Search This Blog

Monday, March 22, 2021

SpaceX Raptor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
SpaceX Raptor
SpaceX sea-level Raptor at Hawthorne - 2.jpg
Raptor at SpaceX Hawthorne facility
Country of originUnited States
ManufacturerSpaceX
Application1st and 2nd stage propulsion of the Starship vehicle
StatusUnder development
Liquid-fuel engine
PropellantLiquid oxygen / liquid methane
Mixture ratio3.55 (78% O2, 22% CH4)
CycleFull-flow staged combustion
Pumps2 turbopumps
Configuration
Chamber1
Nozzle ratio40
Performance
Thrust880–2,210 kN; 200,000–500,000 lbf (90–225 tf)
Throttle range40–100%
Thrust-to-weight ratio
  • 200, sea-level, goal
  • <120, vacuum
Chamber pressure
  • 300 bar (30 MPa; 4,400 psi)
  • 330 bar (33 MPa; 4,800 psi), ~7 s test
Isp (vac.)380 s (3,700 m/s), goal
Isp (SL)330 s (3,200 m/s)
Mass flow
  • ~650 kg/s (1,400 lb/s):
    • ~510 kg/s (1,100 lb/s), O2
    • ~140 kg/s (310 lb/s), CH4
Dimensions
Length3.1 m (10 ft)
Diameter1.3 m (4 ft 3 in)
Dry weight1,500 kg (3,300 lb), goal
Used in
Starship

The SpaceX Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion, methane-fueled rocket engine manufactured by SpaceX. The engine is powered by cryogenic liquid methane and liquid oxygen (LOX), rather than the RP-1 kerosene and LOX used in SpaceX's prior Merlin and Kestrel rocket engines. The earliest concepts for Raptor considered liquid hydrogen (LH
2
) as fuel rather than methane. The Raptor engine has more than twice the thrust of the Merlin 1D engine that powers the current Falcon 9 launch vehicle.

Raptor will be used in both stages of the two-stage-to-orbit, super-heavy-lift Starship system launch vehicle, which is designed to replace all existing SpaceX vehicles, including the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles and the SpaceX Dragon 2. As part of Starship, Raptor engines are expected to be used in various applications, including Earth-orbit satellite delivery market, deployment of a large portion of SpaceX's own Starlink megaconstellation, and the exploration and eventual colonization of Mars.

Raptor engines began flight testing on the Starhopper prototype in July 2019 and became the first full-flow staged combustion rocket engine ever flown. As of January Raptor also produces the highest combustion chamber pressure ever reached by an operational rocket engine, at 330 bar (33,000 kilopascals), surpassing the record held by the RD-701 rocket engine at 300 bars.

Description

Raptor engine combustion scheme
 
Simplified diagram of Raptor engine
 
Full-flow staged-combustion rocket engine

The Raptor engine is powered by subcooled liquid methane and subcooled liquid oxygen using a more efficient Full Flow Staged Combustion cycle, a departure from the simpler "open-cycle" gas generator system and LOX/kerosene propellants that current Merlin engines use. The RS-25, with hydrolox propellant also used a staged combustion process, as do several Russian rocket engines, including the RD-180 and the 25.74 MPa (3,733 psi) chamber pressure RD-191. The stated design size for the Raptor engine varied widely during 2012–2017 as detailed design continued, from a high target of 8,200 kN (1,800,000 lbf) of vacuum thrust to a more recent, much lower target of 1,900 kN (430,000 lbf). In its 2017 iteration, the operational engine is expected to have a vacuum Isp = 382 s (3,750 m/s) and a sea-level Isp = 334 s (3,280 m/s).

The Raptor engine is designed for the use of deep cryogenic methalox propellants—fluids cooled to near their freezing points, which is typical for cryogenic rocket engines. The use of subcooled propellants increases propellant density to allow more propellant mass in tanks; the engine performance is also improved with subcooled propellants. Specific impulse is increased, and the risk of cavitation at inputs to the turbopumps is reduced due to the higher mass flow rate per unit power generated. Engine ignition for all Raptor engines, both on the pad and in the air, will be by spark ignition, which will eliminate the pyrophoric mixture of triethylaluminum-triethylborane (TEA-TEB) used for engine ignition on the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy.

Raptor has been claimed to be able to deliver "long life ... and more benign turbine environments". Specifically, Raptor utilizes a full-flow staged combustion cycle, where all the oxidizer—with a low-fuel ratio—will power the oxygen turbine pump, and all the fuel—with a low-oxygen ratio—will power the methane turbine pump. Both streams—oxidizer and fuel—will be mixed completely in the gas phase before they enter the combustion chamber. Prior to 2014, only two full-flow staged-combustion rocket engines had ever progressed sufficiently to be tested on test stands: the Soviet RD-270 project in the 1960s and the Aerojet Rocketdyne Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator in the mid-2000s.

Additional characteristics of the full-flow design, projected to further increase performance or reliability include:

  • eliminating the fuel–oxidizer turbine interseal, which is a potential point of failure in more traditional engine designs;
  • lower pressures are required through the pumping system, increasing life span and further reducing risk of catastrophic failure;
  • ability to increase the combustion-chamber pressure, thereby either increasing overall performance or "by using cooler gases, providing the same performance as a standard staged combustion engine but with much less stress on materials, thus significantly reducing material fatigue or [engine] weight".

SpaceX aims at a lifetime of 1000 flights for Raptor.

The turbopump and many of the critical parts of the injectors for the initial engine development testing were, as of 2015, manufactured by using 3D printing, which increases the speed of development and iterative testing. The 2016 1 MN (220,000 lbf) test-stand engine had 40% (by mass) of its parts manufactured by 3D printing.

In 2019 the engine manifolds were cast from SX300 (similar to Inconel), soon to be changed to SX500.

The Raptor engine uses a large number of coaxial swirl injectors to admit propellants to the combustion chamber, rather than pintle injectors used on the previous Merlin rocket engines that SpaceX mass-produced for its Falcon family of launch vehicles. Raptor uses "dual redundant torch igniters".

In 2019 the (marginal) cost of the engine was stated to be less than $1 million. SpaceX plans to mass-produce up to 500 Raptor engines per year, each costing less than $250,000.

History

The engine development from 2009 to 2015 was funded exclusively through private investment by SpaceX, and not as a result of any funding from the US government. In January 2016, SpaceX did agree with the US Air Force to take US$33.6 million in defense department funding in order to develop a particular Raptor model: a prototype of a new upper-stage variant of the Raptor engine designed for potential use as an upper stage on Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, with SpaceX agreeing to fund at least US$67.3 million on the same upper-stage development project, on a minimum 2:1 private-to-government funding basis.

Initial concept

An advanced rocket engine design project named Raptor—then a hydrolox engine—was first publicly discussed by SpaceX's Max Vozoff at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Commercial Crew/Cargo symposium in 2009. As of April 2011, SpaceX had a small number of staff working on the Raptor upper-stage engine, then still a LH
2
/LOX concept, at a low level of priority. Further mention of the development program occurred in 2011. In March 2012, news accounts asserted that the Raptor upper-stage engine development program was underway, but that details were not being publicly released.

In October 2012, SpaceX publicly announced concept work on a rocket engine that would be "several times as powerful as the Merlin 1 series of engines, and won't use Merlin's RP-1 fuel", but declined to specify which fuel would be used. They indicated that details on a new SpaceX rocket would be forthcoming in "one to three years" and that the large engine was intended for the next-generation launch vehicle using multiple of these large engines, that would be expected to launch payload masses of the order of 150 to 200 tonnes (150,000 to 200,000 kg; 330,000 to 440,000 lb) to low Earth orbit, exceeding the payload mass capability of the NASA Space Launch System.

Methane engine announcement and component development

In November 2012, Musk announced a new direction for the propulsion division of SpaceX: developing methane-fueled rocket engines. He further indicated that the engine concept, codenamed Raptor, would now become a methane-based design, and that methane would be the fuel of choice for SpaceX's plans for Mars colonization.

Potential sources and sinks of methane (CH4) on Mars

Because of the presence of water underground and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mars, methane, a simple hydrocarbon, can easily be synthesized on Mars using the Sabatier reaction. In-situ resource production on Mars has been examined by NASA and found to be viable for oxygen, water, and methane production. According to a study published by researchers from the Colorado School of Mines, in-situ resource utilization such as methane from Mars makes space missions more feasible technically and economically and enables reusability.

When first mentioned by SpaceX in 2009, the term "Raptor" was applied exclusively to an upper-stage engine concept—and 2012 pronouncements indicated that it was then still a concept for an upper stage engine—but in early 2014 SpaceX confirmed that Raptor would be used both on a new second stage, as well as for the large (then, nominally a 10-meter-diameter) core of the Mars Colonial Transporter (subsequently, in 2016, on both stages of the Interplanetary Transport System and then, in 2017 on the Big Falcon Rocket).

The earliest public hints that a staged-combustion methane engine was under consideration at SpaceX were given in May 2011 when SpaceX asked if the Air Force was interested in a methane-fueled engine as an option to compete with the mainline kerosene-fueled engine that had been requested in the USAF Reusable Booster System High Thrust Main Engine solicitation.

Public information released in November 2012 indicated that SpaceX might have a family of Raptor-designated rocket engines in mind; this was confirmed by SpaceX in October 2013. However, in March 2014 SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell clarified that the focus of the new engine development program is exclusively on the full-size Raptor engine; smaller subscale methalox engines were not planned on the development path to the very large Raptor engine.

In October 2013, SpaceX announced that they would be performing methane engine tests of Raptor engine components at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi, and that SpaceX would add equipment to the existing test stand infrastructure in order to support liquid methane and hot gaseous methane engine component testing. In April 2014, SpaceX completed the requisite upgrades and maintenance to the Stennis test stand to prepare for testing of Raptor components, and the engine component testing program began in earnest, focusing on the development of robust startup and shutdown procedures, something that is typically quite difficult to do for full-flow staged combustion cycle engines. Component testing at Stennis also allowed hardware characterization and verification of proprietary analytical software models that SpaceX developed to push the technology on this engine cycle that had little prior development work in the West.

October 2013 was the first time SpaceX disclosed a nominal design thrust of the Raptor engine—2,900 kN (661,000 lbf)—although early in 2014 they announced a Raptor engine with greater thrust, and in 2015, one with lower thrust that might better optimize thrust-to-weight.

In February 2014, Tom Mueller, the head of rocket engine development at SpaceX, revealed in a speech that Raptor was being designed for use on a vehicle where nine engines would "put over 100 tons of cargo up to Mars" and that the rocket would be more powerful than previously released publicly, producing greater than 4,400 kN (1,000,000 lbf). A June 2014 talk by Mueller provided more specific engine performance target specifications indicating 6,900 kN (1,600,000 lbf) of sea-level thrust, 8,200 kN (1,800,000 lbf) of vacuum thrust, and a specific impulse (Isp) of 380 s (3,700 m/s) for a vacuum version. Earlier information had estimated the design Isp under vacuum conditions as only 363 s (3,560 m/s). Jeff Thornburg, who led development of the Raptor engine at SpaceX 2011–2015, noted that methane rocket engines have higher performance than kerosene/RP-1 and lower than hydrogen, with significantly fewer problems for long-term, multi-start engine designs than kerosene—methane is cleaner burning—and significantly lower cost than hydrogen, coupled with the ability to "live off the land" and produce methane directly from extraterrestrial sources.

SpaceX successfully began development testing of injectors in 2014 and completed a full-power test of a full-scale oxygen preburner in 2015. 76 hot fire tests of the preburner, totaling some 400 seconds of test time, were executed from April–August 2015. SpaceX completed its planned testing using NASA Stennis facilities in 2014 and 2015.

In January 2015, Elon Musk stated that the thrust they were currently targeting was around 230 tonnes-force (2,300 kN; 510,000 lbf), much lower than older statements had mentioned. By August 2015, an Elon Musk statement surfaced that indicated the oxidizer to fuel ratio of the Mars-bound engine would be approximately 3.8 to 1.

In January 2016, the US Air Force awarded a US$33.6 million development contract to SpaceX to develop a prototype version of its methane-fueled reusable Raptor engine for use on the upper stage of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, which required double-matching funding by SpaceX of at least US$67.3 million. Work under the contract was expected to be completed in 2018, with engine performance testing to be done at NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi and Los Angeles Air Force Base, California.

Engine development and testing

First test firing of a Raptor development engine on 25 September 2016 in McGregor, Texas
 
Testing of the Raptor's oxygen preburner at Stennis Space Center in 2015

Initial development testing of Raptor methane engine components was done at the Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi, where SpaceX added equipment to the existing infrastructure in order to support liquid methane engine testing. Initial testing was limited to components of the Raptor engine, since the 440 kN (100,000 lbf) test stands at the E-2 complex at Stennis were not large enough to test the full Raptor engine. The development Raptor engine discussed in the October 2013 time frame relative to Stennis testing was designed to generate more than 2,900 kN (661,000 lbf) vacuum thrust. A revised, higher-thrust, specification was discussed by the company in February 2014, but it was unclear whether that higher thrust was something that would be achieved with the initial development engines. Raptor engine component testing began in May 2014 at the E-2 test complex which SpaceX modified to support methane engine tests. The first items tested were single Raptor injector elements, various designs of high-volume gas injectors. The modifications to the test stands made by SpaceX are now a part of the Stennis test infrastructure and are available to other users of the test facility after the SpaceX facility lease was completed. SpaceX successfully completed a "round of main injector testing in late 2014" and a "full-power test of the oxygen preburner component" for Raptor by June 2015. Tests continued at least into September 2015.

By early 2016, SpaceX had constructed a new engine test stand at their site of McGregor in central Texas that can handle the larger thrust of the full Raptor engine.

By August 2016, the first integrated Raptor rocket engine, manufactured at the SpaceX Hawthorne facility in California, shipped to the McGregor rocket engine test facility in Texas for development testing. The engine had 1 MN (220,000 lbf) thrust, which makes it approximately one-third the size of the full-scale Raptor engine planned for flight tests in 2019/2020 timeframe. It is the first full-flow staged-combustion methalox engine ever to reach a test stand. This 2016 development engine had "an expansion ratio of just 150, the maximum possible within Earth’s atmosphere" to prevent flow separation problems. It performed an initial 9-second firing test on 26 September 2016, the day before Musk's talk at the International Aeronautical Congress.

On 26 September 2016, Elon Musk tweeted two images of the first test firing of an integrated Raptor in SpaceX's McGregor test complex. On the same day Musk revealed that their target performance for Raptor was a vacuum specific impulse of 382 s (3,750 m/s), with a thrust of 3 MN (670,000 lbf), a chamber pressure of 300 bar (30 MPa; 4,400 psi), and an expansion ratio of 150 for an altitude optimized version. When asked if the nozzle diameter for such version was 14 ft (4.3 m), he stated that it was pretty close to that dimension. He also disclosed that it used multi-stage turbopumps. On the 27th he clarified that 150 expansion ratio was for the development version, that the production vacuum version would have an expansion ratio of 200. Substantial additional technical details of the ITS propulsion were summarized in a technical article on the Raptor engine published the next week.

By September 2017, the development Raptor engine—with 200 bars (20 MPa; 2,900 psi) chamber pressure—had undergone 1200 seconds of test fire testing in ground-test stands across 42 main engine tests, with the longest test being 100 seconds (which is limited by the capacity of the ground-test propellant tanks). As of September 2017, the first version of the flight engine is intended to operate at a chamber pressure of 250 bars (25 MPa; 3,600 psi), with the intent to raise it to 300 bars (30 MPa; 4,400 psi) at a later time.

By September 2017, the 200 bars (20 MPa; 2,900 psi) sub-scale test engine, with a thrust of 1 meganewton (220,000 lbf) and "a new alloy to help its oxygen-rich turbopump resist oxidization, ... had completed 1200 seconds of firings across 42 tests." This alloy is known as SX500 which is used to contain hot oxygen gas in the engine at up to 12000 psi. SX500 was created by the SpaceX metallurgy team.

While plans for Raptor flight testing have consistently been on the new-generation fiber-composite-material construction flight vehicles since 2016, the specific vehicle was not clarified until October 2017, when it was indicated that initial suborbital test flights would occur with a Big Falcon Ship. In November 2016, the first flight tests of the Raptor engine were projected to be on the Interplanetary Transport System, no earlier than the early 2020s. By July 2017, the plan had been modified to do flight testing on a much smaller launch vehicle and spacecraft, and the new system architecture had "evolved quite a bit" since the ITS concept from 2016. A key driver of the 2017 architecture was to make the new system useful for substantial Earth-orbit and Cislunar launches so that the new system might pay for itself, in part, through economic spaceflight activities in the near-Earth space zone.

Elon Musk announced in September 2017 that the initial flight platform for any Raptor engine would be some part of the Big Falcon Rocket. BFR was a 9 m (30 ft)-diameter launch vehicle. In October 2017, Musk clarified that "[initial flight testing will be with] a full-scale 9-meter-diameter ship doing short hops of a few hundred kilometers altitude and lateral distance ... [projected to be] fairly easy on the vehicle, as no heat shield is needed, we can have a large amount of reserve propellant and don’t need the high area ratio, deep-space Raptor engines."

Notably, Musk also announced that the new Raptor-powered BFR launch vehicle was planned to entirely replace both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles as well as the SpaceX Dragon 2 in the existing operational SpaceX fleet in the early 2020s, initially aiming at the Earth-orbit market, but SpaceX is explicitly designing in substantial capability to the spacecraft vehicles to support long-duration spaceflight in the cislunar and Mars mission environment as well. SpaceX intends this approach to bring significant cost savings which will help the company justify the development expense of designing and building the new launch vehicle design. In addition to orbital spaceflight missions, BFR is being considered for the point-to-point Earth transportation market, with ~30–60-minute flights to nearly anywhere on the planet.

The first flight version of the Raptor engine arrived in McGregor, Texas in late January 2019.

On 3 February 2019, SpaceX performed the first test of a flight version engine. The test lasted two seconds with the engine operating at 60 percent of rated thrust at a chamber pressure of 170 bars (17,000 kPa). Just four days later, the test engine achieved the power levels needed for use in SpaceX Starship. The engine reached 172 tonnes-force (1,690 kN; 380,000 lbf) thrust with a chamber pressure of 257 bars (25.7 MPa). The test was conducted using warm propellant, with expectations of a 10% to 20% increase in performance when switching to deep cryogenic temperatures for the propellant. On 10 February 2019, Musk announced on Twitter that the flight version engine had attained the chamber combustion pressure of 268.9 bars (26.89 MPa) on a test stand. On 19 June 2020, Musk announced that the Raptor engine tests achieved the expected chamber combustion pressure of 300 bars (30 MPa) on a test stand.

By March, serial number 2 (SN2) of the flight version Raptor engine had been delivered to the SpaceX South Texas Launch Site east of Brownsville, Texas for system integration testing on the Starhopper, the first test article of Starship, approximately one year ahead of schedule. SN2 was used for two tethered tests of the flight test "hopper" in early April. On 3 April 2019, SpaceX conducted a successful static fire test, which ignited the engine while the vehicle remained tethered to the ground. The firing was a few seconds in duration, and was classed as successful by SpaceX. A second tethered test followed just two days later, on 5 April 2019. Serial numbers 3, 4, 5 and 6 had all made it to the test stand by early July, but the first three had issues of various sorts and SpaceX did not try any flight tests of the Starhopper test vehicle. SN6 was still under test on the ground test stand as of 8 July 2019.

The first flight test of a Raptor engine occurred on 25 July 2019 at the SpaceX South Texas Launch Site. Unusually, for initial flight tests of orbital-class rocket engines, this was not a full-duration burn but just a 22-second test. SpaceX is developing their next-generation rocket to be reusable from the beginning, just like an aircraft, and thus needs to start with narrow flight test objectives, while still aiming to land the rocket successfully to be used subsequently in further tests to expand the flight envelope.

Another flight test of a Raptor engine (probably SN6) occurred on 27 August 2019 from Boca Chica, Texas, test facility. The Starhopper reached an estimated altitude of 150 m (FAA approved). A side step and a landing on a nearby landing pad terminated the roughly 1 minute flight. 

On August 4, 2020 a single Raptor engine (SN27) propelled a Starship prototype (SN5) to an altitude of 150 m (FAA approved) at the Boca Chica test facility; this was the first flight of a full-size Starship prototype. The Raptor engine was mounted off center and controlled the Starship during lift off, a traverse of approximately 100 meters, and landing on a secondary pad. The total flight time was approximately 50 seconds.

In August 2020, a ground stand test of a Raptor achieved 330 bar (33,000 kPa) chamber pressure, producing ~225 tf (2,210 kN; 500,000 lbf) of thrust. This achievement surpassed RD-701 engine and set a new world record of the highest pressure ever reached in a rocket engine's combustion chamber. Tests have also shown that the engine—designed to be throttleable from the outset—can throttle engine thrust down to 40 percent of maximum output. The current limitation to decreasing thrust even further is Raptor preburner flameout.

On September 3, 2020, Raptor SN29 propelled the Starship prototype SN6 to around 150 m (FAA approved) at the Boca Chica test facility; as with Starship SN5, the engine was mounted off center and controlled the prototype during the entire flight, which lasted for approximately 45 seconds. Unlike the Raptor engine (SN27) mounted on the SN5 Starship prototype, which suffered a small fire during the flight, Raptor SN29 did not seem to have any issues.

On December 9, 2020, three Raptor engines propelled the Starship prototype SN8 to approximately 12.5 km at the Boca Chica test facility. The three engines were placed in the center of the vehicle, unlike in previous prototypes. During this flight, the engines sequentially shutdown each by each until the final Raptor underwent shutdown, preceding the flop maneuver. The last engine in this flight to shutoff had a final burn-time of approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds. The SN8 was destroyed upon impact to ground during landing.

On 2 February 2021, Starship prototype SN9, basically similar vehicle as the SN8, was launched to an altitude of about 10 km. The SN9 vehicle was destroyed in landing.

On 3 March 2021, Starship prototype SN10, again a vehicle basically the same as SN8 and SN9, was launched to an altitude of about 10 km (again). The SN10 vehicle did land somewhat successfully but was destroyed minutes after landing in a fire that started in the landing process.

Versions

The Raptor methalox engine for SpaceX next-generation launch vehicles have gone through a number of design concepts for engine thrust, specific impulse, and sea-level-nozzle/vacuum-nozzle sizings, depending on the vehicle design concept SpaceX was working on at the time, and subscale versions of Raptor engines were also built for early testing on ground test stands. After 2013, all engine design concepts were methalox using the full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) cycle. In addition, in 2016–2018, a custom prototype upper-stage methalox FFSC Raptor engine was designed and tested for the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles, strictly for the US Air Force to meet US military space readiness objectives. SpaceX never implemented plans to switch the F9/FH upper stage to methalox propellants.

SpaceX next-generation launch vehicle

In September 2016 at the IAC meetings, Musk mentioned several Raptor engine designs that could be used on the Interplanetary Transport System by late in the decade. In addition, a much smaller subscale engine had already been built for test and validation of the new full-flow staged-combustion cycle engine. At that time, this first subscale Raptor development engine had recently been tested on a ground test stand, but for only one brief firing.

The "Raptor subscale development engine" had approximately 1,000 kN (220,000 lbf) thrust. In order to eliminate flow separation problems while being tested in Earth's atmosphere, the test nozzle expansion ratio had been limited to only 150. The engine began testing in September 2016 on a ground test stand. Sources differed on the performance of the test engine. In reporting during the two weeks following the Musk ITS launch vehicle reveal on 27 September, NASASpaceFlight.com indicated that the development engine was only one-third the size of any of the several larger engine designs that were discussed for the later flight vehicles.

For the flight vehicles, Elon Musk discussed two engines: both a low-expansion ratio (ER40) for the first stage, or ITS booster and a higher-expansion ratio (200) to obtain higher performance with the second stage. 42 of these ER40 engines were envisioned in the high-level design of the first stage, with 3,050 kN (690,000 lbf) of thrust at sea level, and 3,285 kN (738,000 lbf) in vacuum. In addition, three gimbaled short-nozzle ER40 engines were to be used for maneuvering the 2016-design ITS second-stage; and these engines were also expected to be used for retropropulsive landings on Mars (with mean atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface of 600 Pa (0.0060 bar; 0.087 psi)). The higher-efficiency engine for in-space flight in vacuum conditions was envisioned then to target a specific impulse of 382s, using a much larger nozzle giving an expansion ratio of 200. Six of these non-gimbaled engines were planned to provide primary propulsion for the 2016 designs of the Interplanetary Spaceship and the Earth-orbit ITS tanker. As designed, both of those vehicles were to play a short-term role as second stages on launches to Earth orbit, as well as provide high-Isp efficiency on transfer from geocentric to heliocentric orbit for transport to beyond-Earth-orbit celestial bodies. 3,500 kN (790,000 lbf) thrust at vacuum, the only conditions under which the six ER200 engines were expected to be fired.

A year later, at the IAC meetings in September 2017, and following a year of testing and iterative development by the propulsion team, Musk said that a smaller Raptor engine—with slightly over half as much thrust as the previous concept designs for the ITS—would be used on the next-generation rocket, now a 9 m (30 ft)-diameter launch vehicle and publicly referred to as Big Falcon Rocket (BFR). With the much smaller launch vehicle, fewer Raptor engines would be used on each stage. BFR was then slated to have 31 Raptors on the first stage and 6 on the second stage. By mid-2018, SpaceX was publicly stating that the sea-level flight version Raptor engine design, with a nozzle exit diameter of 1.3 m (4.3 ft), was expected to have 1,700 kN (380,000 lbf) thrust at sea level with an Isp of 330 s (3,200 m/s) increasing to an Isp of 356 s (3,490 m/s) in vacuum. The vacuum flight version, with a nozzle exit diameter of 2.4 m (7.9 ft), was expected to exert 1,900 kN (430,000 lbf) force with an Isp of 375 s (3,680 m/s). The earliest versions of the flight engine is designed to operate at 250 bars (25,000 kPa; 3,600 psi) chamber pressure; but SpaceX expects to increase this to 300 bar (30,000 kPa; 4,400 psi) in later iterations. The flight engine is designed for extreme reliability, aiming to support the airline-level of safety required by the point-to-point Earth transportation market.

In the BFR update given in September 2018, Musk showed video of a 71-second hot fire test of a Raptor engine, and stated that "this is the Raptor engine that will power BFR, both the ship and the booster; it's the same engine. ... approximately a 200 tonne engine aiming for roughly 300 bar chamber pressure. ... If you had it at a high expansion ratio, has the potential to have a specific impulse of 380."

Raptor Vacuum

Like its sea-level efficient counterpart, the Raptor Vacuum engine is a methalox full-flow staged combustion (FFSC) engine but is optimized for higher performance under vacuum conditions, most notably, optimized for highest specific impulse given other engine requirements like reusability, reliability, and so forth.

While the optimized Raptor vacuum engine is aiming for an Isp of ~380 s (3,700 m/s), the v1.0 Raptor vac design to support early Starship development has been made more conservative and is projecting an Isp of only 365–370 s (3,580–3,630 m/s), intentionally decreasing engine performance to obtain having test engines sooner. In addition, Raptor Vacuum v1 will have a smaller engine nozzle in order to avoid flow separation when the engine is fired at sea-level atmospheric pressure. A full-duration test of version 1 of the Raptor Vacuum engine was completed in September 2020 at the SpaceX development facility in McGregor, Texas.

Upper stage engine prototype for Falcon 9

In January 2016, the US Air Force (USAF) awarded a US$33.6 million development contract to SpaceX to develop a prototype version of its methane-fueled reusable Raptor engine for use on the upper stage of the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles. The contract required double-matching funding by SpaceX of at least US$67.3 million. Work under the contract was expected to be completed no later than December 2018, and engine performance testing was planned to be completed at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi under US Air Force supervision. The USAF contract called only for the development and build of a single prototype engine with a series of ground tests, with no upper stage launch vehicle design funded by the contract. The Air Force was working with the US Congress in February 2016 to pursue new launch systems."

In October 2017 the US Air Force (USAF) awarded a US$40.8 million modification for the development of the Raptor rocket propulsion system prototype for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, with work under that contract expected to be completed by April 2018.

Little technical detail was ever publicly released about the USAF second stage engine, as is typical for defense contracts. The prototype however was to be designed:

The USAF contract called only for the development and build of a prototype, to be demonstrated in a USAF-supervised set of tests. No upper stage vehicle design/redesign was funded by the contract. Neither the Air Force nor SpaceX subsequently published any results of this non-Starship oriented rocket engine contract.

Comparison to other engines

Applications

As of September 2016, the Raptor engine was slated to be used in three spaceflight vehicles making up the two launch stages of an ITS stack. The first stage would always be ITS booster while the second stage may be either an Interplanetary Spaceship (for beyond-Earth-orbit missions) or an ITS tanker (for on-orbit propellant transfer operations nearer to Earth).

The SpaceX 2016-design of the Interplanetary booster was announced with 42 sea-level optimized Raptors in the first stage of the ITS with a total of 128 MN (29,000,000 lbf) of thrust. The SpaceX Interplanetary Spaceship—which made up the second stage of the ITS on Earth launches was also an interplanetary spacecraft carrying cargo and passengers to beyond-Earth-orbit destinations after on-orbit refueling—was slated in the 2016 design to use six vacuum-optimized Raptors for primary propulsion plus three Raptors with sea-level nozzles for maneuvering.

The SpaceX design after late 2017 is for a much smaller launch vehicle, 9 meters in diameter rather than 12 meters for the ITS, and is now known as Starship. The Starship first stage (now known as Super Heavy) was slated to have 31 sea-level optimized Raptors in the initial design concept, with a total of 48 MN (11,000,000 lbf) of thrust. The Starship will use three vacuum-optimized Raptors for primary propulsion plus three sea-level Raptors for maneuvering and atmospheric flight. SpaceX is currently building and testing a series of Starship and Super Heavy booster prototypes at the SpaceX South Texas Launch Site.

 

Methanogen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanogen

Methanogens are microorganisms that produce methane as a metabolic byproduct in hypoxic conditions. They are prokaryotic and belong to the domain of archaea. They are common in wetlands, where they are responsible for marsh gas, and in the digestive tracts of animals such as ruminants and many humans, where they are responsible for the methane content of belching in ruminants and flatulence in humans. In marine sediments, the biological production of methane, also termed methanogenesis, is generally confined to where sulfates are depleted, below the top layers. Moreover, methanogenic archaea populations play an indispensable role in anaerobic wastewater treatments. Others are extremophiles, found in environments such as hot springs and submarine hydrothermal vents as well as in the "solid" rock of Earth's crust, kilometers below the surface.

Physical description

Methanogens are coccoid (spherical shaped) or bacilli (rod shaped). There are over 50 described species of methanogens, which do not form a monophyletic group, although all known methanogens belong to Archaea. They are mostly anaerobic organisms that cannot function under aerobic conditions, but recently a species (Candidatus Methanothrix paradoxum) has been identified that can function in anoxic microsites within aerobic environments. They are very sensitive to the presence of oxygen even at trace level. Usually, they cannot sustain oxygen stress for a prolonged time. However, Methanosarcina barkeri is exceptional in possessing a superoxide dismutase (SOD) enzyme, and may survive longer than the others in the presence of O2. Some methanogens, called hydrogenotrophic, use carbon dioxide (CO2) as a source of carbon, and hydrogen as a reducing agent.

The reduction of carbon dioxide into methane in the presence of hydrogen can be expressed as follows:

CO2 + 4 H2 → CH4 + 2H2O

Some of the CO2 reacts with the hydrogen to produce methane, which creates an electrochemical gradient across the cell membrane, used to generate ATP through chemiosmosis. In contrast, plants and algae use water as their reducing agent.

Methanogens lack peptidoglycan, a polymer that is found in the cell walls of Bacteria but not in those of Archaea. Some methanogens have a cell wall that is composed of pseudopeptidoglycan. Other methanogens do not, but have at least one paracrystalline array (S-layer) made up of proteins that fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.

Extreme living areas

Methanogens play a vital ecological role in anaerobic environments of removing excess hydrogen and fermentation products that have been produced by other forms of anaerobic respiration. Methanogens typically thrive in environments in which all electron acceptors other than CO2 (such as oxygen, nitrate, ferric iron (Fe(III)), and sulfate) have been depleted. In deep basaltic rocks near the mid ocean ridges, they can obtain their hydrogen from the serpentinisation reaction of olivine as observed in the hydrothermal field of Lost City.

The thermal breakdown of water and water radiolysis are other possible sources of hydrogen.

Methanogens are key agents of remineralization of organic carbon in continental margin sediments and other aquatic sediments with high rates of sedimentation and high sediment organic matter. Under the correct conditions of pressure and temperature, biogenic methane can accumulate in massive deposits of methane clathrates, which account for a significant fraction of organic carbon in continental margin sediments and represent a key reservoir of a potent greenhouse gas.

Methanogens have been found in several extreme environments on Earth – buried under kilometres of ice in Greenland and living in hot, dry desert soil. They are known to be the most common archaebacteria in deep subterranean habitats. Live microbes making methane were found in a glacial ice core sample retrieved from about three kilometres under Greenland by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley. They also found a constant metabolism able to repair macromolecular damage, at temperatures of 145 to –40 °C.

Another study has also discovered methanogens in a harsh environment on Earth. Researchers studied dozens of soil and vapour samples from five different desert environments in Utah, Idaho and California in the United States, and in Canada and Chile. Of these, five soil samples and three vapour samples from the vicinity of the Mars Desert Research Station in Utah were found to have signs of viable methanogens.

Some scientists have proposed that the presence of methane in the Martian atmosphere may be indicative of native methanogens on that planet. In June 2019, NASA’s Curiosity rover detected methane, commonly generated by underground microbes such as methanogens, which signals possibility of life on Mars.

Closely related to the methanogens are the anaerobic methane oxidizers, which utilize methane as a substrate in conjunction with the reduction of sulfate and nitrate. Most methanogens are autotrophic producers, but those that oxidize CH3COO are classed as chemotroph instead.

Comparative genomics and molecular signatures

Comparative proteomic analysis has led to the identification of 31 signature proteins which are specific for methanogens (also known as Methanoarchaeota). Most of these proteins are related to methanogenesis, and they could serve as potential molecular markers for methanogens. Additionally, 10 proteins found in all methanogens which are shared by Archaeoglobus, suggest that these two groups are related. In phylogenetic trees, methanogens are not monophyletic and they are generally split into three clades. Hence, the unique shared presence of large numbers of proteins by all methanogens could be due to lateral gene transfers. Additionally, more recent novel proteins associated with sulfide trafficking have been linked to methanogen archaea. More proteomic analysis is needed to further differentiate specific genera within the methanogen class and reveal novel pathways for methanogenic metabolism.

Modern DNA or RNA sequencing approaches has elucidated several genomic markers specific to several groups of methanogens. One such finding isolated nine methanogens from genus Methanoculleus and found that there were at least 2 trehalose synthases genes that were found in all nine genomes. Thus far, the gene has been observed only in this genus, therefore it can be used as a marker to identify the archaea Methanoculleus. As sequencing techniques progress and databases become populated with an abundance of genomic data, a greater number of strains and traits can be identified, but many genera have remained understudied. For example, halophilic methanogens are potentially important microbes for carbon cycling in coastal wetland ecosystems but seem to be greatly understudied. One recent publication isolated a novel strain from genus Methanohalophilus which resides in sulfide-rich seawater. Interestingly, they have isolated several portions of this strain's genome that are different than other isolated strains of this genus (Methanohalophilus mahii, Methanohalophilus halophilus, Methanohalophilus portucalensis, Methanohalophilus euhalbius). Some differences include a highly conserved genome, sulfur and glycogen metabolisms and viral resistance. Genomic markers consistent with the microbes environment have been observed in many other cases. One such study found that methane producing archaea found in hydraulic fracturing zones had genomes which varied with vertical depth. Subsurface and surface genomes varied along with the constraints found in individual depth zones, though fine-scale diversity was also found in this study. It is important to recognize that genomic markers pointing at environmentally relevant factors are often non-exclusive. A survey of Methanogenic Thermoplasmata has found these organisms in human and animal intestinal tracts. This novel species was also found in other methanogenic environments such as wetland soils, though the group isolated in the wetlands did tend to have a larger number of genes encoding for anti-oxidation enzymes that were not present in the same group isolated in the human and animal intestinal tract. A common issue with identifying and discovering novel species of methanogens is that sometimes the genomic differences can be quite small, yet the research group decides they are different enough to separate into individual species. One study took a group of Methanocellales and ran a comparative genomic study. The three strains were originally considered identical, but a detailed approach to genomic isolation showed differences among their previously considered identical genomes. Differences were seen in gene copy number and there was also metabolic diversity associated with the genomic information.

Genomic signatures not only allow one to mark unique methanogens and genes relevant to environmental conditions; it has also led to a better understanding of the evolution of these archaea. Some methanogens must actively mitigate against oxic environments. Functional genes involved with the production of antioxidants have been found in methanogens, and some specific groups tend to have an enrichment of this genomic feature. Methanogens containing a genome with enriched antioxidant properties may provide evidence that this genomic addition may have occurred during the Great Oxygenation Event. In another study, three strains from the lineage Thermoplasmatales isolated from animal gastro-intestinal tracts revealed evolutionary differences. The eukaryotic-like histone gene which is present in most methanogen genomes was not present, eluding to evidence that an ancestral branch was lost within Thermoplasmatales and related lineages. Furthermore, the group Methanomassiliicoccus has a genome which appears to have lost many common genes coding for the first several steps of methanogenesis. These genes appear to have been replaced by genes coding for a novel methylated methogenic pathway. This pathway has been reported in several types of environments, pointing to non-environment specific evolution, and may point to an ancestral deviation.

Metabolism

Methane production

Methanogens are known to produce methane from substrates such as H2/CO2, acetate, formate, methanol and methylamines in a process called methanogenesis. Different methanogenic reactions are catalyzed by unique sets of enzymes and coenzymes. While reaction mechanism and energetics vary between one reaction and another, all of these reactions contribute to net positive energy production by creating ion concentration gradients that are used to drive ATP synthesis. The overall reaction for H2/CO2 methanogenesis is:

(∆G˚’ = -134 kJ/mol CH4)

Well-studied organisms that produce methane via H2/CO2 methanogenesis include Methanosarcina barkeri, Methanobacterium thermoautotrophicum, and Methanobacterium wolfei. These organisms are typically found in anaerobic environments.

In the earliest stage of H2/CO2 methanogenesis, CO2 binds to methanofuran (MF) and is reduced to formyl-MF. This endergonic reductive process (∆G˚’= +16 kJ/mol) is dependent on the availability of H2 and is catalyzed by the enzyme formyl-MF dehydrogenase.

The formyl constituent of formyl-MF is then transferred to the coenzyme tetrahydromethanopterin (H4MPT) and is catalyzed by a soluble enzyme known as formyl transferase. This results in the formation of formyl-H4MPT.

Formyl-H4MPT is subsequently reduced to methenyl-H4MPT. Methenyl-H4MPT then undergoes a one-step hydrolysis followed by a two-step reduction to methyl-H4MPT. The two-step reversible reduction is assisted by coenzyme F420 whose hydride acceptor spontaneously oxidizes. Once oxidized, F420’s electron supply is replenished by accepting electrons from H2. This step is catalyzed by methylene H4MPT dehydrogenase.

(Formyl-H4MPT reduction)
(Methenyl-H4MPT hydrolysis)
(H4MPT reduction)

Next, the methyl group of methyl-M4MPT is transferred to coenzyme M via a methyltransferase-catalyzed reaction.

The final step of H2/CO2 methanogenic involves methyl-coenzyme M reductase and two coenzymes: N-7 mercaptoheptanoylthreonine phosphate (HS-HTP) and coenzyme F430. HS-HTP donates electrons to methyl-coenzyme M allowing the formation of methane and mixed disulfide of HS-CoM. F430, on the other hand, serves as a prosthetic group to the reductase. H2 donates electrons to the mixed disulfide of HS-CoM and regenerates coenzyme M.

(Formation of methane)
(Regeneration of coenzyme M)

Wastewater treatment

Methanogens are widely used in anaerobic digestors to treat wastewater as well as aqueous organic pollutants. Industries have selected methanogens for their ability to perform biomethanation during wastewater decomposition thereby rendering the process sustainable and cost-effective.

Bio-decomposition in the anaerobic digester involves a four-staged cooperative action performed by different microorganisms. The first stage is the hydrolysis of insoluble polymerized organic matter by anaerobes such as Streptococcus and Enterobacterium. In the second stage, acidogens break down dissolved organic pollutants in wastewater to fatty acids. In the third stage, acetogens convert fatty acids to acetates. In the final stage, methanogens metabolize acetates to gaseous methane. The byproduct methane leaves the aqueous layer and serves as an energy source to power wastewater-processing within the digestor, thus generating a self-sustaining mechanism.

Methanogens also effectively decrease the concentration of organic matter in wastewater run-off. For instance, agricultural wastewater, highly rich in organic material, has been a major cause of aquatic ecosystem degradation. The chemical imbalances can lead to severe ramifications such as eutrophication. Through anaerobic digestion, the purification of wastewater can prevent unexpected blooms in water systems as well as trap methanogenesis within digesters. This allocates biomethane for energy production and prevents a potent greenhouse gas, methane, from being released into the atmosphere.

The organic components of wastewater vary vastly. Chemical structures of the organic matter select for specific methanogens to perform anaerobic digestion. An example is the members of Methanosaeta genus dominate the digestion of palm oil mill effluent (POME) and brewery waste. Modernizing wastewater treatment systems to incorporate higher diversity of microorganisms to decrease organic content in treatment is under active research in the field of microbiological and chemical engineering. Current new generations of Staged Multi-Phase Anaerobic reactors and Upflow Sludge Bed reactor systems are designed to have innovated features to counter high loading wastewater input, extreme temperature conditions, and possible inhibitory compounds.

 

Methanotroph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph

Methanotrophs (sometimes called methanophiles) are prokaryotes that metabolize methane as their source of carbon and energy. They can be either bacteria or archaea and can grow aerobically or anaerobically, and require single-carbon compounds to survive.

Methanotrophs are especially common in or near environments where methane is produced, although some methanotrophs can oxidize atmospheric methane. Their habitats include wetlands, soils, marshes, rice paddies, landfills, aquatic systems (lakes, oceans, streams) and more. They are of special interest to researchers studying global warming, as they play a significant role in the global methane budget, by reducing the amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere.

Methanotrophy is a special case of methylotrophy, using single-carbon compounds that are more reduced than carbon dioxide. Some methylotrophs, however, can also make use of multi-carbon compounds which differentiates them from methanotrophs that are usually fastidious methane and methanol oxidizers. The only facultative methanotrophs isolated to date are members of the genus Methylocella silvestris, Methylocapsa aurea and several Methylocystis strains.

In functional terms, methanotrophs are referred to as methane-oxidizing bacteria, however, methane-oxidizing bacteria encompass other organisms that are not regarded as sole methanotrophs. For this reason methane-oxidizing bacteria have been separated into subgroups: methane-assimilating bacteria (MAB) groups, the methanotrophs, and autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AAOB) which cooxidize methane.

Classification

Methantrophs can be either bacteria or archaea. Which methanotroph species is present, is mainly determined by the availability of electron acceptors. Many types of methane oxidizing bacteria (MOB) are known. Differences in the method of formaldehyde fixation and membrane structure divide these bacterial methanotrophs into several groups. Among the methanotrophic archaea, several subgroups are determined.

Aerobic

Under aerobic conditions, methanotrophs combine oxygen and methane to form formaldehyde, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate (RuMP) pathway, and [Carbon dioxide], which is released. Type I and type X methanotrophs are part of the Gammaproteobacteria and they use the RuMP pathway to assimilate carbon. Type II methanotrophs are part of the Alphaproteobacteria and utilize the serine pathway of carbon assimilation. They also characteristically have a system of internal membranes within which methane oxidation occurs. Methanotrophs in Gammaproteobacteria are known from family Methylococcaceae. Methanotrophs from Alphaproteobacteria are found in families Methylocystaceae and Beijerinckiaceae.

Aerobic methanotrophs are also known from the Methylacidiphilaceae (phylum Verrucomicrobia). In contrast to Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria, methanotrophs in the phylum Verrucomicrobia are mixotrophs. In 2021 bacterial bin from the phylum Gemmatimonadetes called Candidatus Methylotropicum kingii showing aerobic methanotrophy was discovered thus suggesting methanotrophy to be present in the four bacterial phyla.

No aerobic methanotrophic archaea are known.

Anaerobic

Under anoxic conditions, methanotrophs use different electron acceptors for methane oxidation. This can happen in anoxic habitats such as marine or lake sediments, oxygen minimum zones, anoxic water columns, rice paddies and soils. Some specific methanotrophs can reduce nitrate, nitrite, iron, sulphate, or manganese ion and couple that to methane oxidation without syntrophic partner. Investigations in marine environments revealed that methane can be oxidized anaerobically by consortia of methane oxidizing archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria. This type of anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) mainly occurs in anoxic marine sediments. The exact mechanism behind this is still a topic of debate but the most widely accepted theory is that the archaea use the reversed methanogenesis pathway to produce carbon dioxide and another, unknown substance. This unknown intermediate is then used by the sulfate-reducing bacteria to gain energy from the reduction of sulfate to hydrogen sulfide.

The anaerobic methanotrophs are not related to the known aerobic methanotrophs; the closest cultured relatives to the anaerobic methanotrophs are the methanogens in the order Methanosarcinales.

In some cases, aerobic methane oxidation can take place in anoxic environments. Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera belongs to the phylum NC10 bacteria, and can catalyze nitrite reduction through an "intra-aerobic" pathway, in which internally produced oxygen is used to oxidise methane. In clear water lakes, methanotrophs can live in the anoxic water column, but receive oxygen from photosynthetic organisms, that they then directly consume to oxidise methane aerobically.

Special species

Methylococcus capsulatus is utilised to produce animal feed from natural gas.

In 2010 a new bacterium Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera from the phylum NC10 was identified that can couple the anaerobic oxidation of methane to nitrite reduction without the need for a syntrophic partner. Based on the studies of Ettwig et al., it is believed that M. oxyfera oxidizes methane anaerobically by utilizing the oxygen produced internally from the dismutation of nitric oxide into nitrogen and oxygen gas.

Taxonomy

Many methanotrophic cultures have been isolated and formally characterized over the past 4 decades, starting with the classical study of Whittenbury (Whittenbury et al., 1970).  Currently,18 genera of cultivated aerobic methanotrophic Gammaproteobacteria and 5 genera of Alphaproteobacteria are known, represented by approx. 60 different species.

Methane oxidation

RuMP pathway in type I methanotrophs
 
Serine pathway in type II methanotrophs

Methanotrophs oxidize methane by first initiating reduction of an oxygen atom to H2O2 and transformation of methane to CH3OH using methane monooxygenases (MMOs). Furthermore, two types of MMO have been isolated from methanotrophs: soluble methane monooxygenase (sMMO) and particulate methane monooxygenase (pMMO).

Cells containing pMMO have demonstrated higher growth capabilities and higher affinity for methane than sMMO containing cells. It is suspected that copper ions may play a key role in both pMMO regulation and the enzyme catalysis, thus limiting pMMO cells to more copper-rich environments than sMMO producing cells.

List of human positions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...