The motor you worked on for us on the NGC MVAD project also ring a bell? 😊
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
<http://www.cesaronitech.com/> http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of
roxanna Mason
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 6:49 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: Falcon 9 lifetime of 5 flights?
May have answered the question after jogging my aging memory:
In the late 90's at EMRTC New Mexico Tech I conducted firings for TRW with a
pindle at the 40K level with Tom as the project engineer and Maurice O Brian
test tech. Then in 2003 from my home in the Mojave desert I did loan Tom my 75K
LOx/Kero injector as a demonstrator for 6 month. Guess It stuck.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
www.avast.com
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:38 PM William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Ken:
They use a pintle injector because when they designed it that was far cheaper
than a flat plate.
Bill
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 4:28 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
That's exactly why water recovery was investigated, I heard Bob countless times
tell interviewers how the Navy builds large ships in ship yards and dealing
with sea water for years on end with minimal issues with corrosion. The
contract we were working under, no surprise, was by NRL.
We did design and hot tested pintle injectors in a Full Flow oxidizer
configuration but with no ability to throttle or shutoff though it wouldn't of
been hard to configure to do so. All components were fabed from inconel except
the preburned was 300 SS.
SpaceX use a pintle injector, the pattern can be seen in the nozzle wall of
their upper stage engine bell and first stage pushes off of the pindle at
staging.
Why do they us a pindle? Throttling, less susceptible to instability,
scaleability,cost, all of the above? They sure are 'close to the vest' about it.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
www.avast.com
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:57 PM William Claybaugh <wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:wclaybaugh2@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Ken:
The United States Navy stands as an existence proof that it is possible to
submerge complex hardware in seawater for decades. Provided one can afford the
maintenance.
Those who have studied the matter (Truax mainly, but some others) have
concluded that a pintle injector that fully closes before immersion is the most
economic engineering solution that allows the illusion of certainty wrt salt
water effects on the interior of the injector.
Pintle injectors carry performance penalties at the margin but are also much
cheaper than flat plate injectors absent 3-d printing. It might be the case
that water landing a stage that could close the injector face and was otherwise
designed by Naval Architects rather than aerospace engineers would prove lower
cost for small numbers of recoveries.
For a presumed future in which launch assets are flying hundreds of times per
year it seems to me more likely that a land landing will prove overall lower
cost...we are terrestrial creatures.
Bill
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 3:25 PM roxanna Mason <rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rocketmaster.ken@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
From the bottom, I read a detailed NASA report with photos were they submerged
an H-1 engine in sea water for 24 hrs washed it off and hot fired it
successfully. So wet F-1 may have been OK.
The Balloutes (drag bags) made of metal coated Kevlar were to keep the terminal
velocity below self destruction velocities during balletic reentry, but again
got to keep apple/oranges separate as this was for pressure fed stages made of
maraging steel at 300-400 psig resistant to limited aero heating not fragile
aluminum pump fed stages though would of been nice to try balloutes on them.
Having a Shuttle and Saturn 5 would of been great but fantasy with the costs of
both. A down graded un manned vehicle the way it is now makes sense with the
Air Force flying their winged re-entry vehicle so far successfully.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
www.avast.com
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 12:24 PM Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020, roxanna Mason wrote:
The Shuttle was an abomination any way it's diced and/or sliced. At $1B per
mission, +/- a quarter $B, reuse of any part or component was pretty much
moot. Would be been better to keep flying the Saturn 5 at $1/4B per vehicle.
I saw an artist conception of the SIC stage parachuting into the
ocean... Chutes were stowed in the 4 aft fairings where the BSM are
housed. and keep the tanks pressurized for impact resilience...
At least get the F-1's back...