Saturday, December 22, 2018

Low Low Low cost liquid thrust chambers...


The very premise of what I’m trying to do is low cost as a primary design goal.
One has to question ALL of ones assumptions…
I personally fired the first ever 3D printed Regenerativly cooled liquid rocket engine.
ever fired in the world (2009)
I’ve done a lot of work in that space. The 3D aluminum costs are coming down….
Its cool high tech and in many ways awesome. Its also the single most expensive hardware component on my rocket by a factor of 3. For the long term business case to work I need to get the single 6” 24 foot tube cost ready to fly under $2K.  A die cast aluminum inner with a saddle jacket outer made from injection molded saddle and thin wall extruded aluminum outer is a rocket motor with a cost of under $200.00   So for the next generation of motors I’m going to abandon the 3D printed motors…
The first rocket motor I designed my self, and the 2nd liquid rocket motor I ever fired was saddle jacket, and  this generation will be as well. (113 Sec Fireing) 

 I’ll use machined aluminum done on my CNC lathe /mill as a stand in for di-cast aluminum. And the Saddle will either be machined aluminum or possibly machined polyethylene as a stand in for injection molded. 






9 comments:

Jimmy Beal said...

What's the burn time for your 6" tube rocket?

Have you narrowed down the engine from choices A,B, or C you posted earlier?

Paul Breed said...

Burn time in excess of 120 seconds.
Will be trying option B first.

Jimmy Beal said...

Will you do all of your engine testing at FAR or is there some place closer to home you can test? I was going through the Wayback Machine archive of the Armadillo work - I forgot those guys used to fire their LOX/Alcohol engine on their loading dock!

lilanlan said...

good
Windsor escorts

yijinNg said...

good brooklyn escorts

Robert Clark said...

I have a theory that the reason why rocket engines at best such as the SSME’s, have total lifetimes at tens of hours, while jet engines have lifetimes of thousands of hours is because of much lower operating temperatures of jet engines. Jet engines might burn at ca. 1,200 C while rocket engines at ca. 3,000 C.

Then if we operate rocket engines at similar relatively low temperatures of 1,200 C they should also have thousand hour lifetimes. This could be done by making the engines run very fuel rich. I’m aware that rocket engines run fuel-rich anyway, but I’m thinking running the mixture ratio even lower, say 1 to 1.

This would give you lower performance in Isp at the lower temperatures but because of the lower temperatures and also pressure much lighter materials can be used. So at least this key component of the rocket would be lighter so could get better mass ratio, and you could still get sufficient delta-v for an orbital rocket.

Something you could try?

Bob Clark

Anonymous said...

Hey Paul,

Any updates on your project? Do you have to do all the engine testing at FAR or is there some place closer to San Diego that you can test

Unknown said...

lovely ladies available at connaught place escorts

meldaresearch said...

It is advisable for students to seek help from companies offering custom written research paper writing services.