Author Topic: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE  (Read 38916 times)

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1811
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #60 on: 10/09/2023 04:55 am »
Wonder if the LEET-1337 will be developed as vacuum optimized engines for upgrading the Starship variants that goes beyond cisLunarspace later on?

Of course at least 16% better performance than the version that is written in the Issacson bio of Elon.  :)

Offline OTV Booster

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5148
  • Terra is my nation; currently Kansas
  • Liked: 3589
  • Likes Given: 6074
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #61 on: 10/10/2023 12:33 am »
I was going to be a snarky little whatever and point out the acronyms thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34802.0
But then I noticed that it doesnít include that particular one.  And, unfortunately, Iím as in the dark as you are.
I gave up on that a long time ago.
We are on the cusp of revolutionary access to space. One hallmark of a revolution is that there is a disjuncture through which projections do not work. The thread must be picked up anew and the tapestry of history woven with a fresh pattern.

Online Sarigolepas

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #62 on: 04/20/2024 03:57 pm »
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD
« Last Edit: 04/20/2024 03:58 pm by Sarigolepas »

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14332
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14201
  • Likes Given: 1398
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #63 on: 04/21/2024 01:34 am »
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD
The turbine in the main exhaust?

Rn it's at the exit of the pre burners, which is like a percent (well, some small fraction) of the total output.  I am not sure you can keep a turbine alive in the MCC.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Sarigolepas

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #64 on: 04/21/2024 09:57 am »
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD
The turbine in the main exhaust?

Rn it's at the exit of the pre burners, which is like a percent (well, some small fraction) of the total output.  I am not sure you can keep a turbine alive in the MCC.
I know, but this is the only cycle I can think of that could beat full flow.
Musk said that the engine that would make life multiplanetary would not be called raptor, implying it would have a different combustion cycle. And this is the only cycle left before we reach the physical limit in chamber pressure.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14332
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14201
  • Likes Given: 1398
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #65 on: 04/21/2024 01:33 pm »
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD
The turbine in the main exhaust?

Rn it's at the exit of the pre burners, which is like a percent (well, some small fraction) of the total output.  I am not sure you can keep a turbine alive in the MCC.
I know, but this is the only cycle I can think of that could beat full flow.
Musk said that the engine that would make life multiplanetary would not be called raptor, implying it would have a different combustion cycle. And this is the only cycle left before we reach the physical limit in chamber pressure.
Playing along, the turbine will have lower pressure but higher temperature working fluid. (Two bada)  Not O2 rich. (Good).  A number of seals (bad).  Way too much power (bad) amf not really throttleable.

I think it's a bad trade, and is also something the first rocket builders looked at before going with power packs.

But you're right that this is Musk amd they will look at anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics, even if it's been looked at before.

ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline DJPledger

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 509
  • Likes Given: 34110
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #66 on: 04/21/2024 02:35 pm »
Perhaps Raptor successor will be a RDRE which should give better performance than FFSC.

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1027
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #67 on: 04/21/2024 02:40 pm »
Perhaps Raptor successor will be a RDRE which should give better performance than FFSC.
I've been having trouble pinning this down with google. Are we talking better thrust? ISP? T:W? And by how much?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39286
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25283
  • Likes Given: 12125
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #68 on: 04/21/2024 02:49 pm »
Rotating detonation engines are over-rated. None of them have demonstrated even mediocre performance, yet.

The detonation is just another way of trying to get a higher effective combustion pressure. A good pump system is at least as viable.
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 Sarigolepas

  • Member
  • Posts: 65
  • Switzerland
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #69 on: 04/21/2024 05:19 pm »
Playing along, the turbine will have lower pressure but higher temperature working fluid. (Two bada)  Not O2 rich. (Good).  A number of seals (bad).  Way too much power (bad) amf not really throttleable.

I think it's a bad trade, and is also something the first rocket builders looked at before going with power packs.

But you're right that this is Musk amd they will look at anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics, even if it's been looked at before.
The pressure is indeed lower in the main combustion chamber than the preburner, but if you put the turbine between the combustion chamber and the nozzle you have more power available to drive the turbine, which increases chamber pressure, in this case it could be as high as 2000 bar since the temperature is 4 times higher.

It's actually counterintuitive, more heat means more power which means more pressure, so the density of the gases is the only thing that is constant.
Which makes sense because there must be an ideal expansion ratio of the gases inside the combustion chamber.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14332
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14201
  • Likes Given: 1398
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #70 on: 04/21/2024 08:59 pm »
Playing along, the turbine will have lower pressure but higher temperature working fluid. (Two bada)  Not O2 rich. (Good).  A number of seals (bad).  Way too much power (bad) amf not really throttleable.

I think it's a bad trade, and is also something the first rocket builders looked at before going with power packs.

But you're right that this is Musk amd they will look at anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics, even if it's been looked at before.
The pressure is indeed lower in the main combustion chamber than the preburner, but if you put the turbine between the combustion chamber and the nozzle you have more power available to drive the turbine, which increases chamber pressure, in this case it could be as high as 2000 bar since the temperature is 4 times higher.

It's actually counterintuitive, more heat means more power which means more pressure, so the density of the gases is the only thing that is constant.
Which makes sense because there must be an ideal expansion ratio of the gases inside the combustion chamber.
I think pressure out of the pre burners should be higher than the MC chamber...   Only a fraction of the flow, but higher pressure.

And it's a lot easier to extract work from high pressure and low temperature fluid than from low pressure high temperature fluid.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline RobLynn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
  • Per Molestias Eruditio
  • NZ
  • Liked: 490
  • Likes Given: 218
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #71 on: 04/22/2024 04:53 am »
Rotating detonation engines are over-rated. None of them have demonstrated even mediocre performance, yet.

The detonation is just another way of trying to get a higher effective combustion pressure. A good pump system is at least as viable.

Detonation destroys metals - the combination of extreme pressure fluctuations and ultra high temperatures penetrates normal boundary layers exposing surface of metals to destructive thermal spikes and pressure forces that are normally buffered by protective boundary layers.  This breaks down metal surfaces, stripping oxide protections and wrecks cavitating water pumps, water turbines, items left too long in sound nodes of ultrasonic baths, engine pistons + rings and other combustion chamber elements etc.  I strongly doubt that RDE's will ever be more than lab curiosities - much as they have been (in the form of variant pressure gain combustors) for 60 years.
The glass is neither half full nor half empty, it's just twice as big as it needs to be.

Offline InterestedEngineer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1845
  • Likes Given: 3042
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #72 on: 04/22/2024 05:27 am »
Rotating detonation engines are over-rated. None of them have demonstrated even mediocre performance, yet.

The detonation is just another way of trying to get a higher effective combustion pressure. A good pump system is at least as viable.

The detonation velocity of methalox is about half the exhaust velocity of a Raptor.

Offline redneck

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
  • swamp in Florida
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 130
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #73 on: 04/22/2024 09:03 am »
Why not something like this with film-cooled turbine blades?
I made this for laugh, but I'm serious xD

Or taking it to the next level, regenerative cooled turbine blades in which the liquid flow through the blades is the last pump stage.

Offline warp99

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 279
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #74 on: 04/22/2024 10:05 am »
Rotating detonation engines are over-rated. None of them have demonstrated even mediocre performance, yet.

The detonation is just another way of trying to get a higher effective combustion pressure. A good pump system is at least as viable.

The detonation velocity of methalox is about half the exhaust velocity of a Raptor.
An RDE engine has the detonation wave front circling at right angles to the exhaust flow so the detonation speed is not a limit on the exhaust velocity.  What is an issue is that a nozzle does not provide a significant gain in Isp as the collimation of the exhaust is set by the slot geometry.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6323
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9662
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #75 on: 04/22/2024 10:47 am »
Rotating detonation engines are over-rated. None of them have demonstrated even mediocre performance, yet.

The detonation is just another way of trying to get a higher effective combustion pressure. A good pump system is at least as viable.
The point of RDREs is not increased efficiency or performance: turbomachinery-pumped engines can already get pretty close to the theoretical limits there. The point of an  RDRE is to achieve the same combustion pressures and temperatures without the turbomachinery, giving you an engine with the mechanical complexity and (similar) mass of a pressure-fed engine but the performance of a turbopump engine. Improved TWR with fewer moving parts.

Offline rsdavis9

I was going to be a snarky little whatever and point out the acronyms thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34802.0
But then I noticed that it doesnít include that particular one.  And, unfortunately, Iím as in the dark as you are.
I gave up on that a long time ago.

As long as we are on the subject: What does LRE stand for? Long Range Engine?
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1427
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 2044
  • Likes Given: 166
Re: SpaceX Raptor LRE Proposed Successor: Project LEET-1337 LRE
« Reply #77 on: 04/22/2024 02:35 pm »
I was going to be a snarky little whatever and point out the acronyms thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34802.0
But then I noticed that it doesnít include that particular one.  And, unfortunately, Iím as in the dark as you are.
I gave up on that a long time ago.

As long as we are on the subject: What does LRE stand for? Long Range Engine?

Liquid rocket engine. As opposed to SRB.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline rsdavis9

So cross post from impulse thread.

ORSC targeting ~375s. Gotta love it when a propulsion engineer like Mueller talks about the trades with a degree of depth. Duration is also brought up; they already have to have a reasonable amount of insulation given that they're launching inside a fairing, but was only thinking a couple days maybe.

Engine cycle discussion at this timestamp
https://www.youtube.com/live/pojbt_bsafo?si=-ChW40dcx0dEs9c5&t=3482

So the deneb engine that impulse and mueller built is ORSC(oxygen rich staged combustion) and he talks why the raptor is FFSC(from sea level) and his engine is ORSC(in space).
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Offline rsdavis9

Also I really like impulse space's RCS system. Using the Saiph thruster.
The low toxicity of their N2O and Ethane is no laughing matter.
I think they are storing gas for these engines but I am not sure.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2024 04:56 pm by rsdavis9 »
With ELV best efficiency was the paradigm. The new paradigm is reusable, good enough, and commonality of design.
Same engines. Design once. Same vehicle. Design once. Reusable. Build once.

Tags: Raptor Starship 
 

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