Author Topic: RD-160/161 Q & A  (Read 2942 times)

Offline 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 »

Offline 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.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0