It's mind-blowing! SpaceX's NEW INSANE Manufacturing Raptor 3.0 engine shocked others...
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 авг 2024
- It's mind-blowing! SpaceX's NEW INSANE Manufacturing Raptor 3.0 engine shocked others...
===
#alphatech
#techalpha
#spacex
#elonmusk
#raptor
#engine
===
Subcribe Alpha Tech: www.youtube.co...
===
Sources of Thumbnail:;
Owe @Bl3D_Eccentric: / bl3d_eccentric
Neopork: / neopork85
Sources of Images and Videos:
Cosmic Perspective: / @cosmicperspective
Everyday Astronaut: / everydayastronaut
LabPadre Space: / labpadre
/ labpadre
TijnM: / @tijn_m
Groundtruth: / @groundtruth4442
StarshipGazer: / starshipgazer
Starbase Surfer : / cnunezimages
Robossbomb: / robossbomb
HoppAR: / hoppar_app
South Padre Surf Company : / spadrecomsouthpadreisl...
John Kraus: / johnkrausphotos
C-bass Productions: / @cbassproductions
Anthony Gomez: / anthonyfgomez
Ryan Hansen Space: / ryanhansenspace
Izan Ramos: / izanramos2002
Owe: / bl3d_eccentric
Christian Debney: / @christiandebney1989
Adam Cuker: / adamcuker
Greg Scott : / gregscott_photo
Clarence365: / @clarence3654
THELONELYCAT: / @thelonelycat
EARTHICS: / @earthics
Ezekiel Overstreet: / ezekieloverstr1
Stanly Creative: / @stanleycreative
SpaceXvision: / spacexvision
===
It's mind-blowing! SpaceX's NEW INSANE Manufacturing Raptor 3.0 engine shocked others...
One engine every day. This is the insane manufacturing frequency of SpaceX Raptor 2. That feat too enough to overshadow every current engine in the world.
But SpaceX will soon shock the aerospace industry even more with the new engine version, Raptor 3. Not only more powerful in thrust, but it will also push SpaceX's engine production rate to a new level.
So how fast SpaceX can produce with the Raptor 3? How can others reach that rate like SpaceX?
Stay tuned as we dive and more in today's episode of Alpha Tech! 
Наука
Seems like every day Space X is SHOCKING someone =D
I’ve come to realize that there’s an inverse relation between the amount of CAPS in these titles and real information. Unless and until the caps go away, I will no longer bother with these vids.
Saw your comment by the 6 second mark, thanks for stopping me from wasting my time.
That’s funny, I don’t care who you are…😂
Well l got introduced to this awesome channel because of the CAPS. Nice video.
ReAlLY DAM! caPs eveRYWHEre🤣
That takes confidence in the product to build so many.
If the regulators would improve their processes likewise we could really get somewhere.
This is a team effort with a chain of players where the pace is limited by the weakest link.
👍👍👍
GO SPACE X
🚀🚀🚀
No one can deny that SpaceX has done incredible things.. making the ince impossible, possible.. to the point that it becomes "routine" ( ie: landing boosters)
Falcon yes ...Starship NO!
I'm shocked !my mind is blown!
The main things holding the number of engines down are the number of people working on it and the size of the assembly line and the number of robots able to perform tasks in that assembly line. The number of these items that are included in the assembly line along with the rate of manufacturing the components necessary to construct the engine will determine the number that can be produced in a day. So, move the number of each of these units around and then you can start to determine how many engines can be produced in a day.
The question is not how many raptor engines can be produced in a day. But how many do they need this year🚀
Great questions👍
Stellar episode.
🌟
GO SPACE X‼️
Why isn't the exhaust Blue like the other engines out there?
The methane plume is green
Pushing one engine out the door every day does not mean they produce each one within one day! 😮😮😮
Sheeez....WE ALL KNOW THAT. They will have the CAPABILITY to though. They build it for their need. If they need to build 30 in 30 days, THEY CAN in the future. That is what Elon wants.
Shiftless robots may soon ramp up engine productivity.
Will SpaceX be producing 10 raptors every day, 365 days a year - probably not BUT by pushing their production speed they gain some immediate benefits including more engines, more build experience, and likely more reliability and reduced cost (from the experience of building that many engines). I think everyone has learned that benefit of frequent repetition/practice when developing a new skill. That done mean that after the initial demand is met that they won't scale back production level as demand reduces knowing they can always scale them back up.
Let's wait for their next feats ☺️
1.5 per day for 2024
♥️♥️♥️
Very nice. But the price is between $500k and $1m today. The entire rocket stack is $50-$100m per musk.
Odds are it will be 2 or 3 engines a day, but rumors suggest SpaceX may move on to an improved Raptor 3 or Raptor 4 rather than the current version of Raptor 3 still in testing.
The only problem with your analysis of the engine production doesn't mention staff numbers for building each engine, if his engine factory employs twice as much staff it could double the productivity of the same type of engine.
So just stating engine production doubled, trebled or quadrupled isn't the whole story, also part production or supply is another factor and so is cost (if he was paying more to have parts produced or supplied faster etc).
Don't get me wrong, he's doing for rocketry what Ford did for the motor vehicle industry so all credit too him but your overview is too basic and should've been more in depth to be a fair comparison really.
Simplifying designs will always lower cost and build time, if all other factors stay the same then yeah you could show that's what made them faster to produce, you should look into it and give a more accurate report.
It should only get faster to a point though lol
One a day is one a day. Then multiply capacity by 2 or 3 or duplicate the entire line/facility. Or both. I think one per day is fine. The boosters should last 20-40 trips to LEO so that leaves 6-9 raptors a week for the Starship second stage and then if they are cranking out one Starship per day then that would be a monumentally huge moment so lets not get ahead of ourselves, more baby steps. That would be 3years x 365days/year x 1STSper/day=1096 STS, basic StarShip units (mostly basic integrated loads, cargo, propellant's)
by ~ Aug 2028.
Based on the title of your content I was hoping to see something about the raptor 3 engine. Nothing "mind blowing" or "insane" or "shocking". Just a lot of old news talking about the efficiency of their production systems and comparing the raptor 1 engine to the raptor 2 engine.. Already knew that.
Well said! I was about to make a similar comment. Tired of all these click-bait arseholes pushing bullsh*t captions.
- Xtra, Xtremely, & Xponentatially Xciting future !
One of these engines a day is only an amazing thing to people who are inexperienced in airplane powerplant maintenance and overhaul. A team of skilled/experienced techs can drop these engines off a wing strip them down, build them up and reistall them on the wing in 24 hrs. The Raptor 3 engines are much simpler than the Pratt and Whitney engines from the 50s and 60s on the DC-8s and B-52s. Its takes skill talent and familiarity to build engines in shorter time frames.
You hit the nail right on the head, we are still sorta stuck in late 40's era of jet engine design/use. So only now with Merlin are we actually using a rocket engine more than once. But even then the engine have relatively low life spans like early jet engines of 1940's.
Let's Hope those revolutionary BF Rupture 3.0 Rocket Engines work ! ... and they better get Flying ! ... But , How can you get anything done ? ... When the place is a 3 Ring Circus .... :-/
Here is a strange idea! what if you add sound into the bell would or could that create a better flow or pattern to the flame out put, could that create more thrust without adding more fuel? Has anyone looked into that idea?
If they can produce 1 or 2 raptors per day on one line, multiply the number of lines.
2.6
Both the extremely high thrust levels - even more impressive considering it's a methane engine - and the mass production focus, are absolutely necessary for the Starship project.
Much the same can be said about the Merlin for the Falcon9.
The only way to reach the thrust/weight levels which are needed, is to keep down the rocket engine size. Which means having many of them. But that is necessary anyway, in order to have enough granularity to meet the throttling demands of a reusable rocket. That, however, also makes the rocket more expensive and more unreliable.
...Normally, that is, - however mass production techniques and rapid model iteration can provide a cure for both of those things, ...if that is planned already from the beginning!
And that is also why SpaceX is only developing one type of engine (for each rocket type). The high thrust & thrust/weight are not just needed for fighting gravity without solid boosters and for the fuel & weight equations for a returning and landing first stage, but also for the second stage. The second stage will have to start working early, because the first stage cannot fly too far or to too high energies if it is to return in a reusable fashion. And since the second stage is then not close to orbit, a high acceleration is still needed. Unlike Vulcan's second stage (which is effectively a third stage, due to the boosters), neither Falcon nor Starship can afford to dally around with a heavy and low thrust, but high specific impulse engine. If they did, they would fall back down again. The only thing that counts, by SpaceX perspective, is payload cost to LEO. Higher energy destinations is a second consideration, because they can always ultimately be included in the payload to LEO. Unless you're in a lot of hurry, once you're in orbit there are more effective ways to raise the energy level than chemical rocket engines.
Finally a comment about "simplification": Such can mostly only be accomplished by manufacturing fewer, but more complex & difficult to manufacture components. Again, doing that economically relies heavily on mass production.
👍👍👍
Don't care
Getting to orbit and beyond...
Do care...
Getting to destination
Oh yeh
And back...
Do care...
So is Spacex still making Raptor2 engines, or is all production now on Raptor3 engines?
They are still testing the limits of the Raptor3, that massive chamber pressure result was when they were testing it till it broke...but it didn't and so is planned for future till it breaks tests.
6/wk, steady, 300/yr, ÷42~6 Starships(Stgs 1&2)/yr, 48 spares.
🚀🚀🚀
The best part is no part.
I generally like your content but could you please stop using ALL CAPS clickbait headlines and refrain from using words, such as shocking, insane, disaster, mind blowing, elon musk and so on. Your channel content is well produced but poorly managed, at least if your goal is to attract serious subscribers rather than one off clicks. It might be in your interest to remove your location set to USA, but written in Thai; HOA KỲ 🤥
This is the largest glaring advantage SpaceX has over any other rocket manufacturer, especially the would be rival Blue Origin, egine building. BO will never produce engines as quickly and efficiently as SpaceX under their current work philosophy. They might be able to build a rocket, but it goes nowhere really fast without engines. Even if they get it to be reusable, their turn around time or refurbishment til the next rocket will be slow in comparison. Thats bad news for ULA and any company partnered with them. Their build philosophy must change to meet the new paradigm in rocketrey. The era of 1 or 2 launches a year are gone and when your rocket requires 7 engines, you'd better become proficient at building them or fall behind and lose potential customers to the company that is proficient and reliable.
SpaceX🚀🚀🚀
Mmmmm thoughts : space x rents out raptors to say blue or just their not so much in use engines maybe to other rocket manufacturers as well be sure a touchie subject given how everybody is copy as much as they could anyways lol at least going to the best team players on plant earth feels sort of good. Just saying.
1000 starships a year? For what? Starlink? We dont have that need for payload. Until we can cut down the travel to Mars to weeks, humans are not going. I would like to see nuclear tech developed for power and propulsion. Otherwise, we atr stuck on Earth and the moon. Not sure where the lift is required.
I agree! NASA should dump the SLS and instead put the money into developing nuclear power engines for the commercial space industry. To speed up getting to the moon, Mars, etc., bring back the old land grab that was done in the past. If a company is willing to spend their own money get to the moon and Mars, they can keep the resources they find. Capitalizing on the greed of these companies will get us to the planets faster than any bloated bureaucracy.
Chemical rocket to LEO. Nuclear once in space. The tons of throw weight relates to Martian colonization. Economics are funded by starlink, and then later, governments might kick in a buck to also have a Martian presence. But yes, there is no present economic case for heavy lift. Falcon Heavy tends to be underutilized.
@@mefobills279 exactly… the nuclear rocket could be a 20 yra development program. Best use I see so far for Starship
Is Starlink, space hotels, space telescopes. For mars, there are many technologies that would have to be developed first. Asteroid mining may come before since it ia technically simpler.
Why the personal abuse against Musk by these 2 sidekicks?
@@johnrday2023 I own Tesla stock. Did I say something false? And how is my statement “personal”
I wish you Really stress the79 engines needed because each one of them ends up at the bottom of the sea.Without reusability there is no way any space company will succeed Without the reusability factor.
Thanks for your contribution 👍
how many Raptor s would a falcon need?
4
Forget the specifications! Successful rocking engines are engines that actually boost economically successful launch vehicles into orbit successfully! The raptor engine has yet to be successful from this standpoint, and considering how many new versions of the starship keep popping up that aren’t actually working. It is extremely possible that the raptor will never launch an economically successful Launch vehicle into orbit.
Sir, if I may use a wartime analogy... In ww2 the M4 Sherman tank was created with mass production in mind and around the clock simplification methods decreased it's cost and increased it's production. In Germany the Tiger II, or Tiger Tank was known for it's quality and complexity via consistently knocking out such American tanks in high numbers virtually stopping the allied assault in Normandy until the number dense bombing run solved that problem. I say that to say this, there is a vertical emphasis on R&D and a horizontal emphasis on production. In a linear view each has a value of one. So... R&D consistently sets capability higher, production makes our reach affordable.... One has to choose... Starship if one where to stop increasing capability and stay as it is... Will only be able to comfortably bring 10 astronauts at a time to mars comfortably... In order for the 100 astronauts we must go higher vertically(R&D) than production wise.
@@furqaanmccutcheon3700
Good points. But so far wrapped engines have not succeeded at their primary task of boosting a rocket successfully into orbit. Also, apparently SpaceX is setting up to be able to produce many hundreds or even thousands of these raptor engines but it is very unclear if there is a market for enough Starships to actually use all of those engines. Right now, SpaceX has a large fraction of the launch market, which undoubtedly starship will take over. The question is how many starships will actually be needed? Another question that I’ve never heard answered is how many launch platforms will be needed? if starships can only be launched from these incredibly expensive and complicated launched platforms that SpaceX has designed, won’t that be a limiting factor on how many starships you really need to build? Also, I don’t think that there has been a very good analysis of how much it will actually cost to boost even one person to Mars and keep them alive there For any length of time. Until that analysis is in hand, I would say that starship represents a bridge to nowhere.
Last week Musk was asked when will he land a human on the moon and he quoted in 3 YEARS!!!! bloody hell did not he sign a contract with NASA to land on the moon this year! and still Starship has yet to reach orbit!
Up to 15 space refuels to get one rocket to the moon, that's a killer to get to the moon right there!
Elon Musk is selling Starship like a snake oil salesmen.
lol but even NASA is completely out of delay, even the suit isn't ready. Wasn't it 10 refuels tho? And maybe less with the new starship versions
Wont make it with nasa! He will do it SOLO.
@@Assassunnstrap on boosters will eliminate the refuel prob!
@@Assassunn 10 is way to many, designs are in to revise the whole Starship HLS saga and Space X is not included! as it will be a competitor albeit with less capability.
and dont forget THEY are reusable so if thay are 360 made a year 360 are reusable so next year thare are 720 then 1080 , 1440,1800 and on and on and on and on and BE4 one use pony
First of all BE--4 is designed to be reusable, not a one use pony like you said. Secondly, starship and new glenn are not developed to complete the same purpose and I'm not sure why so many people only support spacex. The advancement of our species requires the success of the whole industry, not just spacex
Those engines are to small for the moon missions
Pls explain
Mission capability is not about engine size. It's about specific impulse per engine, the number of engines, and total fuel capacity.
But even if you had been right and it was about size, you would still be wrong. We have already seen that the starship booster can get starship to low earth orbit.
From there:
Apollo performed it's translunar injection burn with a single Rocketdyne J-2 (2.3m wide).
starship has THREE raptor vacuum engines (each 1.3m wide) to get to the moon. If that weren't enough, it also has three sea level engines which can provide additional thrust if needed, albeit with lower efficiency.
As for fuel, Starship will refill it's huge tanks before leaving Earth orbit.
@@arturoeugster7228 thats all u got common
Jaz a mouth u got there
I mean who the fuck in the world build so many (most powerful) engines, so many (the biggest) space ships/rockets and who the fuck launches 300 orbital rockets a year (semi-reusable)
Not even Chuck Norris. Give me a Chuck Norris joke that beat even Chuck Norris
When Elon spreads his arms, even Chuck Norris cant avoid the bitch slap
Chuck Norris told Elon Musk to get his ass to Mars
To screw over the Russian and Chinese Space industries. Russias has already been crushed.
@@ne1cup Elon did
NASA placed the SLS in orbit around the moon last year, that it exceeds Space X Starship's achievements of zero orbits so far. Zero refueling so far, zero lunar landing system so far, basically a big fat zero for Starship.
Make as many engines as you want, make them all reusable (but that's extra weight for the moon mission causing 15 refueling just to get to the moon) if you don't fix all the other problems its moot for Starship.
Space X's Starship has a desperation feel about it.
Falcon is a huge success, but Starship with NASAs moon program so far a big fat late failure.
I wish them luck in 2024 because they'll need it.🤣
Reply
SLS took 2 decades to achieve an unmanned test, no orbit just a flyby. Starship is in the initial flight test, delayed by the FAA
SLS was not condemned to buy a licence.
Starship licenses 2
SLS licenses 0
Does not seem fair comparing an old elephant condemned to drown, with a young race horse, that wins races over and over again
Analogy with an old airplane flying once and ending in the drink
compared to a new airplane ready for test actually capable of landing , exactly where it will take off.😄😄😄
@@arturoeugster7228 How many moon missions do you think are going to fly every week to warrant the extra weight of userably?
It's not going to be a Falcon rocket flying every 3rd day throwing satellites in orbit.
Moon missions are going to be few and far between not warranting the weight of useability.
@@LeonAust explain how many Newtons your useability is going to weight on the Moon, or is it userably,
Tal vez es mejor de preguntar eso en castellano, entonces un cholo como yo lo podria adivinar 🇧🇴en la isla de la luna, en el sur del lago Titicaca, no muy lejos de Tihuanaco, donde está la puerta del sol
@@arturoeugster7228 That 1st stage booster can be manufactured out of lighter stronger materials and a whole lot lighter simpler and safer if it was NOT reusable.
That Starship Human Landing System is to large and way too tall centre mass for what is initially needed landing on the moon.
Thus no or minimum requirement for a space in flight refuelings if this was designed correctly.
It doesn't matter how many of these 'Raptor' engines they produce, they will never fly in space...
the same engines are on the second stage, last time I checked that one will be in space with six engines.
@@arturoeugster7228
No, it won't...
Well the definition of fly is along the lines of moving threw air. So yeah nothing flies threw outerspace
As if March 2024, flight 3 has already reached space. Next flight 4 will be very interesting.
I think the production of Raptor 3 engines will be whatever they want it to be.
Hundreds a day if they build the manufacturing facility to that scale.
For me, its probably the best last laugh of my life, being the guy who got bad mouthed and down voted for planting the parts count concept on
r/spacex right after Elon's memo about potential bankruptcy of SpaceX due to production costs and slowness of Raptor 1's.
But it was worth it, a couple days of being belittled, and hundreds of down votes on all my various comment writs with ways to better things. But I knew if it was a big enough fight, that that concept would make it to Elon. I even told them I would win in the end.
Fun part was I was emailing an online friend in Finland at the same time about what I was doing and why.
He thought that somebody would mention the idea ragging about it to Elon, That it was stupid etc. 🤣
I've never heard the story of how it did get to Elon, but he then fired a top engineer or two in engines, and became Mr. No Part!
And flogged the Nerds into reducing complication, with Raptor 2 being announced about three months later...
And of course with Elon's Aspie mind, once he groked the logic, he never stopped using it.
And the rest is history.
Another humorous aside, was that both NASA and Blue Origin had bad mouthed the Raptor 1 for being over complicated!
Well, I guess he showed them! 🤣
Jeffie still trying to produce Spaghetti Monster engines...
And NASA eventually getting around to launching SLS....
And I have done numerous writs here on Alpha Tech about ways to reduce parts count on engines and many other potential concepts. And Yesterday I was seeing alot of other guys were coming up with good ideas and posting in comments.
And thats a greater victory, as one concept can change the rocket industry. And the more brains being used well, the more realizations.
And I am glad that those guys arent getting trolled like I was for years. Nobody is telling them how stupid they are. I think its great, way bigger than me now, and likely still growing.
We have liberated the minds, of thousands of space nerds, from the tyranny of the wall hanger elites.
And ideas can be built in top of other ideas.
For me, the real fun, is knowing that the internet archeology types will eventually be exploring the history of Space Exploration online, Likely using an AI, and it will recognize my writing style across the myriad user names. And it will be a fun story for students in the science of Space Ships to learn. An example of how to get people to think.
Anyway, I couldn't be happier with Elon's running with the ball!
This is still in just the beginning phases.
Parts count is a very deep Rabbit hole, its not gonna be used up any time soon, and will be taught at engineering Universities all over the planet. Quite impressive having started with electronics buffs who came up with a Zen like concept.
Elon listens... he thinks about things people say...
We could all be better at that.