Sign in to follow this  
fredinno

Difference between RP-1 and RG-1

Recommended Posts

Russian rockets like the Soyuz are listed as using RG-1, while American one's, even if they use Russian engines, like Antares: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-2_(rocket)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares_(rocket)

 

I also read that the oil reservoir used to make RG-1 was depleting, and that this was a concern for their rockets. What is the difference between RG-1 and RP-1, and could an engine be modified to use RG-1 just as easily as RP-1 (which seems to be more common)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia:

"Soviet and Russian rocket-grade kerosenes are very similar to RP-1 and are designated T-1 and RG-1. Densities are higher, 0.82 to 0.85 g/ml, compared to RP-1 at 0.81 g/ml "

Edited by Steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Steel said:

From Wikipedia:

"Soviet and Russian rocket-grade kerosenes are very similar to RP-1 and are designated T-1 and RG-1. Densities are higher, 0.82 to 0.85 g/ml, compared to RP-1 at 0.81 g/ml "

So, basically RG-1 is basically a denser RP-1? Meaning RG-1 engines can run RP-1 just fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RD-180, NK-33, and RD-181 have all burned both RP-1 and RG-1 without modification, we can safely assume they're practically identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather, they are just two different (albeit very similar) specifications of highly refined kerosene. One may have slightly different tolerances for impurities, hydrocarbons and what have you, but they are designed for the same application at the end of the day and so are necessarily very similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kryten said:

RD-180, NK-33, and RD-181 have all burned both RP-1 and RG-1 without modification, we can safely assume they're practically identical.

Well, that removes tone of the main selling points for Soyuz-V. Why build a new rocket when you can just use a different, more common fuel, with Few modifications (but reduced payload)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not switching to kerolox for soyuz-5 because RG-1 is running out, they're switching because that lets them switch to autogenous pressurisation (for lower complexity of operations, so lower cost), full-flow staged combustion engines (so higher performance), and delivers the maximum possible payload weight relative to GLOW (so can loft large payloads within weight limits of existing soyuz pads).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kryten said:

They're not switching to kerolox for soyuz-5 because RG-1 is running out, they're switching because that lets them switch to autogenous pressurisation (for lower complexity of operations, so lower cost), full-flow staged combustion engines (so higher performance), and delivers the maximum possible payload weight relative to GLOW (so can loft large payloads within weight limits of existing soyuz pads).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz-5_(rocket)

Apparently, the lack of RG-1 was one of their listed reasons. I don't like the Soyuz-V though, since it gets rid of the R-7 rocket structure. How could you Russia?!?! :mad: Reuse might redeem it for me (possible since it also has excess payload capacity).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this