Crash and Burn | MythBusters | Season 6 Episode 30 | Full Episode 

link?

@@giovannigiorgio4622 Lol. really?

Well, he's not wrong.

that made me jump

Agreed, the Aerojet lady did not tighten that motor properly. It was an amateur job at best.

Yeah, it was so obvious and annoying that it didn't get even mentioned.

@@mocko69 It looks like there was no actual seal at the head end of the motor, just steel on steel. Doesn't matter how tight the bolts are; hot gas at 500 some psi will find any gap and quickly widen it. They really should have just put an off the shelf motor in the tube and called it a day.

Yeah, that was quite annoying, their design was obviously faulty. They even say they're going to analyze the footage, and then don't mention it ever again.

Very LOL's. Jamie missed his calling as an action hero. 46:50

😯😯😯

we used to be a country

AMEN!🙏🙏🙏

@annax5212 1 month ago Please bring back Mythbusters 2024 ok, but please provide a list of suggestions...

If it's gonna come back it's gonna be a different cast as Adam and Jamie have said they don't have plans on working together anymore and Grant is no longer with us... I don't know for Tory and Kari though.

I love the dude but, are people gonna post this in every comment section of a video where he is seen or talked about. We all love and miss him, but we don’t need a reminder every day.

​@@timostedehouder3213who cares

@@timostedehouder3213you can just scroll past the memorial if you don’t like seeing it?

​@@timostedehouder3213 he's probably just hunting those sweet likes

@@timostedehouder3213 Sorry if it bothers you, But Grant was a massive part of my childhood and changed how I viewed learning forever. I have no idea how else I could pay my respect, but it's the first thing I think of every time I see his face. It was clearly never intended to upset you, but if it has, I think you need to get a grip, This is reality and you'd be better off getting used to it sooner rather than later.

There is a special extinguisher for EVs because when they do burn they burn at 3000 degrees in a lithium fire that can burn underwater. Now the real question is what does it take to set an EV off?

Lithium burns pretty much in contact with air so you only need a punch and that battery is gonna explode. That's why the bottoms of every EV are solid like a tank.

EV drama stories are severely overblown, there have been like 2-3 cases of people trapped inside and safety workers not wanting to approach because of a _possible_ electric hazard (no recorded cases of an EV actually making its surroundings electrically charged) and there are no recorded cases of any EV ever "exploding" either. It's just some mashed together drama stories of that time when like 10 samsung phones worldwide had a meltdown and people called those "explosions" and then assumed EV's do the same thing. Yeah its true that if the battery gets punctured its gonna do some fun chemical processes, but it'll mostly just bubble out some chemicals and make some unhealthy fumes you don't wanna breathe, both of those only for a few seconds at most (as the battery is actually 100's of small batteries that are protected from each other breaking) it's never gonna go "bang!" and its got like 5 backup safety systems so if anything goes wrong the power completely cuts out. While the whole "electric cars are better for the environment" thing is very debatable, there is no denying that an EV car crash is actually safer compared to gasoline and diesel cars, because there is LESS chance of a fire or something worse. The special extinguishers for EV's thing is mostly nonsense too, there are extinguishers especially for electrical fires which have existed forever and are suggested to be used on EV's, but they are in no way mandatory or anything, some water/foam isnt gonna let the EV battery give you or anyone else any sort of serious shock, any electricity that actually manages to "come out" the battery after a serious failure just goes straight into the earth because that's how electricity works, its not gonna wait around in a thin layer of water to be able to zap a person to death 🤷‍♂

@@suicidalbanananana Unless you happen to be called Richard Hammond driving a Rimac Automobili EV sports car on a car show called Top Gear in 2017. Where he crashed the car, it burst into flames and took days to put out because the batteries kept exploding one after another as the heat got to them. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-A0MYr3IqZAY.html

richard hammond tried that already lol

Really want to know what Adam could do with 4 oak doors and 30 pounds of greased chain.

Wish somebody somewhere would still make cartoons like that, most cartoons these days are a mix of jokes for children and jokes for their parents (great!), but pinky and the brain was like 80% jokes for the parents and often some pretty obscure stuff too lol, we need a new cartoon like that.

@@suicidalbanananana it was a unique era, where talented people directed those. Spielburg created Animaniacs

Yeah. That both gave a thrust in the opposite direction which slowed the height, and the source of the turning in air. Though, in a way...If it was too much for modern technology, would it be reasonable to have a guy do it so long ago?! Unless, of course, it was simply a bad build that didn't remotely live up to modern standards. Then again, multiple rockets would both aid in stabilization and decrease the power on any single of the rockets. It's a shame they went for the single rocket design in the end.

​@@kikixchannelI don't think the flame at the top of the rocket had any significant amount of thrust coming from it compared to the exhaust flame, which had a nozzle. Looks like the rocket motor failure. Could be from an incorrect nozzle size. More rockets introduce more possible points of failure. Fuse connection. Fuse timing off. Uneven thrust. And so on. Granted. Mythbuster only ran one full scale test. Small tests don't always scale up perfectly.

​@@Amin.Ashraf We don't know what sort of breach there was. For all we know, it could serve as a nozzle itself. Not to mention, it didn't need to have a lot of thrust. Its existence greatly reduced the thrust on the other side, while just a small amount of thrust on a side would be enough to start turning the rocket. I mean, we literally saw it turn around, so it having enough thrust for that is a given. Multiple rockets bring multiple possible points of failure, yes. But they reduce the stress, so they help to bypass limitations of the technology in respect to the materials and construction. There is a reason why space rockets use multiple engines for breaching the atmosphere. Accounting for the possible points of failure is easier than obtaining superior materials and technologies, and if used properly, offer a more stable flight, so using multiple rockets offers an easier solution to bringing in heavy loads into space.

@@kikixchannel looks like the high pressure gas from the combustion escapes through the motor body. I suspect it is related to the propellant grain( the hole in the middle), how it burns. Top to bottom or the other way around. It doesn't seem like something was choking the flow at the breach end for it to act like a nozzle (depends on the definition of nozzle) Your second paragraph is exactly what I meant when I said that the breach doesn't produce a significant trust to counteract the thrust from the nozzel. Less mass flows through the nozzle because it "leaks" somewhere else.

@@kikixchannel don't you need pressure different to have thrust? If it just burns at atmospheric pressure like the flame on the rocket motor. For a rocket to spin. Most likely it's caused by the imbalance system. The thrust vector is not inline with the x axis. CG shift.

I actually went back to see the name of the rocket tech girl, and what do ya know, her name is Karie! Karie Quiggle of Aerojet. So Tori wasn't wrong hahahaha

@@brokenglassshimmerlikestar3407 I found it hilarious that of all the people, they substituted Kari with another Karie that even resembles the original

Yeah. They could at least say kudos to von Braun.

Not relevant

@@mocko69 Fair enough but still funny, atleast to me as I used to have an interest in rockets.

“Thay”?

Yeah, because of the nazi connection, and the history of its connection to using Jewish labour to construct the test sites etc.

He sounds like a muppet. Dick Van Dyke did a better job and his English accent was shite.

😅😂🤣Typical American Generalisation of A 'British' accent. I Absolutely ADORE this programme! But Adam's version of the 'British Director/ Artisan'... Might be humorous to the American Demographic. But, As a Brit myself, It 'does my nut in!!'🙄🙄🙄LOVE MYTHBUSTERS, THOUGH!!😍🥰❤

Operation Alpha Golf. NATO phonetic alphabet for Operation AG.

seems like the car fell and then they put explosives afterwards

Karie did. The rocket tech girl's name is Karie Quiggle, if you go back you'll see on the screen. What a coincidence!

Adam Savage has mentioned on his channel Tested that many of the reaction shots were staged. IIRC he mentioned this in "Behind the MythBusters Cement Truck Explosion". This was often done for practical reasons to convey the explosion physically without needing to rely on the live take. As for the jump cuts, just remember this episode aired on cable television in 2009. While I agree the timing of the jump cuts is a bit too convenient it also makes sense from an editing perspective. Each angle is shown before the explosion, then during the explosion. It's very tight and car explosion SFX are a sufficiently solved problem I assume they just cut the edit around the detonation and had to reshoot the first part of Jamie's reaction for whatever reason.

yep

I agree but please use punctuation marks.

More then likely its due to episode time constraints, or perhaps not wanting to mention anything about Nazis.

They mention the V2 being made by nazis in other episodes, it was probably time constraints so they cut out less relevant information

'Had to'? I think she may have insisted.

Karie did. The rocket tech girl's name is Karie Quiggle, if you go back you'll see her name on screen at 35:55