Nice simple explanation without getting into the weeds of rocket science. Explains why the first launch attempt for Artemis 1 was scrubbed due to the inability to cool engine #3.
@Knight75625 жыл бұрын
the combustion chamber temperature can reach near 3000 Centigrade but not above that !
@williamstock30074 жыл бұрын
If you run oxygen through hot metal it will burn it like a oxy acetaline torch
@alexandreguitchkine21123 жыл бұрын
In ablative cooling method, the only thing that should be taken care of is a throat. It should not change the size - usually the inner ring made of tungsten alloys is used. Combustion chanber will lose the inner layer (layer by layer) but the performance impact is not so severe, especially on first stages with altitude changes. Also depends on material - carbon fibers or selica fibers can sustain upto 2000 C which is enough for low performance fuels (not LOX/LH, or ACIDS and Hydrozines, and of course not a Methane). But look at the possibilities - with ablative nozzles and electrical turbopumps using low-performance propellants, the total cost of launcher can be surprisingly cheap for 1000-2000 kg to LEO payload capacity :)))) I rocket industry, efficiency costs a lot. Better to be low profile, non-efficient performance will be giving a huge launcher size to payload capacity ratio, but will be cheap, reliable and ecological. It was proven by Armstrong Siddeley in late 60-s, Beal Aerospace in late 90-s.
@hpsh65927 жыл бұрын
Thank you. your video gives good explanation of cooling methods. your video will help me in my exams.
@adityaprakash57487 жыл бұрын
Good video with nice graphics and explanation but the audio is not that clear which makes it a little difficult to connect. Kindly look forward to this issues in the upcoming videos. Rest good work, looking forward to see more of your videos.
@R_Nedza5 жыл бұрын
Thank you, i found this very interesting!
@alext90676 жыл бұрын
Hey, as long as we're talking about nozzles and velocities, I'd like to hear your take on the difference between KE and Momentum (p). Now KE is proportional to V^2 and p is linear. What the heck is the difference. I mean if I go bowling and I throw the ball, what is at work knocking the pins over. I always said it was KE, but then someone said it's p. The question came up because I never ever bowl, and one time I happened to pick up a 15lb ball instead of a 16. I was able to roll the ball so much faster that pins were flying all over the place. 5 strikes in a row kind of flying. So I thought that the V^2 was why. But if it's just p, then would it have made that much of a difference? Or any difference at all? And Olaf Willcocx told me that KE in a rocket nozzle indicates that v should be as low as possible and m as high (within sane limits) so that thrust is increased and fuel consumption is minimized. Can you explain any of that?
@f1chtl5 жыл бұрын
take a car crash, for example. the impulse p is conserved, while a huge amount of kinetic energy is converted into deformation of the cabin. so if you want to calculate the resulting direction and velocity after the crash, you use the law of conservation of impulse, and you get an easy calculation
@Starman57716 жыл бұрын
What is area ratio in rockets
@natsariat4303 жыл бұрын
Wow
@firstlast97313 жыл бұрын
tank
@arunlal42517 жыл бұрын
What about Solid boosters ?
@Knight75625 жыл бұрын
They can't and don't need cooling they burn much faster than liquid fuel engine and burn out quickly so you don't need cooling beside that cooling of a solid fuel is almost impossible the system of burning fuel is different there is no gas for cooling and the way the solid engine burn fuel is fast and so they get very hot but since they burn quickly they don't need cooling system