Rocket Science: Engine Failure and Thrust Vector Control

How do you control a rocket after an engine failure?
The Terran Space Academy evaluates common causes of engine failure and how multi engine rockets can use thrust vectoring to try to stay on course!

Thank you so much for watching!

Ad Astra Pro Terra

Shop the Academy store at...

Please help support our channel at...

[Pzldr]

Thanks for another great lesson and increasing my knowledge.

[danwhiffen]

That starship kicking over is so beautiful… gets me every time

[murraypearson]

A correction on the thrust vectoring example at 7:27. You show a deflection angle of 5.625 degrees and state that 93.75% will be directed vertically and 6.25%, horizontally. In fact, it would be divided up as per the cosine and sine respectively, which are 99.5% and 9.8% respectively. This somewhat confusingly appears to add up to more than 100%; normalizing them results in 91.03% and 8.97%.

[jamesowens]

Even a space industry veteran like me can use the brush up on engines and TVC. Plus it's always interesting to learn specifics of these new rockets. Thanks!

[brett]

For reference videos, a link to them, in the description, would be greatly appreciated.

[Myrddnn]

Nicely done. I enjoyed this one in particular. I've tried to discuss this with folks that ARE interested in space, and so far, none of them gets the need for this kind of redundancy.

[matthewfranklin]

As an Aussie thanks for correcting yourself on the pronunciation of Rutherford. I'm sure my Kiwi mates will appreciate it also.

[antoniomaglione]

Great video, thanks. I appreciate your explanations of the components of rockets and their operation. None of the other rocket videos here on YT do get into such fine details; I like watching your explanations, as they can't be found nowhere else - other than space engineering textbooks...

[Zmantime]

Man you are Good I never get bored or daydream while watching your episode thanks

[WWeronko]

Thank you very much sir. Another outstanding lesson. I have followed Copenhagen Suborbitals for years and I had no idea they were so close to flight. I appreciate you informing us of their advanced status.

[rogeredrinn]

Thanks, learned a lot from this episode. Two things not covered that I would have liked:
1. What is the form of the pivot to transfer the thrust to the rocket?
2, With all the flexing, how does it get the volumes fuel to the turbo pumps?

Unrelated but of interest. What is the thrust difference between a vacuum and a sea level engine at sea level? It would seem since starship is landing in the ocean east of Hawaii, that the outboard fixed vacuum engines could upright starship via differential thrust and land it softly in the ocean. This would save the cost and mass of 3 raptors which have no use except landing.

[jeffharmed]

Thanks for summary of the advantages of multiple engines. How about the downside? There is a very long down-pipe for the liquid oxygen & then a manifold to split the fluids between 30+ engines. Aren’t you concerned that the failure of a single engine might cause channeling & instability?

[nief]

Do you think it is a good idea to hover at the landing to burn off excess fuel?

[airgunningyup]

back in the 80s, we had some terrible air disasters with commercial planes.. A few were caused by lack of redundacy .. One specifically was alaska airlines flying with no rotor control, eventually crashing inverted into the pacific .. There was another where the tail hydraulics were severed by a failed engine , and the entire system bleed out leaving no functional control surfaces. Anyway, i suspect there will be space tradgedies to come, because we simply dont know what we dont know. But that never stopped aviation ( always thought my parents were crazy for boarding planes back in the 60s )

[bobdole]

The center engine failure on the Saturn V was the second stage. Minor detail but it looks like you were showing the first stage

[b-lt]

Just a tiny correction. The F1 never failed in flight. It was a second stage center J-2 engine that failed, which is often falsely described as the center F1 even in reputable publications, so an easy mistake to make :) And great as always.

[samsleeman]

great video as usual. Keep them coming. Sorry I can't join the patron team I do not have not enough work to keep going here in South Africa at the moment. Regards Sam Sleeman

[jbgood]

can you do a video on the flexible fuel pipes to gimballing engine. its not as easy as it seems

[MarcAus]

Starship flying this month is incredibly optimistic. I do believe the vehicle should be ready by then, but it's all down to the FAA.

[stefanbaartman]

I have been thinking of the SS refueling problem, and came up with this idea: How about making a triple SB, a la Falcon Heavy, except the core SB has only three Vacuum Raptors, and is loaded with about 2, 500t of propellant, along with a dry weight of ~200t. I figure the individual "pusher" SBs are good for around 1, 420t payload each, giving a potential capability of ~ 2, 800t payload. Once MECO is reached the core SB takes over and powers itself to LEO, using around 1, 000t of propellant, leaving around 1, 500t for refueling purposes.
My calculations for the SECO burn assumes a single VacRap consumes around 683 kg/sec, so multiply that by 3 to get 2, 050 kg/sec. From observing typical Falcon behaviour it takes about 7 minutes to reach LEO (215km) at 27, 500Km/h. Multiplying 2, 050kg by 420 seconds yields about 900, 000kg of fuel expended, leaving a net of around 1, 500, 000kg, more than enough to fill up an empty SS. The core SB is then expended when empty, or with the addition of wings and TPS, could be reused. Is this even remotely feasible?