Ultimate Steve Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Solution, use 9 engines on the upper stage and one on the lower stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) On 2/28/2019 at 5:01 AM, MaverickSawyer said: Huh. LOX-cooled engine? That's... kind of an odd choice. Wonder why? For bigger explosions! >_< (looks like a great project!) Edited July 7, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 11, 2019 Author Share Posted November 11, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 9 hours ago, tater said: 365 seconds!?!?! Holy beejeezus donkey balls! That is almost incomprehensibly high. What kind of chamber pressures must they have?! Unless I miss my guess, that's considerably higher than even the mighty NK-43, a once-planned vacuum-optimized ORSC Russian engine. 365 seconds approaches the theoretical maximum of kerolox chemical potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 11, 2019 Author Share Posted November 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, sevenperforce said: Holy beejeezus donkey balls! That is almost incomprehensibly high. What kind of chamber pressures must they have?! IKR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 10 tons of thrust, same as RL-10 (almost). Decent ISP. 3D printed, so likely cheap to manufacture. I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCgothic Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 They claim 98% efficiency and an exhaust imparted with so much energy it burns blue. But the only available stats are from their own promotional materials and it hasn't had a full-scale test - yet. 365s is 6s better than the best available vacuum engine right now. I can *just* believe that there's 6s to be had out of a monolithic 3D printed combustion chamber, but wow even so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 1 hour ago, sh1pman said: 10 tons of thrust, same as RL-10 (almost). Decent ISP. 3D printed, so likely cheap to manufacture. I like it. For a kerolox engine? This has a "decent" ISP in the same way that the Merlin 1D has a "decent" TWR and the Saturn V had a "decent" lift capacity. 365 seconds is insane. For reference: The Rutherford, which is electric-pump-fed and thus burns 100% of its propellant in the chamber, has a vacuum ISP of only 343 seconds. 1 hour ago, RCgothic said: They claim 98% efficiency and an exhaust imparted with so much energy it burns blue. But the only available stats are from their own promotional materials and it hasn't had a full-scale test - yet. 365s is 6s better than the best available vacuum engine right now. I can *just* believe that there's 6s to be had out of a monolithic 3D printed combustion chamber, but wow even so. I am cautiously optimistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted November 11, 2019 Author Share Posted November 11, 2019 Yeah, really amazing for kerolox. https://launcherspace.com/engine-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevenperforce Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 18 minutes ago, tater said: Yeah, really amazing for kerolox. https://launcherspace.com/engine-2 Oxygen outlet pressure is 281 bar; kerosene outlet pressure is 127 bar. Chamber pressure is 98 bar. That's roughly the same as the Merlin 1D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted July 20, 2020 Author Share Posted July 20, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted April 15, 2021 Author Share Posted April 15, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selective Genius Posted April 18, 2021 Share Posted April 18, 2021 Launch Company name -> Launcher Rocket name -> Rocket-1 Engine name -> Engine 2 Looks like these people went to the ISRO School of Naming Stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted April 19, 2021 Share Posted April 19, 2021 On 7/7/2019 at 12:12 PM, tater said: Falcon 9 is the one that lands That got a true LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silavite Posted December 27, 2021 Share Posted December 27, 2021 Sort of related, I found a paper written by this company's current chief designer (Igor N. Nikischenko, who formerly worked as the Deputy Chief Designer in the Liquid Propulsion Department at Yuzhnoye in Ukraine) a few years back. It talks about the rationale for using LOX as a regenerative coolant and also discusses some novel combustion cycles. It looks as though the RD-58MF also uses LOX as a regenerative coolant if what this paper says is true. Quote Due to its properties, LOX is more suitable for regenerative cooling than kerosene. Additionally, LOX flow rates are normally several times higher than kerosene flow rates (according to MR showed in Table 1 it is at least in 2.4 times higher). It is tacitly believed that oxidizers at all and LOX specifically are not suitable for thrust chamber cooling. This belief is based on the principal concern that metal alloys are vulnerable to heavy oxidation and ignition in oxidizing environments. However, LOX regenerative cooling of thrust chamber was successfully confirmed in the 1950-60s. [...] The high effectiveness of LOX cooling was experimentally proved, as well as its feasibility. In the course of RKK Energia investigations the small leakages in the thrust chamber inner wall were simulated during the firing tests and it was proved that such defects do not cause thrust chamber destruction. [...] Intensive investigations of LOX cooling were also conducted by NASA. In particular, successful firing tests were conducted using experimental thrust chambers. Similar to RKK Energia, NASA experimentally confirmed that small leakages in thrust chamber inner wall did not cause destruction of the thrust chamber. It is intended that LOX regenerative cooling of 11D58MF thrust chamber will exclude the internal [film] cooling, thus avoiding the associated specific impulse losses. In hindsight, the big advantages to using LOX over RP-1 for cooling are clear: LOX mass flow rate is much higher than RP-1 mass flow rate and you also get the benefit of latent heat release from LOX (whereas RP-1 must be kept cool enough to prevent formation of waxes in the cooling channels). The whole paper is fascinating and really worth a read. (Maybe semi-expander semi-gas-generator cycles will be the trendy new thing for upper stage engines, eh?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caecilliusinhorto Posted December 30, 2021 Share Posted December 30, 2021 It looks a lot like the Merlin 2 version of the falcon 9. Also, have Launcher made any significant progress so far? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 12, 2022 Author Share Posted February 12, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 I see an odd, green flash at startup - but nothing burning blue. What is the Neanderthal missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuessingEveryDay Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I see an odd, green flash at startup - but nothing burning blue. What is the Neanderthal missing? TEA-TEB, a common engine igniter. The Falcon 9 does this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said: I see an odd, green flash at startup - but nothing burning blue. What is the Neanderthal missing? Judging by their tweet tater posted earlier in the thread, isn't the entire thing copper? That could explain the green flame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSchmuckatelli Posted February 12, 2022 Share Posted February 12, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, GuessingEveryDay said: TEA-TEB, a common engine igniter. The Falcon 9 does this too. 4 minutes ago, Shpaget said: Judging by their tweet tater posted earlier in the thread, isn't the entire thing copper? That could explain the green flame. I'm going to go with Guessing's idea, since the green jet happens on ignition. Were it copper burning, I'd think that would come later. Mind you, I'm the resident knuckle dragger going off of freshman Chem and Astronomy 101 that covered blackbody emissions 30 some odd years ago and some light reading since. But earlier they claimed the engine was so efficient / hot it burned blue. That I did not see Edited February 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 13, 2022 Share Posted February 13, 2022 5 hours ago, GuessingEveryDay said: TEA-TEB, a common engine igniter. The Falcon 9 does this too. I thought Raptor was spark ignition? Which would still leave the question of what (or which piece of copper) was burning green? Part of the spark ignition, or not quite norminal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 13, 2022 Author Share Posted February 13, 2022 1 minute ago, StrandedonEarth said: I thought Raptor was spark ignition? Which would still leave the question of what (or which piece of copper) was burning green? Part of the spark ignition, or not quite norminal? That is not a Raptor, this is Launcher, a different company, not SpaceX. https://launcherspace.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted February 13, 2022 Share Posted February 13, 2022 2 hours ago, tater said: That is not a Raptor, this is Launcher, a different company, not SpaceX. Lol sorry my bad, forgot what thread I was in Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted February 13, 2022 Author Share Posted February 13, 2022 47 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said: Lol sorry my bad, forgot what thread I was in Been there, don that, lol. Right above my post is a pic of a Falcon 9, so... 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.