Author Topic: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread  (Read 520698 times)

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #660 on: 03/25/2013 01:49 pm »
So it might be better to turn off motors rather than to throttle them, since your ISP remains optimal.  Of course you can only throttle this way by steps of 11%, but you can combines the methods for a smooth throttle and small loss of efficiency
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline douglas100

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Liked: 227
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #661 on: 03/25/2013 03:12 pm »
Maybe. It'll be interesting to see what the actually do on the first flight. There may be factors other than Isp to consider.
Douglas Clark

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2052
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #662 on: 03/25/2013 03:45 pm »
CASSIOPE is a small payload, so they should have plenty of reserve to play with.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline sheltonjr

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #663 on: 03/25/2013 07:39 pm »
If somebody could answer a question for me, I did a search but could not find anything specific, maybe it is obvious.

As the Gas generator turbopump is a critical part of the engine. When did SpaceX start to develop and build their own turbopumps for their engines?

I thought I read the Merlin 1D turbopump was built in-house. What about the Merlin 1C and the Merlin on the Falcon 1?


Offline sublimemarsupial

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #664 on: 03/25/2013 07:52 pm »
M1A,M1C and MVacC used turbopumps from Barber-Nichols. M1D was the first to be built in-house. MVacD uses the same pump as M1D.

Offline krytek

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #665 on: 03/31/2013 04:40 pm »
Saw an interesting interview with Andrew Nelson from Xcor
The guys claims rocket turbo pumps cost between $500k and $2M.
Anyone ever saw a price quote for M1C/M1D turbo pumps or cares to make an educated guess?

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #666 on: 03/31/2013 05:19 pm »
Anyone ever saw a price quote for M1C/M1D turbo pumps or cares to make an educated guess?
We've speculated from time to time. It doesn't seem possible that a full up Merlin 1D costs even $1M.

We've heard the stories about all the 3D printers and CNC machines SpaceX has. I think a lot of the old school engines have a lot more manual processes that bring up their cost quite a bit.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #667 on: 03/31/2013 07:28 pm »
Saw an interesting interview with Andrew Nelson from Xcor
The guys claims rocket turbo pumps cost between $500k and $2M.
Anyone ever saw a price quote for M1C/M1D turbo pumps or cares to make an educated guess?

The FASTRAC pump, which is physically very similar to SpaceX Merlin pumps, cost about $320K, with a projected learning curve reduction to $196K.  I would expect current 1D pumps to cost perhaps $150K fully burdened.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3661
  • Liked: 849
  • Likes Given: 1062
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #668 on: 03/31/2013 08:43 pm »
The FASTRAC pump, which is physically very similar to SpaceX Merlin pumps, cost about $320K, with a projected learning curve reduction to $196K.  I would expect current 1D pumps to cost perhaps $150K fully burdened.
That sounds reasonable to me.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #669 on: 03/31/2013 09:24 pm »
Saw an interesting interview with Andrew Nelson from Xcor
The guys claims rocket turbo pumps cost between $500k and $2M.
Anyone ever saw a price quote for M1C/M1D turbo pumps or cares to make an educated guess?

The FASTRAC pump, which is physically very similar to SpaceX Merlin pumps, cost about $320K, with a projected learning curve reduction to $196K.  I would expect current 1D pumps to cost perhaps $150K fully burdened.

From my understanding I thought that only M1C and earlier pumps were made by Barber-Nichols. Would not this imply a significant price drop considering SpaceX traded into developing the M1D turbo in-house?
« Last Edit: 03/31/2013 09:24 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #670 on: 03/31/2013 10:20 pm »
Saw an interesting interview with Andrew Nelson from Xcor
The guys claims rocket turbo pumps cost between $500k and $2M.
Anyone ever saw a price quote for M1C/M1D turbo pumps or cares to make an educated guess?

The FASTRAC pump, which is physically very similar to SpaceX Merlin pumps, cost about $320K, with a projected learning curve reduction to $196K.  I would expect current 1D pumps to cost perhaps $150K fully burdened.

From my understanding I thought that only M1C and earlier pumps were made by Barber-Nichols. Would not this imply a significant price drop considering SpaceX traded into developing the M1D turbo in-house?

I have no insight into SpaceX costs, or how they account for the unit cost of an article.  These figures are from the late 1990s, from NASA MSFC.  B-N was the vendor at the time.  Since SpaceX's production rate will be much, much higher, a lower cost per unit is likely.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #671 on: 03/31/2013 10:26 pm »
Saw an interesting interview with Andrew Nelson from Xcor
The guys claims rocket turbo pumps cost between $500k and $2M.
Anyone ever saw a price quote for M1C/M1D turbo pumps or cares to make an educated guess?

The FASTRAC pump, which is physically very similar to SpaceX Merlin pumps, cost about $320K, with a projected learning curve reduction to $196K.  I would expect current 1D pumps to cost perhaps $150K fully burdened.

From my understanding I thought that only M1C and earlier pumps were made by Barber-Nichols. Would not this imply a significant price drop considering SpaceX traded into developing the M1D turbo in-house?

I have no insight into SpaceX costs, or how they account for the unit cost of an article.  These figures are from the late 1990s, from NASA MSFC.  B-N was the vendor at the time.  Since SpaceX's production rate will be much, much higher, a lower cost per unit is likely.

Thanks for the info. Having someone who worked extensively in the industry is handy.

On the production rate note, turbopumps are very much out of my area of knowledge, but are there any special materials used in their construction as in turbine blades? Or are they usually made out of a single material type for the entire turbopump?
Basically what I'm trying to get at is what components are the main cost drivers inside a turbopump? What makes it so much more expensive than say a turbopump used in high performance cars?
« Last Edit: 03/31/2013 10:27 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #672 on: 03/31/2013 10:52 pm »
How reusable was the FASTRAC pump?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #673 on: 03/31/2013 10:56 pm »
are there any special materials used in their construction as in turbine blades? Or are they usually made out of a single material type for the entire turbopump?
Basically what I'm trying to get at is what components are the main cost drivers inside a turbopump? What makes it so much more expensive than say a turbopump used in high performance cars?

Turbine blades are high temp low creep alloys (typical are nickel alloys)
Pump impellers and casings can be aluminium (or other materials, depending on pressure and construction constraints).
Main factor for cost is production rate. Turbochargers for high performance gasoline cars have similar (not same, but similar) requirements, the production cost (not price) is around 1K $ (and the fact that the piece is smaller sometimes makes things more complicate).
« Last Edit: 03/31/2013 11:04 pm by cambrianera »
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #674 on: 03/31/2013 11:01 pm »
How reusable was the FASTRAC pump?


Highly reusable; the engine had a ablative liner to be replaced between flights on the X-34 demonstrator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #675 on: 03/31/2013 11:08 pm »
How reusable was the FASTRAC pump?


Highly reusable; the engine had a ablative liner to be replaced between flights on the X-34 demonstrator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34

Anything that uses ablative materials should not be classified as "highly reusable".
« Last Edit: 04/01/2013 04:53 am by Lars_J »

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #676 on: 03/31/2013 11:32 pm »
The turbopump had no ablative material inside.
The turbopump was deemed highly reusable hardware.

By the way, far heavier than merlin TP.
Oh to be young again. . .

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1709
  • Liked: 2213
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #677 on: 04/01/2013 04:16 am »
The turbopump had no ablative material inside.
The turbopump was deemed highly reusable hardware.

By the way, far heavier than merlin TP.

FASTRAC was an engine that was meant as a learning experience for younger NASA MSFC engineers, who had no experience developing (or managing the development of) a pump-fed engine.  While it had terrible t/w, as I recall worse than the A-4 powerplant, the design of the pump became a predecessor for several new rocket engine turbopumps, and put Barber-Nichols on the map, as well.  (The poor t/w wasn't due to TPA, but due to the ablative TPA primarily.)

Offline cambrianera

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1438
  • Liked: 318
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: SpaceX: Merlin 1D thread
« Reply #678 on: 04/01/2013 07:32 am »
For those interested in FASTRAC & Merlin TPA, nice pics at the beginning of this topic.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26388.msg793205#msg793205
Oh to be young again. . .


Tags:
 

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