God Tier Engineering

Nice. The metalwork is in fact very simple. Simplicity=great design.

i don't understand this rocket. when there's such a big exhaustion nozzle, where should all the fuel come from? I mean, where should the black powder get stored?

>>7935855

You mean the F1 Rocket Engine.

>RP-1 fuel
those were the days before NASA went mad

>>7935900
Correct.

File: 6.jpg (12KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x240px

>>7935943
Yes it was an awesome piece of metal. But this faggot (bouncing betty) is superior to any F1 engine because of it's reliability against oxygen. (rust)

>>7935874
its a liquid fuelled rocket, there is no powder tube, liquid is what is burned, fed from a separate tank. As for why the nozzle on liquid rockets are bigger than the ones on powder rockets thats a good question actually.

>>7936317
now, he might just be kidding, but then again, there are flat-earthers on this board....

>>7935855
>huge phallic object
>engineering
Sounds about right.

File: rocket_engine.jpg (35KB, 512x341px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 512x341px

History of kerosene monsters
arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/how-nasa-brought-the-monstrous-f-1-moon-rocket-back-to-life/

>>7935855
it WAS

but now the design is ridiculous

all those tubes and pipes just to transfer pressure is very inefficient.

>>7936321
hey not everyone is informed. It sounded genuine to me. Perhaps he assumed because the saturn v was a long tube that it was a powder rocket just like fireworks. Not many people have seen the separate engine.

>>7936475
It was the 60s man, they did thier best

>>7936475
Modern rocket engines are just as structuraly complicated.

The main difference is in fabrication methods. Now they will use fancy castings (and in *really* modern engines, 3d printing) instead of putting a lot of bent-sheet-metal parts together and welding or brazing them.

>>7936566
They aren't though. look at space X engines. they took the nasa designs and made them much simpler.

File: merlin engine.jpg (317KB, 787x1257px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 787x1257px

>>7936574
Dude.

>>7936578
Too bad you don't know anything about rocket engines though

File: otrag.jpg (13KB, 245x362px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 245x362px

>>7936578
>>7936574
Merlin's not a particularly simple design. It is optimized, to a certain degree, for manufacturability, but that's not the same as "simple". For one thing, it's a smallish engine. It's fairly typical to build a Falcon-9-size rocket with just one engine on it. The smaller you make something, and the more copies of it you produce, the more you can build jigs and machines to simplify production, instead of having people do big custom machining jobs.

Merlin has all the usual complexities of a liquid fuel engine: a turbopump, a startup system for the turbopump, an ignition system, gimbaling, regenerative cooling channels, curtain cooling injectors, etc.

If you really want a simple design, look at OTRAG. OTRAG's modular rocket units started from a section of pipe, made by a machine for doing oil pipelines. They put a cap and dividers on it, and now it's a body with propellant tanks in it. The "engine", complete with combustion chamber and nozzle, was moulded into the bottom end of the pipe out of ablative fiberglass. Before launch, they'd fill the oxidizer tank two thirds full with nitric acid / NTO blend, and the fuel tank two thirds full with jet fuel, pump compressed nitrogen into the empty space above each, and inject a shot of furfural alcohol into the bottom of the fuel line. Then they'd just open the valves and let the propellants be pushed by the compressed nitrogen and self-ignite on contact. They had no thrust vectoring, only throttling by adjusting the valves, so they always used them in bundles of at least four.

>>7936578
>box tape..

File: eande-f1bchart.jpg (495KB, 1313x1080px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 1313x1080px

F-1B is best engine!

>>7936578
>tfw you recognize kapton tape from assembling a 3D printer kit.

I might just become a scientist yet.

>>7936578
wow is that thing on the side the turbopump exhaust?

So why do people at nasa want to keep reusing old engines instead of building a new one, taking advantage of decades of advances in materials/computers/production methods
?

Just to employ the same contractors as the shuttle program?

>>7937972
Rocket engines are really fucking hard and costly to make. The propulsion system was the majority of the cost on the Saturn V, or at least took the longest time to get right as far as I remember. The expertise gained from that work is very valuable, and it would be silly to start from scratch in most cases. Construction methods may change (3d printing) but the design theory doesn't change too drastically as far as I understand, chemical propulsion is at its limit. The future is in nuclear and ion prop. Take this with a grain of salt, I don't actually take my rocket prop classes till next semester (lowly undergrad).

File: a-1-blackbird-j-58-engines-cia.jpg (136KB, 939x500px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 939x500px

>>7938203

>>7938205
>beautiful mach diamonds

muh dick

>>7938203
i'm FULLY erect

>>7937972
You'll find, in life in general, that design principles are relatively static: there's a couple really effective and simple ways to accomplish a particular thing with the technology or materials you have on hand. They do take advantage of improved materials and manufacturing techniques, which may slightly increase performance and significantly increase safety and reliability but at the end of the day, it's still a chemical rocket and there are practical limits on what you can achieve with that design principle.

Like >>7937980 I'm not a rocket scientist although I am in technology: a good example of this is folks have had a pretty good idea how to theoretically desgin modern (x86) microprocessors for several decades, even the really fast, small and efficient ones we use today. Only recent manufacturing techniques have really allowed consistent, large scale production but we're reaching several limits of what silicone is capable of: there's a necessary certain space needed between circuits, there's only so much power you can run across it before thermodynamics comes into play. This puts a theoretical limit of about 6ghz on practical use of silicone in these chips, so what did we do instead? Stuff as many processors on a single die as possible. Simply must have something faster than 6ghz? Now you have to super-cool some wildly rare and dangerous metals -- pretty much the equivalent of nuclear rocket propulsion. :)

>>7938255
>the equivalent of nuclear rocket propulsion
>implying that's a bad thing

ORION DRIVE WHEN ???

>>7938268
Not 'bad' just 'more complicated' and 'requiring teams of highly trained and skilled personnel to ensure earth's orbit is not irrevolkably altered'. You know, shit like that.

The future is now, my son. At least in Kerbal Space Program.

>>7938255
You're definitely right about physical limits, etc but given that rocketry hasn't seen anywhere near the level of development, refinement, and practical application that other fields (aeronautics for instance) have enjoyed, I'm not convinced that we've hit the limits of chemical rockets just yet. We've reached that ballpark for sure, but I believe that are still plenty of meaningful advancements to be made even if they don't impact effective power all that much.

We absolutely need to transition away from chemical rockets to a superior solution, but said solutions aren't within current reach so in the meantime, we shouldn't just throw up our hands and say "welp, can't do nuttin else!" and keep pumping out rockets that haven't seen meaningful changes in upwards of 40 years. Something has to be done to make the limited spaceflight solutions we have today not suck quite so badly.

>>7938203
>>7938205
Why can't tubes ever be neat?

>>7935922
You realize they still use RP-1 today, right?

File: nk33_silhouetted_1-1.jpg (57KB, 383x800px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 383x800px

>>7935867
Check out pic related, it's the soviet NK-33 rocket engine from the 'other' moon rocket.

Just look at that single shaft turbopump assembly. Oh and did I mention this is a fucking crazy staged combustion rocket? Little fucker has quite a lot of performance.

>>7938255
But muh graphene processors

>> tfw THz transistor switching speeds

>>7939811
They can see
>>7940086

>>7940086
its a shame they kept ingesting bolts and blowing up all the time

>>7935855
This makes my dick hard.

>>7936620
>Hey guys! I just wanted to show off how stupid I am!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>7939811
>why do rocket engines do not look like flowers??????????????????
Fuck off man, I hate people who talk about something not looking "neat" when in fact it's a fucking genius piece of engineering. That fucking engine does a fucking great thing in a fucking neat way. I bet you're fucking ugly yourself so fucking stop talking about your fucking neatness. Build one yourself if it's not to your liking.

>>7940305
PDAs were genius engineering but no one gave a fuck until the iPhone came out

Aesthetics matter, anon

>>7940305
>Fuck fuckidy fuck fuck fuck

>>7938203
what are those tubes for anyway? lubrication, fuel and cooling?

>>7940603
pretty much, yeah.

>>7940335
People did give a fuck about them, you just don't remember.

Fuck aesthetics

>>7940305
I agree with you but >>7940335 has a small point, the public supported the space shuttle partly because it looked cool. Aesthetic machines get more funding.

>>7941148
That's fucking stupid.

>>7936574
>simple
>Rocket engine

Pick one

File: SR-71 MRS small.jpg (93KB, 1010x712px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1010x712px

>>7940603
The BIG ones towards the rear are bleed-bypass tubes used at high mach. Since the ram air at mach 3+ is already *almost* at the temperature limits of the compressor and turbine blades, special care must be taken to minimize the additional temperature added through compression and combustion within the engine, lest you overtemp and destroy the turbine section. To achieve this, the J-58 cuts fuel and airflow to the combustor to almost nothing, and instead bleeds this air through the bypass tubes AROUND the combustor and turbine and directly into the afterburner (which is under much less stress than the spinning turbine components and thus has far higher temperature allowances). Since there is very little gas being fed through the turbine, both it and the compressors slow down to near-pinwheel speeds, thus reducing compression as well. In this way, the engine's internals are kept cool and the jet acts largely like a ramjet during this regime of flight, with the inlets and afterburner doing all the real work.

Of course, if they removed/stopped all the spinning components entirely and made the engine into a full-blown ramjet, the temperature limits and therefore mach capabilities could be even higher, but then the engine wouldn't be able to produce any thrust at low speed during takeoff and landing.

File: tumblr_m67uwzl0N01rti11fo1_1280.jpg (157KB, 1024x773px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1024x773px

I do love me some rocket engines, no matter their size or origin

>>7936475
Slide rules got us to the moon. My mind is full of fucks. Imagine if we put more effort into productive things today how much better we'd all be.

More rocket erections pls

>>7936325

kek kek i appreciate ur post but probably in not the way u intended it

>>7942277
what is the difference between letting the turbopump-exhaust go into the rocket nozzle versus running it down and out like on the Merlin? Are there pro's and con's to both solutions?

>>7942313
On the original F1, the exhaust went to the nozzle extension for curtain cooling. On the sea level Merlin 1C, it went out a separate actuated nozzle / exhaust pipe for roll control (gimballing one nozzle on a rocket lets you steer it, but not stop it spinning -- a second nozzle even with much lower thrust and only one axis of movement is enough for that).

On the F1b redesign, it just goes out a fixed pipe, with the presumable advantage of simpler manufacture and lower cost. There may also be a performance advantage for the turbopump, due to less backpressure against the exhaust.

Can anyone recommend good documentaries on rockets?

I've seen the discovery channel one and a few others here and there. While good they never really delved into the finer details of design/principles etc.
tl;dr
gib rocket engineering boner pls

>>7942277
Do rockets have any interesting effects on the dirt when they take off?

File: 7896789.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>7938203
>the sound of it hitting ignition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZIGKwhQ8dw

>>7940603
Yeah. Some of the bigger ones are for bleeding air off the compressor.

File: Kuznetsov_NK-12M_turboprop_on_Tu-95.jpg (295KB, 1810x1234px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1810x1234px

>Gee Boris, how much horsepower does engine really need?
>All the horsepower, Ivan

File: PT6-engine.jpg (102KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1600x900px

>no one has posted the pt6 yet

>>7942842
>Do rockets have any interesting effects on the dirt when they take off?
They blow shit around like crazy, melting things and knocking things apart.

It doesn't matter for tiny rockets, but medium-size rockets tend to be launched by being held on a rail somewhat off the ground, or by being thrown out of a silo with a special low-energy system, while large rockets are launched over a hole or trench with a waterfall system to absorb the energy, to prevent either the rocket or the launchpad (with its expensive systems for fueling, hold-downs, diagnostics, etc.) from being damaged.

>>7942289
The fact that we're not even dedicating 1-2% of GDP to spaceflight and development of space tech and would rather spend many times that blowing each other up is both an embarrassment and travesty. Humanity has reached a point that to our knowledge no other life form in history has ever accomplished, displaying limitless potential and yet we're perfectly happy to just let all of that rot away as we bicker about the inconsequential things imaginable. It's infuriating.

>>7942998
I agree fully and it makes me rage inside. Utter faggotry of the highest order.
Legit rustled

>>7942910
is this kerbal space program?

>>7936578
Golden duct tape wtf

>>7943457
Here's your (you)

>>7943457

Hope this helps you simple minded people out there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapton

File: mars_bunny_movie.gif (3MB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x1024px

>>7943457
that's kapton SPACE TAPE. Pic related: a wild Martian kapton tape bunny in its natural environment

File: Binary+systems_44ccff_5739053.png (367KB, 534x622px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 534x622px

>>7936800
wtf does it do?

>>7944263
It's tape