Recommended Posts

Just a heads up

 

The Eastern Range will shut down for a few weeks starting soon after Falcon 9 Intelsat-35e goes up Sunday. Maintenance etc.

 

After the range comes back, the first up to bat appears to be the Atlas V TDRS launch on August 3rd. SpaceX resumes with CRS-12 on August 10th.

  • Like 1

SpaceX looking at using Raptor engines for the Falcon Program

Article link | SpaceNews.com website

59557f5b7f344_Raptor_test_firing_2015-09-25.thumb.jpg.a2961c4ed918c3ee729e4af349ffd32f.jpg

 

Quote

“We’ve worked a lot on this particular vehicle. A lot of the active components, the valves, have been redesigned and requalified for much higher levels and much longer duration,” she said.

 

Despite describing the Block 5 as the final version of the Falcon 9, Shotwell hinted at the possibility of a future version of the rocket that could use the Raptor engines designed for transportation to Mars. Shotwell said Raptor, a liquid methane and oxygen engine for SpaceX’s interplanetary spaceship, has undergone “many dozens of tests” and is progressing well.

 

“The original idea for those engines were to serve as a propulsion system for the big Mars system, but we are looking at the utility of it on the Falcon program,” she said. (emphasis added)

:woot::woot::yes:

 

Oh ... my ... giddy ... Aunt ... okay, let's dig into some citations and data. Gotta see where the numbers sit.

 

Citationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

 

In order to make Raptor actually worth using on a Falcon-class rocket, a couple of things need to happen to justify it.

 

1) As we've seen, the 1/3 size "test model" Raptor engine kicks out just about 1,000 kn of force ASL. Merlin-1D's currently will do just about 845 kn ASL; although we've seen SpaceX demonstrate that the 1D's can (and will) handle 950 kn ASL without issues (citation: Inmarsat 5-F4's launch).

 

Any Raptor engines being retrofitted into a Falcon-M (my own working name for this derivative) will need to be an evolutionary increase better than the above. 25%~50% better would make a strong case for a refit. 1,250 kn of thrust ASL, but in a small enough footprint that it could be packed into the Octoweb neatly and integrated without a lot of hassle. We're also looking for as much of a "drop-in" replacement as possible, with as little redesign as possible (saving the company money and time). The plumbing connections, of course, that all can be dealt with quickly. Tankage, however, is another issue and will be dealt with by others.

 

I should note that a 25%~50% improvement in performance at this scale is already something that SpaceX has checked off on their list. :yes: Mrs. Shotwell wouldn't have suggested using these engines on Falcon if they hadn't already gotten to that milestone.

 

2) SpaceX would have the need to build it. This means retrofitting an already-mature platform. Would the Falcon-series rockets actually need upgrading? This becomes a question of want versus need.

 

3) Does this then become a case where it would simply be better to build a new medium-class rocket altogether? Possibly. Keep the Falcon-class for light-ish payloads, build the new medium-class for those payloads where it's not appropriate for ITS Junior? This would be the argument that would likely kill off any chances of refitting the Falcon line, in my view.

 

So what could we expect a Falcon-M's performance to be like?

 

We'll have to wait and see if they build it. ;) 

Edited by Unobscured Vision

They're still looking at it, but to get to the point of saying it in public likely means it's further along than anyone thought :woot:

 

I think they'll use the 1,000+ kn Raptor engine on the upper stage, since that's what the USAF paid them to develop. Very likely an long duration ACES-like upper stage but with solar power rather than the 6-cyl reciprocating engine generator ULA opted for.

  • Like 1
22 minutes ago, DocM said:

They're still looking at it, but to get to the point of saying it in public likely means it's further along than anyone thought :woot:

 

I think they'll use the 1,000+ kn Raptor engine on the upper stage, since that's what the USAF paid them to develop. Very likely an long duration ACES-like upper stage but with solar power rather than the 6-cyl reciprocating engine generator ULA opted for.

FAR better option, imho. That 6-cyl generator has fail written all over it. Using something like that for space ... feh. I'd rather they use fuel cells than that heaping pile of bad ideas.

 

Solar is a proven technology, and good out to Jupiter. The panels they use on Dragon would do the job, and do it well. All they need is something to top off the TCU B+ for the Methalox, and the various systems on the S2.

I think they'll use the circumferential solar arrays and thermal radiators from Crew Dragon/Dragon 2 for power, and radiating heat from a small cryocooler (to keep things chilled.) 

 

This way it could double as a Crew Dragon cis-lunar departure/return stage, leaving space in the trunk for other consumables to be passed through the Dragon Claw.

  • Like 1
3 hours ago, DocM said:

Cool!!

 

What's even cooler is knowing twice as many have landed, and two have done it twice :woot:

 

The industry wonks, and trolls, who said this was impossible are extremely quiet lately. 

Yep, and plenty more to come. :yes:

 

Those industry naysayers are finding themselves locked out of the industry now, pretty much. OR they're being relegated to tasks that pretty much cut them out of the loop. Think of weather stations in the Arctic Circle ... things like that. Places and jobs that they wish they'd never pigeon-holed themselves into. Retirement is really the only option for them at that point.

 

SpaceNews.com seems to be the last bastion of the "old thinking" ... lots of anti-SpaceX people gather there.

On 7/2/2017 at 5:48 AM, DocM said:

Cool!!

 

What's even cooler is knowing twice as many have landed, and two have done it twice :woot:

 

The industry wonks, and trolls, who said this was impossible are extremely quiet lately. 

Sark0zy's head probably exploded in rage. :p

 

  • Like 3

Here's a thought,

 

Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
Thanks PayPal for allowing me to buy back http://X.com! No plans right now, but it has great sentimental value to me. 

 

Jonathan Wilkinson @jondaily83
Replying to @elonmusk
I've got a cool idea you can use http://X.com as an umbrella website to all your other companies. 

 

Elon Musk ✔ @elonmusk
That's probably the best use

 

Single letter domains go for $megabuck$, Z.com went for $6.8m, so it meant enough to drop 7 figures on.

  • Like 1
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      579
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      71
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!