I saw the above suggested in LEO on the Cheap. In P.130 it says:

A compromise between high-performance/lightweight pump-fed vehicle designs and cost-optimized pressure-fed vehicles with heavier structure is a possibility, by using pressure-fed engine designs with simple, low-pressure turbopump assemblies. This approach retains the simple, inexpensive engines typical of pressure-fed vehicles, but it uses low-cost pumps to avoid the heavier pressurized tank structure needed by pressure-fed boosters.

So basically we get 15-40 bar chamber pressure, fueled by a pump that could have been mass produced for a jet engine - or a diesel engine!, and relatively light tankage.

So, who has tried to do this on a rocket with the purpose of reducing cost (of course there is an example in the book) and what was the outcome?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Wernher von Braun? v2rocket.com/start/makeup/design.html 23 bar Pc $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Sep 16 '20 at 17:16
  • $\begingroup$ @OrganicMarble Okay, that answered my question, but did not answer my question. So I'm editing my question to make sure that the answer to my question answers my question. $\endgroup$ – Abdullah Sep 16 '20 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ That's an interesting document you linked. I skimmed the parts about shuttle; it seems sensible. I'll enjoy reading it, thanks. $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Sep 16 '20 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ At that point your efficiency have dropped so much that solid rocket are becoming competitive. $\endgroup$ – user3528438 Sep 16 '20 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ @user3528438 Are you sure about that? I mean, maybe that applies to the lower end of the chamber pressures running at sea level (pressure ratio, thermal efficiency), but the majority of a rocket's time is spent significantly above that. $\endgroup$ – Abdullah Sep 17 '20 at 10:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.