Re: XCOR engines
- From: Charles Buckley <rijrunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 15:34:48 -0700
Henry Vanderbilt wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article <MnB7f.867$Hj2.830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Pete Lynn <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was only wondering if someone could suggest whether their engines are in the low, medium or high performance ranges with regard to T/W and ISP.
"Medium" is a reasonable guess, given that XCOR tends to emphasize safety and reliability over absolute maximum performance.
For what it's worth, back when the EZ-Rocket was first flying, I took published figures on the 400 pound thrust LOX-alcohol engines propellant load, working pressure, and burn duration, and rough-approximated the Isp to be a bit better than 90% of the theoretical max for that combination. Then when I asked their chief engineer about these figures, he wouldn't give specific numbers, but seemed bemused that anyone would think he'd settle for merely a bit better than 90%. For what it's worth.
It's the old 90/10 rule. You get 90% of the performance at 10% of the cost. The remaining 10% of the performance gets the remaining 90% of the cost.
In this case, The should be able to inch that up incrementally. They are operating at nowhere near the materials limit. For a first generation design, 90% theoretical is a good pretty target number.
.
- References:
- XCOR engines
- From: Pete Lynn
- Re: XCOR engines
- From: Rüdiger Klaehn
- Re: XCOR engines
- From: Pete Lynn
- XCOR engines
- Prev by Date: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by Date: Re: new space program
- Previous by thread: Re: XCOR engines
- Next by thread: Re: XCOR engines
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|