Why SpaceX is Using a New Fuel

Dipublikasikan tanggal 19 Mei 2022
Be one of the first 500 people to sign up with this link and get 20% off your subscription with Brilliant.org! brilliant.org/RealEngineering/

Watch this video on Nebula: nebula.app/videos/realenginee...

Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus

Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...

Credits:
Producer/Co-Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Writer: Barnaby Martin
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Mike Ridolfi
Animator: Eli Prenten
Sound: Graham Haerther
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster

References
[1] Rocket Propulsion Elements, 8th edition [Sutton, 2010]: archive.org/download/Rocket_P...
[2] global.jaxa.jp/projects/engin...
[2a] space-scitechjournal.org.ua/en...
[3] www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lea...
[3a] link.springer.com/chapter/10....
[3b] arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.2672
[4] www.researchgate.net/publicat...
[5] www.journal.csj.jp/doi/10.124...
[6] www.nature.com/articles/natur...
[7] www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
[8] www.mdpi.com/2073-4344/8/12/578

Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.

Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator

Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung

Komentar

  • The reason it burned with so much soot was it was a deliberately fuel rich mixture. If they ran the engines at perfect stoichiometric ratios, they would have melted. And some of the soot is from the turbopump. And the ratio could be changed to "throttle" the engine via the engines' "Propellant Utilization" valves. (It's not actually throttling, but had a similar thrust modulating effect . )

    • @Lounge lizard, and as it makes the fertilizer you speak of, it can also be used as an explosive, … but will not be excited enough by buying a demolition cap to set the process in motion, it will need a sufficient amount of TNT, or dynamite, …

    • False.

    • @Reconnaissance look up the friggen specs of the SatV and other rocket motors on Wikipedia. How the f do you think they could achieve the specific impulse they claim with pathetic 50Atm chamber pressures. The Russians were achieving 280 at the time. Elons raptors are the first American built motors to catch up with the Soviet 1960s tech. The Russians, Indians, Chinese all admitted to their public that it was not possible with technology that we STILL don't have to put a man on the moon. But you want to believe tricky Dickie Nixons Hollywood effort. 🙄🥱

  • I can thoroughly recommend reading “ignition!”, it is absolutely packed with information and they should make a film of his career as a rocket propellant expert. They even used liquid mercury once as a propellant. He also talks about using chlorine triflouride (which actually burns concrete on contact!) as a propellant too, among myriads of other types.

    • Problems arises like hydrogen is hard on parts. Many propellants are very corrosive.

    • I think they still use mercury in some secret weapons like the TR-3B flying triangle.

    • @Michael Lenczewski "But one minor defect in the tank and it burns right through!!!" Yup you end up with a metal-fluoride fire. For which the best equipment to deal with such a situation is apparently a good pair of running shoes.

  • The darker exhaust on the Saturn launch is because there is fuel sprayed down the sided of the nozzle to provide cooling. Not all kerosene rocket exhausts look as dark as that.

    • @Anopo Abednego Yeah This was a half-remembered fact. It's gas generator exhaust which does have a partial cooling effect with associated benefits but the darkness is because gas generator exhaust is fuel rich. It's still true that this is an engine design feature.

    • False.

    • NOPE. fuel is used to cool the engine - but it is then cycled back into the combustion chamber.

    • He's a muskrat and they're not known for their intelligence

    • @PBMS123 This is correct

  • Love the 3d models😃

  • By the way that 400C reaction temperature for the Sabatier process is about 200C below the operating temperature of the MSR built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Most Solar Thermal systems using molten salts operate around 600C as well, so there are several options for cheap thermal energy to run the reaction.

  • "Where I can inspire, brilliant can educate" Don't sell yourself short man, you've taught me a hell of a lot

  • I see a couple of errors here: -1 sometimes hydrigen is referred to as H, while it is H2, as correctly reported sometimes. Some equations are also wrong, such as the one at 9:11 4H2O → 4H2 + 2O2, then 4H2 + CO2 → 2H2O + CH4, but these are kinda minor imprecision. -2 coking in the engines is not much caused by long chain hydrocarbons, rather by alkenes and aromatic hydrocarbons, which are naturally present in kerosene. RP-1 is a highly refined kerosene that eliminates much of the olefins and aromatics, but as of my understanding it's impossible to get rid of 100% of them. -3 The black soot you see at the exhaust of Saturn 5's F-1 engine is not caused by poorly burned fuel, but from fully unburned fuel that was used as nozzle coolant. This fuel was unburned, because it was just for cooling, so a large formation of soot is expected. -4 You wouldn't want to convert captured CO2 back into methane because in order to do this you would need at least the same amount of energy that was obtained by burning the hydrocarbon that generated it, rendering the whole process useless. Of course, you can store it and revert it back to hydrocarbon when you have overproduction of renewables, but this is still not really recommended. The best we can do with captured CO2, as for now, is just to bury it underground and leave it there forever, using something like zeolytes or MOFs to stabilize it. Think of these as sort of a CO2 sponges. Anyways, very interesting video.

    • @jetison333 I know H2 isn't water. I was just commenting on the difference between it's reference in the periodic table vs molecular structure/state. As pointed out by Imcons Equetau in response to me, converting it to plain H is not a desired way to store it in bulk.

    • @Steven Nicholas H2 is not the same as H2O. H2 has no oxygen in it, and is the natural state of hydrogen. The reason it's 2 instead of just h is that it binds with itself to form molecules out of two hydrogen atoms.

    • @Imcons Equetau This is why i'm not a rocket scientist. :D Well, one of the reasons.

    • -4 CO2 injection is a poor solution to the problem of atmospheric CO2 removal. Biome methods such as soil sequestration and wetlands expansion are better in so many ways. Of course, whether these methods could store enough CO2 in the short timeframe we have allotted to us means that direct injection will probably also have to be part of the solution.

    • @Steven Nicholas yikes...

  • Humble as always, informative as ever, and honestly fantastically structured, paced, and cut. Brilliant's got nothing on you my friend. Don't sell yourself short.

  • Great video. Thank you for the explanation of the importance of Discovery and Space. People don't know the massive impact of innovation driven by discovery and just trying to understand our universe.

  • My favorite interest in the space industry is in the launching and recovery process. Things are still primitive and the years of practical experience is beginning to pay off, still have a lot of room for evolution in both realms. Carry on.

  • Yes, I found "ignition" to be a book that allowed my fictional mind to gravitate towards profound possibilities. Whereas, it not only gave me a clear process of the science of Rocket Fuels, but it also enlightened my creativity level to design rockets and propellents for future use. Awesome vid thx! 💖👍

  • Great video, as always! I would definitely mention synthesising fuel on Mars in the title. If I had seen that, I would have immediately clicked (instead of having to convince myself to click because I know your videos are good stuff).

  • 00:19 that ignition onrush of gasses that get sucked back in by the negative pressure zone/vacuum created by the rapid exhaust leaving the chamber always tickles me. Gas goes up and reverses, so simple yet wonderful.

  • Geezuz I love this channel. Inspires me to make sure my kids pay attention to STEM when they reach big school. Great work, as always, Brian and team.

  • A note about sooty rocket exhaust - a few times you talk about how sooty rp1 is and at the same time show a bunch of relatively dark black flecked exhaust from a Saturn five launch. Yes the combustion is relatively incomplete which is why we can see the yellow flame but it isn’t like what you show in these clips. That part of the exhaust comes from film cooling, where they purposely ran fuel rich mixture around the outside of the nozzle to keep it from overheating.

    • False. Nothing you say here is correct.

    • @pyropulse also, Film cooling does as well still create a slight soot problem, thus why the F1 engine was only possible to be used once.

    • @pyropulse as in there's still soot being created, he could've used a different example that's more accurate to the case, but considering the majority of people aren't rocket Enthusiasts, it will get the point across. Of course, now the people have a wrong understanding of how an F1 Rocket Engine works but let's leave that to their future curiosity to educate upon.

    • @Mihkel Kukk How does straight up lying get the point across?

    • @Howard Kelsey I suppose there is a time and place for everything. And I do value religion. At this moment, though, we are discussing rocket science, but perhaps it is only God that can guide us to the knowledge we seek. Perhaps, He has set out a path that will lead me to the answers to all of my questions.

  • This was a great video, nicely summarizing the general idea. Also I highly recommened the book Ignition! even if you don't understand chemistry it is still a fun read that explains a lot about propellants and how we settled on fuels that are used most.

  • good video sir, really interesting. just one clarification from a pedant chemist: at 9:04 you say that 4 moles of hydrogen are used, but if you look closely you can see that that hydrogen has no "2" at his pedice, hence I suggest you to correct it because if you leave it like this it seem like you're using radical hydrogen. also I don't understand why you didn't add the plus sign (+) in between oxygen and hydrogen generated trough electrolysis in the same set of equations; finally the CO2 at the bottom equation should have the 2 at pedice since it indicates the fact that the carbon is linked to two oxygens. as a general rule for chemistry equations: numbers in front of formulas are normal and those indicates the number of molecules obtained, and numbers in the formulas of in front of formulas indicate how many atoms are included in that molecule hence are write smaller ( pedice). if you need a clarification contact me freely. have a goo day.

    • Hey this is what I’m learning about in my chemistry class. Just thought it was cool

  • You make look engineering, very easy, how much work and effort You and your team put to get this levels, graph are Great. Speachless😁

  • Great video! I like everything your channel puts out. But as an engineer myself, I just want to make a correction about impulse. It doesn’t represent total energy released. In this case it represents total momentum gained by the rocket due to the fuel.

    • Sure @Ron Jon . Impulse is indeed the area under a force vs time curve like the one in the video. This is also equal to change in momentum over the time the force is being applied. To see why, you'd need to integrate force and the answer would be equal to the final momentum minus the initial momentum (I'll put the math at the end of my post). So fundamentally, the impulse represents the total increase in momentum due to an applied force. That increase in momentum is related to the energy gained, but it's not a direct relationship so we can't say the area under the curve represents the energy gained. You can calculate the area under the curve by taking the integral of the force function f(t) with respect to t over some initial time to a final time: ∫f(t)dt. Newton’s second law defines force as, f(t)=ma=m(dv/dt) where m, a, and v are mass, acceleration, and velocity respectively (dv/dt is the derivative of velocity which is equal to acceleration). So the integral becomes, ∫(dmv/dt)dt=∆(mv). This result is equal to change in momentum since momentum is defined as P=mv. On the other hand, energy gained by the rocket, due to the fuel alone, is equal to the rocket's change in kinetic energy (a measure of energy associated with an object’s speed). Change in kinetic energy is ∆(0.5mv^2) which you can see is similar to momentum, but the relationship is quadratic so it will not be directly related to impulse. Instead, increasing the area under the curve will quadratically increase the amount of energy the fuel provides to the rocket. I know that’s a lot so feel free to ask any follow-ups.

    • Can you explain that further, please?

  • Another benefit of methane is that since it has a similar boiling temperature as oxygen, not only can they use similar infrastructure, they can also be stored right next to each other in the rocket with minimal insulation which is not possible with hydrogen and oxygen or kerosene and oxygen, since the differences in the boiling point for those liquids is too much. This save space, simplifies components, and saves on the mass of systems within the ship to cool the propellants since you can use one system instead of two separate ones. All of that really helps when you want to mass produce those systems and tanks for as cheaply as possible.

    • False.

    • @Ed Bunkers After use its just as any other CO2.

    • It’s almost like this fuel is perfect for use exclusively in our solar system, especially if you consider that titan is a giant ball of methane

    • @mouserr I was talking about the rocket not the infrastructure on the ground. On the ground they must be kept separate for the reasons you stated, though there is still the benefit of being able to use similar systems and infrastructure between the two sets of storage which will save on equipment costs and employee training on how to handle super cold systems.

  • The world's first rocket engine designed to be reusable- the Rocketdyne RS-25, is a liquid hydrogen/ liquid oxygen engine. I'd love to know how hydrogenization affected the engine. As I recall, the engine was designed for 25 launches. As I understand it, three of the four RS-25's being used for Artemis 1 are leftover, flight used shuttle engines

  • Awesome video. You really inspired me. I am concerned with how we will get hydrogen to mars to make methane. You can't just ship it to mars because it's not dense enough to be shipped without creating complex problems. What we need is metallic hydrogen. Sadly that's about as trusted to be coming soon as fusion. It is the ultimate dream fuel.

  • Awesome video. Will there be a video on either ammonia or hydrogen fuel in the aviation industry?

  • Your consistency and quality of content never disappoints!

  • Great video! Your reason for the importance of NASA and other space research science etc is spot on and a constant justifiable positive argument I have had for decades with those that ask those questions and don’t understand. Most people don’t know all the benefits that have come from those decades of science in their everyday lives, medical science one of the biggest, too many to name. Go space X! And other commercial ventures!!

  • CO2 can always be brought back to methane, but thermodynamics say that you need to put at least the same amount of energy back into the reaction. engineering says you need more energy. This process is only viable if the energy is from renewable (non CO2 emitting) sources and the original process must emit CO2, such as cement production. Otherwise just avoiding the combustion is way better.

    • As far as Earth is concerned, carbon-to-fuel processes are intended to be a temporary step. Obviously the idea of capturing carbon into fuel only to burn it again seems silly, but the ability to sell the produced fuel provides a potential economic basis to cement and improve the technology. The capture itself at this point is carbon neutral so long as its power source is as well. Once further progress has been made on upscaling renewables, the cost of carbon capture can be shifted off of manufactured fuel and onto tax-funded subsidies/direct use of revenue from renewable power. Now that selling and burning the captured carbon is no longer required, all those well-established carbon capture plants can just switch to permanent storage and sequestration of carbon.

  • Damn I was about to search for the reaction used to produce methane from carbon dioxide but this actually showed it, this video is really comprehensive.

  • Hearing about all the factors that go into making this stuff more efficient and more effective reminds me of when you have a really strong hand in a trading card game.

  • I appreciate the bit addressing why space exploration is an important problem along with the other big ones we are working on. industry hands us problem after problem to solve with a frequency that just doesn't happen in research labs. space is that kind of progress.

    • @Thomas Livingstone but vast majority of US presidents have been religious and of couse with being president you have direct access to the nuclear weapons. Thankfully none have been so insane to actually use them, but seeing how modern doomsayers have been getting more and more prevalent. Nuclear catastrophe may just come sooner than expected..

    • @jhax i find them to be bothersome at best but a danger if any one of them gets real power, like nukes.

    • @Thomas Livingstone They better stay in their lane. I know more about god than most evangelist ever will, people who want to evangelize are fine by me, people who haphazardly go tell everyone (intentional or not, is irrelevant) they're lesser people are in fact the exact people their literature says NOT to be. If you contradict what your religion says, I simply have 0 interest in listening to you evangelize about your religion. Be real, and actually represent what you preach, and I might listen to you.

  • Good stuff as always! In an attempt to broaden people's knowledge base and critical thinking open mindedness, I recommend; Dr. Will Happen, Dr. Willy Soon, Dr. Freeman Dyson, and Dr. Nils Axel Morner.

  • This is the 1st I've heard of this technology. It is KISS simple and one of those things that was right in front of us all this time. Brilliant!

  • "We have been given the scientific knowledge, the technical ability and the materials to pursue the exploration of the universe. To ignore these great resources, will be a corruption of a God-given ability" I just love this opening address ❤️

    • Same isn't this the German American in the opening Wernher Vonn Baun one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration

  • Awesome videos always full of good knowledge. One thing my 15 year old son said to me the other night that without free education or shared technology (private/goverments open sourcing tech to improve the world if they are not willing to do it themselves, same for medical as it would change so many lives...cancer treatments etc) we wont succeed cause the ones that could change the world now wont and its left to the small people that never have a chance.

  • Another reason they went with Methane is that is allows the full flow staged combustion cycle of the Raptor to work. The Merlin uses uses Kerosene and has minimal to no refurbishment required.

    • Meh, it has good specific impulse, phase temperature overlap with liquid oxygen, and it can be synthesized through Mars ISRU

    • Also methane has more energy than hydrogen per volume

    • @Kain Yusanagi do you work as a rocket engineer?

    • @Bala M Ok

    • Uses uses kerosene? Turns out humans ignore if a word is used twice with a line line break between them.

  • Very nice presentation. Could you make a follow-up video with ways to process Mars rock into H2, O2 and metals? Excuse my lack of chemistry - but is there a way to do something with CO?

  • This is one of my favorite videos. I just did a science fair on this concept. Thank you for the video

  • As soon as I saw the RWGSR+ Sebatier reaction pop up I noticed that excess carbon immediately. Imagine if there was a way we could strip it, and just lay them out like a printer - essentially printing sheets of graphene. Oohhhhhh myyy. Here's your methane for fuel, your oxygen for breathing, some graphene for building materials, water for drinking. I should ask my chemical engineer buddy about this lol

  • I wonder what options there are in extracting CO2 from Venus's atmosphere (as balloon colony) and using it for fuel and plant food. But there's no water, so maybe we'd need to bring water or hydrogen to Venus, and be very efficiency in using it as a closed loop, easier for a greenhouse, than if we need for methane fuel.

  • These slow motion shots of the Saturn V never get old. This was truly an awe inspiring moment in human history

    • Thanks, corrected - don't know why the Atlas popped into my head instead of Saturn :)

    • Thank you.

    • @Michael on ID-tv That was a throttle-down test to a minimal thrust setting. At full thrust, no icicles.

    • my favourite shot of an engine firing was a slowmo shot of space shuttle engine test where the outer rim of the rocket bell had icicles on it from the super cold fuel flowing through it to cool it down, and right next to those icicles was the engine firing full throttle with a bunch of clear blue exhaust. The duality of super cold right next to almost surface of the sun hot, was super cool, and really shows just how much insane engineering goes into making these things that allows them to achieve that.

    • That is the Saturn V, but the Atlas V is really good too. Ares V was going to be great, like SON OF SATURN V great. Titan V would have been great, but Delta and Atlas were favored over Titan. Titan V would have been a hydrolox system instead of aerozene-50/N2O4, and would have had first and second stage extensions, by ten feet each. Possibly even diameter increases, perhaps to 15 feet on the first stage, much like the Titan-based Barbarian proposals. Delta V (Not delta-v) is more or less what Vulcan will be. Vulcan could perhaps be Atlas VI.

  • I always wondered what type of fuel they used for the take off from Moon without making any form of mess.... After landing also all stones look to be very undisturbed. And all this in a "flimsy" looking lander. We must have lost this great technology over the years.

    • "Thermodynamic equilibirium is a war of attrition that the universe will always win" is an amazing sentence. Kudos to whoever wrote it.

  • I was one of the millions who watched the first lunar landing. Last fall I got opportunity to watched a SpaceX launch and booster return at Kennedy Space Center. We've come a long way.

  • Great presentation ! at 10:00 when you purify CO2 out of the martian atmosphere by congelation at -78°c, I guess you could recover useful amounts of nitrogen as by product and use it to make an artificial earth like atmosphere to grow plants for example.

    • @Neku The heater would be electric, presumably. Solar or nuclear.

    • Ok what fuel is being use for the heater. Magic?

  • Thank you for continuing to cover SpaceX and their amazing progress. It’s very appreciated.

  • You make several referencs to the sooty exhaust of the Saturn V F1 engines. I wonder if the appearance that you're referring to is more about the raw fuel that was injected at the head of the nozel to create a "cool" eveporative barrier between the intensely hot exhaust and the inner walls of the novel. That fuel would not burn completely. They actually went to great lengths to make sure that the RP1 fuel and liguid oxygen mixture burned efficiently and consistently. Without that you get violent feed back pressure/thrust changes called pogo'ing that would damage the rocket structure.

  • Another cool thing is that hydrogen is already replacing coal in steel production and a lot of industrial processes.

  • As cool as all this is, I feel like you're not doing a good enough job explaining why this won't be happening anytime soon. It's also kind of frustrating to see you cite Elon Musk as a reliable source despite the constant proof that he has almost no idea what he's saying, and saying that solutions for Mars are what's needed to solve problems on Earth. Solutions for Mars *can help* solve problems on Earth, but saying we need those solutions to help here is like saying we have this massive toolbox, but the only way to build something is to use a hammer and nails. Earth has everything on it in various abundances where we don't need to worry about being irradiated or needing to breathe and eat, while Mars has only a few things accessible. The differences between the two are great enough that most solutions are not directly transferrable.

  • I think an interesting topic for this channel would be exploring the different possibilities of thermochemically produced hydrogen directly from heat (ideally concentrated solar or high temperature nuclear), of which nuclear + the Sulphur Iodine cycle is the best positioned. Keep pumping out these fantastic videos!

    • Never heard of that,but i does sound interesting. Do you have any video on the subject?

  • Thank you so much for actually admitting that carbon is not a waste product but another resource we haven’t used yet

  • Might be the awkward middleground but reusable engines without soot or coaking is a huge plus.

  • Given the detail provided in this video I was a little surprised at the following. At 8:10 there is a statement that the atmosphere on Mars is 95% carbon dioxide followed by "carbon dioxide rich atmosphere". These are very misleading statements when not put in context. Calling Mars carbon dioxide rich is only true in a relative sense that being that the atmosphere is 95 % CO2. But the reality is that the atmospheric pressure on Mars is 1/100th that of earth!! Now that doesn't look very carbon dioxide rich now does it!?!?

  • I wonder if other very small hydrocarbons have been investigated - ethane or ethene for example. Even acetylene/acetone mix. They'd fall between methane and kerosene in terms of storage and stoichiometry. Or perhaps anhydrous ammonia.

  • These videos are always so well done. The quote at the beginning really draws your attention and sets the stage. Really just marvelous work.

    • I just love von Braun. Greatest man (together with Korolyov) of the 20th century. I would rather lose Gandhi than them.

  • the area under the force curve doesn't give you energy, it gives change in momentum (i.e., impulse). integrating force with respect to distance gives you work, or total energy transformation.

  • Wait... So Highfleet’s worldbuilding actually makes sense using liquid compressed methane to power massive airships? And the fact that the Co2 that is expelled by thrusters into the atmosphere can be recondensed and refined back into liquid methane? HOLY CRAP THATS NEAT

    • @Abel Knecht seeing as how Highfleets world features a nuclear reactor the size of a city and hundreds of thousand+ ton airships outputting enough rocket thrust to instantly insulate a small planetoid with greenhouse emissions I still think it’s pretty neat on the worldbuilding how this all fits together

    • CO2 can always be brought back to methane, but thermodynamics say that you need to put at least the same amount of energy back into the reaction. engineering says you need more energy. This process is only viable if the energy is from renewable (non CO2 emitting) sources and the original process must emit CO2, such as cement production.

    • pls explain?

    • I would love to learn about rotating-detonation engines! And what kinds of possibilities they will unlock for aerospace.

  • But what about propane? It seems to be more stable and easier to handle than hydrogen

  • There’s one major problem that has to be overcome. The radiation a human will absorb while travelling to, living on and returning from mars. A solar flare will also add more radiation to the total. Why no one is discussing this point is beyond me.

  • The amount of research to create this video is amazing! Reminding that it is not only googling the subject, he (and his team?) had thousands of hours studying a lot to even understand and relay the subject properly. Excellent video. Congratulations!

    • Ignition! is a good read on the topic of rocket fuels.

  • I wonder if when they switched fuels, they needed to use a new metal to work with it?

  • Honestly someone (space x, nasa, ISS I dont care) needs to build an interplanetary ship built in orbit, large enough for spin gravety, and designed to move from one planets orbit to another planets orbit.

  • 15:03 I love pure research. I love space. I want to be the first band to play the Moon and Mars. But it's immoral to force someone else to pay for it. Full stop. That's a grotesque and indefensible position.

  • I wonder how long it would take to produce a kg of hydrogen if we started collecting protons and electrons from solar wind. If it's even possible at all, that is.

  • I checked out a book at my university’s library which discusses different rocket fuels. Love this kind of stuff!

  • "Working on difficult problems to make Mars habitable will directly lead to helping solve the greatest problem facing earth today". This is not a valid argument. How about we just, y'know, directly put the effort into solving earth's problems instead of inefficiently in a roundabout way mess around with Mars which is a complete waste of effort.

  • As usual, graphics are excellent, and keep pace with the narrative.

  • I would love an "Insane engineering of the Voyager 1 and 2"... these ships are still cranking along.

    • Voyager 1 is probably borked tho'. The readings it's sending back are, 80% likely, software bugs.

  • Amazing work! I always throughly enjoy watching these videos. You do an excellent job discussing technical information in a manner that keeps engineers like us entertained while also explaining what it means to people who are less familiar with the subject matter. Keep it up!

  • Top quality content, once again here lads. Thank you

  • I get that one of the biggest reasons was that methane can be generated on mars, but can’t kerosene also be generated from the air on mars?

  • 15:02 I used to say that climate change was the biggest challenge we face this century. however artificial intelligence is coming faster (about 10-20 years away) and will have a bigger impact. Developing AI in a way which benefits humanity instead of destroys it is by far the biggest challenge we'll face this century.

  • One point not specifically mentioned is that SpaceX needed the clean burn of methane to allow rapid reusablity without having to deal with carbon deposits in the engines.

  • Soviets had already developed mathalox rocket engines : RD-0162, RD-0141 & RD-0143, RD-183 & RD-185. Unfortunately, they never flew on a real rocket, only static fires had been conducted.

    • @ANIMEEE "... and have the best anti ICBM -anti aircraft rockets right now." Israelis repeatedly destroy those "best" systems in Syria with little to no damage to their aircraft. Remember, no matter what propaganda says, a country that can't produce decent car or mobile phone, can't produce even remotely decent high-tech military equipment.

    • @Rakaydos Draj yep, a retroreflector on the moon. tricky to fake. to say the least.

  • i've learned so much from your videos, like it's awesome. thank you!

  • Maybe you could do an episode on how the catalyst works in the fuel example you gave.

  • while also explaining what it means to people who are less familiar with the subject matter. Keep it up!

  • I just hope we dont mess around with something we barely understand and end up killing all the sparrows. Messing with Mars just seems like an awful idea. Shouldn't we understand Mars a bit more before we go tinkering with it? The earth has a massive buffering capacity for human screw ups, Mars may not...

  • I would love to learn about rotating-detonation engines! And what kinds of possibilities they will unlock for aerospace.

  • I can imagine all the systems needed going to Mars and the Human Scientists arriving only to find that the reachable water resources are so limited that they will have to choose between a return flight to Earth or growing enough food to survive on the planet a while. I hope they take a coin to help them decide. Imagine a Mars Coin Toss ….

  • one advantage of methane that you missed is that for every other fuel combination you need to insulate between the lox and the fuel or one will freeze the other. Methane doesn't need this. It's also worth noting that SpaceX isn't the only company working on methane rockets, there are several others doing so.

    • @carholic1336 I agree., and I said that SpaceX isn't the only company doing so. So what are you disagreeing with?

    • @David Lang other companies have been working on methan rocket engines too! That’s a fact

    • @carholic1336 umm, what am I wrong about? I say that they aren't the only one working on it. did you mean to reply to someone else?

    • Wrong!!!! Spacex isn’t the only company working on methan rockets! You’re welcome!

    • @David Lang In a sense, the video does mention how little insulation is needed at the shared LOX/methane bulkhead. For Hydrogen they didn't share the bulkhead.

  • A good bit behind the development already in use for quite some time this channel is, wouldn't you say?

  • When people ask me "Why are we wasting time trying to go to other planets when we need to fix the one we live on right now?", I tell them that if 7 billion people can't manage to work on 2 problems at once, then we deserve to go extinct.

  • Haha, this is probably the third or fourth time I’m learning about Specific Impulse. You should probably create a separate video for this and then link to it in all other rocket videos.

    • I vote yes for multiple videos dealing w rocket science. Tim Dodd at Everday Astronaut has done a bunch, which are excellent, and getting RE’s perspective on these topics along w his explanations of the science and engineering would be very useful. I like the depth RE goes into deriving the ‘how’ behind the various metrics.

  • Buen video, darle meteoritos a marte para aumentar su masa y tamaño hasta tener 0.55g de gravedad y construirle una luna para que sea como la tierra marte, así con su atmósfera que retenga oxígeno sería más fácil hacer todo lo que se necesita para terraformar marte creo sugerencia.

  • I like and enjoy watching your content. However I have an issue with your approach to metrics. Impulse is not a fact, it is a metric, it is a way of understanding, imagining, describing, calculating, measuring. It is not a physical phenomenon. I took me a while to understand there is this difference and to get, it has value. The value is; only trained engineers and physicists understand and care to use these phrases. You may want to find a simpler way of communicating.

  • The fact that Man successfully flew to the Moon, landed and then flew back is just mind bogglingly incredible when you look back and analyse the technogy available. I mean seriously a modern Smart Phone has more compute performance than the IBM Mainframes available at the time.

    • @Christian Jordan Yes, people are turning to be more and more animal nowadays. Their interest is just food, sex and relax.

    • @Marek Sýkora Nowadays if you said can you use a Sextant people would think it was a sex toy.

    • Actually those guys in Apollo spaceship were trained the way that they could return back even when the computers stop working. They learned navigation with sextant and stars to specify their actual position and orientation. They could calculate the right moment of the engines just with paper and pencil and meassure its running interval just by stopwatch. All manual stearing. Just read "The story of the Apollo sextant".

  • Something to digest for those that doubt the practical merit of investing time and resources into this strategy may find of benefit: dozens and more new technologies are stumbled upon through projects like this, where new methods have to be developed to tackle problems that can have additional and more widespread benefit than the primary topic of study ever envisioned. I myself often run into this, where I started on one specific target, and through the development to get the primary idea off the ground, end up developing 5 or 6 new application ideas along the way which likely have more practical and widespread use then that initial project ever could encompass by itself; occasionally you stumble onto something so magnificent that switching to one of those accidental discoveries is worth abandoning or postponing the first project because of said possibilities!

    • Yes. Pretty similar to the ancient alchemists and transmutation chemists of the past. Wouldn't have a periodic table and other development otherwise.

  • I think It will take a while until starships leave mars with synthesized methane. Until then, smaller ascent stages and a transit station in mars orbit will be more cost efficient

  • Methane is also sustainable, it can be produced easily as a biofuel which would benifiet the aviation industry as well.

  • I have a question - do SpaceX has the infrastructure to convert CO2 to CH4 in volume? Also, how are they going to power all these. Availability of solar power is very limited on Mars. All these mining, electrolysis and Sabatier reaction requires a hell lot of energy.

    • Solar panel be like: am I joke to u?

  • I think the main reason for them to change to methane is because some scientists from Spain managed to create a small methane synthesizer that can be used on Mars to create fuel for the return trip. They estimate to finish the synthesizer by 2035

  • Second law of thermodynamics dictates that the most efficient way to capture CO2 from burning fossil fuels is to not burn them in the first place. Any other reaction requires more energy than burning the fuel can give.

  • 1:10 this is a gross oversimplification. A liquid hydrogen first stage was considered, and would have been feasible to build - and would have resulted in the Saturn V weighing only 2/3 what it did. The reason they didn't go with it wasn't tank size, it was that liquid hydrogen produces much lower *thrust* than kerosene, so building a powerful enough first stage engines would have been more challenging.

    • @Angry Mokyuu The largest ever solid rocket motor was actually fired in 1965 and 1966 (weighing about 850T, compared to the 600T for the shuttle). These were meant to be alternative first stages for the Saturn 1B, but were never flown... or even removed from the test stand after firing, they're still there.

    • ​@xponen_ I don't think that solid fuel rockets were where they needed to be at the time, plus the US had little experience with the concept at the time the Saturn V was designed(though it's noteworthy that the Soviet N-1 also lacked boosters, despite their experience with them).

    • can use booster like they did with the Space Shuttle. Solid fuel has the highest thrust ever so they are often used as a strapped-on boosters for lots of rockets.

  • The process of freezing CO2 is exactly like distillation, except the thing you want is already boiled.

  • For years, I've been trying to find a way to turn coal into methane. This video provides the equation. In some sort of co-generation project, we should be able to burn coal to make heat & power and CO2, then combine that CO2 with hydrogen to make methane and water vapor. Then when the methane is eventually burned (efficiently), there is a release of CO2 and water. There must be some way to put this altogether in a loop. Maybe we need to add wind, solar, or nuclear power to generate the hydrogen from water.

    • @Chris Braid like what? Hydrolysis of water is an easy and well known process.

    • Wouldn’t it be better to use hydrogen rich liquids rather than water?

  • I usually don't comment on ID-tv but great video. Please make more videos that go into technical depth like this one.

  • Great video! Just can't get over that you actually believe that "climate change" as it is defined by climate alarmists is a real thing? Each to their own I guess but it seems a waste of creative talent chasing illusions when there are so many pie in sky dreams still needing attention. Teleportation and phasers comes to mind.

  • AWSOME VIDEO! The best teachers make complicated things easily understood!…Cheers!

  • They are design molten salt reactors around the idea of producing liquid fuels for when power demand is low, so that would solve that problem.

  • How would switching to methane affect the environment from a greenhouse gas standpoint? Doesn’t methane have around a 20x larger warming potential than carbon dioxide? Wouldn’t using it in a reusable rocket have some considerable effects?

  • With the new tech of wireless electricity i still think a electric rocket engine would be the true path. Am aware electric engine are under research but there trying to make them using the minimal amount of energy which is not ideal currently. I think a electric rocket engine combine with wireless electricity would save allot of money even if it consume large amount of energy...If it works then it can be improve. Wireless electricity is the turning the energy into radio wave then back into energy. Even better if they can beam negative or positive charge like a magnet too elevate a space craft into orbit.

  • Successful carbon capture technology doesn't only hinge on reduced cost but more importantly on the high energy requirements. CCS is very power intensive and using fossil fuel power would naturally ruin CCS efficiency, whereas building out renewable power to meet our energy needs would quickly make CCS redundant. In both cases CCS as a bridge technology is only useful to the industries that promote it but not for actual climate change mitigation.