SpaceX Completes Qualification of SuperDraco Engines
SuperDraco engine test firing. (Credit: SpaceX)
Thruster to Power Revolutionary Launch Escape System on Dragon Spacecraft
HAWTHORNE, Calif. (SpaceX PR) – Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) announced today that it has completed qualification testing for the SuperDraco thruster, an engine that will power the Dragon spacecraft’s launch escape system and enable the vehicle to land propulsively on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy.
The qualification testing program took place over the last month at SpaceX’s Rocket Development Facility in McGregor, Texas. The program included testing across a variety of conditions including multiple starts, extended firing durations and extreme off-nominal propellant flow and temperatures.
The SuperDraco is an advanced version of the Draco engines currently used by SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft to maneuver in orbit and during re-entry. SuperDracos will be used on the crew version of the Dragon spacecraft as part of the vehicle’s launch escape system; they will also enable propulsive landing on land. Each SuperDraco produces 16,000 pounds of thrust and can be restarted multiple times if necessary. In addition, the engines have the ability to deep throttle, providing astronauts with precise control and enormous power.
The SuperDraco engine chamber is manufactured using state-of-the-art direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), otherwise known as 3D printing. The chamber is regeneratively cooled and printed in Inconel, a high-performance superalloy that offers both high strength and toughness for increased reliability.
“Through 3D printing, robust and high-performing engine parts can be created at a fraction of the cost and time of traditional manufacturing methods,” said Elon Musk, Chief Designer and CEO. “SpaceX is pushing the boundaries of what additive manufacturing can do in the 21st century, ultimately making our vehicles more efficient, reliable and robust than ever before.”
Unlike previous launch escape systems that were jettisoned after the first few minutes of launch, SpaceX’s launch system is integrated into the Dragon spacecraft. Eight SuperDraco engines built into the side walls of the Dragon spacecraft will produce up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to carry astronauts to safety should an emergency occur during launch.
As a result, Dragon will be able to provide astronauts with the unprecedented ability to escape from danger at any point during the ascent trajectory, not just in the first few minutes. In addition, the eight SuperDracos provide redundancy, so that even if one engine fails an escape can still be carried out successfully.
The first flight demonstration of the SuperDraco will be part of the upcoming pad abort test under NASA’s Commercial Crew Integrated Capabilities (CCiCap) initiative. The pad abort will be the first test of SpaceX’s new launch escape system and is currently expected to take place later this year.
51 responses to “SpaceX Completes Qualification of SuperDraco Engines”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So cool.
Interesting to have this out with 1 day to go before dragon rider is introduced.
I’ve been waiting for news on the SuperDracos. This is, in many ways, THE most critical piece in the whole SpaceX vision.
If the SuperDracos can’t do everything that SpaceX is hoping, then there goes their whole launch escape system plan. As a result, the whole program would be set back years and possibly never come to fruition, as a traditional escape rocket tower would have to be designed and integrated (not to mention, at significant weight penalty). If the abort system doesn’t work, NASA will have to turn its main attention to other contenders, including just possibly going with Orion and it’s traditional launch escape system.
Furthermore, if the SuperDracos don’t work as planned, there goes the great dream of taking things farther than ever before, with a propulsive landing of a manned capsule on a designated spot. Have a landing pad at the spacecenter, and a Dragon comes down and lands right on the pad, and then the people get out, much like they would out of a helicopter. A whole different paradigm than having a US Navy fleet on standby and having to get fished out of the briny drink by a frogman team before the capsule is inundated and the sharks close in.
Beyond all that is the potential to do a propulsive landing on another body such as the moon or Mars. These SuperDracos are super important
So whats so breathtaking about another hydrazine thruster ? There are literally hundreds of them around since the dawn of the space age. Why wouldnt these “do what SpaceX was hoping” – its a N204/MMH engine fer crying out loud, as old idea as Sputnik
http://www.astronautix.com/…
I was hoping that some of the early rumors that SpaceX would move away from hydrazine with the SuperDracos would actually turn out to be true.
I don’t really get the point of propulsive landing with a highly toxic fuel (which prevents the crew the get out of the capsule quickly).
Pretty much all capsules have highly toxic fuel. The Crew’s space suits are designed to handle this particular problem if needed.
guaranteed ignition, which is everything.
Down the road they may switch to something else, but this is well known and easy enough to make 100% sure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
You gotta go hypergolic for abort escape, haven’t you?.
They reach full power in 0.1sec and should be highly reliable.
Add in highly throttable and that makes for very desirable landing engines too.
The toxic side is indeed unfortunate, but all in all, it’s not a bad tradeoff. At least, there’s a use for those spacesuits now.
Bringing the capsule (and the main rocket body) back to a landing pad cuts the cost immensely. It’s worth sitting in the capsule for awhile while a decontamination team makes it safe, if that’s what it takes. Windbourne’s point below about 100% certainty of ignition is also a huge factor.
Note that the SuperDraco is a 71 kiloNewton thruster. Most of the engines listed under that link are a tiny fraction of that. The only one in the SuperDraco class is the RD-0242M, and it looks like it has a distinctly limited number of restarts. Besides, it appears to be only a design concept, not a working engine.
What is “breathtaking” is that SpaceX is a private company, building rockets for private purposes, using modern business methods to decimate launch costs. This engine is part of that strategy.
what modern business methods are cutting their launch costs?
Practical re-usability, for one. I am not a search engine nor am I a press agent for them. There’s plenty of information out there on SpaceX, give it a look-see. Elon Musk intends to offer launch services for 10% of the current average cost per pound. Everything I have observed about how he built this company, and how he is approaching the engineering, says to me that this can be accomplished.
I am recently retired from a long career at Boeing, which also has some irons in this fire. That said, I think I would invest in SpaceX before I would invest in the United Launch Alliance.
Yeah, but none of it is ‘modern business methods’. It is just modern engineering, combined with aggressive automation. In fact, he has purposely eschewed ‘modern business methods’ and focused on how to keep costs down low, as opposed to keeping profits high (which are 2 VERY DIFFERENT THINGS).
And like you, I worked for Boeing (via jepp, which is now going down the drain due to Boeing ), as well as taught at Boeing (comp. sci).
And yeah, SpaceX would be my #1 investment, while I would no longer invest into Boeing (damn you mcnearny; destroying the company to create temporary stock value as opposed to massive profits ), l-mart, or ULA (which is wholly owned anyways by the previous 2).
Yep, those are two different things. I would call aggressive automation to be a “modern business method”, though. Also, they are stepping through problems one by one, measuring success at each stage before moving forward, working to a realistic plan, and getting moving on the long-term things before the need for them is critical. Compare the success/failure ratio of SpaceX to the (over-promoted) Virgin Galactic as a counter-example. As much as I admire Burt Rutan, he seems to not understand how to engineer a system much bigger than a prototype.
I share your feelings about McNerny, but I started damning the executive management in the middle of Phil Condit’s ignorant reign. After Stonecipher ate Phil’s lunch in the “merger” the writing was on the wall, in neon.
And I would argue that ‘modern business method’ is the opposed of automation. For example, all of the American companies, esp. those that follow GE leadership, are outsourcing as much as possible. And for those that can not move the work, they knowingly employ illegals.
The net on this is that all of your IP and Quality control is lost, which will lead to other competing against you. Look at Samsung and LG. They produced pure junk in appliances until GE moved the work offshore. Now, they have overtaken GE elsewhere, and forced GE to sell their appliances arena to China.
Likewise, they took their light manufacturing to China, and then were forced to sell their plant so that now, all lights with GE label are actually 100% made by Chinese companies, who pay GE to slap their label on them.
McNearny sold our electronics operation that we had for aviation equipment (i forget to whom). Now, the 787 is one of the WORST aircraft that Boeing has EVER produced. The issues with the lithium batteries are caused because of issues between Japan and France (IIRC, a subsidiary of airbus). Now, Japan and Airbus are learning what really works and what does not.
So, none of that is ‘modern business’. It is actually what we used to do. In fact, just as SpaceX has pulled in nearly everything, tesla is in the process of pulling in everything. Heck, musk will shortly have his battery giga-factory that will DOUBLE THE ENTIRE WORLDS BATTERY PRODUCTION. Amazing.
From what I hear, Solar city is shopping for solar cell companies to buy in America. Once they do, they will own the entire chain and can drop their prices lower.
But all of that is the exact opposite of what America does today.
And yeah, no doubt about it, Boeing has had a succession of horrible CEO’s.
Oddly, there were a number of McD engineers that pointed out that MD11 and MD10 suffered heavily because they had outsourced so much. And yet, nobody in Boeing listened, esp. StoneCipher who had done that outsourcing of the commercial world and destroyed MD.
So Sad.
reagan destroyed American business and it continues.
Thank god for ppl like Musk.
============= edit ============
Looks like we have the same opinion of the 787.
I should clarify “modern methods” to mean “modern enlightened methods”. Business is beginning to reverse course on the outsourcing mania that was the result of listening to various “gurus” from Big Ivy Business University. Harry Stonecipher’s great notion was to reduce Boeing to an office building and a shiny metal plate on each plane that said “Boeing”. He is a fool.
I think we are on the same page. I really meant “Great American Business Methods” as built this country at our industrial peak, not the idiocy we’ve been doing for the last 30 years. Musk seems more like a Howard Hughes without the mental problems.
keep in mind that Hydrazine has the benefit of that history – as a fuel, it is very well understood and known to be very reliable. the Super Draco engine is pretty impressive though. very powerful for its size, deep throttle ability. overall a capable engine.
very little of what SpaceX is doing is “new” – the fuels, the engine design, the desire to fly back to the launch pad, etc. the difference is, they are doing these “old” things very well!
To be fair, spaceX has NOT been all that innovative.
In general, their innovation is just now showing up.
1) The F9R is innovative esp. if it proves to not only be re-usable, but able to land on the moon and mars.
2) Raptor’s use of methane is also innovative.
3) push abort on Dragon Rider, and the ability to land their capsule ranks up there.
4) the X-connect of the FH, creating 2.5 stages.
Basically, spaceX has been making heavy heavy use of what USSR, NASA, Germany, and Goddard developed. IOW, they have stood on the shoulder of giants.
Of course, in the next year or so, I think that it is fair to say that SpaceX becomes a giant in their own right.
They did start from scratch as a company. The fact that they are burning through (gaining expertise in) all the established knowledge is one of the things about them that is impressive. There are a few other players in this game who think they can just jump in at the top, and that strategy isn’t exactly working out well for them.
totally agree.
I have said over and over that the best thing that NASA imparts to American companies is knowledge, combined with controlling standards between them.
I agree with all points, except to note that the F9R will never land anywhere other than Earth. not that the technology or techniques can’t be applied elsewhere (eventually), but the Falcon 9 1st stage never leaves Earth.
Yeah, no doubt it will be something like the F9R, but with raptor. However, that will mean MINOR tweaking (other than the fuel storage and engine) to everything to make the work.
The poster above made it seem like all the worlds dreams, including hunger and water desalination will be solved by these magical thrusters.
The reality is, that you can go around and shop for similar hydrazine thrusters around the world, they have been standard fare in spaceflight since day one and have pretty predictable characteristics.
In other words, SpaceX managed to add a pretty standard but essential space technology asset to it’s arsenal – a good sign of a maturing company.
Of course, unlike other companies, they also now have it in-house, so that they have the knowledge as well as are not paying another 100% profits/1000% executive pay to another company.
Having it in-house is priceless. I don’t have time to research it, but it would be interesting to compare the SuperDraco to these other hydrazine engines in terms of efficiency, weight, longevity, throttle control, and cost.
The main issues/reasons for having it in-house are costs, quality control, and IP.
And just “control”, period. I can’t tell you all the problems Boeing had with 787 partners (their lawyers would seek me out if I did) but I can sure say that vertical integration looks a lot better after trying to make horizontal integration work. That said, it would still be interesting to see how the engine stacks up against the competition.
Oh, I am more than just a little aware of what a cluster the 78 was. 🙁 Sadly.
It is the first time that I have ever questioned the old Boeing adage.
If it ain’t Boeing, ….
I was squarely in the middle of the program. It’s one of the reasons I am impressed by Elon Musk’s slow, deliberate, careful project planning.
Sorry to hear that you were on the 787. Not a way to end your career. Worse, I am guessing that you were up in management and less in engineering?
Boeing used to be such a great company.
And yeah, I am fan of Musk because I am sick and tired of what I have seen at companies/groups like Boeing, HP, IBM Watson (uncle lou restored us, which is when I was there, but Palmisano and now Rometty destroyed IBM), ATT Bell Labs (after we were spun off, we were pretty much nuked), US west AT, NASA, and several TLGO.
No, I was a Tech Fellow. I was responsible for some of the parts of the 787 that worked :). That whole battery thing just amazed me with its stupidity.
Management did not appeal. Now I work in my own “lab”, doing what I want to do (and what management couldn’t be bothered to listen to). If I were 20 years younger, I’d head down to SpaceX and see if they needed a good engineer.
Jeppeson was a good company. I’m sorry to hear that it was ruined.
Well the space shuttle OMS engines generated only 6000 lbs thrust each for a total of 12000 lbs. Those were built by AeroJet (I assume from the AJ10-190 designation) and were based on the Apollo SM main engine.
So if these Super Draco engines are reliable and durable (can it match the thousands of firings of the OMS?) it is pretty impressive given the size difference.
But as I said elsewhere, not sure if I would want to be in the capsule when 120000 lbs of 8 Super Dracos goes off. It would have to be deafening. But since I assume that would only be the case on an abort better deaf than dead…
Since they’re planning on using the SuperDraco thrusters for propulsion landing (admittedly at greatly reduced thrust levels), I assume there is pretty good sound insulation. As to a full thrust abort, deaf is better than dead. It’s like how some people describe using an ejection seat: Attempted suicide to avoid certain death.
“The poster above made it seem like all the worlds dreams, including hunger and water desalination will be solved by these magical thrusters”
Don’t be a jerk.
Interesting to read that the SuperDracos are created by additive manufacturing, very cool! Does this make them the very first production! 3D printed engines?
For some odd reason, I want to say that it was krestal, but perhaps it was draco that used it.
You do recall this NASA test, I’m sure:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2…
Theoretically the SuperDracos aren’t in “production” yet, but they probably will be soon. Remember though that in no case is the entire engine made additively — just the expensive bits.
That was a “test” not a _production_ engine.
As I said! Nothing in the private space industry is in “production”, as most people would think of it. When was the last time you saw a parking lot full of rockets? Probably the closest thing to it is the current Falcon engine (the Merlin).
I wonder which bits on SuperDraco are printed? Is it just fuel injectors (like GE) or is it a big part of the engine (like these little guys)?
I dunno, but if you explored the idea of making contacts with people within SpaceX, and if they don’t consider that proprietary information, I’m sure you could find out…and perhaps even report on it in the form of a post on Parabolic Arc!
My only experience is with 3D printed stainless steel, which is exceptionally heavy. I don’t know about other metallic materials.
I haven’t had good luck in the past getting answers on questions from SpaceX. I asked (sent an email to their ‘media at spacex’ address) about their isogrids on Dragon (see this comment), and never even got an acknowledgement that my email was received. I bet they get a lot of questions though, so I’m quite happy just to wonder out loud and watch their youtube channel : – )
Well, there’s no substitute for just being in the middle of things. You could apply for a job! 😉
On that particular question, there are many reasons why one orientation might be preferred over the other, and it depends on how they do insulation, attach the skin, route cabling, and so forth, et infinitae. They might very well want to keep that to themselves. Or it could be something as simple as the fixturing they have for their CNC machines.
I wholeheartedly recommend http://www.nasaspaceflight.com (not an official NASA site) and in particular their member section known as L2. You will find out many things the general public is not privy to including which parts of the SD are printed. Several SpaceX employees post there and the editor Chris Bergin has an excellent relationship with them.
It’s by far the best space-related site on the web and you will find if you check it out that I’m not exaggerating.
Cheers
Thanks; just signed up. What a cool resource.
Glad you agree. Spread the word. It helps keep the site up to date and ongoing.
Cheers.
Have you seen these tweets by Elon? The first pic shows a “big part of the engine” 3D printed.
https://twitter.com/elonmus…
SpaceX SuperDraco inconel rocket chamber w regen cooling jacket emerges from EOS 3D metal printer pic.twitter.com/Tj284OuAk1
https://twitter.com/elonmus…
SuperDraco rocket engine fired at full thrust w a printed Inconel chamber. Used for Dragon escape & landing pic.twitter.com/HjWEayLlBN
I had not seen those; thanks!
Some of us actually don’t twitter. Thanks for those!
“but I don’t see any great economic benefit from landing a capsule with that level of precision.”
In a future dominated by reusable launch systems, a few hundreds to even tens of thousands of dollars may become a significant proportion of your margin.
Then there is the “rapidly reusable” element of the equation. This may not apply in our single space station world present, but hopefully in the not to distant future.
Also, for non-terrestrial use (by which I mean Martian), where extensive recovery infrastructure does not yet exist, landing close to your hab would be very desirable.
It’s also simply the matter of a “soft” and “dry” landing. Landing at the Cape, five or ten miles from the launch pad, is a nice to have, but as you say, the economics of touchdown on a dry Arizona lakebed is still a big step up from Pacific wave bobbing. But, yeah, landing on Mars specifically was probably the main inspiration, if not motive, for the precision propulsive landing capability.
“…ultimately they didn’t consider it an important design feature, in terms of cost or weight benefit.”
Well it’s a coming together of reasons. What *is* generally considered as of cost and weight benefit is an abort escape system. Then from the view point of reusable systems, throwing away several million dollars worth of abort escape engines on every mission is a significant cost waste. Combine that with wanting to land on Mars, wanting to avoid having to land in water on Earth and then being able to dual mission those engines for both escape and landing, and all of a sudden the benefits completely eliminate the cost and weight penalty.