No, the RD-170 was a multiple chamber engine. Not in the same category as the F-1 is is the most powerful single chamber rocket thruster. The reason the Soviets created the multiple chamber configuration is because they were never able to get the metallurgy correct to build a device on the scale of the F-1. - - However, they were able to create a very efficient single shaft for oxidizer/fuel gas generator on a full flow stage combustion. That didn't happen again till the Raptor.
@@qpwodkgh2010 The metallurgy wasn't the problem, it was combustion instability from the injector plate layout. This is more of a design and testing issue than material science issue. It wasn't a full-flow staged combustion cycle either. Full flow means all the fuel and all the oxidiser go through a pre-burner. The RD170 is a staged combustion cycle, but not full flow. Full flow is theoretically better, since it allows for lower turbine temperatures, for the same pumping power, since mass-flow is higher. It also means the inputs to the combustion chamber are hot and more likely to achieve complete combustion.
Words cannot convey how awesome this video is. I've been a fan of rockets for decades, yet I've NEVER seen the F-1 explained so thoroughly and animated so gorgeously. :-) Meanwhile Flat Earth folks say "rockets push off air" LOL.
*_Former Boeing... we made the 1st stage of the Saturn Rocket..._* it was called the S-IC (pronounced S-one-C) was the first stage of the American Saturn V rocket. The S-IC stage was manufactured by the Boeing Company. Like the first stages of most rockets, most of its mass of more than 2,000 t (4,400,000 lb) at launch was propellant, in this case RP-1 rocket fuel and liquid oxygen (LOX) oxidizer...
Pretty good thumbnail, the video editing don't seem to be boring , look pretty good, who know , this might get 100k-400k views and also pretty understandable explanation
I like your video, you got a lot for a short time, very underrated. however, there are some things that you could have improved on. You really should have mentioned the fact that the reason why we cant run the engine closed cycle is because we need a very fuel rich combustion mixture to keep the combustion cold enough to prevent the turbine from getting destroyed, and this type of combustion with rp-1 produces a very dirty soot particle filled gas which would clog the injectors in a closed cycle engine. Including this is also a good idea because it sets the stage for people to learn about other closed cycle rocket engine types. This is other criticism less significant, but you mentioned that the fuel evaporates in the pipes, which needs a little elaboration. I do not think that RP-1 engines have boiling fluids in the cooling channels. The pressure from the turbopumps is too high for it to boil. What most likely happens is it goes supercritical. If the engine is hydrogen fueled, it just expands a lot while supercritical, but it physically cannot evaporate. But this small error is understandable, since some big creators made this mistake and its not talked about very often. there are a couple other little things, but anyways, overall a good video I think it deserves more views. :)
Amazing explanation and graphics to relate basic principles to the specific components of the Saturn engine! This should be see in the basic curricula of Aerospace engineering schools.
0:57 - High pressure in the combustion chamber but not in the exhaust gas!!! And second, pressure is NOT more mass in the same volume. That would be density. Pressure is more like kinetic energy density.
Since rocket speed is usually measured in m/s (I think), I did some math (typed a number on my calculator) and 15700mph is equivalent to 7018,528 m/s, or Mach 25,5
Nice presentation, but I think you're misstating the physics with the pushups and pull-ups thing. Not to nit pick, but it does give the wrong mechanism in that the third law is a negligible contributor to the motion in a pushup. It's important because with a pushup you rise because you are pushing on the earth. In a rocket, you aren't pushing on anything.
Your explanation of how rockets are propelled is not very good. 1. "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" is not a good explanation since rocket engines do not need stuff to push against. 2. F=ma is just not true for a rocket since that assumes mass is constant. The actual equation that applies here is F=dp/dt. Your use of words that have precise meaning behind them is very sloppy.
Dude. Slow down. Take a breath or two. Seriously good video, but difficult for this slow Aussie to absorb and process what you're saying. 🙂 You deserve more subs with this quality production.
