Author Topic: Stage 2 engine protection  (Read 25460 times)

Online modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #40 on: 07/03/2012 11:57 am »
The biggest issue (to me) with the 2nd stage reentry is going to be how to make the stage enter nose first - since the it will be tail heavy. (engine + landing gear) So how can they move the CG forward? The draco/superdraco propellant tanks would have to be located at the front, but would it be enough?

Then again we shouldn't read too much into the specifics of that video. They did state that it was very rough version that omitted/changed significant details on purpose.

Put the tanks for propellant for the Super Draco's at the top to offset the weight of the engine/thrust structure/legs.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #41 on: 07/03/2012 12:02 pm »

Put the tanks for propellant for the Super Draco's at the top to offset the weight of the engine/thrust structure/legs.


Minor amount of weight.  Longer propellant lines.  Changes the payload interface/

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #42 on: 07/03/2012 12:25 pm »
You are wrong.

Hehe...  Only in NSF can someone be wrong for gathering all the various ideas described so far...

I meant with the allegation that the nozzle is the "biggest head-scratcher".
But you are right, you also said "for me" which is of course a subjective statement that can't really be "wrong".

Anyway, as seen in the video I don't think the retraction (which can as well be a simple nozzle retraction) is to "protect" the engine but to give way for the legs. And in the video (which as we know is not completely accurate, after all even the dragon changes throughout the video) the nozzle gets retracted and extended more than once so it's clearly not being jettisoned.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2012 12:43 pm by pippin »

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #43 on: 07/03/2012 12:41 pm »
And if the nozzle has two sections, this solves the VAC/SL requirement.
Nope, Merlin engine is not used in the atmosphere for the US. That requirement doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2012 12:42 pm by ArbitraryConstant »

Offline MP99

Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #44 on: 07/03/2012 12:46 pm »
Launch, Orbit, Entry, Landing



Launch stage 1 (under interstage) - (1), correct only for first stage burn
Launch stage 2 (u/s in operation) - (2)
Post-separation loiter - like (1), but with nozzle retracted [not (2)]
On-orbit burn - (2)
Reentry - (3), correct as depicted
Landing - (4), correct as depicted

cheers, Martin

Online modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #45 on: 07/03/2012 01:17 pm »
Launch, Orbit, Entry, Landing



Launch stage 1 (under interstage) - (1), correct only for first stage burn
Launch stage 2 (u/s in operation) - (2)
Post-separation loiter - like (1), but with nozzle retracted [not (2)]
On-orbit burn - (2)
Reentry - (3), correct as depicted
Landing - (4), correct as depicted

cheers, Martin

If your going to fire your main engine for de-orbit then what would be the point of retraction for orbit.  Adds the risk that it won't extend for the burn (not that it will really matter since a burn at 60% thrust is ~ 2 seconds.
The super draco's will probably be used for de-orbit and landing.  The 2nd stage probably won't weight much more then the fully loaded dragon landing and can probably carry enough propellant for both operations.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #46 on: 07/03/2012 02:47 pm »
I've been thinking, if you can tuck the main nozzle all the way back, do you really need an interstage? May be they integrate the landing structure on what's currently an interstage. You get horrible fmp, but you get more recoverable.

Offline rst

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 347
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #47 on: 07/03/2012 04:31 pm »
I've been thinking, if you can tuck the main nozzle all the way back, do you really need an interstage? May be they integrate the landing structure on what's currently an interstage. You get horrible fmp, but you get more recoverable.

ETA: So, they launch with the nozzle fully retracted, and extend it before firing?  It would complicate staging, but that may be tolerable.  Another possible arrangement, if they stage out of the atmosphere, would be not to retract the nozzle, but instead to have panels around it which fold up, leaving the nozzle (which is its own radiator) exposed.  This would have fewer moving parts than a retractable nozzle/engine, and no moving plumbing.  But in the atmosphere, the panels would be ripped off instantly, though, so this would strongly constrain the mission profile, and put the staging point high enough that it might well compromise recovery of the first stage.

Originally wrote, assuming fixed nozzle (duh): They can't retain much of the interstage without changing something else.  The current second stage nozzle is radiatively cooled; leave it inside anything that absorbs the radiation or reflects it back and it'll melt, or melt the shroud, or both.  (I proposed this on another thread, and got instant proof that IANARS.)  And an interestage which doesn't reflect or retain the radiation is... not the current model.

If they switched to regenerative cooling for the nozzle, it might be possible to make this work, at a weight penalty --- but only if there's enough fluid flowing through to cool a very large nozzle.  (The F-1 was roughly comparable, at 12.2 feet in diameter, but it had a lot more fuel flowing through, only used regenerative cooling for part of the nozzle, and didn't have to run in a vacuum...)
« Last Edit: 07/03/2012 04:38 pm by rst »

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #48 on: 07/03/2012 04:58 pm »
I meant with the allegation that the nozzle is the "biggest head-scratcher".
But you are right, you also said "for me" which is of course a subjective statement that can't really be "wrong".

Sure, and "protection" was the wrong emphasis on my part.  More broadly speaking, it's what this thread drifted to discussing.

From what I read so far, the suggestion that the stage can enter engine-first (while firing?) didn't have many supporters, correct?    My only contribution to this is that I believe it will be a fundamentally "well off the beaten path" concept, and that's not the SpaceX way.   New ideas at the system level - the more the merrier.  New basic concepts?  not now.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #49 on: 07/03/2012 05:33 pm »
I've been thinking, if you can tuck the main nozzle all the way back, do you really need an interstage? May be they integrate the landing structure on what's currently an interstage. You get horrible fmp, but you get more recoverable.

ETA: So, they launch with the nozzle fully retracted, and extend it before firing?  It would complicate staging, but that may be tolerable.  Another possible arrangement, if they stage out of the atmosphere, would be not to retract the nozzle, but instead to have panels around it which fold up, leaving the nozzle (which is its own radiator) exposed.  This would have fewer moving parts than a retractable nozzle/engine, and no moving plumbing.  But in the atmosphere, the panels would be ripped off instantly, though, so this would strongly constrain the mission profile, and put the staging point high enough that it might well compromise recovery of the first stage.

Originally wrote, assuming fixed nozzle (duh): They can't retain much of the interstage without changing something else.  The current second stage nozzle is radiatively cooled; leave it inside anything that absorbs the radiation or reflects it back and it'll melt, or melt the shroud, or both.  (I proposed this on another thread, and got instant proof that IANARS.)  And an interestage which doesn't reflect or retain the radiation is... not the current model.

If they switched to regenerative cooling for the nozzle, it might be possible to make this work, at a weight penalty --- but only if there's enough fluid flowing through to cool a very large nozzle.  (The F-1 was roughly comparable, at 12.2 feet in diameter, but it had a lot more fuel flowing through, only used regenerative cooling for part of the nozzle, and didn't have to run in a vacuum...)
I assumed using a retracting nozzle. That allows for a shorter interstage, and you'd need that space for the thrusters and landing structure anyways.

Offline MP99

Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #50 on: 07/03/2012 06:06 pm »
Launch, Orbit, Entry, Landing



Launch stage 1 (under interstage) - (1), correct only for first stage burn
Launch stage 2 (u/s in operation) - (2)
Post-separation loiter - like (1), but with nozzle retracted [not (2)]
On-orbit burn - (2)
Reentry - (3), correct as depicted
Landing - (4), correct as depicted

cheers, Martin

If you're going to fire your main engine for de-orbit, then what would be the point of retraction for orbit?  Adds the risk that it won't extend for the burn (not that it will really matter since a burn at 60% thrust is ~ 2 seconds).

The same question I raised myself, earlier. Regardless, I am simply reporting the events as portrayed in the video at SpaceX.com.

Legs retract back to the parallel (launch) position for the coast phase and while the stage reverses under SuperDracos. Nozzle (or the whole Merlin?) is also retracted during this phase - presumably after the nozzle has cooled. Don't really understand this - why not leave legs splayed & nozzle deployed for this phase? Protection against MMOD? I'd have though this wasn't much of an issue at u/s apogee?

Could it be thermal? Is the RP1 in any danger of freezing via the common bulkhead with the LO2 tank? Would retracting the nozzle allow some heat to soak into the RP1 (which is in the rear tank, right?) If that puts some heat into the O2 tank, would that in turn cause any problems there?

Clutching at straws, there - why would they retract the nozzle?

cheers, Martin

Online modemeagle

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 398
  • Grand Blanc, MI
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #51 on: 07/03/2012 06:41 pm »
I meant with the allegation that the nozzle is the "biggest head-scratcher".
But you are right, you also said "for me" which is of course a subjective statement that can't really be "wrong".

Sure, and "protection" was the wrong emphasis on my part.  More broadly speaking, it's what this thread drifted to discussing.

From what I read so far, the suggestion that the stage can enter engine-first (while firing?) didn't have many supporters, correct?    My only contribution to this is that I believe it will be a fundamentally "well off the beaten path" concept, and that's not the SpaceX way.   New ideas at the system level - the more the merrier.  New basic concepts?  not now.

I would be interested to know what the effects on an engine with an effective exhaust velocity of 3.5 km/s would have while firing directly into the atmosphere at over 6 km/s.
How would this effect the operation of the engine (thrust, stability)

Offline Idiomatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #52 on: 07/03/2012 11:42 pm »
I meant with the allegation that the nozzle is the "biggest head-scratcher".
But you are right, you also said "for me" which is of course a subjective statement that can't really be "wrong".

Sure, and "protection" was the wrong emphasis on my part.  More broadly speaking, it's what this thread drifted to discussing.

From what I read so far, the suggestion that the stage can enter engine-first (while firing?) didn't have many supporters, correct?    My only contribution to this is that I believe it will be a fundamentally "well off the beaten path" concept, and that's not the SpaceX way.   New ideas at the system level - the more the merrier.  New basic concepts?  not now.

I would be interested to know what the effects on an engine with an effective exhaust velocity of 3.5 km/s would have while firing directly into the atmosphere at over 6 km/s.
How would this effect the operation of the engine (thrust, stability)

I think strapping a rocket engine backwards to the top of an SR-71 and firing it would be fun to try. We just need to find a test pilot that is actually suicidal rather than just regular crazy.

Online meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #53 on: 07/03/2012 11:44 pm »
Or fire two engines face to face.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Idiomatic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #54 on: 07/03/2012 11:52 pm »
Or fire two engines face to face.

Nah, you have to get it up to speed first.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #55 on: 07/04/2012 01:19 am »
I meant with the allegation that the nozzle is the "biggest head-scratcher".
But you are right, you also said "for me" which is of course a subjective statement that can't really be "wrong".

Sure, and "protection" was the wrong emphasis on my part.  More broadly speaking, it's what this thread drifted to discussing.

From what I read so far, the suggestion that the stage can enter engine-first (while firing?) didn't have many supporters, correct?    My only contribution to this is that I believe it will be a fundamentally "well off the beaten path" concept, and that's not the SpaceX way.   New ideas at the system level - the more the merrier.  New basic concepts?  not now.

I would be interested to know what the effects on an engine with an effective exhaust velocity of 3.5 km/s would have while firing directly into the atmosphere at over 6 km/s.
How would this effect the operation of the engine (thrust, stability)

I think strapping a rocket engine backwards to the top of an SR-71 and firing it would be fun to try. We just need to find a test pilot that is actually suicidal rather than just regular crazy.

don't even think of wasting that beautiful SR-71   :o
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline cordor

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 166
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #56 on: 07/04/2012 12:06 pm »
it is much easier to retract the casing then engine/engine nozzle.

Offline Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1696
  • Liked: 1272
  • Likes Given: 2317
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #57 on: 07/05/2012 03:34 am »
I can't help feeling that SpaceX's approach is going about the problem the wrong way.  We already know how to make engines survive reentry - it worked just fine on the shuttle.

If both the Dragon and second stage reach orbit, and both are to re-enter, land and be reused, what is the benefit of having them be two separate vehicles?  Why not combine them?  The second stage tank is not that big.  Take the DreamChaser lifting body approach, and scale it up to include the tank and engine inside the fusilage.  The empty tank makes the vehicle "fluffier", easing re-entry heating.  The engine never has to face reentry heat or fire supersonically.  Landing fuel isn't carried so the vehicle structure can be larger.  The entire second stage glides to a runway landing, same as the shuttle, but isn't nearly as big as the shuttle.

Maybe it would have to be sized for the FH, but if the strap-on cores have boost-back and the entire second stage is reused, that should be quite cost effective.

Capsules make sense if the entire rest of the rocket is being thrown away and the capsule is all that has to land.  But if the second stage is flying back and landing, is a capsule still the best choice vs. an integrated lifting body?

Offline hrissan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Liked: 325
  • Likes Given: 2432
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #58 on: 07/05/2012 01:01 pm »
I can't help feeling that SpaceX's approach is going about the problem the wrong way.  We already know how to make engines survive reentry - it worked just fine on the shuttle.

If both the Dragon and second stage reach orbit, and both are to re-enter, land and be reused, what is the benefit of having them be two separate vehicles?  Why not combine them?  The second stage tank is not that big.  Take the DreamChaser lifting body approach, and scale it up to include the tank and engine inside the fusilage.  The empty tank makes the vehicle "fluffier", easing re-entry heating.  The engine never has to face reentry heat or fire supersonically.  Landing fuel isn't carried so the vehicle structure can be larger.  The entire second stage glides to a runway landing, same as the shuttle, but isn't nearly as big as the shuttle.

Maybe it would have to be sized for the FH, but if the strap-on cores have boost-back and the entire second stage is reused, that should be quite cost effective.

Capsules make sense if the entire rest of the rocket is being thrown away and the capsule is all that has to land.  But if the second stage is flying back and landing, is a capsule still the best choice vs. an integrated lifting body?
It did not work fine on shuttle. Shuttle guys seemed to made all possible system engineering mistakes.

First, lots of missions are without dragon, so S2 should be able to land itself. What you suggest again is getting the unneeded dead weight to orbit and down every time.

Second, it is much harder to make a pad abort for the heavy ship. Challenger disaster was expected since the STS concept was frozen. Something would have go wrong early or later.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Stage 2 engine protection
« Reply #59 on: 07/05/2012 01:36 pm »

If both the Dragon and second stage reach orbit, and both are to re-enter, land and be reused, what is the benefit of having them be two separate vehicles?  Why not combine them?  The second stage tank is not that big.

Because Dragon is not flying on every mission.  It was will be the minority payload flying 2-4 times a year vs Falcon at 6 or more

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1