"Unlimited Money, Unlimited Resources, No Safety Concerns..." ...basically Kerbal Space Program in nutshells :-D

Hah.... this is what happens when you freestyle these things.

Scott, I really appreciate your science videos. I know they get a lower view count than KSP videos and you've obviously spent a lot of time in putting these together, so I understand if they have a lower "KZread yield". That is a shame. I've learned so much about physics and astronomy through your videos. Keep up the great work.

@LeCharles07

6 жыл бұрын

I think the words I'm looking for are "Hear! Hear!".

@Darrenatace

6 жыл бұрын

Me too!

@kenjiokura7601

3 жыл бұрын

I think it might be the opposite these days!

I'm surprised that there isn't a "Scott Manley Aerospace Co."

@gigabic7487

9 жыл бұрын

Actual engineers who work on this stuff know more than Scott does (shocking)

@General12th

9 жыл бұрын

Gigabic Yeah, that is kinda shocking. Scott spent many years at universities learning this kind of thing. While rocketry isn't his profession, I doubt many engineers are more versed in the subject than he is.

@gauravghosh3421

8 жыл бұрын

hahahhhahahahahaha hahaha

@comic4relief

7 жыл бұрын

Gaurav Ghosh "It isn't rocket science!"

@gauravghosh3421

7 жыл бұрын

yes,that is but Scott Manley Aerospace Co sounds so funny to me.

I am currently 15 and aiming for a job for NASA as an astrophysicist. Outside of school, you are my greatest help understanding this incredibly complicated subject.

@SuperJosh-rs6kp

3 жыл бұрын

You made this comment 7 years ago. How is that going so far?

@kugelblitz-zx9un

Жыл бұрын

It's been 9 yrs...

@zachhouliston4508

Жыл бұрын

Did you do it dude?

@otakupetrolhead1392

Жыл бұрын

Hope you got it chief

@skankhunt9078

Жыл бұрын

You're 24 now. You should be getting there Are you still among the living?

Anyone read Ignition! by John Clarke? Its a must read for anyone interested in stuff like this who doesn't mind a bit of chemistry. If anything, it shows how kerbal real rocket science was in the early days. Scientist 1: Hey guys, lets mix some fluorine with molten lithium and see what it does! Scientist 2: Don't forget the hydrogen! All rockets work better with cryogenic liquid hydrogen! Scientist 1: Aww, the exhaust is so hot it's ionized and interfering with our radios. Lets try some mercury compounds next.

@hairychris444

7 жыл бұрын

Hilariously written too!

@IngoDingo

6 жыл бұрын

stevenrs11 oh, I loved the part where they just dumped a whole tank of F2 into the desert just to see what happens

@kayl456jenna

6 жыл бұрын

stevenrs11 Back before developing afterburners, they were going to add a booster rocket to fighter jets, running on jet fuel and H2O2. "Oh, what if a rat falls into the hydrogen peroxide tank? Let's test it!" But some spoilsport insisted that they just drop a rat whisker into a test tube.

@nmccw3245

4 жыл бұрын

Ignition! has a permanent place in my library. Picked it up based on Scott’s recommendation.

@adamwishneusky

4 жыл бұрын

Yes! So good

More info than every NASA video ever uploaded.

@Kurock1000

9 жыл бұрын

scheerBOM Hahah so true, i wish he would do more of these videos. This is the 2nd time im watching them...

@scheerBOM

9 жыл бұрын

Kurock1000 i was hoping for more videos too but there are only a few old science videos and tons of game reviews or whatever

@rando3749

9 жыл бұрын

scheerBOM I completely agree. My opinions are that either NASA expects dullards everywhere or they don't want terrorists around.

@whiskeyfur

8 жыл бұрын

+False King007 I'm thinking Nasa also has to navigate around many NDA's and security classifications as well. That makes it very hard to release material to the public... and what tidbits there are, are so scattered it's hard to collect, like what Scott did for us.

@markholm7050

7 жыл бұрын

scheerBOM Apparently, KSP nerds have never heard of Wikipedia.

Also, at 5:00, Saturn V second and third stages used LOX and LH2 add their fuels, but they were not insulated with foam on the outside. That's why in Saturn V launches you see ice falling off the rocket when they light the engines. In Columbia, the irony is that the foam was not there to prevent evaporation, but instead to protect the orbiter. It was there to stop ice from forming on the external fuel tank which could then fall off and damage the orbiter.

@paulgleason1

6 жыл бұрын

angc214 From another article I read at the time, if they had used the foam they had used in the 80s before they had banned the aerosols, the foam wouldn't have broken off, and the foam wouldn't have hit the wing, preventing the crash entirely. The ozone hole scare of the 80s may have caused the crash, and we have the hippies to blame.

13:17 You had me at "Fluorine"

@Oddman1980

7 жыл бұрын

Yup. As soon as I read "Flourine" I thought "Done!"

@madcourier6217

5 жыл бұрын

If something could embody the very word ADHD it'd be Fluorine.

As soon as someone builds an example that can be used I'll cover it. But seriously, there will probably be a later video on 'alternative' propulsion systems.

This was BRILLIANT !!! Your explanations are easy to understand while avoiding sounding like a dry lecture or becoming condescending. My personal fault is turning explanations into lectures, so in future rather than going that direction i'm going to give this link.

I want to see a fluorine-lithium-hydrogen rocket test now. I just can't imagine that winding up in anything other than the most spectacular and malevolent fireball mankind has ever created.

@johnballs1352

4 жыл бұрын

Watch it fly over a forest and see the trees wilt as the exhaust hits the ground lol

A small but important point: In a liquid hydrogen / liquid oxygen rocket, the exhaust is NOT just water. It's actually more similar to the liquid hydrogen propelled nuclear rocket, in that most of the hydrogen not burned and is therefore acting as reaction mass. Liquid hydrogen engines are always run very fuel-rich, for a couple of important reasons: 1. To reduce the burn temperature in the combustion chamber. Ok, so this is rather hot anyway, but it would be even hotter if all of the hydrogen was burned. Even using the liquid hydrogen for regenerative cooling wouldn't be enough to compensate for this. 2. To maximize the average exhaust velocity, by having as much hydrogen as possible in the exhaust. So only enough hydrogen is burned to impart heat to the rest of it, which actually increases the specific impulse. At the high temperatures used, some of the hydrogen molecules split into hydrogen atoms, which have an even higher velocity - this increases the specific impulse even further. A similar principle is used in RP1 / liquid oxygen rockets - these are also run fuel rich to reduce the burn temperature to tolerable levels. The amount of oxygen used is limited to ensure that most of the carbon in the hydrocarbon fuel burns to carbon monoxide rather than carbon dioxide. This is a lighter molecule, so has a higher exhaust velocity, boosting the specific impulse. Another modification to a rocket burning RP1 is to mix some liquid fluorine into the liquid oxygen. This causes the hydrogen component of the hydrocarbon fuel to be burned to HF rather than water. HF is a smaller and lighter molecule, so has a higher exhaust velocity than water. A liquid hydrogen engine can use liquid fluorine as the oxidizer for the same reason, and would also be run very fuel-rich.

@scottmanley

7 жыл бұрын

Very good points here, I never went into the details of fuel mixtures, might be worth doing that at some point.

@LoanwordEggcorn

4 жыл бұрын

Correct. In real world combustion, the products are never ideal, even when the inputs are stochiometric. Given a large enough population size H2 + O does not always result in H2O as just one example. Big organic molecules like RP1 produce even more varied results.

Thank you so much for the awesome science you drop on us. I wish there were more people on this planet like you. I love watching these videos because you have such awesome knowledge to give us. I can't speak for everyone, but I for one really appreciate what you do :) Plus, I learn alot.

its fuel that makes the rocket go up

@Abraxis86

10 жыл бұрын

Slow down, not all of us went to your fancy rocket schools

@tonyb8660

7 жыл бұрын

it's Monday at 442AM, and your comment made my entire day already! LMAO

@markhaga8408

4 жыл бұрын

Might I add- Controlled explosion: Good! Massive shouty boom: less good, but potentially more fun.

@r3drumg33k3

3 жыл бұрын

Or go BOOOOOOM!

I've been watching your games videos for a while now and I really enjoy them, but those science videos are awesome! I love how you talk about the principles in general in a simple to understand way but still show the graphs, chemistry and math of where it comes from. Thank you!

I dont know if I commented this already.... but we Need more Videos like that, Scott :)

Thanks Scott, I really enjoy these new videos you've been doing!

@scottmanley

7 жыл бұрын

+Wes Joe new? This is from years ago :)

@wezil68s

7 жыл бұрын

Oh... How embarrassing. Well I subbed long ago and it only came up today. Either way, it was very informative, thanks!

@jb_lofi

7 жыл бұрын

Only subbed recently, for some Kerbal-related stuff, and now I come across these. These videos are fantastic.

@Diamond_Reptiles

3 жыл бұрын

and now this whole thread is old

@ChemEDan

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Diamond_Reptiles Older now

Your videos are simply great! I enjoy every part of them not only for the science but for the excellent production that make them so interesting.

I appreciate the time and work you put into these!

Thank you very much for this insightful video! I would like to have more stuff explained by you, Mir Manley, Sir. Something on reaction wheels would be nice or stage separators or maybe how trajectories are calculated...? Keep up the great work. I like KSP Videos as much as this one or the Videos about Elite or Space Citizen. Greetings from Berlin!

The first solid rocket propellant and oldest rocket fuel: black powder.

Scott, I thought I knew quit a bit about rocket fuels… I watched this three times and picked new information each time. Thanks!

Another fantastic video man, keep it up. learning so much every time i watch your latest upload :)

8yrs later and I'm still learning!

This is a tiny correction, but Newton's third law is equal and opposite reaction 0:47 Newton's Second law is F=ma Fly safe!

I love these kinds of videos! Please do more, being educated on these kinds of things is awesome.

This was way more interesting and informative than I thought it was going to be. Awesome job!

the UDMH molecular structure looks like a rocket

@tuerculosisgaming6307

2 жыл бұрын

Rocket chemical as a rocket fuel

Not to mention Flourine is horrifying.

@psycronizer

6 жыл бұрын

yeah well you should see what happened to those German pilots in WW2 that got covered in the Methylhydrazine "STOFF" fuels...it dissolves flesh pretty well too you know....

@mr_sowong9464

6 жыл бұрын

atleast its great for your teeth :v

@nathansmith3608

6 жыл бұрын

Fluorine is such hard-core shit. it can oxidize water. Asbestos too. even Xenon 😰 also, it has no metabolic role in mammals. meaning even honey-badgers can't eat it

@icebluscorpion

6 жыл бұрын

nachtgecher yeah it is rather the Chuck Norris of all the elements in the fucking periodic table no element will fuck with Chuck Florin Norris XD XD XD

@General12th

6 жыл бұрын

You mean awesome.

Right there's some ideas that solid oxygen can produce a denser fuel, but density isn't a huge advantage, but I'm not a rocket fuel expert so who knows whether it's going to make a difference.

Your videos are always good. So entertaining!!

I enjoyed greatly

Isn't that newtons 3rd law of motion not second?

@FrankeytheMonkey

9 жыл бұрын

John Christy Yeah. Newton's second law is F=ma. he got that wrong

This is really great !! Scott, please make more technical movies like this.

Man you are gifted, your explanation is easy easy to understand thank you for sharing.

Ah, okay, so from a first principles standpoint, you need three things - reaction mass, energy to push that mass, and a means to do the pushing. For a chemical rocket, the energy comes from the fuel's combustion, the combustion byproducts are the reaction mass, and the pushing is done by simple thermal expansion. For a nuclear rocket, the energy comes from the heat of nuclear breakdown, a non-reactive fuel is the reaction mass, and the pushing is done, again, by simple thermal expansion. For an electric rocket, the energy comes most commonly from solar panels [but can come from an RTG too], an very inert fuel is the reaction mass, and the pushing is done by electromagnetic repulsion between the engine and the ions of the fuel. Cool beans.

@sixstringedthing

6 жыл бұрын

Nicely summarised.

@mancubwwa

5 жыл бұрын

Technically, only in Bi- (and other multi-)propelant rockets energy comes from combustion. In monopropelant rockets it comes from rapid decomposition in presence of catalyst.

So the EVA suits of the astronauts were basically like deflating a balloon in space lol.

@Phebus88

9 жыл бұрын

kind of... although I would go with opening a container of compressed gas. Imagine a bottle of carbonated water that has been thoroughly shaken xD

@IssaMe

9 жыл бұрын

Opening a container of compressed gas, is a balloon right? Correct me if I am wrong but I'm pretty sure that: The container = the balloon The compressed gas = the air inside Opening the container = opening the balloon's neck to make really high pitched and annoying sounds BALLOONS IN SPACE!!!

@sixstringedthing

6 жыл бұрын

The "Mentos in Coke" of space exploration. :) Although of course, that's not quite right because it relies on a chemical reaction, which the EVA suits didn't. It's more like playing dodgem cars in office chairs using fire extinguishers for propulsion. Or so a friend told me. ;)

I love this video, all this rocketry and space stuff really fascinates me! Great vid, would love more.

The title of this video has been in the back of my mind during every Kerbal Space Program video ever, and the entirety of my experience with it. You're doing the lords work, Scott.

The use of "unsymmetric" instead of "asymmetric" bothers me more than it should.

@ryanrising2237

3 жыл бұрын

stuff like this is why I don’t trust chemists

But what about chlorine-trifluoride? Or was that never used? And what about fluoroantimonic acid? I heard it was planned to be used as a rocket fuel (although I'd think that was never tested, was it). I'd love to hear about those things if you know anything about them

@scottmanley

7 жыл бұрын

Lots of things were thought about, but never flown.

@gefulltetaubenbrust2788

7 жыл бұрын

Scott Manley that is true, but maybe you could make a video about the "best propulsion concepts that never propelled"

@gefulltetaubenbrust2788

7 жыл бұрын

ytmoog yeah pretty much XD but there's many other great concepts like the EM drive and such

@petermichaelgreen

6 жыл бұрын

AIUI the difficulty is it's just too damn destructive. Most organics are out because it's hypergolic with them. Flouropolymers can be used on the gas but not on the liquid because they will dissolve. Some metals can be used if they are passivated by forming a metal flouride layer but there are concerns about what happens if the passivation layer is damaged.

@sixstringedthing

6 жыл бұрын

Lots and lots and LOTS of things were thought about, and tested in labs or in small scale test engines. Pretty much anything that could be synthesised and had decent theoretical performance. Most variations of them failed a card-gap (handling/shock stability) test by a little, or a lot, or by so much that they destroyed the apparatus (and in some cases the entire lab, with little or no warning!). Or they couldn't be stored without either destroying the storage vessel, or reacting with it and becoming contaminated, or boiling off too much at too low a temperature. Or they couldn't be handled in large quantities without insane levels of risk to life and property. Or they smelled really really bad, like "if you spill a few drops, clear the building or people will be vomiting in the hallways" kind of bad. Or they were ludicrously expensive to synthesise in the kinds of quantities required to make them useful for anything at all other than writing papers about. Bear in mind that the US military (specifically USN and USAF) paid for pretty much all early propellant development in the States before NASA was formed. They wanted bang-for-buck above all things, and the brass were not really amenable to the idea of storing large quantities of extremely volatile chemicals on aircraft carriers and airbases adjacent to similarly large quantities of fuel and ammunition (which, while hazardous, are relatively inert), nor having to train sailors and airmen in the very specific handling procedures involved. And they flatly refused to use "exotics" for any weapon which was to be stored pre-fueled, due to fears of what might happen in the event of a leak. They could be used in nice, cosy, permanently manned and maintained ICBM silos, but not on warships in the middle of the ocean. Hence the widespread use of RP-1... it came from the same refineries, they knew how to handle it because they were already using thousands of tons of gasoline, diesel and kerosene each year, it was easy to store and it had no problems with stability or boil-off. Since a whole lot of modern rocketry came out of what was learned designing and building early ICBMs and tactical missiles, we still have a lot of that older propellant technology hanging around in modern designs. But in many cases it's a matter of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

It's very hard get all these information together and well explained. Thanks.

More videos like this please, also I really like the real world ksp video series. I watch your ksp videos because of the science and history you mix in to your videos. keep up the good work.

Have you heard of Syntin, a Soviet/Russian rocket fuel that ended up being lost under it's own obscurity???

@scottmanley

9 жыл бұрын

gdm413229 I've heard about it, it used stressed propane rings to carry extra energy compared to other isomers. It just proved too expensive compared to more conventional fuels.

@gauravghosh3421

8 жыл бұрын

scot manleyfuel

@weatheranddarkness

8 жыл бұрын

+Scott Manley that sounds incredibly fascinating!

@cadenhensley9530

8 жыл бұрын

+Scott Manley im a huge fan!!!!!! #e=mc x2

@BosonCollider

8 жыл бұрын

+gdm413229 Basically a slightly higher performing version of Kerosene. It was used in the soviet union during the eighties, but it needs a high enough flight rate to be made profitably.

So why arent we using SSTOs in real life or maybe even jet engines to get the shuttle high enough for the main rocket engines to fire?

@martinvranovsky7085

9 жыл бұрын

I've been wondering about that, too. The concept seems realistic enough, and starting to burn the rocket fuel at the edge of the atmosphere should yield a higher specific impulse, right?

@akrebsie

9 жыл бұрын

The quick answer is that getting to orbit is about speed more than height and the atmosphere is thick and doesn't have very much oxygen in it. In fact getting into space (height) is so easy missiles fired from ships can intercept satellites, but only because they can fly really high to the satellites path and the satellite hits it, getting to orbit on the other hand is so hard only a few countries have achieved it and they are the most powerful countries in the world. Getting to orbit is hard because it requires reaching enormous speed around 27,000 kilometres per hour (21 times the speed of sound) the fastest jet EVER built could achieve mach 3, even if we could strap the space shuttle to it it would still need it's huge fuel tank to achieve orbit. It just doesn't make sense.

@Triple88a

9 жыл бұрын

akrebsie Thank you for the explanation sir. Take my +1 and like it!!!

@akrebsie

9 жыл бұрын

Atanas Tripzter Thanks man :)

@MikeM8891

9 жыл бұрын

Jet engines are WAY less powerful and more expensive relative to thrust, however very reusable. For example the RD-180 rocket engine (for the Atlas V) produces 860,568 lbs of thrust and cost $25 million, while the GEnx-2B67 turbo fan (for the Boeing 747) produces 64,400 lbs of thrust and cost $12 million. And thrust really matters when trying to get off the ground.

Hey Scott, I have really been enjoying these past few uploads of yours where your teaching us the science behind KSP. I think it would be a great idea to keep doing said videos. My brain is always hungry.

Seriously this is the coolest video I've seen in ages. you rock.

Rocket that runs on kerosene: welcome to russia

@IssaMe

9 жыл бұрын

Rockets that run on alcohol... Welcome to Russia

@blueberry1c2

8 жыл бұрын

vodka!

@xpoppers9240

8 жыл бұрын

Da tovarish! Za vodka!

@JSheepherder

8 жыл бұрын

+Joel The RP-22 radars in the MiG-21bis were cooled by alcohol.

@utahraptorfast

7 жыл бұрын

there are plenty of non-russian rockets that use RP1 as fuel.

Newton's Second? Newton's Third.

@6612770

7 жыл бұрын

Victor Gigante No, no no... Who's on Second. I dunno? Third base!

@simonkimberly6956

5 жыл бұрын

I caught that one two

@anjishnu8643

4 жыл бұрын

2nd law => F = ma. It results in the third. Basically the same.

@timwedsgaard6145

4 жыл бұрын

Victor Gigante i was looking for someone in the comments who caught it too

Excellent video. Would love to see more on potential motive forces for spacecraft, solar sails etc.

Love these science videos, keep 'em coming!

i didn't understand a shit

@jajce92

10 жыл бұрын

Wow. I'm probably younger then you and I understand this.

@jereruotsalainen9635

10 жыл бұрын

how old are you?

@Phebus88

9 жыл бұрын

Ello C well, if you get to an age of about 15 or so it stops being relevant for understanding stuff like this, it`s more about aptitude and education

@Quantiad

7 жыл бұрын

Yes, because I assume kids might be reading and I'm a gent. Using the term 'kek', I'll assume you're no older than 12 and therefore prove my point.

@MistedMind

6 жыл бұрын

"kids might be reading and I'm a gent." Yeah. If you really wanted to be a gent. you might have used a completely different word without cursing ;) A self-censored curse word you can still guess isn't censored at all.

Wow Scott... You have reignited my passion in physics and engineering. Really amazing stuff!!!

@kugelblitz-zx9un

Жыл бұрын

"Reignited" Like a friggin' ignitor

I had troubles with KSP modular fuels and hope to get into it by watching some more background. Great video! Thank you.

Loved every minute Scott, as always.

I feel smarter now O.O I just went through a science video without skipping a single part :) I love your videos!

Nice vid. I really like these educational vids. You do the world a great service.

I think I've watched this one before, but it's great to come back to once in a while. Great stuff.

really good video, thanks scott for spending the time to make this

thank you very much for this video scott, it's really nice to learn things on the side in between game videos, keep these up!

Spaceship One uses a feather technique for re-entry. Much like the wing configuration you mentioned.

Such a great channel. Thank you!

That moment when Scott's channel I watch because I like how he plays game I like to play too, explained rocket fuels for me in detail that I've never seen anywhere else. Great work! Nasa can only dream about videos like this, even with their budget, technology and fancy effects.

Wheter it is a video about Kerbal Space Program or a explanation video like this. I feel like learning something interesting with every video on your Channel I watch.

Love these videos. Be interesting to hear about theoretical technologies such as nuclear pulse propulsion and solar sails.

i love theise since chats, you make them sound so interesting, keep them coming :)

this is fascinating please share more of your vast knowledge (as long as you are well versed in it as there is nothing worse that hearing a smart person express something they don't fully understand)

Thanks for the explanation ! Great information! Congratulations.

Very nice informative video. You have excellent skills to explain in a simple way. God Bless you for such good work.

Something about the dual-mode RD-701 tri-propellant (LOX/RP-1/LH) would've been a nice addition to the remarks about propellant density and exhaust molecular weight... along with sea level vs. vacuum performance.

Just gonna call you Scotty. All I can see is Simon Pegg in ST. This channel is awesome, even for that by itself. :D

Great walkthrough👍 Thanks for sharing 👍😀

Awesome presentation Scott.

Cool information. I always like your video's like this one. Lots of good geeky information that's fun to know. Fly Safe!

I thought the same thing at first. I learned why a bit earlier than this but it's a really neat question when you think about it, so thank you for asking it! :D

this was cool, i would like to see more of these "how do things work" videos

Great explanation! Thank you for putting this together.

Core design and cross section is one of the biggest factors related to solid rocket performance, and determining how the core will expand during burn is equally important. Look on Aerotech Rocketry's model rocket site to get a small idea of how it works, and compare the blackjack and warp 9 motor types.

Very excellent informative video!! Keep up Scott!

Keep it going, always the man, Mr. Manly.

Great Scott. 9 years after. great learning

7 years on and this popped up autoplay, incidentally while I had drifted off during a previous one with my ear buds in. In my somnolent haze it was as if I was sitting in front of you in a lecture room, following along every word with great intent, so much so when I woke I replayed it to find that, yup, I caught more than the gist of what you said. All's I can say is you are, and clearly always have been quite the presenter having this time taught me something subliminally in a clear and concise way Now, as far as my own 3 part fuel... what I came up with, while exiting my fugue was Peanut Butter And jelly on Heated Bread until Golden Brown. That always brings me to an excited state of energy

One ion thruster that's being tested on the ISS right now uses solid metal propellant. Works well with both aluminium and magnesium, an so could use recycled satellites for orbital missions.

Vary interesting had basically almost zero knowledge before hand. I now feel have good basic understanding of the subject. thanks.

Great educational video! You might have to update this with the new reaction massless 'thruster'. Emdrive. Really hoping someone puts together a high-thrust prototype to give tangible evidence of it working! (Hovercraft)

@jannegrey593

2 жыл бұрын

As many people predicted it didn't work. Which is a shame for us, but also a lesson to not get overhyped over technology that breaks the laws of physics.

Excellent video scott! I liked your explanation of why nuclear rockets have a higher specific impulse then chemical rockets. I thought I would add some other obscure propellants and engine types as well: Arc-jet reactors, which use an electrical arc to vaporize a reaction-mass propellant such as butane. And pulsed plasma thrusters, which use an electrical arc to energize an inert solid propellant. Both of these are on wikipedia.

If this wasn't rocket science but engineering, I think I would actually learn more in a day from you than from any of my other lecturers.

Oh yes, please make a video on all the crazy ideas. Project Orion is my favourite.

Correct! Boiling is a cooling process, which can make for some very confused looks when you can make water boil until it freezes in a pressure vessel.

I would like to learn more science things that way !! Thank you Mr Manley

The insulation on the ET of the Shuttle isn't there to keep the fuel from evaporating. That's a beneficial side effect, but none of the rockets before the shuttle had this and they worked just fine. The insulation is there to keep condensation ice from forming on the ET which then would rain down on the belly of the orbiter during launch destroying tiles. Watch the launch footage of the Saturn Vs and notice the tons of ice that came raining down at liftoff.

Hi Scott as always a very interesting video. AND it proved that rocket science is actually hard and some serious stuff Greets to you

Apparently I had no idea WTF rocket fuel was! Thanks Scott! This was a really great video.

Scott I'm an aspiring astrophysicist. I am loving these type of video's. Can we have a lot more?

This is awesome. Thanks for making it.

Nice video Scott. Thanks for sharing your knowledge :)

I'd like to see a video about experimental/theoretical propulsion systems, such as anti-matter, solar sails or even out there things like warp drives.

Thanks a lot! I knew that the temperature change would be impossible to avoid, and figured that the pressure would rise too, but I wasn't sure how strong that pressure would be. I suppose I also don't understand how large pressure vessels like those differ from small ones that one would see more often, like a compressed air tank for paintball or a scuba tank. You definitely gave the best answer here =3

Great job, Scott!