Poll

When will full-scale hot-fire testing of Raptor begin?

Component tests - 2017
2 (1%)
Component tests - 2018
10 (5%)
Integrated tests -  2017
12 (6%)
Integrated tests -  2018
147 (73.5%)
Integrated tests -  2019
20 (10%)
Raptor is not physically scaled up
8 (4%)
Never
1 (0.5%)

Total Members Voted: 200


Author Topic: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine  (Read 162894 times)

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4317
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 1452
  • 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: 865
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 245
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: 263
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 95
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?


Offline livingjw

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 129
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: 25
  • 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: 27033
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6927
  • Likes Given: 4888
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
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: 865
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 245
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

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
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: 865
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 480
  • Likes Given: 245
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.”

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #190 on: 06/05/2017 01:21 PM »
Is the Raptor being built with Merlin tooling?

I've read the Raptor is about the same size as Merlin.  I also read that Raptor will be 3 - 4,000 psi chamber pressure.  What is Merlin's chamber pressure?

If Raptor is going to have a much higher chamber pressure, the turbo pumps will be much stronger right?

I know my company has ran CNG in vehicles at 2-3000 psi to make a cylinder (welding size), handle the equivelant of 4-5 gallons of gasoline.  The compressor for a fleet of 25 vehicles is large.  I know the methane is liquid or LNG for the rocket.  Is SpaceX going to manufacture these turbo pumps or buy them off shelf?

If Raptor is going to use Merlin's tooling, how are they going to build the chamber for Raptor since it has to be stronger (thicker?) to handle the higher pressures?

I know the engine also seems to be much smaller than the BE-4.  Would it be lighter, thus higher thrust/weight ratio? 

Also, what is the throttle range going to be?

I know this stuff is in all the various threads somewhere.  I just wanted to get it all together in one place to have a more complete knowledge of the Raptor and it's capabilities.

Thanks
« Last Edit: 06/05/2017 01:22 PM by spacenut »

Offline Ictogan

  • Member
  • Posts: 97
  • Germany
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 58
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #191 on: 06/05/2017 02:12 PM »
Is the Raptor being built with Merlin tooling?
Probably not, given that it's a very different engines(different fuels, different cycles, much higher chamber pressure).

I've read the Raptor is about the same size as Merlin.  I also read that Raptor will be 3 - 4,000 psi chamber pressure.  What is Merlin's chamber pressure?
Merlin 1D originally had 1,410psi chamber pressure, but it's been uprated two times since then. Now it's probably around 1,800psi.

If Raptor is going to have a much higher chamber pressure, the turbo pumps will be much stronger right?
More powerful engines usually means more powerful turbopumps.

I know my company has ran CNG in vehicles at 2-3000 psi to make a cylinder (welding size), handle the equivelant of 4-5 gallons of gasoline.  The compressor for a fleet of 25 vehicles is large.  I know the methane is liquid or LNG for the rocket.  Is SpaceX going to manufacture these turbo pumps or buy them off shelf?
AFAIK turbopumps for rocket engines are usually custom designs and manufactured by the engine manufacturers.

I know the engine also seems to be much smaller than the BE-4.  Would it be lighter, thus higher thrust/weight ratio?
We don't know, but it seems likely as Raptor will supposedly have a better TWR than M1D, which currently holds the record in that department. 

Also, what is the throttle range going to be?
Don't think there has been any information on this

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2161
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 196
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #192 on: 06/05/2017 03:46 PM »
Thanks, hopefully some of the others will be answered soon.

Offline DOCinCT

Thanks, hopefully some of the others will be answered soon.
According to the presentation from last year, Raptor will have a throttle range of 20 to 100% of thrust.  That is consistent with 3 engines landing a relatively empty upper stage (barely).

Offline hamerad

  • Member
  • Posts: 54
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #194 on: 06/21/2017 02:50 AM »
Quote
Will be full regen cooled all the way out to the 3 meter (10 ft) nozzle diameter. Heat flux is nuts & radiative view factor is low.


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/877341165808361472

Elon Musk on twitter. Probably already rumoured but now confirmed

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3472
  • California
  • Liked: 2709
  • Likes Given: 1729
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #195 on: 06/21/2017 04:30 AM »
Quote
Will be full regen cooled all the way out to the 3 meter (10 ft) nozzle diameter. Heat flux is nuts & radiative view factor is low.


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/877341165808361472

Elon Musk on twitter. Probably already rumoured but now confirmed

Interesting! That also means that they have shrunk the Raptor-Vac nozzle, in the original ITS presentation the nozzle diameter was closer to 3.7m / 12 ft. (as measured from the schematic images)
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 04:31 AM by Lars-J »

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1613
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #196 on: 06/21/2017 06:17 AM »
It also means it is a quite robust nozzle, as needed to survive reentry. Somewhat more heavy too. But that is the price for a reusable vac nozzle.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #197 on: 06/21/2017 06:45 AM »
Interesting! That also means that they have shrunk the Raptor-Vac nozzle, in the original ITS presentation the nozzle diameter was closer to 3.7m / 12 ft. (as measured from the schematic images)

Does it mean it has been shrunk? You could read the statement to mean that the last 2 feet of diameter increase is radiatively cooled.

Offline jpo234

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 623
  • Liked: 415
  • Likes Given: 59
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #198 on: 06/21/2017 07:08 AM »
Interesting! That also means that they have shrunk the Raptor-Vac nozzle, in the original ITS presentation the nozzle diameter was closer to 3.7m / 12 ft. (as measured from the schematic images)

While this might be true, it's not something Elon wrote in this Tweet. The nozzle might well extend beyond the 3m diameter mark, but then with radiative cooling.

Edit: Just what nacnud wrote.
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 07:10 AM by jpo234 »
You want to be inspired by things. You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great. That's what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It's about believing in the future and believing the future will be better than the past. And I can't think of anything more exciting than being out there among the stars.

Online AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4969
  • Liked: 2965
  • Likes Given: 4189
Re: ITS Propulsion – The evolution of the SpaceX Raptor engine
« Reply #199 on: 06/21/2017 09:42 AM »
What expansion ratio does this 3m correspond to then?  40?
« Last Edit: 06/21/2017 09:43 AM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags: