it ultimately doesn't make sense to actually use this ideal ratio and the 6:1 is the compromise between running fuel rich to be more efficient and saving weight. Now, this really doesn't matter for the point of the video, but basically, you'd theoretically expect the bar for the hydrogen to be a bit lower, not much higher.
interesting. As Elon Musk said, car business is much more difficult but rocket science in science is more complicated and that way interesting. (ie. engines in cars are in the long run not interesting or complicated[for skilled technician], but rocket engines definitely are for so many options how to approach seemingly simple problem).
Yeah, chemical ratios are often hard to conceptualize, especially since they're usually stated in terms off a mass ratio but what matters for tank size (in this context) is a volume ratio.
No.
Because raptors commonly optimize for small agile males and larger females able to carry more.
Thus, they would be queens.
Good job on those animations!
Spot on.
Scott , you had to be that guy “ ACTUALLY “, 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣. And Actually you are correct. BTW really enjoy your work
Scott, you are the daddest dad to ever dad.
Clever girl....
Are we talking avian or reptilian here? There are raptors in both families.
Elon watched the video and provided some additional input in this tweet - twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132386984444383233?s=20
"Great video. Couple notes: Raptor designed for subcooled CH4/O2, so propellant density & thrust increase up to ~8%, as needed for mission. 380 Isp & up to 50% thrust/weight improvement over time. Merlin thrust/weight doubled from V1, but Raptor is closer to optimum."
and this one - twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132389917722419200
"Propellant stays same, but almost everything else improves. Fundamental goal is minimize cost per ton to surface of Mars."
That's awesome! Does this mean the TWR increases to about 150?
If Elon is interested, you clearly did something right!
Do you think he watched the whole thing through? Probably on x2. Job offer from SpaceX not far behind.
Congratulations.. and Thank you for all your hard works and commitments 🙏
Amazing video! Took time but totally worth it. For future reference, this is the go to video for any rocket-engine related things
I'm retired from a technical career. Over the years it was clear, whenever I was given a technical briefing on a subject I was unfamiliar with, and the person giving the briefing was unable to adequately explain the subject in "layman's" terms, it indicated that the person doing the briefing did not truly understand the technology. It is obvious that that is not the case here. Excellent orientation! Very impressive!
"just read the instructions"!
@@E-Kat rolf
Or s/he was Dyslexic
@@MFKR696 Actually, technical careers are some of the best careers for Dyslexics. Dyslexics also make up a whopping 25% of CEOs. So, it's safe to assume that they could easily be Dyslexic.
“If we can’t explain something to undergraduates then we don’t really understand it ourselves.” -Richard Feynman (paraphrased)
The fact that the F-1 holds up as well as it does despite how old it is speaks volumes about the sheer engineering that went into the Saturn V. Truly a beautiful craft that I hope will always be remembered in this new era of spaceflight ushered in by SpaceX and beyond.
Very well said. Bravo.
Didn't the center engine on Apollo 13 shut off?
I mean, the F-1 did have 2 total military fundings, the first was for ICBMs, and the second for Apollo. So it's numbers are insane in even more ways, sadly that also includes price.
@@johnabsher6518 that was the second stage, not an F1
@@Gaming1Doge It was developed for the Air force, then shelved because they didn't need it. Then along came NASA and gave it new life. The F-1 was, and still is, the most powerful single chamber rocket engine ever produced.
This is what I was hoping the internet would be. Thanks for your hard work!
you still use the Matrix screensaver?
There is no internet, Neo
Ditto
This is probably one of the best videos on rockets I have ever seen. The amount of information you crammed into 49 minutes is crazy. Thanks!
Decidedly so. :)
That was 49mins? Yikes... but speaks for the content!
Everyday Astronaut has a high information density compared to other videos
Insanely great production, including the animations and footage. Just as a general comment on the growing quality of the better youtube channels ... it's the clearest indicator yet that the end is nigh for broadcast TV. On TV this would be dumbed down to moronic levels, while advertisers would be scattergun-blasting to a dwindling and fragmented audience.
Falcon Heavy yep. Amazing quality.
That honestly didn't feel like 49 minutes. This was so interesting and well done. Keep it up Tim. We really appreciate it.
just watch at 2x its like 24:30 min video bro.
BAM!!! That's a high grade script, animation and delivery! Well done!
Q
Agreed. If only he could learn when to use 'there are', instead of 'there's', and stop using 'literally' when there is no literal reference, then I'd stop questioning if the rest of it is based on wrong assumptions.
@@madintheheid Imagine disregarding the entirety of an hour long video about literal rocket science because you don't understand that language changes over time.
As an aerospace engineering student, I can say that some of this video is basically a sophomore class, but the real propulsion stuff, that’s straight up senior year content, this video is a senior year Aerospace engineering lecture. Here’s the classes you hit on:
Intro to Aerospace Engineering 2
Thermodynamics
Propulsion
Advanced space propulsion
THE Ohio State University lol
Given that most of the people watching this aren't aerospace engineers, I thought it was perfect.
I mean in class the maths of everything is done too, but the concepts are here pretty well.
I'm at Swansea University and I'd say this was a nice summary of a view of the early lectures in my Rocket and Space Technology module in 2nd year. Great video, really well presented!
@@SgtSayWhat Hey fellow swansea student! :D I graduated last year.
Absolutely incredible. I’m speechless. Can’t believe I actually just watched this video on TH-cam for free...
Wait, what? You got this for free? What the hell, Tim?
Haha this an excellent video. Wouldn't have paid for it though.
Wtf is wrong with you people? Why everyone keeps saying that. And they are saying that more and more often every day. WTF?! Do you really want TH-cam to shift to paid platform? I mean it - TH-cam is already WAY more commercials rich than ever before. 💰 just keep reminding them how ready you are to pay them.. F**k sake... Can't you just admit that particular author of the video is great and is making great content, period?
What is wrong with you people 💲 💵 💸
@@JayPixx chill dude, he didn't go and tell youtube to make every video paid stop overreacting also, are you high?
@@mastershooter64 the thing is, it's not about him (as I stated clearly in my comment). It's about general "trend", call it anyway you want, that people are putting this comments under every long, good quality video. Come on, seriously?
Best 48:45 mins:secs that I've spent in 67 yrs. Well done!
Best 49 minutes I've ever spent!
Ok i must say you have surpassed yourself
, a very complex subject simple explained and visualized!
Great Job, probably the best video of you yet!
Ich: klicke auf ein Everyday Astronaut Video
Sehe Don Guru de Bro & Paul Paulson als Top Comment
Checke ob ich mich nicht verklickt hab und bei PietSmiet gelandet bin :D
Yes agreed! Great video💪🏻💪🏻
Agreed! Wish I could punch the "Like" button a couple dozen more times. Excellent video.
Came here to say the same thing. Incredibly well researched but easy to understand. One of the best videos he's done!
Wow! Great video.
Man, this video has a LOT or work behind. Thank you Tim.
It's so good to hear "we'll talk more about that in a second" than "we'll talk more about that in the next video"
The fact that this is free to watch is insane. Excellent work!
I'm so old, I remember when TV was educational...
I'm guessing you owe a lot of money.
It's not free you watch a ton of ads
Stop mentioning it. You're giving Google ideas for monetization.
Lol stfu its youtube.
Upvoted because for the first time ever I heard an understandable description of specific impulse.
There are people that try to stretch a 1min topic into 15min to gain more watch time and then there is cramming a 3 hour lecture on ROCKET SCIENCE into 49 minutes...
I hate 'Now You Know' channel for stretching his videos.
Amar Khandve bright side too, they are all and channels you shouldn’t watch, and not just because they stretch their videos
@@andrewzhang1290 The problem is that videos of less than 10 minutes are not considered as much by the youtube algorithm. It's Google's fault for forcing people to make 10min+ videos or risk disappearing from feeds (even of people who already subscribed!). If youtube is your income, you better do what you need to survive and not get drowned out by the masses of content uploaded each day.
More like 5 min of kindergarten rocket science stretched to 49 minutes.
@@CookingWithCows TH-cam is simply a platform for people to upload videos. It's purely TH-camr's fault to stretch his videos sacrificing quality
This is a contender for best video on youtube for the year. Astonishingly good
@Gmail X lol... russian botttttt
@Gmail X I often imagine that Elon Musk is Sergei Pavlovich reincarnated...
@Gmail X OK comrade... hahaha
@Gmail X "and is triumph of marketing" and "you must educate yourself moron" is a double negative and cancelled each other out... one of us need to get an education Comrade... 🤭
@Gmail X Trump.... lol not my problem bro...
Me before the video: “gosh 50 mins? Better be good.”
Me after the video: “gosh 50 mins? Why so short?”
u illigal its 49:01
@@fille0078 49:02
@@fille0078 Are you 5 years old?
@@flamu9183 ehh no. what my spelling? well im from Sweden. so if thats the case then you judged a book by its cover?
"Rocket science, like all things, is a complex set of compromises." -- best line of the whole video.
One should not take lightly the expression, 'It's not rocket science.' again. Rocket science ought to be applied to every day thinking really. Balancing proportion, Goldilocks principle. Deep video. New sub.
My sister asked me today to help her with a presentation about rocket engines, so this video came at exactly the right moment.
It's really impressive how you managed to explain that deep topic with so much detail, but in a understandable way. Most videos about engines I know are to basic and don't go into so much detail. Amazing work putting this together!
Thank you very much for this.
Me: "I'm definitely not going to watch the whole video"
*49 mins 1 sec later*
"Ups.."
I was a bit like that, "I'll just see how this starts..... "
Yeah, same.
I watched it
I came to the end and was like "What, he can't be done already!"... Really looking forward to more!
For real tho. I’m supposed to wake up at 6:30 and it’s 2:30. RIP
Best animations detailing different engine types. Super good job!
And I was just about to go to sleep.........
I would have stayed up for 2 hours if the video had been that long. This was just amazing.
I started the video, fell asleep, slept for 10 hours, woke up, and finished the video.
Wow super interesting video man. Didn't even felt it's 50 mins. Thank you
+1!
*didn't feel
Wait it’s 50 minutes? I’ve only just started watching...
I wondered how it ended fast. I often get tired of 5 minute videos. Not this one though.
It wasn't 50 mins
Thanks!
Is this video the king of everyday astronaut videos?
Yes for sure
So overall, this video is the king for this application.
Kudos to Tim. He's really studied hard and has come up to speed on rocket technology. He's now a good resource on the topic and is entertaining at the same time.
@@SpaceReportNews Or, just getting started!
SpaceX sucks at making long form videos, Elon needs to use Tim to channel his inner space geek
It not only has the highest information density, but it's also the longest ever video he's ever produced so yes
This is what I call good journalism. Thank you Tim
That's not journalism that's shilling.
jou-na-li-sam... what is that? i havnt .. Oh.. Yes, now i remember, it was that thing the news did over 20 years ago where they presented facts on different subjects or investigated problems. Nice to see it existing, sadly never on the news channels, those just lies and clickbait BS...
@@clausejoke1985 do you really think tim is getting paid by spacex to promote their rockets?
@@linecraftman3907
I don't know, but he is definitely a victim of SpaceX's PR and hype.
None of Musks companies has ever invented any groundbreaking/new technology.
Landing is a maneuver not a technology, this should tell you everything you have to know about Musk and his companies.
A lot of bullshit claims and promises, but no substance.
Highest paid CEO but he is doing it for mankind.... dear god you guys are naive.
www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2019/04/02/tsla-median-pay-musk-compensation.html
He is also a union busting drug addict and convicted fraud.
Do you want me to stop now?
@@clausejoke1985 it's not about inventing new technologies, it's about making it work in real life. Drug addict? People don't choose to be drug addicts most of the time. However I do agree about shady business practices and bad work conditions , but who is holding the workers in the companies?
Thank you for making this!
Didn't know you watched Tim also. I like your music, G.
Weird to see you here, also when is the marble machine X gonna be done
@@Cryseris Maybe watch his stuff, then you'd see ^^
Wasn’t expecting you to be here
U americans think u r exceptional in everything u think u. Hope and talk about going 2 Mara soon. U haven t even gone 2 the moon yet
And lastly-This video is truly one of the greatest videos on the Internet!
Wow! So much information coming at just the right speed for comprehension, the time flew by! All in one video was the right call
Amazing how you were not only able to inform me of the basics of rocket engines, but you kept my attention for the entirety of the video. Tough thing to do these days, absolutely wonderful video.
Totally agree with you, and well put Nathan!
I had to cheat and boost the speed of the vid to 1.25%.
Never clicked so fast. been waiting ever since you announced it on OLF.
OLF FTW, Its a great podcast.
It surprises me how little people watch/listen to OLF. Only ~15k!
Blah Cga our ludicrous future. Look it up as our ludicrous future it’s a podcast with joe Scott(answers with joe), Tim(everydayastronuaght), and Ben sullins(teslanomics)
This is the second time I am watching this; I am slowly educating myself (or NASA and others are educating me at You Tube) in orbital mechanics and you are educating me in rocketry--for starters. I also want to complement you in the way you present. As an ESL instructor in Asia for nearly 20 years, I understand the challenge of explaining ideas to people which are complex--in your case, because it's rocket science, in mine, because I only use English--and my point is, you have a way of talking that is clear, emotional (difference in voice pitch and expression delineates concepts more easily than in monotone--the way many science teachers speak)--and you repeat, Tim, which is essential. I could probably help you with the writing; maybe when I have extra cash, I will join on Patreon and give ideas. But, thank you, and excellent job. Your knowledge alone earns you a valuable seat on the Dear Moon flight. Congrats on that! You deserve it.
Thank you for your service in ESL. 🤠
Absolutley fantastic video! Thank you for the enlightenment.
What are your thoughts on human-animal “relations”?
Asking for a friend.
We missed you for the starlink launch.
Allyson Cornish I was on the stream watching, I just wasn’t active in chat this time.
Jesus! I didn't know you watched!
@@thejesuschrist forgive me for I have sinned...... I failed no Simp September
You deserve awards for this work. Truly outstanding, Tim.
Yeah, like going around the moon? :p
You are the first person to make specific impulse make sense. Everyone else is just like, well it is in seconds because that's how the math works out.
that's why I prefer Isaac Arthur's approach: specific impulse can go take a hike, exhaust velocity is way better!
Because that's how mafia work.
Hahahah
The reason they use seconds is because the math works out to being the equivalent of "how many seconds would sea level gravity need to pull on the exhaust to counter its acceleration"
If gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, then a fuel with an exhaust velocity of 980 meters per second would have a specific impulse of 100 seconds.
@@andrew34765 I get that now, but no one ever explained that. And wikipedia wasn't much help either. People would stop their explanation at, that's just how the math works, and not go any further.
This video is a timeless work of art. I plan on watching it many more times. Thank you so much for making it.
The professors in my aerospace engineering program didnt deliver this info a 10th as well as you have. And this video was free, where as my degree... was not.
@Cosmonauteable mhhh okay, but you're saying he could have learned it by himself without going to school. This means the teacher was not good anyways
I don't think any given professor has five months to prepare for a single lesson. Sure, he should know his field in general, but consider this: how do you keep up with the fast pace of science if you have to teach students, plan lessons and correct tests and essays full-time? While you would also love to advance your own research?
And how does your free youtube history do when applying for a job?
Try putting your TH-cam history on a job application.
@@RandomNumber141 try making an original comment
I can fill in some of the knowledge on Metallurgy, if you are interested.
Basically, the mechanism by which metals fail, or "yield," is by the propagation of imperfections in the crystal lattice. The imperfections are called "dislocations" and there are usually millions of them in any cubic millimeter of metal. Dislocations tend to move more easily as you raise the temperature of a metal, causing yield strengths to decrease with higher temperature. The methods of strengthening metals generally center around trying to halt the motion of these dislocations, either by adding alloy elements which tend to stabilize dislocations at the atomic level (such as adding carbon to steel), or by precipitating secondary phases (like small crystals within the crystal) which act as roadblocks to dislocation movement.
Secondary phases are usually precipitated by raising the temperature of the metal and aging it for a certain duration. Aluminum is an example where this is very common. Metallurgists have determined the proper time and temperature to age metals to get the maximum strength. The longer you age, the larger the precipitates grow. If the precipitates are too small, dislocations cut through them. If they are too large, dislocations will bend around them. If you age at the wrong temperature, or the wrong combination of elements, precipitates will form along grain boundaries instead of inside crystal grains, which doesn't add strength, and can weaken the metal. Precipitates must be fairly small, and uniformly spread throughout the crystal in order to add strength to the metal
Precipitation hardening is especially common in Aluminum alloys. Part of the reason aluminum is fine for airplane skins but not good for engines revolves around the fact that precipitation hardening is lost once you raise the temperature above a few hundred degrees, as the high temps will cause precipitates to grow, combine, and migrate to grain boundaries.
You mentioned work-hardening of stainless steel. Work hardening is a mechanism where you basically limit dislocation movement by adding a whole lot more dislocations, and forcing them to move until they run into each other. By deforming the material, you push the dislocations until they start to stack up, which gives resistance to further propagation of dislocations. The downside of this is that you lose some of the metal's ductility, which is the ability to "bend before breaking." This means that if you have sudden, large force on your structure (shock load), it is more likely to fracture rather than bending or denting. No doubt the engineers at SpaceX are aware of this, and have adjusted their safety factors and fatigue analysis numbers to compensate.
I'm two months late, but I'll say it anyway, as a fabricator who is very much NOT a metallurgist, I appreciated reading your comment and learned a bunch. Cheers!
Wow! Very informative comment. Thanks
*through use you find fatigue.* Simple as that. Just look at the number of launches *AND* landings.
Popular Science had a great article back in the day about turbine blades in jets and how they would specially heat the blades and then cool them from one end to the other producing a blade that was essentially a single crystal.
Wow, that explanation makes all kinds of sense:) Well done!
You explain Rocket science in a way that I could say "It's not a rocket science dude! It's easy!"
Great job! Please do more.
This was very well explained. The visualizations were very helpful.
I almost never watch a video longer than 30 minutes, but you kept me interested! Awesome video!
despite being 49 minutes long, I was enjoing it so much it felt really short.
All the time and effort put in this video is insane. GREAT WORK!
You know, when people say "it's not rocket science", I hadn't realised the bar was quite that high.
Ralph Pickering i’ve heard in rocket science you say
@@MaxMustermann-bm7qt Oh my goodness! Rocket science is so simple compared to music theory. I can read music and play guitar. Still I have almost no comprehension of music theory in general, and guitar theory in particular.
I saw what you did there.
👏🏻
nearly 300 bar to be precise
The most informative 50 minutes I ever spent on TH-cam. Thank you.
thank you , its a great honor to see a master at work
I sometimes encounter some 5 minutes video and feel pretty wasted. This 50 minutes felt like a 5 min video. cool informative
This is the most interesting online class I've ever taken. Can't take my eyes off the screen. Keep it up.
Much more interesting than quarantine
He is not that good looking.....)
@@tiborpurzsas2136 dumbest comment ever !!
Get a brain, Ken !!
@@tiborpurzsas2136 what r u gay?
@@tiborpurzsas2136 I actually think he is good looking :D
Amazing work on a complex topic. Fanatically educating. Really appreciated the quality of your production and script. Great work. I know you put a lot of effort into, first learning the details of the cycles, but also then gathering all the information together on the different rocket engines and putting into tabular and graphical form to help us understand. Your enthusiasm showed through. Your explanation is next level excellent for people approaching this topic for the first time. I found this interesting and completely engaging to watch. BTW I was in high school during the Apollo program, living only 40 miles from the NASA test facility in Mississippi. I got to see an S-1 stage test firing, full duration of those incredibly deafening F-1 engines, from one mile away with the press. The sound pressure rocked the NASA bus from side to side. I chipped my hands around a friend’s ear and shouted instructions from one inch away at the top of my lungs on the photography we were doing. He was unable to hear me. The legs of the slacks I was wearing were flapping as if a wind was hitting them. It was completely calm. The flame shooting sideways out of the flame bucket was a few stories High and I guessed about 700’ long horizontally. It was wickedly ferocious looking. It’s been a little over half a century now but I’m still impressed by my memory of it. I later flew down to the cape and watched the final flight of Apollo, Apollo 17, lift off at night from 10 miles away. We could barely hear it by comparison at that distance, but it lit the sky up like a sunrise. After staging with the hydrogen burning second stage engines, it looked like a breeding start moving rapidly through the constellations. Many years later, during the Shuttle program, I saw one reentering the atmosphere late at night from Gulfport Mississippi heading south to fly over the Gulf of Mexico toward Florida at an altitude of 35 miles at a speed of 5000 mph. I got that information the next day via a phone call to the Johnson Space Center. It looked like an orange meteor with a long white tail of ionized gas. It casts moving shadow under a bright streetlight. Two minutes after it faded out over the Gulf I heard a characteristic double sonic boom. I never saw it launched though I drove down to KSC and waited once. I never had another proper opportunity. Hopefully the SLS will become a flying vehicle one day, assuming a lot of things, and I can go see it. I have a much longer way to go to beer there these days. I now live in Iowa, only about 2-1/2 hours south of you! SRBs are very very bright. I saw the launch of Voyager 2 in 1977 from 4 miles away on a tour bus on a sunny summer Saturday. It like looking at two Suns, the pair of solid rocket boosters strapped on the Titan rocket. Of course those were much smaller than the ones on the Space Shuttle and what will be on the SLS. I’m looking forward to seeing if I can get as close or closer to a launch and get “blinded” by the light. We’ll see…🤷🏼♂️(Wow WOW would I like to see a full up flight of Starship some day too. That would be incredible. The noise!)
I love these 50 minute videos. It feels like a proper documentary.
Please make more like this.
49 MINUTES 😍😍😍 Great work, Tim!!
Big fan of u
well done !!!!! well done!!! I hope every science class accross the nation will play this for the students of tomorrow. Best Rocumentary vid ever!
Not only across the nation, every engineering colleges in the world would be much appreciated
I would just like to say that I appreciate the production value of your videos. You make it easy to follow along, even though you're explaining highly complicated topics to lesser thinkers like me lol
Omg Tim! We love your content and constant high production values, but WOW!!! This is your best video EVER! Worth the wait!
This is a whole new level of quality and the work on the animations really payed off! Looking forward to seeing some more of those technical videos on engine design! Thanks for putting all this together.
Info #1 and #2
RD171 actually flew almost 100 times. Much more than F1
Also, the RD170 (differs from RD171 basically with relation to the gimbal direction) was able to achieve a peak pressure of 306,2bar at chamber pressure.
You should consider a v2 version of this video with updates of 2024 data. You would have a lot new things to talk about.
Me at first : 49 mins ?!!!
Me after 49mins : "Definitely worth it"
true
very true😁
Before: so long?!
After: so short? :c
+2 seconds
i was about to skip but got carried away
This video is amazing. I'm currently in a class studying chemical rocket engines and all of your videos are such a great resource. Please don't stop making them!
4:28 I like how you spent at least an hour blending their faces on the picture for just 3 seconds in the video.
I just discovered your channel. Thank you for the deep dives. I have learn a ton from you over the past week or so. Keep up the great work
This is brilliant. Not easy to do all of the design work you did. Love it.
Yoooooooo JMG is in the House! 🤟🤟
If cars can be rated in horsepower, can methane powered rockets be rated in cowpower?
-bigbraintime-
@@ryp1562 the joke went over your head
Cowpat
It should be rated in llama thrust
This would a great engineering project for Mennonites. A cow rocket fueled by hay. Probably would get their cattle faster to market too
Didn't feel long at all Tim! Great job, looking forward to the next documentary
Brilliant explanation of the different types of rockets in a simplistic yet informative manner. Great work, looking forward to seeing the future of rocket development thru your eyes.
5 freaking months for this? 100% worth it
Simply an amazing video! The simplified graphics were very helpful!
Three months in the making. Totally worth the wait, Tim!
Just about the finest video I've seen you do, congrats!
I actually watched this through twice. The second time was really to have a closer look at how the different types of engines worked, but the video was interesting enough that I ended up watching the whole thing again! This was really well done.
We live in exciting times and I am pumped to see that happens with Starship and New Glenn in the next couple of years. It seems like we have stagnated in this field for so long, and the last 10 years have been so fun to watch. Thanks for the video!
"Can't even fathom"
Slow clap... and subscribed.
I actually unsubscribed for a whole five minutes in silent protest lol.
Hay, Tim. Like everyone else said, I love this video! You did an amazing job on everything. And I have to say, you even did a great job with placing the midroll ads.
Now this is a fantastic video! Thank you for your efforts. Very well done. Cheers.
This is the finest rocketry tutorial and technology comparison video that I have seen. E.A. has struck just the right level for teaching his enthusiast audience. Thanks for this, Tim!
The best technical video I've seen on TH-cam in 2019! And...it's about rockets!! Excellent job! I could actually follow along with your explanations and data without getting bored. Keep producing more videos like this.
One of the best rocket/space related video I have seen in a long time. Keep up the good work Tim!
If you'd make another video to update this it would be incredible. You already have a like. 😉
WOW! Just finished this video. Even though I knew most of this stuff partially, this video helped put it together in my head. Amazing Job!!
I was at the same spot with my rocket knowledge... It was nice to finally put all the pieces together.
You should consider including the number of engines per flight when counting the flight record as you did for reliability. The flight record changes drastically with over 700 flights for the Merlin.
That is a comment to be considered!
Yeah, employing multiple engines is the most efficient way to test reliability, since each unit can be worked on individually and only share fuel and oxidizer feeding systems.
Also, a lot of variable for testing only exist on actual flight, risking the rocket as well as its potential payload (be it expensive machinery or the immensurable value of academic grade scientists). Having multiple engines makes sure that none of those will be lost when dealing with failures, as long as there is no chain effect (such as violent explosions), as well as making less likely that a chain effect will happen after the catastrophic failure of a single engine.
Mission success or failure is the matrix that should be used. Comparing engines of one platform, to different engines of a different platform is silly. Simply compare the platforms themselves. Did it get the payload into space and onto the correct trajectory? That's what's important.
No padding, your explanations were concise and to the point. The time flew.
Amazingly well documented and presented. Fantastic
Thanks for making Videos like this and for using metric system :-D. Youre awesome!
Please do more videos like this! Amazing content ♥️
"So why did spacex use methane?" Thrust is blue and look cool
blue flame go brrr
It might be blue but it's the bomb
I bet they got the idea while farting on matches.
NHAFXD GLITCHER シ i got the reference 🥳
Because we are able to produce it fairly easily, unlike hydrocarbons like traditional rocket fuel..if we find the right materials we could make it on Mars..
I remember watching this thinking the raptor numbers were aspirational that would never be achieve. Boy was I wrong, we are already past those.
This is one of the most informative videos I have ever seen on youtube! Once again you raise the bar on Space Related Content! Thank you for this!
Girlfriend: What kind of clothes should I wear?
Me: sounds like a methane fueled full flow staged combustion cycle engine is a good fit
- Put on this T-shirt "Energy Buran".
Love it!
Now, the first ever flown methane fueled full-flow staged-combustion cycle rocket engine. It needs a better name.
@@Levitiy better name than Raptor? Thats a pretty cool name, I thought.
@@MattH-wg7ou I don't mean a brand name, I mean a name for the cycle configuration.
Watched your channel grow over the last couple of years Tim. This (so far) is your highlight presentation. I thought I knew a lot about space and rockets, but every one of your shows I watch teaches me something new and exciting. I'm approaching 70, but I hope the +600,000 views so far are being watched by the youngsters. We need them to be inspired to participate in technology & science. This channel is a critical catalyst in that effort. Thanks for all you do here.
Grahame Palmer I am 11 years old and I love rocket science and these videos.
Oh my god my dreams have come true. I have finally learnt how rocket engines work!!
Just saw this video now. One of THE best videos on this subject I could imagine.
I really didn't think I would watch the whole thing, but you kept it interesting and on point the whole way through.
It was over before I realized it. Really informative, really interesting and really well done.
50 min vid went by very quickly, very interesting and hope you do this type of in-depth analysis again, excellent work, the effort you put in really shows, thanks
Couldn’t of said it better myself Mr Cross 😉
RD-171 still flying on Zenit rocket, 84 launches (last in December 2017) !
Excellent! When comparing fuels, it’s more appropriate to compare characteristic velocities as the specific impulse is dependent on engine architecture.
Keep up the great work!
Sufficiently content dense to keep me around to watch the whole thing and easily palatable, probably best description of each topic I've seen, all compiled into one great video. Big ups my dude. Now off to patreon.
First let me say that this is an awesome video, I don't want to nit-pick it to annoy anyone, just to inform people who might not know this, but find it interesting:
At 23:18 , you talk about the oxidizer/fuel burn ratio for hydrolox. Now, while it's not the point of the video and you're not actually saying anything that is wrong in any way, it did, at least to me, give the impression as though 1:1 was the stoichiometric ratio, where all oxidizer and fuel is burnt and nothing gets left over. This would make it seem as though hydrolox ideally burns oxygen-rich.
However, the opposite is the case. The stoichiometric ratio for hydrolox is 8:1, so actually rockets carry more hydrogen than that, burn fuel rich and push unburned hydrogen out of the exhaust. The reason for this is that hydrogen is such a small molecule, and this means that it is much better at turning thermal energy into kinetic energy than heavier molecules, such as oxygen or water vapor. Basically, unburned hydrogen gets accelerated to much higher speeds in the combustion chamber than anything else, and the difference is so large that it's more efficient to run fuel-rich. For the highest ISP (specific impulse), the ratio would actually be 4.7:1! This also comes with the advantage of burning cooler, making it easier for the materials.
But since hydrogen takes such large tanks to store, it ultimately doesn't make sense to actually use this ideal ratio and the 6:1 is the compromise between running fuel rich to be more efficient and saving weight.
Now, this really doesn't matter for the point of the video, but basically, you'd theoretically expect the bar for the hydrogen to be a bit lower, not much higher.
interesting. As Elon Musk said, car business is much more difficult but rocket science in science is more complicated and that way interesting. (ie. engines in cars are in the long run not interesting or complicated[for skilled technician], but rocket engines definitely are for so many options how to approach seemingly simple problem).
Yeah, chemical ratios are often hard to conceptualize, especially since they're usually stated in terms off a mass ratio but what matters for tank size (in this context) is a volume ratio.
This is next-level documentary making. Thank you for all the incredible work that went into putting this together 🚀
amazing video. can't wait for raptor 2 video.
Greetings from Russia!
Thanks for the best explanation!
Good T-shirt "Буран-Энергия"!
Tim- This is arguably the best video I have seen on TH-cam. You should consider taking this to a TED Talks format, preferably in Houston.