Tim's stuff is so great. Easy to be jealous of, since being YouTuber seems easy, but to make quality content, it really can't be.
And then he's going around the moon, it's really mind blowing to see the success he's had. His interviews with Musk are a treasure trove as well, whatever you think of Musk.
> His interviews with Musk are a treasure trove as well, whatever you think of Musk.
My main take away from those interviews is just how knowledgable Tim is, he's able to engage in low level and in depth conversations about how these engines work. It's not just superficial high level knowledge from making videos, he is thinking himself how to optimise and improve these things, and leading that conversation. The passion for it is electric.
In another life Tim would have been an incredible engineer, but that value he brings as an educator is immeasurable. Thats how he has earnt his way to a space flight.
(They also show that the common argument that Elon doest know his stuff is wrong (at least for rockets), but I really don't what to derail this conversation into that.)
It's absolutely worth to go on a tangent here - Tim did a great job in explaining Elon (or showing him to the public in a probably not too filtered way).
Musk is a clown but I'll give him one thing: he cares about technology. That's something that very few modern CEO in big tech have and probably gives him the edge in making his project successful.
> Musk is a clown but I'll give him one thing: he cares about technology.
His hot takes on software / software architecture have been disappointing[1], and made me question the validity of his assertions in domains I have no expertise in (rocketry, computer vision and manufacturing).
1. Also, he wants to remain in charge of "Servers and Software" at Twitter even after (if?) He steps down as CEO.
Tim's stuff certainly has the information content nailed down better than most typical "science" youtubers, but he comes off as slightly overexcited at times, which brings up negative associations with typical misleading pop science rags for me.
To pile on the Tim Dodd praise, be sure to check out his music too (which is used in the videos). Solid stuff that reminds me of Tycho. So glad he got picked for the Dear Moon mission.
He, like most big Youtubers, probably have a large crew of people working with them. The article was written by Trevor Sesnic, the video was likely edited by others, I don't know if he did the graphics, but Tim still did a lot (and arguably did the most fun stuff). Smaller Youtubers need to do all of that, and from what I've heard editing is the absolute worst given how time consuming it is. Many Youtubers struggle with burnout centered around how time consuming editing becomes.
Tim's content is really great though, and he does a fantastic job of explaining complex topics in a welcoming way. Very similar to smartereveryday IMO, where it is just really engaging and informative content presented in a great way.
I support Tim on Patreon. He also utilizes a cadre of Patreon donors who provide commentary on early cuts of videos and even drafts of scripts. I personally have never understood why people would pay to do work for him, but they must get satisfaction from it, and the final product is better because of it.
From the about page:
> In 2019 the team grew from just Tim to a small army of incredible helpers who make this website amazing, the videos higher quality, and help foster a fun and positive online community.
So the 2017-2019 period where the channel took off was all done by him solo, apparently.
> and from what I've heard editing is the absolute worst given how time consuming it is. Many Youtubers struggle with burnout centered around how time consuming editing becomes.
This totally depends. If you're an editor, there is a great sense of pride of turning the pile of content handed to you into something cohesive and compelling is quite a skill. Some people just don't like it, and that's fine. I don't like building UIs, but sometimes I just gotta do it. It makes me appreciate those that do the task I don't like that much more. walk a mile in another person's shoes so to speak.
Just like coding, you can get in the zone with an edit and things just start flowing. It usually comes after multiple sessions of sitting there scrubbing through the content thinking to yourself "wtf do I do with this?" when inspiration finally hits. You just start remembering a shot from this clip that flows nicely with this next clip and it suddenly "makes sense". It gets really spooky when you then try to find some audio clip like music and drop it in and it pretty much lines right up. That's for unscripted stuff that's just kind of produced like film is cheap kind of shooting.
When you have scripted stuff that every shot has been logged and tagged where there's variations on delivery or any other slight thing that makes it appear to be the same thing over and over again comes with its own challenges and rewards. Sometimes, there's a perfect delivery but something doesn't line up continuity wise, so it looks like it can't be used. Then, you scrub some other angle or reverse or cutaway and hide the edit so that you can use that perfect delivery or borrow that perfect reaction that otherwise might not have made sense.
There's a reason it's an art. Not liking it doesn't mean you're wrong for not liking it personally, but it doesn't make it the absolute worst.
> and from what I've heard editing is the absolute worst given how time consuming it is.
It can be, but as with many things it comes down to learning the techniques as well as the tools. You can learn how to edit quickly and effectively with a couple of simple rules, but the most important is "don't worry too much about throwing stuff away".
I'm surprised at the amount of people who enjoy EDA. I find him very irritating. Most people at my small space company find him extremely irritating. He is not a rocket scientist. He parrots silly buzzwords like "biomimickry" like a fanboy, not an engineer. He suggests things to Elon for how to do rockets that are just pants-on-head dumb.
His blind fanboyism and arrogance irritate so many people who work in space. I'm very surprised HN loves this guy.
With respect, you and your company of people who are already subject matter experts are not his audience; his audience is people who are not experts and want to learn about this subject matter. Most people on HN are also not subject matter experts with respect to rockets, so in that respect, are probably much closer to his target audience on average than you are.
> He is not a rocket scientist.
That might well be a pro, not a con. Rocket scientists' core competency is designing rockets, not teaching, and subject matter experts often make poor teachers. If this were a case of some kind of hucksterism, where he's an ignorant layperson making shit up and passing it off as true in his educational content, I'd say there was some concern, but while he's apparently said some dumb shit on Twitter, it doesn't seem like you or most other commenters are pointing to anything factually inaccurate _in this article_, nor indeed do people tend to on his researched, long-form stuff generally (vs. some off-the-cuff tweet). In that sense, it seems like this content is as good a place as any for laypeople to learn about this topic, that it doesn't obviously suffer from his lack of formal training, and maybe benefits if it means his better able to translate technical content to non-technical audiences.
Also, SMEs say dumb things all the time. I know I have in my area of expertise. Not so much in "official capacity", sure - I try to make sure any presentations or blog posts or whatever are accurate. But random ideas I have, or initial reactions to some new tech - sure I've shared my really bad ideas.
Frankly if there was a youtuber out there making high quality, good faith attempts at presenting weird networking stuff - I'd love it and probably link everyone that ever expressed mild interest to that stuff. The folks that make explainer videos well are far better than me at getting the important concepts across to neophytes, and then I can help them understand more if they are still curious. (also - if this exists and I just never came across it please link :D)
HN is mostly software devs, as someone in the bio sciences whenever I see comments about my field they're nearly always wrong unless another person in the field is commenting which isn't very often. It seems like software devs like to think they understand things when it's just barely surface level knowledge, I don't know why
I decided people are just having fun and it's nothing serious just water cooler chat and distraction before going back to work.
Subject: Something quantum mechanics.
Comment: "I'm not a physicist, but I think..." -- What do you think follows after such an opening? Exactly. It's fine though. I decided that the users decided that the site is at least 80% distraction and entertainment, and it still does so at a higher level than most others, so it's all good I think.
I'm always surprised how quickly a thread than isn't software related nose-dives.
Me and my colleagues joke about the weekly HN thread of people misunderstanding some physics article, or posing a nonsensical solution to a "trivial issue within physics".
Could you give me an example of his 'arrogance'? I've been watching his content for some time, and I'd say he's always been very upfront and transparent about being an enthusiast/fanboy and not an engineer. His concept is to be an audience insert and ask the stuff his non-professional audience would ask, as a sort of avatar. I would expect no more expertise from him than from myself.
If the people he interviews are humoring or correcting him, that's exactly what I would expect and is part of the value of the content really. He's giving them a platform and enthusiastic laymen a chance to ask dumb questions.
I can't find the tweet where he suggests to Elon how to design the sides of the rocket. Elon just shuts it down. I've never once heard EDA push back on anything Elon says even though Elon can say some outlandish things every now and then. That blind fanboyism is annoying.
While not public, my friend was his liaison at Blue origin when he toured. He was extremely rude to the team at Blue. It actually surprised the media team how condescending he was.
In my personal experience, most people at my company don't like EDA. On the other hand they love Scott Manley. It's not about what you know it's about what kind of person you are.
No, he's not an engineer and he cannot build anything, he has no special insights or novel ideas. He is an educator that popularizes niche and inaccessible knowledge to a large audience and that large audience really appreciates his efforts. His work in popularizing space tech is a net benefit to your industry and thus your company.
Not sure, I have not encountered this author before, but frequently in many fields a fan / enthusiast perspective is different than professional / expert perspective.
He's incredibly annoying, but he knows his shit. He's like a crypto influencer who also happens to be a brilliant engineer. I watch his content because it's insanely informative, even though he reminds me of every con artist I've ever met.
That's a perfect description of the feeling I get when watching him. Something just feels slightly off enough that I fully expect some skeletons to come out of his closet at some point like with the vast majority of crypto influencers.
I think you need to compare HN to just about any other open forum. HN users seem gracious, knowledgeable and logical compared to the rest of the Internet. Yes, we do need HN equivalents in other fields, notably Physics, Life Sciences, and Rocketry.
I forget exactly what he suggested but I remember is being like kind of dumb. Elon was humoring him. This guy is absolutely not a rocket scientist. He's not even an engineer.
Regardless of you think of him and his 'dumb' ideas, with 1.4 million subscribers he will probably inspire more people than work at your 'small space company' to become real rocket scientists themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if he does more for the future of space industry than most of those who currently work in it individually do.
With that said, if you find him irritating, then you find him irritating. Hard to argue with that.
He doesn't represent himself as one either. Between he and Scott Manley and others there are a lot of kids out there who are pumped about space in ways that I never felt as a kid. Is it wrong to be enthusiastic about something that is not one's own life-work, to be exited about anything headed pointy-end-up, flamey-end-down? Look at the mission statement:
Everyday Astronaut’s mission is to bring space down to Earth for everyday people. To celebrate and lift up those who are helping humanity explore the world we live on and our place amongst the stars. We believe the best way to get people excited about space exploration is through education. By breaking down complex topics, it helps give some perspective and insight into the decisions made every day through the industry. We help remove the barriers of intimidating subject matter to help foster an excited public to cheer on those who are pushing the boundaries and help inspire future generations. The point is, rocket science is awesome, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to be excited.
His fanboy-energy is too strong, cannot stand him. And I don't even work in space. But I do work for a company called Rocket, so that's something I guess.
You can watch the whole thing from the very genesis of the turbopump powered liquid fueled rocket. The British did a very thorough documentation project on the German A4 / V2 rocket after WW2 and it's all accessible to the public.
In particular, the pyrotechnic igniter that is mentioned in the article as still in use by the Russians was copied directly from there. Here's a direct link to the spot in the video where it is assembled for use.
Space shuttle main engines (RS-25) had a very complicated startup process, deviations from this could cause all sorts of different things to fail catastrophically.
I feel like this is a subtle jab pretty much nobody outside of serious aerospace enthusiasts is going to get. For those who don't know, right now there's sort of a competition for the 'next big thing' in rockets. Congress/Boeing/Lockheed have been working on the SLS or Space Launch System since 2011. It was expected to launch in 2016. It had its first trial launch in 2022, and is tens of billions of dollars over budget.
It's also expected to cost billions of dollars per launch. Its more common nickname is the Senate Launch System, since it's largely just a really big pork project. It's already not especially competitive against the Falcon Heavy, and is being built at the same time SpaceX Starship is also being built. That project began in 2017, is being completely privately funded, and expected to revolutionize spaceflight once again - with costs potentially as low as $1 million per launch.
Anyhow, the SLS is reusing a bunch of old technology from the Space Shuttle. This includes the RS-25 engines...
The SLS is mediocre but there are a few things to keep in mind:
1) NASA needs to keep in house rocketry expertise and the US government cannot rely on private companies 100% just for like NatSec reasons.
2) If NASA doesn't structure programs as pork barrel projects that make it difficult for small time senators to kill, they will constantly be nickle and dimed and have their budget slashed until their entire job is just to make memorabilia to sell.
3) Elon is not trustworthy. Our country should not rely on him. Starship hasn't launched yet, while SLS has now. I am excited for starship to launch, hopefully soon, but it's still not a functional rocket.
All the imperial units in this PDF hurt my head. I'm an American, so I'm used to them, but seeing them in the context of precision aerospace hardware is so jarring. As a student it seemed like math re: chemistry and physics was so much easier (read: less error-prone) with metric units than with imperial. Mars Climate Orbiter indeed.
The biggest lessons learned on the Mars Climate Orbiter wasn't exactly that everything should be metric. It was the unit conversion is dangerous and needs to be handled very carefully. Just saying everything will be metric doesn't avoid unit conversion. You might have one thing measuring fuel burn rate in grams/second and another in kg/second. That conversion can still lead to issues if not handled correctly. In the context of the space shuttle it was all designed in imperial units starting in the 70s so it would be very risky to convert everything to metric.
I mean, sure, converting grams to kilograms is easier (for a human) than converting ounces to pounds, but how often do we have to do that in our heads? Computers, on the other hand, do not care (and they "prefer" the binary system anyway).
I think there was a russian engine that literally had 2x4's on fire stuck in the combustion chamber in place of torch ignitors or TEAB.
If anyone's interested the experimental high-power rocketry hobby is pretty fun, there's a lot to learn and hack on. A lot of people focus on propulsion and formulating, profiling, and flying various solid fuels they develop themselves. This guy is highly regarded https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/
Others focus on flight controllers, GPS trackers, and other electronics. https://altusmetrum.org/ (i think one of the two owners of altusmetrum is a pretty famous Debian Linux guy from back in the day)
There's also "hybrid" engines that use a solid fuel and a liquid oxidizer ( nitrous oxide ). Ex, this guy is probably the most well known in the hybrids side of the hobby https://contrailrockets.com/
Finally, there's the halfcat guys https://www.halfcatrocketry.com/ who do amateur liquid bi-prop engines in an approachable way. I've working on a design of my own based on their designs and plan to do a static fire in the Fall and hopefully a flight before end of year. The downside with liquid engines in the hobby is governing bodies Tripoli and NAR don't allow these engines at sanctioned launches. You either have to launch privately (including coordinating/paperwork with the FAA on your own ) or at FAR https://friendsofamateurrocketry.org/
Yes, the Soyuz (the workhorse Soviet/Russian launcher for crew, smaller satellites, and space station cargo) is ignited that way (and it's mentioned at the Everyday Astronaut page linked above, just under the "Ignition on the Ground" heading). There are pyros on top of the wood, so it's really just a really large electrically ignited match.
IIRC the Soyuz family have five ground-start engines (propellant pump sets) which feed a total of 20 main and 12 steering combustion chambers across the center core and 4 boosters, so they need to light 32 of them for each launch.
Multiple combustion chambers per engine was their way to mitigate combustion instability; Rocketdyne blew up a lot of engines before they figured out a different approach (involving baffles on the injector plate) in the Saturn V's F1 engine.
You probably already know of him, but you should check out BPS Space on youtube if you enjoy long-form video edutainment. Much like Tim Dodd, Joe makes videos full of detail and information about topics he is clearly passionate about. In the case of BPS Space that is pushing the limits of amateur rocketry in a uniquely hacker/programmer friendly manor.
It was super fun to bring together lots of different disciplines and skills. 3D printing, software, soldering, circuit design, simulation etc.
Ultimately, I got so obsessed with it I got burned out and had to take a break for a bit but came back fresh and finished it. Did a few flights over the year with more and more interesting things culminating in a dual stage flight. I've still got the rocket ready to go anytime. Just gotta wait for the weather to clear up.
Tangential but related: "Toxic Propellant Hazards"[1] a video made in the mid/late 60s and published by the US National Archives Youtube channel. In addition to having some great information about hypergolic propellants, and having some interesting footage showing what they're like to use, it also has that mid-century production quality, the kind that the Fallout games love to simultaneously lampoon and pay homage to
“It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that’s the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.”
Readit News
Tim's stuff is so great. Easy to be jealous of, since being YouTuber seems easy, but to make quality content, it really can't be.
And then he's going around the moon, it's really mind blowing to see the success he's had. His interviews with Musk are a treasure trove as well, whatever you think of Musk.
My main take away from those interviews is just how knowledgable Tim is, he's able to engage in low level and in depth conversations about how these engines work. It's not just superficial high level knowledge from making videos, he is thinking himself how to optimise and improve these things, and leading that conversation. The passion for it is electric.
In another life Tim would have been an incredible engineer, but that value he brings as an educator is immeasurable. Thats how he has earnt his way to a space flight.
(They also show that the common argument that Elon doest know his stuff is wrong (at least for rockets), but I really don't what to derail this conversation into that.)
Understanding a rocket engine as a layman is easier than understanding a diesel engine. EDA acts like he's a genius but he is not.
I work in space. Some of my coworkers have met EDA. He is insufferable and extremely arrogant. A very difficult person to be around.
Musk is a clown but I'll give him one thing: he cares about technology. That's something that very few modern CEO in big tech have and probably gives him the edge in making his project successful.
His hot takes on software / software architecture have been disappointing[1], and made me question the validity of his assertions in domains I have no expertise in (rocketry, computer vision and manufacturing).
1. Also, he wants to remain in charge of "Servers and Software" at Twitter even after (if?) He steps down as CEO.
https://lexfridman.com/tim-dodd/
I would be surprised if Musk gives him another interview any time soon.
Deleted Comment
Tim's content is really great though, and he does a fantastic job of explaining complex topics in a welcoming way. Very similar to smartereveryday IMO, where it is just really engaging and informative content presented in a great way.
So the 2017-2019 period where the channel took off was all done by him solo, apparently.
This totally depends. If you're an editor, there is a great sense of pride of turning the pile of content handed to you into something cohesive and compelling is quite a skill. Some people just don't like it, and that's fine. I don't like building UIs, but sometimes I just gotta do it. It makes me appreciate those that do the task I don't like that much more. walk a mile in another person's shoes so to speak.
Just like coding, you can get in the zone with an edit and things just start flowing. It usually comes after multiple sessions of sitting there scrubbing through the content thinking to yourself "wtf do I do with this?" when inspiration finally hits. You just start remembering a shot from this clip that flows nicely with this next clip and it suddenly "makes sense". It gets really spooky when you then try to find some audio clip like music and drop it in and it pretty much lines right up. That's for unscripted stuff that's just kind of produced like film is cheap kind of shooting.
When you have scripted stuff that every shot has been logged and tagged where there's variations on delivery or any other slight thing that makes it appear to be the same thing over and over again comes with its own challenges and rewards. Sometimes, there's a perfect delivery but something doesn't line up continuity wise, so it looks like it can't be used. Then, you scrub some other angle or reverse or cutaway and hide the edit so that you can use that perfect delivery or borrow that perfect reaction that otherwise might not have made sense.
There's a reason it's an art. Not liking it doesn't mean you're wrong for not liking it personally, but it doesn't make it the absolute worst.
It can be, but as with many things it comes down to learning the techniques as well as the tools. You can learn how to edit quickly and effectively with a couple of simple rules, but the most important is "don't worry too much about throwing stuff away".
His blind fanboyism and arrogance irritate so many people who work in space. I'm very surprised HN loves this guy.
> He is not a rocket scientist.
That might well be a pro, not a con. Rocket scientists' core competency is designing rockets, not teaching, and subject matter experts often make poor teachers. If this were a case of some kind of hucksterism, where he's an ignorant layperson making shit up and passing it off as true in his educational content, I'd say there was some concern, but while he's apparently said some dumb shit on Twitter, it doesn't seem like you or most other commenters are pointing to anything factually inaccurate _in this article_, nor indeed do people tend to on his researched, long-form stuff generally (vs. some off-the-cuff tweet). In that sense, it seems like this content is as good a place as any for laypeople to learn about this topic, that it doesn't obviously suffer from his lack of formal training, and maybe benefits if it means his better able to translate technical content to non-technical audiences.
Frankly if there was a youtuber out there making high quality, good faith attempts at presenting weird networking stuff - I'd love it and probably link everyone that ever expressed mild interest to that stuff. The folks that make explainer videos well are far better than me at getting the important concepts across to neophytes, and then I can help them understand more if they are still curious. (also - if this exists and I just never came across it please link :D)
I find it thoroughly fun to talk with subject matter experts. What I learn is amazing.
Subject: Something quantum mechanics.
Comment: "I'm not a physicist, but I think..." -- What do you think follows after such an opening? Exactly. It's fine though. I decided that the users decided that the site is at least 80% distraction and entertainment, and it still does so at a higher level than most others, so it's all good I think.
Me and my colleagues joke about the weekly HN thread of people misunderstanding some physics article, or posing a nonsensical solution to a "trivial issue within physics".
If the people he interviews are humoring or correcting him, that's exactly what I would expect and is part of the value of the content really. He's giving them a platform and enthusiastic laymen a chance to ask dumb questions.
While not public, my friend was his liaison at Blue origin when he toured. He was extremely rude to the team at Blue. It actually surprised the media team how condescending he was.
In my personal experience, most people at my company don't like EDA. On the other hand they love Scott Manley. It's not about what you know it's about what kind of person you are.
He may be a fanboy but that fanboyism got him a trip to the moon.
SpaceX fans?
With that said, if you find him irritating, then you find him irritating. Hard to argue with that.
He doesn't represent himself as one either. Between he and Scott Manley and others there are a lot of kids out there who are pumped about space in ways that I never felt as a kid. Is it wrong to be enthusiastic about something that is not one's own life-work, to be exited about anything headed pointy-end-up, flamey-end-down? Look at the mission statement:
Everyday Astronaut’s mission is to bring space down to Earth for everyday people. To celebrate and lift up those who are helping humanity explore the world we live on and our place amongst the stars. We believe the best way to get people excited about space exploration is through education. By breaking down complex topics, it helps give some perspective and insight into the decisions made every day through the industry. We help remove the barriers of intimidating subject matter to help foster an excited public to cheer on those who are pushing the boundaries and help inspire future generations. The point is, rocket science is awesome, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to be excited.
http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/backfire.html
In particular, the pyrotechnic igniter that is mentioned in the article as still in use by the Russians was copied directly from there. Here's a direct link to the spot in the video where it is assembled for use.
https://youtu.be/V_fPdXLx48c?t=2097
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2011/ph240/nguyen1/docs/SS...
Slide 94 (pdf page 100)
It's also expected to cost billions of dollars per launch. Its more common nickname is the Senate Launch System, since it's largely just a really big pork project. It's already not especially competitive against the Falcon Heavy, and is being built at the same time SpaceX Starship is also being built. That project began in 2017, is being completely privately funded, and expected to revolutionize spaceflight once again - with costs potentially as low as $1 million per launch.
Anyhow, the SLS is reusing a bunch of old technology from the Space Shuttle. This includes the RS-25 engines...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
1) NASA needs to keep in house rocketry expertise and the US government cannot rely on private companies 100% just for like NatSec reasons.
2) If NASA doesn't structure programs as pork barrel projects that make it difficult for small time senators to kill, they will constantly be nickle and dimed and have their budget slashed until their entire job is just to make memorabilia to sell.
3) Elon is not trustworthy. Our country should not rely on him. Starship hasn't launched yet, while SLS has now. I am excited for starship to launch, hopefully soon, but it's still not a functional rocket.
If anyone's interested the experimental high-power rocketry hobby is pretty fun, there's a lot to learn and hack on. A lot of people focus on propulsion and formulating, profiling, and flying various solid fuels they develop themselves. This guy is highly regarded https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/
Others focus on flight controllers, GPS trackers, and other electronics. https://altusmetrum.org/ (i think one of the two owners of altusmetrum is a pretty famous Debian Linux guy from back in the day)
There's also "hybrid" engines that use a solid fuel and a liquid oxidizer ( nitrous oxide ). Ex, this guy is probably the most well known in the hybrids side of the hobby https://contrailrockets.com/
Finally, there's the halfcat guys https://www.halfcatrocketry.com/ who do amateur liquid bi-prop engines in an approachable way. I've working on a design of my own based on their designs and plan to do a static fire in the Fall and hopefully a flight before end of year. The downside with liquid engines in the hobby is governing bodies Tripoli and NAR don't allow these engines at sanctioned launches. You either have to launch privately (including coordinating/paperwork with the FAA on your own ) or at FAR https://friendsofamateurrocketry.org/
IIRC the Soyuz family have five ground-start engines (propellant pump sets) which feed a total of 20 main and 12 steering combustion chambers across the center core and 4 boosters, so they need to light 32 of them for each launch.
Multiple combustion chambers per engine was their way to mitigate combustion instability; Rocketdyne blew up a lot of engines before they figured out a different approach (involving baffles on the injector plate) in the Saturn V's F1 engine.
https://github.com/AdamMarciniak/CygnusX1
It was super fun to bring together lots of different disciplines and skills. 3D printing, software, soldering, circuit design, simulation etc.
Ultimately, I got so obsessed with it I got burned out and had to take a break for a bit but came back fresh and finished it. Did a few flights over the year with more and more interesting things culminating in a dual stage flight. I've still got the rocket ready to go anytime. Just gotta wait for the weather to clear up.
Yes, this is mentioned in the article with a picture.
I REALLY wouldn't want to be the person tasked with starting that fire.
https://home.kpn.nl/panhu001/Saturn_V/Saturn_V_info/F-1_engi...
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zha9DyS-PPA