News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing. Parent comment

Re:SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing by bernulli on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @12:19AM (#26010843)
I don’t understand your first paragraph - is this related to the F-1 development having strong iterative components?

Also, Combustion instabilities date back to at least the A4/V2, not quite new, and largely the same engineers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing by WalterBright on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @12:30AM (#26010895)
The F1 is a bigger (!!) version of the same engine. It's got the same crucial features:

1. turbo-pumps

2. the nozzle is cooled and the fuel warmed by making the nozzle out of tubes through which the fuel passed

3. holes drilled in the tubes so fuel leaked into the combustion chamber to provide boundary layer cooling

I think the pogo-ing was solved the same way, too - putting baffles in in various places.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing by bernulli on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @12:35AM (#26010914)
By that logic essentially all cryogenic engines are “the same”.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:SpaceX SN9 Explodes on Landing by WalterBright on Wednesday February 03, 2021 @01:01AM (#26011022)
In a similar vein, all modern jet engines can trace their core features back to the Ohain engine (not the Whittle engine).
[ Parent | on HN ]