How Does the Raptor Rocket Engine Work?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Understanding How the Raptor Rocket Engine Works!
The Terran Space Academy walks you through the design and components of the amazing full-flow staged combustion Raptor rocket engine!
You can find out more about additive manufacturing here!
www.additivema...
/ addmfgmedia
Extra Credit: arc.aiaa.org/d...
Shop the Academy store at...
shop.spreadshi...
Please help support our channel at...
/ terranspaceacademy
Thank you so much for watching!
Ad Astra Pro Terra
Artists
/ c_bass3d
/ labpadre
/ neopork85
/ hazegrayart
/ alexsvanart
/ _fragomatik_
/ nickhenning3d
/ rgvaerialphotos
Companies
/ nasa
/ spacex
www.cochranex.com
/ blueorigin
/ space_ryde
/ virgingalactic
/ relativityspace
/ addmfgmedia
/ neutronstarsys
Music Credits
Lost Frontier by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. creativecommon...
Source: incompetech.com...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Everyday Astronaut level explanation but instead of an hour it took you 11 minutes.
Thank you so much Rex!
Almost Eager Space level huh
I can't believe the quality of your content, you and CSI definitely are best in deep analysis, thanks
You are most welcome my friend.
This is super epic! Never even seen a video quite like this for any engine. They would usually be still shots or still camera video, but this one moves all about and really gives you a sense of what's happening
Thank you Red! We are very glad you like it :-)
Thank you for the concise explanation.
You are most welcome Chad!
Good thing I was sitting down while viewing this episode on the workings of the raptor rocket engine cause my head is still spinning trying to keep up with the flow. 🤣
Sorry Steven :-) A lot to cover!
Hey Doc. Complex 3D models, my Achilles Heel. It’s why I perused CT & MR as a technologist and not Radiological Assistant. (Well that and preforming BEs😧🤣). This ability resides in the artistic side of the brain, which, in my case, never developed. Mainly because the nerd gene stuffed the artsy gene into its locker and it couldn’t free itself. So I married one instead. Sadly, I’m an Earth sign and she a water sign, together we made mud. (Rodney Dangerfield “ Back to School”) Ah well, it’s why folks like me are graced by folks like you. Thx for all the hard work!
You are most welcome and don't give up on that right hemisphere! Somewhere in there is a frustrated artist trying to free himself :-)
Thank you for the detailed explanation!
Greetings,
Anthony
You are most welcome Anthony!
Concise and well done...the path the cold fuel takes reminds me of the air warming " stoves" on old cars that had carburetors...just more complex.
Indeed! I'm proud you know that. I took my 1982 Jeep to a mechanic and he said "we can't do carburetors man" :-)
Great job!
Thank you! Cheers!
thanks for the explanation! i just saw IFT-3 in person, so i really wanted to find out how the raptors worked. thanks a ton!
What an experience!
Awesome video
Thanks!
WHAT AN AMAZING VIDEO SHOWING THIS AMAZING BEAUTIFUL WORK OF 🎨 🖼 🎭 ART THE WILL SEND HUMANS TO THE 🌟 🌟 STARS
It is amazing! :-)
Your voice sounds much clearer. New mic? Sounds great!
Also, great video!
Thank you!!
animation and explanation OnPoint! 🚀. animation software used? Blender/Maya? Houdini? Adobe After Effects?
Cyberlink ProDirector :-)
Great Show Explained Well Thanks - surprising how small some of transfer tubing is - Very dialed in
Glad it was helpful and thank you!
How does Raptor 2 (or 3) differ from the now defunct Raptor 1 described in this video?
Simplified piping systems. They looks VASTLY different considering everything. R1 was probably pretty raw version in itself where they were very much still figuring out best ways to operate it (specifically how to start it), which lead to complex piping of gasses. R2 also uses [redacted] ignitor, where R1 used spark. R2 also uses electric TVC which also removed some of the piping.
R3, no much info yet, aside better performance numbers.
Redacted = infrared laser we thing :-)
@@terranspaceacademy Yeah, I just try to speculate as little as possible.
Happy I discovered your channel just by accident. You have the most professional approach and analysis of StarShip and rocketry in general. This video was very informative. I confess, I'm glad I don't have to take a pop quiz on what I just watched. As I am not an engineer, I would need to watch this flow a number of times. I can only compare it to the turbojet engines I flew. But it was a fun exposure to the tech. I'm sure the Chinese and Blue Origin are watching with great interest!
What is your Vegas bet on the number of Raptors that will run without incident to staging on the next test flight?
Thank you so much Paul! We really appreciate that. My bet would be Starship to transorbital success on the next launch with no more than two engines failing in the entire flight.
@@terranspaceacademy Ha! Ok, putting you down for 2!
Hope you continue these great videos.
A little off topic but I wonder if you might weigh in on something. When I look at that cargo bay door of Starship, I have to wonder if the SpaceX engineers ever considered a vertical payload door opposed to the current horizontal door. You have to wonder just how much structural reinforcement has to be added to carry that stress load around that huge door. If the stresses collapse that door opening by even a fraction during launch, that door may not open or close. The thing is, I've never seen a Starship with an operating payload door tested in the can crusher or the max Q test rig. If I were to design it, I would attempt a vertical door as it is much easier to carry that stress load. The big takeaway would be if they could deploy the Starlinks in a vertical position or not. In my mind, I picture a multilevel dispenser similar to the old slide projector carousels. Preliminarily, I think you might actually dispense more satellites in this configuration if the mechanics work out.
Payload section and the can crusher are being prepped for testing at this time, I believe.
@@citizenblue I look forward to seeing that. That payload door takes up a lot of horizontal real estate. I got to see how that tests out.
@@PC-nf3no While I'm sure Elon has a good reason, I have wondered why they need that wide payload door when they could eject them through a much smaller opening using the much shorter ends of the satellites.
@@jameswilson5165 I'm sure they had meetings and the best proposal won. Space X doesn't always choose correctly the first time, as we have seen. But that is what "iteration" is about. Currently, Starlinks would be deployed 2 at a time per satellite level, each level descends as the previous level is deployed. The position of the satellites at each level form a flat square. If they used a smaller door, they would only be able to deploy half as many of the same levels. I'm sure the is a small group of engineers responsible for this task. I'd love to work on that.
That's an interesting idea...I remember the old slide carousels. That might avoid a lot of the stress. I wonder if it should have opened like the mouth of the "Canadian" characters on South Park :-)
Beautiful and nerdy 🙂🤓
Thank you 😁
Great video, however, if they need to use Stage 0 to do the initial startup how do they restart the engines on the boost back and landing burn?
I misspoke... I was talking about the restartable six vacuum engines on the Starship and had a stroke apparently, applying the plan to the booster.
Perhaps they capture some pressure from the chamber and use it to spool the pumps back up??
Staged combustion engines are very unforgiving. The stress placed on the components, from the turbopumps to the combustion chamber leave little room for error. The metallurgy has to be impeccable. Time will tell how much re-usability Spacex can get out of the Raptor. Your basic gas generator has already proved itself (Merlin-1D). Too bad they are not evolving it to burn methane instead of RP1. Thanks for another informative video.
You are most welcome Tariq! Rocket Lab will perform that comparison for us as the Neutron rocket using the Archimedes engine is exactly as your describe (though it's an oxygen rich preburner now, it was going to be pure gas generator but they decided they needed the extra efficiency).
Where do you make these animations?
I merge and combine them from several sources. Hisdirtremoves is the artist that created the turbopump internals.
JFK!! When will we see another?
We will not see his kind again I fear...
Are you happy to see the starship switch to hot staging? I does provide more possibly for starship to get off a doomed booster
I think it is a good move for may reasons. It will improve performance as you don't lose deltaV slowing down from MECO. It's also the only way to abort Starship if necessary....
Have you considered sls instead of starship at the beginning? Just curious.
Showing the SLS launch? I was able to put a Virgin Galactic Spaceship Two in... I bet I could. Just for you next lesson :-)
@terranspaceacademy ok. Which video opening was that again with Virginia galactic spaceship 2 in? It's been a while for me.
Yes yes, just as I thought 😂
Indeed! :-)
I see that this is far too complex to offer up as a subject to improve upon. Complexity adds danger and failure statistics increase. I have a simpler idea, it's been done but why not go with hydraulic pumps for the fuel pressure and feed? I know that this has been done with another rocket that uses less fuel but it would be more efficient I think. I would like to know the power of such a hydraulic pump and what the pressure and fuel rate is . Was it Electron Rocket that used a pump? I hope it was not a turbine pump. I need a pump that can go over 16,000 psi , over 1000 bar.
The speed of the pump can be a problem though if you look up the XCor Lynx you will see they used a piston type pump on their rocket engine.
Great video, as usual. For me too much detail too fast. I assume your assumption is we already know what you are describing. I still taking in the detail of the first cutaway. More arrows to show which bit you are describing. There are many bits in what was circled. Please play it again slower for dummies like me. Regards Sam
I understand Sam. We try to balance going slow against making the video too long :-) We'll do better next time.
The Chemical rocket engine is coming close to the point of the old engineer saying about over polishing that apple 🍎 to the core, not much room left for advancements with this technology, compared to the first raptor it even looks a little bit core-ish.
Very true... with new paradigm shifting technology on the horizon.
One thing I'm curious about is the economics of the Falcon 9 and starship compared to the competition, how much cheaper is it when you factor everything in. I know SpaceX is bleeding money with Starship, and Starlink is far from making a profit. I hope they don't go bankrupt. That may be a real possibility if starship takes too long or if they have too many failures
It is indeed. That's why I thought they were a little cavalier about the launch pad problems. I think they should have waited and got the thing to reentry.
@@terranspaceacademy with them planning another launch for in August I'm apprehensive about the concrete not being fully cured. If they keep rushing things they'll defeat themselves.
They're making a killing on the f9 launches, since they're practically the only game in town for Europe and North America. 1.5 million starlink customers paying 100 bucks a month isn't bad either
@@dmurray2978 $150 million is a healthy revenue stream but depending on overhead and satelite replenishment that could be just enough to break even.
@@rexmann1984 yep it probably won't be profitable for a few years yet, but it certainly won't bankrupt them. I think Elon said starship has cost about 5 billion so far which isn't a lot compared to most other programs
Are you taking notes China? 😅
They knew all this when they got their Soviet rocket engines :-) Full flow staged combustion was pioneered in the old USSR.
Answer: "Not very well."
Bezos? That you?
i wonder why it “failed” on the first flight of said engine surrounded by many others, something, and environment, that had not been tested (or been able to be)previously
They used very "old" engines instead of the latest as they were throwing them away. May have been a bad move.
That depends on perspective. Much better than the BE-4 so far :-)