Rocket science. A term we all use to describe something incredibly difficult. Trying to grasp all of the concepts involved in rocket science can be incredibly intimidating.
My name’s Tim Dodd but I'm better known as the Everyday Astronaut. Recently I fell head over heels in love with spaceflight. My appreciation and curiosity for the subject grew into an obsession. Before you knew it, all I wanted to do was learn more and more... the more I learned, the more I wanted to share what was making me so excited.
But as someone who dropped out of college and has no technical background or degree… I really felt unqualified for the job of explaining rocket science to anyone. But the fact of the matter is, if I can learn this stuff, anyone can.
Rocket science is awesome, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to be excited.
Everyday Astronaut. Bringing space down to Earth for everyday people.
The issue is the rocket and rocket engine are subject to forces industrial applications and cars would never be subjected to. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
"Literally nothing different" Please point to me where your part tolerances fall on the bell curve. Now please enlighten us: Whats the severity of a rocket failing in the sky/orbit vs a car breaking down?
There's a point to be made for comminizing where same function allows for the same design, but... Going to space has a level of investment and risk that requires a guarantee of functionality and durability not ensures unless one is hand-inspecting for near-nominal parts off the shelf.
If you are building on a mountain, do tunnels. Make a road way through the mountain with elevatores and launch the rocket from an underground/inside the mountain silo. This might make transport easier as it can be specialized for said transport through elevators, wide path ways, etc. This doesn't solve any other issues though
For a while I thought your questions were too long, then I got to thinking about how technical those questions were. At that point I stopped complaining.
The problem with this approach is that you are beholden to your suppliers. If say one car part making company goes under, you can't fly your rocket. This places a LOT of trust in the companies they hire to actually make products that they need on time, on budget, and to actually deliver. I am pessimistic that they will be able to make it as a company. They might make it to orbit, but vertical integration is the future of rocket companies.
The problem with this approach is that you are beholden to your suppliers. If say one car part making company goes under, you can't fly your rocket. This places a LOT of trust in the companies they hire to actually make products that they need on time, on budget, and to actually deliver. I am pessimistic that they will be able to make it as a company. They might make it to orbit, but vertical integration is the future of rocket companies.
This is cool and all, but SpaceX consistently FAILS to DEMONSTRATE ANY of this in practice! It would be cool if it was a Reality. For Profit companies like SpaceX Just don’t have the disposable income like nasa does.
I like the RFA's approach better than ISAR's. If they learn how to make their stages in a single day/week, right before the launch, they could replace the stainless steel with even cheaper regular construction steel.
Same energy as the CEO of that Titanic sub. Something tells me cutting costs building devices meant to work in extreme environments isnt going to work.
The only thing I don't like about this series is that this is likely exactly what everyone was saying about reusability before SpaceX. The small percentage gains are not worth the research and development costs
Friction stir welding for stainless steel is quite expensive Equipment wise, and is usually used for straight linear welds and not for barrel sections.
@20:39 those ports remind me of an automotive On board diagnostic code reader port from checking vehicle diagnostic statistics. Or for programming low latwncy firing sequeneces and maybe running an internal chip to perform autonomous tesla like functions.
If Mercedes made them they’ll fail and go rusty by next week . If VW made them , the wiring will catch fire . If Audi made them they’ll cost a fortune and only a dealer will have the right tool to fix it . Carry on !
Chemical propellants are just too weak to make SSTO workable. Back in the day there were lots of proposals built around monatomic hydrogen, which would have had an Isp four times greater than LOX/Hydrogen. A space plane straight to orbit and beyond would be easy. If only we knew how to make stable monatomic hydrogen... A more realistic vehicle used a nuclear engine, but not how you think. The vehicle uses liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, but the hydrogen is pre-supereheated by the nuclear core, boosting the Isp to 700 plus. Then once in orbit it switches to a more conventional hydrogen fueled nuclear rocket.
A specialized forklift kinda like working in a paper mill. If you rip the outer layer of paper you aren't able to do it in a carbon fiber cleanroom. Haha.@12:09 I worked in a paper mill where the rolls of paper were tens of thousands of kilograms and the massive electric and diesel forklifts and heavy industrial equipment lifting delicate machinery components and fragile paper.
In the Airforce I looked and learned and asked questions about all the parts we had in the warehouse and how the techs turning wrenches, liked each component of the aircraft they worked on. You learn personalities. You learn from experience. I can identify most fastening hardware by type and fitting size just by looking at it, as easily as I can look at a snake and identify it's gender just by observation. This stuff is super interesting Tim. Thank you for teaching us that there is always more to learn. These are more complex than helicopter engines.
@12:09 would they be hydrostatic tested like a Scuba tank or firefighter scba or extinguisher? And go through non-destructive testing, as well as destructive maximum damage capacity testing?
Best of luck, the reason those aerospace parts are so expensive is not the cost of materials or production, it is the QA/QC testing and assurance of extremely low failure rate. Same part, same design same materials with a one in a million chance of failure vs a one in a billion chance of failure is many times the price.
