nasa has great knoledge in unbalanced rockets, considering the shuttle as a mess to balance (huge outside tank, solid booster, wings, off center nozze, off center cargo)
Just to put it out there for anyone still watching this :P.. Procedural parts SRBs do now have a setting to adjust the nozzle's tilt. So you can actually build an SRB, and mess with the tilt of the nozzle to counteract it's offset thrust.
Actually a dual-engined Centaur has flown, just not on an Atlas V. Centaur was originally designed with two RL-10s in the 60's. Performance improvements meant that one could be deleted, though two is still an option.
3:32 Scott:"...You're gonna see right away, it' starts going sideways - Whole thing is essentially is power-sliding off the launch pad like a boss." Best quote ever :D
@@imagineaworld oh yeah, if you know whats drifting is it automaticly makes you a forza player got it. and drifting is power sliding becuase just look at it you literally just slide with power on the wheels and the 'wheel'
I just watched the ULA launch footage and came here looking for an explaination. Luckily, this was at the top of your channel! This is why the world loves you, Scott.
Lockheed Martin engineers : so after consulting with an expert, it appears that "adding more boosters" would solve all our problems Scott : Did I tell them about the symmetry button ? Oh well, they'll figure it out
Hi Scott, I've added nozzle deflection on ProceduralSRBs! The plugin should be updated soon. I was actually adding another feature in the ProceduralPart plugin while listening to your video. I've added polyhedral (3 to 12 sides), mk2 & mk3 shapes and I've also managed to code an adapter part that support different shapes and sizes (like hexagon to mk2 for example). Theses ares mostly finished and should come soon.
Well, I'm not Scott, but I can suggest a couple things. 1) Keep them as small as possible. See how tiny you can make the probe and still be able to cram all the necessary bits on in a plausible manner. 2) Look at real probes for inspiration. A personal favorite of mine is Luna 9. There's something amusing about a weird lumpy probe that shoots a big egg into the sky. 3) Try AIES and DMagic Orbital science; they both add nice probe bits and science experiments respectively.
I was at the ULA Ground Station in Denver for a launch viewing of OSIRIS-rEX. I asked them this very same question about the 441 configuration! It was very interesting to get to talk to the engineers about this.
Thank you for the explanation Scott! I'm not a total rocket noob, but have been wondering about the strange Atlas V SRB configurations for some time and seeing OSIRIS-REX being launched on a 411 just brought the question up again. :)
Great video! I would lead off why the SRB's are offset at the beginning of the video instead of the end. Pose the challenge at the beginning so we can all be stupified until we get shown this awesome workaround and how it works. Love these explanation vids. Short and sweet.
"Power sliding off the launch pad like a boss" lmao. nice one Scott. Great video otherwise too! The way I tried this before watching your video was just to reduce the SRB throttle to 50% & the regular engines do just fine too - the SRB almost lasted as long as the 1st stage too :)
Thanks Scott, Nasa TV mentioned 411 configuration twice already since I started watching the launch coverage - kinda nice to know what they mean. Now if only they would put up altitude in meters and not feet - fingers crossed :)
It also makes more sence from a manufacturing perspective all these configurations can be mounted to the same 5 mounting points. If you would try to space them out evenly only the 2 and 4 config could use more than one common mounting point.
thank you for saying 'regardless'. proper use of the language. I'm really tired of people saying irregardles (double negative). oh and as always I love your videos. just sub'd Cheers
It's cool watching this 3 years later when they are currently mapping out where OSIRIS-REx will be making its touchdown on Bennu. Turns out Bennu is basically a giant pile of rubble so it's gonna be tricky
There are two mods that will get you something much closer to what the Atlas 411 really looks like. KW Rocketry has an SRB that looks just like the ones used on the Atlas. Its nozzle is angled outward but I'm not sure if it's enough. Ven's Stock Revamp adds an engine that looks a lot like the RD-180. It has two nozzles and a 4 degree vector range.
Hi Scott! I think that you should have rotated the two vector engines and not the solid booster to compensate the slide . The problem is that the vector engines ignite at 0 vectoring and that gives a little side push from the solid booster. If you rotate the vector engines that would compensate the side push from the booster right at the ignition. Regards!
I think it would also have been useful to mention that the X2X and X4X versions are asymmetrical because they use positions from the X5X setup, as all setups do. This means they don't need different mounting points depending on the version, it just means they need some and don't need others.
another thing you could do is turn down the thrust limiter on the solid rocket so it pushes less and the engine can compensate and it burns longer like you said
The SRBs in reality also have an inward thrust vector built into them, so that helps as well. It was weird looking to watch! But of course the space shuttle was asymmetrical too.
Actually... I would think there really is no advantage to having an asymmetrical rocket except when you are dealing with a main hull that already has asymmetrical bits on the outside of it. Of course there's the monetary advantage if you can pull off the adjustments needed and don't need to get the payload into a really high orbit. If all you need is a little boost at the initial launch stage, then a single booster would offer you exactly what you need without requiring a lot of calculations regarding length of burn and whatnot. You'd waste less resources on the other SRB carrying less than it's optimal fuel source.
Thanks for the informative video. However, I think I read there are other versions in the planning with the DEC (dual engine) version of the Centaur upper stage. For the SNC DreamChaser spaceplane I guess, or Boeing CST-100. That would add more possible versions, the bigger possibly being 552 ! But again, what number would account for the fairing, or lack thereof, when launching a Dreamchaser ?!
Scott can you make a video or help me with this problem I'm having with re entering a space plane. when ever I try to re enter it gains speed from gravity and it goes above the part heat which is 1400m/s for alot of stuff and it gets destroyed before I can slow it down. if you could tell me the best angle to re enter or how to slow my self down that would help alot! (can you do it with base game parts only because I have no mods)(I'm asking you because you know sooooo much and your a great guy)(thanks if you respond!!!)
The important thing with aerodynamic reentrys is to use your wings to drop to an altitude where you get the most braking without overheating and then stay at that height. Not every glider can manage it and honestly there's a lot of guesswork involved in finding the reentry trajectory that works for your design.
Break-burning, Airbrakes, Aero breaking. To be fair, the easiest way I found is using tons of airbrakes, which will act like a massive parachute and slow you down rapidly on decent. You could then also have small thrusters in the nose that help slow you down even more.
That's necessary to avoid turning the astronauts into strawberry jam, or at least making them very uncomfortable. Satellites on the other hand don't care so much. The RL-10 upper stage engines are old tech and ludicrously expensive to make, so you want to use as few as possible. So normally you fly mostly straight up and then do a big dogleg into orbit for satellites. Humans are a bit too squishy for that, so you have to go sideways earlier on the core stage but that means you need more upper stage performance.
Love your videos. You know what we need? We need a means of getting stuff up into space that is a cheap as shipping stuff on earth. All these rockets are fun and stuff, but they are a joke. Why? Well, we go move all the dangerous, ,and dirty stuff up into space, and make earth a big park. Houses, trees, and that kind of stuff. With industry in space we could just ship the toxic waste to the sun. Love the work, keep it up. Oh, hey, I know how to do it? Ask me.
@Scott Manley This doesn't make sense. Why didn't they build it like 2srb on left vs 2srbs on right instead of 3vs2? In my configuration they would still be able to put 1vs1 but this time symmetrically, with 1vs0 it would be the same situation as here. But let's compare 2vs3 vs 2vs2 (so many vs's... :) Off course the 3srb have more thrust than 2 but as you noticed to compensate they need to use main sail with bigger vectoring and/or swivel the nozzles of srbs a bit. BUT doesn't the vectoring/swiveling mean that the part of the thrust is redirected to move the rocket horizontally? Isn't that redirected thrust wasted? We don't want the rocket to travel horizontally (on that low altitude). Especially that it means carrying extra srb (extra weight!) just to make swivel it and its neighbours enough to lower their vertical thrust to equal thrust of 2 opposite srbs. (Not mentioning the unequal air resistance and other disadvantages..)
So why did they fixed the mountpoints to be 3vs2 when (if my thinking is correct) the 3vs2 configuration has the same vertical thrust (due to the wasted horizontal) as 2vs2. They could fix the mountpoints to be symmetrical 2vs2. Pros: - the same vertical thrust as 3vs2 - not carrying extra srb weight - no asymmetrical configuration - less complicated configuration (air resistance etc...) Cons: - ??? There must be some. I'm sure that NASA didn't just mount the extra srb for fun :) ... Or did they? Maybe they have more in common with Kerbals than we thought?
The 3v2 is more thrust than the 2v2. The horizontal component of thrust is a small percentage of the total thrust (5.2% to be precise is the 3 deg cant is accurate).
You're making the wasted thrust a way bigger issue than it really is. The nozzles on SRMs are canted by about 3°, and the RD-180 can gimbal by 8°. If you look at the vertical thrust components (just multiply by the cosine) you're only losing 0.14% thrust on the booster and still less than a percent on the main engine, even if the nozzles were fully deflected.
If the problem was stuff on the first stage getting in the way, why didn't they space the SRB(s) further out from the core so they wouldn't overlap the stuff sticking off the core, using something like KSP's TT-70?
In real life the variants of the atlas V has it's boosters offset because the weight on the inside of the main section is not centered as well as the external engineering. Those fuel tanks aren't just neutrally weighted cans of fuel, they have a lot of internal works as well to handle that fuel and keep it safe when it's flowing.
Thanks as always for the video Scott. Sorry if it's off topic for the video, but in one of your live streams you mentioned you learned a lot of what you talk about from reading on your own and watching documentaries. Do you have a list of some of your favorite reads somewhere? I'm always looking for great space/physics/astronomy books and shows, and if you have some suggestions I'd love to see. Thanks!
Hi Scott. I really want to hear about your opinion about the EmDrive and the recent passing of peer review of NASA's version of the engine. Do you have any plans on making a video covering this subject in the foreseeable future?
nasa has great knoledge in unbalanced rockets, considering the shuttle as a mess to balance (huge outside tank, solid booster, wings, off center nozze, off center cargo)
Yep, it's just a thrust vectoring problem that is hard to solve in KSP given the limitations of the build system.
i wish
But it’s built by ula
@@machy8515 so
I looked to see if there is an Atlas 404. Couldn't find it...
This should have more likes; I think it went over most people's heads lol.
There is a 403, but nobody's allowed to see it.
They tried to build a 500 too, but it kept exploding.
+thomastc i think you didn't understand his joke or i didn't understand yours :D
EDIT: I didn't!
I have a 418 in my house.
"[...] you'll see that this rocket is essentially power-sliding like a boss"
That is one of the best quotes I've ever heard!
The septic guy would be proud.
That's basically the same thing i thought of as well :)
Gaalidas Jacksepticeye?
It is
Just to put it out there for anyone still watching this :P.. Procedural parts SRBs do now have a setting to adjust the nozzle's tilt. So you can actually build an SRB, and mess with the tilt of the nozzle to counteract it's offset thrust.
Actually a dual-engined Centaur has flown, just not on an Atlas V. Centaur was originally designed with two RL-10s in the 60's. Performance improvements meant that one could be deleted, though two is still an option.
@Leo Fisher Cassini launched on a Titan IV with Centaur T transfer Stage so yes but not in the Common way you would expect with your comment
The rotational thrust vectoring at 8:50 is so awesome! :D Reminds me of a dance line.
KSP - stock gimballed solids are long overdue....
kw rocketry has some
Mod ≠ stock.
Actually Mod = stock, @Eklykti logic
Isaiah Phillip full stock is boring anyway.
See update 1.8 for details.
3:32 Scott:"...You're gonna see right away, it' starts going sideways - Whole thing is essentially is power-sliding off the launch pad like a boss."
Best quote ever :D
Atlas V: Tokyo Drift
Drifting is not power sliding you forza knewb
@@imagineaworld oh yeah, if you know whats drifting is it automaticly makes you a forza player
got it.
and drifting is power sliding
becuase just look at it you literally just slide with power on the wheels and the 'wheel'
I just watched the ULA launch footage and came here looking for an explaination. Luckily, this was at the top of your channel! This is why the world loves you, Scott.
Rewatched this in my recommendations, and OSIRIS already picked up its sample. Time flies!
Lockheed Martin engineers : so after consulting with an expert, it appears that "adding more boosters" would solve all our problems
Scott : Did I tell them about the symmetry button ? Oh well, they'll figure it out
Really funny
Thank you Scott for taking the time to explain us these things! And the Kerbal examples certainly helped to illustrate. Science rules!
at 7:33 there are actually 3 on one side, one is clipping into the other.
Yeah, and there was some clever camera rotation to try and hide that. It failed of course. We're way too quick to be fooled by camera rotations.
I think that was an error when building it
Thank Godfor you posting, I thought I was insane.
Probably forgot symmetry on.
The real one actually has two SRBs clipping into each other. The MAN just doesn't want you to know about it.
Hi Scott, I've added nozzle deflection on ProceduralSRBs! The plugin should be updated soon.
I was actually adding another feature in the ProceduralPart plugin while listening to your video.
I've added polyhedral (3 to 12 sides), mk2 & mk3 shapes and I've also managed to code an adapter part that support different shapes and sizes (like hexagon to mk2 for example). Theses ares mostly finished and should come soon.
I just started playing KSP and I absolutely love how you use KSP to show how thing work. we'll done, sub'd for sure
Excellent video Scott! I'm always impressed by your ability to disseminate technical info.
Crazy to live in a time where the mission this video discusses, Osiris REX, had already been completed.
This reminds me of the shuttle engines looking like they're locked offset to the boosters on launch giving a bit of a side ways drag.
Project "Peg Leg". Best name for a rocket EVER.
Huh. Well the asymmetry makes sense now. I guess it's easier to just use thrust vectoring than it is to redesign the whole rocket.
That feel when you've been expecting a brain-damaging flow of math as an explanation and instead...
feeling*
Feel, singular (feels, plural) is internet new-english for regular english: feeling/feelings, emotions
Scott, could you please do a video on making probes or satellites in KSP look aesthetically better.
And if you do please include the mods you use to make them look better
Well, I'm not Scott, but I can suggest a couple things.
1) Keep them as small as possible. See how tiny you can make the probe and still be able to cram all the necessary bits on in a plausible manner.
2) Look at real probes for inspiration. A personal favorite of mine is Luna 9. There's something amusing about a weird lumpy probe that shoots a big egg into the sky.
3) Try AIES and DMagic Orbital science; they both add nice probe bits and science experiments respectively.
I was at the ULA Ground Station in Denver for a launch viewing of OSIRIS-rEX. I asked them this very same question about the 441 configuration! It was very interesting to get to talk to the engineers about this.
Your voice is so soothing to listen to, couple that with the technical amazingness of KSP and its probably my favourite thing ever.
Thank you for the explanation Scott! I'm not a total rocket noob, but have been wondering about the strange Atlas V SRB configurations for some time and seeing OSIRIS-REX being launched on a 411 just brought the question up again. :)
Use the SSTU mod, it has what you are looking for in it's SRBs.
I guess now we know why ULA launches are so expensive.
The one tilted SRB is already found on the KSP stock "Orbiter One".
Great video! I would lead off why the SRB's are offset at the beginning of the video instead of the end. Pose the challenge at the beginning so we can all be stupified until we get shown this awesome workaround and how it works. Love these explanation vids. Short and sweet.
That entire "like-a-boss" launch bit...
Just... wow. 🤔 You, sir MUST be a king amongst nerds. And ladies.
Oppa Kerbal Styyyyyle >mewp > mewp > mewp > mewp > moop moop 😎
Yes. I was about to ask What's the point of inducing torque if you only have to compensate. And you answered. Keep these coming.
I have been looking for an answer to this question forever - thank you!
"Power sliding off the launch pad like a boss" lmao. nice one Scott. Great video otherwise too!
The way I tried this before watching your video was just to reduce the SRB throttle to 50% & the regular engines do just fine too - the SRB almost lasted as long as the 1st stage too :)
dude... you have half a million subscribers. Half a million people worldwide are paying attention to you. that's the size of a small city! congrats!
Please Scot keep up the good work of explaining rocket sience to the world by playoing that awsome game, you do great.
I always contemplated the "why" of the Atlas V's booster symmetry problem. had no idea the answer was so simple!
Love these Real situations in KSP videos! Great work Scott, keep it up! :)
the 421 is a person with OCD's nightmare
not really
Who's here after Astra launch?
And now, the Osiris-Rex is safely on its way to Bennu after a flawless launch.
thank you for posting this video I was thinking about that all during the launch
This gave me inspiration to make an Osiris Rex replica in KSP.
Excellent and informative video. I love when you make videos like this.
5:45 That truck flattened that poor little dude!
xD
“Power-sliding off the launch pad” shall be my phrase of the week. ;)
Scott Manley: powersliding off the launch pad like a boss.
Would you believe 7 years later, the samples have returned but they're stuck in the sample return canister?? What a time to be alive
Atlas is an OCD's nightmare
Thanks Scott, Nasa TV mentioned 411 configuration twice already since I started watching the launch coverage - kinda nice to know what they mean. Now if only they would put up altitude in meters and not feet - fingers crossed :)
as long as the taxpayers are funding it in dollars, you will see feet and miles on NASA.
sure enough, procedural SRBs now have nozzle deflection.
0:30 I like the subtle SpaceX burn
I was wondering about it for a long time, thank you. BTW, Atlas just looks funny with just one SRB :)
So, NASA rocket engineers finally went kerbal.
... yeah.
Atlas V is not NASA's rocket. It was made by Untited Launch Alliance (ULA). Just saying.
5:44 oh no oh no it's gonna crash oh my GOD
Soo much knowledge. Thanks for sharing!
It also makes more sence from a manufacturing perspective all these configurations can be mounted to the same 5 mounting points. If you would try to space them out evenly only the 2 and 4 config could use more than one common mounting point.
thank you for saying 'regardless'. proper use of the language. I'm really tired of people saying irregardles (double negative).
oh and as always I love your videos. just sub'd Cheers
It's cool watching this 3 years later when they are currently mapping out where OSIRIS-REx will be making its touchdown on Bennu. Turns out Bennu is basically a giant pile of rubble so it's gonna be tricky
I saw the Atlas V 551 in person. My oh my. Space X is really cool, but ULA is also pretty neat.
Scott you should come visit the Cape sometime, I got the watch the launch from the turn basin I front of THE VAB with my telescope, and it was great.
The back and forth movement is called porpoising. The up and down thrust of the mammals tail cause it’s nose to go up and down in the water.
Commence operation pegleg! I lol'd.
Wait, we are getting asteroid samples?!?! Nice!
Thanks Scott, that was very interesting. I would like to know more about the Atlas and plumbing on the booster-stage.
Interesting, I might look into this for my career mode saves.
That moment when you watched all Scotts videos so you just watch them all over again .
There are two mods that will get you something much closer to what the Atlas 411 really looks like. KW Rocketry has an SRB that looks just like the ones used on the Atlas. Its nozzle is angled outward but I'm not sure if it's enough. Ven's Stock Revamp adds an engine that looks a lot like the RD-180. It has two nozzles and a 4 degree vector range.
Scott, what computer system do you use? Specs, please... Thanks!
I"m thinking N Korea should consider allowing youtube access to their country.
Hi Scott! I think that you should have rotated the two vector engines and not the solid booster to compensate the slide . The problem is that the vector engines ignite at 0 vectoring and that gives a little side push from the solid booster. If you rotate the vector engines that would compensate the side push from the booster right at the ignition. Regards!
Your 541 was actually a 551... You can't fool us Mr. Manley!
Needs Eurobeat Music! awesome as always
I think it would also have been useful to mention that the X2X and X4X versions are asymmetrical because they use positions from the X5X setup, as all setups do.
This means they don't need different mounting points depending on the version, it just means they need some and don't need others.
I actually got to see Osirus Rex while it was being built at Lockheed Martin.. Got to wear the fancy white suit and everything.
another thing you could do is turn down the thrust limiter on the solid rocket so it pushes less and the engine can compensate and it burns longer like you said
Really interesting video. Cheers :D.
Scott! love your videos!! I wondered if you offered an introduction to making space stations, I use the console version
The SRBs in reality also have an inward thrust vector built into them, so that helps as well.
It was weird looking to watch! But of course the space shuttle was asymmetrical too.
Oh, sorry, you get to that at 3:50.
The 541 has 3 SRBs on one side, two clipped into each-other. 7:32
Nice explanation! Would love if you could do a Soyuz and simulate the Korolev Cross
ruclips.net/video/yQiS1PIpvYg/видео.html
That's actually quite easy
Actually... I would think there really is no advantage to having an asymmetrical rocket except when you are dealing with a main hull that already has asymmetrical bits on the outside of it. Of course there's the monetary advantage if you can pull off the adjustments needed and don't need to get the payload into a really high orbit. If all you need is a little boost at the initial launch stage, then a single booster would offer you exactly what you need without requiring a lot of calculations regarding length of burn and whatnot. You'd waste less resources on the other SRB carrying less than it's optimal fuel source.
In the 5 meter version, the centaur upper stage is inside the fairing of the rocket,not exposed.
The drag would be crazy going sideways like that
"And besides, it works in Kerbal space program"
Thanks for the informative video.
However, I think I read there are other versions in the planning with the DEC (dual engine) version of the Centaur upper stage. For the SNC DreamChaser spaceplane I guess, or Boeing CST-100.
That would add more possible versions, the bigger possibly being 552 !
But again, what number would account for the fairing, or lack thereof, when launching a Dreamchaser ?!
Scott is genius
Scott can you make a video or help me with this problem I'm having with re entering a space plane. when ever I try to re enter it gains speed from gravity and it goes above the part heat which is 1400m/s for alot of stuff and it gets destroyed before I can slow it down. if you could tell me the best angle to re enter or how to slow my self down that would help alot! (can you do it with base game parts only because I have no mods)(I'm asking you because you know sooooo much and your a great guy)(thanks if you respond!!!)
The important thing with aerodynamic reentrys is to use your wings to drop to an altitude where you get the most braking without overheating and then stay at that height. Not every glider can manage it and honestly there's a lot of guesswork involved in finding the reentry trajectory that works for your design.
Break-burning, Airbrakes, Aero breaking. To be fair, the easiest way I found is using tons of airbrakes, which will act like a massive parachute and slow you down rapidly on decent. You could then also have small thrusters in the nose that help slow you down even more.
Easy, just go outside and get a fucking life, nerd. Jk I have no idea.
The Boeing "Starliner" is set to use the Atlas-V 442, First ever use of the 2-engine centaur.
That's necessary to avoid turning the astronauts into strawberry jam, or at least making them very uncomfortable. Satellites on the other hand don't care so much. The RL-10 upper stage engines are old tech and ludicrously expensive to make, so you want to use as few as possible. So normally you fly mostly straight up and then do a big dogleg into orbit for satellites. Humans are a bit too squishy for that, so you have to go sideways earlier on the core stage but that means you need more upper stage performance.
That last rocket looks like Zephram Cochrane's Phoenix warp test ship.
Love your videos. You know what we need? We need a means of getting stuff up into space that is a cheap as shipping stuff on earth. All these rockets are fun and stuff, but they are a joke. Why? Well, we go move all the dangerous, ,and dirty stuff up into space, and make earth a big park. Houses, trees, and that kind of stuff. With industry in space we could just ship the toxic waste to the sun. Love the work, keep it up. Oh, hey, I know how to do it? Ask me.
are those ISSAC modules in your capsule tab? 4:30
@Scott Manley
This doesn't make sense.
Why didn't they build it like 2srb on left vs 2srbs on right instead of 3vs2?
In my configuration they would still be able to put 1vs1 but this time symmetrically, with 1vs0 it would be the same situation as here.
But let's compare 2vs3 vs 2vs2 (so many vs's... :)
Off course the 3srb have more thrust than 2 but as you noticed to compensate they need to use main sail with bigger vectoring and/or swivel the nozzles of srbs a bit.
BUT doesn't the vectoring/swiveling mean that the part of the thrust is redirected to move the rocket horizontally? Isn't that redirected thrust wasted?
We don't want the rocket to travel horizontally (on that low altitude). Especially that it means carrying extra srb (extra weight!) just to make swivel it and its neighbours enough to lower their vertical thrust to equal thrust of 2 opposite srbs.
(Not mentioning the unequal air resistance and other disadvantages..)
+bagins82 yes the lateral thrust is wasted. There is a 2vs2 config - the 541. But the mount points are fixed so it's still asymmetrical
So why did they fixed the mountpoints to be 3vs2 when (if my thinking is correct) the 3vs2 configuration has the same vertical thrust (due to the wasted horizontal) as 2vs2. They could fix the mountpoints to be symmetrical 2vs2.
Pros:
- the same vertical thrust as 3vs2
- not carrying extra srb weight
- no asymmetrical configuration
- less complicated configuration (air resistance etc...)
Cons:
- ???
There must be some. I'm sure that NASA didn't just mount the extra srb for fun :)
... Or did they? Maybe they have more in common with Kerbals than we thought?
The 3v2 is more thrust than the 2v2. The horizontal component of thrust is a small percentage of the total thrust (5.2% to be precise is the 3 deg cant is accurate).
You're making the wasted thrust a way bigger issue than it really is. The nozzles on SRMs are canted by about 3°, and the RD-180 can gimbal by 8°. If you look at the vertical thrust components (just multiply by the cosine) you're only losing 0.14% thrust on the booster and still less than a percent on the main engine, even if the nozzles were fully deflected.
Can't wait till they test Falcon Heavy, that should be some good fireworks during fueling.
9:30 What was that gravity turn ...
RUclips recomendations:
2016: no
2017: no
2018: no
2019: no
2020: why not?
Late to the launch. Ended up pulling off the highway onto the grass ten miles away to watch osiris rex.
If the problem was stuff on the first stage getting in the way, why didn't they space the SRB(s) further out from the core so they wouldn't overlap the stuff sticking off the core, using something like KSP's TT-70?
In real life the variants of the atlas V has it's boosters offset because the weight on the inside of the main section is not centered as well as the external engineering. Those fuel tanks aren't just neutrally weighted cans of fuel, they have a lot of internal works as well to handle that fuel and keep it safe when it's flowing.
Thanks as always for the video Scott. Sorry if it's off topic for the video, but in one of your live streams you mentioned you learned a lot of what you talk about from reading on your own and watching documentaries. Do you have a list of some of your favorite reads somewhere? I'm always looking for great space/physics/astronomy books and shows, and if you have some suggestions I'd love to see. Thanks!
Hi Scott. I really want to hear about your opinion about the EmDrive and the recent passing of peer review of NASA's version of the engine. Do you have any plans on making a video covering this subject in the foreseeable future?
Scott, will you talk about closed cycle engines? I want to know why it's such a risky design and why it delivers so much more performance.