magnemoe Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 24 minutes ago, sh1pman said: Very likely, but not 100% sure about that. At near-cryogenic temperatures, with almost pure gaseous methane over liquid oxygen, it may just not ignite. There's typically a range of gas proportions that gives explosion when ignited. Outside of that range, the mix can slowly burn or not ignite at all. And at lower temperatures most chemical reactions run slower, or may even become energetically unfavorable and thus not happen at all. That's why I wasn't so sure. You're probably still right, though. (That's how my Chemistry degree makes me think a bit too heavily about obvious things) Still its pretty insane and you get an issue then tanks start to run dry. More so then you reenter and heat up the tank a lot you obviously use both gasses. But yes they have tested various monopropellants who did not work out because it tended to explode if some talked bad about it or it was bored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnemoe Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 4 hours ago, DDE said: Sutton, backed by their own blueprints. Believe it or not, there were also two distinct programs for R-29 upgrades, one working with Aluminol gel (UDMH+Al powder), which failed because it didn’t work with the one that fired the engine using ClF5 (according to Ignition!, Al powder doping works only with fluorine). That would work for an missile, my only issue is putting the engine inside the oxidizer tank as oxidizers tend to oxidize stuff. Fuel would be better and you need to keep the tank thigh and then separate it. But yes on an submarine you are very size restricted. On the other hand this design crashes a bit with rapid reuse of both stages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 11 hours ago, magnemoe said: On the other hand this design crashes a bit with rapid reuse of both stages. Attempting a retroburn with no dome to hold the fuel inside the oxidizer tank would be very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 37 minutes ago, DDE said: Attempting a retroburn with no dome to hold the fuel inside the oxidizer tank would be very interesting. Well as long as you had ullage thrusters, the acceleration vector IS in the right direction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 13 hours ago, sh1pman said: Does anyone know how they are going to pressurize the LOX tank? Gaseous methane, same as in LNG tank? Or boil some oxygen and use it to pressurize the tank? All tanks will be autogenously pressurized. The CH4 tanks will be pressurized with vaporized CH4 run through cooling channels around the engine bell; the LOX tanks will be pressurized with vaporized LOX run through cooling channels around the combustion chamber (or I may have that flipped). Pressurant gases will be vented into spark-ignited ten-tonne methane-GOX thrusters for RCS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuyWithALongUsername Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 2 hours ago, DDE said: Attempting a retroburn with no dome to hold the fuel inside the oxidizer tank would be very interesting. Wait, how would that be pressurized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakaydos Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 16 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: Wait, how would that be pressurized? Air drag ullage. the fuel pools at the bottom on the tank because the rocket is being slowed by the air it passes through. Turbopumps can manage it from there. What's going to be interesting is how you keep it in the tank right after staging, when air resistance is going the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 1 hour ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: Wait, how would that be pressurized? Detcord completely shreds tank to decouple next stage ??? PROFIT!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 (edited) Top part has been taken off the hopper again. Likely to put dome on. Edited January 15, 2019 by tater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 29 minutes ago, tater said: Top part has been taken off the hopper again. Likely to put dome on. so apparently they bottom part is the root, interesting. Now for some epic clipping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 18 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: so apparently they bottom part is the root, interesting. Hopefully the select "control from here" on the command module before hitting space bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Rakaydos said: 3 hours ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said: Wait, how would that be pressurized? Air drag ullage. the fuel pools at the bottom on the tank because the rocket is being slowed by the air it passes through. Turbopumps can manage it from there. What's going to be interesting is how you keep it in the tank right after staging, when air resistance is going the other way. You'd have to use ullage thrusters continually throughout staging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DDE Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 14 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: You'd have to use ullage thrusters continually throughout staging. And after staging, probably. 23 hours ago, DDE said: Although it might explain why Makeyev is still chasing the DC-X-style SSTO, they cannot into non-destructive stage sep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 3 hours ago, CatastrophicFailure said: so apparently they bottom part is the root, interesting. Now for some epic clipping. If they give crew SCUBA gear, the prop tank could be the command module. Give new meaning to "wet workshop." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: If they give crew SCUBA gear, the prop tank could be the command module. Give new meaning to "wet workshop." That would get mighty cold, even with a drysuit. But I suppose if they use the pressurant gas to heat the suits.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 35 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: That would get mighty cold, even with a drysuit. But I suppose if they use the pressurant gas to heat the suits.... Yeah but it’s methane, imagine the smell... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Yeah but it’s methane, imagine the smell... The entire rocket is powered by liquid farts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xd the great Posted January 15, 2019 Share Posted January 15, 2019 25 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Yeah but it’s methane, imagine the smell... I thought H2S smell, not methane... Or i may be mistaken. Smelling CH4 directly is not advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 You are correct. Pure methane has no scent. It is the additives/impurities that gives rise to the odors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 (edited) SpaceX updated their Falcon user's guide: https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/falconusersguide.pdf EDIT: They use +X as up? The monsters. Edited January 16, 2019 by Mad Rocket Scientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Racescort666 Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 14 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: EDIT: They use +X as up? The monsters. +Z is up in the construction orientation, not the flight orientation. Kinda makes sense to me. Although -X is usually the direction of travel for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 Waaaaaaaat? That's a bit shocking after all the work they’ve already done there... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Waaaaaaaat? That's a bit shocking after all the work they’ve already done there... Agility. Not falling for sunk cost fallacy. CA is not the best place for many kinds of business. If they plan on flying from TX, it also makes sense to build there. as for what they’ve done at the Port of LA, they’ve erected a couple tents. They haven’t even torn down the warehouses with holes in the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 12 minutes ago, tater said: Agility. Not falling for sunk cost fallacy. CA is not the best place for many kinds of business. If they plan on flying from TX, it also makes sense to build there. as for what they’ve done at the Port of LA, they’ve erected a couple tents. They haven’t even torn down the warehouses with holes in the roof. Valid points. But I thought they had already torn down a couple buildings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted January 16, 2019 Share Posted January 16, 2019 1 minute ago, CatastrophicFailure said: Valid points. But I thought they had already torn down a couple buildings? Maybe, the air/drone footage of fairings there looked among old, crappy buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.