Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Follow the link for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.com/felix Happy New Year, everyone! 🎉 We’re kicking off the new year with something truly special-an exciting project we’ve been pouring our hearts into for the past three months. This marks the beginning of a bold new video format for WAI, and we can’t wait to share it with you! But we need your help to make it even better. Your feedback is absolutely invaluable. Let us know what you loved, what could be improved, and how this format resonates with you. Your voice matters, and we’re all ears! Thank you so much for your support-you’re the reason we get to create and share these stories. You’re amazing, and we appreciate you more than words can say. 💙 Now, without further ado, here’s The Raptor Story!
im not sure what is capable of producing more hot exhaust gas, a raptor 3, or this you tube video, this isnt exactly a data driven accurate bit of you tube content is it now?
Will this mean less space news videos (for example, one informational and one space news video a week instead of the two space news videos a week we have now), or will it mean an increase in video release ? Either way I really enjoyed this new format, it was nice to learn so many things and I'd love to see more. Edit : I created this yt channel just to subscribe to you-- don't worry about losing a subscriber 😉
Would be great if you could always show the compared stats on the screen. I had a really hard time comparing Raptor 1 and 2 as their stats weren't on the screen at the same time. I know you are talking about the improvements in stats, but following along is easier when the stats are visible (at least for me). By the time you we're talking about Raptor 2 I had already forgotten the stats of Raptor 1 😅
Thank you! IF this is accepted by the audience, and RUclips doesn't saboutage it, we'll make more. There's a problem with the RUclips algorithm. It judges a video by how the core audience likes it. If everyone watches WAI for "news" and doesn't like or expect this kind of content, the algorithm won't share it to others. So... we'll see. I'd love to make more of this for sure!
Except that its bullshit - the engines have put NOTHING into orbit, not even LEO. Musk keeps walking down the thrust, as Thundef00t has shown on film. Put them in a smaller rocket, and they may do well.
Felix, you are leveling up! This video is an example of some of the great content you've been producing lately. The way you break things down and keep it interesting is awesome. Keep it up!
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yes, he's great and deep. However, his videos are often long-form (1 hr). I like this shorter video, a perfect balance of tons of information, made approachable, without taking a whole hour. I also appreciate the more regular updates. CSI Starbase also has some of these deep dives, but again, the length is a commitment. We're lucky to have all these great creators, though... no complaints! :)
you can bet a year's salary Bruno was completely gobsmacked when he learned it was the complete engine. Never underestimate an autistic genius on a mission!
I remember that day on X when Elon put up the picture of Raptor 3 and that idiot at ULA made his post that its missing many components then hours later the video of it firing came out, making them all eat their socks. Best day ever and i was hoping it would keep their mouths shut for a long while, which it has so far.
Tory Bruno is no idiot but it was said in poor taste. The thing that tends to hold people back from innovating is their inability to think outside the box OR have people under you doing that. This was probably the kick up the butt the industry needed for them to actually put some effort into innovation.
Disclaimer: Tory Bruno blocked me on X for calling him out. Tory Bruno is no idiot. He was ill prepared for such an evolutionary leap in engine technology. I guarantee he's not quiet on it because of feeling stupid, he'll be working with suppliers to get caught up because the cost difference between an engine from Blue Origin would be FAR more expensive than a Raptor, and the engines are the most expensive part on a rocket.
Staged combustion cycles are nothing new. There are many rocket engines that use this cycle. The space shuttle itself, for example, used this cycle. The problem with staged combustion cycles is that they place significantly higher loads on the engine components. After use, such engines must be completely dismantled and meticulously checked using ultrasound and X-ray methods. A quick reuse of such engines is therefore not possible. Even more stupid is the use of dozens of engines instead of a few large ones. The more parts, the more can go wrong. The probability of an engine failing remains roughly the same, whether it is small or large. The number of engines, on the other hand, increases the probability of failure. It is much easier to use many small engines than a few large ones, which is exactly what the USSR did.
@@sylviarohge4204 Jus t one little, HUGE problem: if you have 5 engines, an engine out reduces thrust by 20% immediately. With 30 engines you only lose 3-4 percent thrust if an engine fails
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 The bigger problem is not the reduction in performance but a mechanical failure. The mechanical failure of an engine often has explosive consequences.
~5:00 There are no explosions in those engines. It's all combustion, an explosion would be an detonation. coincidently that is what rotary detonation engines are doing and they get some more efficiency and performance from it.
It's pretty irritating. Propagates ignorance too. So many people talk about rockets being controlled explosions all the way to space. If you have an explosion, you are not going to space today.
2:33 Every time you say raptor I don’t think of the prehistoric creature rather, this is what I think of. It’s nice to see it actually in a video after all this time.
Fun fact: the Ford F-150 Raptor began production in 2010 with the 2011 model year. Not to dissimilar to SpaceX’s first generation raptor beginning development in 2009 (2011 according to this video).
Raptor's successor, LEET(1337) will have even more thrust; it will make Mars missions possible. Not much info on that engine though, although it's already in early development phase. Possib ly, this engine will be able to be combined with a nuclear engine, using the same engine bells. Knowing Musk this is something he will try to integrate to save weight.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 it's more about birds of prey than the Velociraptors/Dinos (ground raptors): The term raptor is derived from the Latin word rapio, meaning "to seize or take by force". The common names for various birds of prey are based on structure, but many of the traditional names do not reflect the evolutionary relationships between the groups Rapio = To joink (present infinitive rapere, perfect active rapuī, supine raptum); third conjugation iō-variant to snatch, grab, carry off, abduct, steal
This was an excellent overview of a tricky and complex topic, and I think the way you presented it was a great balance of simpler descriptions and just enough technical detail to give this geek lots to ponder and dig into further. You've also not just stated but shown directly what approach SpaceX is using for design (and more importantly, iteration and improvement) of this engine. I had forgotten the stated goals for thrust and specific impulse - definitely shows they have a way to go. Definitely like this format, it was really well done. It will make a great addition to the regular updates many of us have come to depend on twice a week. :D
This is what I keep thinking about ever since I saw that thing. They have made such huge strides far beyond what I ever thought was possible. And I have to assume they aren't even done. What is next can they keep going......I can't wait to find out.
Love the video, but I gotta correct you on 1 issue. The hydrogen used as fuel is not a single atom, hydrogen is one of the 7 diatomic molecules. So when talking about hydrogen it is H2 (2 atoms bound together). Still a very small molecule though!
And technically speaking hydrogen atoms aren't the smallest; it's a bit counterintuitive, but helium atoms actually take up less volume. Hydrogen has the lowest mass, though.
Yes. Liquid hydrogen is deeply weird stuff for many reasons (Heisenberg's Nobel -- Einstein nominated him for it -- was for explaining hydrogen's thermal properties), and rather hazardous to handle. The biggest problem for its use in rockets however, is that it is very light, as in very non-dense ( > 13 liters per kilogram), and a "deep" cryogen, meaning it will condense air directly. Liquid methane's hydrogen density is considerably higher than liquid hydrogen's! So hydrogen/LOX engines need huge (heavy) insulated (heavier) tanks to store hydrogen, and big turbopumps to get sufficient quantities into a combustion chamber. So they have terrible thrust/weight ratios, and make lousy booster engines.
@@Diapolo10 And helium causes just as many problems... just ask the Starliner engineers, but they're far from the only ones having difficulty with helium valves...
Describing the combustion process in a rocket engine as "an explosion" is misleading and technically incorrect: rocket fuel combustion is almost always deflagration (subsonic combustion) that isn't considered "an explosion" by most experts. A combustible material exploding is technically understood to be detonation (super-sonic combustion) and there are no current rocket engines that use a constant detonation to propel rockets. NASA (and others) are researching RDE rocket engines that use a constant detonation to produce much more force than current deflagration engines - but practical implementations are (at best) years away.
I should have added that this is an incredibly dumped down and possibly incorrect way of explaining it. You’re right, but I chose this actively as talking about sub sonic combustion wave fronts wasn’t the goal of this video. For that you need to watch Scott Manley. The point is that even though I explained it this way, it doesn’t mean that I don’t know this. I did similar things many times during this video. The result was that many finally understood. That is my goal. Not teaching someone who already knows, like you. ❤️
Maybe a RDE reocket engine is just a couple iterations down the line for raptor. That could push the engine over those 30s of SI. I just looked it up and methane-air mixtures can be detonated.
"There are two types of ‘combustion explosions’, that is, deflagrations and detonations. Deflagration propagates with a velocity below the speed of sound in the mixture." so explosion is correct, it is just a subsonic explosion (Deflagration vs Detonation)
Felix, this video was really GREAT! We all get tired of all the same content on all the other channels, even rerunning old info. This was fantastic! Any other videos going into the nutts and bolts would really be a game changer. They don’t have to be Huge things. Simply going into unknown details of processes. Great Job!
I LOVE this video. Yes, Starship (and other) updates should still be most of your content, but the occasional deep-dive or explainer video would be excellent!
@@Whataboutit yes, fantastic video. Thanks. Long time lurker. If you are open to a suggestion, a video on what a minimum viable settlement on mars would look like would be really cool. Meaning, what bits and pieces would be needed for a large camp, or small exploration station? A boring tbm, some power plants, hab modules, a few cybertrucks. But, what else? And how is it most logically put together, based on real world engineering principles? Your breakdowns of starbase build up are great, so it’s probably perfectly in your wheelhouse!
The Russians were long using full-flow staged combustion engines, but for military purposes. The original bi-propellants were highly toxic, and so the potentially crewed ship designs avoided their use in booster stages. Oddly enough, toxic propellants are used within both the SpaceX and Boeing crewed capsules, and our Lunar Lander. Perhaps that's the main reason why pressurized suits are used.
Excellent explanation. I love this level of detail; you hit it exactly right. And 3D metal printing! Love it! More of these please, when you get the time.
There have been full flow engines used successfully in flight. The Molniya used them in the 60's, the N1 also used them. Atlas III and V used full flow engines too. The Raptor engine is the first time an American company is able to successfully design a full flow engine.
Full flow staged combustion and the Raptor was the first to fly. Molniya used the 108 which was an open cycle, the N1 used the Nk 15 staged combustion engine.
You're incorrect. The Soviets had many staged-combustion engines and the Americans have built a few too (RS-25), but Raptor is the first full-flow staged-combustion engine to fly.
Russia has several closed-cycle rocket engines, including: NK-33 A high-pressure, oxygen-rich engine that closed the cycle of exhausts from the pre-burner into the combustion chamber. This design created a balance that produced high efficiency and power. The NK-33 was stored in a Russian warehouse for decades until American engineers realized its value after the Soviet Union collapsed. S1.5400 A closed-cycle oxygen-rich engine that flew on the first interplanetary probe to Venus in 1961. The S1.5400 was ahead of its time for a keralox engine and became the basis for many other rocket engines. RD-180 A dual-combustion chamber, dual-nozzle engine that uses a kerosene (RP-1)/liquid oxygen (LOX) propellant combination. Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance (ULA) have used the RD-180 in their rockets. A closed-cycle engine recycles exhaust back into the system instead of wasting it. This can provide efficiency advantages, but an issue with one engine can cause an explosive chain reaction in the other engines
NK-33 was, in fact, a failure in terms of reliability, and partially the cause behind the failure of the Soviet Moon program. Aerojet stopped using those after a failure on the Antares LV. Also, neither the USSR nor modern Russian Federation have developed a methane fueled engine.
@@xandervk2371 ... Does your "requisite knowledge" include the fact that up until very recently, American rockets used the cheaper, more efficient Russian RD-180 rocket engines, and that they were closed cycle as well? Look it up.
@selectedvideos6180 It's a staged combustion (as an expert, you know it's not the same as closed cycle) engine, fueled by kerosene. I don't see a connection between your remark and the subject at hand.
Not just that. Also mass production was hardly touched. Want a 60 minute video? I chose these aspects as they seemed most important to explain the bigger picture.
Thank you! Yes, it does! It shows that our quality control needs to be even stricter, which is insane. We watched this thing about 20 times with 5 people before releasing it.
Yea had the same question however you also seen it and got a direct answer. So by making the engine somewhat lighter, it needs 1 ton more of mass to the rocket and every kilo counts what you bring up. But has that something to do that with the swith from the raptor 1 to 2 engine, no heatshield was needed anymore for the engines because of the much slimmer size and less complex engines. So on the one end more commodity weight but minus a heatshield. Don't know how heavy it was because 33 tons of extra commodities is much. And at the end there is an extreme fine balance from how heavy the rocket is at the beginning, how much cargo can be put in LEO. Every kilo to space like ISS has an enormous cost. But how much effort goes in the balance of making the rocket as light as it can but structurally strong enough for the job. How much safety margin do you add? Plane wings go to 150% of max possible stress inflight. But they carry passengers. A cargo rocket can be more optimal. But again, every extra heat tile and layer add weight what you can't bring in as cargo. So how do you calculate the optimal minimum structural weight so you can put max amount of cargo.
00:30 "If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?" -TheR@TheEOTheU. 8-)
As much as I've watched other videos on how rocket engines work (including Tim Dodd's full breakdown of Raptor) this video simplified things and made me understand it better. Nice work!
The 350s of specific impulse for Raptor 3 is for the sea level version. The vacuum version has 380s and higher thrust then 280 tons though as far as I know SpaceX did not reveal the exact numbers for RVac thrust for Raptor 3.
@michalfaraday8135 Thrust = Mass Flow Rate × Exhaust Velocity. Exhaust Velocity = ISP × 9.8. So from there I found the Mass Flow Rate of the Sea Level Raptor and plugged it into the RVac. Hope this helps
Felix, you have one of the very best spaceflight channels on the web. Great work, and keep it going! (Off topic comment: Your language skills are truly remarkable!)
10:13 it is not the first rocket engine to use the staged combustion cycle successfully. This concept was developed and used way earlier by the russians. The US used it later in the Atlas rockets and the space shuttle. It is not that revolutionary but go on an keep simping for your god-king-redeemer Elon.
15:53 That Tory Bruno quote is priceless. That entire company is whistling past the graveyard. I met a ULA engineer a couple of years ago, and he was thoroughly dismissive of SpaceX. I wonder if he's working on his resume these days.
Hey dude. I'm a former armaments engineer. Let's don't be talking about explosions and rockets in the normal operating course. Explosion generally implies a detonation event as opposed to a combustion event. Combustion, is what rocket engines do as they deflagrate the fuel and oxidizer in a continuous, millisecond time-scale, chemical reaction stream of events. Detonation events are what explosives, such as TNT and C4, typically undergo and are very rapid, microsecond scale, chemical reaction events. So in proper operation, gun and rocket propellants deflagrate, while in proper operation, bombs, grenades, and high explosive shells detonate. Initiated properly explosives are said to have functioned "high order", while improper initiation can result in an explosive "low order" or less destructive deflagration event.
Wow - love the new intro! Had to stop the video after the first 35 seconds just to leave a note. Can't wait to see if there are any other fancy changes... Keep up the great work!
Reusable 🚀 rockets 🚀 were thought nearly impossible before SpaceX, in a short time they revolutionized rocket engines, rockets and space travel. Truly Amazing!
"There are two types of ‘combustion explosions’, that is, deflagrations and detonations. Deflagration propagates with a velocity below the speed of sound in the mixture." They are both explosions
Companies need to take social media away from CEO's. Can you imagine being ULA, a company rapidly falling behind in the industry, and your CEO makes such a bold statement publicly only to be wrong. That has to hurt confidence of employees and investors when your leader can't even believe the competitors product is even real. I think there was a lot of trash talking from Boeing years ago about SpaceX's human transportation program vs Boeing's. Then again, Elon also has should not be on social media for all the wild claims he makes.
CEO's are in charge of the companies though so it's like you trying to enforce rules you've made up on your boss. It's not going to work out because they make the rules. Every company is a tiny kingdom.
Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Follow the link for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.com/felix
Happy New Year, everyone! 🎉
We’re kicking off the new year with something truly special-an exciting project we’ve been pouring our hearts into for the past three months. This marks the beginning of a bold new video format for WAI, and we can’t wait to share it with you!
But we need your help to make it even better. Your feedback is absolutely invaluable. Let us know what you loved, what could be improved, and how this format resonates with you. Your voice matters, and we’re all ears!
Thank you so much for your support-you’re the reason we get to create and share these stories. You’re amazing, and we appreciate you more than words can say. 💙
Now, without further ado, here’s The Raptor Story!
SpaceX updated their Website with flight 7 data. (just incase you guys didnt notice😅)
im not sure what is capable of producing more hot exhaust gas, a raptor 3, or this you tube video, this isnt exactly a data driven accurate bit of you tube content is it now?
Will this mean less space news videos (for example, one informational and one space news video a week instead of the two space news videos a week we have now), or will it mean an increase in video release ? Either way I really enjoyed this new format, it was nice to learn so many things and I'd love to see more.
Edit : I created this yt channel just to subscribe to you-- don't worry about losing a subscriber 😉
Would be great if you could always show the compared stats on the screen. I had a really hard time comparing Raptor 1 and 2 as their stats weren't on the screen at the same time. I know you are talking about the improvements in stats, but following along is easier when the stats are visible (at least for me). By the time you we're talking about Raptor 2 I had already forgotten the stats of Raptor 1 😅
@guywithoutintro4211…i am the same… keeping the stats is easier if they are shown on-screen, compared.
Raptor four is just gonna be a block of thin steel that creates thrust through intimidating physics
🤣🤣🤣
TUBE.
I reckon V4 will look similar to V3, maybe a little larger plumbing wise to get the additional cooling needed to increase thrust over V3.
Do you mean the physics will be intimidating, or do you mean the engine will intimidate physics? 😁
@@odysseusrex5908it will explode and melt
Quite possibly the best video you’ve ever made. Well done Felix!
Thank you! IF this is accepted by the audience, and RUclips doesn't saboutage it, we'll make more. There's a problem with the RUclips algorithm. It judges a video by how the core audience likes it. If everyone watches WAI for "news" and doesn't like or expect this kind of content, the algorithm won't share it to others. So... we'll see. I'd love to make more of this for sure!
@@Whataboutit Maybe you could do them on a second channel if the algorithm gods are against you? Thats what Tim Dodd did for his podcast episodes.
I 1up this
Except that its bullshit - the engines have put NOTHING into orbit, not even LEO. Musk keeps walking down the thrust, as Thundef00t has shown on film. Put them in a smaller rocket, and they may do well.
This is the kind of content what your regular viewers would love to see on top of the spacex updates
Felix, you are leveling up! This video is an example of some of the great content you've been producing lately. The way you break things down and keep it interesting is awesome. Keep it up!
Thank you very much! I really appreciate it! 😊
For informational documentaries, Everyday Astronaut is an excellent channel. His episode on Russian engines is phenomenal.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 Yes, he's great and deep. However, his videos are often long-form (1 hr). I like this shorter video, a perfect balance of tons of information, made approachable, without taking a whole hour. I also appreciate the more regular updates. CSI Starbase also has some of these deep dives, but again, the length is a commitment. We're lucky to have all these great creators, though... no complaints! :)
@KenPaulsen13 Yeah CSI also very good, even more detailed than EA. But even less frequent and it's been awhile since he posted.
Nice video
Have to say, Raptor 3 is a truly astonishing work of art. I'm not in the least surprised that Bruno couldn't believe what he was looking at.
It's like the difference between a smartphone and a rotary phone.
i do wonder if those comments by Bruno were his own, or something discussed internally at an engineering team meeting about V3.
"Where's the rat's nest?" It is mind-boggling that the engineers managed to stuff all of that inside the case.
I mean, when you're staring at an existential crises you do tend to deny it's happening at first.
Would be really cool to watch a fireside chat with Elon and Tory discussing rocket engines.
The quote from ULA is epic!
you can bet a year's salary Bruno was completely gobsmacked when he learned it was the complete engine. Never underestimate an autistic genius on a mission!
I would love to have an audio recording of his statement.
I also wonder how many times this comment is thrown back in his face during "discussions".
@@GntlTch an audio recording?, he posted it on X and yeah it's definitely been thrown in his face a lot
I remember that day on X when Elon put up the picture of Raptor 3 and that idiot at ULA made his post that its missing many components then hours later the video of it firing came out, making them all eat their socks. Best day ever and i was hoping it would keep their mouths shut for a long while, which it has so far.
Tory Bruno is no idiot but it was said in poor taste. The thing that tends to hold people back from innovating is their inability to think outside the box OR have people under you doing that. This was probably the kick up the butt the industry needed for them to actually put some effort into innovation.
@@OneIdeaTooMany Definition of idiot is a foolish or stupid person... That first part (foolish) fits him 1000%
I still remember Gwynne Shotwell's comment, along with the video - "Runs rather well for being only partially assembled, doesn't it?"
Disclaimer: Tory Bruno blocked me on X for calling him out.
Tory Bruno is no idiot. He was ill prepared for such an evolutionary leap in engine technology. I guarantee he's not quiet on it because of feeling stupid, he'll be working with suppliers to get caught up because the cost difference between an engine from Blue Origin would be FAR more expensive than a Raptor, and the engines are the most expensive part on a rocket.
@@MistahHeffo A sign of class would have been to go public and acknowledging his mistake. Owning up to your mistakes isn't in style, apparently.
Incredible design. When the competition is awestruck, you know the design is ground breaking.
It's nearly magic how they've managed to internalize all those components.
The competition wasn't just awestruck, they didn't even know what they were looking at.
Staged combustion cycles are nothing new.
There are many rocket engines that use this cycle.
The space shuttle itself, for example, used this cycle.
The problem with staged combustion cycles is that they place significantly higher loads on the engine components.
After use, such engines must be completely dismantled and meticulously checked using ultrasound and X-ray methods.
A quick reuse of such engines is therefore not possible.
Even more stupid is the use of dozens of engines instead of a few large ones.
The more parts, the more can go wrong.
The probability of an engine failing remains roughly the same, whether it is small or large.
The number of engines, on the other hand, increases the probability of failure.
It is much easier to use many small engines than a few large ones, which is exactly what the USSR did.
@@sylviarohge4204 Jus t one little, HUGE problem: if you have 5 engines, an engine out reduces thrust by 20% immediately. With 30 engines you only lose 3-4 percent thrust if an engine fails
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334
The bigger problem is not the reduction in performance but a mechanical failure.
The mechanical failure of an engine often has explosive consequences.
Thanks!
🙏
~5:00 There are no explosions in those engines. It's all combustion, an explosion would be an detonation. coincidently that is what rotary detonation engines are doing and they get some more efficiency and performance from it.
Exactly! He goes on and on about explosions when none are happening.
Yeap...that. Two completely different physical phenomena.
It's pretty irritating. Propagates ignorance too. So many people talk about rockets being controlled explosions all the way to space. If you have an explosion, you are not going to space today.
The word that should be used is conflagration, which is subsonic. An explosion is supersonic, and thus, you get a shock wave.
@@johnd.7792 Explosion can be sub or super sonic. Sub its deflagrations, super its a detonation.
As a famous space engineer (Montgomery Scott) said "The more you overbuild the plumbin, the easier it is tobstop up the drain" !!!
🖖
Can someone explain that to a non-native speaker? "plumbin" is plumbing I guess, but the rest?
Should have been “To stop up the drain.”
The meaning was that the more complicated or precisely engineered something is the easier it is to break.
@@JustMe-dc6ks Ah! Thanks
It's a star trek reference
In the movie the search for spock
Was going to comment, but the comments already have me covered - so I'll just say thank you, I really enjoyed this video.
I'm still waiting for an Epstein Drive.
Epstein fr ruined the name.
Better a Shaw-Fujikawa engine
Can't wait for the Diddy Drive. Probably need lots of baby oil to run 😅😂
The Epstein drive didn't self-destruct!
Expanse gang
2:33 Every time you say raptor I don’t think of the prehistoric creature rather, this is what I think of. It’s nice to see it actually in a video after all this time.
Fun fact: the Ford F-150 Raptor began production in 2010 with the 2011 model year. Not to dissimilar to SpaceX’s first generation raptor beginning development in 2009 (2011 according to this video).
Raptor's successor, LEET(1337) will have even more thrust; it will make Mars missions possible. Not much info on that engine though, although it's already in early development phase. Possib ly, this engine will be able to be combined with a nuclear engine, using the same engine bells. Knowing Musk this is something he will try to integrate to save weight.
I believe it, like merlin and kestrel, was named after the bird.
@@therichieboy Well, proto-bird. Raptor comes from Velociraptor, the famous dino from Jurassic Park.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 it's more about birds of prey than the Velociraptors/Dinos (ground raptors): The term raptor is derived from the Latin word rapio, meaning "to seize or take by force". The common names for various birds of prey are based on structure, but many of the traditional names do not reflect the evolutionary relationships between the groups
Rapio = To joink (present infinitive rapere, perfect active rapuī, supine raptum); third conjugation iō-variant
to snatch, grab, carry off, abduct, steal
2:56 I was really hoping you'd say "A fully reusable super heavy lift rocket capable of delivering a banana to orbit"
Same
By those same measures the SLS is a super heavy lift rocket capable of lifting 3 dummies to lunar orbit
Haha me too 😂
"We choose to get a banana to orbit in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"
@@qerku_5640 and by reusable you mean its melting and exploding capability? And by orbi you mean sub orbit because they have not even made orbit once
This was an excellent overview of a tricky and complex topic, and I think the way you presented it was a great balance of simpler descriptions and just enough technical detail to give this geek lots to ponder and dig into further. You've also not just stated but shown directly what approach SpaceX is using for design (and more importantly, iteration and improvement) of this engine. I had forgotten the stated goals for thrust and specific impulse - definitely shows they have a way to go.
Definitely like this format, it was really well done. It will make a great addition to the regular updates many of us have come to depend on twice a week. :D
I got to say that this video was one of your most informative videos. Really worth it!!
Omg, this video is actually about the Raptor 3. Nice change of pace.
I really really loved the explanation in the first half of the video! Way more informative than other videos
I really enjoyed this presentation, Felix. YOU ROCK.
People that works in an industrial setting should see this video, even if they don't care about rockets.
Why?
"the best part is no part" This engine certainly reflects that philosophy. And they aren't done yet.
This is what I keep thinking about ever since I saw that thing. They have made such huge strides far beyond what I ever thought was possible. And I have to assume they aren't even done. What is next can they keep going......I can't wait to find out.
The best engine is no engine.
@@matiashamalainen7965 LOL! It'll never fly!
@@surferdude4487 the best fly is to not fly
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 OK, let's all just hold hands and wish real hard. That ought to get us to Mars.
Love the video, but I gotta correct you on 1 issue. The hydrogen used as fuel is not a single atom, hydrogen is one of the 7 diatomic molecules. So when talking about hydrogen it is H2 (2 atoms bound together). Still a very small molecule though!
Yep, you are absolutely right, I should have been more precise.
And technically speaking hydrogen atoms aren't the smallest; it's a bit counterintuitive, but helium atoms actually take up less volume. Hydrogen has the lowest mass, though.
@@Diapolo10 lol - show off 😜
Yes. Liquid hydrogen is deeply weird stuff for many reasons (Heisenberg's Nobel -- Einstein nominated him for it -- was for explaining hydrogen's thermal properties), and rather hazardous to handle. The biggest problem for its use in rockets however, is that it is very light, as in very non-dense ( > 13 liters per kilogram), and a "deep" cryogen, meaning it will condense air directly. Liquid methane's hydrogen density is considerably higher than liquid hydrogen's! So hydrogen/LOX engines need huge (heavy) insulated (heavier) tanks to store hydrogen, and big turbopumps to get sufficient quantities into a combustion chamber. So they have terrible thrust/weight ratios, and make lousy booster engines.
@@Diapolo10 And helium causes just as many problems... just ask the Starliner engineers, but they're far from the only ones having difficulty with helium valves...
Describing the combustion process in a rocket engine as "an explosion" is misleading and technically incorrect: rocket fuel combustion is almost always deflagration (subsonic combustion) that isn't considered "an explosion" by most experts. A combustible material exploding is technically understood to be detonation (super-sonic combustion) and there are no current rocket engines that use a constant detonation to propel rockets. NASA (and others) are researching RDE rocket engines that use a constant detonation to produce much more force than current deflagration engines - but practical implementations are (at best) years away.
I should have added that this is an incredibly dumped down and possibly incorrect way of explaining it. You’re right, but I chose this actively as talking about sub sonic combustion wave fronts wasn’t the goal of this video. For that you need to watch Scott Manley. The point is that even though I explained it this way, it doesn’t mean that I don’t know this. I did similar things many times during this video. The result was that many finally understood. That is my goal. Not teaching someone who already knows, like you. ❤️
Maybe a RDE reocket engine is just a couple iterations down the line for raptor. That could push the engine over those 30s of SI.
I just looked it up and methane-air mixtures can be detonated.
"There are two types of ‘combustion explosions’, that is, deflagrations and detonations. Deflagration propagates with a velocity below the speed of sound in the mixture." so explosion is correct, it is just a subsonic explosion (Deflagration vs Detonation)
Felix, this video was really GREAT! We all get tired of all the same content on all the other channels, even rerunning old info. This was fantastic! Any other videos going into the nutts and bolts would really be a game changer. They don’t have to be Huge things. Simply going into unknown details of processes.
Great Job!
I would have thought most subscribers to this channel have already watched Tim Dodd's rather in-depth videos on the subject.
@@cacogenicist until I ready these comments I hadn't heard of Tim Dodd
Wow, this was one of the best videos I have seen that describes the Raptor. Thank you Felix and team.
Thank you for going over this in simple terms . Very cool
Great video - great information and energetic presentation. 👍
I LOVE this video. Yes, Starship (and other) updates should still be most of your content, but the occasional deep-dive or explainer video would be excellent!
Your production quality keeps going up and its inspireing
Thank you!!!
one of your best video's. thank you Alex.
I appreciate it! 😊
Amazing video! A wonderful explanation of a complex thing!
Very nice, we want more of this kind of video!
We're working on it! 🥳
@@Whataboutit yes, fantastic video. Thanks. Long time lurker. If you are open to a suggestion, a video on what a minimum viable settlement on mars would look like would be really cool. Meaning, what bits and pieces would be needed for a large camp, or small exploration station? A boring tbm, some power plants, hab modules, a few cybertrucks. But, what else? And how is it most logically put together, based on real world engineering principles? Your breakdowns of starbase build up are great, so it’s probably perfectly in your wheelhouse!
Well done Felix, this video was very fun to watch and very informative. I love your jokes and sillyness in between, never stop doing that!
Sorry Felix - the first closed cycle jet engine to fly were very late in the CCCP space program.
rocket engine not jet also the raptor is full flow staged combustion not closed cycle
The Russians were long using full-flow staged combustion engines, but for military purposes.
The original bi-propellants were highly toxic, and so the potentially crewed ship designs avoided their use in booster stages.
Oddly enough, toxic propellants are used within both the SpaceX and Boeing crewed capsules, and our Lunar Lander. Perhaps that's the main reason why pressurized suits are used.
This is a great explanation for both the layman and enthusiast, good job Felix.🙂
Excellent explanation. I love this level of detail; you hit it exactly right. And 3D metal printing! Love it! More of these please, when you get the time.
Much more like your old content, well done
Terima kasih.
This rivals one of Tim's deep dives on Raptor. Great job Felix!
NO.
It does not
Absolutely loved this Felix. Mesmerising stuff mate 😊
Best video of the year! Haha, get it? I love this type of videos, they're incredibly interesting! Keep up with the amazing work, Felix! 🚀🔥
wow no more bloopers. nice job, really love this channel. no.1 fan here in the Philippines!!!
Thank you! ❤️
There have been full flow engines used successfully in flight. The Molniya used them in the 60's, the N1 also used them. Atlas III and V used full flow engines too.
The Raptor engine is the first time an American company is able to successfully design a full flow engine.
Full flow staged combustion and the Raptor was the first to fly. Molniya used the 108 which was an open cycle, the N1 used the Nk 15 staged combustion engine.
You're incorrect. The Soviets had many staged-combustion engines and the Americans have built a few too (RS-25), but Raptor is the first full-flow staged-combustion engine to fly.
Still a bit of a miss to not mention previous examples which the Raptor is building on.
@@simongeard4824 RD-180 is a full-flow staged-combustion engine
Some of the best content of all things SpaceX found anywhere! Thank you!
Happy New Year to you and your team Felix ! And of course for everyone ! 😀
Happy New Year!!!
Great vid, Felix... a fantastic option to get newbies sucked into this obsession.
Great video almost felt like watching Mustard
17:33 whoa did anyone else see those crazy compression artifacts on that video? It kooks like space and time itself are warping
Happy New Year!
Russia has several closed-cycle rocket engines, including:
NK-33
A high-pressure, oxygen-rich engine that closed the cycle of exhausts from the pre-burner into the combustion chamber. This design created a balance that produced high efficiency and power. The NK-33 was stored in a Russian warehouse for decades until American engineers realized its value after the Soviet Union collapsed.
S1.5400
A closed-cycle oxygen-rich engine that flew on the first interplanetary probe to Venus in 1961. The S1.5400 was ahead of its time for a keralox engine and became the basis for many other rocket engines.
RD-180
A dual-combustion chamber, dual-nozzle engine that uses a kerosene (RP-1)/liquid oxygen (LOX) propellant combination. Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance (ULA) have used the RD-180 in their rockets.
A closed-cycle engine recycles exhaust back into the system instead of wasting it. This can provide efficiency advantages, but an issue with one engine can cause an explosive chain reaction in the other engines
NK-33 was, in fact, a failure in terms of reliability, and partially the cause behind the failure of the Soviet Moon program. Aerojet stopped using those after a failure on the Antares LV. Also, neither the USSR nor modern Russian Federation have developed a methane fueled engine.
@@xandervk2371 what a copium BS.
@Noname_NoID Most certainly on your part. Blame yourself for being oblivious to the requisite knowledge on the subject.
@@xandervk2371 ... Does your "requisite knowledge" include the fact that up until very recently, American rockets used the cheaper, more efficient Russian RD-180 rocket engines, and that they were closed cycle as well? Look it up.
@selectedvideos6180 It's a staged combustion (as an expert, you know it's not the same as closed cycle) engine, fueled by kerosene. I don't see a connection between your remark and the subject at hand.
A lovely, clear and (most importantly) accessible explanation, Felix. Thank you 🙂
Ah! Endlich mal guter Content heute. 😘
More videos like this one please!
You left out two other insane Raptor design requirements: deep throttle and in-flight restart capability.
Not just that. Also mass production was hardly touched. Want a 60 minute video? I chose these aspects as they seemed most important to explain the bigger picture.
"Want a 60 minute video ? " ....um yes please...
This is pure brilliance, Felix. Truly one of your finest creations!
I hope ULA's CEO is here learning a few things...
ULA's motto: Why make our own engines when we can just buy other people's stuff?
Hope Elon sees this, champ...
Excellent video! Thank you. Well Done.
At 15:30 you might have accidentally switched the "with commodities" mass for raptor 1 and 2. Hope this helps.
Thank you! Yes, it does! It shows that our quality control needs to be even stricter, which is insane. We watched this thing about 20 times with 5 people before releasing it.
@ it’s ok I’ve been watching you since 2019 and it has definitely improved from then. Keep up the good work!
Yea had the same question however you also seen it and got a direct answer. So by making the engine somewhat lighter, it needs 1 ton more of mass to the rocket and every kilo counts what you bring up. But has that something to do that with the swith from the raptor 1 to 2 engine, no heatshield was needed anymore for the engines because of the much slimmer size and less complex engines. So on the one end more commodity weight but minus a heatshield.
Don't know how heavy it was because 33 tons of extra commodities is much. And at the end there is an extreme fine balance from how heavy the rocket is at the beginning, how much cargo can be put in LEO. Every kilo to space like ISS has an enormous cost. But how much effort goes in the balance of making the rocket as light as it can but structurally strong enough for the job. How much safety margin do you add? Plane wings go to 150% of max possible stress inflight. But they carry passengers. A cargo rocket can be more optimal. But again, every extra heat tile and layer add weight what you can't bring in as cargo. So how do you calculate the optimal minimum structural weight so you can put max amount of cargo.
Felix, I’ve been watching your channel since almost the beginning. I think this is your best video yet. Keep it up and more of this format please :)
I appreciate it. 🙏
00:30 "If you've done six impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?" -TheR@TheEOTheU. 8-)
Writing this reply from Tesla's Big Bang Burger Chef.
@@jimbstars it promises a great show
As much as I've watched other videos on how rocket engines work (including Tim Dodd's full breakdown of Raptor) this video simplified things and made me understand it better. Nice work!
The 350s of specific impulse for Raptor 3 is for the sea level version. The vacuum version has 380s and higher thrust then 280 tons though as far as I know SpaceX did not reveal the exact numbers for RVac thrust for Raptor 3.
I'll get you the Thrust. Gimme a sec
RVacs produce at least 323t of Thrust compared to the Sea Level variants 280t
@@snakevenom4954 Impressive. Thanks for the info.
@michalfaraday8135 Thrust = Mass Flow Rate × Exhaust Velocity.
Exhaust Velocity = ISP × 9.8.
So from there I found the Mass Flow Rate of the Sea Level Raptor and plugged it into the RVac. Hope this helps
Thats why he said they will likely reach it. RVAC 3 is probably a tiny bit short of the 382s
Felix, you have one of the very best spaceflight channels on the web. Great work, and keep it going! (Off topic comment: Your language skills are truly remarkable!)
10:13 it is not the first rocket engine to use the staged combustion cycle successfully. This concept was developed and used way earlier by the russians. The US used it later in the Atlas rockets and the space shuttle. It is not that revolutionary but go on an keep simping for your god-king-redeemer Elon.
Elon is very much aware of how the Russian rocket engines worked.
@@MaXIYXD If it's not revolutionary, why can't anyone else seem to accomplish it then?
Keep up the good work, love the new format!!
15:53 That Tory Bruno quote is priceless. That entire company is whistling past the graveyard. I met a ULA engineer a couple of years ago, and he was thoroughly dismissive of SpaceX. I wonder if he's working on his resume these days.
Felix, this was the best Video I ever saw from you. Very good job!
Hey dude. I'm a former armaments engineer. Let's don't be talking about explosions and rockets in the normal operating course. Explosion generally implies a detonation event as opposed to a combustion event. Combustion, is what rocket engines do as they deflagrate the fuel and oxidizer in a continuous, millisecond time-scale, chemical reaction stream of events. Detonation events are what explosives, such as TNT and C4, typically undergo and are very rapid, microsecond scale, chemical reaction events. So in proper operation, gun and rocket propellants deflagrate, while in proper operation, bombs, grenades, and high explosive shells detonate. Initiated properly explosives are said to have functioned "high order", while improper initiation can result in an explosive "low order" or less destructive deflagration event.
Thanks Felix and team. The evolution of Raptor in fantastic, fly baby fly!
Hopper should become the first payload to mars via starship
@Alex_thom4s but it's the same width as Starship, so wouldn't fit
@ two words: duct tape
@Alex_thom4s 🤣🤣
Can't even make orbit and you're still talking about mars lol
Super Cool Dude ! Super Dope !! FanDamTastic !!!
This was a real documentary which I like very much
Wow - love the new intro! Had to stop the video after the first 35 seconds just to leave a note. Can't wait to see if there are any other fancy changes... Keep up the great work!
Reusable 🚀 rockets 🚀 were thought nearly impossible before SpaceX, in a short time they revolutionized rocket engines, rockets and space travel. Truly Amazing!
Not impossible, expensive.
One of the best explanatory videos i have ever seen. Good job!!
Fuel and oxidizer don’t explode in the camber; the combust. The flame front is subsonic. Deflagration vs. detonation.
"There are two types of ‘combustion explosions’, that is, deflagrations and detonations. Deflagration propagates with a velocity below the speed of sound in the mixture." They are both explosions
Best explanation of rocket engines and their issues ever. Thanks, Felix.
Lightyears is a distance, not a unit of time. So your title doesn't make any sense. Just saying.
It's a common saying. "Light years ahead" means "much more advanced than others"
Do a quick search online.
Parsecs ahead 😂
It's a very common expression. You must be so much fun at parties.
It's not even wrong, if you consider advancement down a race track. Excepting that no race track is that big.
Light-years are time and distance. Which means velocity. It's all of the above.
The best Space channel.
Companies need to take social media away from CEO's. Can you imagine being ULA, a company rapidly falling behind in the industry, and your CEO makes such a bold statement publicly only to be wrong. That has to hurt confidence of employees and investors when your leader can't even believe the competitors product is even real. I think there was a lot of trash talking from Boeing years ago about SpaceX's human transportation program vs Boeing's. Then again, Elon also has should not be on social media for all the wild claims he makes.
CEO's are in charge of the companies though so it's like you trying to enforce rules you've made up on your boss. It's not going to work out because they make the rules. Every company is a tiny kingdom.
Excellent easy to understand explanation, great job Felix😊
It should be years ahead of its time, not lightyears, which is a measure of distance.
@@wotireckon That’s why the Falcon completed the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
Found the guy that’s fun at parties
@@admirallightningboltI don't think rocket science really cuts it with the girls either
@@admirallightningboltFound the predator that preys on fun guys at parties
I don't normally comment, but this was a very well done video. Perfect balance of laymen analogues along with technical detail. Great job team!
❤️
For crying out loud, please stop using light years as time measurement
@romanlanghanki4478 but why
@@NeerajLoveCyber because light years measures distance not time, therefore the title doesn’t make a lot of sense
Bro in Germany we say das ist ein Verfi*** Sprichwort
It makes sense because they also say "they're miles ahead of the competition" wich is also a measure of distance.
@@dergroe9512 “jedem das seine” is also a saying , but you still shouldn’t use it
The wibe about this video iits so good! I cudnt get off... its like a magnet! Well done! Hard work pays off gratly!
Incredible video Felix. Thank you for your efforts.
Love this topic based format!!!
Best Presentation - Brilliant
very easy to understand for all
Thanks
This video is next-level!
Very excellent presentation Felix. I feel as though I understand this much better now. Thanks.
Ha! I was able to explain something to you! Happy New Year, friend that I never met! Thanks for following along for so long! ❤️
Great video! thanks team was very educational!!
21:05 Very well made. I can see it was time very well spent. Hope to see more deep dive videos. Have a good one Felix & Crew who make it happen.
Nice video, happy new year!
Thank you! Happy New Year to you as well!
BEST VIDEO YOU'VE EVER MADE !
what a wonderful overview of raptor v1 v2 and v3. Thanks felix dude
I appreciate the effort that went into this episode. There’s a lot more here to digest than normal.
Damn this video has possibly the best intro of your videos. Pls do more videos like these
Thanks Felix, your videos are informative and this was very enlightening for me. You Rock!
Excellent video Felix and WAI team.