|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 28, 2017 8:49:51 GMT
I haven't seen many large NTRs recently, so i'm not sure if this is even that sizeable or powerful. What applications do such engines have? Other than being a monuments that is!
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 25, 2017 1:20:51 GMT
I'm sure deskjetser could make it at least 30% better... You hold me in too high praise
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 22, 2017 19:11:36 GMT
22/1/2017 Small update
- Added the beginnings of the material study data, with material study synopsis on the way. (Chemical rocket tables added for easy lookup, with NTR tables coming in the future.)
- Updated in progress list
Small changes may follow.I'm thinking of making a video to go along with the synopsis to save on reading walls of text; Does this sound like something that would help? Also I need more materials for the study, as boron and diamond are really commonly used, whereas reinforced carbon carbon and amorphous carbon are not; They were added just for extra comparison and since I've used them in the past. Please suggest more materials! (Not plastics or low melting point materials though, since I struggled very hard to incorporate UHMWPE into the study and failed miserably. It's just far too different and requires drastic changes in the method of construction, leading to non fair comparisons.)Thanks for your patience!
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 17, 2017 18:34:07 GMT
ash19256 yeah sure thing i'll take a look. I can't do anything more though since i'm so damned buzy at the moment
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 14, 2017 8:10:09 GMT
The Astronomer please can I submit my company name as; Trident heterogeneous engineering systems. Hope this is good enough!
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 14, 2017 2:11:12 GMT
The Astronomer you'd like me to make a company? I can do that, do I need to do anything specific?
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 11, 2017 22:52:01 GMT
11/1/2017 Changes- Added the beginnings of the quick information access library. (Chemical combustion table added for easy lookup, with NTR table coming in the future.)
- Updated in progress list to show current progress and status of current work and improvements.
Small changes may follow.Please give feedback as to how you like the QAL table. Is it clearer? Thanks for your patience!
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 9, 2017 19:02:15 GMT
No updates, update?
Sorry for the lack of updates, i've been swamped recently. I've alot less free time lately. Coming next will most likely be the materials study, since adding NTR nozzle data wouldn't strictly be necessary, as the current nozzle data on chemical rockets is vaguely sufficient for the task. Another reason for this is that I've decided rather than adding tons of depth at the moment, I will expand the breadth of this thread beforehand; Adding depth later. Also after looking at the mess I've created here, I have decided this thread needs a quick goto section for brief overviews of 'ideal layouts' to achieve given parameters. What brought about this you say? Well, tessfield's work on his SSOS thread puts my organisational skills to shame. So I will improve; I can't read or decipher my own mess here, and I wrote it! Stay tuned, I will attempt to have something ready by Friday.
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 6, 2017 8:34:26 GMT
jasonvance unfortunately there isnt a whole lot, if anything, that can be done to improve an engine like this; if you want to keep the package requirements that is. I see you're using 3 of these engines? If that is the case, I would suggest using a single larger engine that is much better placed to take advantage of the lower limits of the engine designer; Since one engine at this scale can not only produce more thrust, but also more exhaust velocity and weigh less than three smaller engines. Assuming these are for simple interceptor missiles, having two engines to facilitate rolling isn't really necessary. But that's upto you. Hope this helps a little!
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Jan 1, 2017 6:20:11 GMT
tessfield here is my 20mc on rocket engines. Nice pun btw. Personally I believe NTR and combustion engines should be categorised by fuel; Since that largely determines overall vessel parameters. In addition, in my opinion the most important stats for an engine are exhaust velocity, mass and thrust. Followed closely by TMR, cost and volume/size. The ability to compare engines of the same fuel and exhaust velocity to find the one with the lowest mass, would be the ideal scenario.
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Dec 31, 2016 21:14:09 GMT
caiaphas sorry i'm late, saw your post last night but didn't have the chance to respond. Okay, so since you need to keep the engine compact I have left the average neutron flux low, and not changed the dimensions of the injector; This makes the engine less efficient than it could be, but this considers your package requirements. List of changes:- 16.5g of U233 for control rods; The reactor can be better controlled through dimension changes, so less control rod mass is needed.
- Chamber material to UHMWPE; This is lighter than boron, and keeping regenerative cooling high and neutron flux low allows its use.
- Massively reduced throat radius to 5.9mm; It's critical to get the throat size right since it effects the overall dimensions of the nozzle.
- Increased chamber contraction ratio to 10; This is to compensate for the control rod mass, but it also gives a tiny bit more performance for less mass.
- Nozzle expansion ratio to 79 & expansion angle to 10°; With this the engine should have an exhaust velocity of 5.37km/s, going higher will yield diminishing returns very quickly making the engine very heavy. However, since the suggestions here make the engine alot lighter, you would be fine increasing the expansion angle until you reach the same mass as the original rocket.
- Injector material to lithium; Lithium is far lighter and perfectly capable of withstanding the forces since the injector is small.
- Gimbal armour to graphite aerogel; This is simply to save mass.
- Momentum wheel material to potassium @18krpm; Again simply to save mass
All these changes should leave you with savings of 125g mass, 74c cost and gains in all other departments. Feel free to tweak this until you're completely satisfied; Just remember that two engine with identical exhaust velocity, the lighter of the two will yield better delta-v. In case I missed anything, what I am suggesting can be seen in full here. Hope this helps, happy designing!
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Dec 30, 2016 18:03:52 GMT
inbrainsane I think maybe if you have a ring of engines that are large enough, you can fit an MPD in the middle? I think it's a bit bugged and has support struts in the way, but it works.
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Dec 29, 2016 1:34:08 GMT
dwwolf I perfectly understand your concerns, but until this method of construction becomes nonviable, what do you suggest in the meantime?
|
|
|
Lasers
Dec 29, 2016 1:26:27 GMT
Post by deskjetser on Dec 29, 2016 1:26:27 GMT
inbrainsane i'm not entirely sure that an overly large aperture is a good thing though. Can you show how effective it is at actually killing different modules? AFAIK lasers with large apertures tend to be very good at cutting, but not very good at heating up lots of mass. Can anyone confirm this?
|
|
|
Post by deskjetser on Dec 25, 2016 15:45:15 GMT
dwwolf well sure, but as of now that is not modelled in CDE afaik.
|
|