Author Topic: Rocket Engine Q&A  (Read 242187 times)

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3606
  • Likes Given: 616
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #20 on: 03/23/2009 03:42 PM »

 If you retain general dimensions of tankage, LOX/RP-1 based booster would weigh much more, need more engines, but also would have much bigger performance.

That would be a beyond-monster rocket!  It would need at least 10 RS-84 engines on the core (if they could be made to fit).  The core and twin boosters would produce roughly 18 million pounds of thrust at liftoff.  The rocket would weigh something like 14.5 million pounds at liftoff.  That's roughly equivalent to 2.4 Saturn V rockets, or about 1.8 Ares Vs, or 14.5 fully loaded A380s going straight up.  :)

House foundations would crack in Titusville!  Car alarms would go off in Orlando!  All that for only a factor of 1.2 improvement in payload. 

"Woof" nonetheless!

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/23/2009 03:46 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #21 on: 03/24/2009 01:02 AM »
Not to beat a dead horse on Ares I (but I will anyway), after reading this and other threads wouldn't a better 1st stage be a single core with a cluster of 4 RS-68A's with a J2X upper (manned rating aside) maybe GEM capable? Then you could have a bigger service module, more capable Orion, etc.

I can see why they went with the solid for safety reasons but still. And a five seg solid still deserves devlopment just for the A5 in it's own right (imho).
Good, bad or ugly?


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #22 on: 03/24/2009 01:08 AM »
(manned rating aside) maybe GEM capable?

GEMs are a no no wrt safety/reliability

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #23 on: 03/24/2009 01:17 AM »
I didn't know GEM's were that sketchy. Although they would be on my mind if I were riding on top! What about a 4 engine core? Sufficient?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #24 on: 03/24/2009 01:20 AM »
I didn't know GEM's were that sketchy. Although they would be on my mind if I were riding 'on top! What about a 4 engine core? Sufficient?

It isn't the GEM's themselves, it is the additional parts/systems which reduces "reliability".  That is the line that gave us the SRB first stage

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #25 on: 03/24/2009 01:45 AM »
I see your point, but then the russian launchers come to mind with all the engines & plumbing...

Solids may be a different animal entirely in that respect but the SRB sure limits what can be done. One good thing is that it's in the here & now.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3606
  • Likes Given: 616
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #26 on: 03/24/2009 02:09 AM »
Not to beat a dead horse on Ares I (but I will anyway), after reading this and other threads wouldn't a better 1st stage be a single core with a cluster of 4 RS-68A's with a J2X upper (manned rating aside) maybe GEM capable? Then you could have a bigger service module, more capable Orion, etc.

I can see why they went with the solid for safety reasons but still. And a five seg solid still deserves devlopment just for the A5 in it's own right (imho).
Good, bad or ugly?

MSFC proposed a similar idea back in 2004-2005, an ET-based core launcher that would serve as a building block toward a larger vehicle.  The problem was that the core didn't serve either purpose (crew launch or cargo launch) very well.  It needs to be smaller for crew and larger for cargo.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/24/2009 02:10 AM by edkyle99 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5163
  • Liked: 789
  • Likes Given: 550
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #27 on: 03/24/2009 02:11 AM »
GEMs are a no no wrt safety/reliability

A couple of questions about solid reliability, if I may:

* Do solids ever fail to ignite these days, either on the pad or at staging?
* Are there any solid or solid-boosted LVs that are held down until proper ignition is verified?
* What proportion of solid failures are catastrophic (i.e., of the "boom" variety rather than of, say, the loss-of-thrust variety)?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #28 on: 03/24/2009 02:14 AM »

* Are there any solid or solid-boosted LVs that are held down until proper ignition is verified?

that would be none I believe

Offline GI-Thruster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 732
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #29 on: 03/24/2009 03:49 PM »
Anyone heard anything about aerospike in the last 6 months?

http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/coe/mae/views/projects/rocket/news_2008/aerospike06252008.shtml

Anyone heard anything about pulsed detonation research or continuous detonation research in the last year or is continuous still a pipe dream?

Anyone know how Qinetiq's ion drive on GOCE compares to NASA's ion thrusters?  With 40 years of ion research it would be embarrassing if ESA is ahead of NASA and if they're not one wonders why they didn't ask to fly one of ours. . .

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/index.html

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #30 on: 03/25/2009 02:59 AM »
Ed, very interesting. I didn't know that was ever proposed. I have no idea about performance numbers but something 1/2 to 3/4 the size of the ET would would seem perfect for what Orion is trying to accomplish (with plenty of margin).

Would anyone have a good link to find out the latest progress on the J2X?

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #31 on: 03/25/2009 11:50 AM »
I have no idea about performance numbers but something 1/2 to 3/4 the size of the ET would would seem perfect

LOL That didn't sound to good did it?

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5194
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #32 on: 03/26/2009 02:17 AM »
Would anyone have a good link to find out the latest progress on the J2X?

Good news is usually provided here.  Bad news is usually provided (at least the first anyone outside of NASA hears about it) here.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline duane

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #33 on: 03/27/2009 06:27 PM »
Your "bad news" link is broken, or is that a forum on the pay side of NSF ?

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1733
  • Liked: 467
  • Likes Given: 8375
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #34 on: 03/27/2009 06:55 PM »
Your "bad news" link is broken, or is that a forum on the pay side of NSF ?

That's the "Constellation" section of L2.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #35 on: 03/31/2009 03:03 AM »
Not to beat a dead horse on Ares I (but I will anyway), after reading this and other threads wouldn't a better 1st stage be a single core with a cluster of 4 RS-68A's with a J2X upper (manned rating aside) maybe GEM capable? Then you could have a bigger service module, more capable Orion, etc.

I can see why they went with the solid for safety reasons but still. And a five seg solid still deserves devlopment just for the A5 in it's own right (imho).
Good, bad or ugly?



Looks like other folks were thinking along the same lines well before me (imagine that). See attached...
An 8 meter CBC could lift the "Apollo on steroids" I bet. Even the larger more capable versions of Orion.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2009 03:05 AM by JosephB »

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #36 on: 03/31/2009 06:17 AM »
Anyone know what the performance of a single core, 7 or 8 meter CBC with 2, 3 or 4 RS-68A's and an improved US would be?

Although at 8m and 4 engines, it's getting close to an ET with engines underneath and no SRB's.

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #37 on: 04/14/2009 07:07 PM »
Question for the more technical members...
Since A5 is set for 5 1/2 segment SRB's, wouldn't A1 gain from using it as well?
I tried searching but to no avail.

Offline jabe

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #38 on: 04/14/2009 09:55 PM »
A real newbie question on this..
why is a LO2/LH2  engine more expensive to design then a LO2/Kero? Is it the temperature involved the main problem?  I think I'm missing the obvious on this.
jb

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Rocket Engine Q&A
« Reply #39 on: 04/15/2009 01:34 AM »
Question for the more technical members...
Since A5 is set for 5 1/2 segment SRB's, wouldn't A1 gain from using it as well?
I tried searching but to no avail.

OK, how about any member?
Does that extra weight push it in the realm of diminishing returns?