there are three completely different types of technologies going on here on planet earth that Im aware of - first we have the technology that they show and tell us, then we have all the top secret technology, and finally there is the technology that not even the people working on the top secret technology know about ! the type of technology that we would find hard to even comprehend
"actually it might be monomethyl hydrazine (N2H3-CH3) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). hypergolic combo very popular in military rockets and RCS applications" - doverdx, 2 minutes after the initial quote you provided... but you missed it i guess.
the space shuttle has thrusters inside its walls. sutton's LPRE history book outlines about 400 pages of historical programs (of ~900) with similar thrusters. again, it's a cool little innovation but it's something that'd be done by any good designer
or..or.. we could use the anti gravity technology being weaponized in secret by the world's superpowers. and waste less fuel and energy on these rockets.
@truethera You're right, more brain less fantasy. Welcome to the 21st century guy from 18th century. We have flying machines and Lasers! All thought fantasy where you once lived.
Cool. But as someone who designs, builds, and tests rocket engines for a living (including larger and more complex than shown here), I don't see what is so advanced about a pressure-fed LOX/RP-1 engine. Honestly, I think Elon's statement regarding the superiority of his engines are not founded in any fact - for I've worked with some senior propulsion engineers from their team and they do it just like everyone else - and in my opinion that leaves much to be desired.
@doverdx It's not the hardware components so much as how they are integrated. I'm no rocket engineer but from what I gather Spacex does it more reliably and at lower cost than anyone else. So they must be doing something different. And plans have been finalized on the fully/rapidly reusable system which has never been done in the history of rocketry. My bet is that such a rocket will be fundamentally no different in hardware, and yet it will do what no other rocket can.
@baillou2 Hi there. Thanks for the response. The multi-fault tolerant approach is nothing new in aerospace. In terms of newer companies, Blue Origin started working on that years ago. I also believe that SpaceX has taken advantage of the state of aerospace - but that also means that they are largely underpaying their engineers since there isn't a lot of options for people without work. Yes, developing new engines is expensive but NASA studies suggest fewer is better (NASA SP-125, P419)
@baillou2 (but also there are much more interesting propulsion research (and development) out there that are not getting nearly as much love as they should from nasa/congress.
@doverdx Can you name any? And keep in mind Spacex is concerned primarily with getting things off earth and into LEO. So don't bring up VASIMR and the like. They do nothing for getting us "OFF" the planet.
@baillou2 Of course I can. Blue Origin has an LH2/LOX engine that could be clustered as a stand-in for the J2-X. I worked on that engine's injectors and internal flow characterization. Then there are non-traditional methods to LEO such as new incarnations of the X30 vehicle (LH2). We've proposed a nuclear-electric technology that could make in-atmosphere aerothermal engines more realistic. (Need alpha values around 1 kg/kW) Then there is always NTR at Idaho Nat'l Lab and Marshall...
@doverdx but the point is that this engine isn't even really crucial for LEO access anyway. it doesn't have the performance to be an upper stage engine and so its use is limited to RCS, EDL, and CCdev escape... there are hundreds of existing engine systems that could perform this function. the difference here is they can make it cheap in house. not groundbreaking by any means.
@doverdx Now, of all those ideas and the superdraco which of all of these could be implemented for actual use in the shortest amount of time? Since Spacex already has the superdraco I'd go with that one. I realize they could have invested time and money into alternatives, but I don't think they're interested in stuff that's too far out. They want results ASAP.
Spacex is like Apple inc. They do little in the way of cutting edge tech developement, but they do make the best, most reliable products.
@baillou2 And in any case talk is cheap. We can speculate and criticize all we want. But the proof is in the pudding. We'll just have to wait a good 5 years and see who is doing the most business and launching on a regular basis. My gut tells me it's Spacex.
@jpourkav Well it's either that or MMH/N2O4... which is also used all the time. Hypergolic combination used quite frequently in military rockets. That combo is about 60 years old...
@doverdx actually it might be monomethyl hydrazine (N2H3-CH3) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). hypergolic combo very popular in military rockets and RCS applications
One quibble: Get the zip code right - it uses monomethylhydrazine and nitrous tetroxide, not RP1/LOX.
As to superiority - the DragonRider system is what's different; building these small enough that 8 of them can fit in the sidewall of the spacecraft, and (potentially) being able to use them as both LAS and landing thrusters.
@docmordrid i totally DID get it right. look at my replies. it is monomethyl hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide. CH3-N2H3 + N2O4 --> CO2 + N2 + H20 + H2 (coefficients depend on ratio, which is likely non-stoichiometric to get higher H2 count and lower mean MW). dude, i fucking could design this thruster with my eyes closed. read what i wrote.
@doverdx and yeah, i've worked on bigger engines with more serious fuel (LH2/LOX), solids, hybrids, and JPL might be assigning me a hydrazine monoprop for a satallite. you're talking to a complete expert in propulsion engineering and science. 17,000 hours in this
@doverdx **satellite, also sorry about my harsh language. i hate talking about this stuff on youtube (we have real professional discussion regarding such work on linkedin if anyone is interested.)
You: "Cool. But as someone who designs, builds, and tests rocket engines for a living (including larger and more complex than shown here), I don't see what is so advanced about a pressure-fed LOX/RP-1 engine."
@docmordrid Blue Origin 2005-current worked hard to modernize/adapt the DC-X work to do VTVL with the primary engines. They even had dedicated terminal descent systems that could provide multiple functions (as you describe). It is a logical "incremental development" (as NASA would put it) that follows naturally from one thing to another. It is not groundbreaking or even patentable. They're just pulling tech from NASA's old playbook. We're writing the new playbook.
Actually, it isn't one piece. It's made up of a few dozen tiles. Look at the pics towards the bottom of the link. Look up Dragon heat shield. It's made up of several dozen pico (phenolic impregnated carbon ablator) tiles.
be interesting if we were able to create some sort of super highway in space that would be able to propel star ships to other planets at incredible speeds.
Just think, that between 100 to 200 years from now, we could up up having our space spacecraft designed just for being able to travel anywhere in our solar system at incredible speeds allowing us to reach parts of our solar system in a master of hours to a day or two.
I live about 20 miles from there rocket test site and boy are those things loud! We can tell every time the test an engine because we start to hear a low rumbling.
Not to be contentious, but I don't see anything on their site that states SuperDraco is used for anything other than as an escape system, not as aux thrusters or OMS, so though it looks cool for landings too (no less) I question an escape system taking up so much valuable room and mass in the capsule proper when a tried and true tower and parachute/paraglider system would've done just fine. Maybe there's some fund-seeking sexy PR eye-candy involved here..
The 'tried and true' solid rocket towers are very heavy, and every ounce counts in terms of cargo mass. The SuperDraco's would replace several of the existing Draco thrusters at very little mass penalty, use the same fuel as the Draco's and would add secondary functions: landing on land while retaining parachutes for redundancy and water landings.
Must be something to a liquid LAS - Boeing is using it on their CST-100 spacecraft, though not for landings.
Why is SpaceX better than NASA? Because they have SUPER Draco engines :-) grrrr! Super grr manly super rockets go woosh into SPACE and fly to space stations and say "Hello" as they fly past and then on to Mars and the space people bounce around and grow taller because of the weaker gravity. One more time SUPER DRACO!!!
Since with 8 of these on the dragon spacecraft, it will be able to land on earth. Would those engines be enough to fly around on mars? And maybe even reach orbit. If not how powerful would it need to be to reach orbit and come back to earth maybe?
Just FYI, the song is REAL close to "Name of the Game" by Crystal Method. I know I'm not the only one who had to have thought it sounded really familiar...
But seriously, another planet? How would you launch back to Earth without stages? Don't get me wrong, I think that would be phenomenal, but wouldn't taking off from Mars to Earth require the same amount of energy as getting there in the first place? I've followed the dragon flight. Are you saying that the Super Dracos were attached to the capsule full of fuel when it re-entered?
@bodoke777insocal No, Mars has much less gravity. We are actually just barely on the edge of being able to escape our gravity with out current tech. Escaping Mars' would be easy.
They are internal and use some of the 1290 kg of thruster fuel.
The displayed Mars mission is a NASA concept called Red Dragon - an unmanned one-way probe that would land and use a drilling rig to search for subsurface ice etc.
To take off with a crew it might be mounted on a separate ascent stage placed there earlier. This need not be large since Mars gravity is only 1/3 of Earths & re-fueled SD's could serve as the 2nd stage.
@bodoke777insocal Yes, another planet would need baggage, but as far as getting off that planet, it'll be built right in to the dragon. Yes, there will be fuel in the capsule when these are installed. If you're going to go....go with a bang huh?
Up, Up, and Away Spacex! Super Draco's are both burning hot and ever so cool...
The top comments 'NAY SAYERS' seem to have all the answers, but none of the solutions!
This development is another example illustrating how Spacex will get up into orbit & beyond by thinking out of the box (the box referring to the politically subjugated PAWN aka NASA).
Spacex is an independent commercial company. Sponsorship will accelerate development but the global space launch business will make it's future.
Aiming them 180 degrees from each other would be zero percent efficient so aiming them at about 45 degrees (90 from each other) must be about 50 percent efficient. I hope it is better than it seems. I would use explosive escape system and helicopter landing. Can't wait to see how this system's safety compares to that of helicopters.
@Wesnex1 The math actually isn't quite so simple, it'd come out to the 1 divided by the square root of 2, or about 70% of the total thrust of the engine would be downwards. I am trying to figure out why they would position them this way myself.
@kraka414 It protects the engine bells from re-entry. Also the shape of the openings of the engines on the bottom would destabilize the craft as it re-entered like a wiffle ball.
Another planet? How in the heck would anybody be escaping a launch of one of these bad boys from another planet? I agree with hearing and feeling the engine for what it is rather than the over produced version. It will really be something if this concept works. I don't suppose this type of landing system would be capable of surviving re-entry temperatures, would it?
Dragon has already flown, re-entered and parachuted to a sea landing just 800 meters from its pickup ship. Dragon for crews would carry both the SuperDraco's and 3 parachutes, and it only needs one parachute to make a safe touchdown.
As for where it would land: most likely their new SLC-4 facility at Vandenberg AFB in California. A sign recently appeared there reading "SLC-4 SpaceX Falcon Launch & Landing Complex"
@oisiaa They are definitely liquid rocket engines. Unless they have changed the propellant from the original draco thrusters they are running Monomethyl Hydrazine as the fuel and Nitrogen Tetroxide as the oxidizer.
These are liquid fueled, but a deep throttle solid rocket is possible if it's a hybrid.
Hybrid solids use a liquid oxidizer like nitrous oxide or liquid oxygen with a solid fuel grain, giving them the ability to not only throttle but to shut down and re-start. This type of engine will be used in Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser orbital mini-shuttle and in Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.
looks like its hypergolic fuel, although Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend could be more efficient, for a nine-month development cycle looks like a great job! how many of these will be on the Dragon capsule itself?
Retrorocket decent controlled earth landing, evidently we have come a long way from splashdowns, re-entry explosives and parachutes, and I'm really glad to see that. Next time share the cheese!
@kenhes There are no chutes on the current Mars projects because of two reasons; firstly, the atmosphere on Mars makes the effect of parachutes negligible, secondly, there is no guarantee that the package will land on solid, even surface, likewise it is not guaranteed that the rover will maintain it's orientation when the parachutes pop.
Congratulations! That's a really cool engine! But could we please see what it looks & sounds like without the jumpy editing and wacky music? A rocket engine firing needs to be appreciated all by itself, for the full duration of the burn, without any distractions from the awesomeness.
These engines perform multiple functions: first, they are the emergency escape system; second, they are the de-orbiting engines aka retro-rockets; third, they can be used for orbital maneuvers; and fourth, they can be used for landing. A brilliant improvement over NASA's approach of having separate sets of rockets (and extra mass) for each operation.
@DanFrederiksen That mass is a trade-off for astronaut safety, not in landing, but in launch escape. Your thinking is a decade or two old. We're trading off efficiency for safety in light of public mistrust due to too many dead astronauts.
@sirachman it isn't bringing down the entire rocket..
it's only the return module. it isn't saving anything.
parachuting into water or parachuting with springy struts has to be much better.
but of course now they are working for nasa and it's not about rational designs, it's about maintaining high cost status quo so nothing real ever happens and the secret about UFOs isn't disturbed
@DanFrederiksen ? what has parachuting into water to do with this? This is for their emergency escape system: if something goes wrong with the rocket the dragon spacecraft is rapidly propelled far from the exploding rocket; and as a side effect these thrusters can also be used for navigation once in space and also for landing. Besides spaceX goal is to make their rockets and spacecraft reusable; once the capsule falls into the ocean they have to trow it away...
@DanFrederiksen : because of the salty water. Give me one reason why a powered landing is a bad thing? I only see the positive: Faster reuse (no recovery needed), less maintenance because of the problems that would occur because of the salty water, provides a launch escape system, provides landing on other bodes (moon, mars), ...they developed the system as a launch escape system and that al other factors come as extra's because of the design
@DanFrederiksen dude, don't you understand; they need that mass you are talking about anyway...for their Launch Escape System and if that system doesn't use that fuel they can use it for landings...I don't see any wast here... Besides have you looked at their figures they are 10% cheaper than the spaceshuttle despite being much more capapable...
@thomasverbeke22 dude, don't you understand that they don't need that bs launch escape system and even if they did it could be done much smaller and lighter without the powered landing. there is no such thing as free spare capability.
mass is as bad as it gets in rocketry. much much worse than you think.
@thomasverbeke22 Actually a tower escape system uses less mass and therefore main & second stage propellant because it is ejected long before orbit is achieved. The SpaceX system would carry that mass throughout flight. That said, I'm a fan of the tradeoff that SpaceX is making here.
@ClintonKeithConsult The mass difference is very small to negligible. Towers get ejected well into first stage which is where most (90%) of the energy gets spent anyways. Carrying a bit more mass through second stage has hardly any impact.
@thomasverbeke22 Dude, think about what you said. "Much more capable"? Really? Where's the cargo bay located? I have every hope it'll be a very nice space capsule, but there's no need to exaggerate.
so fake
white8ass8kika 4 days ago
Solar System Express LLC will need some of these in 2017
SolX2Mars 1 week ago
i want this song!
13burnie13 2 weeks ago
That looks HOT!
FukiageTaro 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
FukiageTaro 2 weeks ago
im sooo gonna put that engine on my bike!!!
Animemasta2000 2 weeks ago 2
there are three completely different types of technologies going on here on planet earth that Im aware of - first we have the technology that they show and tell us, then we have all the top secret technology, and finally there is the technology that not even the people working on the top secret technology know about ! the type of technology that we would find hard to even comprehend
spellground 2 weeks ago
Amazing technology :')
sloooo5m 2 weeks ago
I want one
godzilloid 2 weeks ago
Who did the soundtrack?
eHonkey 2 weeks ago
Wow !
Goprodigy 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is a question here that how Apollo 11 landed on the moon before this technology???
NASA didn't answer that! "HOW TO LAND ON THE MOON"
eemin3mm911 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
eemin3mm911 2 weeks ago
Huuuu!!! Yeah baby!! That's the type of engine we need for next space launch!
youhakin 2 weeks ago
/Beavis Fire! Fire! Fire! /Beavis OK, what I really like is how it lands like a 50s Sci Fi rocket for real =) Great stuff guys!
DEP717 2 weeks ago
How much thrust?
DigitalGoku 2 weeks ago
seemed like an ad for a new space car able for purchase to anyone. xD
Zakk4TW 3 weeks ago
Thought about working for this company in McGreggor TX but they pay low and expect much... oh well....
Landotter1 3 weeks ago
NASA is russia's bitche now. They don't need that.
sapher974 3 weeks ago
shit :D
gavnor0t 3 weeks ago
fake.
xdeiri 3 weeks ago
@xdeiri You've got to be kidding me
ThatAdelaideGuy 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"actually it might be monomethyl hydrazine (N2H3-CH3) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). hypergolic combo very popular in military rockets and RCS applications" - doverdx, 2 minutes after the initial quote you provided... but you missed it i guess.
the space shuttle has thrusters inside its walls. sutton's LPRE history book outlines about 400 pages of historical programs (of ~900) with similar thrusters. again, it's a cool little innovation but it's something that'd be done by any good designer
doverdx 3 weeks ago
thumbs up if you have no idea why you're watching this.
cjoenic 3 weeks ago
@cjoenic No thumbs for thumb whore, sorry. Try penis.
Pivotman1 3 weeks ago 2
@Pivotman1 yeah nice try there. ill use a better word in the future.
cjoenic 3 weeks ago
@cjoenic Hahahha XD
Pivotman1 3 weeks ago
Ok, so do they want me to buy it? lol
Drrck11 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A real opportunity to make part time income and share something really heathly with others.
No better satisfaction.
Go to # amazingautosystem.weebly.com # and sign on!
louisbrassyyy 3 weeks ago
or..or.. we could use the anti gravity technology being weaponized in secret by the world's superpowers. and waste less fuel and energy on these rockets.
RSAgility 3 weeks ago
@RSAgility or or or we could use brains and less fantasy! dafuq i just read?
truethera 3 weeks ago
@truethera You're right, more brain less fantasy. Welcome to the 21st century guy from 18th century. We have flying machines and Lasers! All thought fantasy where you once lived.
RSAgility 3 weeks ago
cool
molifangkuai 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Damn, this really makes me want to go to HornyHabits com! Haha
awcutie8 3 weeks ago
Cool. But as someone who designs, builds, and tests rocket engines for a living (including larger and more complex than shown here), I don't see what is so advanced about a pressure-fed LOX/RP-1 engine. Honestly, I think Elon's statement regarding the superiority of his engines are not founded in any fact - for I've worked with some senior propulsion engineers from their team and they do it just like everyone else - and in my opinion that leaves much to be desired.
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx It's not the hardware components so much as how they are integrated. I'm no rocket engineer but from what I gather Spacex does it more reliably and at lower cost than anyone else. So they must be doing something different. And plans have been finalized on the fully/rapidly reusable system which has never been done in the history of rocketry. My bet is that such a rocket will be fundamentally no different in hardware, and yet it will do what no other rocket can.
baillou2 3 weeks ago
@baillou2 Hi there. Thanks for the response. The multi-fault tolerant approach is nothing new in aerospace. In terms of newer companies, Blue Origin started working on that years ago. I also believe that SpaceX has taken advantage of the state of aerospace - but that also means that they are largely underpaying their engineers since there isn't a lot of options for people without work. Yes, developing new engines is expensive but NASA studies suggest fewer is better (NASA SP-125, P419)
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@baillou2 (but also there are much more interesting propulsion research (and development) out there that are not getting nearly as much love as they should from nasa/congress.
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx Can you name any? And keep in mind Spacex is concerned primarily with getting things off earth and into LEO. So don't bring up VASIMR and the like. They do nothing for getting us "OFF" the planet.
baillou2 3 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX Featured Videos
@baillou2 Of course I can. Blue Origin has an LH2/LOX engine that could be clustered as a stand-in for the J2-X. I worked on that engine's injectors and internal flow characterization. Then there are non-traditional methods to LEO such as new incarnations of the X30 vehicle (LH2). We've proposed a nuclear-electric technology that could make in-atmosphere aerothermal engines more realistic. (Need alpha values around 1 kg/kW) Then there is always NTR at Idaho Nat'l Lab and Marshall...
doverdx 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
doverdx 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@doverdx but the point is that this engine isn't even really crucial for LEO access anyway. it doesn't have the performance to be an upper stage engine and so its use is limited to RCS, EDL, and CCdev escape... there are hundreds of existing engine systems that could perform this function. the difference here is they can make it cheap in house. not groundbreaking by any means.
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx Now, of all those ideas and the superdraco which of all of these could be implemented for actual use in the shortest amount of time? Since Spacex already has the superdraco I'd go with that one. I realize they could have invested time and money into alternatives, but I don't think they're interested in stuff that's too far out. They want results ASAP.
Spacex is like Apple inc. They do little in the way of cutting edge tech developement, but they do make the best, most reliable products.
baillou2 3 weeks ago
@baillou2 And in any case talk is cheap. We can speculate and criticize all we want. But the proof is in the pudding. We'll just have to wait a good 5 years and see who is doing the most business and launching on a regular basis. My gut tells me it's Spacex.
baillou2 3 weeks ago
@baillou2 I don't just talk. Having a debate over youtube doesn't work... whatever.
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx what makes you think this is a LOX/RP1 engine??
jpourkav 3 weeks ago
@jpourkav Well it's either that or MMH/N2O4... which is also used all the time. Hypergolic combination used quite frequently in military rockets. That combo is about 60 years old...
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx there you go, good job.
jpourkav 3 weeks ago
@doverdx actually it might be monomethyl hydrazine (N2H3-CH3) and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). hypergolic combo very popular in military rockets and RCS applications
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx
One quibble: Get the zip code right - it uses monomethylhydrazine and nitrous tetroxide, not RP1/LOX.
As to superiority - the DragonRider system is what's different; building these small enough that 8 of them can fit in the sidewall of the spacecraft, and (potentially) being able to use them as both LAS and landing thrusters.
Pray tell - where/when has that been done before?
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
@docmordrid i totally DID get it right. look at my replies. it is monomethyl hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide. CH3-N2H3 + N2O4 --> CO2 + N2 + H20 + H2 (coefficients depend on ratio, which is likely non-stoichiometric to get higher H2 count and lower mean MW). dude, i fucking could design this thruster with my eyes closed. read what i wrote.
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx and yeah, i've worked on bigger engines with more serious fuel (LH2/LOX), solids, hybrids, and JPL might be assigning me a hydrazine monoprop for a satallite. you're talking to a complete expert in propulsion engineering and science. 17,000 hours in this
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx **satellite, also sorry about my harsh language. i hate talking about this stuff on youtube (we have real professional discussion regarding such work on linkedin if anyone is interested.)
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx
You: "Cool. But as someone who designs, builds, and tests rocket engines for a living (including larger and more complex than shown here), I don't see what is so advanced about a pressure-fed LOX/RP-1 engine."
Me: hydrazine correction
You now: "i totally DID get it right....."
Me now: do you read your own posts?
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
@docmordrid Blue Origin 2005-current worked hard to modernize/adapt the DC-X work to do VTVL with the primary engines. They even had dedicated terminal descent systems that could provide multiple functions (as you describe). It is a logical "incremental development" (as NASA would put it) that follows naturally from one thing to another. It is not groundbreaking or even patentable. They're just pulling tech from NASA's old playbook. We're writing the new playbook.
doverdx 3 weeks ago
@doverdx
Neither DC-X or BO have the engines in the side walls.
Patentable is a straw man, especially since SpaceX doesn't patent their trade secrets.
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
I wonder how they'll do the landing legs. Can't put them on the heat shield!
kenhes 3 weeks ago
@kenhes
Sure you can. The doors for the shuttle's landing gear were covered in tiles.
leestewart72 3 weeks ago
@leestewart72 But the Dragon capsule's shield is one piece and doesn't use tiles. It'll be interesting to see how they solve it.
kenhes 3 weeks ago
@kenhes
Actually, it isn't one piece. It's made up of a few dozen tiles. Look at the pics towards the bottom of the link. Look up Dragon heat shield. It's made up of several dozen pico (phenolic impregnated carbon ablator) tiles.
leestewart72 3 weeks ago
Umm why use this over say, you know, a parachute?
jolichja 3 weeks ago
@jolichja These are standard launch, maneuvering, and escape thrusters. They have nothing to do with descent outside of testing.
Dexomega 3 weeks ago
@Dexomega Oh thx for the clearup :)
jolichja 3 weeks ago
didn't beat soviets
FatGingerKid5 3 weeks ago
i detect viewer bot
DraconicFury 3 weeks ago
be interesting if we were able to create some sort of super highway in space that would be able to propel star ships to other planets at incredible speeds.
DeaddudeRS 3 weeks ago
Just think, that between 100 to 200 years from now, we could up up having our space spacecraft designed just for being able to travel anywhere in our solar system at incredible speeds allowing us to reach parts of our solar system in a master of hours to a day or two.
DeaddudeRS 3 weeks ago
Deep throttle landing engine!! Awesome.
Well done to the SpaceX engineers behind this one.
JuggaloOzi 3 weeks ago
There's a reason why flying cars aren't in motion or mass produced. Its because of drunk drivers.
eX8jbn 3 weeks ago
Very cool
write2topcat 3 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX Featured Videos
That's the future being built right there.
yoshitoJuarez 3 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX Featured Videos
looks so fake
Mr6Train 3 weeks ago
I live about 20 miles from there rocket test site and boy are those things loud! We can tell every time the test an engine because we start to hear a low rumbling.
Enatbyte 3 weeks ago 2
Cool video. Next time, cut out the music during the engine test so we can hear just the flame noise.
DerekSerra3D 3 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX Featured Videos
The safest and fastest spacecraft in history. The next 60 years will tell.
SofaaKing2 3 weeks ago
Cool
gweems828 3 weeks ago
Can't rely on Russia's shitty ass rockets, SpaceX to the rescue
Nizm0350z 3 weeks ago
Not to be contentious, but I don't see anything on their site that states SuperDraco is used for anything other than as an escape system, not as aux thrusters or OMS, so though it looks cool for landings too (no less) I question an escape system taking up so much valuable room and mass in the capsule proper when a tried and true tower and parachute/paraglider system would've done just fine. Maybe there's some fund-seeking sexy PR eye-candy involved here..
Jim
(A "Rocket Girls" manga fan)
jimwg1 3 weeks ago
@jimwg1
The 'tried and true' solid rocket towers are very heavy, and every ounce counts in terms of cargo mass. The SuperDraco's would replace several of the existing Draco thrusters at very little mass penalty, use the same fuel as the Draco's and would add secondary functions: landing on land while retaining parachutes for redundancy and water landings.
Must be something to a liquid LAS - Boeing is using it on their CST-100 spacecraft, though not for landings.
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
Why is SpaceX better than NASA? Because they have SUPER Draco engines :-) grrrr! Super grr manly super rockets go woosh into SPACE and fly to space stations and say "Hello" as they fly past and then on to Mars and the space people bounce around and grow taller because of the weaker gravity. One more time SUPER DRACO!!!
Morrgore 3 weeks ago
it seems that we are ready for a zombie apocalypse.
TheWeichen94 3 weeks ago
Nice mach diamonds.
plbuster 3 weeks ago
fake (?)
Gusty654 3 weeks ago
@Gusty654 whut?
FamilyGuyKiCkSaSS 3 weeks ago
this is the future and maybe, just maybe we can tell the Russkis to take a flying leap next time they raise the price of their damned taxis to space!
6134chuck 3 weeks ago
Since with 8 of these on the dragon spacecraft, it will be able to land on earth. Would those engines be enough to fly around on mars? And maybe even reach orbit. If not how powerful would it need to be to reach orbit and come back to earth maybe?
NannerAirCraft 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
please show us a real video, not simulation videos.
how we can see a real engine power, if this video is only show a computer animation ? -.-
MELERIX 3 weeks ago
please show us a real video, not simulation videos.
how we can see a real engine power, if this video is only show a computer animation ? -.-
MELERIX 3 weeks ago
@MELERIX Did you even watch the whole video?
kenhes 3 weeks ago
@kenhes
ofc, don't tell me you can't notice the render at the fire ?
MELERIX 3 weeks ago
@MELERIX I can say it looks like a bad render, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
kenhes 3 weeks ago
@MELERIX
You are aware that NASA observed the test firings and reported them on their site, right?
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
build it! and go to the moon!
proaudiohd 3 weeks ago
Hellofa marshmallow toaster.
Derail07 3 weeks ago
Pretty soon we'll be whaling on the moon.
stickshaka 3 weeks ago
So, how long does it take to boil the egg on it?
waleedhk1 3 weeks ago
IMMA FIRIN' MAH LAZOR
RyanLRY 3 weeks ago
But, will it blend?
Jonny4571 3 weeks ago
@Jonny4571 Yes.... Yes, it will blend. Are you happy now?
ThinkTank255 3 weeks ago
@ThinkTank255 Orgasmic, thanks for that.
Jonny4571 3 weeks ago
Can someone explain the pattern in the red hot exhaust flame? All I can think is some kind of desired oscillation that causes nodes and antinodes?
cyberbadger 3 weeks ago
@cyberbadger That is called Shock Diamond.
NagyTeglaPeter 3 weeks ago
@cyberbadger
Shock diamonds - you see them in very high velocity flows; jet exhaust etc. Wiki has an article.
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
Just FYI, the song is REAL close to "Name of the Game" by Crystal Method. I know I'm not the only one who had to have thought it sounded really familiar...
8Complex 3 weeks ago
Mach diamonds are a girl's best friend...
wwywinc 3 weeks ago 7
ok Doc,
But seriously, another planet? How would you launch back to Earth without stages? Don't get me wrong, I think that would be phenomenal, but wouldn't taking off from Mars to Earth require the same amount of energy as getting there in the first place? I've followed the dragon flight. Are you saying that the Super Dracos were attached to the capsule full of fuel when it re-entered?
bodoke777insocal 3 weeks ago
@bodoke777insocal No, Mars has much less gravity. We are actually just barely on the edge of being able to escape our gravity with out current tech. Escaping Mars' would be easy.
monokhem 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bodoke777insocal
They are internal and use some of the 1290 kg of thruster fuel.
The displayed Mars mission is a NASA concept called Red Dragon - an unmanned one-way probe that would land and use a drilling rig to search for subsurface ice etc.
To take off with a crew it might be mounted on a separate ascent stage placed there earlier. This need not be large since Mars gravity is only 1/3 of Earths & re-fueled SD's could serve as the 2nd stage.
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
@bodoke777insocal Yes, another planet would need baggage, but as far as getting off that planet, it'll be built right in to the dragon. Yes, there will be fuel in the capsule when these are installed. If you're going to go....go with a bang huh?
kenhes 3 weeks ago
@Wesnex1 on the other hand, when they are aimed out like this there is no need for gimbal actuators.
survivalist1982 3 weeks ago
Up, Up, and Away Spacex! Super Draco's are both burning hot and ever so cool...
The top comments 'NAY SAYERS' seem to have all the answers, but none of the solutions!
This development is another example illustrating how Spacex will get up into orbit & beyond by thinking out of the box (the box referring to the politically subjugated PAWN aka NASA).
Spacex is an independent commercial company. Sponsorship will accelerate development but the global space launch business will make it's future.
PhoxNews 4 weeks ago
Just show the entire test without the intro and music
ThatAdelaideGuy 4 weeks ago 9
Mach diamonds!!!!!
TMAN1372 4 weeks ago
Aiming them 180 degrees from each other would be zero percent efficient so aiming them at about 45 degrees (90 from each other) must be about 50 percent efficient. I hope it is better than it seems. I would use explosive escape system and helicopter landing. Can't wait to see how this system's safety compares to that of helicopters.
Wesnex1 4 weeks ago
@Wesnex1 The math actually isn't quite so simple, it'd come out to the 1 divided by the square root of 2, or about 70% of the total thrust of the engine would be downwards. I am trying to figure out why they would position them this way myself.
kraka414 3 weeks ago
@kraka414 It protects the engine bells from re-entry. Also the shape of the openings of the engines on the bottom would destabilize the craft as it re-entered like a wiffle ball.
monokhem 3 weeks ago
Another planet? How in the heck would anybody be escaping a launch of one of these bad boys from another planet? I agree with hearing and feeling the engine for what it is rather than the over produced version. It will really be something if this concept works. I don't suppose this type of landing system would be capable of surviving re-entry temperatures, would it?
bodoke777insocal 4 weeks ago
@bodoke777insocal
Dragon has already flown, re-entered and parachuted to a sea landing just 800 meters from its pickup ship. Dragon for crews would carry both the SuperDraco's and 3 parachutes, and it only needs one parachute to make a safe touchdown.
As for where it would land: most likely their new SLC-4 facility at Vandenberg AFB in California. A sign recently appeared there reading "SLC-4 SpaceX Falcon Launch & Landing Complex"
'nuff said
docmordrid 4 weeks ago
Are these liquid or solid fueled? If they are solid, how do you "deep throttle" a solid motor?
oisiaa 4 weeks ago
@oisiaa They are definitely liquid rocket engines. Unless they have changed the propellant from the original draco thrusters they are running Monomethyl Hydrazine as the fuel and Nitrogen Tetroxide as the oxidizer.
chris415iit 4 weeks ago
@oisiaa
These are liquid fueled, but a deep throttle solid rocket is possible if it's a hybrid.
Hybrid solids use a liquid oxidizer like nitrous oxide or liquid oxygen with a solid fuel grain, giving them the ability to not only throttle but to shut down and re-start. This type of engine will be used in Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser orbital mini-shuttle and in Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo.
docmordrid 3 weeks ago
looks like its hypergolic fuel, although Nitrous Oxide Fuel Blend could be more efficient, for a nine-month development cycle looks like a great job! how many of these will be on the Dragon capsule itself?
the1onlyVFXChannel 4 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX: Advanced Testing
@the1onlyVFXChannel Looks like 8. The current Dragon has 16 regular Draco thrusters. Not sure if these would be replacing some.
Idiomatick 4 weeks ago
@the1onlyVFXChannel I should say it is 8 period. In order to provide redundancy so it can support engine out during landing or rocket failure.
Idiomatick 4 weeks ago
Goddammit, another awesome sound covered up by music. Why?!
ruxper 4 weeks ago 2
Retrorocket decent controlled earth landing, evidently we have come a long way from splashdowns, re-entry explosives and parachutes, and I'm really glad to see that. Next time share the cheese!
samurai1833 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
samurai1833 4 weeks ago
whats the song?
catalystromano 4 weeks ago
yeah!!!!!!!!
ChrisAstro30 4 weeks ago
safest unless an engine blows out lol
binary132 4 weeks ago
@binary132 It has engine out capability during landing. It will also likely be flown with chutes as well until the system is perfected.
Idiomatick 4 weeks ago
So who said we couldnt land on the moon by 2020?
valcan321 4 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX Featured Videos
Those are hypergolics, aren't they?
Nadirion1 4 weeks ago
So how long until we see drop tests of a Dragon outfitted with SuperDraco engines and landing gear?
bhlang 4 weeks ago
What is wrong with parachutes?
rampike74 4 weeks ago
@rampike74 First thing...parachutes won't be very good at escaping a rocket explosion. Second, they're no good for landing in thin atmospheres.
kenhes 4 weeks ago 3
@kenhes That's why they use baloons in Mars landings instead of chutes.
MrZombieBiscuit 3 weeks ago
@MrZombieBiscuit No balloons when Curiosity lands because of the weight. Only a chute to slow and then thrusters like the superdracos.
kenhes 3 weeks ago
@kenhes There are no chutes on the current Mars projects because of two reasons; firstly, the atmosphere on Mars makes the effect of parachutes negligible, secondly, there is no guarantee that the package will land on solid, even surface, likewise it is not guaranteed that the rover will maintain it's orientation when the parachutes pop.
Dexomega 3 weeks ago
@Dexomega Curiosity has chutes. Watch the animation again. But as I say, it's just to slow it down.
kenhes 3 weeks ago
The geek in me just hyperventilated and passed out. :o]]
LeapingTree 4 weeks ago 41
When is the IPO???
tjmcgurk 4 weeks ago
Congratulations! That's a really cool engine! But could we please see what it looks & sounds like without the jumpy editing and wacky music? A rocket engine firing needs to be appreciated all by itself, for the full duration of the burn, without any distractions from the awesomeness.
Keep up the good work. Ad astra!
DavidJBuchner 4 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX: Advanced Testing 103
@DavidJBuchner Completely agree. The actual SOUND of the engine would be much better than that music.
dtrotteryt 3 weeks ago
These engines perform multiple functions: first, they are the emergency escape system; second, they are the de-orbiting engines aka retro-rockets; third, they can be used for orbital maneuvers; and fourth, they can be used for landing. A brilliant improvement over NASA's approach of having separate sets of rockets (and extra mass) for each operation.
natazha138 4 weeks ago 2
2 people dislike human spaceflight.
singedrac 4 weeks ago
@singedrac
That or worked on the Orion LAS and were thinking why didn't we come up with that?
Though Boeing and SNC are using a similar pusher LAS system though Boeing's is not used for landing.
SNC's vehicle can use it's OMS/LAS to stretch out it's glide path if needed.
Membrane556 4 weeks ago
Point being, its a good trade for being able to continue putting people up there.
lunaticpathos 4 weeks ago
@DanFrederiksen That mass is a trade-off for astronaut safety, not in landing, but in launch escape. Your thinking is a decade or two old. We're trading off efficiency for safety in light of public mistrust due to too many dead astronauts.
lunaticpathos 4 weeks ago
Wow! Amazing stream on that thing.
Michael89ir 4 weeks ago
Launch escape now, propulsive landings later - and not necessarily just on Earth. SpaceX breaks molds at every opportunity.
docmordrid 4 weeks ago 3
Go Spacex:) Keep up the great work
patricia50763 4 weeks ago
go SpaceX
thomasverbeke22 4 weeks ago
rocket landing... is that optimal..
sounds like a very heavy solution
DanFrederiksen 4 weeks ago
@DanFrederiksen Is it more optimal than throwing the entire rocket away every flight? Yes.
sirachman 4 weeks ago 2
@sirachman it isn't bringing down the entire rocket..
it's only the return module. it isn't saving anything.
parachuting into water or parachuting with springy struts has to be much better.
but of course now they are working for nasa and it's not about rational designs, it's about maintaining high cost status quo so nothing real ever happens and the secret about UFOs isn't disturbed
DanFrederiksen 4 weeks ago
@DanFrederiksen ? what has parachuting into water to do with this? This is for their emergency escape system: if something goes wrong with the rocket the dragon spacecraft is rapidly propelled far from the exploding rocket; and as a side effect these thrusters can also be used for navigation once in space and also for landing. Besides spaceX goal is to make their rockets and spacecraft reusable; once the capsule falls into the ocean they have to trow it away...
thomasverbeke22 4 weeks ago
@thomasverbeke22 the escape thing is just an excuse to use powered landing.
and why must it be discarded after water landing?
DanFrederiksen 4 weeks ago
@DanFrederiksen : because of the salty water. Give me one reason why a powered landing is a bad thing? I only see the positive: Faster reuse (no recovery needed), less maintenance because of the problems that would occur because of the salty water, provides a launch escape system, provides landing on other bodes (moon, mars), ...they developed the system as a launch escape system and that al other factors come as extra's because of the design
thomasverbeke22 4 weeks ago 4
@thomasverbeke22 mass is the enemy of rocketry. it is the cardinal sin.
for earth descent it is just wrong
DanFrederiksen 4 weeks ago
@DanFrederiksen dude, don't you understand; they need that mass you are talking about anyway...for their Launch Escape System and if that system doesn't use that fuel they can use it for landings...I don't see any wast here... Besides have you looked at their figures they are 10% cheaper than the spaceshuttle despite being much more capapable...
thomasverbeke22 4 weeks ago
@thomasverbeke22 dude, don't you understand that they don't need that bs launch escape system and even if they did it could be done much smaller and lighter without the powered landing. there is no such thing as free spare capability.
mass is as bad as it gets in rocketry. much much worse than you think.
DanFrederiksen 4 weeks ago
@DanFrederiksen you have a point there :P but so do I
thomasverbeke22 4 weeks ago
@thomasverbeke22 Actually a tower escape system uses less mass and therefore main & second stage propellant because it is ejected long before orbit is achieved. The SpaceX system would carry that mass throughout flight. That said, I'm a fan of the tradeoff that SpaceX is making here.
ClintonKeithConsult 4 weeks ago
@ClintonKeithConsult The mass difference is very small to negligible. Towers get ejected well into first stage which is where most (90%) of the energy gets spent anyways. Carrying a bit more mass through second stage has hardly any impact.
Idiomatick 4 weeks ago
@thomasverbeke22 Dude, think about what you said. "Much more capable"? Really? Where's the cargo bay located? I have every hope it'll be a very nice space capsule, but there's no need to exaggerate.
DavidJBuchner 4 weeks ago in playlist SpaceX: Advanced Testing