Author Topic: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine  (Read 97227 times)

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #40 on: 11/13/2007 12:56 pm »
Quote
Crispy - 13/11/2007  7:49 AM

When you're building so many engines, I suppose you still get economies of scale even when you're upgrading the design every 2-3 years.

True, but also need to take into account that they are probably into the early part of a learning curve and as time moves on they may get to a more stable Merlin 1 design and they can tweak here and there instead of major changes and full redesigns.  

I hope the high volume, lower cost and performance model works out, it could be a paradigm shift for the US launch industry.

At some point SpaceX needs to start flying far more often and get some flight data and paying customers.  Whether successfully or not it looks like 08 is giong to be a put up or shut up year for SpaceX.  One launch in 2008 isn't going to be enough.

Best of luck SpaceX.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #41 on: 11/13/2007 12:59 pm »
Quote
pippin - 13/11/2007  8:48 AM

Quote
G-pit - 13/11/2007  2:12 AM

Also they are gearing up to "Produce more rocket engines than the rest of US production combined" in 2008.

Lemme guess: They need about the "rest of US production combined" number of engines to make one F9, right?

EDIT: OKOKOK, maybe two...

How many engines are produced in the US each year, given that the Atlas V 1st stage engines are imported? The 50 cited in the article would be enough for ten Falcon 9s, 25 Falcon 1s, or, come to think of it, one Falcon 9 Heavy with 22 assorted engines left over...

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #42 on: 11/13/2007 01:09 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 13/11/2007  2:59 PM

Quote
pippin - 13/11/2007  8:48 AM

Quote
G-pit - 13/11/2007  2:12 AM

Also they are gearing up to "Produce more rocket engines than the rest of US production combined" in 2008.

Lemme guess: They need about the "rest of US production combined" number of engines to make one F9, right?

EDIT: OKOKOK, maybe two...

How many engines are produced in the US each year, given that the Atlas V 1st stage engines are imported? The 50 cited in the article would be enough for ten Falcon 9s, 25 Falcon 1s, or, come to think of it, one Falcon 9 Heavy with 22 assorted engines left over...

  :o  10 F9??? you mean: 5 F9, one F9 takes 10 engines.

I guessed at about 12 flights of Atlas and Delta IV, with, say, 6 RS68 for the Delta and one RL10 for any of the Deltas and Atlas'. What I don't know is about DII, AFAIK the RS27s have all been produced but what about 2nd stage?
Jim?

EDIT: let's not count solids ;-)

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #43 on: 11/13/2007 01:14 pm »
Quote
pippin - 13/11/2007  9:09 AM

Quote
William Barton - 13/11/2007  2:59 PM

Quote
pippin - 13/11/2007  8:48 AM

Quote
G-pit - 13/11/2007  2:12 AM

Also they are gearing up to "Produce more rocket engines than the rest of US production combined" in 2008.

Lemme guess: They need about the "rest of US production combined" number of engines to make one F9, right?

EDIT: OKOKOK, maybe two...

How many engines are produced in the US each year, given that the Atlas V 1st stage engines are imported? The 50 cited in the article would be enough for ten Falcon 9s, 25 Falcon 1s, or, come to think of it, one Falcon 9 Heavy with 22 assorted engines left over...

  :o  10 F9??? you mean: 5 F9, one F9 takes 10 engines.

I guessed at about 12 flights of Atlas and Delta IV, with, say, 6 RS68 for the Delta and one RL10 for any of the Deltas and Atlas'. What I don't know is about DII, AFAIK the RS27s have all been produced but what about 2nd/3rd stage?
Jim?

You're right, I meant five F9s. I don't have enough fingers and toes to do the calculation correctly on the first try.  :laugh:

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #44 on: 11/13/2007 01:16 pm »
Quote
William Barton - 13/11/2007  3:14 PM

You're right, I meant five F9s. I don't have enough fingers and toes to do the calculation correctly on the first try.  :laugh:

OK, that explains why you had the heavy right at 28 engines. Can put your shoes back on ;)

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #45 on: 11/13/2007 03:12 pm »
Em... myself learning to count, too :-o

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
RE: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #46 on: 11/14/2007 03:14 am »
Release on SpaceX site as well "SPACEX COMPLETES DEVELOPMENT OF MERLIN REGENERATIVELY COOLED ROCKET ENGINE "

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • V
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #47 on: 11/14/2007 04:32 am »
From the release: "It is among the highest performing gas generator cycle kerosene engines ever built, [...] on par with the Saturn V F-1 engine. ".  On what grounds?

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2575
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 45
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #48 on: 11/14/2007 06:45 am »
ISP. F-1 was huge, but actually not the most efficient engine around. They decided to solve one problem at a time and the problem they solved with F-1 was: grow big.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #49 on: 11/14/2007 02:15 pm »
Actually the Isp for the F-1 slightly exceeded the published figures for the Merlin-1. I haven't yet seen any figures specifically for the Merlin-1C.

I do think it beats the F-1 in T/W (96 to 94) and burn time. (190 to 160).  Still a very pretty engine.

Beats me how upgrading the J-2X can cost 1.2 billion, when Space-X have built this engine, 3 others, several factories, test stands, 2 launch pads, 2 new launch vehicle designs, and a manned/unmanned capsule, for an order of magnitude less.

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #50 on: 11/14/2007 02:17 pm »
Quote
kkattula - 14/11/2007  10:15 AM

Beats me how upgrading the J-2X can cost 1.2 billion, when Space-X have built this engine, 3 others, several factories, test stands, 2 launch pads, 2 new launch vehicle designs, and a manned/unmanned capsule, for an order of magnitude less.
 


Capatilism/Free enterprise   vs    Government Pork project thinking.
One Percent for Space!!!

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #51 on: 11/14/2007 02:36 pm »
Quote
stockman - 14/11/2007  10:17 AM

Quote
kkattula - 14/11/2007  10:15 AM

Beats me how upgrading the J-2X can cost 1.2 billion, when Space-X have built this engine, 3 others, several factories, test stands, 2 launch pads, 2 new launch vehicle designs, and a manned/unmanned capsule, for an order of magnitude less.
 


Capatilism/Free enterprise   vs    Government Pork project thinking.

To a point I agree and the cost does baffle me as well.  For something that is suppose to have heritage and a little off the shelf ability the length of time and shear amount of money is incredible.  I would think that the schedule and budget should be about half of what it is.


Regarding the supposed magic of SpaceX's accomplishment keep in mind they are using RP1 and not LH2 and that its about 40% the size of the J-2X.    And that it is to be man rated.

If SpaceX is successful with all their promises and they get the F1 and F9 flying and delivering payloads to orbit and their claimed costs hold up and their engines are reliable then yes they have accomplished something truly amazing (and I hope they do.)  But to date we have claims, pictures and two test flights that have not placed anything into orbit.  They have a way to go yet.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #52 on: 11/14/2007 02:46 pm »
It has seemed to me that SpaceX's signal achievement to date is putting together an engine design bureau on a realtively small budget that's capable of putting out a viable product. I don't really know anything about the commercial rocket engine market, especially given the existence of ITAR, but it does seem like if they were just in the engine business people would be looking at them with interest. It seems like they would be able to build that 1Mlbf BFE for a single-engine 1st stage Falcon 9 upgrade, and then (assuming they've long ago solved all their launch vehicle design issues) go for the prophesied BFR. I'd like to think a Falcon 9/Dragon success would make a few of those infamous politicians start to think.

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #53 on: 11/14/2007 03:30 pm »
Is there an existing market for a 45mT Kerosene/LOX engine that Spacex could commercialise the Merlin 1C in?

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #54 on: 11/14/2007 03:48 pm »
Is there an existing market for any US engine other than the launcher designed around it? I think "existing market" may  be a bit of red herring. If SpaceX were to develop an engine in the same performance class as the RD-180, and if P&W proved unable to build its own RD-180s, and if Russia decided not to sell un any more, and if the stockpile of RD-180s were used up, would it be cheaper to re-engine the Atlas V with a SpaceX BFR, or to develop a new LV based on the BFR from scratch. I'm guessing it might be the latter. My sense is, if SpaceX were an engine design bureau producing engines significantly cheaper than anyone else on a class by class basis, then the only reason new launchers wouldn't use their engines would be political pork.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #55 on: 11/14/2007 04:03 pm »
Quote
stockman - 14/11/2007  4:17 PM

Quote
kkattula - 14/11/2007  10:15 AM

Beats me how upgrading the J-2X can cost 1.2 billion, when Space-X have built this engine, 3 others, several factories, test stands, 2 launch pads, 2 new launch vehicle designs, and a manned/unmanned capsule, for an order of magnitude less.
 


Capatilism/Free enterprise   vs    Government Pork project thinking.

Great. Now they only have to keep their schedule, which is already impossible, even taking the latest revision; reach LEO; keep their costs in check to keep their prices; be reliable; have a launch infrastructure; customer service ...

Analyst

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #56 on: 11/14/2007 05:45 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 14/11/2007  9:03 AM

Quote
stockman - 14/11/2007  4:17 PM

Quote
kkattula - 14/11/2007  10:15 AM

Beats me how upgrading the J-2X can cost 1.2 billion, when Space-X have built this engine, 3 others, several factories, test stands, 2 launch pads, 2 new launch vehicle designs, and a manned/unmanned capsule, for an order of magnitude less.
 


Capatilism/Free enterprise   vs    Government Pork project thinking.

Great. Now they only have to keep their schedule, which is already impossible, even taking the latest revision; reach LEO; keep their costs in check to keep their prices; be reliable; have a launch infrastructure; customer service ...

Analyst

Of course to be fair, the same can be said about NASA.  How many upper stages has NASA successfully developed, fielded, and operated in oh say my lifetime?

~Jon

Offline Crispy

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1025
  • London
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 51
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #57 on: 11/14/2007 06:11 pm »
Barton - I see now, that makes sense

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #58 on: 11/14/2007 08:36 pm »
Quote
Analyst - 14/11/2007  12:03 PM
Great. Now they only have to keep their schedule, which is already impossible, even taking the latest revision; reach LEO; keep their costs in check to keep their prices; be reliable; have a launch infrastructure; customer service ...

Analyst

My point exactly.  SpaceX may yet prove they can do it.  But they have only proven themselves to about the 10 or 20% level.  They have so far to go yet.

As for a million pound thrust engine, these things don't scale linearly.  The amount of work to develop that engine would be very prohibitive.  And so what if Elon built a monster rocket, how many customers exist that look for those payloads.  Not nearly enough to maintain the low cost because of high volume that they need.   If 90% of the cost of a rocket is in the engine than save your money there and SpaceX seems to want to do that by high volume production.  Big engine doesn't help in this matter.

As crazy as it sounds to use 27 engines it might be what is required to put rocket engines on an assembly line, then who knows where that could go.  Getting 27 liquid engines all running properly for the full flight, that will be something to see.  I fully intent to be present to watch that lift off.

I do wish them the best and I hope they are successful.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Merlin 1C Engine
« Reply #59 on: 11/14/2007 08:57 pm »
Quote
wannamoonbase - 14/11/2007  4:36 PM

Quote
Analyst - 14/11/2007  12:03 PM
Great. Now they only have to keep their schedule, which is already impossible, even taking the latest revision; reach LEO; keep their costs in check to keep their prices; be reliable; have a launch infrastructure; customer service ...

Analyst

My point exactly.  SpaceX may yet prove they can do it.  But they have only proven themselves to about the 10 or 20% level.  They have so far to go yet.

As for a million pound thrust engine, these things don't scale linearly.  The amount of work to develop that engine would be very prohibitive.  And so what if Elon built a monster rocket, how many customers exist that look for those payloads.  Not nearly enough to maintain the low cost because of high volume that they need.   If 90% of the cost of a rocket is in the engine than save your money there and SpaceX seems to want to do that by high volume production.  Big engine doesn't help in this matter.

As crazy as it sounds to use 27 engines it might be what is required to put rocket engines on an assembly line, then who knows where that could go.  Getting 27 liquid engines all running properly for the full flight, that will be something to see.  I fully intent to be present to watch that lift off.

I do wish them the best and I hope they are successful.

A suppose a lot will depend on how the market itself works out. Arguably the most likely use for a 1Mlbf engine is as a replacement for the 9 engines on the bottom of a Falcon 9, in some decade-from-now Golden Age where the flight rate justifies the investment. Clearly they're smart enough to know rocket engines don't scale linearly, since Merlin isn't just a linear scale-up of Kestrel, and it looks like they have the talent to do it. The question is, do they have a reason to do it? And do they have the money to do it? Those are both market-based questions, at whose answer I couldn't hazard a guess. Put a SuperMerlin on bottom of a Falcon 9 reenginneered to be some kind of "CBC," cluster 7 of them together, and you've got something that would be roughly equivalent to an S-1C. Short of an Unobtanium-D mine on Mars, I'm not sure what market force would drive that.

I hope to be at some of the Falcon 9 launches too. I have a gut feeling that if Falcon 9/Dragon works out, it will be some kind of historical cusp. And if it doesn't work out. Hell, they'll be in good historical company. Lots if nifty ideas don't work out, and they seem to be giving it a heroic try.

Tags:
 

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