PDA

View Full Version : SpaceX to test methane engine at NASA Stennis



docmordrid
2013-Oct-26, 03:38 AM
Raptor, a family of staged combustion methane engines including one of 660,000 lbf.

Can you say BFR?

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37859spacex-could-begin-testing-methane-fueled-engine-at-stennis-next-year

Noclevername
2013-Oct-26, 01:56 PM
Methane rockets would potentially be useful for a return launch from Mars, because methane can be made on-site from available materials. Can you say ISRU?

Swift
2013-Oct-26, 02:52 PM
I (not as admin) would appreciate it if people would explain abbreviations like BFR and ISRU.

Interesting article, thanks for posting.

ravens_cry
2013-Oct-26, 03:02 PM
ISRU= In Situ Resource Utilisation. That is, using resources from the site instead of dragging everything out of Earth's gravity well.
I am a bit more unsure of the other though, but I have a feeling it's not printable in a complete form on this forum.

KaiYeves
2013-Oct-26, 03:17 PM
Big Freaking Rocket(s)?

publiusr
2013-Oct-26, 08:35 PM
Close, except what the F stands for--as in the B-52 BUFF--only its not really fat...

Falcon XX or MCT (Mars Colony Transport) is a better term. It is to be a type of HLLV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter.

Now there is new core handling tech, and the British Interplanetary Society magazine Spaceflight just did an article (Dwayne Day ) on the F-1 making a comeback--but with a vastly reduced part-count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios http://www.bis-space.com/products-page/magazines-and-journals/spaceflight-magazine/spaceflight-vol-55-no-09-september-2013/

Dynetics also worked with Falcon on the Stratolaunch airplane, before the Falcon was dropped in favor of Orbital's solid. New core handling/welding tech may be adopted by Musk, one hopes. And before someone starts the SLS bashing, it is that money which helps keep these stands in business and engine tests going at all.

Garrison
2013-Oct-28, 01:23 AM
Close, except what the F stands for--as in the B-52 BUFF--only its not really fat...

Falcon XX or MCT (Mars Colony Transport) is a better term. It is to be a type of HLLV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Colonial_Transporter.

Now there is new core handling tech, and the British Interplanetary Society magazine Spaceflight just did an article (Dwayne Day ) on the F-1 making a comeback--but with a vastly reduced part-count:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios http://www.bis-space.com/products-page/magazines-and-journals/spaceflight-magazine/spaceflight-vol-55-no-09-september-2013/

Dynetics also worked with Falcon on the Stratolaunch airplane, before the Falcon was dropped in favor of Orbital's solid. New core handling/welding tech may be adopted by Musk, one hopes. And before someone starts the SLS bashing, it is that money which helps keep these stands in business and engine tests going at all.

So it's only use it is to help develop rockets that make it even more pointless?:whistle:

publiusr
2013-Oct-28, 10:55 PM
Nothing pointless about it, especially when it gives a ride to Europa. JPL isn't the only space related outfit that needs funds for infrastructure. Oh, I'm sure some folks think JPL and Mars robots are pointless--but I'm not one of those who wants to put a whole center out of work due to parochialism. Michold/MSFC's projects deserve equal respect.

docmordrid
2013-Nov-01, 06:08 AM
For the record - SpaceX isn't doing the Stratolaunch booster anymore, Orbital Sciences is. The Falcon 9 v1.1 archetecture wasn't going to be horizontally launchable, plus it's **really long**. 224 feet long in standard trim.

The guys at NASASpaceFlight have been skulling.what a 9 Raptor Falcon X Heavy (3 cores) booster could do and it's somewhere north of 225 metric tons to LEO. A BEAST.

publiusr
2013-Nov-03, 09:53 PM
That's the MCT /Falcon XX/ BFR right? or are they calling for 9 disparate existing Falcon heavy cores?

Now I think the reason Musks rocket (the "Falcon V" I think it was) was not used was because Dynetics wanted them to omit an engine--and they didn't want to do it. But Orbital's rocket is a solid--that would look to be very heavy... I'm starting to wonder if Stratonaunch wasn't a Glomar--to actually carry a monster bunker buster to Irans Fordow installation. Dynetics is best known for work on the MOAB--but that just means they have technical info on dropping very heavy things aloft...

cjameshuff
2013-Nov-06, 12:08 AM
Now I think the reason Musks rocket (the "Falcon V" I think it was) was not used was because Dynetics wanted them to omit an engine--and they didn't want to do it.

They wanted 20% less thrust, so SpaceX left? What makes 5 engines so special?

The reason given was that the Stratolaunch people wanted major modifications to the vehicle structure, including a much more complex shape incorporating chines and fins/winglets. This would greatly reduce commonality with the Falcon 9 and increase the complexity and investment in what's likely to be a dead end and a distraction from the Falcon 9-R, and makes far more sense as a reason for SpaceX backing out.



But Orbital's rocket is a solid--that would look to be very heavy... I'm starting to wonder if Stratonaunch wasn't a Glomar--to actually carry a monster bunker buster to Irans Fordow installation.

The military constructs experimental planes all the time, why such a circuitous approach for this one? With their frequent need for transporting large payloads by air, they wouldn't even need to keep it secret...and then they might actually have an excuse for having it within range of Iran.

publiusr
2013-Nov-10, 09:31 PM
That's true. I'm just glad to see Stennis being used. I haven't seen this level of rocketry development for a long while.