Why space shuttles take off only Vertically. But Airplanes take off Horizontally?

rocket with space shuttle

The view of a rust-colored rocket carrying an orbiter on it’s back, spewing giant clouds of smoke and rushing to the sky on its fiery tail is iconic.

But considering the last Space Shuttle launch was back in 2011, is this the last we’ll ever see of such a thing? What’s next?

 

Could an improved shuttle be made that takes off and lands like an airplane?

 Let’s explore the possibilities.

Explanation with an Example.

Use your imagination to draw two parallel horizontal lines. Now connect these lines at any point you want, in two different ways:

with a vertical line that goes straight from the bottom line to the top one,

and with a diagonal line. Which line is shorter? Of course, the vertical one; it’s the shortest route to connect the top and bottom lines with each other.  

 

And that’s also the most basic answer to our question –

it’s faster and easier to get into orbit by just going straight up from the ground. The bottom line is the Earth’s surface. Our planet is a complex hodge-podge of allkinds of matter, which is combined into an impressive mass – almost 6 sextillion tons; that’s like 6,000 billion of billions - a lot of zeros here –

 just like my middle School math scores.

All that mass basically works like a colossal magnet that, besides other significant feats, allows the Earth to maintain one thing we all know and love – the atmosphere.

 

Factor of Atmosphere.

 

where do space shuttles fly in the atmosphere

The top line is the limit of the Earth’s atmosphere; anything beyond that is the planetary orbit and outer space. But the atmosphere itself is also filled with matter. It’s a combination of gas that has its own density.

When a shuttle launched, all the mass of this gas was constantly pushing on it, which caused friction, effectively slowing it down. Going through a vacuum is like cutting through the air, whereas getting through the atmosphere is like going through jelly. Ooh, grape or strawberry? It took a lot of energy and force to get through it, while being pulled back by that giant gravitational magnet called Earth.

Flying Principle of Airplanes.

Airplanes don’t struggle this much with getting through the atmosphere, because they use its density to lift up from the ground and maintain altitude. Two things help them with that: the thrust of their engines and the form of their wings. The wings of an airplane force the air in front of them to split into two streams.

Naturally, these streams want to reunite behind the wing, but the shape of it makes the upper stream go faster. The faster the air goes, the less dense it becomes; and that means that the airstream that goes underneath the wing is denser than the upper one. That creates a gradual lift for the airplane.

How Airplanes achives speed.

Basically, wings make it so the airplane can glide on the air. But of course, that wouldn’t be possible without a huge force pushing the airplane along. This is what thrust is for. Just to take off from the ground, an airplane needs to attain a huge speed. This speed varies enormously between different kinds of planes:

60 mph for light planes, and about 150 mph for airliners. And, just to take off and climb to 10,000ft, the Boeing 747 needs a little less than 3 tons of fuel. That may sound impressive, but let’s look at that space shuttle. The first obvious things are the cute, tiny, stubby wings that wouldn’t be any use for a horizontal take off.

 

 But if one was built with more excessive wings, they wouldn’t be of any use in the vacuum of space. It would also be hard to make them sturdy enough to make it through the launching process. The little wings of a space shuttle served only one purpose – to land the shuttle safely so it could be reused in future missions. They were just big enough to prevent the shuttle from spinning uncontrollably during the descent through the atmosphere, and to glide it to the ground.

 

How Airplane lands?

It didn’t utilize any engine operations during landing at all. The engines of the space shuttle were nothing like the engines of a plane. The airplanes’ engines need air from the atmosphere to work. The shuttle’s engines obviously didn’t, since atmospheric air would’ve been hard to find in space.

Instead, the shuttle used rocket engines. To show what rocket means here, and how these engines worked: just blow a balloon and release it from your hand. It’ll fly around until there’s no air left inside, all the while being pushed in the opposite direction as the air coming out.

 

To fly up, a rocket engine has to throw off enough thrust, and burn the right amount of fuel to do the job. In fact, space shuttles needed so much fuel during their ascent, to make enough thrust, that they couldn’t do it on it’s three engines alone.

 

They needed two additional solid rocket boosters and a huge separate fuel tank that was jettisoned at the final stage of the launch. And, a shuttle would only go into orbit if it had enough power. The power of a shuttle with three engines and two boosters is around 7.8 million pounds of thrust! To power up this much push, an external tank held around 1.6 million pounds of rocket fuel. And to keep the flight under control, those three engines had to be mind-numbingly complicated in structure. But would it even be possible to fly a shuttle into orbit if it was modified to use the atmosphere like planes? Unfortunately, the answer is no. It would take even more fuel to maintain the needed speed for the distance of a diagonal launching trajectory.

 

Explanation.

The thing is, even if a plane climbs up to the upper part of the atmosphere, the Earth still won’t let it get away. To escape the atmosphere, any object that starts from the Earth would have to be fast enough to cross the point of so-called escape velocity. This velocity is needed to overpower the gravitational pull of the planet and let an object go into orbit. For our planet, this orbital speed is 17,500 mph. It’s obviously way faster than the speed of sound and many, many times faster than the cruising speed of an airliner. Now try to imagine an aircraft that goes this fast, and how much fuel it would require. On top of that, it’d have to be sturdy enough to keep itself in one piece while doing so.

 

The cost and complicated technology would just be unrealistic. The possibility that shuttles have become a thing of the past has caused Scientists and engineers alike to try to find even better solutions for getting into orbit and beyond. One such idea proposes that in the future, people would be able to go to space on a huge space elevator. A space elevator is the concept of a huge tower that connects to a satellite at the top, which moves in line with the rotational movement of the Earth itself. The tower is supposed to be about 22,000 miles high and made of extremely durable material – carbon nanotubes. The platform inside the tower is planned to be set in motion via electro-magnetic powered vehicles. The trip from Earth to the satellite would take just 5 hours.

 

This megastructure would allow for a cheaper and safer way of getting into space, but carbon nanotubes were proved not sturdy enough for building a tower this huge, so the search for an ideal material continues. Another project that uses a similar approach his called a Space Tram. The structure needed to launch this project isn’t as big, but still quite impressive. It’s a vertical vacuum tunnel that pushes a magnetically levitated shuttle. It won’t be slowed down by the air, and it’ll be pushed and accelerated with an electro-magnetic force through the tunnel. It’ll then shoot into the skies at a speed close to escape velocity. The shuttle powered by this tunnel will weigh less, because it won’t need to carry a lot of fuel. NO word yet on how human beings would survive such acceleration. Riders might look like pancakes upon arrival.

 

 If these ideas sound strange to you, and they do, then get ready for the last one. It’s possible that people will use planes as a way of getting into orbit. No, I didn’t lie to you previously. The plane won’t go to space by itself. Instead, it’ll be used as a launch platform. Even better, huh? For this purpose, a special aircraft will be made with an almost 400 ft wingspan, and capable of climbing to an altitude of 35,000ft. Small shuttles launched from this aircraft won’t have to go through so much of the atmosphere, making it easier for them to get out from the gravitational pull of the Earth. Richard Branson is working on this technique right now with his Virgin Galactic program to take tourists to the edge of space. Sounds esciting! So could airplanes replace space shuttles altogether? No, but that doesn’t mean they won’t help them become more effective in the future! Hey, if you learned something new today, then give the video a like and share it with a friend! And here are some other cool videos I think you'll enjoy. Just click to the left or right, and stay on the Bright Side of life!

 

 

 Why NASA Spews out half a millions Gallons of Water During Rocket Launches?

This is almost half a million gallons of water being blasted a hundred feet into the air. The most impressive part? It was all done in just 60 seconds. NASA created the massive fountain as part of a test for its Space Launch System, scheduled to launch for the first time in 2020. It will be the largest, most powerful rocket NASA has ever built. Standing upright, the SLS will reach 322 feet in height, 17 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty, and weigh almost 6 million pounds. Its first planned mission? A 25-day trip around the moon.

 

When it lifts off, its engines will generate 8.4 million pounds of force and sound waves so powerful that they could easily destroy the rocket from the ground up. That's where NASA's Ignition Overpressure and Sound Suppression System comes in. NASA projects the water onto and over the launchpad during ignition and lift off. This not only protects the ground from the rocket's engines it also prevents the sound waves from bouncing off the ground and back up which could cause catastrophicdamage to the engines. The system also prevents the giant flames generated by the engines from catching anything on fire. During an actual launch, some of the water will evaporate due to the extreme heat, while the rest exits through nozzles. This test is just one of many more that NASA will conduct over the coming months in preparation for the rocket's first launch. The SLS is designed for deeper space missions able to explore far beyond Earth's orbit. It can carry astronauts in an Orion capsule, or ferry other cargo, like exploratory robots, to distant worlds like Jupiter and Mars. Pretty impressive, huh? This latest test, performed in the beginning of October, was to evaluate any needed upgrades, like corrosion control, renovating the water storage tank, and checking the conditions of the pipes and valves. Now, it will be in tip-top shape for when the SLS is ready to make its debut flight in 2020.

 Why does not the sound of a rocket launch kill you.

This is the sound of the Falcon Heavy, lifting off from pad 39A at the Kennedy Space centre. With 27 Merlin engines firing to produce 5 and a half million pounds of thrust, it's fair to say, it’s pretty loud. For rockets with this much power, the sound energy produced by the engines can actually be very damaging to the rocket itself as well as the surrounding buildings. In this video we’re going to look at theme thod that NASA uses to reduce some of the reduce some of the sound damage. We’re also going to look at the unique way that the Russian’s deal with this problem.

 

When a rocket lifts off from the launch pad, the engine exhausts fire hot gas into the flame trench. Along with the incredible heat energy coming from the engines, there is also a lot of sound energy. According to NASA, the Saturn 5 produced a sound level of around 220 decibels during lift-off. If you were in close proximity to the engines, it wouldn’t just rupture your eardrums, it would kill you.

 

During the launch of the first Space Shuttle flight STS-1, the sound energy produced by the engines was powerful enough to damage some of the protective thermal tiles on the Shuttle's hull. Although NASA used sound suppression systems in the past, the risk of damaging the rocket or putting the crew in danger was higher for the shuttle due to its unique shape and sensitive heat shield. To avoid damaging the vehicle or putting the crew in danger, NASA solved this problem by implementing a more effective sound suppression system. This consists of a large water tower at the launch site which dumps over 1 million lbs of water onto the launch pad in just 40 seconds.

 

 As the sound waves meet the water, they are absorbed by bubbles of air which contract and heat up, turning the sound energy into heat energy. Along with this enormous spray of water, NASA also used “water bags” at the base of the SRB’s to further dampen the shock waves. These were large nylon bags - each about one foot wide and one foot deep - filled with water and stretched across the SRB flame holes. Together, these two systems were able to reduce the sound level of the Space Shuttle from 195 decibels to a more respectable 142, the equivalent of a jet taking off.

 

Although it can be difficult to see the water deluge system in action, it’s during a sound suppression test that we really get a sense of just how much water is used. Dumping this much water onto the launch pad not only protects the rocket and nearby buildings from intense shock waves, it also stops any fires that might be caused by the rockets exhaust. To this day, NASA still uses a very similar water deluge system at all of their main launch sites.

 

The Russians on the other hand, have a different approach. Since a lot of the Russian Soyuz rockets launch from Baikan our in Kazakhstan, where the temperatures can be as low as -40 degrees in the winter, a water deluge system would freeze up instantly, making it completely useless. Their solution is to simply suspend the rocket over a much larger flame trench. This means that there is very little in the way for the shock waves to damage or reflect back onto the rocket. So although rocket science deals with some of the most complex engineering challenges, it’s interesting to see that some problems can be solved with very simple solutions. If you have any questions be sure to leave them in the comments below. If you enjoyed this video and would like to contribute to Primal Space, please visit Patreon.com/Primal Space, where we will be doing a giveaway of a Saturn V Lego set, once we reach 50 Patrons. So make sure you’re subscribed so you can join the discussion as we continue to learn more about all things space. 

 The Rocket engines carrying Us to Space. The SLS RS-25. (The space shuttle main engine).

There are few rockets more iconic than theRS-25, also known as the Space Shuttle main engine. Even though it’s been around in some form since the 1970s, it’s been improved and upgraded several times, making it the most efficient liquid fuel rocket engine going today. And now the RS-25 is going to see a new chapter in its history, working to carry NASA’s new Space Launch System back to deep space, beyond Earth orbit.

 

When you really think about it, the principle of a rocket is actually pretty simple. Use a combustible fuel to blast out a jet of hot gas through a nozzle. Rockets take advantage of Newton’s third law, you know, for every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction. As material is fired out the back of the rocket at supersonic speeds, the rocket receives a force, pushing it in the opposite direction. Unlike jet engines, which need to bring in oxygen from the atmosphere to create the combustion, rockets carry their own oxidizer, so they can even work in the vacuum of space where there is no oxygen. Rockets aren’t pushing against anything, they’re throwing material out the back so fast that they move in the opposite direction.

 

There are many different kinds of rockets out there on the market. There are the small sounding rockets that can follow a parabolic trajectory, reaching a high altitude and then returning to Earth. And then there are the enormous, multi-staged rockets like the Atlas or Ariane capable of lifting tonnes of satellite into low Earth orbit and beyond. Of course, there’s everything in between, from many different manufacturers across many different nations. There are fewer kinds of rocket engines, though.

 

 You’ll see the same engine attached to different sizes of rockets. Some of these engines have been used continuously for decades, like the Russian RD-180 engine, which is used for Russian and even American launches. Others are relatively brand new like SpaceX’s Merlin engine, which has already been through many iterations, carrying Falcon rockets into space. And the even newer Blue Origin BE-4.

 

Today I want to talk about an iconic rocket engine, the mighty RS-25, the Space Shuttle’s main engine. Let’s look at its history, capabilities and how it’ll see a whole new chapter by helping to push Space Launch Systems rockets into orbit and beyond. You might have problems with the space shuttle program, and disagree with NASA’s plans for the Space Launch System, but the RS-25is an incredible piece of space hardware, there’s not much out there that stacks up to it in pure power and efficiency. As the Apollo Era was winding down, NASA began investigating the technologies it would be using for its next step in space flight: the space shuttle.

 

 While the mighty Saturn V was a beast for hurling heavy cargo deep into the cosmos, the space shuttle was seen as a reusable vehicle that would make spaceflight a routine experience. It turns out, spaceflight wasn’t ready to be routine, but NASA didn’t know that yet, balancing the various requirements from different stakeholders. During the design process, the shuttle went through many variations.

 

There was a time that the space shuttle could have had 12 sea level booster engines and then 3 orbiter engines, fixed wings versusdelta wing, but they finally settled on the modern design with the space shuttle orbiter attached to the huge external fuel tank with its solid rocket boosters.

 

 When it came to the engines, several new technologies were being considered, like an expanding nozzle that would operate more efficiently at different altitudes and high-pressure engines that would use the fuel more efficiently to produce thrust. When the initial contracts for the Space Shuttle were awarded in 1969 - yes, work on the Space Shuttle began back when the first astronauts were landing on the Moon - NASA requested engine proposals that matched the capabilities they had been studying, with the ability to throttle the engine, expanding nozzles, and a very high-pressure combustion chamber. The contract was awarded to Aerojet to produce the space shuttle main engine, the RS-25.

 

 The company later merged in 2013 with Pratt& amp; Whitney Rocketdyne to become Aerojet Rocketdyne, which I think is about the coolest name fora rocket company. The space shuttle was equipped with threeRS-25 engines which were fed by liquid oxygen and hydrogen from the huge orange external fuel tank. Together with the twin solid rocket boosters, the space shuttle’s 2,000 tonnes or 4.4 million pounds would be carried into orbit. Each shuttle would be capable of delivering27,500 kilograms or 60,600 pounds of cargo to low-Earth orbit. The exact thrust of the RS-25 is actually a little difficult to pin down. The engine was designed to be throttled, so that it could change the total amount of engine power from 67% to 109% of its power rating. In an emergency, it could probably hit 111%. At sea level, and at 100% thrust, each engine could generate 380,000 pounds of thrust (or 1,670 kilonewtons).

 

And in a vacuum, they could produce 470,000pounds of thrust or 2,090 kilonewtons. But like I said, the rockets could be throttled up beyond 100%, which I know sounds kind of crazy, but 100% was the original spec, while they were able to get the engine power higher through improvements and modifications over the engine’s development lifetime. Need some kind of comparison? The SpaceX Merlin engine produces 845 kilonewtons or 190,000 pounds of thrust, rising to 914 kilonewtons or 205,500 pounds of thrust when it reaches the vacuum of space. That’s why the Falcon 9 has the name, it carries 9 Merlin engines.

 

The Falcon Heavy has 27 of them. Over the course of the shuttle program, there were a total of 46 RS-25 engines used. And together, they successfully lifted off the space shuttle 135 times. One RS-25 did fail on a 1985 mission with Challenger, but the shuttle was still able to get to orbit and complete its mission with the one failed engine. And there were a handful of times when leaks and sensors connected with the engines led to a launch delay. And then, one year later Challenger was destroyed along with its 7-astronaut crew during launch.

 

The mishap was traced back to the o-rings that helped attach the solid rocket boosters. Just to give you a sense of scale, each RS-25measures 4.3 meters tall and the nozzle is 2.4 meters in diameter. It’s about the size of a compact car. There are four turbopumps that pull in liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen from the main fuel tank, and force them into the combustion chamber at high pressure. Inside the combustion chamber, the fuel and oxidizer are mixed together and ignited. Beneath this is the huge nozzle, where the hot gases are expelled at 13 times the speed of sound. The RS-25 is known as staged combustion engine, where turbine exhaust is captured and fed back into the engine.

 

This makes for higher performance, but also higher pressure and more danger. During its initial development, NASA had a rough time getting the RS-25 to handle the pressure and forces involved. This is one of the key differences from other engines on the market, like the SpaceX Merlin, which is open-cycle. It’s less powerful pound for pound than the RS-25, but you get the benefits of lower cost and higher production rates. Each Falcon Heavy will almost have as many Merlin engines in it than the number of RS-25s that were ever built.

 

The end of the shuttle program would have been the end of the RS-25 engine, but it’s gotten a new lease on life with NASA’s Space Launch System. I’m going to talk all about how the RS-25fits in, but first I’d like to thank: Howard Amos Bjørn Karlsen Epyx911Jonathan Stein Anders The odorsen And the rest of our 802 patrons for their generous support. If you love what we’re doing and want to get in on the action, head over to patreon.com/universe today.

 

 Once the shuttle program wrapped up, NASA was ordered to keep the fleet’s workforce employed developing the Ares rockets for the Constellation program. This transitioned to the Space Launch System, which would give NASA heavy lift capabilities again, enabling missions past low-Earth orbit, to the Moon, asteroids, and beyond. In its initial Block 1 design, SLS will be capable of lofting 70 metric tonnes to low-Earth orbit, and the final Block II configuration will be able to carry 130 metric tonnes.

 

In fact, it could end up being even more powerful than the Saturn V, making it the most powerful rocket ever built - until the SpaceX BFR becomes operational. And much of this depends on using the RS-25engines for the central core of the Space Launch System’s first stage, since they have 16 left over from the space shuttle days. Unlike the space shuttle, the SLS will be equipped with 4 RS-25s, together contributing 9,000 kilonewtons or 2 million pounds of thrust to the system.

 

 These will be joined by twin solid rocket boosters for a total of 32,000 kilonewtons or 8 million pounds of thrust. As part of the upgrade to SLS, NASA engineered an entirely new engine controller to match the engine with the new rocket. At the end of 2017, NASA wrapped up a 400-secondtest of its new RS-25 controller. This was the eighth test of the year so far and the sixth using this new controller.

 

There’s already been a successful test in2018 with more to come. If all goes well, the RS-25 will see its return to flight when the first SLS rocket blasts off with Exploration Mission-1, now scheduled for 2019 (or maybe even 2020). Unlike the reusability of the shuttle, though, the core stage of SLS will be destroyed after launch, including its RS-25s. Once they use up the initial group of left over engines, they’ll need to get more from Aerojet Rocketdyne. While the RS-25 engines were developed and built for the shuttle fleet, and now SLS.

 

They have been upgraded several times, with the total power output updated to 105% by the end of the shuttle program. SLS should get to 109% and they think they can push the engines to 111%. Normally this would mean a decline in their reusability, but these engines won’t be reused, so they might as well be driven to the max. Each mission using the Space Launch System is going to cost US taxpayers $500 million to $1 billion dollars.

 

A launch on the SpaceX Falcon Heavy is going to cost a mere $90 million in comparison; although it won’t have the raw launch capacity of the SLS. Each RS-25 probably cost NASA around $60 million. That much money will get you a flight on a Falcon 9. So I think there’s a pretty important argument to have about the cost effectiveness of the SLS, and developing a rocket system that gets destroyed with every launch, now that SpaceX and Blue Origin are demonstrating reusability.

 

But I’ve really got to admire the power and capability of the RS-25, and the creativity and workmanship that went into it. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the most important and impressive rocket engines ever built. And I can’t wait to see it fly again. How do you feel about the RS-25, the space shuttle and the Space Launch System. Did you want me to compare this engine with the more modern reusable rockets from SpaceX and Blue Origin? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. Want more space news, I’m now writing a weekly email newsletter that highlights many of the big stories that happened this week. It’s quick, easy to digest, with lots of amazing pictures and videos. You can find out more and sign up by going to universetoday.com/newsletter In our next episode I continue my series on the discoveries made by space missions. What did NASA’s Curiosity Rover discover? That’s next time. And finally, here’s a playlist

 Rockets in a Vacuum Chamber- Newton’s Third law of Motion Visualized.

Introduction.

Everybody ready. 321. No. Welcome back. After watching some Flat Earth videos. And conspiracy theorist. This stuff started getting into my head. So this time I'm going to legitimately challenge Newton's third law. To demonstrate is it a law or a lie. So I set out to build a bigger better vacuum chamber. That's going to give us undeniable results. I am genuinely curious as to. How Newton's third law is going to behave in the environment of a vacuum. We're in this case. The Rocket won't have an atmosphere to push against.

 

Alright we got our vacuum chamber completed. The only thing I have left to do is get the top seal on. Get the top cover in place. And test it. In order for this experiment to give us reliable results. I contacted the AIAA team at UIC. Turns out they have some solid rocket propellant. On hand ready to go. So I headed it down to their lab. Which was a very interesting place by the way. They gave me. Not only the solid rocket propellant.

 

 Is this the actual propellant?.

 I thought it would be heavier than this. Feels kind of light. This is our solid rocket right here. But everything else that I need. To build a miniature version of a solid rocket booster period similar to what Nasa uses. I believe this is going to give us more concrete results. Not based off of black powder rockets.

 

That well. Nobody Burns in space in the first place. Now that I have the vacuum chamber built. This vacuum chamber is going to allow me. To pull a complete vacuum. But before moving on to the experiment. I want to do some initial testing. to make sure that this vacuum chamber is safe to use. And that it holds the vacuum. Make sure we don't have any leaks or anything like that. So let's test it out. Perfect. First and foremost since Motors produce a lot more thrust.

 

Then the black powder Motors I used in the previous episodes. I had to come up with a better way to mount them. In the vacuum chamber. This is what I came up with. This is like against all possible rules. The team even named it the four legged spider. Hold on. That's a different movie. Second and most important we need to measure thrust. This is going to be our thrust scale. I think for this I'm going to go low-tech old school. I have a feeling that the team was quite impressed. Oh is that what we're using. With my practical approach to this problem.

 

That's pretty good that'll work. Now that I have all that figured out. It's time to assemble our rocket motor properly. Mount it in the vacuum chamber with the scale. To measure the thrust. And run our chamber through the first partial vacuum test. Hang on it's vacuuming down. I would give it one more second then hit it. Hit it hit it go. Go. Perfect it all happened so fast. So we know Rockets burn. I'm going to install a new rocket motor in the casing. This is our nozzle and our nozzle retainer. Reset the experiment. And only one question remains. Sir Isaac Newton does your law still apply. Over 330 years later. In a vacuum ?.

 

Well I hope you're watching because. We're about to find out. Alright we got our blast shield in place for safety. Our vacuum chamber is in a vacuum. Are rocket is set wired up and ready to go. And yeah I'm excited. The only thing I have left to do is take these two wires. Touch them to the terminals on this battery. And hopefully it doesn't go boom. Hopefully it just goes Swoosh. Everybody ready here it goes. What a Hang Fire no Not a Hang Fire. No freaking way you got to be kidding me. So apparently I have some findings from the first phase of the experiment. And that is I just realized that the vacuum has now created an environment.

 

Where it becomes more difficult to ignite the solid rocket booster. This means that there is some truth to what the conspiracy theorist think. It's more difficult to ignite a solid rocket booster ina vacuum. Because we tried this in atmospheric pressure and it ignited just fine. I mean that's definitely an interesting finding. I have just one more problem.

 

Due to the rapid depressurisation of the chamber after that last attempt. One of the seams was compromised. I need to re-weld that seem. And put in a couple of supports where the deflection occurred.

 

That demonstration gives you an example of just how much force. Pulling up vacuum in a chamber like this has. It's essentially at sea level 14.7 PSI. which is 14.7 lb for every square inch pushing in on each side of this chamber. So if you do the math which I already did. It's about 80,000 pounds combined. So you have 20,000 pounds on each one of these walls trying to cave this thing in. Since that last attempt was a failure. I invited the AIAA team over for the rest of the experiment. Because I know how much they love hang fire's. And they have a lot more experience with this propellant than I do. In case I run into any more issues along the way. So pretty much all of that smoke that came out was the ignitor nothing else.

 

And I think they're in for a big surprise. Because I don't think it's going to be that  easy to ignite in a full vacuum but we'll see. Alright I would hit it now, 321. Ooooh. Ooooh. There you go, that is the problem we're havingall along. What do you think Mike?. We can repack and ignitor and try it again. Looks like we may need some atmospheric pressure in the actual booster. To get it to ignite. Once it's ignited I think it's going to do okay. What do you think Mike?. we'll try it again It could be from the lack of air, from the type of ignitor, from the cap being on it, hard to say.

 

 So do you think once it's lit in a vacuum it's going to stay lit?. It should it's got its own oxidizer. Let's see what it looks like. All that smoke. And it looks like the igniter kind of ignited right. Yeah it definitely did. look at that it kind of ignited but it doesn't look like it fully ignited. This is going to be our second attempt. We have another igniter in place. What do we do differently this time?. We changed out with a completely new motor.

 

This is the old one that we just test fired. Yeah I don't think the motors the problem though I think it's the vacuum. We will try and see what happens. That's a brand new motor and a brand new ignitor. We doubled them up this time, alright, I'm feeling good let's do it . 3-2-1 go. Oh no it failed. go go  oh no it failed. No more power right, no. That was very strange. This was our 3rd attempt here and it was a failure as you saw in the footage.

 

My recommendation is. These guys didn't think that this was going to be a problem, I did however. I called it I said this thing may give us issues to light. So the next thing that I suggest is I think we should seal it up. I'm going to modify this rocket motor. I think once it's ignited it's going to create some internal pressure and keep burning. But that's not what I'm challenging here.

 

I am challenging Newton's Laws. I want to see if when it burns in a vacuum. If it creates a reaction that produces thrust. So this is our fourth attempt and what we did different this time. Is we made a ruptured disc on the outside of the nozzle. And this is going to hold atmospheric pressure on the inside the motor until ignition occurs.

 

 And the idea is this thing is going to pop out. And the motor is going to light Ignite and burn normally. That's the key word burn normally. our solid rocket motor burned in a vacuum. As you can see that was a success. Not only that are solid rocket motor burn in a vacuum. But it also produced thrust. During those initial moments of ignition.

 

Which is exactly what I was looking for to support Newton's third law. Because any thrust produced under these conditions. Is produced off of the pure reaction of the fuel burning. And not from the thrust pushing against air or an atmosphere. Now something that I found really interesting. Was where the main ignition occurred. If you look closely at the high-speed footage you can see The majority of the gas started to ignite in the vacuum chamber.

 

Not right behind the rocket motor as I would expect. I'm not sure why that is but that looked pretty cool. Regardless of our gauge readings for our vacuum chamber. The vacuum was obviously sufficient. Because this was our fourth attempt. We had to modify the rocket motor in order to get it to ignite in the vacuum chamber. That being said I'm just going to do one more experiment. I'm going to get a really small model Rocket motor. 1/10 the size of this solid rocket booster. And put it in this same chamber.

 

What that's going to do is essentially increase the amount of volume in our chamber by 10. Since that motor is 1/10 the size of this motor. And this Burns a little bit slower than a solid rocket booster. We're going to be able to see whether or not it's creating thrust in a vacuum. And that's going to further validate Newton's third law. Alright here goes. Okay so that was another successful burn. The model rocket motor burned just fine in the vacuum chamber. Unfortunately it didn't go exactly as planned. Because the sled got wedged in between the walls of the chamber when I pulled a deeper vacuum.

 

But if you look closely at the motor when it first ignited It produced some thrust. And it pushed itself into the casing of the motor where it was being held. That to me further supports Newton's third law. Apparently it applies in a vacuum as well as atmospheric pressure. Yeah I think that was enough proof for me. Hopefully you enjoyed this episode. feel free to share, subscribe, tell me what you think in the comments below. This was a tough one.

 

 This was a long shoot. I had a lot of issues here. So many issues that Discovery is gone. They left yesterday they ran out of time. My crew is gone and I finished the entire episode all by myself. So hopefully you enjoyed it. Check out our other videos here. Check us out on Discovery. Hasta lue go. Ate mais . Chao Chow.

 How to build a Rocket Engine in your Kitchen. ( Experiment blog ).

 If you’ve ever taken a science class, you’ve probably done some kind of at-home biology, chemistry, or physics experiment. And for good reason — a baking soda volcano is an easy way to get a hands-on look at how the world works. Plus you get to make a mess—tons of foam, red food coloring… your mom is like, “Why?” But when it comes to understanding space, at-home experiments are a lot harder. After all, space is a giant vacuum, which you can’t exactly recreate in your basement. And even if you could, you shouldn’t. One thing you can build at home, though, is a rocket. Specifically, a hybrid rocket engine, which many engineers want to use to explore the solar system.

 

 All it takes are some basic household supplies and a little caution. All rockets work by throwing something out the back to propel the rocket forward, and hybrid rockets are no exception. Like what we use in current rockets, they’re a type of chemical engine, and the big ones generate force with a giant, controlled explosion. We’ll do our best to make sure this experiment doesn’t get all explode-y, but we will create a smaller flame. And like with a full-sized rocket, we’ll make that fire using two basic components: fuel and an oxidizer.

 

 The fuel is whatever you’re burning to propel your spacecraft forward, and the oxidizer helps your fuel catch on fire. Like the name suggests, this is often an oxygen-containing compound. Current rocket engines will sometimes combine these elements in one solid, pre-mixed block — that’s a solid engine. Or, they might use liquid engines, which have separate liquid components that get mixed as they go. Hybrid engines are special because they use a combination of both solid fuel and liquid or gas oxidizer. Right now, these engines tend to have less thrust than the other models, so they haven’t been used on many missions.

 

 A lot of those limitations have to do with how the fuel burns … which is what you’re about to see for yourself. So, we don’t have a lab or a kitchen in this room, but we do on Sci Show Kids, so I’m going to go over to the Sci Show Kids studio next door for a little bit of rocket science. For our hybrid rocket, we’re going to use some cylindrical fuel — this is a pasta noodle, it’s rigatoni, it’s got calories in it. You burn it to make yourself. We’re going to burn it to make a rocket.

 

And for our oxidizer, we’re going to be using pure oxygen gas, which will be created through a reaction between hydrogen peroxide and active yeast. The yeast contains a protein called catalase, which will break down the hydrogen peroxide into water and pure O2 gas. Besides the pasta, hydrogen peroxide, and yeast, you’ll also need a few other basic staples: some safety goggles, a fire extinguisher just in case, and a lighter or a few matches, and a small mason jar with a hole knocked in the lid. Our jar is about 230 milli liters, or 8 fluidounces, and the hole in the top is around a third of a centi meter across.

 

The important part is that the noodle should fit over the hole without covering any of the hole up, and without any of the hole escaping from around the noodle. First, lay out all of your supplies ahead of time so you’re ready to go once the reaction starts. Then, you fill your mason jar about three-quarters of the way with hydrogen peroxide — or about 175 milliliters. Now, here comes the fun part. Add a quarter of a teaspoon of yeast to your jar, and stir. You should see some bubbles start to form— that’s the pure oxygen. Quickly place the lid on the jar, and place the noodle upright over the hole. Then — get ready for it — light the top of the noodle on fire! You should see a small column of flame rise up over the noodle as it burns.

 

 There is your engine! That’s a pretty good engine! Oooh! There, it’s going! Oh my gosh. Now it isn’t producing much force, and any force it is making is directed into the table. So the engine won’t go anywhere, which is probably a good thing in this case given that—ah, large sizable chunk of it is on fire. The reaction’s either going to continue until the noodle is all burned up, or until the chemical reaction with the yeast stops. We’re going to have to wait until that gets a little less hot. The main limitation with hybrid rocket engines is that they just aren’t very powerful compared to other rocket types. And a lot of that is because of how the fuel burns. In our demo, the oxidizer flowed through the rigatoni-fuel, and it’s basically the same process in the real thing.

 

 How fast the fuel burns — and how much thrust the engine produces — has to do with how much oxidizer is moving through it. If the oxidizer has just one hole to flow through, like with our noodle, it will only burn a little fuel at a time, so it won’t be very powerful. The big challenge for engineers is figuring out how to shape the fuel so there’s an optimal flow — enough so that it can propel a rocket efficiently, but not so much that it burns through all the fuel all at once, which would just be an explosion. Teams are working on it, though! There’s been more interest in developing hybrid rockets over the last few years. And another cool thing about this demo, besides the column of fire, is that it kind of illustrates why.

 

 One advantage to this type of engine is that it’s hard to accidentally blow up. Not that I’m encouraging you to try. But since the fuel and oxidizer are stored separately, there’s a much lower risk of accidental explosion compared to a solid engine, where everything is already blended together. In these solid mixtures, the block can sometimes become damaged, which can lead to uneven firing. And hybrid engines are less complicated than many liquid engines, since hybrids only have one fluid component instead of two.

 

For our rocket, we didn’t have to worry about continuously mixing fluids and hitting the right ratios and flow rates. There were fewer moving parts. In the real world, these benefits translate to engines that could help us launch rockets more safely and more cheaply than we are right now. We just have to figure out how to give them some extra thrust. Unfortunately, that probably isn’t a problem we can solve with pasta and mason jars, so we’ll have to leave it to the experts. 

 How Space Rockets are tested before launch.

Introduction.

So hot it can boil iron, so noisy it can be heard 60 miles away,   and so dangerous it’s hosed down with a million gallons of water every three minutes.   Rocket testing, suffice to say, is quite an intense process.

 

But what actually goes down at a typical modern testing facility?

Join us today as we get all fired up for a look at how space rockets are tested. This month marks the 60th anniversary of Russian   cosmonaut Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin’s pioneering first flight into space. 

 

  So you’d be forgiven for thinking rocketry was pretty well understood by now. Well, there’s actually still a very long way to go. Vast new rockets,   from SpaceX’s awesome Star ship to NASA’s moon-bound SLS giant   are grander than anything attempted during the old-school space race.   There’s also different mission priorities these days. And even different fuel sources.

 

 As such, the latest generation rocket engines, be they Elon Musk’s almighty Raptors or Uncle   Sam’s RS-25s from the Shuttle programme, need to be rigorously put through their paces on   terra firm a before they’re trusted with precious payloads. And of course delicate human beings. Rocket tests fall into two broad categories – sea level ambient, and altitude. This distinction is critical, because air pressure is greater at sea level than way   up off the ground.

 

At altitude, rockets produce more thrust in the thinner air,   and have to cope with less heat transfer. And these factors have major engineering implications. For sea level tests, the ambient atmospheric conditions surrounding the test area work fine.   But testing rockets at altitude is a lot more challenging, as technicians need to simulate   conditions way up in the blue sky, but on the ground where they can actually analyse them.

 

For this, rockets are placed in a sealed chamber, where pressure is sucked out with   mechanical pumps to around 0.16psa, roughly equivalent to the prevailing conditions   100,000 feet above sea level. This sealed environment obviously creates its own problems,   so a process known as INERTING is introduced, whereby gaseous nitrogen   or helium is fed into the chamber to prevent explosive build up of rocket exhaust matter. Whichever type of test, sea level or altitude, that ferocious exhaust   needs to be directed somewhere, typically into a so-called flame bucket of trench.   This funnels the heat and energy in a direction where it can’t do any harm.

 

The particular fuel source of the rocket is a big determinant in how the rocket is oriented   during the test. Liquid rocket engines are typically fired in a vertical position,   as gravity is all part of the fuel intake process. Solid rocket engines,   alternatively, can be fired horizontally, which requires a smaller and cheaper flame trench.   However this comes with its own issues, not lease noise, which we’ll come to shortly. So,

 

where actually are these testing grounds?

Most modern rocket testing facilities are situated in the southern United States, in order to be near   launch sites, which themselves are frequently close to the earth’s equator.

 

 Why are launch   sites near the equator? The land around the equator moves at around 1670 km per hour, while   halfway towards the poles land only moves 1180 km per hour. This means launching from the equator   helps spacecraft blast off already 500 km/hour faster, without any additional input of energy. As such, SpaceX has a large rocket testing facility in MacGregor, Texas,   which is handy for the company’s Boca Chica launch and assembly site. But today we’ll mostly be focussing on Nasa’s John C. Stennis Space Center in Hancock County,   Mississippi.

 

This is where new SLS rockets are being tried out in preparation for the   first Artemis launches later this year, part of an ambitious programme   to put the first woman and next man on the moon in the next three years. Stennis has a fine pedigree in this regard, as it was where rocketry for the first and   second stages of the Saturn V lunar landing were tested back in the 1960s. The magnificent landmark   A and B test stands are even registered as official National Historic Landmarks. From 1975 to 2009, Stennis also tested the main   engines that powered 135 missions of the iconic NASA space shuttle. Indeed, those same RS-25 engines that powered the shuttle, with some choice   upgrades naturally, will hopefully be sending the SLS to the moon soon.

 

 The facility is so integral to American space lore, that it’s said by proud Stennis workers   ‘if you want to go to the moon, you first have to go through Hancock County, Mississippi’. Stennis is indeed perfectly situated for rocket testing. It’s isolated from major population   centres, on a 13,800-acre site surrounded by a 125,000-acre buffer zone. There’s great access by   road and seven-and-a-half-miles of specially dug canals, plenty of local water, a supportive local   government, and a climate that suits testing. At least when hurricane season isn’t in full swing.   

 

So what happens in the actual test?

During the recent SLS warm-ups at Stennis, a variety of rocket systems were checked over.   Modal testing is a way of assessing the overall structural integrity of components,   essentially by striking them with a finely calibrated mallet and measuring   their resonant frequency. If the frequency is off in some way it could suggest faulty welds,   cracks, or other problems that might jeopardise the ultimate mission. There’s a so-called ‘power up’ procedure that must be followed, to make sure everything comes on   correctly and in the right sequence. The avionics – that is, on board mechanics and electronics   – must all be tested, and thrown phoney curveballs to reveal any unforeseen weaknesses.

 

A crucial aspect of rocket avionics is the gimbaling system,   which orients the rocket boosters in order to maintain overall trajectory.   This system has its own self-contained hydraulics, and must be tested thoroughly. A series of simulated countdowns will take place, ramping up to a so-called   ‘wet dress rehearsal’ where propellants are flowed into the engine but not ignited. To facilitate the SLS tests at Stennis, some 700,000 gallons of propellant – that’s   200,000 gallons of liquid oxygen, and 500,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen – are   piped in from six floating barges. That’s about 114 tanker trucks worth. At the moment of ignition, when the rocket does finally fire, technicians need to keep an eye on   some fairly hair-raising physical changes to the rocket.

 

With temperatures ranging from minus 400   degrees Fahrenheit – thanks to that liquid fuel source – then rising to a few thousand   degrees Fahrenheit while alight, the metal tank can grow, and shrink, by several inches. That infernal exhaust will then jet into the flame chute, requiring two   separate water suppression systems, both fed by a dedicated 66 million gallon reservoir. 240,000 gallons of water every minute gets pumped over the chute to cool   the engine exhaust during testing. In addition to that, some 92,000 gallons   of water a minute are sprayed through a separate nozzle system to suppress noise.

 

 This noise suppression isn’t just to help the local property prices. It’s to prevent   all that acoustic energy disrupting the finely calibrated test equipment, or affecting the   material performance of the rocket itself. Those gigantic plumes of white smoke you see emanating   from Stennis testing rigs are in fact steam from that colossal torrent of much-needed cool water.

 

Stennis has its own High Pressure Industrial Water Facility to manage   this aspect of its operation, by the way and a High Pressure Gas Facility of   HPGF that helps pump gaseous nitrogen into the core state during testing.   This prevents outside air entering the testing zone during those all-important altitude tests.

 

As well as the mechanical side, special software is also deployed during testing,   to control the avionics and simulate the different atmospheric conditions the rocket   may find itself subject to. Software is believed to be the reason French rocket   Ariane 5 suffered a disastrous mid-air mishap in June 1996, so there’s a lot at stake here. All these processes working in concert should help run a test that produces, in the case of the SLS,   1.6 million lbs of thrust – or 2 million lbs at altitude – consuming, as it fires,   some 2.6 million litres of propellants.

 

Thrust is measured using the TMS, or Thrust Measurement System,   which uses a series of load cells to calculate how much   upward movement the thrust generates, with fuel weight taken into account. Once rocket firing is complete, the real work begins. 

 

  Some 1,400 sensors arrayed across the test site produce terabytes of data which technicians can   pore over in order to make subtle refinements ahead of the big launch. The impact of rocket testing, in particular at Stennis,   goes far behind just firing payloads into space by the way. The onsite Advanced Technology and Technology Transfer Branch was founded by NASA to develop   and share the knowledge acquired at Stennis in a way that enriches daily life for everybody.  

 

Not least the Mississippi economy. In 2018 alone   it’s reckoned the work at Stennis benefited the local economy to the tune of $583million. In case you thought it was just a load of pyromaniacs   out there in the Deep South, having a blast. What do you think?