Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Beccab said:

Yup, a raptor and an RS-25 have a quite similar thrust I believe

Here's something I don't fully understand - if they have vac thrusters and ASL thrusters, do they fire all 6 after separation from the booster, or just the vac thrusters and save the ASL for landing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Here's something I don't fully understand - if they have vac thrusters and ASL thrusters, do they fire all 6 after separation from the booster, or just the vac thrusters and save the ASL for landing? 

Yes, all 6 at stage sep. It's necessary for the TWR, though they may throttle some SL engines off as TWR improves to improve ISP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Here's something I don't fully understand - if they have vac thrusters and ASL thrusters, do they fire all 6 after separation from the booster, or just the vac thrusters and save the ASL for landing? 

All of them, while at that altitude and speed TWR > 1 is not needed firing 6 at the same time reduce gravity losses enough that it compensates the lower general isp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RCgothic said:

6 Raptors is much more thrust than 4 RS25s, just saying.

So what you're telling me is that the contracted lunar lander is more powerful than the crew launch vehicle

Well, maybe not.

Edited by cubinator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GuessingEveryDay said:

Would it be possible for them to only add the RVacs for Lunar SS, and whatever landing engines they need? They don't need the sea-level Raptors, just the RVacs, right?

The RVacs don't have gimbal, so removing the sea-level engines would make steering the vehicle difficult, especially during ascent from Earth. 

The sea-level engines are also useful for countering gravity losses during ascent, though they may be able to get by on RVacs alone (ignoring the complications of steering I mentioned above).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Meecrob said:

RCS is probably at least an order of magnitude of force below gimballing. There is a reason aircraft have control surfaces, not little engines to adjust trajectory.

RCS is for docking / minor adjustments, right?  For SS to gimbal, don't the big guns have to be firing?

(I write this, but then I also remember seeing Falcon RCS active during the landing - so maybe it's necessary fine control that works hand in hand with gimbal?)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

RCS is for docking / minor adjustments, right?  For SS to gimbal, don't the big guns have to be firing?

(I write this, but then I also remember seeing Falcon RCS active during the landing - so maybe it's necessary fine control that works hand in hand with gimbal?)

 

Yes, gimballing only works when the main engines are on. RCS is for control at speeds where aero surfaces are ineffective (e.g. slow on landing) or where there's no atmosphere at all. They're also used to "quench" the gyroscopes when they get close to their limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

The RVacs don't have gimbal, so removing the sea-level engines would make steering the vehicle difficult, especially during ascent from Earth. 

The sea-level engines are also useful for countering gravity losses during ascent, though they may be able to get by on RVacs alone (ignoring the complications of steering I mentioned above).

Well with the additional space afforded by not having SLRaptors, a gimbal mechanism could probably be added. (If it’s something that RCS can’t deal with)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spaceman.Spiff said:

Well with the additional space afforded by not having SLRaptors, a gimbal mechanism could probably be added. (If it’s something that RCS can’t deal with)

There's definitely room for gimbal systems around the RVacs, but the problem is that the engine bells are tucked up right next to the skirt with no room to move. You could move the engines closer to the centre, but it sounds like a lot of work compared to just leaving the engine configuration as it is and benefiting from the extra thrust and control authority the sea-level engines provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said:

There's definitely room for gimbal systems around the RVacs, but the problem is that the engine bells are tucked up right next to the skirt with no room to move. You could move the engines closer to the centre, but it sounds like a lot of work compared to just leaving the engine configuration as it is and benefiting from the extra thrust and control authority the sea-level engines provide.

They'd also have to shorten the bell or lengthen the skirt if the engines were moved inboard as they're mounted on the bottom of the tank dome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...