[AR] Re: SpaceX F9 Launch/Update -- Live Link
- From: David Weinshenker <daze39@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:53:43 -0800
On 12/28/2015 07:22 AM, Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
This implicitly would be a gas-generator cycle engine, since all the
design sources you cite are, and as such could not serve as a drop-in
RD-180 replacement - the lower Isp would require major vehicle redesign
to increase propellant tankage. (Was an RD-180 replacement what we were
talking about in this thread? perhaps not...)
I was thinking more in terms of general-purpose engines for
large booster stages, (rather than necessarily an RD-180
"drop-in") - in which case, is there any real need for
staged-combustion cycles (or the unusually high chamber
pressures that they enable)?
For a first stage, wouldn't a simpler, lower-pressure cycle
be effective (if not as elegant), in the absence of unusual
requirements, such as the Shuttle locating the SSME cluster
on the aft of the orbiter fuselage (which drove the design
to high chamber pressures to make the engines more compact)?
The main practical rationale I could see for developing the
engine you describe would be if SpaceX for some reason wouldn't
sell you Merlins.
Is SpaceX planning to market the Merlins as a stand-alone product
(rather than just as 'captive' production for the "Falcon" vehicles)?
-dave w
Other related posts: