Well, you can of course measure in mPa (milli Pascal) ... but even 1 ATM (1 Atmosphere), which is ~1020 mBar (milli Bar) are already 1020 hPa (hecto [100] Pascal) or in 102 000 Pa (in words: one hundred thousand) or 0.102 MPa (Mega [Million, just like MegaByte] Pascal), 350 Bar would be 35 MPa or 35 000 000 000 mPa (35 BILLION [Milliard for proper maths] milli Pascal). Don't know why you would want to go that way, but sure. Just like the Brits, when the say Milliards say 1000 Million, though it would rather be 35 000 Kilo Pascal ... 🤔🤣
@sawyer post No, it won't...because failure is NOT an option. You know, like the engines for Apollo V Stage 1? NONE of them failed, DURING ANY LAUNCH. Raptor is a mass-produced PROTOYPE, and is king of NOTHING except maybe FAILED launches.
One Raptor 3 is about 18 times more powerful than a B-1 Bomber jet engine at full afterburner. As a former crew chief on the B-1B, I find that absolutely insane!!
And that's just in terms of thrust. In terms of actual energy output it's even higher, because the exhaust is being accelerated to a higher speed. I'm not sure exactly what the exhaust velocity of the F101 is, but somewhere in the ballpark of 800m/s seems reasonable. Raptor is about 3200m/s, or four times faster. Usually kinetic energy would be squared, but in this case that's cancelled out by the decrease in mass flow, so it ends up being linear. Still, that puts Raptor at around 75x more 'powerful' in terms of wattage/horsepower/etc. Raptor Vacuum would be closer to 100x. TL;DR: Rocket engines are insane.
Unfortunately it's not a jet engine lol!!! Totally different thing to even compare! The jet will have an amazing range on longer duration and is significantly way more efficient than a fuel guzzling rocket engine
I don't normally comment on these...enjoy them immensely and consider myself better educated after them. But this one. I swear I heard the crackle. Normally on testing at Mcgregor, you get the rumble. That thing wanted to take the stand with it! Awesome video, and as always, awesome commentary.
Just a thought... Have you guys considered installing a seismograph (a cheap one) at the engine test sight location? It could return some useful information. Thanks, great work as usual.
You probably meant megapascals (MPa) and not millipascals (mPa). I mean sure, you could measure chamber pressure in either one but 350 bar is 35 MPa or 35000000000 mPa. Perhaps a more useful comparison would be 5076 psi, nearly double the pressure in your typical SCUBA tank. It's also roughly equivalent to the pressure 2.2 miles underwater. So yeah, it's a lot.
Ha, one of the first things the team noticed right after we shipped it. Can we go with "the larger number is more impressive" instead of "typo" heh. -Das
Thanks for making this comment. I stopped concentrating on the video at that point, thinking one bar is about 100kPa, and it should be capital M. Had to rewind because I missed a bit because I was distracted.
The Raptor engine is really looking impressive as SpaceX optimizes its design. This version 3 engine puts out more thrust than the RS-25 or BE4 engines while being less than half the size. Can't wait to see a fully optimized and operational version of the Raptor engine when development concludes:)
Matthew. Yeah, heck yeah. But look what Raptor 2's did to the launch mount.😮. Flame trenches AND water deluge system necessary for Raptor 2's. Gotta love SpaceX.
@@davidforget6906 With so much more thrust headroom they could have the engines throttled down a bit to protect the ground infrastructure and then quickly throttle up a few seconds after. Maybe?
We do it every month! It's actually a really slick script that queries our database of tests, pulls the footage, and assembles this layout automatically. We can even query by engine type or test stand.... -Das
I can generate at least 0.01 Bar of chamber pressure. Intake fuel can be varied, though cauliflower has a particularly high energy density in this regard.
The thrust is impressive but isn’t raptor 3 also going to be the cleanest design so far too? Elon mentioned that the engine itself shouldn’t need any heat shielding since there will no longer be anything fragile exposed on the engine. As well as RUD containment built into each engine.
Weird how seeing a massive rocket flame hot enough to liquify metal gave me full body chills. The work SpaceX is doing is absolutely amazing. Thanks NSF for bringing us these high quality updates!
The test looked really clean. I noticed that the flame looked straighter and wider than the other lower pressure test. Does a higher chamber pressure mean that the bell needs to get larger or longer now for V3? And would that cause a problem with fitting them all in on Starship and Heavy booster?
I think if the increase in efficiency from increasing the chamber pressure outweighs the decrease from having a less optimal nozzle, I think SpaceX would accept the nozzle inefficiency for the overall increase in thrust or isp, especially for the booster engines.
Exactly. Higher chamber pressure with a "stock" nozzle means that gases as they exit the nozzle are not at atmospheric pressure at sea level (which is ideal for a rocket engine). But, there is no such thing as an ideal nozzle. Say you dimension it for sea level P°, as soon as you fly some, it's not optimum anymore. Thats why starship has both vaccum and atmospheric engines. If I remember correctly, you do not have to suffer these trade-offs with aerospike engines.
wow that test looked so clean and stable! they must have gotten SO much beautiful delicious golden data from the recent orbital test flight. clearly enough to put together a new generation I’m excited to see the new Raptor 3 crushing world records and knocking it out of the park Next test can’t come soon enough :D
Would likely still be a big rocket. Medium lift launcher with a capability of 4-5 tonnes to LEO is my guess just based on rockets in the similar thrust capability range
So, maybe feasible to ferry people to LEO for fun. The likes of what Virgin is doing. Maybe it can just be a scrapped dragon with essential supplies. Would be very much worth it if it could be commercialized.
Miniature rockets are commercial losers. Musk immediately recognized this during Falcon 1 development. Those commercial rocket companies that don’t recognize that don’t last long (eg, Astra, Virgin Orbit, etc.)
The market for such small to medium rockets is getting quite heated, many startups are working on those, but the money is apparently in bigger rockets, either for bigger payloads or shared rides.
2 types of chemical reaction, deflagration(slower than sound) and detonation(faster than sound). Same chemical reaction products. Detonation produces more pressure, more efficient, more destructive. Historic benefits, gunpowder to gun-cotton(nitrocellulose), 8" cannonballs 300 yards with gunpowder, 16" shells 20 miles with nitrocellulose.
I think it will be more of a case of the developments being made making the Raptor a more reliable engine - if the chamber can survive 350 bar of pressure, like during this test, it will hopefully mean a slightly less powerful version having a greater safety margin. In theory if it survives 350 bar, it should be much more reliable at say 320 bar. Always good to have a large safety margin. Hopefully it will put an end to unexpected RUD's of Raptors.
“The occasional engine-rich combustion…” Great humor. I love it! Also, WOW was that crackle loud during the peak of the test burn! That rocket wanted to fly something fierce!
Unless V3 has a significantly higher efficiency (it probably has a slightly higher efficiency, V2 was already pushing the efficiency limits), it will burn through more fuel compared to V2
Rocket engines usually run fuel-rich (rather than stoichiometric) to keep combustion chamber temperatures from being too high (amongst other reasons), and Raptors are no exception. In addition, many (including Raptor) use film-cooling in the main chamber and/or throat where extra fuel is injected as a film to limit the temperature at the wall. When these engines are run at sea level, the ambient air pressure is dense enough that atmospheric oxygen interacts with the excess (not burnt in the main combustion chamber) methane in the exhaust plume, giving rise to additional combustion products and thus additional colours.
I find it strange to say that chamber pressure is measured in millipascals. Technically correct, sure, but still; pascals ok, or kilopascals, even megapascals. But millipascals? Sounds weird (to me!)
Pre-burner pressure should be a lot higher but since the Raptor 3 engine is a much cleaner design. The pre burner pressure should be much closer to the combustion chamber. SpaceX should have designed out the parasitic pressure loss between the pre-burner and combustion chamber.
Is the now higher max chamber pressure indicative of reliability? As in, now that it's capable of higher chamber preassures, they can now run it at lower chamber pressures whilst maintaining performance with less risk of failure?
2:55 you would not get far if you measure the pressure in millipascal (mPa), what you mean is megapascal (MPa). little difference in factor of 1billion (e+9)
The recent flight was V2s. 7 out of 33 failed. That's why everyone is wondering if V3s can be ready for next text flight, or if they think they can keep enough V2s running to make stage separation and orbit.
@@paulwilson8367 the thing people seem to forget is that there is more than just the big version changes. Elon has mentioned that what went into B7 was a hodgepodge of the raptors they had around at the time, the newer boosters will get much more up to date and uniform V2s
The bottom of the OLM is as far from the ground as the bottom of the pad at LC-39B is from the bottom of the flame trench. The OLM at Boca Chica IS tall.
@NasaSpaceFlight if the relative increase in each engine can be assumed to have an 18% higher thrust at any given throttle, meaning that the safety margin is also higher, would that mean that starship could make it to orbit using less fuel in its upper stage which in turn would mean that starship would need less in orbit refuel mission AND each fuel tanker could be filled with more fuel? So over all less launches needed to get to the moon and Mars?
I was wondering, if SpaceX succeeds with the full re-usability and rapid turnaround what do other rocket companies have to offer in the form of competition?
Nothing yet. Rocket design cycle may be about 5-10 years so it will take some more time. Due to spacex pressure ULA retiring Delta IV and Atlas V rockets to be replaced with Vulcan rocket that is under development. European space agency has Ariane 6 rocket under development and previously had plans for it to be launched for several decades, but few years ago announced that the rocket that still under development need be replaced in like 10 years with new because current design can't compete with spacex. China announced several new designs that looks like SpaceX's rockets and also methane engines. But there is nothing close to falcon 9 and starship/superheavy yet.
Hey does “more efficient” Raptor 3 mean more thrust per ton of propellant, more thrust per mass or volume of engine, or just more power? Great video, many tanks.
Curious about versioning on Raptor vs Merlin. The Merlin used the 1D and StarShip will be using Raptor 3. Was Merlin just tweaked and Raptor is getting more of an overhaul between versions?
I believe it's a steel diverter sort of structure, and yeah, they do have a deluge system for it. It's a super convenient indicator on McGregor Live that it's about to fire!
The power up and power down is truly beautiful. Just need to know the throttle percentage to see the perfect dynamics of the R3. Thanks NSF for all you do. - NOM
I was wondering what the sound level would be in the crew section of starship on liftoff of this rocket? Would the sound level itself be loud enough to kill? I would like to see this data.
I find it interesting - and maybe it's just me - that when the engine reached the plateau on the graph (end of the video), it just sounded "right." When that graph had a couple little wiggles in the plateau, I could hear (or thought I could) that it seemed just a little, wee bit "off," and then it evened out to "right" again. I wonder if that's an actual engineering/physic phenomenon - the "right" sound means it's working well....? Eh, I'm no rocket scientist, so maybe I'm just being silly... ;-)
you do not need to be one: does your car engine runs smoothly if it coughs? These Raptor engine must be tuned for particular set of parameters (even if you can throttle them).
Theoretically, what is the maximum efficiency a rocket engine can achieve? 99% or 100%? What would the chamber pressure have to be at for the theoretical maximum efficiency?
The engine can only be 'efficient' based on the fuel and the intended requirement of the payload. I think the hydrogen fueled engines are more efficient than methane, however, they come with all the problems associated with a very light gas (hence orange insulation) and hard to prevent leaks (have to have very good seals). Marcus House did a very good video on isp 'efficiency' which showed a nuclear rocket engine was the most efficient. But that does have some 'high risk' for humans. So I think it's more the 'practicality' of what you are trying to achieve that you need to look at. And the most efficient method of doing that, is not necessarily having the most efficient rocket engine. Elon chose methane, because a sabatier process on Mars can convert the air and water into methane and o2 fuel/oxidizer for re-fueling the Starship for it's return to Earth.
I am a hydraulic systems designer and will say 5000psi is crazy high pressure. Especially at the size and lbs per second of fuel those engines are running!
You can watch these test stands 24/7 with the Cows here: nsf.live/mcgregor
Rocket Merch here: shop.nasaspaceflight.com/
2023(Gregorian) “Respect and dignity.” Furthermore:
Thanks for the amazing work you do. And awesome commentary too 🙂
🍾🥂
Well, you can of course measure in mPa (milli Pascal) ... but even 1 ATM (1 Atmosphere), which is ~1020 mBar (milli Bar) are already 1020 hPa (hecto [100] Pascal) or in 102 000 Pa (in words: one hundred thousand) or 0.102 MPa (Mega [Million, just like MegaByte] Pascal), 350 Bar would be 35 MPa or 35 000 000 000 mPa (35 BILLION [Milliard for proper maths] milli Pascal). Don't know why you would want to go that way, but sure. Just like the Brits, when the say Milliards say 1000 Million, though it would rather be 35 000 Kilo Pascal ... 🤔🤣
0:57 COMBUSTION CHAMBEEER was super annoying.... Plz don't do that
5000psi on top of dealing with all that heat is absolutely insane.
The metallurgists at SpaceX deserve a raise.
Why? 1 out of 6 destroy themselves
@@ToppledTurtle834still better then 6 out of 6!
@@ToppledTurtle834 because 1 out of 6 is as bad as itl ever be and it will only be improved from there
Bullshit!!! Which metallurgist!? They aren't better than any others lol!!
@sawyer post No, it won't...because failure is NOT an option. You know, like the engines for Apollo V Stage 1? NONE of them failed, DURING ANY LAUNCH.
Raptor is a mass-produced PROTOYPE, and is king of NOTHING except maybe FAILED launches.
One Raptor 3 is about 18 times more powerful than a B-1 Bomber jet engine at full afterburner. As a former crew chief on the B-1B, I find that absolutely insane!!
And that's just in terms of thrust. In terms of actual energy output it's even higher, because the exhaust is being accelerated to a higher speed.
I'm not sure exactly what the exhaust velocity of the F101 is, but somewhere in the ballpark of 800m/s seems reasonable. Raptor is about 3200m/s, or four times faster.
Usually kinetic energy would be squared, but in this case that's cancelled out by the decrease in mass flow, so it ends up being linear.
Still, that puts Raptor at around 75x more 'powerful' in terms of wattage/horsepower/etc. Raptor Vacuum would be closer to 100x. TL;DR: Rocket engines are insane.
Now imagine 33 of these bad boys all bearing down on a steel plate. Holy [expletive]!!!
Air breathing engines are going to have much less power than rocket engines. Obviously.
@@Connection-Lost
I don't see how that makes the insane power output of rocket engines any less insane.
Unfortunately it's not a jet engine lol!!! Totally different thing to even compare! The jet will have an amazing range on longer duration and is significantly way more efficient than a fuel guzzling rocket engine
"Rocket science" is actually quite simple. Rocket engineering is the tricky bit.
I was thinking about how some branches of science are quite simple, but engineering those concepts into usable systems is another matter.
It's simple but expensive.
I don't normally comment on these...enjoy them immensely and consider myself better educated after them. But this one. I swear I heard the crackle. Normally on testing at Mcgregor, you get the rumble. That thing wanted to take the stand with it! Awesome video, and as always, awesome commentary.
.....that thing wanted to take the stand with it....AWSOME!
I'm sitting here pondering exactly that... how much force can that engine stand withstand? 🙂
Just a thought... Have you guys considered installing a seismograph (a cheap one) at the engine test sight location? It could return some useful information. Thanks, great work as usual.
Superb idea! I really hope they do this.
That was on the idea list for orbital, but just didn't have time to get to it. -Das
Thanks!
Speaking of progress, it's amazing how NSF videos keep getting better and better. Truly amazing content and it is highly appreciated.
Thanks!
You probably meant megapascals (MPa) and not millipascals (mPa). I mean sure, you could measure chamber pressure in either one but 350 bar is 35 MPa or 35000000000 mPa.
Perhaps a more useful comparison would be 5076 psi, nearly double the pressure in your typical SCUBA tank.
It's also roughly equivalent to the pressure 2.2 miles underwater.
So yeah, it's a lot.
Ha, one of the first things the team noticed right after we shipped it. Can we go with "the larger number is more impressive" instead of "typo" heh. -Das
@@NASASpaceflight It's been a while since I last heard that excuse, LOL.
Or as they say in software qual testing: “it’s a feature, not a defect.”
Thanks for making this comment. I stopped concentrating on the video at that point, thinking one bar is about 100kPa, and it should be capital M. Had to rewind because I missed a bit because I was distracted.
To be fair, chamber pressures ARE measured in mPa, when measuring vacuum.
The Raptor engine is really looking impressive as SpaceX optimizes its design. This version 3 engine puts out more thrust than the RS-25 or BE4 engines while being less than half the size. Can't wait to see a fully optimized and operational version of the Raptor engine when development concludes:)
Matthew. Yeah, heck yeah. But look what Raptor 2's did to the launch mount.😮. Flame trenches AND water deluge system necessary for Raptor 2's. Gotta love SpaceX.
And it’s so clean looking too!
@@davidforget6906 With so much more thrust headroom they could have the engines throttled down a bit to protect the ground infrastructure and then quickly throttle up a few seconds after. Maybe?
@@iamaduckquack Yeah Duck, good idea they are probably planning already. And still more thrust to add a good landing legs system.
@@iamaduckquack It will hover longer, so it is a trade-of.
Just seeing the plume itself, it really shows a vast improvement in thrust. Absolutely incredible to be able to watch this happen in my lifetime.
Yeah, that plume looked like 25% wider then the regular raptor 2 tests
So true, I love how much wider it looks as the gas comes out underexpanded and puffs out much bigger than the normal Raptor II tests.
mPa and MPa are very different units, be careful or you might end up with a few more zeros than you intended 😉
7:00 what an awesome visualization!
Has anyone did this before? I have seen it that way. Absolutly crazy
We do it every month! It's actually a really slick script that queries our database of tests, pulls the footage, and assembles this layout automatically. We can even query by engine type or test stand.... -Das
@@NASASpaceflight You script kiddies :p
can spacex potentially achieve 420.69 bar?
😂
With infinite improbability :)
Gotta harvest some of that unobtainium first.
One can only assume that is the goal
🤣🤣🤣
I can generate at least 0.01 Bar of chamber pressure. Intake fuel can be varied, though cauliflower has a particularly high energy density in this regard.
You are destined to remain on earth, although, every function of life holds some delight
😂
Underrated comment
Ever tried an igniter for additional thrust?
The thrust is impressive but isn’t raptor 3 also going to be the cleanest design so far too? Elon mentioned that the engine itself shouldn’t need any heat shielding since there will no longer be anything fragile exposed on the engine. As well as RUD containment built into each engine.
Reach new performance, simplify the design, improve reliability, then economize the parts. Rinse, repeat. The path to the stars!
Great explanation thanks Jack and the NSF team. Throttling up after launch will be epic.
Outstanding! Gonna pass it around to my Space Cadet friends who aren’t ‘rocket scientists’ themselves; well done, team!
Great Update, NSF! Thanks!
Weird how seeing a massive rocket flame hot enough to liquify metal gave me full body chills.
The work SpaceX is doing is absolutely amazing.
Thanks NSF for bringing us these high quality updates!
Which other flame won't liquefy a metal plate!? Wtf!!!!
Outstanding video, well done NSF 🫵👍
The test looked really clean. I noticed that the flame looked straighter and wider than the other lower pressure test. Does a higher chamber pressure mean that the bell needs to get larger or longer now for V3? And would that cause a problem with fitting them all in on Starship and Heavy booster?
I think if the increase in efficiency from increasing the chamber pressure outweighs the decrease from having a less optimal nozzle, I think SpaceX would accept the nozzle inefficiency for the overall increase in thrust or isp, especially for the booster engines.
Exactly. Higher chamber pressure with a "stock" nozzle means that gases as they exit the nozzle are not at atmospheric pressure at sea level (which is ideal for a rocket engine). But, there is no such thing as an ideal nozzle. Say you dimension it for sea level P°, as soon as you fly some, it's not optimum anymore. Thats why starship has both vaccum and atmospheric engines. If I remember correctly, you do not have to suffer these trade-offs with aerospike engines.
@@DisorderedArray what difference would changing the nozzle make? Better or worse or depends?
The sn11 flashbacks 🥺
wow that test looked so clean and stable!
they must have gotten SO much beautiful delicious golden data from the recent orbital test flight.
clearly enough to put together a new generation
I’m excited to see the new Raptor 3 crushing world records and knocking it out of the park
Next test can’t come soon enough :D
Love the video, love the new format, love the commentary. Thx a lot!
I think 'WOW!' is a suitable response..!
I wonder how a miniature rocket with just 1 raptor V3 engine would perform.
Would likely still be a big rocket. Medium lift launcher with a capability of 4-5 tonnes to LEO is my guess just based on rockets in the similar thrust capability range
So, maybe feasible to ferry people to LEO for fun. The likes of what Virgin is doing. Maybe it can just be a scrapped dragon with essential supplies. Would be very much worth it if it could be commercialized.
Miniature rockets are commercial losers. Musk immediately recognized this during Falcon 1 development. Those commercial rocket companies that don’t recognize that don’t last long (eg, Astra, Virgin Orbit, etc.)
The market for such small to medium rockets is getting quite heated, many startups are working on those, but the money is apparently in bigger rockets, either for bigger payloads or shared rides.
Ok "engine rich combustion" is gold! Even better than "rapid disassembly"
Awesome video thanks folks
What great informational video, thanks guys. 👍👍
Waited around to the end to make sure V3 still has the honk. It would be a shame if design changes removed that.😆
We need more goose in our engines!
Imagine strapping that to the back of my Honda Civic? Yeah baby!
Yeah would make a nice ornament. The content of a civic fuel tank wouldn't even be enough to start it up 😂
That echo effect on 'combustion chamberjj' reminded me of @The Science Asylum (Nick Lucid) and his bit for the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Thanks for the great explanation (for those of us non-rocket scientists). Great video. Love the sound ...WOWZA
That was fun. Nice one Jack!
"Look at those Mach diamonds!"... Here I am gawking at the lack of Mach diamonds. They were running it so hard that the nozzle was not over expanded!
There are shocks but they are so far away from the nozzle.. incredible test outcome. I can't wait to see a picture of what raptor 3 looks like.
Outstanding briefing. Thanks!
Oh man. Awesome engine. Awesome vid!
2 types of chemical reaction, deflagration(slower than sound) and detonation(faster than sound). Same chemical reaction products. Detonation produces more pressure, more efficient, more destructive. Historic benefits, gunpowder to gun-cotton(nitrocellulose), 8" cannonballs 300 yards with gunpowder, 16" shells 20 miles with nitrocellulose.
"I'm not a rocket scientist...." Proceeds to use the word "Anyways"
That was a fun explaination!
I think it will be more of a case of the developments being made making the Raptor a more reliable engine - if the chamber can survive 350 bar of pressure, like during this test, it will hopefully mean a slightly less powerful version having a greater safety margin. In theory if it survives 350 bar, it should be much more reliable at say 320 bar. Always good to have a large safety margin. Hopefully it will put an end to unexpected RUD's of Raptors.
I would bet they get it up to 370 bar followed by a pretty spectactular RUD
They gotta improve startup reliability too though. We still haven't actually seen a full 33 engines lit at once yet.
I don't think RUD's are the problem: it's just the prevalence of engine-rich exhaust.
@@javaman4584 and 42 engines finally, when Starship has 3 more
Great content. Well done NSF.
"there's a whole lotta more wiggles on that graph" LOL
That's a highly technical term. 🙄
That was a wonderful explanation of how a rocket engine works and the difference between V1, V2, and V3.
You guys are just the best! 😎
"engine rich combustion"
Bruh LMAO
Is the iconic raptor engine stopping sound gone? What was producing this sound in the first place?
Man, that channel of fire.
2:15 WOW ill have to watch the VOD of that after XD
“The occasional engine-rich combustion…”
Great humor. I love it! Also, WOW was that crackle loud during the peak of the test burn! That rocket wanted to fly something fierce!
btw….on V3, I never heard the ‘whoop!…..” at the end. Did anyone else?
Great video! Thanks
The comparison to a regular firing was crazy
curious, does the V3 consumes more fuel at full throttle than V2? and if V3 is matched on V2 full thrust, does V3 consumes less fuel than v2?
Unless V3 has a significantly higher efficiency (it probably has a slightly higher efficiency, V2 was already pushing the efficiency limits), it will burn through more fuel compared to V2
Truly impressive. But why is the exhaust orange? I thought it had to be blue(ish) because it burns methane.
Rocket engines usually run fuel-rich (rather than stoichiometric) to keep combustion chamber temperatures from being too high (amongst other reasons), and Raptors are no exception. In addition, many (including Raptor) use film-cooling in the main chamber and/or throat where extra fuel is injected as a film to limit the temperature at the wall.
When these engines are run at sea level, the ambient air pressure is dense enough that atmospheric oxygen interacts with the excess (not burnt in the main combustion chamber) methane in the exhaust plume, giving rise to additional combustion products and thus additional colours.
I find it strange to say that chamber pressure is measured in millipascals. Technically correct, sure, but still; pascals ok, or kilopascals, even megapascals. But millipascals? Sounds weird (to me!)
If the chamber pressure is 350 bar just imagine what the inlet pressure for the propellant must be😮
Pre-burner pressure should be a lot higher but since the Raptor 3 engine is a much cleaner design. The pre burner pressure should be much closer to the combustion chamber. SpaceX should have designed out the parasitic pressure loss between the pre-burner and combustion chamber.
Is the now higher max chamber pressure indicative of reliability? As in, now that it's capable of higher chamber preassures, they can now run it at lower chamber pressures whilst maintaining performance with less risk of failure?
That’s basically what he means by safety margins, yes.
@Shaw Fujikawa ah! my bad. Must have missed the part he said that. Was busy burning dinner 🤣
@@williamtsmith9668 Another way of increasing your 'Carbon Footprint'. 😆 Also Bear Grylls says a bit of charcoal helps with digestion.
2:55 you would not get far if you measure the pressure in millipascal (mPa), what you mean is megapascal (MPa).
little difference in factor of 1billion (e+9)
Beautiful engine fire
What exactly happens with starship v11?? I see no info about.
For anyone wanting a much longer explanation of rocket engines, please see Mr. Tim Dodd, the Everyday Astronaut.
Which raptor engine was used on the 420 test launch? Report 1 or 2? And what will be on booster 9 for the next test? Raptor 2, i guess.
The recent flight was V2s. 7 out of 33 failed. That's why everyone is wondering if V3s can be ready for next text flight, or if they think they can keep enough V2s running to make stage separation and orbit.
@@paulwilson8367 the thing people seem to forget is that there is more than just the big version changes. Elon has mentioned that what went into B7 was a hodgepodge of the raptors they had around at the time, the newer boosters will get much more up to date and uniform V2s
Wonder what engine component typically fails first. Virtually every part working just short of its extreme edge.
Wow Amazing video guys!!
Given what happened during the first launch, I have to ask: why is the McGregor test stand so tall and the Starship Launch Mount is not?
The bottom of the OLM is as far from the ground as the bottom of the pad at LC-39B is from the bottom of the flame trench. The OLM at Boca Chica IS tall.
@NasaSpaceFlight if the relative increase in each engine can be assumed to have an 18% higher thrust at any given throttle, meaning that the safety margin is also higher, would that mean that starship could make it to orbit using less fuel in its upper stage which in turn would mean that starship would need less in orbit refuel mission AND each fuel tanker could be filled with more fuel? So over all less launches needed to get to the moon and Mars?
Yes, that’s the idea.
That test Engine seems to smooth out after a little bit of deep static sound in the middle of test.
I was wondering, if SpaceX succeeds with the full re-usability and rapid turnaround what do other rocket companies have to offer in the form of competition?
Nothing yet. Rocket design cycle may be about 5-10 years so it will take some more time. Due to spacex pressure ULA retiring Delta IV and Atlas V rockets to be replaced with Vulcan rocket that is under development. European space agency has Ariane 6 rocket under development and previously had plans for it to be launched for several decades, but few years ago announced that the rocket that still under development need be replaced in like 10 years with new because current design can't compete with spacex. China announced several new designs that looks like SpaceX's rockets and also methane engines. But there is nothing close to falcon 9 and starship/superheavy yet.
Yup-SpaceX is leaving all honest competitors in the dust. Only government interference can and will slow them down.
Hey does “more efficient” Raptor 3 mean more thrust per ton of propellant, more thrust per mass or volume of engine, or just more power? Great video, many tanks.
All of that
Curious about versioning on Raptor vs Merlin. The Merlin used the 1D and StarShip will be using Raptor 3. Was Merlin just tweaked and Raptor is getting more of an overhaul between versions?
What material r they using below the exhaust I.e. do they also have a water deluge system there??
I believe it's a steel diverter sort of structure, and yeah, they do have a deluge system for it. It's a super convenient indicator on McGregor Live that it's about to fire!
@Thomas Hayden makes one wonder after tests there that they would of used the same at Boca Chica...only 3x bigger😒
350 bars is absolutely insane that it was successful
Great news on raptor and great video. Keep em coming!
We all know that making the shock diamonds more beautiful is by far the most important thing
In the engineering world, beauty often implies function.
Probably is true in most other worlds.
2:56 You wouldn't measure chamber pressure in millipascals (mPa), but in megapascals (MPa).
do you think chamberpressures can be increased further if they sacrifice more propellant for filmcooling?
Good stuff Jack
And it still honks!! Love it!!
So if they higher in pressure, they need a new tripod test stand or more water?
Is the plume actually different? It looks like it is fuller/wider and a lot more stable.
Great video
I am very worried about the upcoming watercooling/flame trench. I really do not think it will hold up again. Who knows can't wait to see though
The power up and power down is truly beautiful. Just need to know the throttle percentage to see the perfect dynamics of the R3. Thanks NSF for all you do.
- NOM
How this new raptor will affect (or could affect) the Starship payload capacity?
One wrote there is more margin, because 1000 tons instead of 100 would be possible
@@Fannystark007 No, nothing like that. I would guess more like 110 or 120 tons.
That engine explosion made a lot more debris than I was expecting.
I was wondering what the sound level would be in the crew section of starship on liftoff of this rocket? Would the sound level itself be loud enough to kill? I would like to see this data.
So whens the next starship launch? Whats taking so long?
You must be sarcastic! It hasn't even been a month since the first launch! 🙄
They try to get a permit from June 15th on, which is valid until mid December. They already sent the application to FCC
Anyone know what the increase in efficiency is with the greater chamber pressure?
Good update
350 BAR, that's the weight of a 3/4 ton pickup on an area the size of a postage stamp. That's incredible!
should that be a big M in the pascals?
As if the exhaust plume wasn't already long enough at double the length of a full stack. Jeez
I find it interesting - and maybe it's just me - that when the engine reached the plateau on the graph (end of the video), it just sounded "right." When that graph had a couple little wiggles in the plateau, I could hear (or thought I could) that it seemed just a little, wee bit "off," and then it evened out to "right" again. I wonder if that's an actual engineering/physic phenomenon - the "right" sound means it's working well....?
Eh, I'm no rocket scientist, so maybe I'm just being silly... ;-)
you do not need to be one: does your car engine runs smoothly if it coughs? These Raptor engine must be tuned for particular set of parameters (even if you can throttle them).
@@LaF0IRE Ah! Well, cool - it's pretty neat that my "unscientific" thoughts actually have some basis in science ;-) Thanks
Nice. Raptor V3 is simply amazing. "Going where no rocket engine has gone before" ...
That's some insane pressure, and like Elon, I am surprised that it stayed in one piece throughout tests at full pressure.
Theoretically, what is the maximum efficiency a rocket engine can achieve? 99% or 100%? What would the chamber pressure have to be at for the theoretical maximum efficiency?
Nothing is 100% efficient.
The engine can only be 'efficient' based on the fuel and the intended requirement of the payload. I think the hydrogen fueled engines are more efficient than methane, however, they come with all the problems associated with a very light gas (hence orange insulation) and hard to prevent leaks (have to have very good seals).
Marcus House did a very good video on isp 'efficiency' which showed a nuclear rocket engine was the most efficient. But that does have some 'high risk' for humans.
So I think it's more the 'practicality' of what you are trying to achieve that you need to look at. And the most efficient method of doing that, is not necessarily having the most efficient rocket engine. Elon chose methane, because a sabatier process on Mars can convert the air and water into methane and o2 fuel/oxidizer for re-fueling the Starship for it's return to Earth.
I am a hydraulic systems designer and will say 5000psi is crazy high pressure. Especially at the size and lbs per second of fuel those engines are running!