09-19-2020, 05:07 AM | #1 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Live in Seoul, Korea and I have never been abroad.
|
[Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
Quote:
Quote:
Since this SSTO has a Ram Rocket it maneuvers in the atmosphere without Reaction Mass, but the Acceleration of Fusion Torch varies by which Reaction Mass it use. Basically my SSTO uses water as Reaction Mass and gets 1.5G Acclerations, originally its engine uses hydrogen as Reaction Mass and gets 0.5G Accelerations. But what if it uses air as Reaction mass? I can't find the mention which Accleration will the Ram Rocket get when its usable Reaction Mass and gettable Accleration varies. This is my question. Last edited by Pectus Solentis; 09-19-2020 at 05:10 AM. Reason: grammar correction |
||
09-19-2020, 08:01 AM | #2 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
Ram-Rockets have the same amount of base thrust, there is no stated change in their description, so they are really only useful for NTRs in realistic campaigns (and their greater cost makes that questionable). By the way, the cost for a SM+4 fusion torch ram rocket is $1M, so your cost is off a little.
Last edited by AlexanderHowl; 09-19-2020 at 08:07 AM. |
09-19-2020, 08:05 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
To my knowledge, this isn’t addressed anywhere. From what I understand, acceleration is a function of molecular mass. Water (H2O) has roughly 10x the molecular mass of molecular hydrogen (H2), and 3x the acceleration, implying that, if we go off the Size and Speed/Range table, every +2 SSR to molar mass is +1 SSR to acceleration. The average molecular mass of dry air is around 15x that of molecular hydrogen, or +7 SSR. That works out to +3.5 SSR, which can be approximated as around x4 acceleration.
Of course, I may be completely off. I think there are rules for using ammonia, so you may want to see if the relationship to molecular mass is the same there.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
09-19-2020, 08:13 AM | #4 | |
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Live in Seoul, Korea and I have never been abroad.
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
Quote:
Thanks for letting me know my error. Then the price of SSTO should be recalculated. |
|
09-19-2020, 08:20 AM | #5 |
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Live in Seoul, Korea and I have never been abroad.
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
|
09-19-2020, 10:43 AM | #6 |
Join Date: Feb 2016
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
Yes, that sounds about right. As I said, it was off by a little.
|
09-23-2020, 03:06 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Pennsylvania
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
Quote:
However, two similar designs: one with water and one with H2...the water one will have a much high mass flow rate through the engine, since liquid flow will be more volume limited. (A gallon of liquid hydrogen masses about 9 ounces). That will generally give it higher thrust. The authors seem to have combined both effects into one, and given them the same number to simplify things. A torch throwing water has 3X thrust but 1/3x delta-v compared to one using H2. I'm not sure how much of a hand Dr Kromm had in SS, but the attention to real rock science just drips off the book. (Of course, I could be just as off base) |
|
09-23-2020, 03:43 PM | #8 |
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Re: [Spaceships 1] A question about Ram-Rocket Engines
You can get there by assuming that the temperature of the drive core is fixed, perhaps limited by the temperature at which the parts melt or sublime. That gives you a fixed thermal energy per molecule, which the rocket nozzle turns into an exhaust velocity inversely proportional to the average molecular weight of the exhaust species.
__________________
Decay is inherent in all composite things. Nod head. Get treat. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|