It's also a good illustration of some of the design decisions SpaceX have made, and why. Keralox top and bottom, one basic engine design, no insulation requirements, etc. Rather than building the most technically sophisticated rocket, they've built one that's optimised simply for ease of operation.
“Sunday, Scott Manley reminds us that space is really, really hard.” I don’t know, it’s just all those little engineering details you have to get right. The basic physics and engineering of rockets is not that hard (hence why amateur rockets exist).
@@Mike-oz4cv "Hearing thunder is no strength of hearing. Seeing lightning is no strength of sight." "Perfection is difficult. Were it not so, it would be meaningless. There would be no reason to persue it."
@simon that reminds me of the design of the first japanese bullet train. to make the world’s best train, they didn’t start from scratch. they extensively researched existing material, design, and operations solutions for passenger rail travel and made decisions based on their own context and needs
Excellent video as always. I want to add a small detail about the Saturn V. The commentary describes the insulation method used on the vehicle's hydrogen tank (panels in the early examples and spray-on foam on the later vehicles). However, the version of the Saturn V used for Apollo had two hydrogen propellant tanks. You describe the arrangement for the S-II second stage. There was also the S-IVB third stage. The interesting aspect of this is that McDonnell Douglas used a very different insulation arrangement on the third stage. They put it *inside* the hydrogen tank. The advantage for them was that the adhesive used to attach the insulating panels didn't have to work at 20K. The tank walls were milled to have inbuilt strengthening ribs and the insulating tiles were carefully sized to fit around these ribs. In some of the Skylab pictures, you can see the patterning on the walls of the station that show the layout of these tiles. Another small additional point was that when the S-II had insulating panels (before spray-on foam was used from Apollo 13 onwards), they would pump helium down channels cut between the panels and the tank. This was to flush out air pockets, otherwise the air would liquify, run to where it wasn't wanted then expand again after the wet rehearsal and pop the panels off.
I wonder how much the folks who were involved in the spray-on foam innovation were sweating in the time between Apollo 13's explosion and folks figuring out why that actually happened. Even though the systems should be completely independent, if I'd been involved in a change that happened between back to back successful moon landings and Apollo 13's rather dramatic adventure, I'd be worriedly going through everything I'd done to try to find out if there was any way to get from the change I'd made to the accident that happened.
@@rashkavar Yup, when the Challenger exploded, the company I worked for was holding their breath a bit until the bad actor was located. This was because we did the tank, and if you look at the wall thickness and volume scaled down to a coke can, they weren't that different. And one HELL of a lathe at Mishoud to turn the thing. I never saw that but my Dad did and said it was amazing. Largest lathe on Earth at the time, I'm pretty sure.
Those ribs would also impart additional linear strength to the tank, which at the time were problematic when depressurized. A few early missiles would collapse from their own mass if depressurized. I do wonder though, how much hydrogen was retained in the foam, as hydrogen is infamous for infiltrating pretty much anything. Still, better inside than outside to slam into the stack as it's speeding through the atmosphere! Rockets are easy. Make a bomb, have it explode slowly in one direction, add steering components, there you go. Making one that doesn't explode in all directions, that part's hard. ;) Space is easy, surviving in space, tricky. There's a reason it takes an hour to open a hatch and the checklist is heinous, for good reason! Getting back alive, trickiest of all. The Russians do it by making a spacegoing tank - I can't think of any US spacecraft that could enter the atmosphere inverted, but the Russians survived multiple times of service module failed separation resulting in inverted entry.
If my recollection of _Taming Liquid Hydrogen_ is correct, McDonnell Douglas was planning to use balsa wood as the insulation for the S-IV and S-IVB hydrogen tank, but they ended up going with "artificial balsa" made from a combination of fibrous and foam plastics because they couldn't find defect-free pieces of balsa in the necessary sizes.
For those who were wondering like I was before I Googled it, yes the polyurethane foam Scott is talking about is the NASA specific recipe of the foam we get in a can at the hardware store to fill cracks, gaps and holes in construction and marine uses. The "Great Stuff" brand is the most common brand. It comes in a red can with yellow lid. Also Gorilla glue is the same polyurethane adhesive without the foaming agent.
okay, the first part i knew, but the second I did not! that's neat! also, the best part about that kind of foam vs the kind they spray in for insulation (2 part foam) is that it's mixture is calibrated in a factory, so always right. and once cured is completely innert. the 2 part foam will off gas for a surprisingly long (years) time, and if not mixed correctly can have serious issues (shrinkage and no adhesion to name some)
Massive kudos, Scott, for referencing "Koyaanisqatzi", an amazing movie that I doubt most people have ever heard of. (It's a personal favorite of mine.) And yes, that particular scene was the height of the crescendo! [To anyone inspired to watch it: give it a few minutes, let the music and imagery wrap your mind up. It is truly awesome.]
I have long wondered about that scene. They made it look like a Saturn 5 Apollo setup exploded, but I could never find evidence of such a disastrous test. I enjoyed the movie, but Philip Glass compositions are far too repetitive and become boring after a short while.
Thanks Scott Manley, I enjoy how your video narration is so comfortable, like you telling a story about an old friend you met in a pub, or how your dog leapt off the dock and suddenly found itself in a hostile aquatic environment.
Early viewer here! This is a good video that really answered the question, since lots of people watching rocket launches ask this question commonly. Thanks Scott, and for always flying safe for all of us!
I really loved this video Scotty. The rockets I launched were D-5's; Below the surface of the ocean. Nitrogen and dehumidification kept ice away. Short umbilical too btw. Nasty payload.
Yet another highly educational and fascinating video that taught me things I did not know about space flight. This channel is a treasure; keep doing what you do so well, Scott!
Thank you Scott, a question I've long wanted a proper answer to. I love the way you turned a relatively simple answer (it's insulation - end of video) into a fascinating detour into an aspect of rocketry I'd never given any thought to.
Scott, great video and channel as always. Thank you for the mention of "Koyaanisqatsi." I watched this when I was 15 on late night TV and was completely mesmerized, but I never knew what it was called. I've tried for literal decades to find it, and no one ever knew what I was talking about. I recognized the explosion a mere moment before you named the movie. I am always learning something new from your channel. Thank you.
SpaceX Falcon 9 launches has no disposable insulation, and none on the stages per se I'm pretty sure (the fairing can have acoustic insulation). On streams of launches, you'll sometimes see odd bits flying off, and someone will ask what it is. The standard answer, pretty much a meme now, is "Ice. It's always ice."
the reason for that is the speed of the fill. they include the tanking operation as part of the countdown, whereas most fill the rocket up and then start the countdown and associated things. also, the design philosophy of the falcon9 precludes anything frangible or expendable in a launch, and the mass of enough permanent insulation would limit performance
@@MrJdsenior Naw, it really is "it's always ice", because it's a frequently asked question. Think of a war movie with a jaded old combat veteran calming down the new kid, "nah, from the sound of it, Charlie is shelling the next sector down. Not our problem."
When the Delta IV Heavy flies with a metallic fairing there are foam fairing vent covers which are pulled off. You'd really have to be looking for it, but i've seen photos which show the vent covers coming off. I believe cables are used to pull them off.
@@seldoon_nemar There are vents behind the covers. The covers are just on to keep out any dirt bugs while on the ground. Then as the vehicle climbs the air inside the fairing vents out.
Thanks Scott - I've been wondering about this exact topic for a long time. Great to have a simple but complete explanation - as always keep up the great work!
Amazing...was just thinking during the April launches thus far video why the Chinese upper stages seem to gather so much frozen condensation compared to Western launchers
Hey, putting the tank on the back of the shuttle is a pretty good idea! During reentry, the wings were in a deep stall and the tail was inside some very nasty turbulent air/plasma. Having two tails at the ends of the wings would add some structural load but it would have had better rudder authority during reentry.
WOW, Thank you Scott!! The Atlas Centaur scene was on our TV every day in the 1980's, it was quite moving to me, and I have not seen it since. I had no idea what it was or where it was from. Thank you!!!
Thank you Scott for putting this video together! I've been wondering about this ever since watching videos of Chinese rocket launches and this explained it amazingly well. Still blows my mind all of the nuance details and calculations that need to be considered for a successful launch.
Thank you Scott for your excellent explanation on the subject of things falling off of rockets. I knew the basics but you have deepened my knowledge with all your brilliant detailed explanations.
Your suggested configuration placing the external tank on the "top" of the shuttle away from the heat shield may sound good in theory, but one reason it was the way it was comes down to structure. The "bottom" of the shuttle had the hard points for the landing gear, and it looks like the external tank attachment points were in pretty much the same places. Since every bit of mass adds up, adding the additional structure "top" side would have probably incurred too much of a mass penalty. I'm sure there were other practical reasons too... among them I could imagine payload bay accessibility in launch configuration and the twin fins could have had all sorts of downsides - extra mass, control surface failure modes, etc.
Would it be possible to use some sort of heated thermal blankets; then just remove them shortly before T/O? Like they do with Formula 1 car tyres whilst there's a hold up in the pits.
Then put the landing gear on the top of the shuttle also and have it land upside down after re-entering upside up. It's even better to do it that way since then there would be no penetrations through the heat shield.
@@sealpiercing8476 One of my favourite things to tell people, which I probably learned here, was that the orbiter used to fly backwards to mitigate against damage to the crew compartment. That's fly backwards in space. Not generally. That would probably be silly.
I’d love to see the details of the connectors that atttach the boosters to the main rockets. Must be very strong, but how do they attached to what must be a rather thin/fragile sides of the rocket. Love the your videos.
Another excellent video, Scott! Thank you. If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend "Stages to Saturn", Roger E. Bilstein, published by NASA, 1980. It has an very good description of the LH2 tank insulation decisions for the S-IV and S-II stages - the S-II used external insulation and the S-IV (and S-IVB) used internal. (See pages 172-177.) After reading this, I wondered about the decision to use external on the Shuttle. Hindsight is 20-20, but it seems like internal insulation would have solved a lot of problems, some of them fatal.
I remember watching the first Space Shuttle launches with the white painted tank, and then, later, the 'orange' tank. What I remember hearing was that they decided they didn't need the paint and the weight of it, however, I hadn't realized that the paint was on top of the insulation. Somehow I had thought that the insulation *replaced* the paint. Thanks for correcting that for me!
I have heard that STS 1 and 2 were painted more because they were expected (and did) sit on the pad for several months before launch, and later flights didn't need the paint because they only sat out for a few weeks. Curious if anyone else has heard this?
no, they realized the paint added no protection and added 600 pounds of weight. eliminating the paint allowed 600 more pounds of payload, and saved material and manpower costs for painting.
The initial flights weren't flown at anywhere near the design payload weight, so one way or the other there was headroom for things like the paint early on.
That "banana peeling" footage is crazy! I'm guessing aerodynamic forces as the rocket climbs cause the "banana peel" to come apart, at strategically-placed weak points?
As I started watching this video, I grabbed a blanket off of my couch to regulate the temperature of my own inner workings as the room was a bit cooler than I expected. I empathize with all of the rockets here.
Interesting that the temperature affects on solid rocket propellant is also a consideration with some smokeless gunpowders. As an example with Alliant, Reloader 22 is one of the most temperature sensitive then Hodgdon, Varget which is one of the least temperature sensitive smokeless gunpowders. IMR about six years ago released their line of ENDURON smokeless gunpowders which are claimed to be minimally temperature sensitive. So as with soiled rocket fuel being temperature sensitive, ambient temperature can affect the combustion rate of certain gunpowders were cold ambient temperature will decrease the combustion rate and hot ambient temperature will increase combustion rate which and with a combustion rate increase can in some occurrence damage or destroy the firearm the cartridge is discharged from.
That makes a lot of sense, many early solid rockets used some form of Cordite as the propellant. Only later did more advanced formulations come into use, and even today when you need a solid rocket that doesn't produce a gigantic smoke trail (say for the radar guided or heat-seeking missiles for a fighter jet) then I believe the propellant of choice is still some form of double-base propellant, tho they are starting to mix high explosives into those as well for increased performance (but they simply burn, instead of detonating in this application, unless of course the missile triggers the warhead while the motor still has propellant left to burn, but that's just bonus points in that case).
@@44R0Ndin Our EPA is partly to blame for the Shuttle loss....the insulating foam formulation was changed to satisfy a new emissions requirement and this change increased the already troublesome problem of foam shedding which directly led to Columbia's demise. Also our aircraft missiles propellant was changed a while back because the then currently used formulation didn't meet the new EPA requirements....and for quite a while we had no new missiles being produced because they couldn't get a propellant formulation that met emissions to work. Aircraft missiles are a tough thing to build being they must be storage stable for long periods, then be able to tolerate multiple cycles of temperature swings of over 150F which happens going from a tropical flightline to 40,000 ft.
For clarification; The LO2 tanks of the S-II and S-IVB stages of the Saturn V were insulated with foam, not just the LH2 tanks. All of that ice we see falling down in the videos is coming from the LO2 tank of the first stage (the S-IC). The S-IVB had insulation applied to the inside of the tank so that the adhesive holding the foam on was protected from the cold of the LO2. The inside surface of the foam was them covered by a layer of fiberglass cloth and resin. On the S-II stage, they wanted to take advantage of the fact that the 2014 aluminum alloy got stronger at cryogenic temperatures so they could make the structure even lighter. This meant that the tank wall had to be directly in contact with the LO2 and that the insulation and its adhesive had to go on the outside of the vehicle. With the original honeycomb panel insulation, they had a lot of problems with air getting trapped against the skin of the tank and then freezing and separating the panel from the skin of the tank. They originally tried carving channels in the side of the panels against the skin of the rocket and passing helium thru them to purge out any air pockets but that met with limited success and was eventually replaced with the spray on foam system. starting on the S-II-8 stage used on Apollo 13.
Very enjoyable video, thanks again. Love these explainers and lots of details, great video, joke here and there. Scott is my go to space nerd for years now, he feeds my lesser space nerd brain.
Koyaanisqatsi was purpose filmed mostly, not just stock footage. I'd recommend Baraka and Samsara in 4K. They are epic. Start off slow and gets more complex and weird the longer you go. Absolute masterpieces. Enjoyable with a good pair of headphones or a good TV and speakers. Some scenes are sure to make you feel very weird things.
I remember how people thought that the Challenger during the initial part of the launch of 51L (before roll program) was rising slower than normal. I would attribute that to the very cold temps at launch (NASA even addressed this when asked by a reporter and said that the cold was possibly slowing the combustion rate down on the SRBs, coupled with a heavy payload, TDRS)
When I was a kid Scott back in the 80s I used to think the center tank on the Space Shuttle was just a rusted tank. LOL. Our old wooden console TV didn't have the greatest resolution and it looked like a rust color. I recall thinking.....boy, those Astronauts are really risking their lives using that beat up old rusted tank to hold the rocket fuel. LOL. I was only roughly 11 when Challenger was lost and I originally thought....yup...those damb rusted tanks finally prevailed in a tragedy. How naive our child minds can be. Turned out I did research on it for a project in 2nd grade and in doing so I discovered it wasn't even the center tank that started the disaster and THEY WEREN'T RUSTED!!. I then learned not to just trust your eyes but I did get a 100 on the project and made the Shuttle model out of clay which I wish I saved. Anyway thanks for another great video Scott....you have really peaked my interest in all things physics and Space. A year ago I would have thought apogee was an emotion. Lol
Koyaanisqatsi, yes at the start of the movie it shows that slow-motion film of a Saturn 5 starting up, as the film progresses the ice falling down steadily increases to crashing cascades of ice maybe tons of it. The end of Koyaanisqatsi is that Atlas explosion which I heard was range safety destroying that Atlas because it was heading off its trajectory, the end of the clip is the Atlas Sustainer/center engine rotating with its exhaust nozzle dented from the booster engines being ripped off from the RS detonation. Great video and film, Thank you Scott, Ken M.
The Space Shuttle also used paper covers over the orbiter's thruster nozzles to keep out birds and bugs, which fell off at launch. There was also a constant problem with birds, especially woodpeckers, going after the sides of the external tank and pecking at the foam insulation. All sorts of things were tried to discourage the birds, like fake owls and balloons and so on.
I figured that was the case in the footage of the long march rockets, but what has been confusing me is that some of them appear to be coming off the payload fairing, not the tanks of the rocket. You can see that in the footage shown at about 6:57
Well the payload might have cryogenic fuel of its own which is cooled enough to cause condensation or require insulation, or even the electronics of the payload itself might require some protection from heat. Another comment mentioned some rockets have fairing vent covers that are pulled off during launch by wires and that could also be it.
Pretty much all rockets have climate control for their fairings (you'll usually see a separate umbilical for that), maybe as Scott says for the inland Chinese launch sites it gets cold enough in winter that the aircon can't keep up? Other people here have suggested that it may be to protect the payload from acoustic effects, so not really sure
_"Even if you don't have a side-attached payload it [the foam] is still something that can _*_mesh_*_ you up!"_ Oh you... Please, don't ever change, Scott Dadley.
I know this is unrelated to the video content, but just wanted to point out at about 7:23, right as the Long March lifts off, something streaks out of the flame trench from the bottom center to the left on a ballistic arc. Scott has done a video on the special concrete and pad material used in launch pads, and I wonder if this was a pad/trench erosion event caught on cam?
Thanks scott for the video,i saw a long march launching the CBERS satellite and it fall a bunch of debris so i was asking me all day what it was,thanks.
Just wondering...in liquid fuels, would they change density with changing temperatures, and would that lead to a different combination of mass, volume and energy content, to a degree that would noticeably influence the performance of the turbo pumps and/or the whole engines? I am everytime amazed at how insanely complicated and insanely dangerous spaceflight is. I will never forget a 2ml cryovial popping because the lid didn´t have a hole. Several tons of the stuff out on the pad...pheeww... Thank you for your videos, you are consistenly breaking down these amazing tidbits in a way that lets us not-engineers appreciate what is really going on.
Mon through Saturday, SpaceX keeps space looking so easy. Anyone can do this.
Sunday, Scott Manley reminds us that space is really, really hard.
It's also a good illustration of some of the design decisions SpaceX have made, and why. Keralox top and bottom, one basic engine design, no insulation requirements, etc. Rather than building the most technically sophisticated rocket, they've built one that's optimised simply for ease of operation.
“Sunday, Scott Manley reminds us that space is really, really hard.” I don’t know, it’s just all those little engineering details you have to get right. The basic physics and engineering of rockets is not that hard (hence why amateur rockets exist).
@@Mike-oz4cv "Hearing thunder is no strength of hearing. Seeing lightning is no strength of sight."
"Perfection is difficult. Were it not so, it would be meaningless. There would be no reason to persue it."
@@simongeard4824 yes the best part is no part. complex simplicity.
@simon that reminds me of the design of the first japanese bullet train. to make the world’s best train, they didn’t start from scratch. they extensively researched existing material, design, and operations solutions for passenger rail travel and made decisions based on their own context and needs
You are prolly the best science/space channel to explain in plain terms things like this. Plus I love listening to you speak with your accent. :P
He prolly is!
Accent?
Prolly
Prolly is how many USA Southern people say “probably” (fewer syllables & quicker/easier to say)
So many spell it that way too.
@@jamespatrick5930 iono watchu mean bruh
Excellent video as always. I want to add a small detail about the Saturn V. The commentary describes the insulation method used on the vehicle's hydrogen tank (panels in the early examples and spray-on foam on the later vehicles). However, the version of the Saturn V used for Apollo had two hydrogen propellant tanks. You describe the arrangement for the S-II second stage. There was also the S-IVB third stage. The interesting aspect of this is that McDonnell Douglas used a very different insulation arrangement on the third stage. They put it *inside* the hydrogen tank. The advantage for them was that the adhesive used to attach the insulating panels didn't have to work at 20K. The tank walls were milled to have inbuilt strengthening ribs and the insulating tiles were carefully sized to fit around these ribs. In some of the Skylab pictures, you can see the patterning on the walls of the station that show the layout of these tiles.
Another small additional point was that when the S-II had insulating panels (before spray-on foam was used from Apollo 13 onwards), they would pump helium down channels cut between the panels and the tank. This was to flush out air pockets, otherwise the air would liquify, run to where it wasn't wanted then expand again after the wet rehearsal and pop the panels off.
I wonder how much the folks who were involved in the spray-on foam innovation were sweating in the time between Apollo 13's explosion and folks figuring out why that actually happened. Even though the systems should be completely independent, if I'd been involved in a change that happened between back to back successful moon landings and Apollo 13's rather dramatic adventure, I'd be worriedly going through everything I'd done to try to find out if there was any way to get from the change I'd made to the accident that happened.
@@rashkavar Yup, when the Challenger exploded, the company I worked for was holding their breath a bit until the bad actor was located. This was because we did the tank, and if you look at the wall thickness and volume scaled down to a coke can, they weren't that different.
And one HELL of a lathe at Mishoud to turn the thing. I never saw that but my Dad did and said it was amazing. Largest lathe on Earth at the time, I'm pretty sure.
Those ribs would also impart additional linear strength to the tank, which at the time were problematic when depressurized. A few early missiles would collapse from their own mass if depressurized.
I do wonder though, how much hydrogen was retained in the foam, as hydrogen is infamous for infiltrating pretty much anything. Still, better inside than outside to slam into the stack as it's speeding through the atmosphere!
Rockets are easy. Make a bomb, have it explode slowly in one direction, add steering components, there you go. Making one that doesn't explode in all directions, that part's hard. ;)
Space is easy, surviving in space, tricky. There's a reason it takes an hour to open a hatch and the checklist is heinous, for good reason!
Getting back alive, trickiest of all. The Russians do it by making a spacegoing tank - I can't think of any US spacecraft that could enter the atmosphere inverted, but the Russians survived multiple times of service module failed separation resulting in inverted entry.
If my recollection of _Taming Liquid Hydrogen_ is correct, McDonnell Douglas was planning to use balsa wood as the insulation for the S-IV and S-IVB hydrogen tank, but they ended up going with "artificial balsa" made from a combination of fibrous and foam plastics because they couldn't find defect-free pieces of balsa in the necessary sizes.
For those who were wondering like I was before I Googled it, yes the polyurethane foam Scott is talking about is the NASA specific recipe of the foam we get in a can at the hardware store to fill cracks, gaps and holes in construction and marine uses. The "Great Stuff" brand is the most common brand. It comes in a red can with yellow lid. Also Gorilla glue is the same polyurethane adhesive without the foaming agent.
Okay, now which NASA innovation led to the Tempur-pedic mattress?
okay, the first part i knew, but the second I did not! that's neat!
also, the best part about that kind of foam vs the kind they spray in for insulation (2 part foam) is that it's mixture is calibrated in a factory, so always right. and once cured is completely innert. the 2 part foam will off gas for a surprisingly long (years) time, and if not mixed correctly can have serious issues (shrinkage and no adhesion to name some)
@@PremierSullivan I believe that came out of their emergency landing program. Hahaha
Uh, yeah, you can get Gorilla glue to foam, depending on how wet the area of application is at the time.
Interesting! I bought some Gorilla Glue the other day.
Massive kudos, Scott, for referencing "Koyaanisqatzi", an amazing movie that I doubt most people have ever heard of. (It's a personal favorite of mine.) And yes, that particular scene was the height of the crescendo! [To anyone inspired to watch it: give it a few minutes, let the music and imagery wrap your mind up. It is truly awesome.]
I was fortunate enough to see it with Philip Glass conducting a live orchestra.
I have long wondered about that scene. They made it look like a Saturn 5 Apollo setup exploded, but I could never find evidence of such a disastrous test. I enjoyed the movie, but Philip Glass compositions are far too repetitive and become boring after a short while.
@@scottmanley I am insanely jealous of this!
my favorite movie of all time
@@4g0tten4 slow breath, silent mind ☺️
Thanks Scott Manley, I enjoy how your video narration is so comfortable, like you telling a story about an old friend you met in a pub, or how your dog leapt off the dock and suddenly found itself in a hostile aquatic environment.
Holy crap Scott went to all the effort to make a video answering one question that’s been bugging me ever since I saw his deep space video.
Always far more interesting information than expected and so clearly explained Not a surprise really as all of Scott’s videos are just great
Early viewer here! This is a good video that really answered the question, since lots of people watching rocket launches ask this question commonly. Thanks Scott, and for always flying safe for all of us!
I really loved this video Scotty. The rockets I launched were D-5's; Below the surface of the ocean. Nitrogen and dehumidification kept ice away. Short umbilical too btw. Nasty payload.
Yet another highly educational and fascinating video that taught me things I did not know about space flight. This channel is a treasure; keep doing what you do so well, Scott!
Thank you Scott, a question I've long wanted a proper answer to. I love the way you turned a relatively simple answer (it's insulation - end of video) into a fascinating detour into an aspect of rocketry I'd never given any thought to.
I LOVE the old archival footage. Hard to find, barely recollected as I'm only 50.
Thank you for your mini documentaries sir
Scott, great video and channel as always. Thank you for the mention of "Koyaanisqatsi." I watched this when I was 15 on late night TV and was completely mesmerized, but I never knew what it was called. I've tried for literal decades to find it, and no one ever knew what I was talking about. I recognized the explosion a mere moment before you named the movie. I am always learning something new from your channel. Thank you.
SpaceX Falcon 9 launches has no disposable insulation, and none on the stages per se I'm pretty sure (the fairing can have acoustic insulation). On streams of launches, you'll sometimes see odd bits flying off, and someone will ask what it is. The standard answer, pretty much a meme now, is
"Ice. It's always ice."
the reason for that is the speed of the fill. they include the tanking operation as part of the countdown, whereas most fill the rocket up and then start the countdown and associated things. also, the design philosophy of the falcon9 precludes anything frangible or expendable in a launch, and the mass of enough permanent insulation would limit performance
Since it's rp1 and lox, foam isn't really needed.
My guess is what they mean is it'd BETTER be ice. :-)
@@MrJdsenior Naw, it really is "it's always ice", because it's a frequently asked question. Think of a war movie with a jaded old combat veteran calming down the new kid, "nah, from the sound of it, Charlie is shelling the next sector down. Not our problem."
I’m glad you made this video because I’ve always been wondering why stuff falls off the Chinese rocket
When the Delta IV Heavy flies with a metallic fairing there are foam fairing vent covers which are pulled off. You'd really have to be looking for it, but i've seen photos which show the vent covers coming off. I believe cables are used to pull them off.
if they are sealing the vent to maintain conditions inside the fairing, it's possible that just the atmospheric pressure difference will pop them open
@@seldoon_nemar There are vents behind the covers. The covers are just on to keep out any dirt bugs while on the ground. Then as the vehicle climbs the air inside the fairing vents out.
@@mattcolver1 I realize, I was more just saying that they don't really need something like a wire when air pressure will remove them just as well
This always puzzled me, especially in the early MTV spots. Took a few years to figure it out. Thanks for confirming my suspicions!
Thanks Scott - I've been wondering about this exact topic for a long time. Great to have a simple but complete explanation - as always keep up the great work!
12:17 The rocket that failed due to falling foam is not one of the Long March rocket. It was one test launch from a private company in China.
To be fair, he didn’t say it was a Long March, but I can see how he should have just stated the actual rocket company name to eliminate any confusion.
@@victorsinclair188 He didn't? I missed that. My fault on this.
I knew about ice buildup, but I didn't know about foam. As always, learning something new every day.
Great video, highlighting the depth and breadth of Mr. Manleys rocketry knowledge. It all just piles out of him like he can barely contain it!
WHOAH .. You brought back memories of my childhood .. "life out of balance" .. those Hopi chants are so mesmerizing.
You have the best closing music ever and thanks for the falling foam explanation, I’d always assumed it was always just ice.
Thanks Scott! You answered the question I’ve had multiple times watching the Chinese launch clips in your videos.
Ya, I just thought it was typical chinese quality!
@@barneymiller6204 Long March 5 and 7 don’t have this phenomenon only old Chinese rockets long march 2, 3, 4 like that
Amazing...was just thinking during the April launches thus far video why the Chinese upper stages seem to gather so much frozen condensation compared to Western launchers
does it have to do with where the chinese launchpads are located?
Hey, putting the tank on the back of the shuttle is a pretty good idea! During reentry, the wings were in a deep stall and the tail was inside some very nasty turbulent air/plasma. Having two tails at the ends of the wings would add some structural load but it would have had better rudder authority during reentry.
WOW, Thank you Scott!! The Atlas Centaur scene was on our TV every day in the 1980's, it was quite moving to me, and I have not seen it since. I had no idea what it was or where it was from. Thank you!!!
Fascinating subject matter. This is the type of things Scott does best.
Thank you Scott for putting this video together! I've been wondering about this ever since watching videos of Chinese rocket launches and this explained it amazingly well.
Still blows my mind all of the nuance details and calculations that need to be considered for a successful launch.
Been waiting for this particular topic, super not disappointed! Thank you again Scott Manley!
Mind Blown... In 50 years of watching launches I just thought this was ice. ONLY ICE. Thanks Mr. Manley for the education!
Incredible amount of production time, thanks so much for your time and knowledge to create these phenomenal videos.
Thank you so much Scott for the deep dive into this topic, as this answers many questions!
Lots I didn't know in this one! Thanks, Scott!
Thanks Scott. I was very interested in this to begin with. As usual you explained it in a very understandable way!
I always enjoy and love watching your video. Learning so much. Thank you Scott!
Thank you Scott for your excellent explanation on the subject of things falling off of rockets. I knew the basics but you have deepened my knowledge with all your brilliant detailed explanations.
Yay! Happy to see Wallops featured with the Minotaur.
Your suggested configuration placing the external tank on the "top" of the shuttle away from the heat shield may sound good in theory, but one reason it was the way it was comes down to structure. The "bottom" of the shuttle had the hard points for the landing gear, and it looks like the external tank attachment points were in pretty much the same places. Since every bit of mass adds up, adding the additional structure "top" side would have probably incurred too much of a mass penalty. I'm sure there were other practical reasons too... among them I could imagine payload bay accessibility in launch configuration and the twin fins could have had all sorts of downsides - extra mass, control surface failure modes, etc.
Would it be possible to use some sort of heated thermal blankets; then just remove them shortly before T/O? Like they do with Formula 1 car tyres whilst there's a hold up in the pits.
Then put the landing gear on the top of the shuttle also and have it land upside down after re-entering upside up. It's even better to do it that way since then there would be no penetrations through the heat shield.
@@sealpiercing8476 One of my favourite things to tell people, which I probably learned here, was that the orbiter used to fly backwards to mitigate against damage to the crew compartment.
That's fly backwards in space. Not generally. That would probably be silly.
@@sealpiercing8476 I'd hate to be an astronaut having to launch and land like that
@@sealpiercing8476 : You don't need to put the gear on top, just put the thermal tiles on top.
Another very good informative video. Love your work Scott. You fly safe as well 😉
I’d love to see the details of the connectors that atttach the boosters to the main rockets. Must be very strong, but how do they attached to what must be a rather thin/fragile sides of the rocket. Love the your videos.
ANOTHER GREAT PRESENTATION. Thanks Scott.
Thanks for the foam explanation, Scott. I always wondered but never thought to ask!
Another excellent video, Scott! Thank you.
If you haven't already read it, I highly recommend "Stages to Saturn", Roger E. Bilstein, published by NASA, 1980. It has an very good description of the LH2 tank insulation decisions for the S-IV and S-II stages - the S-II used external insulation and the S-IV (and S-IVB) used internal. (See pages 172-177.) After reading this, I wondered about the decision to use external on the Shuttle. Hindsight is 20-20, but it seems like internal insulation would have solved a lot of problems, some of them fatal.
It's Saturday night and I'm watching a Scott Manley video. Alone. And commenting. What have I become?
Once again, I learnt a lot more about space flight! Thank you Scott.
I remember watching the first Space Shuttle launches with the white painted tank, and then, later, the 'orange' tank. What I remember hearing was that they decided they didn't need the paint and the weight of it, however, I hadn't realized that the paint was on top of the insulation. Somehow I had thought that the insulation *replaced* the paint. Thanks for correcting that for me!
Scott, another fantastic video!! 10/10, Top notch, thank you!!
As usual, educational and outstanding. Love your videos sir.
I have heard that STS 1 and 2 were painted more because they were expected (and did) sit on the pad for several months before launch, and later flights didn't need the paint because they only sat out for a few weeks. Curious if anyone else has heard this?
no, they realized the paint added no protection and added 600 pounds of weight. eliminating the paint allowed 600 more pounds of payload, and saved material and manpower costs for painting.
The initial flights weren't flown at anywhere near the design payload weight, so one way or the other there was headroom for things like the paint early on.
The Shuttle looked so much cooler with the white ET!
Thanks Scott, always learn something new from your videos!
Fascinating. Amazing the details about the various rocket insulation needed. Thx!
Thanks, Scott. Very interesting.
Did NOT know about the grid fin issue. Thank you for the insight Scott!
As usual a great video Scott ! I’m beginning to like before watchin’ !
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Nicely explained, sir. You are the best.
OMG, I was watching a Long March launch last week and REALLY wanted to ask you this question.
In the 80's, I asked my 8th grade Science Teacher about the liftoff-flakes. She said it was paint-chips. I've foolishly believed this until today...
Great video! Thanks Scott! 👍🚀
One of your best videos!!
I absolutely love seeing the insulation get shot down and shredded at high speed when it glides into the path of the exhaust around 8:48 onwards.
That "banana peeling" footage is crazy! I'm guessing aerodynamic forces as the rocket climbs cause the "banana peel" to come apart, at strategically-placed weak points?
Great information. Keep up the great work
Interesting. learn something new every time I watch this guy
Another great video buddy!
As I started watching this video, I grabbed a blanket off of my couch to regulate the temperature of my own inner workings as the room was a bit cooler than I expected.
I empathize with all of the rockets here.
Awesome visuals, thank you!!!
Interesting that the temperature affects on solid rocket propellant is also a consideration with some smokeless gunpowders. As an example with Alliant, Reloader 22 is one of the most temperature sensitive then Hodgdon, Varget which is one of the least temperature sensitive smokeless gunpowders. IMR about six years ago released their line of ENDURON smokeless gunpowders which are claimed to be minimally temperature sensitive. So as with soiled rocket fuel being temperature sensitive, ambient temperature can affect the combustion rate of certain gunpowders were cold ambient temperature will decrease the combustion rate and hot ambient temperature will increase combustion rate which and with a combustion rate increase can in some occurrence damage or destroy the firearm the cartridge is discharged from.
That makes a lot of sense, many early solid rockets used some form of Cordite as the propellant. Only later did more advanced formulations come into use, and even today when you need a solid rocket that doesn't produce a gigantic smoke trail (say for the radar guided or heat-seeking missiles for a fighter jet) then I believe the propellant of choice is still some form of double-base propellant, tho they are starting to mix high explosives into those as well for increased performance (but they simply burn, instead of detonating in this application, unless of course the missile triggers the warhead while the motor still has propellant left to burn, but that's just bonus points in that case).
@@44R0Ndin Our EPA is partly to blame for the Shuttle loss....the insulating foam formulation was changed to satisfy a new emissions requirement and this change increased the already troublesome problem of foam shedding which directly led to Columbia's demise. Also our aircraft missiles propellant was changed a while back because the then currently used formulation didn't meet the new EPA requirements....and for quite a while we had no new missiles being produced because they couldn't get a propellant formulation that met emissions to work. Aircraft missiles are a tough thing to build being they must be storage stable for long periods, then be able to tolerate multiple cycles of temperature swings of over 150F which happens going from a tropical flightline to 40,000 ft.
Again a very interesting insight in rocket technology! Thanks a lot!
Very interesting and thanks for the knowledge buddy. I didn't even know this happened
More fascinating answers to questions I didn't know I'd asked!
For clarification; The LO2 tanks of the S-II and S-IVB stages of the Saturn V were insulated with foam, not just the LH2 tanks. All of that ice we see falling down in the videos is coming from the LO2 tank of the first stage (the S-IC). The S-IVB had insulation applied to the inside of the tank so that the adhesive holding the foam on was protected from the cold of the LO2. The inside surface of the foam was them covered by a layer of fiberglass cloth and resin. On the S-II stage, they wanted to take advantage of the fact that the 2014 aluminum alloy got stronger at cryogenic temperatures so they could make the structure even lighter. This meant that the tank wall had to be directly in contact with the LO2 and that the insulation and its adhesive had to go on the outside of the vehicle. With the original honeycomb panel insulation, they had a lot of problems with air getting trapped against the skin of the tank and then freezing and separating the panel from the skin of the tank. They originally tried carving channels in the side of the panels against the skin of the rocket and passing helium thru them to purge out any air pockets but that met with limited success and was eventually replaced with the spray on foam system. starting on the S-II-8 stage used on Apollo 13.
Thanks Scott!
great video as always!
Very enjoyable video, thanks again. Love these explainers and lots of details, great video, joke here and there. Scott is my go to space nerd for years now, he feeds my lesser space nerd brain.
A little off subject but what are the dollar weld and J weld on the LH2 and LOX tanks on the Saturn V diagram at 2:07?
Koyaanisqatsi was purpose filmed mostly, not just stock footage. I'd recommend Baraka and Samsara in 4K. They are epic. Start off slow and gets more complex and weird the longer you go. Absolute masterpieces. Enjoyable with a good pair of headphones or a good TV and speakers. Some scenes are sure to make you feel very weird things.
Kudos for the Outer Wilds postcard collection on the wall behind you.
I remember how people thought that the Challenger during the initial part of the launch of 51L (before roll program) was rising slower than normal. I would attribute that to the very cold temps at launch (NASA even addressed this when asked by a reporter and said that the cold was possibly slowing the combustion rate down on the SRBs, coupled with a heavy payload, TDRS)
good question and clear explanation 😄
Love the Sadun 5 and Space Chuddle footage.
I looooove Koyaanisqatsi! As soon as I heard famous Atlas disaster, I already had it pictured in my head. What an ending...
When I was a kid Scott back in the 80s I used to think the center tank on the Space Shuttle was just a rusted tank. LOL. Our old wooden console TV didn't have the greatest resolution and it looked like a rust color. I recall thinking.....boy, those Astronauts are really risking their lives using that beat up old rusted tank to hold the rocket fuel.
LOL. I was only roughly 11 when Challenger was lost and I originally thought....yup...those damb rusted tanks finally prevailed in a tragedy. How naive our child minds can be. Turned out I did research on it for a project in 2nd grade and in doing so I discovered it wasn't even the center tank that started the disaster and THEY WEREN'T RUSTED!!. I then learned not to just trust your eyes but I did get a 100 on the project and made the Shuttle model out of clay which I wish I saved. Anyway thanks for another great video Scott....you have really peaked my interest in all things physics and Space. A year ago I would have thought apogee was an emotion. Lol
Koyaanisqatsi, yes at the start of the movie it shows that slow-motion film of a Saturn 5 starting up, as the film progresses the ice falling down steadily increases to crashing cascades of ice maybe tons of it. The end of Koyaanisqatsi is that Atlas explosion which I heard was range safety destroying that Atlas because it was heading off its trajectory, the end of the clip is the Atlas Sustainer/center engine rotating with its exhaust nozzle dented from the booster engines being ripped off from the RS detonation. Great video and film, Thank you Scott, Ken M.
Man, I thought: "It's simple ice!" and after watching the whole 12 minutes ... I was so freaking wrong!
Thanks for the info scott
Thanks for answering my question from a couple of days ago. ;)
The Space Shuttle also used paper covers over the orbiter's thruster nozzles to keep out birds and bugs, which fell off at launch. There was also a constant problem with birds, especially woodpeckers, going after the sides of the external tank and pecking at the foam insulation. All sorts of things were tried to discourage the birds, like fake owls and balloons and so on.
happy easter from UK Scott
I figured that was the case in the footage of the long march rockets, but what has been confusing me is that some of them appear to be coming off the payload fairing, not the tanks of the rocket. You can see that in the footage shown at about 6:57
Well the payload might have cryogenic fuel of its own which is cooled enough to cause condensation or require insulation, or even the electronics of the payload itself might require some protection from heat. Another comment mentioned some rockets have fairing vent covers that are pulled off during launch by wires and that could also be it.
Some payloads are very sensitive and need climate control during the long hours between integration and lift-off.
Pretty much all rockets have climate control for their fairings (you'll usually see a separate umbilical for that), maybe as Scott says for the inland Chinese launch sites it gets cold enough in winter that the aircon can't keep up? Other people here have suggested that it may be to protect the payload from acoustic effects, so not really sure
_"Even if you don't have a side-attached payload it [the foam] is still something that can _*_mesh_*_ you up!"_
Oh you...
Please, don't ever change, Scott Dadley.
Wondering who else caught that (if that was the intent, of course) :)
I know this is unrelated to the video content, but just wanted to point out at about 7:23, right as the Long March lifts off, something streaks out of the flame trench from the bottom center to the left on a ballistic arc. Scott has done a video on the special concrete and pad material used in launch pads, and I wonder if this was a pad/trench erosion event caught on cam?
Maybe it was one of the insulation pads that fell into the flame trench and then ignited?
Thanks scott for the video,i saw a long march launching the CBERS satellite and it fall a bunch of debris so i was asking me all day what it was,thanks.
Thank you sir! Learned something new, so today is a good day.
Greets from the Netherlands 🌷, T.
Thank you. Answered my question perfectly.
I like watching Saturn 5 launches and want to see the same camera work with the Starship and Booster.
Koyanisquatsi (sp!) is a stunningly good good movie! Thanks for the reminder.
Just wondering...in liquid fuels, would they change density with changing temperatures, and would that lead to a different combination of mass, volume and energy content, to a degree that would noticeably influence the performance of the turbo pumps and/or the whole engines?
I am everytime amazed at how insanely complicated and insanely dangerous spaceflight is. I will never forget a 2ml cryovial popping because the lid didn´t have a hole. Several tons of the stuff out on the pad...pheeww...
Thank you for your videos, you are consistenly breaking down these amazing tidbits in a way that lets us not-engineers appreciate what is really going on.