|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. Better ISP means more thrust per pound of fuel, does it not? Yes. Or is there something magical which makes LH2 engines perform not as well at sea level? Isn't the difference in tuning engines for sea level vs vacuum more the engine bell shape/size? It is very difficult to pump enough of LH2 to the combustion chamber in a very short time. You end up needing more engines or bigger engines to have enough thrust. RS-68A seems sufficiently 'high thrust' at over 700,000 lbs of thrust. Using two of them gives you F-1 levels of thrust with almost half again the Isp. Two of them will weigh (dry weight) about half again what an F-1 weighs, but that difference is lost in the noise when you look at the difference in fuel weight you get from the Isp advantage. Does 14.7 difference in PSI outdoors make a difference when it comes to the turbines and combustion chambers which are assume are a tad more pressuzised ? is the only drawback of LH2 engines (from engineering) the aerodynamics of the bigger tanks, which for the first stage, must endure max Q ? The bigger tanks giving greater aerodynamic pressure is a problem. But it is not as important as the problem of getting enough thrust. You can get enough thrust, but it will cost you dearly. Or not so much. RS-68A cost is significantly less than SSME and it's designed to be thrown away after one use. It gives up some performance over the SSME but the high thrust and lower cost make that more than worthwhile. An RS-68A costs about 20% of what an RS-25 costs. As for aerodynamics, R.H. Coates, lead propulsion engineer for SLS, seems to disagree with you. When asked why RP-1/LOX is better for first stage he said, "Refined petroleum is not the most efficient thrust-producing fuel for rockets, but what it lacks in thrust production it makes up for in density. It takes less volume of RP-1 to impart the same thrust force on a vehicle, and less volume equates to reduced stage size. A smaller booster stage means much less aerodynamic drag as the vehicle lifts off from near sea-level and accelerates up through the more dense (thicker) part of the atmosphere near the earth. The result of a smaller booster stage is it allows a more efficient ascent through the thickest part of the atmosphere which helps improve the net mass lifted to orbit." Given a choice between him as an authority and you, well, I'm going to go with him. From a cost point of view, would RP1 engines be much easier and simpler to make or do they represent same level of complexity and thus cost of manufacture ? Bingo! Pumping a tonne of RP1 per second is much easier than pumping a tonne of LH2 per second. Both because the LH2 will have a much bigger volume and because it is very cold. To get the same thrust from a LH2 engine will cost you much more than from an RP1 engine. Both F-1 and RS-68 are gas generator fed engines. RS-68A reportedly costs on the order of $10-$12 million each. I don't find a cost for what an F-1B (the current version) would cost, but I'd bet they're not cheap. SpaceX Merlin, also a gas generator fed engine, but with much less thrust than an F-1, costs around 20% of what an RS-68 costs. Yes, an LH2/LOX engine is going to cost more than an RP1/LOX engine of similar thrust, but don't let RS-25 cost lead you to exaggerate the difference. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
On Oct/21/2017 at 12:36 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. No. Assume a rocket where the first stage and the second stage are identical except that the first stage has 9 engines and the second stage has only 1, and that the rocket uses RP-1. Somewhat like the Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 isn't exactly like that but assume a rocket that is like that. Let's divide the cost of a stage into 3 parts. E = cost of an engine, T = cost of empty tank and F cost of fuel. For the fuel, the cost should be in kg, the dollar cost of the fuel is not important, for the engines and tank using dollars or weight for costs doesn't make much difference. So the costs of the the first stage is S1 = T + F + 9E and the cost of the second stage is S2 = T + F + E. Now someone comes along and says, we could save by using LH2 on the second stage. Now we have to see if you really save overall. The tank would cost more, the fuel would be lighter and the engine would cost more. So cost of stage with LH2 becomes S2LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + E + delta E. So the difference in cost between the RP-1 second stage and the LH2 second stage is S2LH2 - S2 = delta T - delta F + delta E. People at SpaceX looked at that and figured it's not worth it meaning at SpaceX they think that delta F delta T + delta E. Other rocket people looked at that and said yes we would save by having LH2 for the second stage, so others think that delta F delta T + delta E. What is important to know is that it isn't obvious which is true. That is because we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. Now let's look at the first stage. If we go to LH2 we get the cost for the first stage with LH2 S1LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + 9(E + delta E). And the difference between a first stage with RP-1 is S1LH2 - S1 = delta T - delta F + 9(delta E). We just said that we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. So we have approximately S1LH2 - S1 = 8(delta E). And no sane person would pay 8(delta E) for nothing. The difference comes from the fact that the first stage has more engines because you need more thrust on the first stage. Alain Fournier |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Oct/21/2017 at 12:36 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. No. Assume a rocket where the first stage and the second stage are identical except that the first stage has 9 engines and the second stage has only 1, and that the rocket uses RP-1. Somewhat like the Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 isn't exactly like that but assume a rocket that is like that. Yes, you can always rig the numbers by the problem statement. Let's divide the cost of a stage into 3 parts. E = cost of an engine, T = cost of empty tank and F cost of fuel. For the fuel, the cost should be in kg, the dollar cost of the fuel is not important, for the engines and tank using dollars or weight for costs doesn't make much difference. So the costs of the the first stage is S1 = T + F + 9E and the cost of the second stage is S2 = T + F + E. Now someone comes along and says, we could save by using LH2 on the second stage. Now we have to see if you really save overall. The tank would cost more, the fuel would be lighter and the engine would cost more. So cost of stage with LH2 becomes S2LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + E + delta E. So the difference in cost between the RP-1 second stage and the LH2 second stage is S2LH2 - S2 = delta T - delta F + delta E. People at SpaceX looked at that and figured it's not worth it meaning at SpaceX they think that delta F delta T + delta E. Other rocket people looked at that and said yes we would save by having LH2 for the second stage, so others think that delta F delta T + delta E. What is important to know is that it isn't obvious which is true. That is because we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. Now let's look at the first stage. If we go to LH2 we get the cost for the first stage with LH2 S1LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + 9(E + delta E). And the difference between a first stage with RP-1 is S1LH2 - S1 = delta T - delta F + 9(delta E). We just said that we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. So we have approximately S1LH2 - S1 = 8(delta E). And no sane person would pay 8(delta E) for nothing. It's not 'nothing'. It's more payload to orbit, which is sort of the goal of the thing (and what you've ignored with your rigged numbers). Explain Delta IV. The difference comes from the fact that the first stage has more engines because you need more thrust on the first stage. And because you rigged the problem by assuming you only have a low thrust engine that you use everywhere. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-21 00:36, Fred J. McCall wrote: reduced stage size. A smaller booster stage means much less aerodynamic drag as the vehicle lifts off from near sea-level and accelerates up through the more dense (thicker) part of the atmosphere near the earth. The result of a smaller booster stage is it allows a more efficient ascent through the thickest part of the atmosphere which helps improve the net mass lifted to orbit." While this sounds logical, the problem with the text is that it lacks numbers or orders or magnitudes. What is the cost of aerodynamics, and what are the weight savings from using more efficient fuel? Jesus, Mayfly, do SOME of your own homework. The fuel weight part is easy once you know Isp. And the cost of aerodynamics can vary depending on whether you use a short and fast booster or long and skinny one. You're going to eat yourself alive on dry weight if you make a 'long and skinny' booster, since it takes a lot more structure to keep the thing from breaking into pieces. And in the case of the shuttle, what if say 25% of a booster' fuel came from a taller (but same diametre) ET, allowing for smaller aerodynakic drag on the smaller boster tanks ? What if it was all powered by magic unicorn farts? You just complicated the **** out of the engineering, what with the taller tank, needing to worry about crossfeeding the boosters during PART of the flight, etc. The problem with the expert arguments as stated above is that they can be used as spin to pusgh for one architecture without providing numbers to support that suggestion because the numebrs may or may not give the proposed solution such an edge. So stop asking and believe what you like. Also remember that if the boosters need less fuel mass, it means that you need fewer booster engines and that also lowers fuel consumption and thus lowers aerodynamic drag. Uh, no, because you aren't using the same engines (or even engines with the same thrust). With regards to cost of engines, I am not sure it is fair to compare the costs of the SpaceX merlin engines with cost of engines by bloated companies who life comfortably on pork. You're an idiot. If SpaceX had built both types, then yeah, you could compare costs since they both would have been made by a lean and mean company. It could be that the cost difference would be huge, or minimal. We don't know because that hasn't happened. And why do you think that is? As a newbie into the rocket business, SpaceX likely started with the simplest and cheapest, and that means RP1. What is not known is how far is LH2 from being competitive if it were done by SpaceX or another company that is as lean and mean as SpaceX. There's a reason SpaceX has no interest in LH2/LOX engines. If they wanted to go 'simplest' they'd be using hypergolic fuels (although they're a little ugly to handle during loading), since those engines are MUCH simpler (which is why Draco and Super Draco use hypergolic fuels). Note that SpaceX's next big engine is CH4/LOX rather than LH2/LOX. An LH2/LOX engine will always cost a lot more than an RP1/LOX engine. This is obvious with very little thought, which I guess explains why you don't get it. The most expensive parts of the engine are the turbopumps. To get the same thrust out of a lower density fuel (actually a lower density exhaust, but it correlates) you must pump a higher volume of fuel in a given time. This means that your turbopumps need to be bigger and more powerful (and thus more expensive). In addition, with LH2 engines you're pumping a deeply cryogenic fuel, which means the materials your pump is made out of need to account for that as well as standing up to the higher power required. Musk is a bright guy, but he can't change the physical laws of material science. A Merlin engine costs $2 million and change, as near as can be determined. RD-180, which is a more aggressive design with higher operating pressures and over four times the thrust costs around $20 million. Before the Russians jacked up the prices they were $10 million. That's actually for two engines hooked together, though, so call it around $5 million or so per engine. So even a simple LH2/LOX engine costs at least twice as much. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
On Oct/21/2017 at 10:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/21/2017 at 12:36 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. No. Assume a rocket where the first stage and the second stage are identical except that the first stage has 9 engines and the second stage has only 1, and that the rocket uses RP-1. Somewhat like the Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 isn't exactly like that but assume a rocket that is like that. Yes, you can always rig the numbers by the problem statement. Which number was rigged? The only slightly dubious thing in my example is that I was assuming the same size for the second stage as for the first stage, which would be unusual for a rocket. But it doesn't change the idea of the outcome if you divide by two the size of the tanks in the second stage of my example. It only makes the computations a little more complicated. Let's divide the cost of a stage into 3 parts. E = cost of an engine, T = cost of empty tank and F cost of fuel. For the fuel, the cost should be in kg, the dollar cost of the fuel is not important, for the engines and tank using dollars or weight for costs doesn't make much difference. So the costs of the the first stage is S1 = T + F + 9E and the cost of the second stage is S2 = T + F + E. Now someone comes along and says, we could save by using LH2 on the second stage. Now we have to see if you really save overall. The tank would cost more, the fuel would be lighter and the engine would cost more. So cost of stage with LH2 becomes S2LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + E + delta E. So the difference in cost between the RP-1 second stage and the LH2 second stage is S2LH2 - S2 = delta T - delta F + delta E. People at SpaceX looked at that and figured it's not worth it meaning at SpaceX they think that delta F delta T + delta E. Other rocket people looked at that and said yes we would save by having LH2 for the second stage, so others think that delta F delta T + delta E. What is important to know is that it isn't obvious which is true. That is because we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. Now let's look at the first stage. If we go to LH2 we get the cost for the first stage with LH2 S1LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + 9(E + delta E). And the difference between a first stage with RP-1 is S1LH2 - S1 = delta T - delta F + 9(delta E). We just said that we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. So we have approximately S1LH2 - S1 = 8(delta E). And no sane person would pay 8(delta E) for nothing. It's not 'nothing'. It's more payload to orbit, which is sort of the goal of the thing (and what you've ignored with your rigged numbers). Explain Delta IV. In my example I was assuming the same functionality for the stages. Meaning, the stages would put the same mass at the same altitude and same speed whether it was the RP1 variant or the LH2 variant. For the Delta IV, there are several variants. Let's look at the one with one CBC as a first stage and the 5m diameter second stage. The first stage has one RS-68A engine with a dry weight of the engine of 6740 kg and 3137 kN thrust, the gross mass of the booster is 226400 kg. The second stage has one RL10B-2 engine weighing 277 kg and providing 110 kN thrust, the gross mass of the second stage is 30710 kg. The example I gave above applies with only minor modifications. Instead of putting 9 times more engines on the first stage, they put only one engine as for the second stage but that engine weighs 24 times more. Saving on the mass and cost of the RL10B-2 by replacing it with a RP-1 engine isn't much worth the trouble even if you include the weight saved on the dry weight of the tank. The added weight of the fuel would approximately counter balance your gains. Different people will come to different conclusions on this but the gains or losses by going to RP-1 wouldn't be great. But for the first stage, you have *much* more to gain by going to RP-1, the engine is 24 times bigger, I don't know how many times more expensive it is but it should also be much more expensive than the second stage engine (which is more important than the fact that the engine is heavier). Even if you take into account the fact the the first stage is bigger than the second stage, the first stage's engine is comparatively bigger. The gains you can get by going to RP-1 would be more important on the first stage. Why didn't they go to RP-1 for the first stage of the Delta IV? I don't know. But what I have said before is that if you use LH2 for the first stage, it will work but it will cost you. I don't consider Delta IV to be a low cost launcher. The difference comes from the fact that the first stage has more engines because you need more thrust on the first stage. And because you rigged the problem by assuming you only have a low thrust engine that you use everywhere. No, I was assuming the same engine everywhere like on the Falcon 9. The Merlin engine on the Falcon 9 has a thrust to weight ratio of 180 which is much more than what you have on the Delta IV. Alain Fournier |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Oct/21/2017 at 10:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/21/2017 at 12:36 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. No. Assume a rocket where the first stage and the second stage are identical except that the first stage has 9 engines and the second stage has only 1, and that the rocket uses RP-1. Somewhat like the Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 isn't exactly like that but assume a rocket that is like that. Yes, you can always rig the numbers by the problem statement. Which number was rigged? The only slightly dubious thing in my example is that I was assuming the same size for the second stage as for the first stage, which would be unusual for a rocket. But it doesn't change the idea of the outcome if you divide by two the size of the tanks in the second stage of my example. It only makes the computations a little more complicated. Why does the first stage need nine engines? Let's divide the cost of a stage into 3 parts. E = cost of an engine, T = cost of empty tank and F cost of fuel. For the fuel, the cost should be in kg, the dollar cost of the fuel is not important, for the engines and tank using dollars or weight for costs doesn't make much difference. So the costs of the the first stage is S1 = T + F + 9E and the cost of the second stage is S2 = T + F + E. Now someone comes along and says, we could save by using LH2 on the second stage. Now we have to see if you really save overall. The tank would cost more, the fuel would be lighter and the engine would cost more. So cost of stage with LH2 becomes S2LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + E + delta E. So the difference in cost between the RP-1 second stage and the LH2 second stage is S2LH2 - S2 = delta T - delta F + delta E. People at SpaceX looked at that and figured it's not worth it meaning at SpaceX they think that delta F delta T + delta E. Other rocket people looked at that and said yes we would save by having LH2 for the second stage, so others think that delta F delta T + delta E. What is important to know is that it isn't obvious which is true. That is because we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. Now let's look at the first stage. If we go to LH2 we get the cost for the first stage with LH2 S1LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + 9(E + delta E). And the difference between a first stage with RP-1 is S1LH2 - S1 = delta T - delta F + 9(delta E). We just said that we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. So we have approximately S1LH2 - S1 = 8(delta E). And no sane person would pay 8(delta E) for nothing. It's not 'nothing'. It's more payload to orbit, which is sort of the goal of the thing (and what you've ignored with your rigged numbers). Explain Delta IV. In my example I was assuming the same functionality for the stages. Meaning, the stages would put the same mass at the same altitude and same speed whether it was the RP1 variant or the LH2 variant. For the Delta IV, there are several variants. Let's look at the one with one CBC as a first stage and the 5m diameter second stage. The first stage has one RS-68A engine with a dry weight of the engine of 6740 kg and 3137 kN thrust, the gross mass of the booster is 226400 kg. The second stage has one RL10B-2 engine weighing 277 kg and providing 110 kN thrust, the gross mass of the second stage is 30710 kg. The example I gave above applies with only minor modifications. Instead of putting 9 times more engines on the first stage, they put only one engine as for the second stage but that engine weighs 24 times more. Saving on the mass and cost of the RL10B-2 by replacing it with a RP-1 engine isn't much worth the trouble even if you include the weight saved on the dry weight of the tank. The added weight of the fuel would approximately counter balance your gains. Different people will come to different conclusions on this but the gains or losses by going to RP-1 wouldn't be great. But for the first stage, you have *much* more to gain by going to RP-1, the engine is 24 times bigger, I don't know how many times more expensive it is but it should also be much more expensive than the second stage engine (which is more important than the fact that the engine is heavier). Even if you take into account the fact the the first stage is bigger than the second stage, the first stage's engine is comparatively bigger. The gains you can get by going to RP-1 would be more important on the first stage. And an RP1/LOX engine with equivalent thrust will weigh about the same as the LH2/LOX RS-68A, so you save nothing so far as weight goes. The fuel to get equivalent performance will weigh much more, so your RP1/LOX engine needs higher thrust because it has to lift more mass in fuel. Why didn't they go to RP-1 for the first stage of the Delta IV? I don't know. But what I have said before is that if you use LH2 for the first stage, it will work but it will cost you. I don't consider Delta IV to be a low cost launcher. But it's comparable to most other launchers of its generation. Both Atlas V and Delta IV cost about $13k/kg to get stuff into orbit. Atlas V is RP1/LOX while Delta IV is LH2/LOX for the 'core stage'. The difference comes from the fact that the first stage has more engines because you need more thrust on the first stage. And because you rigged the problem by assuming you only have a low thrust engine that you use everywhere. No, I was assuming the same engine everywhere like on the Falcon 9. Which rigs your result. The Merlin engine on the Falcon 9 has a thrust to weight ratio of 180 which is much more than what you have on the Delta IV. And it has a lower Isp and lower thrust. So what? Engine weight is trivial unless you rig the numbers. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
On Oct/23/2017 at 5:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/21/2017 at 10:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/21/2017 at 12:36 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. No. Assume a rocket where the first stage and the second stage are identical except that the first stage has 9 engines and the second stage has only 1, and that the rocket uses RP-1. Somewhat like the Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 isn't exactly like that but assume a rocket that is like that. Yes, you can always rig the numbers by the problem statement. Which number was rigged? The only slightly dubious thing in my example is that I was assuming the same size for the second stage as for the first stage, which would be unusual for a rocket. But it doesn't change the idea of the outcome if you divide by two the size of the tanks in the second stage of my example. It only makes the computations a little more complicated. Why does the first stage need nine engines? You should ask SpaceX why they put nine engines on their first stage. Let's divide the cost of a stage into 3 parts. E = cost of an engine, T = cost of empty tank and F cost of fuel. For the fuel, the cost should be in kg, the dollar cost of the fuel is not important, for the engines and tank using dollars or weight for costs doesn't make much difference. So the costs of the the first stage is S1 = T + F + 9E and the cost of the second stage is S2 = T + F + E. Now someone comes along and says, we could save by using LH2 on the second stage. Now we have to see if you really save overall. The tank would cost more, the fuel would be lighter and the engine would cost more. So cost of stage with LH2 becomes S2LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + E + delta E. So the difference in cost between the RP-1 second stage and the LH2 second stage is S2LH2 - S2 = delta T - delta F + delta E. People at SpaceX looked at that and figured it's not worth it meaning at SpaceX they think that delta F delta T + delta E. Other rocket people looked at that and said yes we would save by having LH2 for the second stage, so others think that delta F delta T + delta E. What is important to know is that it isn't obvious which is true. That is because we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. Now let's look at the first stage. If we go to LH2 we get the cost for the first stage with LH2 S1LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + 9(E + delta E). And the difference between a first stage with RP-1 is S1LH2 - S1 = delta T - delta F + 9(delta E). We just said that we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. So we have approximately S1LH2 - S1 = 8(delta E). And no sane person would pay 8(delta E) for nothing. It's not 'nothing'. It's more payload to orbit, which is sort of the goal of the thing (and what you've ignored with your rigged numbers). Explain Delta IV. In my example I was assuming the same functionality for the stages. Meaning, the stages would put the same mass at the same altitude and same speed whether it was the RP1 variant or the LH2 variant. For the Delta IV, there are several variants. Let's look at the one with one CBC as a first stage and the 5m diameter second stage. The first stage has one RS-68A engine with a dry weight of the engine of 6740 kg and 3137 kN thrust, the gross mass of the booster is 226400 kg. The second stage has one RL10B-2 engine weighing 277 kg and providing 110 kN thrust, the gross mass of the second stage is 30710 kg. The example I gave above applies with only minor modifications. Instead of putting 9 times more engines on the first stage, they put only one engine as for the second stage but that engine weighs 24 times more. Saving on the mass and cost of the RL10B-2 by replacing it with a RP-1 engine isn't much worth the trouble even if you include the weight saved on the dry weight of the tank. The added weight of the fuel would approximately counter balance your gains. Different people will come to different conclusions on this but the gains or losses by going to RP-1 wouldn't be great. But for the first stage, you have *much* more to gain by going to RP-1, the engine is 24 times bigger, I don't know how many times more expensive it is but it should also be much more expensive than the second stage engine (which is more important than the fact that the engine is heavier). Even if you take into account the fact the the first stage is bigger than the second stage, the first stage's engine is comparatively bigger. The gains you can get by going to RP-1 would be more important on the first stage. And an RP1/LOX engine with equivalent thrust will weigh about the same as the LH2/LOX RS-68A, so you save nothing so far as weight goes. Four Merlin 1D engines will give more thrust (4x845 = 3380 kN) than one RS-68A (3137 kN) but they will weigh 1880 kg which is much less than the 6740 kg of the RS-68A. But that is not really very important here. The fuel to get equivalent performance will weigh much more, so your RP1/LOX engine needs higher thrust because it has to lift more mass in fuel. Yes. The fuel will weigh much more. You don't use RP1/LOX engines instead of LH2/LOX engines to save weight. I'm glad to see that we now agree on this. Why didn't they go to RP-1 for the first stage of the Delta IV? I don't know. But what I have said before is that if you use LH2 for the first stage, it will work but it will cost you. I don't consider Delta IV to be a low cost launcher. But it's comparable to most other launchers of its generation. Both Atlas V and Delta IV cost about $13k/kg to get stuff into orbit. Atlas V is RP1/LOX while Delta IV is LH2/LOX for the 'core stage'. The difference comes from the fact that the first stage has more engines because you need more thrust on the first stage. And because you rigged the problem by assuming you only have a low thrust engine that you use everywhere. No, I was assuming the same engine everywhere like on the Falcon 9. Which rigs your result. Hum! are you claiming that SpaceX designed their Falcon 9 that way to rig the results of this conversation? I can assure you that I did not collude with SpaceX on that (nor on anything else for that matter). The Merlin engine on the Falcon 9 has a thrust to weight ratio of 180 which is much more than what you have on the Delta IV. And it has a lower Isp and lower thrust. So what? Engine weight is trivial unless you rig the numbers. Engine weight isn't the important thing here. I'm glad to see we agree on this. But the cost of the engines is important. If you need nine on the first stage against only one on the second stage, you can see that saving on engines on the first stage is more important than on the second stage. And if you have a design such as the Delta IV, it isn't as obvious but the same argument applies. The RS-68A on the first stage weighs 24 times the RL10B-2 on the second stage. Also the RS-68A has 28.5 times more thrust than the RL10B-2. I don't know what's the price tag of neither the RS-68A nor the RL10B-2, but I would expect it to cost many times more. So once again, you can see that saving on the first stage engines is more important than on the second stage engines. This argument still holds even if you take into account that the second stage is smaller than the first. The second stage of the Falcon isn't nine times smaller than the first stage and the second stage of the Delta IV isn't 28 times smaller than the first. You want to have proportionally more thrust on the first stage than on the second stage and you have to pay for that one way or another. Alain Fournier |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
Alain Fournier wrote:
On Oct/23/2017 at 5:01 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/21/2017 at 10:56 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/21/2017 at 12:36 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote : Alain Fournier wrote: On Oct/19/2017 at 9:48 PM, JF Mezei wrote : On 2017-10-19 20:15, Alain Fournier wrote: It was my claim from the very start that LH2/LOX does NOT offer better performance for the first stage. If discussing engine performance only, would it be correct to state that SSMEs with higher ISP would offer better performance then RP1 engines or SRBs since it has better Isp? Performance is a somewhat vague term. Higher ISP shouldn't be your measure of performance. If you measure performance by ISP, SSME is better, but it will cost you dearly if you measure performance by cost in dollars. That applies to all stages, though, so if LH2/LOX has poor performance (in dollars) on the first stage, it will have equally poor performance on all other stages. No. Assume a rocket where the first stage and the second stage are identical except that the first stage has 9 engines and the second stage has only 1, and that the rocket uses RP-1. Somewhat like the Falcon 9, the Falcon 9 isn't exactly like that but assume a rocket that is like that. Yes, you can always rig the numbers by the problem statement. Which number was rigged? The only slightly dubious thing in my example is that I was assuming the same size for the second stage as for the first stage, which would be unusual for a rocket. But it doesn't change the idea of the outcome if you divide by two the size of the tanks in the second stage of my example. It only makes the computations a little more complicated. Why does the first stage need nine engines? You should ask SpaceX why they put nine engines on their first stage. You should ask everyone else why they didn't. Let's divide the cost of a stage into 3 parts. E = cost of an engine, T = cost of empty tank and F cost of fuel. For the fuel, the cost should be in kg, the dollar cost of the fuel is not important, for the engines and tank using dollars or weight for costs doesn't make much difference. So the costs of the the first stage is S1 = T + F + 9E and the cost of the second stage is S2 = T + F + E. Now someone comes along and says, we could save by using LH2 on the second stage. Now we have to see if you really save overall. The tank would cost more, the fuel would be lighter and the engine would cost more. So cost of stage with LH2 becomes S2LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + E + delta E. So the difference in cost between the RP-1 second stage and the LH2 second stage is S2LH2 - S2 = delta T - delta F + delta E. People at SpaceX looked at that and figured it's not worth it meaning at SpaceX they think that delta F delta T + delta E. Other rocket people looked at that and said yes we would save by having LH2 for the second stage, so others think that delta F delta T + delta E. What is important to know is that it isn't obvious which is true. That is because we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. Now let's look at the first stage. If we go to LH2 we get the cost for the first stage with LH2 S1LH2 = T + delta T + F - delta F + 9(E + delta E). And the difference between a first stage with RP-1 is S1LH2 - S1 = delta T - delta F + 9(delta E). We just said that we have approximately delta F = delta T + delta E. So we have approximately S1LH2 - S1 = 8(delta E). And no sane person would pay 8(delta E) for nothing. It's not 'nothing'. It's more payload to orbit, which is sort of the goal of the thing (and what you've ignored with your rigged numbers). Explain Delta IV. In my example I was assuming the same functionality for the stages. Meaning, the stages would put the same mass at the same altitude and same speed whether it was the RP1 variant or the LH2 variant. For the Delta IV, there are several variants. Let's look at the one with one CBC as a first stage and the 5m diameter second stage. The first stage has one RS-68A engine with a dry weight of the engine of 6740 kg and 3137 kN thrust, the gross mass of the booster is 226400 kg. The second stage has one RL10B-2 engine weighing 277 kg and providing 110 kN thrust, the gross mass of the second stage is 30710 kg. The example I gave above applies with only minor modifications. Instead of putting 9 times more engines on the first stage, they put only one engine as for the second stage but that engine weighs 24 times more. Saving on the mass and cost of the RL10B-2 by replacing it with a RP-1 engine isn't much worth the trouble even if you include the weight saved on the dry weight of the tank. The added weight of the fuel would approximately counter balance your gains. Different people will come to different conclusions on this but the gains or losses by going to RP-1 wouldn't be great. But for the first stage, you have *much* more to gain by going to RP-1, the engine is 24 times bigger, I don't know how many times more expensive it is but it should also be much more expensive than the second stage engine (which is more important than the fact that the engine is heavier). Even if you take into account the fact the the first stage is bigger than the second stage, the first stage's engine is comparatively bigger. The gains you can get by going to RP-1 would be more important on the first stage. And an RP1/LOX engine with equivalent thrust will weigh about the same as the LH2/LOX RS-68A, so you save nothing so far as weight goes. Four Merlin 1D engines will give more thrust (4x845 = 3380 kN) than one RS-68A (3137 kN) but they will weigh 1880 kg which is much less than the 6740 kg of the RS-68A. But that is not really very important here. Nice of you to finally figure that out. Falcon 9 Expendable (no recovery of first stage) can manage just short of 23 tonnes to LEO. Delta IV Heavy (3 engines first stage) can put just short of 29 tonnes in the same orbit. The differences become even larger (percentage wise) when you start looking at GEO (a little over 8 tonnes vs a little over 14 tonnes) and polar orbits (4 tonnes vs 23.5 tonnes). The fuel to get equivalent performance will weigh much more, so your RP1/LOX engine needs higher thrust because it has to lift more mass in fuel. Yes. The fuel will weigh much more. You don't use RP1/LOX engines instead of LH2/LOX engines to save weight. I'm glad to see that we now agree on this. 'Now agree on this'? Like we didn't before? I'm glad to see you're sharpening your reading skills and have finally realized this. So the thrust comparison is bogus, since you have to lift more mass of fuel with an RP1/LOX rocket so you NEED more thrust to get the same performance. True, this difference is LOWER for the first stage, since it expends its fuel early and then drops off, but it isn't inconsequential. Why didn't they go to RP-1 for the first stage of the Delta IV? I don't know. But what I have said before is that if you use LH2 for the first stage, it will work but it will cost you. I don't consider Delta IV to be a low cost launcher. But it's comparable to most other launchers of its generation. Both Atlas V and Delta IV cost about $13k/kg to get stuff into orbit. Atlas V is RP1/LOX while Delta IV is LH2/LOX for the 'core stage'. The difference comes from the fact that the first stage has more engines because you need more thrust on the first stage. And because you rigged the problem by assuming you only have a low thrust engine that you use everywhere. No, I was assuming the same engine everywhere like on the Falcon 9. Which rigs your result. Hum! are you claiming that SpaceX designed their Falcon 9 that way to rig the results of this conversation? I can assure you that I did not collude with SpaceX on that (nor on anything else for that matter). No, I'm claiming you picked the Falcon configuration to rig your result so as to require more engines on the LH2/LOX rocket to drive up the cost. Compare Atlas V (RP1/LOX) to Delta IV (LH2/LOX). The Merlin engine on the Falcon 9 has a thrust to weight ratio of 180 which is much more than what you have on the Delta IV. And it has a lower Isp and lower thrust. So what? Engine weight is trivial unless you rig the numbers. Engine weight isn't the important thing here. I'm glad to see we agree on this. But the cost of the engines is important. If you need nine on the first stage against only one on the second stage, you can see that saving on engines on the first stage is more important than on the second stage. Yes, if you rig the numbers by choosing a configuration that drives up engine cost, you can get any result you want. Hey, let's assume 40 engines on the first stage! And if you have a design such as the Delta IV, it isn't as obvious but the same argument applies. The RS-68A on the first stage weighs 24 times the RL10B-2 on the second stage. Also the RS-68A has 28.5 times more thrust than the RL10B-2. I don't know what's the price tag of neither the RS-68A nor the RL10B-2, but I would expect it to cost many times more. So once again, you can see that saving on the first stage engines is more important than on the second stage engines. Yes, which is why you save by using fewer larger engines. That's why most rockets (Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are exceptions) use different engines on the first stage than on the second stage. I've told you what both an RS-68A and a Merlin 1D cost. Best estimates say RS-68A is around $10-$12 million and Merlin 1D is around 2 million and change. So Delta IV Heavy has $30-$36 million worth of engines on the first stage. Falcon 9 has around $18-$20 million worth of engines on the first stage. So yes, Delta IV Heavy costs more for engines but it has more performance. LH2 engines are more expensive, but they're not as ridiculously more expensive as RS-25 costs or assuming large numbers of engines being required would lead you to believe. This argument still holds even if you take into account that the second stage is smaller than the first. The second stage of the Falcon isn't nine times smaller than the first stage and the second stage of the Delta IV isn't 28 times smaller than the first. You want to have proportionally more thrust on the first stage than on the second stage and you have to pay for that one way or another. Yes, but the difference isn't as preposterous as your case makes it sound. LH2/LOX is going to be around 50% more expensive for engines for 'similar' performance. The ability to stage higher and faster because of Isp differences makes up for some of that (because you're either carrying a smaller mass of fuel or because you're carrying the same mass of fuel and it burns longer). You then have to adjust that for tank weight and aerodynamic drag from the need for bigger volume tanks. There are 'sweet spots' in there where LH2/LOX is competitive and there are hypothetical cases that make LH2/LOX look even worse than one would expect. GENERALLY, a higher density exhaust (from a denser fuel) makes sense for a first stage, but that's not always the case or Delta IV wouldn't look like it does. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-10-24 02:08, Fred J. McCall wrote: Nice of you to finally figure that out. Falcon 9 Expendable (no recovery of first stage) can manage just short of 23 tonnes to LEO. There is one problem with Falcon 9 arguments: unlike NASA, SpaceX is driven by business decisions. Get a limited payload at lowest possible cost up there, and that includes getting up and running with the lowest R%D costs possible. A payload of 23 tonnes is not exactly considered 'limited'. Musk admitted that at the time of their first succesful launch, they had runned out of money and it would have been their last launch had it failed. Yeah, that was Falcon 1 with a lot more limited payload, too. And once you have an assembly line spewing out Merlin engines, and your demand for engines goes down as you start to re-use Flacon 9s, it makes business sense to use Merlins for your Falcon Heavy since you already not only have a tested design, but also the assembly lines runnning. There is no such thing as assembly line production 'spewing out' rocket engines. It made sense to use Merlin engines because the idea was to have three identical cores for Falcon Heavy, sort of like what Delta IV Heavy does. In the event, Musk found they couldn't do that and that they couldn't just use three Falcon 9 cores for Falcon Heavy. The side boosters are now different from the central 'core'. It does not necessarily mean that it is the optimal design from an engineering point of view. It's the design that makes the most business sense. It may not even be that. Certainly no one here is advocating 'optimal engineering design' as a GOAL, although that usually makes the most business sense. My sense is that the Shuttle was started, much like the Apollo program with a "the sky is the limit, innovate, don't worry about budgets" only to find that budgets were limited and had to compromise. Sense seems to be something you lack. Like most big technical projects, the original estimates were woefully low. Everyone tends to underestimate the cost of dealing with the 'known unknowns' and of course there's no budget at all for the 'unknown unknowns'. The reason I asked the original question was to get a feel for what could have been possible back in the 1970s had such budgets not been limited and NASA be able to develop a Shuttle with engineering in control. Find some of the discussions of the original Shuttle design. -- "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Were liquid boosters on Shuttle ever realistic?
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
... There is no such thing as assembly line production 'spewing out' rocket engines. It made sense to use Merlin engines because the idea was to have three identical cores for Falcon Heavy, sort of like what Delta IV Heavy does. In the event, Musk found they couldn't do that and that they couldn't just use three Falcon 9 cores for Falcon Heavy. The side boosters are now different from the central 'core'. What are the differences? Last I knew the side boosters for the primary flight are B1023.2 and B1025.2 (i.e 2nd flight for those two boosters) -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are rotating stations realistic ? | John Doe | Space Station | 2 | May 19th 10 10:15 AM |
"Boeing To Study Liquid Fly Back Shuttle Boosters For NASA" | gaetanomarano | Policy | 19 | November 27th 07 05:59 AM |
shuttle, tank and boosters on its crawler | Rich | Space Shuttle | 37 | September 11th 06 09:09 AM |
Shuttle Liquid Fly-Back Booster to save money, improve safety(flashback) | Bob Wilson | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 16th 06 02:12 AM |
Space Shuttle Boosters and Launch Pad Revell Model Kit on eBay | TB | Space Shuttle | 2 | February 1st 05 07:00 AM |