SpaceX Reveals Raptor 3 Engine and Specifications
- by NextBigFuture
- Aug 03, 2024
- 0 Comments
- 0 Likes Flag 0 Of 5
Brian Wang
SpaceX has unveiled the Raptor 3 engine, marking significant advancements in thrust, specific impulse, and mass efficiency compared to previous versions. The Raptor 3 boasts a thrust of 280 tf, a specific impulse of 350s, and an engine mass of 1525 kg. The SpaceX Raptor 3 engine has potential to exceed 300 tons of thrust in future iterations, emphasizing ongoing efforts to improve efficiency.
Raptor 3 is 36% lighter than Raptor 1. It has 51% more thrust at sea level versus raptor 1.
Raptor 3 is 7% lighter than Raptor 2. It has 21% more thrust at sea level versus raptor 2.
Elon Musk indicates that Raptor could get another 8-10% more thrust.
Raptor 3 has 2.75 million newtons of thrust versus 2.26 million newtons for the Raptor 2.
33 Raptor 3 engines would provide 90.75 million newtons of thrust for a 33 engine super heavy booster.
35 Raptor 3 engines would provide 96.3 million newtons of thrust for a 35 engine super heavy booster.
The Saturn V had 34.5 million newtons of thrust.
If Raptor 3 is improved to over 300 tons of thrust at sea level then each engine would have 2.95 million newtons of thrust. 35 Raptor 3.X engines would provid e103.25 million newtons of thrust for a 35 engine super heavy booster. August 4, 2024 at 3:17 am
The structure is the surface of the empty rocket, which scales by height times diameter, as does the area of the side. But if they’ve built big enough to avoid minimum gage problems, (Where on smaller rockets you’re building thicker than the load requires just because material thin enough to match the load is too awkward to work with.) then the increased size will require a thicker structure, too, so the sectional density looked at from the side will go up a little. I think part of the reason for Starship being so big WAS to get away from minimum gage issues.
On the other hand, a wider rocket is *blunter*, and will have a higher drag coefficient, which would somewhat compensate for that higher sectional density.
On the THIRD hand, the height is capped by engine thrust available under the area of the rocket, and tends to be a lot skinnier than the minimum weight cylinder would be, so you’re getting more structurally efficient proportions as you get wider, until it’s roughly the same proportions as a soup can… This suggests the weight to volume ratio should be improved in a wider rocket.
So, really? It could go either way, but my general expectation would be that, no, the wider rocket would actually have a lower terminal velocity in addition to a better fuel fraction.
Please first to comment
Related Post
Stay Connected
Tweets by elonmuskTo get the latest tweets please make sure you are logged in on X on this browser.
Sponsored
Popular Post
Tesla: Buy This Dip, Energy Growth And Margin Recovery Are Vastly Underappreciated
28 ViewsJul 29 ,2024