Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/10/2009 12:08 amQuote from: just-nick on 05/08/2009 10:03 pmAnyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?I shouldn't guess which one is right, but if I were going to guess, I would guess 35,000 pounds thrust (15.88 metric tonnes thrust).I think you're right on that. A few weeks ago, Google had a cached copy of something called the "TaurusII_Brochure.pdf" I suspect it was accidentally posted. Anyhow, I just realized I had the good sense to save a copy locally when I first saw it. A couple added facts: 147kN thrust for the PWR35M, 1818kg dry weight and aluminum tank structure for the enhanced 2nd stage. Since 1818 kg is 4000 lbs, I suspect that's an example of false precision caused by units conversion and we are definitely still dealing with round figure estimates.Cheers, --Nick
Quote from: just-nick on 05/08/2009 10:03 pmAnyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?I shouldn't guess which one is right, but if I were going to guess, I would guess 35,000 pounds thrust (15.88 metric tonnes thrust).
Anyone with any details about WHAT a PWR35M is, though?
My question - what is the payload? Companies don't build rockets like this unless they're targeting a certain payload category.
BTW, I'm wondering if any "synergy" might exist between this PWR engine and the JAXA engine being worked on, for several years now, for the GX project.
Quote from: just-nick on 05/12/2009 03:50 amQuote from: edkyle99 on 05/11/2009 04:13 pmBTW, I'm wondering if any "synergy" might exist between this PWR engine and the JAXA engine being worked on, for several years now, for the GX project.Isn't the GX engine pressure fed? From OSC's brochure, that doesn't look so much like pressure fed to me (shape of tanks, size of pressurant bottles) as pump fed. What would happen if you took an RL10 and made a minimum change conversion to LCH4? Because Methane has the right physical characteristics to run an expander cycle, right? --NickOriginal plans listed the GX second stage engine as strictly pressure fed, but a 2007 update listed use of a boost pump and showed increased thrust from original plans.I think that Methane/LOX has been demonstrated in an RL10, but not at anything close to 35 Klbs thrust. Meanwhile, the GX engine thrust was shown as more than 26 Klbs thrust in the 2007 GX update. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/11/2009 04:13 pmBTW, I'm wondering if any "synergy" might exist between this PWR engine and the JAXA engine being worked on, for several years now, for the GX project.Isn't the GX engine pressure fed? From OSC's brochure, that doesn't look so much like pressure fed to me (shape of tanks, size of pressurant bottles) as pump fed. What would happen if you took an RL10 and made a minimum change conversion to LCH4? Because Methane has the right physical characteristics to run an expander cycle, right? --Nick
Can you imagine the reaction of the NRO/NASA people who had seen the first Corona images of the N-1 if you had told them that those engines would be used on American commercial rockets?It's a pretty wild world we live in. From Cold War to globalized rocketry (Yuzhnoe, SNTK Kuznetsov, Aerojet, and OSC all cooperating together).
The T-2 brochure PDF is back on the Orbital site. It's worth looking at. I can't post the link directly cuz I'm on a mobile device, but it's riight there on the Taurus 2 page at www.orbital.com. Cheers, --Nick
That would lower performance, Merlins are lower performers and heavier for the same thrust. The real question is why would they want to get rid of such good engines?Sounds like a very unlikely rumor to me.
Also SpaceX only has 6 Flight Merlin 1C.
Incorrect. They have 6 Merlins currently qualified for the first flight, 9 other which already fired for a full mission duration and are now sitting around and most likely a few more in production.
. Not giving any credence to this, I would like to ask, does anyone think it would be feasible to re-engine Taurus II with 6 Merlins, just thinking speculatively.
Finished means manufactured. Qualification is as I understand a short firing to verify the engine is healthy, without defects. In the above case, the 6 engines would be joined by the 9 already fired (and qualified), although those were already "used".
Quote from: zaitcev on 06/20/2009 05:45 pmNot giving any credence to this, I would like to ask, does anyone think it would be feasible to re-engine Taurus II with 6 Merlins, just thinking speculatively.No,A. Spacex isn't going to help a competitorB. OSC designed the vehicle around the AJ-26C. OSC isn't going to ask help from a competitor
Not giving any credence to this, I would like to ask, does anyone think it would be feasible to re-engine Taurus II with 6 Merlins, just thinking speculatively.