"Unlimited Money, Unlimited Resources, No Safety Concerns..." ...basically Kerbal Space Program in nutshells :-D
@scottmanley
11 жыл бұрын
Hah.... this is what happens when you freestyle these things.
@Tetracarbon
9 жыл бұрын
Scott, I really appreciate your science videos. I know they get a lower view count than KSP videos and you've obviously spent a lot of time in putting these together, so I understand if they have a lower "KZitem yield". That is a shame. I've learned so much about physics and astronomy through your videos. Keep up the great work.
@LeCharles07
6 жыл бұрын
I think the words I'm looking for are "Hear! Hear!".
@Darrenatace
6 жыл бұрын
Me too!
@kenjiokura7601
3 жыл бұрын
I think it might be the opposite these days!
@lloydevans2900
7 жыл бұрын
A small but important point: In a liquid hydrogen / liquid oxygen rocket, the exhaust is NOT just water. It's actually more similar to the liquid hydrogen propelled nuclear rocket, in that most of the hydrogen not burned and is therefore acting as reaction mass. Liquid hydrogen engines are always run very fuel-rich, for a couple of important reasons: 1. To reduce the burn temperature in the combustion chamber. Ok, so this is rather hot anyway, but it would be even hotter if all of the hydrogen was burned. Even using the liquid hydrogen for regenerative cooling wouldn't be enough to compensate for this. 2. To maximize the average exhaust velocity, by having as much hydrogen as possible in the exhaust. So only enough hydrogen is burned to impart heat to the rest of it, which actually increases the specific impulse. At the high temperatures used, some of the hydrogen molecules split into hydrogen atoms, which have an even higher velocity - this increases the specific impulse even further. A similar principle is used in RP1 / liquid oxygen rockets - these are also run fuel rich to reduce the burn temperature to tolerable levels. The amount of oxygen used is limited to ensure that most of the carbon in the hydrocarbon fuel burns to carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide. This is a lighter molecule, so has a higher exhaust velocity, boosting the specific impulse. Another modification to a rocket burning RP1 is to mix some liquid fluorine into the liquid oxygen. This causes the hydrogen component of the hydrocarbon fuel to be burned to HF rather than water. HF is a smaller and lighter molecule, so has a higher exhaust velocity than water. A liquid hydrogen engine can use liquid fluorine as the oxidizer for the same reason, and would also be run very fuel-rich.
@scottmanley
7 жыл бұрын
Very good points here, I never went into the details of fuel mixtures, might be worth doing that at some point.
@LoanwordEggcorn
4 жыл бұрын
Correct. In real world combustion, the products are never ideal, even when the inputs are stochiometric. Given a large enough population size H2 + O does not always result in H2O as just one example. Big organic molecules like RP1 produce even more varied results.
@DeHeld8
8 жыл бұрын
The first solid rocket propellant and oldest rocket fuel: black powder.
@severinopereiracarollofilh5933
3 жыл бұрын
It's very hard get all these information together and well explained. Thanks.
@Ruiluth
11 жыл бұрын
Radioactive materials produce a lot of energy. If there is enough, the energy sets off a chain reaction that makes too much energy which explodes and fissions it much faster. If there isn't though they just make a lot of heat. Nuclear engines don't actually use liquid fuel and oxidizer like in KSP, they just heat up something like monopropellant and spew it out. In the config file it has a note that says that the devs know it isn't realistic but didn't want to make separate types of fuel yet.
@cappie2000
11 жыл бұрын
32 and still learning something every day.. Thnx Scott
@halseylynn5161
7 жыл бұрын
Ah, okay, so from a first principles standpoint, you need three things - reaction mass, energy to push that mass, and a means to do the pushing. For a chemical rocket, the energy comes from the fuel's combustion, the combustion byproducts are the reaction mass, and the pushing is done by simple thermal expansion. For a nuclear rocket, the energy comes from the heat of nuclear breakdown, a non-reactive fuel is the reaction mass, and the pushing is done, again, by simple thermal expansion. For an electric rocket, the energy comes most commonly from solar panels [but can come from an RTG too], an very inert fuel is the reaction mass, and the pushing is done by electromagnetic repulsion between the engine and the ions of the fuel. Cool beans.
@sixstringedthing
6 жыл бұрын
Nicely summarised.
@mancubwwa
5 жыл бұрын
Technically, only in Bi- (and other multi-)propelant rockets energy comes from combustion. In monopropelant rockets it comes from rapid decomposition in presence of catalyst.
@petersmythe6462
9 жыл бұрын
Slight gripe about the energy densities. The H2 and Kerosene are not that energy dense, they just react with a tremendous amount of O2 to produce that energy. If the O2 is included, their densities are about 10 and 16, respectively. Not 46 and 123.
@Jarathor
11 жыл бұрын
I think he's talking about the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) - it was highlighted in the mainstream media not too long ago. It does have some thermal management issues - the plasma does up to the million Kelvin range after all.
@Prometheus2508
11 жыл бұрын
Indeed. These engines only work in-atmosphere because they require atmospheric oxygen to combust the fuels. The KSP concept of "air-hogging," throwing on preposterous amounts of intakes on a ship, exists because it allows you to "gather" more oxygen at higher altitudes. High altitudes involve low pressure atmosphere, meaning there is less and less oxygen the higher you go, so more intake surface area is required to obtain a sufficient amount of oxygen to prevent flameout.
@davidsirmons
7 жыл бұрын
Just gonna call you Scotty. All I can see is Simon Pegg in ST. This channel is awesome, even for that by itself. :D
@SpotsideBuddy
10 жыл бұрын
I only understod that "Soyaz" thing when i saw it written. It is actually pronounced "soy'ooz" (apostrophe being the stress mark, i.e. the stress is in the second sylable). Other than that - a very good video. Thank you so musch, Scott. I would give it more than 1 like if I could.
@goeiecool9999
10 жыл бұрын
So the EVA suits of the astronauts were basically like deflating a balloon in space lol.
@Phebus88
9 жыл бұрын
kind of... although I would go with opening a container of compressed gas. Imagine a bottle of carbonated water that has been thoroughly shaken xD
@IssaMe
9 жыл бұрын
Opening a container of compressed gas, is a balloon right? Correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure that: The container = the balloon The compressed gas = the air inside Opening the container = opening the balloon's neck to make really high pitched and annoying sounds BALLOONS IN SPACE!!!
@sixstringedthing
6 жыл бұрын
The "Mentos in Coke" of space exploration. :) Although of course, that's not quite right because it relies on a chemical reaction, which the EVA suits didn't. It's more like playing dodgem cars in office chairs using fire extinguishers for propulsion. Or so a friend told me. ;)
@TheOnlyStarrider
11 жыл бұрын
The closest to a fusion rocket built was a model for a ship that dropped hydrogen bombs behind it to propel it. This was a project during the 50s dubbed the "Project Orion" The farthest they got was a small model that rode a few hundred feet in the air off of conventional explosives.
@gdm413229
8 жыл бұрын
The North Korean Unha-3 is fuelled by nitric acid and UDMH for the first two stages and a semi-cryogenic fuel for the final stage that uses liquid O2 and a glorified version of RP1 called RP2, with MUCH less sulphur. You don't want to go near the first two stages of an Unha-3 when they are ignited as they use a SUPER DANGEROUS fuel mixture -- with nitric acid as the culprit.
@jmmahony
4 жыл бұрын
A minor correction- the fuel tanks aren't insulated to keep the fuel from evaporating (I believe the tanks are more or less constantly being topped of until just before launch), but to keep ice from forming on the tanks, which could cause even more damage than a loose piece of insulation.
@scottmanley
4 жыл бұрын
The LH2 tanks on the Saturn V S-IVB stage had insulation to slow boil off in a parking orbit prior to TLI
@jmmahony
4 жыл бұрын
@@scottmanley Yes, my reply was only for the shuttle main tank, or any tank being used for launch. Any tank that needs to be "kept for later use" would need to be insulated.
@_kalia
11 жыл бұрын
How about VASIMR? Also, there was an experiment with a small-scale atmospheric laser propulsion. It focused the beam into a point below the craft, heated the air to a plasma and rode the pressure wave up. I had to do a 5000-word essay on alternative propulsion for one of my extended project and it was one of the ones I covered, though I can't seem to find the essay itself so I can't give you my sources. Also, its potential for debris removal could be interesting for us space-littering KSPers.
@Tetracarbon
10 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video. I learned a lot here. Thank god KSP limited itself to "liquid fuel" and doesn't try to be too close to reality. The Interstellar mod is really pushing the limits of my high school Science education.
@OpinionValid
9 жыл бұрын
Ive learned more from this 19min video on rockets than watching 5 years of The Discovery channel.
@gefulltetaubenbrust2788
7 жыл бұрын
But what about chlorine-trifluoride? Or was that never used? And what about fluoroantimonic acid? I heard it was planned to be used as a rocket fuel (although I'd think that was never tested, was it). I'd love to hear about those things if you know anything about them
@scottmanley
7 жыл бұрын
Lots of things were thought about, but never flown.
@gefulltetaubenbrust2788
7 жыл бұрын
Scott Manley that is true, but maybe you could make a video about the "best propulsion concepts that never propelled"
@gefulltetaubenbrust2788
7 жыл бұрын
ytmoog yeah pretty much XD but there's many other great concepts like the EM drive and such
@petermichaelgreen
7 жыл бұрын
AIUI the difficulty is it's just too damn destructive. Most organics are out because it's hypergolic with them. Flouropolymers can be used on the gas but not on the liquid because they will dissolve. Some metals can be used if they are passivated by forming a metal flouride layer but there are concerns about what happens if the passivation layer is damaged.
@sixstringedthing
6 жыл бұрын
Lots and lots and LOTS of things were thought about, and tested in labs or in small scale test engines. Pretty much anything that could be synthesised and had decent theoretical performance. Most variations of them failed a card-gap (handling/shock stability) test by a little, or a lot, or by so much that they destroyed the apparatus (and in some cases the entire lab, with little or no warning!). Or they couldn't be stored without either destroying the storage vessel, or reacting with it and becoming contaminated, or boiling off too much at too low a temperature. Or they couldn't be handled in large quantities without insane levels of risk to life and property. Or they smelled really really bad, like "if you spill a few drops, clear the building or people will be vomiting in the hallways" kind of bad. Or they were ludicrously expensive to synthesise in the kinds of quantities required to make them useful for anything at all other than writing papers about. Bear in mind that the US military (specifically USN and USAF) paid for pretty much all early propellant development in the States before NASA was formed. They wanted bang-for-buck above all things, and the brass were not really amenable to the idea of storing large quantities of extremely volatile chemicals on aircraft carriers and airbases adjacent to similarly large quantities of fuel and ammunition (which, while hazardous, are relatively inert), nor having to train sailors and airmen in the very specific handling procedures involved. And they flatly refused to use "exotics" for any weapon which was to be stored pre-fueled, due to fears of what might happen in the event of a leak. They could be used in nice, cosy, permanently manned and maintained ICBM silos, but not on warships in the middle of the ocean. Hence the widespread use of RP-1... it came from the same refineries, they knew how to handle it because they were already using thousands of tons of gasoline, diesel and kerosene each year, it was easy to store and it had no problems with stability or boil-off. Since a whole lot of modern rocketry came out of what was learned designing and building early ICBMs and tactical missiles, we still have a lot of that older propellant technology hanging around in modern designs. But in many cases it's a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
@apoc4
11 жыл бұрын
Can I just observe that it seems Scott greatly enjoyed enlightening us here?
@ferrarikidpimp
11 жыл бұрын
Scott, awesome video. However, I am pretty sure that you're referring to Newtons third law of motion. The second one describes the relation between force, acceleration and mass. Keep doing your thing!
@gdm413229
10 жыл бұрын
Have you heard of Syntin, a Soviet/Russian rocket fuel that ended up being lost under it's own obscurity???
@scottmanley
10 жыл бұрын
gdm413229 I've heard about it, it used stressed propane rings to carry extra energy compared to other isomers. It just proved too expensive compared to more conventional fuels.
@gauravghosh3421
9 жыл бұрын
scot manleyfuel
@weatheranddarkness
9 жыл бұрын
+Scott Manley that sounds incredibly fascinating!
@GracienTheCreators
8 жыл бұрын
+Scott Manley im a huge fan!!!!!! #e=mc x2
@BosonCollider
8 жыл бұрын
+gdm413229 Basically a slightly higher performing version of Kerosene. It was used in the soviet union during the eighties, but it needs a high enough flight rate to be made profitably.
@EthanNin0
11 жыл бұрын
Loved the vid, but.. Please make another going over nuclear pulse engines (Orion), spaceguns utilizing terrestrial/undersea nuclear and Hydrogen detonations (Verne Gun/Quicklaunch), and Skylon!
@gigabic7487
9 жыл бұрын
Rocket that runs on kerosene: welcome to russia
@IssaMe
9 жыл бұрын
Rockets that run on alcohol... Welcome to Russia
@blueberry1c2
8 жыл бұрын
vodka!
@xpoppers9240
8 жыл бұрын
Da tovarish! Za vodka!
@JSheepherder
8 жыл бұрын
+Joel The RP-22 radars in the MiG-21bis were cooled by alcohol.
@utahraptorfast
7 жыл бұрын
there are plenty of non-russian rockets that use RP1 as fuel.
@RWBHere
6 жыл бұрын
A lot of people don't know that Argon constitutes almost 1% of our atmosphere. Has anyone found a way of using this much lighter, but far cheaper than Xenon, noble gas as a propellant in an ion engine?
@Splode_
11 жыл бұрын
The Saturn V did the opposite of this: it used kerosene for the first stage, then liquid Hydrogen for the stages after that. I can't remember why, but I'm pretty sure it's on the wikipedia page
@jekmoarn
11 жыл бұрын
He was very valid in pointing this out as such a mistake is rather major, newton's second law is not even remotely like his third, although all three are key parts of physics as we know them today. You were giving a bad example to counter someone giving a correction the right way.
@8bit_pineapple
11 жыл бұрын
From what I can find to produce antimatter you would make use of the Antiproton Decelerator and the high energy of the LHC isn't needed. The current production rates of antimatter would mean that it would take over 100 billion years to produce 1 gram of antimatter. Also as of yet people have only really stored a few hundred anti hydrogen atoms for less than 20 minutes. You'd certainly want more than 10^22 times more anti hydrogen atoms and store them for many times longer for use in an engine.
@4IN14094
11 жыл бұрын
The next gen china launch vehicles(long march) will be using RP1/LOX on lower stage and LH2/LOX for upper stage fuel if I remember correctly.
@severinopereiracarollofilh5933
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the explanation ! Great information! Congratulations.
@ChaseTheOttah
11 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the videos Scott. You're actually getting me back into rockets for the first time since I was 12.
@ananttiwari1337
2 жыл бұрын
just wondering, are you still interested in rockets?
@ChaseTheOttah
2 жыл бұрын
@@ananttiwari1337 Sure. Not turbo nerding out on them anymore, but I'll watch videos here and there.
@the_netherqueen
2 жыл бұрын
I visibly grimaced when you said "flourine"
@dieselhead7961
7 жыл бұрын
So then, what are SRB's made of? I'd imagine that's quite the interesting compound. Regardless, great video - certainly interesting and relevant for people talking about practical rocketry, not just Kerbals.
@zapfanzapfan
3 ай бұрын
Re-watching old videos. Yeah, Xenon is rare, one large space probe with ion engines take like 10% of the yearly world production.
@beepIL
11 жыл бұрын
thank you very much for this video scott, it's really nice to learn things on the side in between game videos, keep these up!
@ddew
11 жыл бұрын
Great video. Full of things I've been wanting to look up but haven't taken the time to actually do. Not being a rocket scientist puts it kinda low on the todo-list. :) Fun trivia re: Hybrid Rockets: Mythbusters demonstrated that you can run hybrid rockets with pretty much any solid carbo-hydrate you can get your hands on. They even built an engine using liquid NO2 and salami.
@andyonions7864
6 жыл бұрын
No criticism, it's all great stuff. There's a nasty but violent reaction I can think of... Hydrogen and Fluorine, complete with toxic reaction products. Also, Hydrogen in metallic form H (as opposed to H2) is often considered a potential monopropellant.
@DSBrekus
11 жыл бұрын
17:35 VASIMIR is a type of electrical thruster, it would use similar reaction mass to any other.
@pyrodoll2422
5 жыл бұрын
Loved every minute Scott, as always.
@kiwivogel
8 жыл бұрын
I would love to see you do an entire video on exotics. (Like the russian zip fuels, CLF3 and oddball monopropellants such as CAVEA-B(allthough you could argue that's not a 'rea' monopropellant))
@Par-Crom
10 жыл бұрын
I would like to learn more science things that way !! Thank you Mr Manley
@lammatt
11 жыл бұрын
i heard molecular sleeves for H2 adsorption will be a possible way to reduce the volume require per mole of H2 in rockets (i believe i heard this in some yr3 undergrad material science class years ago...dont know if it's true tho')
@Aikko77
11 жыл бұрын
i don't know how they pump it but Its about the consistency of an eraser
@fryncyaryorvjink2140
9 жыл бұрын
I like your science videos more than the ksp ones (those are good too)
@SteveChisnall
8 жыл бұрын
at 6:30 when you mention RP1 being similar enough in density to LOX for a single driveshaft to run both turbopumps, could that be done with a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen engine if the turbopumps for the LH2 and the LOX were concentric/nested?
@kiwivogel
8 жыл бұрын
+Steve Chisnall Yes! This is doable! The russian Energia launch vehicle's main engines (RD-0120) uses only a single shaft to drive both pumps!
@marcomarques6502
9 жыл бұрын
Please please please do a tutorial in the interstellar mod fuels.... There's NONE There's not much at the wiki.... Lots of Wiki gaps.... You did a gather water and convert to oxidizer and fuel... But there's so many more. And i believe that with the Scansat mod you can find were all resources are (there's a resource find tool on that mod wile the interstellar there's only a part that finds radioactive material... they plan to do another part were you find the rest but its not implemented yet) So PLEEEEASE do a tutorial with interstellar resources/process to convert/fuel types and usages.
@philpotamkin
11 жыл бұрын
Unlimited money, Unlimited resources, No safety concerns.... Sounds like the Kerbal Space Program to me:)
@LadyTink
11 жыл бұрын
Hmm... you're right... I honestly dismissed it at first... but the risks are similar I feel, to project orion...
@Makron5
11 жыл бұрын
it does, what's wrong? if you sit in a chair on a frictionless plane and throw a basketball from the chair you'll move in the opposite direction I think and if you keep throwing them you'll accelerate. This is one way a rocket works.
@Nautilus-v8p
Жыл бұрын
For that nuclear reactor heating up H2, is it possible to further improve its efficiency by "burn" the exhaust which is unreacted hydrogen, probably like an afterburner?
@20K11
11 жыл бұрын
Depends what you mean by environmentally friendly C2H5OH + 3O2 -> 2CO2 + 3H2O The combustion of ethanol produces carbon dioxide (global warming), although it doesn't directly harm anything A rocket made of ethanol, i imagine, would be extremely inefficient. Ethanol doesn't burn too hot, and CO2 and H2O aren't as light as some of the exhaust gases for other fuels I'm just guessing though, perhaps I'm all wrong
@ultimaterandombanana
11 жыл бұрын
I nearly ignored this thinking it was a total biscuit video :)
@lordgarion514
5 жыл бұрын
I don't know if I'd state more efficient means it's better. What is "better" kinda depends on what you're trying to do. Try taking the most efficient(Hall thrusters and the like) and get a 2 ton payload off the planet.
@pseudotasuki
11 жыл бұрын
Nope. The most efficient fuel at launch is actually RP1, due to its higher fuel density. This makes the fuel tanks (and therefore the rocket) smaller and lighter, which reduces weight and air resistance. Once the rocket has left the atmosphere, though, air friction is effectively gone so the higher specific impulse of hydrogen wins out.
@j0nnnywaite
10 жыл бұрын
Great Video! Continuously Interesting!
@20K11
11 жыл бұрын
Do you have a source for that? As far as i am aware, an endothermic reaction takes in energy (hence it feels cold). Matter -> antimatter collisions annihilate and produce energy = mc^2, and anything that produces [net] energy can't be endothermic
@wilurbean
6 жыл бұрын
What about peroxide mono propellant + hydrogen being added into the exhaust to boost a little bit more energy into it
@FroggerbobT
11 жыл бұрын
Nice warning signs, though I'm confused a bit. Is the fish dead because it's on land, or is it dead because it's bigger than a tree?
@ChickenfishOfDoom
10 жыл бұрын
I think that kerbal space program going down the realism route would be cool.
@charlesshreeve319
3 жыл бұрын
"...things like people." Yep, people thingies usually function better when not being corroded.
@666Tomato666
11 жыл бұрын
H+F+Li rocket fuel?! I'd like to see how did they even test the specific impulse!
@theq4602
9 жыл бұрын
I love how we went to the moon on diesel fuel (kerosene) Although I would much rather use the Orion design. (Nuclear weapon power)
@LoanwordEggcorn
4 жыл бұрын
Technically Diesel oil is chemically different from kerosene.
@theq4602
4 жыл бұрын
@@LoanwordEggcorn yes I inow
@LoanwordEggcorn
4 жыл бұрын
@@theq4602 But your point is sort of valid that they're related. Also the Hydrogen-Oxygen Saturn V upper stages were more efficient and better for the high delta-v generally needed to do deep space missions.
@spigotsandcogs
11 жыл бұрын
You forgot about the incredibly useful and not outlandish at all nuclear detonation engines.
@GhnosisTV
9 жыл бұрын
Does anyone know of a documentary or set of videos/ movies which show the different shuttle/landers missions? im super interested in learning about the missions that different countries do and how they work and happened.
@ShamelessHorse
11 жыл бұрын
In a solid rocket the fuel is already inside the engine to begin with, it is simply ignited to release energy.
@davidtraveller
11 жыл бұрын
Thanks for making this video, it was very informative.
@johnnyllooddte3415
7 жыл бұрын
rocket propellent designers are looking for SAFER, less toxic, more powerful, storeable components..hybrid rockets are the new cool
@CalculusWarrior
11 жыл бұрын
Thank you! I started hyperventilating when I heard that! I guess everyone makes mistakes. Love you Scott!
@Medevildragonman
11 жыл бұрын
Scott, What is your opinion on Antimatter engines?
@Kuraisilverwind
11 жыл бұрын
He has made a video about that, not a science video but a Ksp video.
@RokkerBoyy
11 жыл бұрын
the heat doesnt matter if the magnets do their job and keep the plasma from touching any surfaces
@kustus1986
6 жыл бұрын
Quick question. Do photons have any mass? If so whould a laser create any thrust? Not mutch ofc but im thinking in the example of a laserpen stuck to a cubesat. If left on, whould it generate any thrust?
@Nieumarlamalpa
11 жыл бұрын
You forgot to mention the VASIMR engine.
@AtomicSnails
11 жыл бұрын
ok scott i do have a question. with all the warp speed/drive you seen in the science fiction movies. is such a thing even close to possible? and if so how?
@TheAllBloods
8 жыл бұрын
Honourable mention to project orion an solar sails.
@novasolarius8763
8 жыл бұрын
*Doesn't even mention Project Medusa*
@stanburton6224
5 жыл бұрын
Could an ion thruster use liquid nitrogen? It is much lighter and more plentiful than xenon and is relatively inert, if it does react with the rocket nozzle it will be an Austenitizing element which shouldnt be terribly detrimental to stainless steel. Thoughts?
@memberHD
11 жыл бұрын
the internet and scripts can make anyone appear like they know everything. He probably knew a lot of it already (I did), but i'm sure he spent a few hours doing research to brush up on it all himself
@AmaricanJim
6 жыл бұрын
I'm heading up a rocket start up, Scott manly would you like to cover it.
@cameronforrest9747
11 жыл бұрын
unlimited money? unlimited resources? no safety concerns? huh I didn't think this was a ksp vid?
@IceQub3
11 жыл бұрын
NASA is trying to develop anti-matter engines Today such engines are more science than science fiction
@ishankamat123
11 жыл бұрын
How long does it take you to research all of this? Or do you just know it?
@npatrcevic
11 жыл бұрын
The Space Shuttle SRBs had about 250s.
@Cordman1221
11 жыл бұрын
Scott Manley, Rocket Sciencing you until you go play KSP.
@Ruiluth
11 жыл бұрын
good point
@mrx8907
11 жыл бұрын
are there any planets/moons that are tidally locked and synchronous orbit can be achieved? Is that theoretically impossible?
@onogrirwin
8 жыл бұрын
Nitric acid is great stuff and don't let anyone tell you anything different!
@benedeknagy1
7 жыл бұрын
travis dunn yeah.. You succeed or you die. It's a win-win situation
@OeNoesRAWR
11 жыл бұрын
UDMH looks like a rocket in itself :D
@accckiy
11 жыл бұрын
Thank you, very interesting! More, please!
@puskajussi37
11 жыл бұрын
Just wondring, would it work if you took a nuclear engine (using hydrogen) and mixed oxidizer to the exhaust and igniting the result? Kind of a afterburner for atomic engine.
@jhyland87
6 жыл бұрын
Great video!!
@TrifectaMonkey
11 жыл бұрын
It's Newton's 3rd law of motion "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". Thumbs up so he can see this.
@Ap0klips3
11 жыл бұрын
How do you think firecracker rockets work?
@diederikwillems6782
10 жыл бұрын
Excellent video as ever, Scott. But the history of rocket fuel IS all about explosions, if John D. Clarke is to be believed. the book, "Ignition!", is a hoot and a half to read. :D The pdf can be found here, for anyone interested: library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
@Jarl_Thidrandi
11 жыл бұрын
its not my internet, i know this because its a problem specific to youtube. no other flash players i use stop loading at random places, and more to the point i have this problem on several different computers, all using different internet connections. The problem is also not specific to any one video, and has been occuring for a few months.
@standdbyme
11 жыл бұрын
Rocket fuel is the fuel of rocket, you know
@oznerol256
11 жыл бұрын
Dont forget the Nuclear salt-water rocket!
@TheFutureIsHere111
11 жыл бұрын
I'm no expert, but I believe there was a rocket in development in the 50's or 60's I'm not too sure.
Пікірлер: 1 М.