Jump to content

SpaceX Discussion Thread


Skylon
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tater said:

True. I suppose the question is if they think the extra complexity—just for those outer engines—is worth it. If an engine had a flameout (is that likely in a rocket engine vs a jet engine?), would they simply burn longer withthe remaining engines, and maybe use some gimbaling?

Well, if you want to really reduce part counts and spares and such, actually you might want all your engines to be swappable. Just mount it with a gimbal or no gimbal; bolt on a SL nozzle or a vac nozzle, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Well, if you want to really reduce part counts and spares and such, actually you might want all your engines to be swappable. Just mount it with a gimbal or no gimbal; bolt on a SL nozzle or a vac nozzle, etc.

For "not Raptor" maybe that's the plan.

For Raptor from what he has said (Tim Dodd interview/tour), it sounds like the Rboosts are simpler because they don't throttle (much?), don't gimbal at all. SL are what we have seen, throttle to ~40%, gimbal. And the vac engines that they have right now that also work at SL (no gimbal, unsure on throttle).

Course he did say the next fundamental issue is solving engine production.

 

He has that "aspirational" goal of Raptors costing $250,000 each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Yeah - that caught my attention, too.  What do you want to bet they're already half-way to figuring that out?

I'm not taking that bet, but it does sound incredible. Raptor hasn't even flown to space yet and it's already being deprecated.

Anybody wants to take a guess at the improvements, other than changes aimed at manufacturing streamlining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

I'm not taking that bet, but it does sound incredible. Raptor hasn't even flown to space yet and it's already being deprecated.

Anybody wants to take a guess at the improvements, other than changes aimed at manufacturing streamlining?

Raptor isn't being deprecated, Elon seems to be simply speculating on future developments.

This new engine is probably a long way out. Given the way he's talking about it, I doubt this new engine has even started its early development yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it would be possible that they're thinking about switching to a less complicated engine cycle (respectively a less complicated engine in general). Having a very high engine efficiency is obviously nice, but being cheap, reliable and easy to maintain might be worth more when all is said and done. This would also seem in line with the "the less parts the better" design philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think elon talks about a new engine in terms of specs, he wants to mass-produce it in extremly high numbers (>10000/year) and that likely means redesigning almost all parts with totaly different fabrication technologies. Im not sure if they are currently using additive manufacturing, but that would be the first thing to swap out for massproduction and result in complete redesign of the parts as most other technologies cant produce the complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, tater said:

implies something profoundly different

That's what I'm pondering.  Mostly about what purpose is the next engine? 

Given most of the trip to Mars is vac > is he talking about lower cost / more efficient vac engines or given that the big challenge is to get clear of Earth's gravity have they found efficiencies to be gained by a new approach to the ASL engine?  And will it be one engine or two? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've already hit on the "part reduction" of making the Upper Stage, Mars transit craft, and earth return vehical the same structure. Any optimization of the engine is going to have to work for all three regimes.

Put me down for "One of our interns came up with a cool idea that'll probably be cheaper, but means throwing out everything we've been doing with Raptor." They'll indulge sunk costs for Raptor 2, get the production line running for Raptor 2, and then the engine team will dive into this other idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shpaget said:

other than changes aimed at manufacturing streamlining

It cannot be that simple.  You don't rename the engine because you got better at building it. Or even if you make incremental improvements. 

It gets a new name if it is enough different that you have to distinguish the old from the new. 

That's what caught my eye - 'won't be called Raptor' - because the implications are huge 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

The discussion's been rather long and I didn't notice the tweet.

Thanks for pointing it out!

So, what names do you think would fit the former Raptor 2?

Fans of a certain KSP mod will know.

Emu for sea level engines, Penguin for vacuum engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AtomicTech said:

The discussion's been rather long and I didn't notice the tweet.

Thanks for pointing it out!

So, what names do you think would fit the former Raptor 2?

"Raptor 2 has siginificant improvements in every way, but a complete design overhaul is necessary for the engile that ACTUALLY makes "life multiplanetary""

Raptor 2 still exists, it just wont be eneough to make life multiplanetary. We already knew "raptor wont be really ready until, like Raptor v5", so it looks like "Raptor v5" is going to be this new engine.

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1413909599711907845?s=20

Edited by Rakaydos
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...