News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SLS vs. Starship by pfdietz on Friday November 13, 2020 @06:10PM (#25088666)
Reusability doesn't make engines costly. All liquid rocket engines are reusable. They have to be, so they can be tested before being put on the vehicle, and so during development you can keep reusing test articles.

The Merlin engines on the Falcon 9 are reusable (and on the first stage, they are reused). They are reported to cost SpaceX just $400K per engine to manufacture.

Re:SLS vs. Starship by m4rtink on Friday November 13, 2020 @11:54PM (#25090393)
>All liquid rocket engines are reusable. As always there are exceptions - rs-68 has an ablative nozzle that is rated for a single flight, so you need to test without that I guess.

Other engines could be similarly rated for jinutes of runtime by default for maximum performance. SpaceX aldo repeatedly ststed Merlin and Raptor were designed for cheap and fregvent reuse.

Re:SLS vs. Starship by pfdietz on Saturday November 14, 2020 @07:49AM (#25092006)
Yes, Merlin was designed to be cheap. That's why it's cheap. Being reusable was not an impediment to it being cheap. Being reusable is not an excuse for being expensive.

A cheap rocket engine needs a cheap development process, which means you want your test articles to last a long time. Far from being an obstacle to cheapness, reusability is a requirement for an affordable engine development program.

Let's go way back to Usenet and listen to Henry Spencer on this subject.

https://yarchive.net/space/rocket/rl10.html

"To reiterate my original point: almost any regeneratively-cooled liquid rocket engine is reusable, even if it was built for expendable vehicles. The design requirement for the F-1 was 20 starts and 2250s of firing; as part of the test program, six of them accumulated over 5000s each."

Re:SLS vs. Starship by skykooler on Sunday November 15, 2020 @12:33AM (#25098547)
The Merlin engines don't run hydrogen, though. Because of hydrogen's propensity to embrittle metals it comes into contact with over time, it's much harder to design a hydrogen engine for long runtimes (vs. say, a one-minute static fire plus a eight-minute flight).
Re:SLS vs. Starship by pfdietz on Sunday November 15, 2020 @06:14AM (#25100240)
Any hydrocarbon engine will have hydrogen in the thrust chamber, and in the gas generator. They all run a bit fuel rich to maximize Isp, and that will mean the hot partially burned gas has some molecular hydrogen in it.

What makes hydrogen engines more expensive is the low density of LH2, which greatly increases the pumping power needed to bring the propellant up to pressure for injection into the thrust chamber.

Re:SLS vs. Starship by bernulli on Sunday November 15, 2020 @10:03AM (#25101691)
Reusability is not binary, saying 'all liquid rocket engines are reusable' is pointless. It's like saying surely a Formula 1 car is equivalent to a Tacoma in terms of 'reusability', because both can be restarted. Spoiler: they're not.