4 ms·

NK-33 is RP/LOX, whereas SSME is LH2/LOX. LH2/LOX cryogenic engines have higher Isp compared to other solid and liquid engines. ISRO's CE-7.5 LH2/LOX engine[1]

by swatkat 12y ago

NK-33 is RP/LOX, whereas SSME is LH2/LOX. LH2/LOX cryogenic engines have higher Isp compared to other solid and liquid engines. ISRO's CE-7.5 LH2/LOX engine[1] has an Isp of 454s. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-7.5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE-7.5

justin66 12y ago
Was anything about cromwellian's statement inaccurate, such that it should have been downvoted? I'm pretty sure I understand everything being discussed here but I don't understand THAT.
- marktangotango 12y ago
  I didn't down vote it, but the difference between RP1 and Liquid Hydrogen engine performance is WELL known. Thus his assertion that SSME's are better, although true as comparison of rocket engines in general, is false when comparing LOX/RP1 engines specifically (since the SSME are NOT LOX/RP1), which the grandparent was clearly doing. Similarly, citing the 850 ISP of the experimental NERVA engines is equally out of context.
  - cromwellian 12y ago
    I didn't see the LOX/RP1 qualifier when I replied (I was responding to the quoted sentence). Let me qualify the SSME claim as "highest Isp/Thrust of any widely used engine". Prototypes or engines that haven't flown much IMHO aren't able to make this claim. The NK-33 may beat a Merlin 1D, but what much do they cost to make and what is the reliability? If you make 100 NK-33s and 100 Merlin 1Ds, what's your total budget, and how many NK-33s will fail compared to the Merlin 1D? One thing I get with SpaceX, is that their engines are not designed to push the performance envelope. They want them to be cheap and reliable.
- termain 12y ago
  Yes, the RS-25/SSMEs aren't "easily the most efficient rocket engines ever built". As noted below, there's NERVA.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    And yesterday's launch illustrates why people are kind of nervous about using them as a way to take off from the planet's surface.
cromwellian 12y ago
But much lower thrust.

by swatkat 12y ago

justin66 12y ago

Was anything about cromwellian's statement inaccurate, such that it should have been downvoted? I'm pretty sure I understand everything being discussed here but I don't understand THAT.

marktangotango 12y ago
I didn't down vote it, but the difference between RP1 and Liquid Hydrogen engine performance is WELL known. Thus his assertion that SSME's are better, although true as comparison of rocket engines in general, is false when comparing LOX/RP1 engines specifically (since the SSME are NOT LOX/RP1), which the grandparent was clearly doing. Similarly, citing the 850 ISP of the experimental NERVA engines is equally out of context.
- cromwellian 12y ago
  I didn't see the LOX/RP1 qualifier when I replied (I was responding to the quoted sentence). Let me qualify the SSME claim as "highest Isp/Thrust of any widely used engine". Prototypes or engines that haven't flown much IMHO aren't able to make this claim. The NK-33 may beat a Merlin 1D, but what much do they cost to make and what is the reliability? If you make 100 NK-33s and 100 Merlin 1Ds, what's your total budget, and how many NK-33s will fail compared to the Merlin 1D? One thing I get with SpaceX, is that their engines are not designed to push the performance envelope. They want them to be cheap and reliable.
termain 12y ago
Yes, the RS-25/SSMEs aren't "easily the most efficient rocket engines ever built". As noted below, there's NERVA.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  And yesterday's launch illustrates why people are kind of nervous about using them as a way to take off from the planet's surface.

cromwellian 12y ago

But much lower thrust.