Author Topic: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine  (Read 45578 times)

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4081
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1282
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #180 on: 04/22/2017 12:29 AM »
Any significance to specifying flight assemblies & hardware?

Quote
PREFERRED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE:
>
Experience working on flight critical aerospace assemblies
>
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

General physical fitness is required for some work areas, flight hardware is typically built in tight quarters and physical dexterity is required
DM

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #181 on: 04/22/2017 01:35 PM »
I wouldn't get too excited about something likely massaged by HR
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #182 on: 05/04/2017 02:04 AM »
My question is what conditions/factors must be accounted for if this new engine is to be restartable?
Will there be a separate restartable version? Does performance suffer overall? Is there extra weight involved for other equipment/fluids? What about power required before the engine can produce any of its own?


Online livingjw

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #183 on: 05/04/2017 11:18 PM »
My question is what conditions/factors must be accounted for if this new engine is to be restartable?
Will there be a separate restartable version? Does performance suffer overall? Is there extra weight involved for other equipment/fluids? What about power required before the engine can produce any of its own?

They said it was spark ignited. The sparks probably ignite ignition torches which in turn ignites the pre-burners and the main chamber.  You can see the ignition leads on their CAD model.

This ignition approach would make all Raptors restartable assuming their propellants had enough head pressure.
Head pressure and an electrical power source is all that is required to start.

The start sequence is something like the following:
- crack valves and dribble in propellants to pre-chill the engine.
- open valves and propellants flow into their respective pre-burners.
- spark ignites stoichiometric mixture in torches.
- torches ignite pre-burners
- pre-burner exhaust spins turbines attached to propellant pumps. (one for methane, one for LOX)
- main chamber torch ignites gaseous propellants entering chamber.
- pumps start increasing pressure above head pressure and quickly climb to design pressure.

This requires detailed understanding of the combustion processes and the dynamics of the pumps, turbines and valves. It is a tightly choreographed dance.

John



Offline Apollo100

  • Member
  • Posts: 23
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #184 on: 05/08/2017 05:52 PM »
Were the initial "Raptor" tests solely re-manufactured IPD hardware from AR drawings, or did they change the designs?

The Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator used liquid hydrogen propellant, so yes of course SpaceX must have changed the design for Raptor. Thanks for the pointer -- it was fascinating to read about IPD. I wonder how many Aerojet-Rocketdyne engineers are working at SpaceX now?

Hydrogen seems to behave pretty similarly to methane with regards to engine operation. Most of the methalox engines fired to date have been lightly modified hydrolox engines, not purpose-built designs.

Though I doubt there is much IPD heritage in Raptor

Thanks for the replies and apologies for the delayed response.... Given that SX acquired the IPD Final report, all of the drawings, and all of the hardware, I would imagine that there is quite a bit of IPD heritage in the Raptor engine.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25878
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5927
  • Likes Given: 4405
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #185 on: 05/09/2017 12:42 PM »
Were the initial "Raptor" tests solely re-manufactured IPD hardware from AR drawings, or did they change the designs?

The Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator used liquid hydrogen propellant, so yes of course SpaceX must have changed the design for Raptor. Thanks for the pointer -- it was fascinating to read about IPD. I wonder how many Aerojet-Rocketdyne engineers are working at SpaceX now?

Hydrogen seems to behave pretty similarly to methane with regards to engine operation. Most of the methalox engines fired to date have been lightly modified hydrolox engines, not purpose-built designs.

Though I doubt there is much IPD heritage in Raptor

Thanks for the replies and apologies for the delayed response.... Given that SX acquired the IPD Final report, all of the drawings, and all of the hardware, I would imagine that there is quite a bit of IPD heritage in the Raptor engine.
I wouldn't. SpaceX learned the lessons and will implement the solutions in their own way.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online spacenut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #186 on: 05/09/2017 12:54 PM »
So, what is the proposed thrust SL and Vacuum?  I've seen it all over the map.  In pounds thrust, please.  I'm retired and grew up and used the English system all my life.  I compare it to old engines from the 1960's like the F-1 and H-1, etc. 

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #187 on: 05/09/2017 02:13 PM »
So, what is the proposed thrust SL and Vacuum?  I've seen it all over the map.  In pounds thrust, please.  I'm retired and grew up and used the English system all my life.  I compare it to old engines from the 1960's like the F-1 and H-1, etc.

R SL  685,000 LBS   3050 KN

Rvac  787,000 LBS   3500 KN

Source ITS presentation Sept 2016
« Last Edit: 05/09/2017 02:42 PM by philw1776 »
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Online spacenut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1786
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 211
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #188 on: 05/10/2017 07:05 PM »
That is more than I thought.  I though it was about 550,000 lbs. 

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 713
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 383
  • Likes Given: 210
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #189 on: 05/13/2017 05:33 PM »
That is more than I thought.  I though it was about 550,000 lbs.

That was the # announced years before the September reveal.  Even before that it was up to F-1 levels.
In the BFR threads here I predicted the thrust upgrade in Elon's reveal and made the obvious (sun to rise in East tomorrow) prediction that all BFR #s would continue to evolve long after those on the September Tablets From The Mount.
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Tags: