Secure your privacy with Surfshark! Enter coupon code FELIX for an extra 4 months free at surfshark.deals/felix What do you think? Will all this even work reliably? Let me know your thoughts about Raptor 3!!!
Rocket engines have always looked like complex machines with thousands of parts, yet space x has made them look beautiful and almost unreal. It genuinely looks like a rendered image before it's made, a concept design from far in the future.
@justinvanderweg204 Really advanced designs are simple. The cost is development time and giving up data for further refinement. Looking at the Raptor, it looks like they are at the point past turbopump turbine and impeller optimization. They went for weight. Ghad, this reduces risk.
It makes me wonder how the world or space would be different if originally private companies were involved in making rockets from the beginning. The pace at which space x is changing and revolutionising engines, reusability, and payload capacity all to new levels.
@@beany1987 At first, not possible. For example, SpaceX hired Northrop's rocket team to design Merlin. Government wasn't efficient, but set up the minimum. That said, this should have happened instead of Shuttle.
Look at raptor 1 side by side with 2 and 3. It literally looks like 4 decades of progress. Realizing that all happened within a few years is astonishing and goes to show the pace of innovation and advancement is unparalleled.
The thing about cutting into Raptor 3 to have to do any maintenance on it….the flip side of that is that since SpaceX is building such a large production capacity- which itself covers a multitude of sins- any problem with any engine after its installed on a vehicle, they’ll just be spring-loaded to change it out immediately since they’ll have another one immediately at hand- send the removed one back to the shop, where they can take their time with the diagnostic and only do as much true ‘cutting’ as is needed. - Dave Huntsman
@@dphuntsman I love how fast they can swap these Raptors out. Can you imagine how long it'd take NASA to do an engine swap on Artemis or any other rocket?
They will iterate on the internals till no maintainence is required (if possible). Cutting into the engine primarily to understand and eliminate wear issues.
that's a good point. if they can modularize these engines enough to where they can easily be removed and swapped on the fly. you have your self a very rapidly reusable system.
If they cut into an engine it’s to dissect it to see what’s wrong with it, what’s worn, what failed. It’s not surgery to repair and reuse it, it’s its final autopsy.
17:25 I was thinking about this a couple months ago when Tim Dodd did his walk through. Basically there is nothing you can do to work on any rocket engine that would take you less than a day to do. With that in mind... ... Space X is producing these engines at a rate of one every day and a half. So it may simply be the case that it is better to make the engine so robust that there isn't going to be a failure during its service life... and when there is... it is simply quicker to replace it and recycle the materials from the old one than it is to try and repair it.
@@dalehill6127semi useless 2c tbh. You would rather them scrap one of the easiest to mass produce and most efficient rocket designs to try and strive for a 5% improvement in theoretical performance. Missing the forest for the minor optimization trees.
I'm from the 70's..yes, the 1970's. We used to read sci-fi books that had imaginary characters like Elon Musk. You know, billionaires that dared to spend their money on fantastic machines and now it's finally happening in real life!
And spend billions on an over-valued social media network so that he can spread his immature far-right conspiracies. Not sure that makes for a good sci-fi story, but then no one is perfect.
Watching this video I realized something: it's not just having the system work properly (achieve orbit, deliver payloads, return in re-usable shape) but it's also about understating everything needed to build the booster and ship with the needed quality and cadence for commercial flight. I mean, just look how nice the ship and booster look now, versus how the first prototypes looked. There are so many layers here, and I'm grateful that SpaceX does all this in plain sight and with so much transparency. I wish other players in the aerospace industry would do the same. I would help shift the people's mindset and also inspire a new generation to pursue STEM fields.
To learn why the other hemisphere is important for launch, you've got to play some KSP missions from the high-latitude launch sites. Basically it's Earth's 23 degree tilt, if you can only launch from northern latitutdes, half the year you are out-of-plane. That's why Rocketlab has a huge advantage on SpaceX, they already have New Zealand and USA launch sites.
Yours is by far my favorite “SpaceX information channel. Your efforts of breaking down the complexity of hardware changes are very helpful for the Layman.
You're one of the very few channels that actually doesn't repeat same news over and over again. Thank you for that Felix, love your content. Keep it up!
It's common on many US videos for the narration to be highly repetitive, with annoying redundant phrases like 'go ahead and', and superfluous grammar. It's like the narrator is infatuated by the sound of his own voice. I never subscribe to those channels.
@@jasonlooney7042 agreed. I unsubscribed because of that. Everyone knows how RU-vid works. If 2mil people aren't subscribing, that's a reflection of the content creator, not the audiences lack of understanding about where the subscribe button is.
I think Marques did a video with Tim Cook (or someone else on the Apple team) made a good point. You have a line, on one end you have reliability/durability, on the other end you have repairability. To make someone more durable and reliable, you have to give up repairability. There is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle that lets you repair something decently but still be reliable/durable. It looks like SpaceX is try to got HARD over to the reliability/durability, which makes sense if you want a rapid reuse rocket booster. The Raptor 3 looks like a work of art. If it is reliable and durable, they have my utmost respect on the work ethics of get rid of it if it isn't needed.
This update now makes the Raptor better than BE4 in every spec. It used to have lower thrust, but now it surpasses BE4. The Raptor 3 is smaller, lighter, greater specific impulse, greater thrust, higher thrust to weight ratio, and higher chamber pressure than BE4 which uses the same fuel and oxidizer.
As an Australian, the possibility of having a starbase here would be amazing... HOWEVER, our bureaucracy here is so out of control that sadly it's already a non-starter. We have a company here trying to get some space flights started who have had a ship sitting on a pad for months waiting for some Gov't department to tick a box. (not till next year reports say.) No other country - and certainly not SpaceX - would work with that.
They already had to. 1 year to get the EPA to say that a small swamp won't be damaged to any notable extent... much like the bird sanctuary around Kennedy Space Center for the last 50 years. Exactly What type of land would you like a big fireball to land in? Forrest? Active Farms? Maybe a city? Sooo... we're at Least as stupid up here.
Less parts for Raptor 3 means Greater Reliability. The best part truly is no part. 350ISP is a monumental achievement for a Methane Oxygen Engine. Greater thrust and less weight mean more payload. Great news all around. Looking back, it amazing what Elon and SpaceX have created in a relatively short time.
We NEED the Zefram Cochrane moment - but - in the meantime this (Raptor V3) is at *least* an Edison moment. Somewhere in between the two. That’s jaw-dropping engineering on display here!
AI trained specifically on physics is just now coming out for public use. I haven't given up on cold fusion yet. I'm going to feed every "crazy" hypothesis into it, just to make sure.
@@dporrasxtremeLS3 He was also a thief, cheat and downright nasty individual. He stole Nikola Tesla's ideas and inventions and institute a misinformation smear campaign when he couldn't compete with Tesla's technology.
@@dporrasxtremeLS3 oh, I don't know. Edison's engineers made practical electric lighting and sound and film recording, all of which were profoundly transformative. Will Elon's engineers have as much impact? It remains to be seen, but we can hope so.
@@AtomicSquirrelHunter I'm thinking someone closer to be able to be there and not have to travel from country to country.. Marcus house i believe is in New Zealand, would be easier for Marcus to get footage of rocket lab than spacex atm
Epic! Talk about a photo finish. I was worried about losing tiles and lost starships (killing any chance of manning them even with an ejection capsule). Now that emergency ablative layer added... much happier.
Iloved that momento. I mean, you can have a perfect vehicle, with no elements failing, but, having a complex machine, holding together with that damage, and still doing its job after that, that's a machine you can count on, if something goes wrong, it will still take you home, and things will sooner or later go some degree wrong, that's life itself
the only thing i am starting to realise with this spaceX x Australia is that everyone thinks aussie is just sydney or Melbourne... people are forgetting it lands on the west coast :c
I have been to Australia a couple of times. Both times have been to the west coast; twice to Perth and once to Fremantle. I loved it. The people were great. Never been to Sidney.
Northwest Cape, Dad worked there, as we attended grade school in Applecross. Lucky to live across the street from the Swan River. I'll go back, re-live the 😊
So excited for the new launch complex in Australia, if it happens. Could open up for US-AUS flights! Imagine if they open the new base by landing their new starship!
Your isp number for raptor 2 is wrong, or atleast it's wrong in this context. The number spacex gave for raptor 3 was it's isp in vacuum which has been confirmed. Raptor 2 had a vacuum isp of 347 seconds which was actually worse than raptor 1 which had 350 the same as raptor 3.
Just for referrence: The RL10B-2 engines currently used on the SLS Block 1 ICPS are some of the most efficient chemical engines on the market with a vacuum isp of 465.5 seconds. SpaceX's Merlin engine had a vacuum Isp of 311s when they shared performance numbers in 2013. It's crazy how much better closed expander cycle hydolox engines are compared to everything else. Edit: also a comparison, the NASA+DARPA+Lockheed Martin+ BWXT "DRACO" nuclear thermal engine demonstrator aiming to launch in 2027 has a design goal of >800s of isp.
@@plainText384 closed expander cycle hydrolox is absolutely crazy indeed. Both the RL-10 family and the recently introduced Vinci engine get ridiculous ISP . It's unfortunate that you cannot really scale it up past 300kN though, which means they always end up having a relatively high dry mass. Also just for reference, the mentioned RS-25 engine gets a vacuum ISP of 450 seconds as well. He compared the sea level ISP of them (366 seconds, it's a vacuum engine) to the vacuum ISP of raptor 3 (350 seconds / 380 sec for vacuum). That's a pretty painful mistake there, and I'm honestly not sure how a hydrolox and methalox engine having that similar ISP wasn't an immediate tell that his comparison was flawed.
@@leo_is_a_baka 380s is for a future raptor 3/4 that will exist in a few years, at least according to Musk. And I'm sorry, but I just don't value "will happen in a few years"-statments by Musk at all. Based on that statement current raptor 3 rvac isp in vacuum is almost definitely lower than 380s, though it may very well be higher than 350s, if that is the vacuum performance for the sea level engines.
@@plainText384 Hydrogen/oxygen engines are always going to be higher ISP than anything else, 350 for a methane/oxygen engine is very high. Biggest win is thrust to weight ratio when also considering the mass of fixing and support hardware, it's a very light engine for its power with fixings and support hardware on the ship also completely redesigned reducing weigh for each engine by 1155kg in total. Very impressive numbers.
Regarding shielding around the flaps, due to the unusual shapes required, it may have taken more time to fabricate them compared to the more predictable shapes covering the majority of the rocket. It makes sense to start early with prepared material and then place the more unusual tiles once they are ready.
Automotive gas engine designers should watch this video for breakthrough design ideas geared to new internal combustion engineering concepts. I wonder if internal combustion gasoline engines might be improved for longer life, lighter weight, higher horsepower, seamless connections, ease of access? An electric wiring system built into the walls of the engine casing, or a snap on carburetor that is all one piece would be awesome. 👍🖖😊
They kinda already did that with the electric motors in use that weigh 85lb but put out 250hp and lasts many hundreds of thousands of miles without any maintenance.
If comparing Raptor 3 to RS-25 you have to take into account that the latter is an LOX/H2 Engine which has a way higher physical Isp potential. It's bonkers that Raptor has almost the same Isp with LOX/CH4
Not sure why you're conflating sea-level specs with vacuum. 350 sea level, approaching 380 with a larger bell in a vacuum. More importantly, RS-25 is tuned for vacuum. When at sea level for launch it only had 366 specific impulse, and was over expanded. 350 being so close to 366 just throws the hydrogen benefits out the window; with respect to a boost stage.
@@epicdaniel508RS 25 has 366s of specific impulse at SEA LEVEL though, raptor 3 is only sea level currently so why put up against something in a vacuum?
@@d_mcg No… Isp changes with environment pressure. 350 s is for Raptor 3 SL in a vacuum, eg boostback burn or Starship orbit insertion burn. At SL, it is much lower, probably at around 330 - 335 s.
I think in the beginning, raptor 3 is going to have a few bugs to work out like any new engine, but I think it'll be a powerhouse. I'm wondering why people don't buy engines from SpaceX? Does SpaceX not sell them? You would think that such a reliable engine people would want them on their ships.
No one else launches enough to buy enough engines to make it worth SpaceX's trouble. Especially because SpaceX is continually, constantly tweaking the engines for further improvement. When you're selling to someone outside your development team you have to have a fixed product.
I've literally been saving for a while to fly over from Australia to see a launch. It would be a DREAM if they launched them from here, I'd go to every launch!!!
QQQ - Does the Launch Tower for Starship 3.0 have to/need to be Taller than the ship??? Or is it fine that the existing towers are "short" as long as the QD lines up???
They dont need to but they'll probably want some kind of smaller tower on top of the regular tower(like they already have on tower 1 but bigger) to put lightning protection on.
I remember the first picture of raptor 2 . It looked so simple. But the resent picture not at all. Is it the same with raptor 3 ? For marketing purpose?
I know part of the simplicity is that this is a sea level engine, so it lacks the connections for coolant flows to and from the vacuum bell. You can see the flanges waiting for these connections.
280 tonnes of thrust is a hair more than 617,000 lbs of thrust. SX uses metric tonnes, which is 2204.623 lbs, not short tons, which is 2000 lbs even. Also, the 350 second isp figure is the Vacuum isp of the engine, not the Sea Level isp of the engine. Not only is it corroborated with the Raptor 2 vacuum figures stated in an additional post, but a 20 second isp increase is literally physically impossible with only a 6% increase in chamber pressure with virtually no increase in the engine's apparent nozzle area ratio for the SL engine.
Check your numbers. 350 ISP is the sea level number for V3. This has been stated many times in other content. The Vacuum number is higher. Also the chamber pressure went from 300 to 350 from V2 to V3. That's a lot more than 6%. Even the much greater thrust suggests much higher chamber pressure (230t>280t). The wierd part for me is that the ISP didn't improve from V1 to V3. Richer mixture to get the higher thrust?
If you check SX's tweets, you'd know that the numbers are indeed vacuum numbers. Also it's a plain tell that most people who think those are SL numbers don't use any software like RPA otherwise they'd know WHY it's impossible to have an isp that high at SL. The nozzle ratio is too low, and can't be increased that much because the SL Raptors have to be able to throttle down low enough for hovering, which decreases chamber pressure, and increases the chances of flow separation if taken too far which can damage the engine. Measured chamber pressure for max V2 was 330 bar, not 300 so extrapolating probably from V2.5 measured on test stand, which is a 6% difference, but I'll concede that specific point. Even factoring that in, doesn't change the fact that 1, the 350 second figure is a vacuum figure, and SL stated isp has been mentioned multiple times as being around 330, and the isp not increasing makes perfect sense if you consider the increased flow rate without a drastic increase in the exit area, which actually suggests a slight decrease in nozzle ratio with the increase in chamber pressure balancing out. R3 might have a deeper throttle rating as a result because of that actually, because lower expansion for SL engine means it can throttle deeper without flow separation, which increases hover fidelity on landing
Too many people get this wrong. In the SI it is not allowed to use commas (nor dots) in the space that separates groups of 3 digits, as both the dot and the comma may be used only as the decimal marker.
There are a lot of inconsistencies in this video: * Specific Impulse for Raptor v1 is 350s, v2 - 347s, v3 - 350s, there is no 20s gap between v2 and v3 * The theoretical maximum of a Specific Impulse for a methalox is around 450s, so 380s is quite far from it * RS-25 has a Specific Impulse of 460s, not 360s, so there is no 10s difference between Raptors and RS-25. The difference is because RS-25 uses hydrolox, which has a theoretical maximum of around 540s
Raptor also isn't tuned for maximum efficiency, there is a tradeoff between thrust and specific impulse and 350s is where the engineers determined the best balance for this application.
Yes the RS25 engine mentioned burns liquid hydrogen that is far more energy dense than methane. Its totally nuts that raptor is getting anywhere close to it.
@@MdRejowan-kf6pm I dont think the M10 can be as efficient as Raptor 3 as it is not a "full flow staged" design. Things might be getting obscured by comparing ISPs optimised for different environments. Raptor 2's ISP for vacuum was reported as 380s
20:45 It would be neat to have somewhere to catch and re-launch upper stages from. A great test for the viability for instant transport of either specialized military hardware, people or emergency supplies.
The U.S. I would think would be ill advised to allow space X to do anything over seas, allied nation or not. But if they do, I’d think we would want a strong military presence keeping a close eye on security.
I believe the extra pylons are for the external outside walkway, to create an overhang for shade (like at airports, some convention centers, train and bus stations, etc, etc)
I suspect that those beefy foundations between the factory and office building are to grow the factory over to the office building and the office is just a fancy corner cap on the factory building itself.
At present, engine maintenance isn't a particularly large part of starship operations. However, it will be interesting to see how the engine evolves after starship reuse begins. Perhaps the Raptor 4 will have more access points to address this, once the needs of refurbishment and maintenance are better understood. It may turn out that the Raptor 3 is too sleek.
It actually makes a lot of sense to have the second star base on the exact opposite side of the world. If something goes wrong in orbit you have a good chance of landing or getting close to base.
🎯 Key points for quick navigation: 00:00:05 *🚀 SpaceX continues to progress on the Starship project, including updates on the Flight 5 Starship and the unveiling of the Raptor 3 engine.* 00:00:59 *🏗️ SpaceX has completed stacking five sections of the second Starship launch tower, which will enhance launch redundancy and speed.* 00:03:32 *🛠️ SpaceX is reinforcing Ship 30’s flaps, addressing a failure from Flight 4, to ensure better durability and performance in future flights.* 00:05:39 *🔄 One of Ship 30’s Raptor engines was swapped out, adding a few extra days to testing but not delaying Flight 5.* 00:07:29 *🔧 SpaceX is actively working on the Block 2 Starship hardware, with significant progress on Booster 15 for Flight 7.* 00:11:16 *🧊 The new Raptor 3 engine is lighter, more efficient, and has integrated cooling, reducing the need for external heat shields.* 00:14:58 *📊 Raptor 3 boasts 560,000 pounds of thrust and an improved specific impulse of 350 seconds, making it significantly more powerful than its predecessors.* 00:16:46 *🛠️ Raptor 3 has fewer flanges and welds, simplifying construction but complicating maintenance, requiring some parts to be cut open for repairs.* 00:18:42 *🌏 SpaceX is exploring the possibility of landing and launching Starships near Australia, marking potential international expansion despite regulatory challenges.* Made with HARPA AI
If the flaps on Starship are moved outside the plasma flow in gen 2, wouldn’t they need to be larger to exert the same amount of force? If Gen 1 flaps hinge within the plasma, how are the hinges protected?
Even after moving the hinge out of the plasma stream, the hinge gap will still get a huge pressure applied when the flaps are extended. The flaps are moved forward while being reduced in area because the surface area was excessive before. Forward flaps may need to be larger again for when a massive payload is returned to the ground.
Cape York, and Darwin, in Australia are only about 14 degrees from the Equator, and the ocean is to their eastern flank. Texas and Florida are more than 25 degrees from the Equator. It takes one hell of a lot of fuel to fill that latitude gap.
Every time we want to fix the words on the rocket images, the images are no longer there, we should slow down the pace a little To properly fix this knowledge, thank you!!
