**Please note:** * If this post declares something as a fact proof is required. * The title must be descriptive * No text is allowed on images * Common/recent reposts are not allowed *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*


What type of fuel does the colors represent?


Red is Kerosene, blue is liquid oxygen and yellow is liquid hydrogen.


So why kerosine first? Is it because the explosion is stronger and creates more force which is not necessary anymore when higher up in the atmosphere?


Sort of. A pump can pump more mass per second of kerosene than it can of hydrogen because hydrogen has such a low density. More mass means more thrust so the first stage can hurl the rest of the rocket high enough so the other stages have less backpressure from the atmosphere and can use the more fuel efficient hydrogen stages.


Yes that's what I was thinking. OK thanks!


Also note the difference in volume ratio. At the same stoichometric ratio, the hydrogen tanks are MUCH larger than the oxygen tanks, while the kerosene tank is slightly smaller than the oxygen tank.


Liquid hydrogen is actually a more efficient propellant in terms of thrust per mass propellant consumed. The problem with hydrogen is it is incredibly not dense, which is why you have those huge yellow propellant tanks and relatively small blue oxidizer tanks. Those tanks require mass and insulation, which is the major drawback of liquid hydrogen. Kerosene is significantly denser than hydrogen. Additionally, kerosene remains liquid at standard temperature, meaning it requires no insulation, so the tanks are smaller and lighter. The biggest problem with kerosene is that it creates soot, which gums up the engine. It is generally not a problem for a single launch, but reusable engines that burn kerosene require periodic refurbishment. That's one of the reasons why SpaceX is transitioning to liquid methane (the other being that methane can be made on Mars, in theory at least). It produces much less soot than kerosene, so it's a better choice for engines that need to be fired many times. Liquid methane still requires cryogenic tanks and insulation, but it's liquid at a temperature fairly close to liquid oxygen, so that simplifies matters a little bit. As for why kerosene first, I'm a bit surprised as well. Normally you see kerosene used in upper stages where it needs to last for a long time and the cryogenic equipment for liquid hydrogen becomes problematic. My guess is that in the lowest stage the size of the tanks needed for hydrogen was so massive that it was impractical as a first stage propellant.


Kerosene is a denser fuel and gives more thrust for the same size engines and fuel tanks. Hydrogen engines don't have the same thrust-to-weight as kerosene engines, but it is a more efficient fuel overall. So the preference is to use dense high-thrust fuels like kerosene or even solids in the first stage, to get your rocket out of the dense part of the atmosphere and away from the ground quickly, and then switch to lower thrust but higher efficiency engines to accelerate the rest of the way to orbit.


>My guess is that in the lowest stage the size of the tanks needed for hydrogen was so massive that it was impractical as a first stage propellant. Basically. My understanding is that with RP1/kerosene the rocket has more ∆v. If they had used LH on the first stage they would have needed something like 3 times as much LH to get the same ∆v kerosene gives because of the increased size of the rocket needed to hold the fuel.


Might be cheaper or more effective while the rocket can still rely on oxygen in Earth's atmosphere as an oxidizer. Edit: on second watch I realized there's oxidizer being stored in the same stage as the kerosene, I'm just a dummy. So probably cheaper or might have to do with thrust/weight or thrust/volume or efficiency or some combination of those factors


There is an experimental air breathing rocket engine concept ([SABRE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SABRE_(rocket_engine))). But generally speaking, rockets don't use oxygen from the atmosphere. They bring all the oxygen they need with them.


What's the effective difference in delta V per kilo or volume between liquid hydrogen and kerosene? Edit: no expert in this just played a good chunk of Kerbal space program lol


Delta\_v per kilogram is lower for Kerosine, because the exhaust velocity is lower. But the density and mass flow are significantly higher. So, Kerosine is less efficient, but provides more thrust.


~~dV is measured in seconds of specific impulse.~~ edit: Holy crap I am tired. dV is measured in m/s, but what you're after is the specific impulse of the fuels. Typical hydrocarbon engines see in the low to mid-300's of seconds. Some extreme vacuum-optimized hydrolox engines have a specific impulse in the low to mid 400's of seconds. edit2: Given `iSP = vExh / g0`, the lighter the molecular weight of the fuel, the higher the specific impulse is measured to be. (vExh = exhaust velocity in m/s, g0 = gravity of the body you're launching from in m/s^2 ). Hydrogen has only got one proton and one neutron, so it's able to exhibit higher exhaust velocity compared to heavy hydrocarbons. Consequently, because hydrogen is so un-dense, you will need a much larger fully cryogenic tank volume compared to the kerolox stages.


No air breathing rocket has ever flown before, that’s still in the realm of sci fi for now.


Red = Kerosene RP-1 Orange = Liquid Hydrogen LH2 Blue = Liquid Oxygen LOX


That is some great animation


There are 4 rockets side-by-side in the original [YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9EVeHqizY)


What are the colors. I assume they are basically oxygen, kerosene, and hydrogen.


You assume correct. The yellow/orange is hydrogen. The blue is oxygen. The red is kerosene.


What are the solid rocket boosters filled with?


I love that vid put up by Scott Manley. For those that can't watch the video: SRBs have ammonium perclorate as oxidiser, atomised aluminium powder as fuel, some catalyst, and a binding agent to hold it all together.


Did you just say fucking aluminum as fuel? I had no idea…


Yeah, SRBs aren't exactly the most environmentally friendly. Lots of chlorine and aluminum. In comparison to those, the kerosene based fuels used in the Soyuz and Falcon families are pretty green, with only CO2, water and some soot. CO2 isn't great but a rocket (a few flights a year) only burns about as much kerosene as a Boeing 777 (hundreds of planes each doing hundreds of flights a year) so it's not a major factor on a global scale. Some rockets do use hydrogen, but most of them (SLS, Shuttle, Delta medium variants) need SRBs to get off the pad.


Some metals can oxidise very energetically. 1/4 of thermite is Aluminium powder and the other 3/4 is Iron(III) oxide, rust.


[Very expansive explantation in this video.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eis3A2Ll9_E)


Correct. Red is RP-1 (slightly better kerosene), blue is liquid oxygen, yellow is liquid hydrogen.


So water powered vehicles do exist.


Kinda yeah, Hydrolox (Hydrogen + Oxygen) fueled rockets produce water vapor as exhaust. If we can mine water ice on the moon, asteroids or mars, we can produce fuel there with electrolysis (needs a lot of energy) and don't have to get it out of Earth's big gravity well.


Worth noting, carbon in these planets is pretty easy to get hold of. SpaceX plans to do ISRU (in situ resource utilisation) on Mars to produce liquid oxygen, and methane.


Another version of "water powered" rockets is to use pure hydrogen peroxide. The stuff you have at home is only like 15%. In pure form, if you spray it on a silver mesh, it will so violently release the extra oxygen, that it will boil the water and produce enough power to lift a smaller rocket. It is also hot enought that if you spray rp-1 (kerosene) into the mix, that the heat and extra freed oxygen will ignite the kerosene and produce even more thrust. [https://science.howstuffworks.com/question159.htm](https://science.howstuffworks.com/question159.htm) [http://www.astronautix.com/h/h2o2kerosene.html](http://www.astronautix.com/h/h2o2kerosene.html) Say you want to power your bicycle with H2O2 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30007505




Only mod comments can be pinned, and even then only by the mod that posted it. Fortunately it rose to the top anyway.


Why do people trim stuff down to crap when the original is so much better? Thank you for the link.


Oh my goddd the way the solid rocket boosters burn from the center out is SO COOOOL!


In real conditions these would have different thrust speeds right? More force with the Saturn 5?


It looks like the SpaceX one gets there much soon than the others. Could be with the decrease in size and advances in engines they are able to reach the delta-v required much faster and are able to coast. Looks like it had a long stretch of low thrust to maintain speed too.


Wow. Now I really want to know their purpose and distance they're able to travel.


I know right? Finally something really darn interesting


you can build these kinds of rockets an more in a game called 'kerbal space program


alternatively you can crash repeatedly and die


Poor jeb


I have lost many a Jeb!


which is fun!


Asparagus staging goes brrrr


>You can kill little green men with these kinds of rockets and more in a game called "Kerbal Space Program". FTFY


Can’t wait to crash more stuff in Kerbal 2 Hopefully we get some official news on that soon


Exactly if not for this I would have never guessed rockets run on mustard, ketchup and blue Gatorade.


TIL I am rocket


*dont you know that you are a shooting star!*


Red = Kerosene RP-1 Orange = Liquid Hydrogen LH2 Blue = Liquid Oxygen LOX


Our rockets run on kerosene?? Is that even an upgrade from moonshine?


Anything that burns "can be" rocket fuel. There are many considerations for what gets used as rocket fuel and oxidizer. There's cost, of course. Then there's how easy it is to handle. It could be too sensitive (explodes during transport), unstable (breaks down or changes chemically during transport), too toxic, require extreme temperature or pressure. Then there's energy density, if it doesn't have enough density the fuel may not have enough energy to lift itself up. There's also volume; the fuel might be very energy dense (energy per mass), but the mass takes up too much volume to be practical. You also have to match the fuel to the oxidizer since not all combinations work. Ideally, you want them to be hypergolic, meaning that the fuel and oxidizer start burning when they touch. Otherwise, you need some ignition source (like a spark plug). You also need tanks and feed lines to bring the fuel to the engine. Some fuels just don't flow as well or are prone to leaking. If you use a solid fuel and oxidizer, you don't need feed lines, but you do need to precisely engineer the shape so it burns correctly all the way through. You may also need to keep the rocket and/or engine cool so it doesn't melt. Using a cooled liquid fuel or oxidizer is advantageous in that case since it can help cool the rocket itself (like how compressed air, which is liquid, cools itself when you release it).


Jets do also....


RP-1 is a "highly refined kerosene". Don't think it's the same stuff you buy to put in a space heater lol


There is a great myth busters episode that lots of things can be rocket fuel. They use a sausage as rocket fuel at somepoint.


All of HazeGrayArt's stuff is excellent: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh2dnrLCNHDS2IV9I2R58Pw


Why does the hat fly off after releasing first bottom rocket?


That's an emergency launch abort system attached to the crew capsule. In case of an emergency, it can lift and pull the capsule away from the main rocket before it explodes for example. After a certain point is passed the system itself is decoupled and ejected from the capsule, either because it's no longer necessary, or because it just wouldn't work beyond a certain speed.


Ultimately to reduce weight and maximize payload to orbit!


What makes a rocket explode?


A burning rocket is already basically a controlled and directed explosion, so many failure modes will turn it into an uncontrolled explosion. Fuel leaking somewhere it shouldn't be, pressure seals failing, sparks starting electrical fires, exterior parts failing due to high dynamic pressure... there are probably thousands of ways a rocket can explode. The fact that they fail so rarely shows just how skilled the engineers that build them really are.


Thank you!


Basically, the controlled explosion of a rocket, that explosion is looking for the weakest point to expel out of. In normal operation, that would be the cone (I think that's what it is called, but basically the bottom of the rocket), but if a seal or something breaks down, the explosion might find that to be the weakest part to expel it's energy from and thus the whole thing fails.


> cone (I think that’s what it is called, but basically the bottom of the rocket) Nozzle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle There’s a lot going on for something that looks so simple!


Can't they just press escape and revert to launch or vehicle assembly ?


Why it didn't work at Challenger?


Challenger did not have any launch escape system installed. In addition to this the explosion happened above the crew cabin so it is not likely that any escape system would have worked.


Ironically, during the investigation into the accident it was determined the cockpit/crew compartments of *Challenger* were left largely intact after the explosion, forcibly ejected by the force of the blast. So, at least some of the crew were alive and (probably) conscious after the Shuttle disintegrated, and they died only upon impact with the ocean surface.


I feel this outcome seems a bit more grim


> the crew were alive and (probably) conscious after the Shuttle disintegrated, and they died only upon impact with the ocean surface. And not just probably, but very likely, since the crew oxygen system was activated and masks were donned on. Only a conscious human can do that.


> were alive and (probably) conscious ...for nearly three minutes IIRC. That is a LONG TIME under those circumstances.


And as a colleague said of the disaster, paraphrased, "I knew [the pilot]. If he was alive, he tried to fly that thing all the way down." And someone with more info can hopefully source, as I'm drunk, there's evidence that life support systems were deployed, just two IIRC but I'd be flat out lying if I said this wasn't half remembered information. Edit: when the crew capsule was ejected, astronaut Mike Smith's PEAP, or Personal Egress Air Pack, was activated along with two others for unidentified crew members. Smith was the pilot. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he tried to fly that capsule down one way or the other, you don't get blown up in the general direction of space without balls and determination.


Google revealed [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-29-mn-19581-story.html%3F_amp%3Dtrue) 1986 article in which they say 3 emergency air packs were activated.


I edited to add some more info after my own research. In addition, the crew capsule was blasted mostly whole in a ballistic trajectory, and as you said, pilot Mike Smith's PEAP (Personal Egress Air Pack) was activated along with two others. It's definitely believed at least three of them were alive and able to reach emergency equipment before they hit terminal velocity, after which of course the crash would never be survivable. What a fucking way to live the last minutes of your life.


The PEAP activation is one of the few signs of any consciousness among the crew, and it would have been one of the first things the pilots did once they got an alert, they are trained to do this instinctively without hesitation. So it is quite possible that three of the crew managed to activate their PEAP during the breakup but did not stay conscious after that.


It's kind of weird, but in NASA, at least at the time, the Commander lands the shuttle. Pilot is just a backup, and second in command. Obviously, the Pilot practices landing the shuttle and is probably just as capable, but if things go properly they're not the one landing that shuttle. But sounds like maybe the Commander was not alive at that point.


Challenger explosion was caused at the bottom where the booster fired. Our do you mean the tank that was rolled to be above the shuttle?


I know this might sound pedantic but I just thought it might interest some of you to learn that it [actually wasn't an explosion.](https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-challenger-shuttle-disaster) (technically speaking) *"The fuel tank itself collapsed and tore apart, and the resulting flood of liquid oxygen and hydrogen created the huge fireball believed by many to be an explosion."* Edit: typo


That was precise and very interesting, I had no idea. I always assumed it was an explosion.


Weird, I always thought a huge fireball *was* an explosion


I think the distinction is that the fireball itself wasn't the failure mode. The tank collapsed, and if the leaking fuel hadn't ignited, the launch would have failed anyway. The fireball just told everyone right away that there had been a failure, but wasn't the source of the failure itself, just a symptom of it.


It's about speed of propagation, I think. However, an 'explosion' is not a precisely defined term, and can be either a deflagration (subsonic combustion, as in the case of Challenger) or a detonation (supersonic combustion propagated by a shockwave). So I think it *would* be correct to call what happened to Challenger an explosion. Because 'explosion' isn't a precise term.


Looked into this recently and the challenger didn’t explode but was engulfed in flames, supposedly the crew were more than likely alive during the descent of their cabin.


Oh, thanks for explaining.


Because the space shuttle didn't have a detachable crew capsule at the top and (I assume) the shuttle is way too heavy to get quickly pulled away


IIRC the early shuttles did have ejection seats. And an emergency landing could be attempted after the solid rockets burned out. Both would have been useless in the Challenger disaster https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes


There wasn't one on challenger.


Challenger was a space shuttle. Completely different design from the Apollo program.


In addition to what the other commenters stated, launch abort systems rely on a high thrust-to-weight ratio to quickly wrench the command pod away from the rest of the dangerous rocket. In the case of the space shuttles, the shuttles were one big and heavy brick that itself was not staged (the shuttle doesn’t split up). This means that the launch escape system, which in reality is just a tiny booster with some solid fuel at the top of the rocket that works in conjunction with a separated command pod, would have little effect because of how heavy the shuttle was. That’s why the Space Shuttles didn’t have them, and that made them particularly dangerous. There’s what’s called grey zones at mission control, wherein it would be unsafe for a mission to be aborted at specific points in launch. The space shuttle had a bunch of those, many at the most critical points in time. That is why their reputation of danger persists.


Because the idea of the shuttle was to be as safe and reliable as a plane. Some of the other goals were: Make space cheep Low turn around time Be able to take spy satellites and take them down again ( this was never used and it why the shuttle is so large) Be able to take payload and humans (only vehicle I know that can do this and why hubble lasted so long and the only thing it delivered) All that to say it didn't have one, amd never would have been able to relisrically have one either


It wasn’t just Hubble that shuttles delivered to orbit. The shuttles delivered both ISS segments and the astronauts needed to put them together.


> the only thing it delivered [Nonsense.](https://history.nasa.gov/pocketstats/sect%20B/P&E.pdf)


DoD really screwed the Shuttle with all their dumb demands.


To create a new line without creating a whole new paragraph, just add two spaces to the end of the line. -------- Some of the other goals were: - Make space cheap - Low turn around time - Be able to take spy satellites and take them down again ( this was never used and it why the shuttle is so large) - Be able to take payload and humans (only vehicle I know that can do this and why hubble lasted so long and the only thing it delivered)


THIS TIME WE GET TO SAY - the front is supposed to fall off. I'd like to re-iterate that this is normal.


It's never lupus. Until that one time.




You can see a dramatic version of it in use here. Warning, it's a major spoiler in "For All Mankind". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU_4NwCMXI4 PS I heartily recommend you watch the series, it's really good. If you plan to, don't watch the above clip.


It's incredible that a rocket takes years to build, yet a large majority of the rocket will only be used for a few seconds , for a fraction of the journey


Approx 2 mins 30 secs for the 1st stage S-IC of the Saturn V. During which **each** of it's 5 F1 engines consumed 1 tonne of kerosene RP-1 fuel and 2 tonnes of LOX per second, and took the 3000 tonne, (6 million pound) Saturn V from 0 kph at sea level, to a speed of 8,500 kph, at 70km high, before staging, and passing over the next phase to the second stage S-II. Truly rocket science (and engineering).


The Saturn V weighed about 6.2 million pounds (2.8 million kg) fully fueled on the launch pad. Of that, just 12,250 pounds (5,560 kg) worth of Command Module splashed down into the ocean.


Something crazy like 80% of the fuel is used to carry the weight of the fuel.


The SpaceX Starship is expected to be about 70% liquid oxygen, 20% liquid methane, 2% engines, 6% fuel tanks and heat shields and finally around 2% cargo.


The tyranny of the rocket equation


Just opposite as kids They take a few minutes to make, and 25years+ to get them to move out of the house.


What if you connect a jet fuel engine to the kid? Can it get him out out of the house faster?


Oh it would speed up delivery alright.


Yes, but probably only once


Minutes....? Showoff.


nah, modern ones are re-used 10+ times, they land the bits that detach, clean them, refill, and are good to go again within a few weeks


That is just SpaceX, and they only account for a portion of launches and their second stages are still lost. Granted, they make up a large portion, and they are working on a recoverable second stage.


thankfully, that may not be the case in the very near future the spacex starship will be fully reusable (the first orbital test will be q1 or 2 of 2022, the rocket itself is ready, the launchpad isnt)


That's actually one reason why SpaceX has been so successful. They don't make complicated, expensive rockets that takes years to build. They make cheap rockets that can be built quickly, tested, and then iterated on. Hell, Starship made out of stainless steel because it's cheap and easy to acquire, instead of aluminum or titanium on many ships. > If the design takes too long to build, it’s a bad design. -Elon Musk


So, where do the parts that detach go?


The first crashes into the ocean ~~to be recovered~~. The second burns in the atmosphere and any remnants crash into the ocean.


No recovery. This is Saturn V and not the Space Shuttle. There is no recovery for any of the components, just crash it in the ocean or the Moon.


Sounds like a plot for a scifi novel. Humanity resets and in 5000 they find parts of rocket ships in the ocean.


It's absolutely the plot of a few stories. I can think of three books/series, admittedly fantasy, that engage with that kind of thing. Though in my experience it's usually the weapons they find.....


What books? sounds good


**SPOILERS IN A GENERAL SUMMARY** **Grunts** - Mary Gentle: Orcs track down a dragon's hoard of weapons from the last battle between "good and evil," discovering a cache of M16s, Fighter Jets, and (real world) modern weaponry. **Shattered Sea** - Joe Abercrombie: I feel bad saying anything more about this, risking too many spoilers. It's great tho. **The Gentleman Bastards** - Scott Lynch: There was a previous Empire that had technology and magic beyond anything anyone can comprehend, often living in the skeletons of previous cities. Knowing basically nothing of those that came before. Pretty loosely related, but I think they all would count. And I don't mean any of this to take away from /u/aarontbarratt, cuz they're on point that it's a good story. I'm trying to expand on their point.


You are right. I thought they collected them as to not litter and for inspection, but nope, they just let them sink in the ocean... although they could have easily collected them... I think bezos pulled a few out of the ocean, though, just to cleanup some of nasa's mess.


Yes Bezos pulled up at least two. Not to clean up the mess so much as for publicity. I believe one from Apollo 11 is now being exhibited. There were some unused engines around for examination so no big secrets.


did they do anything with the saturn v 1st stages tho?


recovered is not meaning reused. recovered is optional as well, but useful for inspection


What do you mean?


Into the atmosphere to burn up on re-entry I think.


Some rockets like the falcon 9 land on a barge and are reused.


\*only the only other rocket currently flying gets recovered is electron, which uses (will use) helicopters with nets to catch it, rather, will use


🚁 ! 🚁 \ 🚀 / \ __ / =🚁 🚁= . | . | . | ! | \🚀/ YOINK! 💥🔥🚀💥🔥


true art


I believe they travel back down to earth at light speed and usually have a direct hit with a hippopotamus who gets teleported to the middle of outer space!


In recent history they all were dropped in the ocean or burned up in the atmosphere. Nowadays we have rockets that can be partly be reused by landing themselves (at least the lower stage). The one currently soing that is the Falcon 9 by SpaceX, but there will be plenty more that can do that in the next 10 years. SpaceX is already working on a fully reusable rocket called 'Starship', which has had some very exciting testflights already.


I had a few questions after watching this video, so let me post the answers here as well. * Q: What kind of rocket is that? * A: Saturn V, a heavy-lift vehicle used by NASA from '67 to '73. \[1\] * Q: What are the different colors? * A: Different types of fuel. From the YouTube source video \[2\]: Red = Kerosene RP-1, Orange = Liquid Hydrogen LH2, Blue = Liquid Oxygen LOX. * Q: What's the nose thingie that ejects after the first stage finishes? * A: Launch Escape System (LES) \[3\]. A way for the passenger/payload compartment to fly away from the main rocket (and eventually parachute down) if things go bad. [Here's a picture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system#/media/File:Apollo_Pad_Abort_Test_-2.jpg) of it in action. \[1\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn\_V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V) \[2\] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9EVeHqizY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9EVeHqizY) \[3\] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch\_escape\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_escape_system)


*The* rocket


Tbf, if there ever was a *the* rocket, the Saturn V would be it!


Saturn V is still just my favorite *thing* that we've ever produced. Everything about it is fascinating and I never tire of watching footage of it. Runner-up is definitely the SR71 Blackbird.


The most powerful machine mankind has ever created. Amazing.


Should have looked up what it’s called on The Google


This was bothering me too. This is how *A* rocket uses fuel.


Bot account


Kerbal approves


I had to scroll way to far down to find this comment


That's not asparagus staging!


Lol, as a Kerbal veteran I couldn't understand why this was so interesting to people. I mean how else would you get your rover to crash on the surface of Mun.


Honestly... I have quite a few hours into that game but never managed to successfully make it into space.. I have either not enough fuel, or I'm too heavy. Managed to reach space once and was out of fuel so I couldn't do anything so I just floated there..


The trick to making it to space is to slowly turn parallel to the earth so that gravity starts to throw you in a circle instead of dragging you straight down. Getting to low earth orbit isn’t just “you got to a certain altitude and gravity doesn’t affect you” it’s “gravity is pulling you down at the same speed that you are moving away from the earth.” You’re literally “falling” towards earth and missing (because you burst parallel to it) the entire time.


Yeah the game has a steep learning curve. I don't think I successfully landed on Mun till 30+ hours of play time.


Think it took me even more than that. I was terrible at building efficient stages and my landers were always far too big or heavy. My biggest breakthrough was looking through Apollo 11's stages and attempting to recreate it. Literally the first time I tried it I had a flawless mun landing. Turns out those engineers back in the 60s were pretty smart lol.


Pffft! That's just rocket science


Well it's not exactly brain surgery, is it.


Get out


All that to get some Krispy Kreme




Does anyone know what the different fuels are?


Yellow is liquid fuel, blue is oxidizer. Needed since you cant combust anything without oxygen, so you need to bring your own to burn fuel in space.


And red is ... ? (A different kind of liquid fuel, I'm guessing.) > A_Starving_Scientist If you tell me, I might give you food.


Kerosene if I'm not wrong.


Red is RP-1 (kerosene), yellow is liquid hydrogen, blue is liquid oxygen.


red is kerosene, and yellow is liquid hydrogen blue is liquid oxygen, which is used to burn the fuel If ur curious, some other common fuels types are Hypergolic: 2 liquids that instantly react to produce thrust liquid methane: just another rocket fuel, will be used on most future rockets it seems alcohol: same as above


Baja blast and gamer girl piss


You kinda forgot to gravity turn so this isn’t gonna be a very circular orbit.




To be fair, I wonder what the fuel efficiency of your van would be if it had to go straight up


me too


Interesting fact: the fastest car ever made is also the most fuel efficient. It is a tesla roadster with a massive modification to make it run on roughly 163,000 liters of kerosene. It is currently traveling at 19,000 km/hr relative to Earth. Sadly I can't get the fuel mileage (that will climb for millions of years) because the source I was using isn't loading some of its values. [Link](https://www.whereisroadster.com/)


My mother would have insisted they scrape out any remaining drops with a rubber spatula.


Since a rocket doesn’t have to be accelerated once it’s in orbit it could basically stay there forever so the fuel efficiency would be extremely small


So, you can't really use km/L, but for sure the combustion in the rocket is far more efficient. And if you won't since the Saturn five is and orbital class rocket the payload can do infinite km orbiting around Earth or moon. (Not really, around Earth there is still a bit of air and if not sustained the orbit will shrink and the orbiter burn in the atmosphere)


So I did the math: I assumed you were going on a one year mission to the ISS and were launched on a falcon 9. A falcon 9 uses 1,854,851 liters per mission and the ISS travels around 28,000km/h (or 245,280,000km/year). That would mean that in one year you would travel 245,280,000 kilometers and use 1,854,851 liters of fuel, which equals to about 132.2 kilometers/liter. But because you don’t need to use any more fuel when in orbit, the longer the mission goes on, the more efficient you become. For example if the mission was to go on for 25 years, you would travel about 5.8 BILLION kilometers and would still only use about 1.8 million liters of fuel. This means that you would go 3,220 kilometers/liter. Tada!


this is amazing, that is surprisingly efficient.


The numbers are slightly cheaty here. Technically you can park your car in your driveway, wait a year, and youve moved billions of kilometers through the universe. Just because the reference frame is moving doesnt mean you are, if you get what I mean.


Because its not compareable.


It can't really be measured that way, although it is actually pretty efficient. To properly measure a rocket's efficency we use ISP or specific impulse of the engine. ISP is exactly proportional to an engines exhaust velocity, so the denser the propellant, the less ISP the engine has. The bottom of the rocket uses kerosene, and has unefficient engines with high thrust to push the rocket out of the atmosphere. The top part uses hydrogen which is not as dense and has a higher exhaust velocity, which means the engines are more efficient but have lower thrust. And ultimately to accurately measure the rocket's capacity to change it's own speed, we use delta-v (the change in velocity), which is, for the saturn V pictured in the animation, 11.000m/s.


Tons per second probably.


Not sure but the Saturn V rockets used in the Apollo missions were burning around 20 tons of fuel per second.


KSP players creaming rn


Notice how most of the fuel is used in escaping the atmosphere. Now imagine if we had a station on the moon to launch manned and unmanned crafts into the unknown. we could travel much much farther in space as more fuel could be used to propel the craft through space instead of burning the majority to achieve earths escape velocity


How long would that amount of spaceship fuel 'run my house'?


About 0.1 second before it all blows up. Im not sure if you house has the equipment


News rule: all future rockets must be transparent


\*This is how ~~the~~ ***a multi-stage liquid fuelled*** rocket uses fuel




The YouTube algorithm has actually been pretty good to us. My 3 year old watches a lot of content like this about rockets and the blippis and the like have been mostly kept at bay


OP where are the credits?




The [source video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su9EVeHqizY) is actually better than this cropped gif because it shows 4 different types of rockets simultaneously.


Oh boy. Looks like I’m reinstalling Kerbal again. Goodbye 2022.




Huh, that makes a lot more sense than the kerbal space program method of firing all at once and exploding horribly


Damn so the abdomen and the thorax of the rocket are nothing more than gas cannisters to contain fuel for burning?


So when the parts detach, isn’t it extremely dangerous to be anywhere near the launch point? I get the idea that most of it is SUPPOSED to go into the ocean, but certainly there are cases where it doesn’t.


The rocket doesn't go straight up, it turns east. Considering it launches right at the coast, it's basically impossible for a spent stage to land anywhere near the launch pad.


KSP fans in this comment section: *It's showtime*


Is it much easier to come back to earth considering they don’t have much fuel left when that’s all done?


The 5 F-1 engines of the first stage alone went through 5.7 tons of fuel per second. Saturn V was definitely one thirsty boi!


We went to the Houston Space Center the other day. It's incredible to see the sheer immensely massive size that these fuel tanks are compared to how relatively tiny the actual part with the people inside it is.


Props to the camera guy. Well done, RIP.


What blows my mind is how insanely powerful these engines are yet they are so freaking efficient. Imagine the countless hours scientists over the last decades have fought to get these things efficient.