Alas, the infamous law suit, almost forgot about that. Also remembering
Marcie and his fingerprints on the moon, he handled the various LEM engines,
an impressive work history, Was fun working with him on the test stand,
changing out pintle patterns and watching run to run variations.
Empirical data tells no lies.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:11 PM Anthony Cesaroni <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Actually, I think it was because their chief engineer had most of the
pintle NRE in his head from his tenure at TRW (NGC). Hence the lawsuit that
nobody won.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
*From:* arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *William Claybaugh
*Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2020 6:38 PM
*To:* arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [AR] Re: Falcon 9 lifetime of 5 flights?
Ken:
They use a pintle injector because when they designed it that was far
cheaper than a flat plate.
Bill
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:28 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
That's exactly why water recovery was investigated, I heard Bob countless
times tell interviewers how the Navy builds large ships in ship yards and
dealing with sea water for years on end with minimal issues with corrosion.
The contract we were working under, no surprise, was by NRL.
We did design and hot tested pintle injectors in a Full Flow oxidizer
configuration but with no ability to throttle or shutoff though it wouldn't
of been hard to configure to do so. All components were fabed from inconel
except the preburned was 300 SS.
SpaceX use a pintle injector, the pattern can be seen in the nozzle wall
of their upper stage engine bell and first stage pushes off of the pindle
at staging.
Why do they us a pindle? Throttling, less susceptible to instability,
scaleability,cost, all of the above? They sure are 'close to the vest'
about it.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:57 PM William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Ken:
The United States Navy stands as an existence proof that it is possible to
submerge complex hardware in seawater for decades. Provided one can afford
the maintenance.
Those who have studied the matter (Truax mainly, but some others) have
concluded that a pintle injector that fully closes before immersion is the
most economic engineering solution that allows the illusion of certainty
wrt salt water effects on the interior of the injector.
Pintle injectors carry performance penalties at the margin but are also
much cheaper than flat plate injectors absent 3-d printing. It might be
the case that water landing a stage that could close the injector face and
was otherwise designed by Naval Architects rather than aerospace engineers
would prove lower cost for small numbers of recoveries.
For a presumed future in which launch assets are flying hundreds of times
per year it seems to me more likely that a land landing will prove overall
lower cost...we are terrestrial creatures.
Bill
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:25 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From the bottom, I read a detailed NASA report with photos were they
submerged an H-1 engine in sea water for 24 hrs washed it off and hot fired
it successfully. So wet F-1 may have been OK.
The Balloutes (drag bags) made of metal coated Kevlar were to keep the
terminal velocity below self destruction velocities during balletic
reentry, but again got to keep apple/oranges separate as this was for
pressure fed stages made of maraging steel at 300-400 psig resistant to
limited aero heating not fragile aluminum pump fed stages though would of
been nice to try balloutes on them.
Having a Shuttle and Saturn 5 would of been great but fantasy with the
costs of both. A down graded un manned vehicle the way it is now makes
sense with the Air Force flying their winged re-entry vehicle so far
successfully.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:24 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, roxanna Mason wrote:
The Shuttle was an abomination any way it's diced and/or sliced. At $1Bper
mission, +/- a quarter $B, reuse of any part or component was prettymuch
moot. Would be been better to keep flying the Saturn 5 at $1/4B pervehicle.
Careful here -- the *incremental* cost of a Shuttle flight was more like
$100M, much of that being the cost of a new ET. The $1G number comes from
dividing a nearly-fixed annual infrastructure cost by a rather small
number of flights. (Note that the shuttle budget didn't drop during the
years when it was grounded after Challenger and Columbia.) Doubling the
flight rate without any streamlining of operations *would* have needed a
bit more money, but not anywhere near twice as much.
The Saturn V saw some of this too. Comparing costs is very tricky.
Six Saturn Vs a year -- its original launch rate -- would carry payload
roughly equal to 25 Shuttle flights a year (it's an apples-and-oranges
comparison in several ways, but that's in the right ballpark). That sort
of launch volume, handled properly, would have done wonders to reduce
Shuttle per-launch costs too.
Remember that the Saturn V wasn't terminated because somebody decided that
the Shuttle would be better. (NASA wanted to operate *both* -- the
Shuttle was meant to replace the Saturn IB, not the Saturn V.) It was
terminated, *without* replacement, because after the termination of Apollo
and Skylab, there were no (funded) customers for a launcher that big.
There still aren't.
I saw an artist conception of the SIC stage parachuting into the
ocean... Chutes were stowed in the 4 aft fairings where the BSM are
housed. and keep the tanks pressurized for impact resilience...
As Bill has already noted, recovering a high-performance pump-fed stage,
or even useful parts of it, by undecelerated reentry followed by parachute
splashdown turns out to be harder than it looks. In hindsight, there were
omens of this in the history: the S-ICs definitely fragmented during
reentry, *not* on hitting the water. SpaceX never could get its first
stages to survive reentry, and in the end had to switch to Plan B.
Recovering an S-IC intact wasn't a ridiculous idea, done differently.
There was a serious proposal, the "Flyback F-1", to use an S-IC with
wings, jet engines, and pilots as the Shuttle booster system. But its
estimated development costs were slightly too high for OMB's Shuttle cost
cap.
At least get the F-1's back...
Just getting the engines back, after a dunking in salt water, may not be
worth that much. It would be all too easy to end up back in the SRB trap,
where cleanup and refurbishment and retesting costs as much as building a
new one. Some of the folks involved in SpaceX's original concept had real
doubts that even successful splashdown-and-salvage would be worthwhile.
One important side effect of switching to Plan B was that when it works,
you get the whole stage back, intact and dry.
Henry
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>