New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
BE-4 engine updates & fixes #1652
Conversation
couple quick notes. 550000 lbf is actually SL thrust later found min thrust is 30%. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg1665037#msg1665037 |
Time to bug fix the bug fix i guess! |
Isp looks unrealistically high, are you going off of RPA's theoretical perf rather than estimated performance? Also i don't think even BO know it's real performance yet, until they do tests. maybe we should leave the Isp at spacelaunchreport's estimates. The NSF forum link also says 5 degrees of gimbal, but that's on New Glenn, presumably Vulcan will have more as it's an Atlas successor and might take uneven SRB arrangements. I think everything else is ok. |
I went by the facts that it is a Methalox engine and one of the "requirements" for Vulcan is to have at least, if not better, Isp figures than the RD-180. The VAC figure might stretch it a bit, is that one that you refer as unrealistic? BTW, i used the Altitude Peformance values (318.42 s ASL / 354.59 s VAC). It is also difficult to get good estimates for the throat and exhaust areas. A measurement error of just 1 px translates into almost 0.0795 m (~7.95 cm) and that is why i used an expansion area ratio of 25 (as quoted by many articles and posts). Dropping the freeze value of the area ratio at 1 instead of 3 gets a more meager 309 s ASL / 345 s VAC. |
@PhineasFreak well i think they are both unrealistic, though VAC figure is more so i guess. using your file (with a ratio of 3) i get this http://i.imgur.com/E4Pkvvr.png, (305.46 Sl / 341.63 Vac) your RPA was probably giving theoretical(ideal) performance in the altitude tab rather than estimated performance for some reason. these numbers are only a little higher than spacelaunchreport's estimate, probably reasonable. |
@SirKeplan yes, my bad. I found out that i was looking at the wrong info after all... So, freeze the values at 305/341? |
@PhineasFreak Yes, that should be fine. |
* As per the new calculations.
@SirKeplan apologies for "breaking" your current review with the new TF stuff...but i forgot to include them... 😟 |
So, are we good here? |
Change Log:
Tweak the minimum and maximum thrust value to correspond to a rated VAC thrust of 550000 lbf.Notes: