so, i imagine a 1o min segmented series on potato peeling through the ages, is it wasteful to fast peel deep under the skin or do just the surface, and the renaissance era peeling methods and tools!
that rocket in a trailer behind a normal car is looking so strange. There is a orbital rocket where you would except a boat. Some people just rolling a rocket out of the hangar by hand looks strange as well though
Ikr when you first start out, you think bigger is better, constricting massive monstrosities only for them to crash and burn. But the most impressive things ever done are always the smallest and the simplest. I've sent massive ships into jool orbit yet I always get a smile on my face when I get a 2ton single staged rocket into LEO... :)
so... what I heard was 'it's not the size of your rocket that matters... but it's efficiency' :) on a serious note, thanks for the history lesson Scott, keep up the great work :)
No, it goes: "It's not the size of the rocket; it's if you consistently "deliver the payload" on target! ;-) (Or maybe something about "docking maneuvers?")
Same way with locomotives. The UP4000 class "Big Boy" were the biggest steam locomotives ever built, but the 2-6-6-6 Allegheny type was the most powerful while being much smaller. But in the 4000's defense it was run using low grade coal from Wyoming (where it operated). Not the kind Ohio (where the 2-6-6-6 operated) had which has more energy per KG.
In case anyone else was wondering too why Scott said it was appropriate with a black rocket launched from NZ. It's probably because their national rugby team wear black uniforms and are known as the 'All Blacks'.
Not just our Rugby team mate, Hockey team: Black sticks, Softball: Black socks, Cricket: Black Caps, and it keeps going, New Zealand National Colour is Black!
"We've come up with our own rocket!" "Can the project" "We've built he world's first supersonic airliner!" "Scrap it" "We've got our own nuclear reactors!" "Nah, let's get some from elsewhere instead" "We've got the record for longest sustained Nuclear Fusion here!" "Whelp, time to let France do the innovation from now on!" I'm starting to notice a pattern here...
I Live in NZ and met the CEO of rocketlab at an event at the University of Auckland once. I had a chat with him and he seemed like a pretty cool guy. I asked him if he plays KSP and he said no because he plays it in real life but also said he was a fan of how it's making space more popular. Thought this would be the kind of thing you guys might be interested in :)
A very successful _Scout_ launch vehicle was pretty small -- it weighed only about 20 tons. Between 1960s-1990s it had 87 successful launches, and put in orbit many small satellites including the first satellite navigation system to be used operationally. At 20 tons, it was 25m tall and had four solid fuel stages.
Here in Brazil, our national space agency is planning a VLM (mini-satellite launch vehicle] launch in 2019. After one accident in Alcantara launch complex with the VLS rocket, the progress developing rockets here is so slow. Ill be glad if you talk about this in some video. Thank you Scott, from Brazil :D
XôséMoura Here in Argentina we had our own space program. It had its own rocket project (they tested some of the stages) and managed to build our first ever geostationary satellites (arsat 1 and 2). The satellites have been privatized and the program is being scrapped now under president Macri's administration 😢. Anyway, good for Brazil, I love your country. You are our only hope.
You brazilians should climb over the fence in to French Guana and steal one of our Ariane rockets, we probably wouldn't miss just the one and it'd help out a neighbour :)
Håkan, I am going to assume that the person who thought of sending tourists into an aurora borealis is the kind of person that loves the beach and starts every sentence with "Dude, ". The same kind of person whose favorite weather is "Earthquake" because the waves are much better.
@Saul: The Arsat geostationary comm sats were launched with no customers for the services they could provide. AFAIK they are spending their operational lives doing nothing useful nor paying back at least part of their cost. I would be glad to be proven wrong.
Oh, I have no doubt it's going to be amazing for the tourists, both in flight and on the ground. I was just making some surfer-jokes. Aren't auroras waves of radiation that is surfing along on our magnetic field, until they reach the atmosphere up here in the north? (And down south) So flying INTO an aurora is definitely an idea from a Virgin Galactic California employee. :-) Bit of a surfer stereotype joke.
The first amateur object in orbit was about 1963. They piggybacked up on an Air Force flight. To date there have been two successful amateur sub orbital space shots, both by the Go Fast team.
Two that you know about. There are people out there not interested in all of the red tape associated with spaceflight. But when you go that route you're also breaking the law. So those people tend to keep a low profile because of that.
How amateur do you want? Because Rocketlab was started by an amateur in New Zealand who has since gone on to get some funding from America to make his dreams come true. It's not like you can build a rocket in your garage that's capable of achieving orbit....there's a point where a rocket is just too small.
As an Australian, it fills me with mixed emotions to see the success of New Zealand's space program. By comparison, we here Down Under have only just created a panel to investigate whether Australia should have a space agency... honestly, I am so embarrassed by our national lack of co-ordination in this area, especially given our talent! Anyway, go Kiwis! Good on you, guys! Show us how it's done... ;-)
Space Post... or, should I say, Spa-a-a-ce Po-o-o-st... I like the sounding of that! Better than James May sending G.I. Joe into space... Maybe you could take a photo of the Aurora Borealis for us? ;-)
Fair enough, I did drift off topic, there... I was just generally congratulating our Pacific cousins on their co-ordination and determination in general, with a little humility for the chaotic ad hoc we Australians are unfortunately becoming renowned for...
True, yes, I did drift off topic... Australians aren't supposed to be proud of, let alone inspired by, our New Zealand neighbours, you see... something about colonial rivalry, you know, like the Twelve Tribes of Kobol or such... ;-)
New Zealand has a functional Space program. Australia has established a working group. Australia's subs don't work, our new aircraft carriers have hull cracks, our new fighter is permanently delayed. Since Julie Bishop accidentally declared war on NZ a few weeks ago, I'd just like to say they when they invade, I'm quite happy to collaborate.
Excellent. You have something to say and you say it clearly. No attempts at humor (which always fail) and no dithering. You get right to the point.As regards the subject matter: you address a question I have long pondered.
It is a centrifugal pump. The LOx and propylene would flow the same in an electric drive centrifugal pump and a fuel powered turbo pump. Why not call it an electric turbo pump? "Plain old fuel pumps" are often reciprocating or some other sort of positive displacement pump.
TMoD7007, can you provide a reference for that? Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster both define a turbopump as a pump driven by a turbine. "Turbo" refers specifically to the turbine side. The other side is either a centrifugal pump or axial-flow pump depending on the design.
Though it was not just one rocket, _Apollo_ mission required 6 major propulsion stages: three on _Saturn V_ booster (about 3000 tons) one on _Service module_ to get onto the lunar orbit and back (30 tons including Command module) one on Lunar descent module to land on the moon (15 tons go down) and finally one on the lunar ascent module, to get from the surface back up onto the lunar orbit (5 tons start on the way up) Of all this, only about 5 tons were returning back to earth. (Note: all weights are approximate)
Fun Fact: Even smaller rockets use actually rubber and oxygen/an oxygenator as fuel, ad I learned a few days ago. They won't make it into LEO or above, but you can actually rubber your rocket into space.
Hi Scott. The Vanguard project was not competing with the Russian program. Vanguard was an IGY earth-orbiting tool that would "launch when it is ready". Eisenhower loathed the idea of a "race", _before & after_ Sputnik was launched. The American public decided he should re-think that POV. As you know on June 10, 1957 the Russians had already released a report, distributed to 64 countries, about the upcoming orbital launch which did not affect the Vanguard schedule. Of course due to engineering difficulties with Vanguard components it stayed true to the promise "launch when ready". ;) *And ... great channel.*
"Space countries" and their allies also have access to matured ICBM stuff. There is your "small payload to LEO" technology almost ready to use, unless you are not a government.
Drunken Hobo Sadly that's seems to be how it is in most of the world. Look at NASA there funding gets cut by rediculous amounts so "taxes can be lower."
USA is still boosting military spending while people whine that NASA costs too much of the budget. NASA receives pocket lint compared to the military's huge wealth.
Rocket Lab's electron rocket has been on my own "radar" (following on social media LOL) for awhile now, and one aspect I find most interesting is the engine production. Their homepage states that the Rutherford Engine is "The first Oxygen / Kerosene engine to use 3D printing for all primary components" , and that "engine print time: 24 hours". How common and/or safe is this production method for rocket engines? Which parts would be considered primary? I think Scott might have to take a trip down there to see these printers in action!
Pegasus was not that small. The rocket weighed 18,500 kilogram. Technically the launch to orbit weight has to include the B-52 as a first stage so more like 200,000 kilogram.
The Electron is cray cray in a good way. 20x 50hp electric turbo pumps run from batteries. It's just a shame he had to put the stars and stripes on it. Funding has to come from somewhere I guess.
Makes me wonder what the theoretical limit is for this, working under assumptions of metallic hydrogen and graphene being used. Fusion rockets might be hard to miniaturized, but maybe with a ground based laser ignition system. I guess we will see, as I expect to see many more experimental models being tried in the coming years now that commercial interests are slowly working their way into the industry.
With a ground based propulsion system, like a laser pushing the spacecraft, you could have almost the entire mass be payload with only tiny dV for final orbit adjustment. Only an orbital elevator could be more efficient.
Kyoko Kobayashi. I thought that as well as there is such a system that has been in developement for some time. But by the context l think she meant using the laser to initiate fusion of onboard hydrogen.
Awesome! Do these rockets accelerate too fast to put a person in one of them? Could they be used, for example, as escape launch systems to get out of Mars (to rendezvous with an orbiting ship) if everything else failed?
Possibly, though humans can take some pretty high G's for a short duration. I'm sure a far bigger problem would be fitting an ~80Kg Human + several hundred kilograms of life support hardware onto a rocket designed to launch ~25Kg
I just imagined they'd put just the person and enough oxygen to make it to whatever vessel awaited for him in orbit. For Earth maybe it would be too heavy, but what about Mars? Or the Moon? ^
Love your videos Scott. Had to laugh a bit when I thought you said "VonBraun's Exploder One rocket"! I know it's the accent but still made me laugh. :)
FYI, France used their own launchers as soon as 1960's. It is actually the 3rd astonautical nation, after US and ex-USSR, having succesfully launched an artificial satellite in 1965 (called "Asterix").
"To get the short end of the stick" is a funny saying. I wonder what that stick looks like. I guess it has to have some marking that determines where the length of each end is measured from.
Just out of curiosity, would one of these mini rockets (especially an all solid booster system) be able to use some kind of magnetic pre-first stage... basically a railgun? While I understand that there are multiple problems with surface to orbit guns (either chemical or magnetic), it's my understanding that one of those problems (extreme acceleration) also makes them a poor choice as a head start for larger rockets... but I've never seen anything about whether they could work for solid rockets with smaller (and presumably more durable) payloads.
IndustrialDonut, I hope you're trying to be funny, because that isn't just a non-answer, but a rather bad one to boot. We build lots of very big, very expensive things, and we spend lots of money putting lots of things in orbit. As demonstrated by the LHC, if it is possible and functional, size is not a problem.
thing is... for smaller payloads, an airlaunch system is way simpler and easier to do than some uber powerful railgun system, given that such system would have to go up into the upper atmosphere in order to not loose all that energy due to drag...
Thing is, anything like an air launch has many of the same problems as a normal, multistage rocket. You have to get your hardware and fuel off the ground. All three systems are just different ways to try and solve the same problem, ie getting through (some portion of) the lower atmosphere, so that doesn't really strike me as being an argument. The economic questions are matters of comparative maintenance (or even recoverability) on the hardware itself and whether the direct use of electricity in the rail is more or less efficient than the manufacturing process for the fuel, etc. That is, the trade-offs extend well beyond the stuff you see at launch day. What I want to know is if the hardware could even survive the acceleration and how much rocket (or jet) could you expect to shave off your launch vehicle(s) in the trade?
Dave Masten of Masten Space Systems mused out loud "What is the propellant mass fraction of an oil tanker?" :-) The largest rocket concept anyone has put a lot of time into is, as far as I know, SeaDragon at 18000 tonnes, about the size and weight of an Ohio class submarine.
Well yeah but that all depends on the rocket. SeaDragon was huge but super simple. There are houses with more complex plumbing. And instead of high tech space materials they would have just made it out of submarine grade thick steel so the the cost of the actual rocket wasn´t that big. That´s engineering that wouldn´t make sense on a smaller vehicle.
The bigger a rocket is the larger the fuel fraction is (90% on a rocket stage is good, on the first stage of Saturn V it was 94% is think, and the even bigger booster on Elons Mars-rocket was supposed to be 96%), at some point that might come to a maximum and then decrease again but no rocket has reached that point yet.
Depends how high a thrust density you can make. At some point, thrust density limits mean you can't make a rocket any taller, only wider. And when a rocket becomes too wide, it becomes aerodynamically unstable because the centre of pressure is too close to the centre of mass.
Can you cover the very first long-range rocket? I think it was German and developed by Wernher von Braun. Despite it was developed by the Nazis I think its kinda interesting because it was the first one.
J Shepard, the low end of short range is a shoulder launched RPG or BDM. One of the USA's stated reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 was the existence of rockets that could fire over 150km.
Great video, only go-back: the Electron’s pumps are not electric turbopumps, but rather simply electric pumps. Turbopumps are characterized by their use of a high pressure gas expanding thru a turbine wheel (hence turbo)
Now that we know what the smallest orbital rocket is, what's the smallest rocket overall? I'm assuming it's going to be a Gyrojet / Microjet type thing, but you never know! And what are the limits of how small we can make them?
Depends on what you're classing as a rocket. I can make some pretty teeny things out of match heads and tinfoil. Then you get the hobbyist stuff with Estes engines. Also, fireworks.
I'm open to blurred lines here, though my thinking was confining it to closed-cycle continuous-thrust jet engines. In a military context, rocket-assisted projectiles are commonly called rockets, as are rounds from recoilless rifles such as the AT4 or MAAWS, whereas the SMAW is in fact a true rocket launcher. How far can we scale this down, what's the most practical, in-use application?
I'd never heard about NOTSnik before - that's a really interesting "early space era" system. I love that in the article I found it mentions that even *INCLUDING* the F-4D Skyray, it was the lightest weight orbital launch vehicle! (Up until 1998 when the article was written, at least.)
Why do people choose to make black rockets? It seems like it's a poor choice because it will absorb more heat from the sun than it's white counter part. I would think that heat is a bad thing, and would want to be avoided at any possible point. Can someone explain why it doesn't make much of a difference?
I just watched that movie Astronaut Farmer (I know it's been out forever). Can you do a video about all of the scientific inaccuracies in that movie? I know it'll be a long video.
He could make a 10 - 30 second video on how accurate the movie was instead. That'd be easier. Watched the movie the other day. Lets see.... No staging what so ever. The rocket is a nod to the Atlas 1 yet there is no skirt separation. rocket goes straight up and goes into a magic orbit. The other blatant problem was the amount of fuel he ordered would maybe fill 1/8th of the rocket. Its ashame. People look at realism and think BORING!. Couldnt be more wrong. When it comes to launching rockets realism makes for a MUCH more dramatic scene with more action. So hollywood does themselves a massive disservice by not doing their homework. Theres only been ONE movie that got space flight right. Just one. Apollo 13. And even then there are problems. ( Such as them looking out the window of the CM before the escape tower jettisons ). Hollywood just refuses to do rockets correctly. Ive no clue why. Even the Martian royally screwed it up by cgi'ing Chinese writing over at Atlas V 401 ( a massively undersized rocket for what the mission they were depicting in the scene ) instead of making a custom cgi rocket like they should have. ( The one in the book is a "Delta VI" iirc so a completely fictional rocket. I forget what the Chinese rocket was called )
Motokid600 The entire first launch accident scene made my BS detector go into overdrive. Like there's no way it would just fly along the ground and not explode into oblivion. Then the deorbit part where he just cancels all of his horizontal velocity out and just falls straight through the atmosphere within miles of home without even trying...
I think Scott Manley talked about that in some other video and he said it was because real life jet engines are not nearly as powerful or effective as in ksp
Name a SSTO that's cheaper. Real world, now, not KSP. We need ~7km/s IRL, not 2300km/s like in KSP. That leaves a huge gap between what an air-breather can do vs what is required. Heck, an SR-71 would get you almost halfway to KSP's orbital velocity, but doesn't come close IRL. An X-15 would BE a SSTO...IRL, it can barely make it up to the Karman line.
Plus we already DO air launch small satellites from an F15. Essentially an "air-to-air missile on steroids." It's small, but not necessarily cheap. It's mainly good because you can put a spy satellite into orbit on demand, making it harder for "Lil' Kim" to time the overflight and put his toys away...not to save money, necessarily.
Thanks again Scott. I particularly enjoy your real world perspective pieces. Hoping you might expand upon this topic. Specifically, with more and more private launch operations and smaller delivery vehicles meaning presumably more frequent launches, what could be the sustained ecological impact in the areas adjacent to launch centers and beyond?
Great video, Scott. Very informative. It raises some questions for me. For instance, what are the economics of launching small rockets like? Yes, the total cost of the rocket goes down, but does the price per pound of payload go up? Is it less efficient, physically and financially, to use smaller rockets?
As one who lived through Vanguard and the explorer series launches, I recall some of the proposals being publicized around that amazing time. One that was perhaps more speculative than possible was the Scoutmaster from New Mexico who thought his troop of Boy scouts could build their own rocket to reach a 60 mile high orbit... just barely. I imagine he worked at White Sands, and knew something about the necessary characteristics of velocity and altitudes needed. Project Pilot is news to me, despite my service in the Navy in 1961-4. A poor altitude reached or less than circular orbit at minimum orbital altitude may indeed have been possible, Of course all the speculation about Amelia Earheart's radio transmissions being heard long after her disappearance have a lot in common with the aspirations of radio enthusiasts in out of the way parts of this world:)
The closer we can get to "routine" launches the better. Make them like lorries, not container ships. Data packetize space travel (out-of-order, easy resend, linked in orbit). Separate people (more g-sensitive) and cargo (less g-sensitive) to make payload design easier. For a Moon mission, we could be launching supplies years in advance of the crew, having robots prep the site, so it's basically turn-key for the crew.
Thank you for an informative account. You concentrated on ten tons and below, but the twenty ton (+/- 3) air-launched Pegasus has an extensive, though mixed, record. The Electron is certainly a promising entry, especially for the highly desirable sun-synchronous polar orbits, for which piggy-back launches are not very frequent or convenient. Its electric turbopump is an ingenious idea, and a very fine launching station has been built. I think it has a bright future.
I like how he talks about smaller rockets being as good as the big ones. I've always been self conscious about my rocket size.
That British rocket was a choad, when he said bullet I was thinking butt plug.
Lmao i get it
David Lebanon was attempting to make rockets in the 50’s but canceled cause neighboring countries feared they were “too advanced, and dangerous”
It’s not about size it about what payload you can do with it
And premature stage separation
Does it mean that if you attach the Electron to the Russian Proton it'll make hydrogen?
Get out.
Zeke yeah, but at Launch it reacts with the oxygen and leaves water behind.
I would actually like to see that!
Well even if you have a proton without an electron it's still a hydrogen ion right?
Oh, I laughed waaay too hard at that! :-)
I just love Scott's hair style.
Tidy, neat, easy to care for!
No need to take two bottles into the shower either.
Same, it's very.... "Efficient".
Dael Ra: Who does that anyways (except women)? Ever heard about any hair+shower gel 2in1? :D
Made my day 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Sooo, technically Falcon 9 could launch a _complete Electron rocket with its fuel and payload_ into orbit? 😂
Alpha Adhito only if it could fit in the fairing...
TheToric "technically" 😛
Though I'm sure the fairing could be modified to hold an Electron rocket!
If you modified the fairings, then probably.
Well, a Rocket is a quite aerodynamic payload on itself, just slap an Adapter between there :D
Scott makes everything so interesting. I can watch him talk about peeling potatoes and still be entertained and informed for 10 minutes
I would love to see him do a video on the launch loop. That thing is awesome.
Droplifter it's *efficient*
There is a great cooking video with Paul McCartney where he peels potatoes. It's very interesting....
Omg last so true 😂
so, i imagine a 1o min segmented series on potato peeling through the ages, is it wasteful to fast peel deep under the skin or do just the surface, and the renaissance era peeling methods and tools!
I like how Scotts' accent makes it sound like he's saying "Exploder" as the rocket explodes at 2:50 or thereabouts
Is he a Scot?
@@FelixHdez Scot Manley XD
Japan uses KSP for their space program.
That's why they use boosters.
The Raging Gamer boosters are cool
MOAR STRUTS
More boosters!
@@joannataylor3089 MOAR BOOSTARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MOAR BOOSTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
that rocket in a trailer behind a normal car is looking so strange. There is a orbital rocket where you would except a boat.
Some people just rolling a rocket out of the hangar by hand looks strange as well though
Third world dictator envy :-) Seriously, that rocket is about the size of a Scud.
Sounds like overengineering rockets is also a real world problem and not just an issue in KSP.
Ikr when you first start out, you think bigger is better, constricting massive monstrosities only for them to crash and burn. But the most impressive things ever done are always the smallest and the simplest. I've sent massive ships into jool orbit yet I always get a smile on my face when I get a 2ton single staged rocket into LEO... :)
Sounds more like there is not such high demand for tiny satellites.
SirHyneman how about an 0.25 Meter big rocket xD
@@Cris022 Idk... Saturn V's are pretty impressive things.
so... what I heard was 'it's not the size of your rocket that matters... but it's efficiency' :)
on a serious note, thanks for the history lesson Scott, keep up the great work :)
No, it goes:
"It's not the size of the rocket; it's if you consistently "deliver the payload" on target! ;-)
(Or maybe something about "docking maneuvers?")
Same way with locomotives. The UP4000 class "Big Boy" were the biggest steam locomotives ever built, but the 2-6-6-6 Allegheny type was the most powerful while being much smaller. But in the 4000's defense it was run using low grade coal from Wyoming (where it operated). Not the kind Ohio (where the 2-6-6-6 operated) had which has more energy per KG.
In case anyone else was wondering too why Scott said it was appropriate with a black rocket launched from NZ. It's probably because their national rugby team wear black uniforms and are known as the 'All Blacks'.
PropaneWP thank you!
like being called all blacks while being mostly white is not awkward as hell?
Ioperspest now I need an explanation for that.
Good too know thanks!
Not just our Rugby team mate, Hockey team: Black sticks, Softball: Black socks, Cricket: Black Caps, and it keeps going, New Zealand National Colour is Black!
"We've come up with our own rocket!"
"Can the project"
"We've built he world's first supersonic airliner!"
"Scrap it"
"We've got our own nuclear reactors!"
"Nah, let's get some from elsewhere instead"
"We've got the record for longest sustained Nuclear Fusion here!"
"Whelp, time to let France do the innovation from now on!"
I'm starting to notice a pattern here...
CosmicX1 Concorde wasn't scraped
lachlan woodsmith ehh... it got cancelled
"We're part of the biggest economic power in the World!"
"Let's leave it."
I notice a distinct lack of supersonic passenger aircraft operated by any airlines equipped with Rolls-Royce Olympus engines. Scrapped.
"We invented gunpowder!"
"Let's eat it."
I Live in NZ and met the CEO of rocketlab at an event at the University of Auckland once. I had a chat with him and he seemed like a pretty cool guy. I asked him if he plays KSP and he said no because he plays it in real life but also said he was a fan of how it's making space more popular. Thought this would be the kind of thing you guys might be interested in :)
They are in business now - you should go and interview.
Yes, Peter seems wonderful! :) Thanks for sharing!
Large enough to still get into orbit.
A very successful _Scout_ launch vehicle was pretty small -- it weighed only about 20 tons. Between 1960s-1990s it had 87 successful launches, and put in orbit many small satellites including the first satellite navigation system to be used operationally. At 20 tons, it was 25m tall and had four solid fuel stages.
Here in Brazil, our national space agency is planning a VLM (mini-satellite launch vehicle] launch in 2019. After one accident in Alcantara launch complex with the VLS rocket, the progress developing rockets here is so slow. Ill be glad if you talk about this in some video. Thank you Scott, from Brazil :D
XôséMoura Here in Argentina we had our own space program. It had its own rocket project (they tested some of the stages) and managed to build our first ever geostationary satellites (arsat 1 and 2). The satellites have been privatized and the program is being scrapped now under president Macri's administration 😢. Anyway, good for Brazil, I love your country. You are our only hope.
You brazilians should climb over the fence in to French Guana and steal one of our Ariane rockets, we probably wouldn't miss just the one and it'd help out a neighbour :)
Håkan, I am going to assume that the person who thought of sending tourists into an aurora borealis is the kind of person that loves the beach and starts every sentence with "Dude, ".
The same kind of person whose favorite weather is "Earthquake" because the waves are much better.
@Saul: The Arsat geostationary comm sats were launched with no customers for the services they could provide. AFAIK they are spending their operational lives doing nothing useful nor paying back at least part of their cost. I would be glad to be proven wrong.
Oh, I have no doubt it's going to be amazing for the tourists, both in flight and on the ground.
I was just making some surfer-jokes.
Aren't auroras waves of radiation that is surfing along on our magnetic field, until they reach the atmosphere up here in the north? (And down south)
So flying INTO an aurora is definitely an idea from a Virgin Galactic California employee. :-)
Bit of a surfer stereotype joke.
I thought the smallest was tony probe!
References on point
I wonder when amateurs will put something into orbit. I'm sure it will happen eventually.
quantumac
yeah, they've put Space Shuttle in orbit already. Professionals are working on the projects shown here
North Korea put a "satellite" into orbit
The first amateur object in orbit was about 1963. They piggybacked up on an Air Force flight. To date there have been two successful amateur sub orbital space shots, both by the Go Fast team.
Two that you know about. There are people out there not interested in all of the red tape associated with spaceflight. But when you go that route you're also breaking the law. So those people tend to keep a low profile because of that.
How amateur do you want? Because Rocketlab was started by an amateur in New Zealand who has since gone on to get some funding from America to make his dreams come true. It's not like you can build a rocket in your garage that's capable of achieving orbit....there's a point where a rocket is just too small.
Well damn. If you can get a cubesat into orbit with rockets that small then that just about makes me want to start a space launch company hehe.
It's sad when you're super interested in something but illegal in your country
I just started mine lmao
@@mechedrei3036 gl imma start mine in a week or two
@@elkhamlichi2558 you are from which country
As an Australian, it fills me with mixed emotions to see the success of New Zealand's space program. By comparison, we here Down Under have only just created a panel to investigate whether Australia should have a space agency... honestly, I am so embarrassed by our national lack of co-ordination in this area, especially given our talent! Anyway, go Kiwis! Good on you, guys! Show us how it's done... ;-)
it's more of a private company that operates in New Zealand, and the government seen it as a chance to make some money.
It is a Kiwi guys dream and he ended up getting funding from an American company. Has nothing to do with the NZ govt.
Space Post... or, should I say, Spa-a-a-ce Po-o-o-st... I like the sounding of that! Better than James May sending G.I. Joe into space... Maybe you could take a photo of the Aurora Borealis for us? ;-)
Fair enough, I did drift off topic, there... I was just generally congratulating our Pacific cousins on their co-ordination and determination in general, with a little humility for the chaotic ad hoc we Australians are unfortunately becoming renowned for...
True, yes, I did drift off topic... Australians aren't supposed to be proud of, let alone inspired by, our New Zealand neighbours, you see... something about colonial rivalry, you know, like the Twelve Tribes of Kobol or such... ;-)
You can't Scott the Manley!
YOU CAN'T MAN THE SCOTTLEY!
Stanley the manley
New Zealand has a functional Space program. Australia has established a working group.
Australia's subs don't work, our new aircraft carriers have hull cracks, our new fighter is permanently delayed. Since Julie Bishop accidentally declared war on NZ a few weeks ago, I'd just like to say they when they invade, I'm quite happy to collaborate.
can't i atatch a couple of fireworks to a raspberry pi and say its the shortets orbital rocket?
if you can get it into orbit, sure
Only if it can do orbit
I feel a sense of nostalgia with these smaller rockets. Like we've gone back to the 50's.
Technically you could put 3+ electrons on falcon heavy
*Hmmmmmm...*
And them launch them - while the Falcon Heavy is launching. Launch them from a launching rocket. Somebody beat that! :D
1:08 this footage of electron made me realize its 2 times smaller than i tought
Electron Rocket with a Rutherford engine?
Loving the names 😉
Excellent. You have something to say and you say it clearly. No attempts at humor (which always fail) and no dithering. You get right to the point.As regards the subject matter: you address a question I have long pondered.
A turbo pump that's electrically powered isn't a turbo pump. It's just a plain old fuel pump.
Turbo in the sense of "really good" rather than "relating to a turbine".
It is a centrifugal pump. The LOx and propylene would flow the same in an electric drive centrifugal pump and a fuel powered turbo pump. Why not call it an electric turbo pump? "Plain old fuel pumps" are often reciprocating or some other sort of positive displacement pump.
I expect they put a button marked TURBO on them so that they could call them turbo pumps.
A turbine is a wheel that's driven by fluid flow, by definition. If it's being used the other way around, it's not called a turbine.
TMoD7007, can you provide a reference for that? Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster both define a turbopump as a pump driven by a turbine. "Turbo" refers specifically to the turbine side. The other side is either a centrifugal pump or axial-flow pump depending on the design.
The Black Arrow has always been one of my favorite looking rockets. I wish they would be kept with it.
So I am wondering, what is the rocket with the most stages?
Hmm... Minotaur V? 5 stages which matches that Japanese one iirc.
The world is ripe with possibilities now that we can autostrut
the only one I know with a really high stage count is probably the N1 l3 rocket from the Soviets don't quote me on that though
The only stages I know of are denial, regret and apathy.
The stages of true survival.
Though it was not just one rocket, _Apollo_ mission required 6 major propulsion stages:
three on _Saturn V_ booster (about 3000 tons)
one on _Service module_ to get onto the lunar orbit and back (30 tons including Command module)
one on Lunar descent module to land on the moon (15 tons go down)
and finally one on the lunar ascent module, to get from the surface back up onto the lunar orbit (5 tons start on the way up)
Of all this, only about 5 tons were returning back to earth. (Note: all weights are approximate)
The BBC should hire Scott to narrate a documentary, its the pitch that sells, Scott has the gene.
PLD Space in Spain is designing something similar to these rockets
Fun Fact: Even smaller rockets use actually rubber and oxygen/an oxygenator as fuel, ad I learned a few days ago. They won't make it into LEO or above, but you can actually rubber your rocket into space.
ROCKET LAB DID IT :)
Hi Scott. The Vanguard project was not competing with the Russian program. Vanguard was an IGY earth-orbiting tool that would "launch when it is ready". Eisenhower loathed the idea of a "race", _before & after_ Sputnik was launched. The American public decided he should re-think that POV. As you know on June 10, 1957 the Russians had already released a report, distributed to 64 countries, about the upcoming orbital launch which did not affect the Vanguard schedule. Of course due to engineering difficulties with Vanguard components it stayed true to the promise "launch when ready". ;)
*And ... great channel.*
Would also make NZ a country capable of sending spacecraft to the moon!
Great video, although I was hoping that you would talk about the challenges faced when designing small rockets.
Exploder 1 is back :D
The F4D still counts as part of the weight. It's essentially a manned "first stage".
"Space countries" and their allies also have access to matured ICBM stuff. There is your "small payload to LEO" technology almost ready to use, unless you are not a government.
Love all your videos, I especially love these historical perspectives, though. Keep them up!
Well that was a nice little boost to my bruised British ego.
Politics got in the way as usual. Prospero is still up there AFAIK.
Drunken Hobo Sadly that's seems to be how it is in most of the world. Look at NASA there funding gets cut by rediculous amounts so "taxes can be lower."
their* ridiculous* - Well, apparently, funding for your spelling got cut as well. Pity.
Anvilshock Education is hurting as well.
USA is still boosting military spending while people whine that NASA costs too much of the budget. NASA receives pocket lint compared to the military's huge wealth.
Rocket Lab's electron rocket has been on my own "radar" (following on social media LOL) for awhile now, and one aspect I find most interesting is the engine production. Their homepage states that the Rutherford Engine is "The first Oxygen / Kerosene engine to use 3D printing for all primary components" , and that "engine print time: 24 hours". How common and/or safe is this production method for rocket engines? Which parts would be considered primary? I think Scott might have to take a trip down there to see these printers in action!
2:43 I heard "They eventually launched Exploder 1 before Vanguard..."
This video has got me psyched to try to get the smallest payload with the smallest rocket into a stable orbit in KSP
Exploder I?
Exploder I.
So, I didn't just mishear that!!
It did exactly what it said on the tin, it exploded and flew upwards.
Bailey Jorgensen explorer
Vanguard was small
As someone who loves chemistry, the Electron rocket with Rutherford engines is rather neat. Creative naming.
No mention of Pegasus?
Pegasus was not that small. The rocket weighed 18,500 kilogram. Technically the launch to orbit weight has to include the B-52 as a first stage so more like 200,000 kilogram.
The Electron is cray cray in a good way. 20x 50hp electric turbo pumps run from batteries. It's just a shame he had to put the stars and stripes on it. Funding has to come from somewhere I guess.
Reminds me of the Topgear Reliant Space Shuttle which not came close to orbit....
But, damn, it was cool! :-)
nordbart CP Could it actually reach orbit? It seemed to be quite small
ThatSaneGuy They were using commercial hybrid engines, I forget which vendor. And I think it only went some couple hundred metres in altitude lol
If KSP has taught me anything,
*MOAR THRUST*
My grandfather worked on Vanguard.
That's cool. What did he do exactly?
I presume he learned to duck.
They are nice bikes.
Scott (yes, rocket Scientist) Manley. Love your stuff Scott.
Scott last night I rondevouzes and docked with a craft in LKO
Congrats!
Congratulations! Don't forget to use shielding on your docking port.
Tyrion Lannister what do you know of such things, imp?
haha sex jokes
dosmastrify: If Tyrion does know shit about anything, it would be whores and whine. :D
Now I really want to be a rocket scientist so I can work on baby rockets.
Makes me wonder what the theoretical limit is for this, working under assumptions of metallic hydrogen and graphene being used.
Fusion rockets might be hard to miniaturized, but maybe with a ground based laser ignition system. I guess we will see, as I expect to see many more experimental models being tried in the coming years now that commercial interests are slowly working their way into the industry.
With a ground based propulsion system, like a laser pushing the spacecraft, you could have almost the entire mass be payload with only tiny dV for final orbit adjustment.
Only an orbital elevator could be more efficient.
Kyoko Kobayashi. I thought that as well as there is such a system that has been in developement for some time. But by the context l think she meant using the laser to initiate fusion of onboard hydrogen.
Depends...can we "cheat" and get some of the dV from a railgun launch, B.F. Cannon, or similar?
What do you mean "now that commercial interests are slowly working their way into the industry". Commerce doesn't innovate.
Kyoko Kobayashi
assuming that one itself would have been theoretically possible anywhere, but Moon and other sattelites only
2:44 Scott saying "Explorer One" but actually sounds like "Exploder One" while there is a video of a rocket exploding in the background.
Scott could you use a large enough helium ballon to lift a small rocket up and launch into a low earth orbit?
Bloostar does this. It's a Spanish rocket.
These queries he's answering are fantastic!
Awesome! Do these rockets accelerate too fast to put a person in one of them? Could they be used, for example, as escape launch systems to get out of Mars (to rendezvous with an orbiting ship) if everything else failed?
pretending you could get a human inside a sounding rocket yes they'd instantly become spam in a can. Electron's acceleration might be okay.
Damian Reloaded A sounding rocket would
Possibly, though humans can take some pretty high G's for a short duration. I'm sure a far bigger problem would be fitting an ~80Kg Human + several hundred kilograms of life support hardware onto a rocket designed to launch ~25Kg
I just imagined they'd put just the person and enough oxygen to make it to whatever vessel awaited for him in orbit. For Earth maybe it would be too heavy, but what about Mars? Or the Moon? ^
I weigh about 40KG. So e few of them could put me up there.
Love your videos Scott. Had to laugh a bit when I thought you said "VonBraun's Exploder One rocket"!
I know it's the accent but still made me laugh. :)
@The Critical VonBraun did actually have an Exploder One rocket, but it's usually called the V2.
yeah, you don't need a giant rocket to get something into space. that's not what she said though
FYI, France used their own launchers as soon as 1960's. It is actually the 3rd astonautical nation, after US and ex-USSR, having succesfully launched an artificial satellite in 1965 (called "Asterix").
And now I'm playing Kerbal. Lolol.
Funny how after watching this video I immediately loaded up KSP too
Did you also try to make the smallest possible orbital rocket?
When you barely maneged to get into Orbit once and fourty years later your ex-colony the size of city does monthly:
Cries in Great Britain
To be fair
Cries tea.
We would've put a man in space ten years before the Soviets but we were kinda poor after we, y'know, saved the free world.
@@Skive_67
kinda poor?
saved the free world?
lmaoooooo
@@softb You just gonna forget WW2 happened? While they were still recovering from WW1?
"To get the short end of the stick" is a funny saying. I wonder what that stick looks like. I guess it has to have some marking that determines where the length of each end is measured from.
Just out of curiosity, would one of these mini rockets (especially an all solid booster system) be able to use some kind of magnetic pre-first stage... basically a railgun? While I understand that there are multiple problems with surface to orbit guns (either chemical or magnetic), it's my understanding that one of those problems (extreme acceleration) also makes them a poor choice as a head start for larger rockets... but I've never seen anything about whether they could work for solid rockets with smaller (and presumably more durable) payloads.
AutodidacticPhd I was going to make a longer reply but I realized all I really should say is: you'd need a really big rail gun!
IndustrialDonut, I hope you're trying to be funny, because that isn't just a non-answer, but a rather bad one to boot. We build lots of very big, very expensive things, and we spend lots of money putting lots of things in orbit. As demonstrated by the LHC, if it is possible and functional, size is not a problem.
thing is... for smaller payloads, an airlaunch system is way simpler and easier to do than some uber powerful railgun system, given that such system would have to go up into the upper atmosphere in order to
not loose all that energy due to drag...
Thing is, anything like an air launch has many of the same problems as a normal, multistage rocket. You have to get your hardware and fuel off the ground. All three systems are just different ways to try and solve the same problem, ie getting through (some portion of) the lower atmosphere, so that doesn't really strike me as being an argument. The economic questions are matters of comparative maintenance (or even recoverability) on the hardware itself and whether the direct use of electricity in the rail is more or less efficient than the manufacturing process for the fuel, etc. That is, the trade-offs extend well beyond the stuff you see at launch day.
What I want to know is if the hardware could even survive the acceleration and how much rocket (or jet) could you expect to shave off your launch vehicle(s) in the trade?
In short, I'm getting a little frustrated that you guys seem more interested in dodging or dismissing the actual question rather than answering it.
I was planning on going into Aerospace Engineering and this was one thing I wanted too work on because it interests me alot.
What is the largest practical size for a chemical rocket?
Dave Masten of Masten Space Systems mused out loud "What is the propellant mass fraction of an oil tanker?" :-) The largest rocket concept anyone has put a lot of time into is, as far as I know, SeaDragon at 18000 tonnes, about the size and weight of an Ohio class submarine.
zapfanzapfan and had an engine bell that could fit the whole Saturn V 1st stage!
Well yeah but that all depends on the rocket. SeaDragon was huge but super simple. There are houses with more complex plumbing. And instead of high tech space materials they would have just made it out of submarine grade thick steel so the the cost of the actual rocket wasn´t that big. That´s engineering that wouldn´t make sense on a smaller vehicle.
The bigger a rocket is the larger the fuel fraction is (90% on a rocket stage is good, on the first stage of Saturn V it was 94% is think, and the even bigger booster on Elons Mars-rocket was supposed to be 96%), at some point that might come to a maximum and then decrease again but no rocket has reached that point yet.
Depends how high a thrust density you can make. At some point, thrust density limits mean you can't make a rocket any taller, only wider. And when a rocket becomes too wide, it becomes aerodynamically unstable because the centre of pressure is too close to the centre of mass.
The Imperial assualt carrier in the background just earned you a sub, go x-wing!
Can you cover the very first long-range rocket? I think it was German and developed by Wernher von Braun. Despite it was developed by the Nazis I think its kinda interesting because it was the first one.
beshtaa - The V2. It was considered long range at the time with a range of 200 miles. Today it would be on the low end of short range.
J Shepard, the low end of short range is a shoulder launched RPG or BDM. One of the USA's stated reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 was the existence of rockets that could fire over 150km.
J Shepard Maybe the OP was thinking of the mythical intercontinental V2 successor featured in at least one fictional account of the V2 program.
Great video, only go-back: the Electron’s pumps are not electric turbopumps, but rather simply electric pumps. Turbopumps are characterized by their use of a high pressure gas expanding thru a turbine wheel (hence turbo)
I have a question; should the masses of rockets be compared with fuel included or excluded from the measurement?
keco185 Both. There should be a dry mass and a wet mass to compare.
True. Too bad that wasn't used in this video
All that really matters is the wet mass, because it's not going anywhere without fuel, therefore not really a 'rocket', just a prop.
I was surprised that you didn't mention Pegsus, but then I checked its Wikipedia page and found that it was much heavier than I'd expected: 18,500 kg.
Now that we know what the smallest orbital rocket is, what's the smallest rocket overall?
I'm assuming it's going to be a Gyrojet / Microjet type thing, but you never know! And what are the limits of how small we can make them?
Depends on what you're classing as a rocket. I can make some pretty teeny things out of match heads and tinfoil. Then you get the hobbyist stuff with Estes engines. Also, fireworks.
I'm open to blurred lines here, though my thinking was confining it to closed-cycle continuous-thrust jet engines. In a military context, rocket-assisted projectiles are commonly called rockets, as are rounds from recoilless rifles such as the AT4 or MAAWS, whereas the SMAW is in fact a true rocket launcher.
How far can we scale this down, what's the most practical, in-use application?
SkullCollector that just opens the flood gates for all those Little rockets you build from hobby lobby
I'd never heard about NOTSnik before - that's a really interesting "early space era" system. I love that in the article I found it mentions that even *INCLUDING* the F-4D Skyray, it was the lightest weight orbital launch vehicle! (Up until 1998 when the article was written, at least.)
Why do people choose to make black rockets? It seems like it's a poor choice because it will absorb more heat from the sun than it's white counter part. I would think that heat is a bad thing, and would want to be avoided at any possible point. Can someone explain why it doesn't make much of a difference?
Thomas Caulfield Because the rocket doesn't spend much time in space, unlike the payload maybe.
LoganThe Llama ohhh ok. I guess that could make sense.
Cool factor! Publicity matters.
+Thomas Caulfield paint adds mass
I am going to guess that the payload isn't black, only the launch vehicle, which is going to be heating up during launch anyways.
Scott, is that "last night a DJ saved my life" On your shelf back there?
Scott, do you still play rimworld?
The army wanted a very similar capability, with the SWORDS project, but with a mobile infrastructure. Never came about though unfortunately.
I just watched that movie Astronaut Farmer (I know it's been out forever). Can you do a video about all of the scientific inaccuracies in that movie? I know it'll be a long video.
taylor1038 Me too
He could make a 10 - 30 second video on how accurate the movie was instead. That'd be easier. Watched the movie the other day. Lets see.... No staging what so ever. The rocket is a nod to the Atlas 1 yet there is no skirt separation. rocket goes straight up and goes into a magic orbit. The other blatant problem was the amount of fuel he ordered would maybe fill 1/8th of the rocket. Its ashame. People look at realism and think BORING!. Couldnt be more wrong. When it comes to launching rockets realism makes for a MUCH more dramatic scene with more action. So hollywood does themselves a massive disservice by not doing their homework. Theres only been ONE movie that got space flight right. Just one. Apollo 13. And even then there are problems. ( Such as them looking out the window of the CM before the escape tower jettisons ). Hollywood just refuses to do rockets correctly. Ive no clue why. Even the Martian royally screwed it up by cgi'ing Chinese writing over at Atlas V 401 ( a massively undersized rocket for what the mission they were depicting in the scene ) instead of making a custom cgi rocket like they should have. ( The one in the book is a "Delta VI" iirc so a completely fictional rocket. I forget what the Chinese rocket was called )
Motokid600 The entire first launch accident scene made my BS detector go into overdrive. Like there's no way it would just fly along the ground and not explode into oblivion. Then the deorbit part where he just cancels all of his horizontal velocity out and just falls straight through the atmosphere within miles of home without even trying...
That rocket in the thumbnail looks like a big ass gatling gun
4.6k views I am the 4600th person to watch this
Super Random Gaming And Other Stuff nope, RUclips rounds up numbers eventually
I clicked the more button on the description which shows views down to the single on thx
What I'm seeing here is the cutest little ICBM.
I still don't understand, why not to use SSTO's? It's much more cheaper, it's completely reusable..
a KSP player I see...
SSTOs are much harder to do in real life.
I think Scott Manley talked about that in some other video and he said it was because real life jet engines are not nearly as powerful or effective as in ksp
Name a SSTO that's cheaper. Real world, now, not KSP. We need ~7km/s IRL, not 2300km/s like in KSP. That leaves a huge gap between what an air-breather can do vs what is required. Heck, an SR-71 would get you almost halfway to KSP's orbital velocity, but doesn't come close IRL. An X-15 would BE a SSTO...IRL, it can barely make it up to the Karman line.
Plus we already DO air launch small satellites from an F15. Essentially an "air-to-air missile on steroids." It's small, but not necessarily cheap. It's mainly good because you can put a spy satellite into orbit on demand, making it harder for "Lil' Kim" to time the overflight and put his toys away...not to save money, necessarily.
Thanks again Scott. I particularly enjoy your real world perspective pieces. Hoping you might expand upon this topic. Specifically, with more and more private launch operations and smaller delivery vehicles meaning presumably more frequent launches, what could be the sustained ecological impact in the areas adjacent to launch centers and beyond?
TBH, this is why I'm subscribed to this channel. Cool sh*t.
Great video, Scott. Very informative.
It raises some questions for me. For instance, what are the economics of launching small rockets like? Yes, the total cost of the rocket goes down, but does the price per pound of payload go up? Is it less efficient, physically and financially, to use smaller rockets?
A boollet. Your accent is awesome Scott! Thanks for the interesting video. 13 meters is damn small.
I just moved close to rocket labs, I can see the rockets launch, sooooooo cool
WOOOOOO! GO NZ!!!! Going to love having orbital launches from my birth country.
As one who lived through Vanguard and the explorer series launches, I recall some of the proposals being publicized around that amazing time. One that was perhaps more speculative than possible was the Scoutmaster from New Mexico who thought his troop of Boy scouts could build their own rocket to reach a 60 mile high orbit... just barely. I imagine he worked at White Sands, and knew something about the necessary characteristics of velocity and altitudes needed. Project Pilot is news to me, despite my service in the Navy in 1961-4. A poor altitude reached or less than circular orbit at minimum orbital altitude may indeed have been possible,
Of course all the speculation about Amelia Earheart's radio transmissions being heard long after her disappearance have a lot in common with the aspirations of radio enthusiasts in out of the way parts of this world:)
The closer we can get to "routine" launches the better. Make them like lorries, not container ships. Data packetize space travel (out-of-order, easy resend, linked in orbit). Separate people (more g-sensitive) and cargo (less g-sensitive) to make payload design easier. For a Moon mission, we could be launching supplies years in advance of the crew, having robots prep the site, so it's basically turn-key for the crew.
Thank you for an informative account. You concentrated on ten tons and below, but the twenty ton (+/- 3) air-launched Pegasus has an extensive, though mixed, record. The Electron is certainly a promising entry, especially for the highly desirable sun-synchronous polar orbits, for which piggy-back launches are not very frequent or convenient. Its electric turbopump is an ingenious idea, and a very fine launching station has been built. I think it has a bright future.
They did it today. 1/21/18. ElectronLabs, that is what found me here.
Nice video Scott - thanks!
Scott, everytime I hear you say "Moon" what I hear in my head is "Mun".
Im sorry Scott, but the acent makes it really funny when you say exploerer right as a shot of a rocket expolding runs on screen
"Great Scott!" - nice background there and as always nice info. Thnks
i like that you have a Mimitar Rifter on the shelf! lol