Forums
L2 Sign Up
SLS/Orion
SpaceX
Commercial
ISS
International
Other
Shop
Home
Help
Tags
Calendar
Login
Register
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Q&A Section
»
RD-160/161 Q & A
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Down
Author
Topic: RD-160/161 Q & A (Read 2942 times)
Hyperion5
Full Member
Posts: 1681
Liked: 1373
Likes Given: 302
RD-160/161 Q & A
«
on:
12/20/2012 09:11 pm »
Strangequark and I recently were recently flummoxed when someone suggested a truly unique set of small upper stage engines for use on a rocket. The suggestion was that the RD-160 metholox engine would make a great third stage engine, as would its kerolox cousin, the RD-161. As it happened even a propulsion engineer like Strangequark thought these engines were weird and we can't find many sources on either. Here's why they looked weird; look at the chamber pressure, thrust and combustion cycle listed on the RD-161:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd1611.htm
RD-161-1
Glushko Lox/Kerosene rocket engine. 19.6 kN. Development ended 2000. Proposed for use on Soyuz M-3. Basic version. Engine Cycle: closed gas generator. Feed Method: turbopump. Isp=360s.
Engine: 119 kg (262 lb). Chamber Pressure: 117.70 bar. Area Ratio: 351.6. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 16.8. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 2.6.
Status: Development ended 2000.
Unfuelled mass: 119 kg (262 lb).
Height: 1.70 m (5.50 ft).
Diameter: 0.78 m (2.55 ft).
Thrust: 19.60 kN (4,406 lbf).
Specific impulse: 360 s.
Burn time: 900 s.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd160.htm
RD-160
Glushko Lox/LCH4 rocket engine. 19.6 kN. Upper stage. Developed 1993-1996. Isp=380s. Methane version of lox / kerosene upper stage engine RD-161. Gimbaling +/- 6 degree in two planes.
Engine: 129 kg (284 lb). Chamber Pressure: 118.00 bar. Area Ratio: 352. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 15.5. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 3.69.
Status: Developed 1993-.
Unfuelled mass: 129 kg (284 lb).
Height: 1.70 m (5.50 ft).
Diameter: 0.76 m (2.51 ft).
Thrust: 19.60 kN (4,406 lbf).
Specific impulse: 381 s.
Burn time: 900 s.
First Launch: 1993-.
That brings me to a list of questions. Resident rocket engineers are strongly encouraged to answer questions number one and four.
1) Why would anyone add a staged combustion cycle and turbopump setup to engines this small?
2) Was the RD-160 metholox engine ever built?
--I've seen it come up several times in various forum posts on this site but I cannot find a source or picture confirming it ever fired.
3) Has the RD-161 ever been flight-tested, and if so, when and on what rocket?
4) Could an RD-160 actually achieve the Isp listed? Alternatively, if the RD-160 exists, has it achieved that performance?
«
Last Edit: 01/13/2013 06:41 pm by Hyperion5
»
Logged
kevin-rf
Elite Veteran
Senior Member
Posts: 8823
Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
Liked: 1318
Likes Given: 306
Re: RD-160/161 Q & A
«
Reply #1 on:
12/21/2012 01:30 pm »
An observation from a non rocket engineer on number one. Pressure fed engines require higher tank pressures, hence heavier tanks. Might the be a method to reduce the dry mass (couple that with the improved ISP...).
But that is just an observation.
Logged
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Go Up
Tags:
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Q&A Section
»
RD-160/161 Q & A
Advertisement
Advertisement
Tweets by NASASpaceflight
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
0