I really appreciate the attention to detail on the SRBs - burning from the inside out. Actually, I just appreciate the attention to detail in general - the engine plumes expanding as the rockets increase in altitude.
@@paffomi5110 the ambient pressure, ie. the atmosphere limits the expansion of exhaust plumes. At sea level where the atmosphere is thicker, the plume meets more pressure so it won't expand as much as it would higher up in the atmosphere
These types of animations are so helpful to gain a better understanding of complex technologies. Imagine how many kids who are visual learners would benefit from stuff like this over a textbook. Thanks for the great work!
I know right ! ? I am amazed when I see something this exceptionally informative. I soooo wish I had this when I was younger, I'd have picked up so many interesting concepts that I found impossible then so much easier with all this outstanding animation.
@@quickrider3855 Why are you here ? ... Not on this TH-cam channel, but on the planet. is it just to try to impress people with your smugness. Well I'm far far far more impressed with the video than with you.
Uhm... you could have went with many things, but the Saturn V could put roughly the same amount of payload in GTO as a Falcon heavy for the same amount of fuel. Where the Falcon shines is its cost as the Saturn V (understandably at the forefront of research) costs many times more for the same payload.
That crackling thunder is my favourite sound, and the random vibration of fittings as if you were in the capsule/cockpit. The comms cap it all off. Brilliantly conceived and executed.
JesterTester69 Animations and Aviation I think it’s fine. Without people showing off what they know there’d be lots in my life I don’t know about :) I’m not brilliant (I failed calculus thrice lmao). Just incredibly curious and find space travel fascinating.
Just wait for Super Heavy. Three of its Raptor engines have about the same thrust as a single F-1. The first one will have 29, later ones will have 32. That's about twice as much thrust as the Saturn V.
@@kirishima638 He's talking about the flame inside the SBRs, not about the exhaust plumes. There is no air pressure inside the boosters, you are correct about the exhaust though.
Errrr.... all the physics are wrong. Space Shuttles don't got from 0-100km/h in 1 second after the engines fire, if you ever watch a shuttle launch they don't move for the first couple of seconds because it has to turn thrust into forward inertia for millions of kilograms of weight. Then when he had engine separation the engines simply fell off the side like they were feathers caught in the wind, ignoring the fact they were providing all the thrust given to the shuttle and the shuttle only has inertia until the secondaries kick in. What really happens is the explosive bolts that hold them on blow and make the engines slowly peel away from the shuttle while moving at relatively the same speed and when the second stage kicks in the shuttle pulls away from the primary engines.
@@christopherjuhasz4204 Of course you're right, but I guess Elopeous meant gas like Americans say gas short for gasoline, petrol and fuel in general. So, since the rocket engines are fueled by LOx and RP1 it is their "gas", figuratively speaking.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +8
Ponzi scheme of lightweight gas cans hauling other lighter gas cans up without RUDing.
It’s one of the things sadly the shuttle program never gets enough credit... for all intents and purposes, the boosters and 3 integral mains lifted 135 tons (maximum) to LEO... there was no reason why another payload (other than a shuttle) couldn’t have been lifted in exactly the same way. Or even a refueling tank devised to launch into orbit in place of the shuttle. Then Dock, and have more than enough fuel for perhaps a mission to the moon? Certainly the 30 ton cargo bay could have held all types of lunar equipment. And with the abundance of fuel available, capable of a “braking” return orbit to earth.
Well no, this shows the massive INefficiency of a rocket based on a hydrogen sustainer engine. Look at the massive tanks the Shuttle and especially SLS have to carry nearly all the way to orbit. Results in massively excessive cost. It's like, maybe, the out and out worst way of getting to space.
If your wondering why the fire from the engines gets wider as it gets higher it’s because there is less pressure from the atmosphere as it gets higher. Since there is less air keeping the fire in a line, it starts to fray outwards.
I wanted to list the events so I felt like it. 0:07 lift off (small) 2:13 Artemis - Space shuttle booster separation. 2:39 Saturn V - falcon heavy booster separation. 3:10 Saturn V scurs separation. 3:14 Saturn V launch abort - falcon heavy engine separation. 3:56 falcon heavy faring separation. 8:02 space shuttle external tank. 8:07: 3 SLS stages. core stage, faring, launch abort. 8:46 Saturn V engine separation. Edit: stay happy.
@@galactic-guy In my understanding adding height won't make it burn for longer, since it burns from the center outward and not from bottom to top What they'll do is make it produce more lift
Amazingly well done! Loved that the fuel levels decreased, it was shown in real-time synced with actual audio, all separations were shown, and even the relative camera angle changed gradually throughout the whole animation!
Black Moon Knight the one on the far left. That specific one was using audio for Apollo 11 the launch that brought astraunauts to the the moon. Also their flight trajectories are completely different the creators just showing how fast they used up fuel. Also the on the far right I don’t think that ones been made yet since it’s the SLS that NASA intends to use to return to the moon.
I considered it as a rough representation of the last parts of the atmosperic gasses forming zephyrs in the vacuum. Basically, the air becomes vacuum, and the remaining gasses become the 'clouds'. That was my take, anyway :)
I bet in 2050 we will still be using old good Soyuz. (If I wrote this in 1990 that it will happen in 2020, nobody would believe it.) Imagine instead that ecologist activists will finally calculate the CO2 mass needed to deliver 1kg to low orbit. I bet in 2050 there will be no manned missions to orbit (automation will progress, robots will be cheaper). I bet in 2050 Hollywood space movies will be even more stupid than today (I expect the plot to be like the self-pity thoughts of child trans-gender captain), so less people will be even interested in space. I bet in 2050 NASA budget will be further cut. I bet in 2050 USA will sanction China and Russia with "toughest sanctions ever" for doing space exploration as it "threatens American interests".
So sick. I’ve always loved space. Born in 86. The early 90s had so many great things going on. Shuttle Missions, Hubble, Mars Rover, Voyager, Manned Mission to mars was being talked about often, the early plans for the ISS, Mir, just amazing! I used to cut out pictures from my National Geographic’s and hang them all over my room. Thought we would be further than we are now. People don’t really seem fascinated by it anymore :/
In theory it's efficient and works very well, but that assumes there's no mechanical malfunctions in the system. And the more boosters you add onto asparagus staging, the more mechanically complex you get, to a point where it wouldn't be safe or reliable anymore due to the number of moving parts.
This does a good job of showing just how much less dense hydrogen (orange) is compared to Kerosene/RP1 (red). It's one of the major considerations when choosing a fuel for a rocket. Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass, but lower energy density (in terms of volume). This means larger tankage. Plus it's cryogenic and a pain in the ass to manage compared to kerosene.
To be fair, saturn was hailing huge payload to the moon. Space shuttle went only to the LEO and FH carried only a car. (its about 1/10 of the mass of the lunar module)
W0Ndr3y to be fair, FH has three launches, the fist beeing the roaster into interplanetary space, the second beeing the Arabsat 6A into GTO (geostationary transfer orbit) and it was 6465 kg, about 14000 lbs for the imperial folks. And the third were 6 USAF satellites + a bunch of cubesats (more or less 2000 kg). And of course recovering all three boosters on the last two launches.
@@W0Ndr3y Indeed. The LEM and CM weren't the only things the Saturn V hauled into orbit. It had to haul the S-IVB, loaded with fuel, up into orbit so that IT could send the rest to the moon. In a comparison like this, you have to consider everything above the S-IB as payload, and that's a lot of fuel weight. Skylab was only launched into LEO and it did so using just the S-IB and S-IVB. It's amazing how exponentially the size of a rocket grows the more weight you add to the payload.
People say hats off to engineers who managed to launch 4 rockets or to the camera man, but I say hats off to scientists and engineers who were able to create absolutely transparent, lightweight, and strong material that can withstand high loads during rocket launches. Also imagine how much dyer that had to use to make different gases and liquids visible to us.
"I say hats off to scientists and engineers who were able to create absolutely transparent, lightweight, and strong material that can withstand high loads during rocket launches." I think I saw something about that in the documentary "Star Trek 4". ;-)
This is art. It's not just the rockets that are "transparent", but we're also listening "through the walls" to the guys talking their way through it, as it happened.
@alxxpspqr well, actually the N-1 takes the title of power, the most powerful thing on the Saturn V was it's engine, the Rocketdyne F-1 engine is the most powerful rocket engine created, each unit produced 1.5M pounds of thrust, that means its first stage, with 5 of those units, delivered 7.5M pounds of thrust, but the N-1's first stage of 30 Kuznetsov NK-15 engines, each delivering 394K pounds of thrust, brings a total of 10.2M pounds of thrust.
@@christopherjuhasz4204 May seem like this at first View as their Manned Programm really isn't to much. However, they are BIG in the unmanned Exploration and Arianespace-from which the European Rockets are-are currently the second largest Commercial Launch Service and used to be Number one until SpaceX got their reusable Rockets going.
I agree! I would love to see how Starship with the currently planned 31 engine Super Heavy compares. An improvement would be to have some number stats alongside each. Us engineers love data.
Berd Berd berd Berd is the word I say Berd Berd Berd Berd is the word Everybody knows that Berd is the word I say ah Berd Berd Berd is the word Berd berd berd Berd is the word
@@benjaminmontenegro3423 SLS is complete failure, starship with falcon heavy with 33 raptors engine in first stage and 2 and 3 engines in starship is complete beast and with that quality and being reusable makes it the best choice I wonder when you have better option why they are investing on saturn v or other rockets. Starship will be launched successfully in a few days after hopefully they can accomplish their goals
And it is also interesting to see that with the exception of the quickly burnedout low velocity SpaceX vehicle, all other engines on both upper stage engines and booster engines for all three of the other vehicles were all Rocketdyne engines running on hydrogen
@@c.g.4392 Well, I think the Falcon heavy is accelerating faster than the others, and that is why it's engine was shut of earlier. The M-Vac engine is actually an extremely powerfull second stage engine, so It's not low velocity.
@@assarstromblad3280 There is no side by side comparison. The Saturn is launching for a trajectory to the moon meaning at the same height it needs to be going much faster. Dragon is going to Orbit, Saturn is going for the moon. As a result the relative burns are kinda irrelevant.
@@KevinRhoads Saturn V launched into a parking orbit and did the Moon transfer one orbit later. It actually launched into a _lower_ orbit than most rockets.
Awesome depiction! ... I hung in there for every minute, and half expected to see a shuttle OMS burn ... very cool demonstration. Blessed to work for the 30 year shuttle program at KSC. Thanks!
@@burggerbig102 size of the tank is one thing, but the density causes the thrust to be much lower (otherwise you'd need combustion chamber with very large volume, in order to push out lots of mass), hence combining efficient hydrolox with inefficient solid boosters to compensate for this lack of thrust.
If you compare the Falcon Heavy to an Delta IV Heavy, which doesnt has those big SRBs, the burn times get closer (FH: 187s, Delta: 328). Still about double the burn time for HydroLox, but a much smaller ratio, than with the SRBs
That would be a hell of a ride! Cool visualization! It's amazing how long the SLS engines are expected to fire. That's a lot of work for an old set of re-furbished rocket engines
Whad do you mean? It shows more like the difference between RP-1 and Hidrogen + really efficente engines. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And it would've been awesome if there was an indication where is the point when the wehicles in orbit. Because Falcon heavy was in orbit quite a while before the other crafts and still was going with them.
@@viktorb2688 I don't mean between craft. I mean between stages on each craft. The initial boost phases require tremendous thrust, but as they get toward the edge of the atmosphere, it turns into more of a sustained burn for delta-v
The video is correct -- the vast majority of shuttle flights used "direct insertion" trajectories which omit the OMS-1 burn. "Standard insertion" trajectories were used early in the program due to uncertainty in SSME performance in flight conditions and later when the required destination orbit would result in the ET impacting over land.
Really neat video of real time flight. A couple of suggestions: 1) It'd been nice to see the rockets turn over the earth as they reached altitude as real rockets don't go straight up, which kinda is implied by the really long cloud flight 2) KM flown for each rocket to show how much farther one over another flew.
@LordGroyper Depends on the engine really. Some engines use ablative cooling for their nozzles and that's what you can see, because some of the nozzle's material gets mixed with the exhaust.
They expand cuz the air pressure outside gets lower relative to the exhaust pressure. That's another reason to use stages, since engine bells are designed with specific curve, which matches some pressure range. FYI, it's bad if exhaust expands to sides, since it is not contributing that energy to rocket's speed
That's probably around forty million pounds of thrust combined. The F-1 engine is an engineering marvel. The Saturn V remains the king of all rockets in my opinion. Cool video 🚀
Could have shown the speed and distance/altitude coverd by each of them. Doesn't feel accurate like this. Other than that. That's some amazing piece of work u have shown.. Kudos
It’s interesting to see the Space Shuttle and the SLS together. It really shows how similar they are and yet how different they are even though SLS is based on Space Shuttle in many ways
You did a great job keeping the ratios of fuel to oxidizer in the tanks right. It looks odd for the fuel tank to be so small on the Saturn V first stage. But this is correct, as the first stage used RP-1, a type of kerosene and a much more energy dense fuel by volume than liquid hydrogen.
Why is this so satisfying to watch? Great work! It'd be great if you could colour the exhaust-plume to match the output mix. Just for aesthetic reasons.
I'd never noticed the nose cone release of rockets before. Seems obvious in retrospect but interesting to see it animated, along with so many other little nice details in this video.
Great idea, but I would have added a grid (or several) in the background so that we could better understand velocities and altitudes (especially when there are no clouds
@@thebeaniestbeanboys5735 if you accidentally tip to the side the exhaust fire thingy can reach up to like 50 meters or less is you saw the sks srb test idk i have no sense of distance
FYI: The Space Shuttle has 2 more engines located on the top back on both sides called "OMS Rocket Motors". The OMSR is used when the main engine is cutoff (a.k.a: when you detach the external fuel tank) thus makes the Space Shuttle's 3 main engines the Rockdyne RS-25 engines a deadweight throughout the whole mission.
Very interesting to see how much tank space the liquid hydrogen needs because of its low density. The rockets would be a lot smaller if it were denser. Amazing animation!
- *Yellow* : Liquid Hydrogen
- *Red* : RP-1 (Kerosene)
- *Blue* : Liquid Oxygen
@Scp 173 Nerva rockets would have only yellow
Thanks!
SpaceX Raptor engines use cryogenic Methane (CH4) not RP-1
The fuel tank should not be red.
*- Sparkles* : Ammonium perchlorate and atomized aluminum powder
@@MichaelClark-uw7ex There were no Raptor engines in this video
This video is the opposite of clickbait. It’s gets rrright into it
It's not really opposite of clickbite. It just have no clickbite.
Opposite of clickbite would make you not click this video.
@@Stasiek_Zabojca It's not really clickbite. The spelling is clickbait.
yes, exactly
Stasiek_Zabojca That whoosh you heard was not a rocket.
Oh come on guys, its a PUN!
STS, SLS and Falcon Heavy: all reach final stage.
Saturn 5: *there is another*
its not called falcon 9 heavy anymore. Its just Falcon Heavy
@@MonsieurDijon Mhm-
@@ScubaShark--8964 what
@@MonsieurDijon you seem like a fun person to be around
@@corkingcoggo8375 I’m sorry how. I literally just corrected him
Hats off to the engineers who managed to launch 4 rockets simultaneously and keep them all level with each other throughout the flight 🚀
Also hats off to the camera operator, filming with the drone.. It's amazing how the drone can keep up with those 4 rockets all the way into space.
Plus making them completely transparent.
😂😂😂
Damn, I'm late to write comment like this!
@@OvermarsGaming 🤣🤣
I really appreciate the attention to detail on the SRBs - burning from the inside out.
Actually, I just appreciate the attention to detail in general - the engine plumes expanding as the rockets increase in altitude.
I did too, I was not aware that was their burn pattern.
Neither. Could someone explain why this is the case
@@topazprism77 I’m talking about how the fire from the exhausts spreads out over time
@@paffomi5110 the ambient pressure, ie. the atmosphere limits the expansion of exhaust plumes. At sea level where the atmosphere is thicker, the plume meets more pressure so it won't expand as much as it would higher up in the atmosphere
@@jimhutcho1083 Ah, that makes sense, thank you
1. Saturn V
Payload:
Apollo 11 Spacecraft (Command module with it's service module, making the CSM)
Lunar Lander/Lunar Module, previously Lunar Excursion Module (Shut up, or I will just say "LM")
Stage 1: 5 F-1 ignition
Stage 2: 5 J-2 ignition
Stage 4B: 1 J-2 ignition
2. Space Transportation System/STS
Payload:
Discovery Orbiter (Unknown Payload)
Stage 1: 3 RS-25, 2 SRB ignition
Stage 2: SRB Separation
Stage 3: External Fuel Tank Release
3. Falcon Heavy
Payload:
Elon Musk's Private Tesla Roadster
Stage 1: 27 Merlin 1D ignition
Stage 2: Side Booster Separation (18 Merlins)
Stage 3: Main Engine Cutoff, Stage Separation, 1 Merlin 1D Vacuum engine ignition.
Stage 4: Fairings Detached
Stage 5: Payload Detached.
4. Space Launch System (SLS)
Payload:
Orion Capsule
Stage 1: 4 RS-25 and 2 SRB ignition.
Stage 2: SRB Separation
Stage 3: 4 RS-25 Cutoff, Stage Separation, 1 RL-10 ignition.
Now that's the type of comment that I enjoy to read
It's just "Lunar Module" LM , the "Excursion" part of the acronym was removed before the moon landings.
What its the top separation on Saturn V at 3:17 ?
@@KyraWS th-cam.com/video/0MaeHNU2660/w-d-xo.html
Abort tower flies away until its useless to reduce mass
@@KyraWS yeah, forgot about that he did.
It would be cool to see the speed and altitude with each one.
Was thinking the same thing.
And duration
Yeah, boring
May be even remaining weight....
So many things could easily be added to this.
These types of animations are so helpful to gain a better understanding of complex technologies. Imagine how many kids who are visual learners would benefit from stuff like this over a textbook. Thanks for the great work!
I know right ! ?
I am amazed when I see something this exceptionally informative. I soooo wish I had this when I was younger, I'd have picked up so many interesting concepts that I found impossible then so much easier with all this outstanding animation.
Right! I've always wanted someone to do this. Lol. BtW electric future? What do u think about LucId Motors stock? Lol
it just shows fuel going down and things moving lol
@@quickrider3855 Why are you here ?
... Not on this TH-cam channel, but on the planet.
is it just to try to impress people with your smugness. Well I'm far far far more impressed with the video than with you.
Visual, Auditory, and Tactile leaners don't exist. The only learning style is practice for experience.
Shoutout to the cameraman for learning how to fly as fast as rockets
Nah, he is far away from the rockets, the angle changes a bit.
it's just a camera with a really good zoom
Seba Contreras nope . The 5th brings camera .
Boeing needs to learn
I think its an animation though
"I need to get off my couch and do something productive during this covid day 62"
Clear rockets?
Ok TH-cam, you win again...
Will Fishing yup
good to know I'm not alone
@CoolNguyenGames videos sit and studyyy
The Saturn is a thirsty boy
Yeah
Heavier material & weaker rockets = more fuel for thrust.
hell yeah but it brought humans to the moon in '69
Uhm... you could have went with many things, but the Saturn V could put roughly the same amount of payload in GTO as a Falcon heavy for the same amount of fuel.
Where the Falcon shines is its cost as the Saturn V (understandably at the forefront of research) costs many times more for the same payload.
Yeah and it still could put more into LEO than the SLS supposedly can (whenever it flies). They don't make them like they used to!
That crackling thunder is my favourite sound, and the random vibration of fittings as if you were in the capsule/cockpit. The comms cap it all off. Brilliantly conceived and executed.
We’ll said
Its sounds familiar from interstellar🌚
well said
I love how this comment section is a happy bunch of space enthusiasts chatting and dreaming about spacetravel.
Well of course! Space exploration brings many brilliant, curious minds together. :)
except that one guy complaining about the clouds
No hatred here
Just wait, the flat earth bible humpers will be along shortly.
JesterTester69 Animations and Aviation I think it’s fine. Without people showing off what they know there’d be lots in my life I don’t know about :)
I’m not brilliant (I failed calculus thrice lmao). Just incredibly curious and find space travel fascinating.
Timestamps
0:07 - Liftoff
2:13 - Space Shuttle & SLS SRB separation
2:39 - Saturn V first stage & Falcon Heavy side booster separation
3:13 - Falcon Heavy core booster separation & Saturn V escape tower jettison
3:57 - Falcon Heavy payload fairing separation
5:10 - Falcon Heavy SECO
7:48 - Space Shuttle & SLS MECO
8:03 - Space Shuttle ET separation & SLS staging/escape tower jettison
8:45 - Saturn V second stage separation
nah, I'm gonna watch it from 0 to end :)
If you don’t have the 9 min to appreciate this, maybe it’s not for you.
@@Fanzindel Not everyone is a rocket scientist; we just want to see the highlights ;-)
Tf is jettison?
@@randomdude9135 that is the top sections separate & ejection from main craft
I been watching rockets videos for years and this is the coolest, most random video i've seen in a very long time.
What did you see a long long time ago?
Lol same
@@hellothere5843 Yeah seriously!
It extremely cool!
General Kenobi!
I wish I was alive to see the Saturn 5 take off.
That thing looks like a beast.
Don't worry, the starship on its booster should prove a treat.
And it will remain a beast
According to legend, the Saturn V was so loud it melted concrete.
Just wait for Super Heavy. Three of its Raptor engines have about the same thrust as a single F-1. The first one will have 29, later ones will have 32. That's about twice as much thrust as the Saturn V.
@@KingdaToro jesus crist that’s a lot of power
Such a great attention to detail. Even the exhaust channel in the solid rocket boosters becomes wider as the fuel burns out.
I almost thought I was imagining it. Really cool detail.
I was watching it thinking "hang on, those Falcon 9 boosters still had fuel in them, why did they drop away so ear....ooooohhh yeah, that's right!"
They don't become wider due to lack of fuel. They become wider due to lack of air pressure at that altitude.
@@kirishima638 He's talking about the flame inside the SBRs, not about the exhaust plumes. There is no air pressure inside the boosters, you are correct about the exhaust though.
Errrr.... all the physics are wrong. Space Shuttles don't got from 0-100km/h in 1 second after the engines fire, if you ever watch a shuttle launch they don't move for the first couple of seconds because it has to turn thrust into forward inertia for millions of kilograms of weight.
Then when he had engine separation the engines simply fell off the side like they were feathers caught in the wind, ignoring the fact they were providing all the thrust given to the shuttle and the shuttle only has inertia until the secondaries kick in. What really happens is the explosive bolts that hold them on blow and make the engines slowly peel away from the shuttle while moving at relatively the same speed and when the second stage kicks in the shuttle pulls away from the primary engines.
Well I don't know why this got recommended to me but I'm glad it did
because it was linked on reddit. google's SEO algorithm is horny for linking.
Probably watch a lot of space videos. I watch a lot of space videos especially SpaceX and rockets so I guess that's why I got the recommendation
TH-cam has a way to find the nerds..I am glad I got this feed today
Same boat. This was great.
Same bro
Thats so cool to see the fuel prgressively drain out.
Gives a sense of how crazy those gas guzzlers are
Elopeous thay actually don’t guzzle gas they use liquid oxygen and RP1 and only the amount that is necessary to get in the desired orbit
@@christopherjuhasz4204 Of course you're right, but I guess Elopeous meant gas like Americans say gas short for gasoline, petrol and fuel in general. So, since the rocket engines are fueled by LOx and RP1 it is their "gas", figuratively speaking.
Ponzi scheme of lightweight gas cans hauling other lighter gas cans up without RUDing.
You definitely right!
@ And when the fuel runs out, the scheme unravels at orbit?
How long do you want to burn?
SLS, STS, F. Heavy: Until we reached our level.
Saturn V: yes.
This isn't even my final stage
ᴄᴏᴘɪᴇᴅ
Falcon Heavy has the payload capability to carry a third stage as well
That's the difference with Saturn V. It was made specifically to get astronauts to the moon
@@randomnerd1988 so is sls
The effiency of the RS-25 engines is unreal... Damn
Да! A truly legendary engine!
Douglas Modesto Too bad it’s a super complicated engine and super expensive to maintain but it is truly a beast
It’s one of the things sadly the shuttle program never gets enough credit... for all intents and purposes, the boosters and 3 integral mains lifted 135 tons (maximum) to LEO... there was no reason why another payload (other than a shuttle) couldn’t have been lifted in exactly the same way. Or even a refueling tank devised to launch into orbit in place of the shuttle. Then Dock, and have more than enough fuel for perhaps a mission to the moon? Certainly the 30 ton cargo bay could have held all types of lunar equipment. And with the abundance of fuel available, capable of a “braking” return orbit to earth.
Well no, this shows the massive INefficiency of a rocket based on a hydrogen sustainer engine. Look at the massive tanks the Shuttle and especially SLS have to carry nearly all the way to orbit. Results in massively excessive cost. It's like, maybe, the out and out worst way of getting to space.
@@NameNotAlreadyTaken2 The fuel costs a lot in relation, but the spaceshuttle was incredible efficient.
If your wondering why the fire from the engines gets wider as it gets higher it’s because there is less pressure from the atmosphere as it gets higher. Since there is less air keeping the fire in a line, it starts to fray outwards.
Yes, we watched Everyday Astronaut as well.
Awesome! Didn't know. Thanks for sharing
Can't trust someone who says "your" when it should be you're....
@@kentholt6016 Italians from 18th century aren't very good at English. But their physics knowledge is OK.
Would that effect the thrust in any way?
And every KSP player is like "wait, my fuel drains much faster than this!" ^_^
If I had 9 minutes of thrust.....
*r/RealSolarSystem is typing...*
Your wife would be happier.
@@cf453 Ouch
That's beacuse KSP fuel and engines are comparatively trash compared to real life engines. Their ISP is atrocious.
I wanted to list the events so I felt like it.
0:07 lift off (small)
2:13 Artemis - Space shuttle booster separation.
2:39 Saturn V - falcon heavy booster separation.
3:10 Saturn V scurs separation.
3:14 Saturn V launch abort - falcon heavy engine separation.
3:56 falcon heavy faring separation.
8:02 space shuttle external tank.
8:07: 3 SLS stages. core stage, faring, launch abort.
8:46 Saturn V engine separation.
Edit: stay happy.
Which is actually wrong for the SLS boosters, they have an extra stack on top. So they last longer…
Well done. Thank you.
@@dithperlay3292 they lift a much heavy er load on SLS
@@LG-ct8tw yes but they still have a longer burn time
@@galactic-guy In my understanding adding height won't make it burn for longer, since it burns from the center outward and not from bottom to top
What they'll do is make it produce more lift
Sort of looks like my inkjet cartridges after printing my thesis.
More like a simple job application. There's just nothing in those cartridges; they run out so quickly.
I laughed more than I thought I could lmao
Hey, looks like someone is flexing...
It's weird to see this comment because right before this video I was watching the "Why ink cartridges are a scam" video.
Lol, wait you used electric blue as a color on your thesis?
I laughed when the fairing came off to show the tesla.
This is the comment I am looking for
Yoooo no spoilers
U spoiled it
Time stamp?
Noticed that immediately as well, too funny.
Great job to creator of this video. 😆
It's very dangerous to fire them so close of each other. Please be careful
😬🚬👍
I edited this
umm its a joke
@@ryxn190 r/woooosh
you are joking right?
Amazingly well done! Loved that the fuel levels decreased, it was shown in real-time synced with actual audio, all separations were shown, and even the relative camera angle changed gradually throughout the whole animation!
*SHOWN IN REAL TIME???*
Reminded yet again that Saturn V was an absolute beast. Way ahead of its time
You can drive a tank to work, it's just not practical. Everyday use you need something comparably tame and lame.
WTF u 2!
Which is the Saturn V
Black Moon Knight the one on the far left. That specific one was using audio for Apollo 11 the launch that brought astraunauts to the the moon. Also their flight trajectories are completely different the creators just showing how fast they used up fuel. Also the on the far right I don’t think that ones been made yet since it’s the SLS that NASA intends to use to return to the moon.
Mgl 1206 Wait you said far left twice lol
Very cool idea!
But i think the clouds are visible for too long..
Dems allota clouds!
Mostly cloudy and we're expecting freezing rain in the ionosphere today...
I considered it as a rough representation of the last parts of the atmosperic gasses forming zephyrs in the vacuum. Basically, the air becomes vacuum, and the remaining gasses become the 'clouds'. That was my take, anyway :)
I don't think the clouds actually represented the clouds but the atmosphere, so the less couldy it gets the less atmosphere there is.
@@MrFreakHeavy shouldn't be atmosphere when the fairing are removed, no ?
Was hoping for that payload in the Falcon heavy
Was just a car with an astronaut suit, and because its electric, doesnt have a fuel tank
It could be a D.O.D. or CIA package...
I still think that inside the spaceman suit was the body of David Bowie. Just propagating this rumour I've created :)
@@Inimbrium I think Jeff Bezos was in the trunk and has been replaced by a docile clone
@@projectmanagement2356 It was the car; you can see it just after the shroud is jettisoned, but it is hidden when the rocket pitches downrange.
Never have I been so interested in watching an hourglass in my life
😄
Imagine: it’s the year 2050 and rocket racing is the new professional sport
I bet in 2050 we will still be using old good Soyuz. (If I wrote this in 1990 that it will happen in 2020, nobody would believe it.) Imagine instead that ecologist activists will finally calculate the CO2 mass needed to deliver 1kg to low orbit. I bet in 2050 there will be no manned missions to orbit (automation will progress, robots will be cheaper). I bet in 2050 Hollywood space movies will be even more stupid than today (I expect the plot to be like the self-pity thoughts of child trans-gender captain), so less people will be even interested in space. I bet in 2050 NASA budget will be further cut. I bet in 2050 USA will sanction China and Russia with "toughest sanctions ever" for doing space exploration as it "threatens American interests".
i bet spcex and nasa would be better than soyuz because of their recent achievements they would be more noticed than soyuz
Thats actually a sport in the TV Show, Eureka.
@@skolazdola4854 Damn u depressed or something?
@@skolazdola4854 no, Crew Dragon will finally be the new American Spaceship to get to Space.
The men who designed these incredible pieces of engineering were so brilliant. Legends
@Secret Sauce sketchy like Nazi Germany and their Wunderwaffen program, right?
Let me tell you a secret son. The space race wasn't much different.
Your right
Von Braun!!!!!!!!
And women.
@@alalalala57 Women can do many things but they don't design and build rockets.
I have my final exams in 2,5 weeks and I'm sitting here watching clear rockets, instead of learning.
Gotta love TH-cam
hold my laptop..
today i do my final exam until next week
@Mister_ GrizzLee >>> *PRIORITIES!*
😜😜😜😜
How did you do?
@@1korbaton I passed them all =))))))
@@mister_grizzlee5105 >>> 👍👍
So sick. I’ve always loved space. Born in 86. The early 90s had so many great things going on. Shuttle Missions, Hubble, Mars Rover, Voyager, Manned Mission to mars was being talked about often, the early plans for the ISS, Mir, just amazing! I used to cut out pictures from my National Geographic’s and hang them all over my room. Thought we would be further than we are now. People don’t really seem fascinated by it anymore :/
I was transfixed to this video for straight 5 mins without distracted, amazing
What happend during the other 4 minutes? Had you been distracted by your mom?) The video is 9 minutes 12 seconds long actually )
All the Kerbal Space Program fans like - y'all need more asparagus staging.
Yeah, they do
The plumbing for that gets messy irl.
I did really think that asparagus staging was real... it sounded making sense to me.
@Zoldyk Nope, actually Elon Musk decided not to put it on the Falcon Heavy =/
In theory it's efficient and works very well, but that assumes there's no mechanical malfunctions in the system. And the more boosters you add onto asparagus staging, the more mechanically complex you get, to a point where it wouldn't be safe or reliable anymore due to the number of moving parts.
Love how you included the roadster on the Falcon Heavy :D
Noticed that too. It's a nice touch
I cant see it
@@Phdintheory 3:59 you can see it on top of the second stage as it passes over clouds
Just noticed that. LOL!
That was great! For a moment when it happened I wondered what the hell it was, then I looked closer and had to laugh
This does a good job of showing just how much less dense hydrogen (orange) is compared to Kerosene/RP1 (red). It's one of the major considerations when choosing a fuel for a rocket. Hydrogen has more energy per unit mass, but lower energy density (in terms of volume). This means larger tankage. Plus it's cryogenic and a pain in the ass to manage compared to kerosene.
I really like how you added the detail of the underexpansion of the exhaust
5:20 I love how everybody is just chillin
and Saturn V is like: FIRE!!!
Gotta get to the moon
To be fair, saturn was hailing huge payload to the moon. Space shuttle went only to the LEO and FH carried only a car. (its about 1/10 of the mass of the lunar module)
funny comment.
W0Ndr3y to be fair, FH has three launches, the fist beeing the roaster into interplanetary space, the second beeing the Arabsat 6A into GTO (geostationary transfer orbit) and it was 6465 kg, about 14000 lbs for the imperial folks. And the third were 6 USAF satellites + a bunch of cubesats (more or less 2000 kg). And of course recovering all three boosters on the last two launches.
@@W0Ndr3y Indeed. The LEM and CM weren't the only things the Saturn V hauled into orbit. It had to haul the S-IVB, loaded with fuel, up into orbit so that IT could send the rest to the moon. In a comparison like this, you have to consider everything above the S-IB as payload, and that's a lot of fuel weight.
Skylab was only launched into LEO and it did so using just the S-IB and S-IVB. It's amazing how exponentially the size of a rocket grows the more weight you add to the payload.
This is one of the neatest and most satisfying rocket related videos I've ever seen!!! Thank you!!!
People say hats off to engineers who managed to launch 4 rockets or to the camera man, but I say hats off to scientists and engineers who were able to create absolutely transparent, lightweight, and strong material that can withstand high loads during rocket launches. Also imagine how much dyer that had to use to make different gases and liquids visible to us.
"I say hats off to scientists and engineers who were able to create absolutely transparent, lightweight, and strong material that can withstand high loads during rocket launches."
I think I saw something about that in the documentary "Star Trek 4". ;-)
@@maxfan1591
When Scotty thought the computer mouse was a microphone! 😄
This is art. It's not just the rockets that are "transparent", but we're also listening "through the walls" to the guys talking their way through it, as it happened.
🙄
Man, the SLS sure carries that heavy escape tower for a looong time before jettisoning it.
That's what I thought! Is that confirmed as part of their launch profile for the SLS?
Wonder how many of those Towers' are in the Ocean!?! Or Do They parachute and Retrieve Them !?!
Is it usable up until then?
Andrew Andrew I
I was curious about that too, especially after SRB separation
This really shows off the fact that 90% of the rocket never leaves the atmosphere
¿a dónde querías llegar?
@@Ciervasedienta a ver a tu hermana
Except the space shuttle. By comparison to the others, it puts a lot more into orbit (at least measure by volume).
Elongates Muskrat : Lemme introduce Starship
@@therealartboy *T-D-F-W* 0_o
Man.. nasa back in the day really pulled a miracle. Saturn V is still amazing
The Saturn V was such a brutal, awe-inspiring muscle-rocket. Efficiency goes out the door in place of a bigger rocket motor. :)
@alxxpspqr Most Powerful yes, Fastest will be Juno probe, If you read into it you might not agree.
@@andrewfoot4610 Apollo is the fastest manned vehicle ever constructed, though, with Apollo 10 holding the record at just a hair under 40,000 km/h.
@alxxpspqr fastest doesn't really mean much in space. The Saturn V was definitely the most capable of putting massive amounts of stuff in orbit.
@alxxpspqr well, actually the N-1 takes the title of power, the most powerful thing on the Saturn V was it's engine, the Rocketdyne F-1 engine is the most powerful rocket engine created, each unit produced 1.5M pounds of thrust, that means its first stage, with 5 of those units, delivered 7.5M pounds of thrust, but the N-1's first stage of 30 Kuznetsov NK-15 engines, each delivering 394K pounds of thrust, brings a total of 10.2M pounds of thrust.
Steven Francis well if we get into technicalities, N1 never actually did anything besides blow up. In my eyes, it really wasn’t capable of anything.
You should make one titled “If The Government Were Transparent”
Not enough broadband to depict the volume of money being burned through every second.
There would be nothing to see inside😂😂
Only difference is those tanks would be filled with money and the fuel would be spraying in every direction and the fuselage tumbling out of control
As opposed to what, corporations? Hu-lo.
I don't need my (Hungarian) government to be transparent. I would be satisfied even if they got launched to the space.
Do more of these. I'd love to see various ESA, or even pre ESA European rockets as well.
Do some of the classified launches then just blur them out. :D
Ha ESA is a joke
@@christopherjuhasz4204 at least they're contributing something to space exploration unlike you...
@@christopherjuhasz4204 May seem like this at first View as their Manned Programm really isn't to much. However, they are BIG in the unmanned Exploration and Arianespace-from which the European Rockets are-are currently the second largest Commercial Launch Service and used to be Number one until SpaceX got their reusable Rockets going.
I agree! I would love to see how Starship with the currently planned 31 engine Super Heavy compares. An improvement would be to have some number stats alongside each. Us engineers love data.
STS, SLS and falcon heavy reach final stage...
Saturn V : "THIS ISNT EVEN MY FINAL FORM!"
in parallel universe youtube:
"if rockets weren't transparent"
@Sfs rocket lab hello fellow SFS player
underrated comment
And we live on it :(
@Sfs rocket lab huzza a man of quallity
2 them this is just the average rocket
That simple title, and that simple thumbnail.
Made me watch this elaborate video 👍✔️
This is beyond a level of brilliance that most people ever even imagine.the berd in me salutes the nerd in you.
Berd Berd berd
Berd is the word
I say Berd Berd Berd
Berd is the word
Everybody knows that Berd is the word
I say ah
Berd
Berd
Berd is the word
Berd berd berd
Berd is the word
The berd in you?
@@ArchangelExile "He's just a sweet transvestite"
“We need more “berd”-singns, quick, we’re running out of “berd”-sings”
@@markcarr5142 Suuuuuuuuurrffiiing Beeeerrdddd. Bababa oo...
I always thought they were just empty helium balloons that just floated up to space. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Please tell me you’re joking
Listening to an Apollo launch still sends chills. Takes me back to when I was a wide-eyed kid. There’s just nothing that beats those Saturn V’s.
Wait for it...
wait for the SLS and the Starship
@@benjaminmontenegro3423 SLS is complete failure, starship with falcon heavy with 33 raptors engine in first stage and 2 and 3 engines in starship is complete beast and with that quality and being reusable makes it the best choice I wonder when you have better option why they are investing on saturn v or other rockets. Starship will be launched successfully in a few days after hopefully they can accomplish their goals
@@Saeid415 aged like milk
@@MasterCheeks-2552 lmao
Would be great if there was some telemetry for each rocket as well.
I was hoping for the same thing. Altitude and speed at least. Was a great video either way.
@@TheJimtanker exactly what i was thinking otherwise people would think they would just be going the same speed lol
Know that they now we like it, maybe we'll be treated to something more involved in the future? 🤞🙏
@@iCore7Gaming I get the point but I don't think anybody actually thinks that..
@@bofud people will think that, meco will hapen at diferent altitudes and speeds for all 4 of the rockets but this animation dous not account for that
Amazing that the Saturn 5 was many, many years ahead of its time.
And it is also interesting to see that with the exception of the quickly burnedout low velocity SpaceX vehicle, all other engines on both upper stage engines and booster engines for all three of the other vehicles were all Rocketdyne engines running on hydrogen
@@c.g.4392 Well, I think the Falcon heavy is accelerating faster than the others, and that is why it's engine was shut of earlier. The M-Vac engine is actually an extremely powerfull second stage engine, so It's not low velocity.
The Saturn V was an incredible rocket but each launching did cost 1 billion dollars.
@@assarstromblad3280 There is no side by side comparison. The Saturn is launching for a trajectory to the moon meaning at the same height it needs to be going much faster. Dragon is going to Orbit, Saturn is going for the moon. As a result the relative burns are kinda irrelevant.
@@KevinRhoads Saturn V launched into a parking orbit and did the Moon transfer one orbit later. It actually launched into a _lower_ orbit than most rockets.
Awesome depiction! ... I hung in there for every minute, and half expected to see a shuttle OMS burn ... very cool demonstration. Blessed to work for the 30 year shuttle program at KSC. Thanks!
3:17
I really like the detail in the Falcon 9 second stage's nozzle. As they say, "glowing red".
Which one is falcon?
The third one
@@thedark8057 ah, thanks👍🏼
another detail: flame gas is spreading
isn't that the falcon heavy?
Wow, that RP-1 sure goes quick compared to the HydroLox
Thats hydrolox's big advantage, much higher ISP
@@RandomCommentDue but takes a lot of space which requires a bigger tank
@@burggerbig102 size of the tank is one thing, but the density causes the thrust to be much lower (otherwise you'd need combustion chamber with very large volume, in order to push out lots of mass), hence combining efficient hydrolox with inefficient solid boosters to compensate for this lack of thrust.
If you compare the Falcon Heavy to an Delta IV Heavy, which doesnt has those big SRBs, the burn times get closer (FH: 187s, Delta: 328). Still about double the burn time for HydroLox, but a much smaller ratio, than with the SRBs
Lower thrust and bigger tanks (meaning more dead mass to drag along). There's a reason no one else is bothering with hydrolox anymore.
Finally TH-cam algorithm is recommending sensible videos.
That would be a hell of a ride! Cool visualization! It's amazing how long the SLS engines are expected to fire. That's a lot of work for an old set of re-furbished rocket engines
Oh, it's so good to hear audio from DanSteph's Sounds mod from Orbiter Space Simulator in the background.
I have a new appreciation for the beautiful strangeness of the shuttle's design
Starneness? I don't know that word.
It's really beautiful!
The flawed aspect of the shuttle design was the prone/vulnerable lower position of the orbiter on the launch vehicle.
This really highlights how “getting up” and “going fast” have vastly different fuel burn characteristics.
Whad do you mean? It shows more like the difference between RP-1 and Hidrogen + really efficente engines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it would've been awesome if there was an indication where is the point when the wehicles in orbit. Because Falcon heavy was in orbit quite a while before the other crafts and still was going with them.
@@viktorb2688 I don't mean between craft. I mean between stages on each craft. The initial boost phases require tremendous thrust, but as they get toward the edge of the atmosphere, it turns into more of a sustained burn for delta-v
No accident, No overtaking, no racing. Smooth and balanced. Nice😀
Love the Tesla Roadster on top of the Falcon Heavy
WICH ONE WAS THE FALCON HEAVY ?
Daniel __ it really is, isn’t it? Good eye! Watching from my phone, I wouldn’t of noticed it.
Joe Delpaso 2nd rocket from the right.
Daniel __ Hah! Didn't notice that. Good eye.
Had to peek who mention🤦♀️
The fact that the shuttle didn’t do its OMS burn triggered me greatly
OMS was often not required to reach orbit though.
Alexander it would be preformed so that the ET could be dropped into the atmosphere.
I think the OMS burn happens later during the flight, when it's close enough from its apoapsis.
The video is correct -- the vast majority of shuttle flights used "direct insertion" trajectories which omit the OMS-1 burn. "Standard insertion" trajectories were used early in the program due to uncertainty in SSME performance in flight conditions and later when the required destination orbit would result in the ET impacting over land.
Nominal MECO, OMS1 not required.
Really neat video of real time flight. A couple of suggestions:
1) It'd been nice to see the rockets turn over the earth as they reached altitude as real rockets don't go straight up, which kinda is implied by the really long cloud flight
2) KM flown for each rocket to show how much farther one over another flew.
Out of the many years of watching TH-cam vids, THIS has got to be one of the top coolest that I have ever seen.
That kind of fuel consumption is NOTHING compared to a modern Volkswagen car.
You don't know of what you're talking
@@Iknowhowbadthisnameis8828 clearly you don't have sence of humour.
@@harisk4151 that humor sucks...
@@harisk4151 if the name gacha wasnt a red flan what is one?
@@harisk4151 Was this a joke? Can you explain me the joke? It's completely nonsense to me.
I love how the rocket plumes(?) expands as they reach upper atmosphere
plumes is correct
I agree.
@LordGroyper Depends on the engine really. Some engines use ablative cooling for their nozzles and that's what you can see, because some of the nozzle's material gets mixed with the exhaust.
They expand cuz the air pressure outside gets lower relative to the exhaust pressure. That's another reason to use stages, since engine bells are designed with specific curve, which matches some pressure range. FYI, it's bad if exhaust expands to sides, since it is not contributing that energy to rocket's speed
@LordGroyper Well yes, but it isn't always invisible, that's what I was trying to say.
love the added comms touch.
That's probably around forty million pounds of thrust combined. The F-1 engine is an engineering marvel. The Saturn V remains the king of all rockets in my opinion. Cool video 🚀
Could have shown the speed and distance/altitude coverd by each of them. Doesn't feel accurate like this. Other than that. That's some amazing piece of work u have shown.. Kudos
Yeah, the falcon second stage just looks like it isn't doing anything, when in reality it just got there in a lot less time.
i thought this as well, adding speed and altitude would add a lot to the differences between the systems
Possibly if there's another overlay showing the location/speed it might help
ya invisible rockets are just not accurate enough
@@joshs7408 you guys are fkin nerds ....hesus
It’s interesting to see the Space Shuttle and the SLS together. It really shows how similar they are and yet how different they are even though SLS is based on Space Shuttle in many ways
I'm gonna need Scott manleys soothing explanation as to what's going on here..... nice vid tho
You did a great job keeping the ratios of fuel to oxidizer in the tanks right. It looks odd for the fuel tank to be so small on the Saturn V first stage. But this is correct, as the first stage used RP-1, a type of kerosene and a much more energy dense fuel by volume than liquid hydrogen.
If we are doing future rockets that arent fully built yet like the SLS, I would love to see a New Glenn and a Starship alongside these ships.
SLS is built, it just hasn't been stacked fully.
this is amazing!
I also love how they all have a randomized path like animation and don't just stand there. feels so good!!
Why is this so satisfying to watch?
Great work! It'd be great if you could colour the exhaust-plume to match the output mix. Just for aesthetic reasons.
I'd never noticed the nose cone release of rockets before. Seems obvious in retrospect but interesting to see it animated, along with so many other little nice details in this video.
This is a fantastic animation!! :D
Orange: Liquid Hydrogen
Red: RP-1
Blue: Liquid Oxygen
Hotel: Trivago
Pubg: glitch
Napstars Senpai thx always wanted to know what they use
Its yellow
You colorblind m8? It’s yellow not orange
What if I said it's yellowish orange
Lol
That was great.
I thought I would watch for 30 seconds - I watched the whole thing.
Haha same
Speed and Altitude statuses above each launch is what I'd like as an additional spoiled watcher of others peoples hard work :) Nice video.
I was thinking the same thing.
That would bread on da butter
Hazegrayart: Wait i've forget to turn infinite fuel off
@@farwesh_deen yep
Finally, other sfs players
(Laughs in Sfs)
sfs is budjet ksp
@@electronium6378 Well yes, but actually yes
Great idea, but I would have added a grid (or several) in the background so that we could better understand velocities and altitudes (especially when there are no clouds
They don't pitch over in the animation. It wouldn't make much sense and would mislead a ton of people.
Yeah literally th-cam.com/video/tw6LvIxo_MY/w-d-xo.html
*The rockets aren’t social distancing.*
Zo there rockets not humans butttt it is funny LOL
@Snoepie koekie r/ihadastroke
@@alanmaclaren4118 r/redditmoment
Those rorkets are like 50 feet apart yes they are
@@thebeaniestbeanboys5735 if you accidentally tip to the side the exhaust fire thingy can reach up to like 50 meters or less is you saw the sks srb test idk i have no sense of distance
This is cool AF my dude.. So interesting, never woulda thought to make this vid.
I love that you can see the Roadster on top of Falcon Heavy after fairing separation!
And it's spinning around. A very realistic simulation, I'd say. 😂
I never had my iPad vibrating that much. The sound makes my fingers tickle
Finally my dream came truee...
Now i'm watchingg all the four Rocket Launchings at a time..😎😍
I was always impressed with the on board cameras that captured and saved video tape on the Saturn 5 considering 1969 technology
FYI: The Space Shuttle has 2 more engines located on the top back on both sides called "OMS Rocket Motors".
The OMSR is used when the main engine is cutoff (a.k.a: when you detach the external fuel tank) thus makes the Space Shuttle's 3 main engines the Rockdyne RS-25 engines a deadweight throughout the whole mission.
One of the cleverest,most informative,and just plain cool things I have seen. Thank you for posting
Very interesting to see how much tank space the liquid hydrogen needs because of its low density. The rockets would be a lot smaller if it were denser.
Amazing animation!
When Starship flies, i hope you'll make an updated video. Absolutely exceptional animation.
I'll just put this here