Why aren't air breathing engines used as small first stages












2












$begingroup$


I am wondering why we don't use jet engines as first stages. Most small rockets, like the Electron, can lift off with a small thrust. In the Electron's case, 192 kN. Why can't we replace the 9 Rutherford engines on the Electron with a/some jet engine(s), like a ram/scramjet with an equal amount of thrust? In a rocket/spaceflight simulator (KSP), I have tried replacing the first stage with a small first stage with a hybrid jet engine with 200 kN of thrust. This works, so why doesn't NASA or other aerospace companies use this?










share|improve this question







New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Someone else will post a detailed answer, but humans have not yet been able to make a working scramjet. That limits air breathing engines to < Mach 5 which is not a big help. Conventional first stages simply work better.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, in the KSP simulator, the hybrid jet engine can go up to Mach 4, where it loses thrust. However, it has a good high-altitude performance. Is there any jet engine that can do this?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The highest altitude high-speed aircraft engine I know of is the Pratt and Whitney J58. It could run at around Mach 3 at around 85,000 ft. There are some developments like the Sabre engine that could do better if they actually are built and work.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    That's good! So what thrust does the J58 have?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Roughly 30,000 lbf.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


I am wondering why we don't use jet engines as first stages. Most small rockets, like the Electron, can lift off with a small thrust. In the Electron's case, 192 kN. Why can't we replace the 9 Rutherford engines on the Electron with a/some jet engine(s), like a ram/scramjet with an equal amount of thrust? In a rocket/spaceflight simulator (KSP), I have tried replacing the first stage with a small first stage with a hybrid jet engine with 200 kN of thrust. This works, so why doesn't NASA or other aerospace companies use this?










share|improve this question







New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Someone else will post a detailed answer, but humans have not yet been able to make a working scramjet. That limits air breathing engines to < Mach 5 which is not a big help. Conventional first stages simply work better.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, in the KSP simulator, the hybrid jet engine can go up to Mach 4, where it loses thrust. However, it has a good high-altitude performance. Is there any jet engine that can do this?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The highest altitude high-speed aircraft engine I know of is the Pratt and Whitney J58. It could run at around Mach 3 at around 85,000 ft. There are some developments like the Sabre engine that could do better if they actually are built and work.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    That's good! So what thrust does the J58 have?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Roughly 30,000 lbf.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


I am wondering why we don't use jet engines as first stages. Most small rockets, like the Electron, can lift off with a small thrust. In the Electron's case, 192 kN. Why can't we replace the 9 Rutherford engines on the Electron with a/some jet engine(s), like a ram/scramjet with an equal amount of thrust? In a rocket/spaceflight simulator (KSP), I have tried replacing the first stage with a small first stage with a hybrid jet engine with 200 kN of thrust. This works, so why doesn't NASA or other aerospace companies use this?










share|improve this question







New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




I am wondering why we don't use jet engines as first stages. Most small rockets, like the Electron, can lift off with a small thrust. In the Electron's case, 192 kN. Why can't we replace the 9 Rutherford engines on the Electron with a/some jet engine(s), like a ram/scramjet with an equal amount of thrust? In a rocket/spaceflight simulator (KSP), I have tried replacing the first stage with a small first stage with a hybrid jet engine with 200 kN of thrust. This works, so why doesn't NASA or other aerospace companies use this?







engines rocketlab electron kerbal-space-program ramjet






share|improve this question







New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question







New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question






New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









18ballz18ballz

156




156




New contributor




18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






18ballz is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    Someone else will post a detailed answer, but humans have not yet been able to make a working scramjet. That limits air breathing engines to < Mach 5 which is not a big help. Conventional first stages simply work better.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, in the KSP simulator, the hybrid jet engine can go up to Mach 4, where it loses thrust. However, it has a good high-altitude performance. Is there any jet engine that can do this?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The highest altitude high-speed aircraft engine I know of is the Pratt and Whitney J58. It could run at around Mach 3 at around 85,000 ft. There are some developments like the Sabre engine that could do better if they actually are built and work.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    That's good! So what thrust does the J58 have?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Roughly 30,000 lbf.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Someone else will post a detailed answer, but humans have not yet been able to make a working scramjet. That limits air breathing engines to < Mach 5 which is not a big help. Conventional first stages simply work better.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, in the KSP simulator, the hybrid jet engine can go up to Mach 4, where it loses thrust. However, it has a good high-altitude performance. Is there any jet engine that can do this?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The highest altitude high-speed aircraft engine I know of is the Pratt and Whitney J58. It could run at around Mach 3 at around 85,000 ft. There are some developments like the Sabre engine that could do better if they actually are built and work.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    That's good! So what thrust does the J58 have?
    $endgroup$
    – 18ballz
    2 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Roughly 30,000 lbf.
    $endgroup$
    – Organic Marble
    2 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Someone else will post a detailed answer, but humans have not yet been able to make a working scramjet. That limits air breathing engines to < Mach 5 which is not a big help. Conventional first stages simply work better.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Someone else will post a detailed answer, but humans have not yet been able to make a working scramjet. That limits air breathing engines to < Mach 5 which is not a big help. Conventional first stages simply work better.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Oh, in the KSP simulator, the hybrid jet engine can go up to Mach 4, where it loses thrust. However, it has a good high-altitude performance. Is there any jet engine that can do this?
$endgroup$
– 18ballz
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Oh, in the KSP simulator, the hybrid jet engine can go up to Mach 4, where it loses thrust. However, it has a good high-altitude performance. Is there any jet engine that can do this?
$endgroup$
– 18ballz
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
The highest altitude high-speed aircraft engine I know of is the Pratt and Whitney J58. It could run at around Mach 3 at around 85,000 ft. There are some developments like the Sabre engine that could do better if they actually are built and work.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
The highest altitude high-speed aircraft engine I know of is the Pratt and Whitney J58. It could run at around Mach 3 at around 85,000 ft. There are some developments like the Sabre engine that could do better if they actually are built and work.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago














$begingroup$
That's good! So what thrust does the J58 have?
$endgroup$
– 18ballz
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
That's good! So what thrust does the J58 have?
$endgroup$
– 18ballz
2 hours ago












$begingroup$
Roughly 30,000 lbf.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
Roughly 30,000 lbf.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
2 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Take a look at the SABRE engine. The goal is to achieve single stage to orbit with a hybrid engine capable of breathing air at low altitude but switching to stored oxidizer and operating like a rocket when it is no longer practical to use ambient air.



The limitations of an air-breathing engine for space launch are that




  1. You can't go very high before the air gets very thin - not a lot of oxygen

  2. You can't go very fast before things start to get very hot from either friction or compression or both.


That said, the SABRE attempts to address these problems to a degree with some rather innovative ideas.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    3












    $begingroup$

    There are two major barriers: one is that thrust-to-weight ratio of jet engines is pretty poor (2 J58s massing more than 15 times what 9 Rutherfords do), the other is that it's hard to make an engine that performs efficiently over the wide range of speeds and altitudes that a first stage wants to cover.



    That said, Boeing at one point toyed with a concept using recoverable jet-powered modules as the first stage of a three-stage-to-orbit reusable launcher.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
      $endgroup$
      – Russell Borogove
      1 hour ago










    • $begingroup$
      Agree completely.
      $endgroup$
      – Organic Marble
      1 hour ago












    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "508"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    18ballz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35540%2fwhy-arent-air-breathing-engines-used-as-small-first-stages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    Take a look at the SABRE engine. The goal is to achieve single stage to orbit with a hybrid engine capable of breathing air at low altitude but switching to stored oxidizer and operating like a rocket when it is no longer practical to use ambient air.



    The limitations of an air-breathing engine for space launch are that




    1. You can't go very high before the air gets very thin - not a lot of oxygen

    2. You can't go very fast before things start to get very hot from either friction or compression or both.


    That said, the SABRE attempts to address these problems to a degree with some rather innovative ideas.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      3












      $begingroup$

      Take a look at the SABRE engine. The goal is to achieve single stage to orbit with a hybrid engine capable of breathing air at low altitude but switching to stored oxidizer and operating like a rocket when it is no longer practical to use ambient air.



      The limitations of an air-breathing engine for space launch are that




      1. You can't go very high before the air gets very thin - not a lot of oxygen

      2. You can't go very fast before things start to get very hot from either friction or compression or both.


      That said, the SABRE attempts to address these problems to a degree with some rather innovative ideas.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        Take a look at the SABRE engine. The goal is to achieve single stage to orbit with a hybrid engine capable of breathing air at low altitude but switching to stored oxidizer and operating like a rocket when it is no longer practical to use ambient air.



        The limitations of an air-breathing engine for space launch are that




        1. You can't go very high before the air gets very thin - not a lot of oxygen

        2. You can't go very fast before things start to get very hot from either friction or compression or both.


        That said, the SABRE attempts to address these problems to a degree with some rather innovative ideas.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Take a look at the SABRE engine. The goal is to achieve single stage to orbit with a hybrid engine capable of breathing air at low altitude but switching to stored oxidizer and operating like a rocket when it is no longer practical to use ambient air.



        The limitations of an air-breathing engine for space launch are that




        1. You can't go very high before the air gets very thin - not a lot of oxygen

        2. You can't go very fast before things start to get very hot from either friction or compression or both.


        That said, the SABRE attempts to address these problems to a degree with some rather innovative ideas.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 39 mins ago









        Anthony XAnthony X

        9,50513681




        9,50513681























            3












            $begingroup$

            There are two major barriers: one is that thrust-to-weight ratio of jet engines is pretty poor (2 J58s massing more than 15 times what 9 Rutherfords do), the other is that it's hard to make an engine that performs efficiently over the wide range of speeds and altitudes that a first stage wants to cover.



            That said, Boeing at one point toyed with a concept using recoverable jet-powered modules as the first stage of a three-stage-to-orbit reusable launcher.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
              $endgroup$
              – Russell Borogove
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Agree completely.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago
















            3












            $begingroup$

            There are two major barriers: one is that thrust-to-weight ratio of jet engines is pretty poor (2 J58s massing more than 15 times what 9 Rutherfords do), the other is that it's hard to make an engine that performs efficiently over the wide range of speeds and altitudes that a first stage wants to cover.



            That said, Boeing at one point toyed with a concept using recoverable jet-powered modules as the first stage of a three-stage-to-orbit reusable launcher.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
              $endgroup$
              – Russell Borogove
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Agree completely.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            There are two major barriers: one is that thrust-to-weight ratio of jet engines is pretty poor (2 J58s massing more than 15 times what 9 Rutherfords do), the other is that it's hard to make an engine that performs efficiently over the wide range of speeds and altitudes that a first stage wants to cover.



            That said, Boeing at one point toyed with a concept using recoverable jet-powered modules as the first stage of a three-stage-to-orbit reusable launcher.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            There are two major barriers: one is that thrust-to-weight ratio of jet engines is pretty poor (2 J58s massing more than 15 times what 9 Rutherfords do), the other is that it's hard to make an engine that performs efficiently over the wide range of speeds and altitudes that a first stage wants to cover.



            That said, Boeing at one point toyed with a concept using recoverable jet-powered modules as the first stage of a three-stage-to-orbit reusable launcher.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 1 hour ago

























            answered 1 hour ago









            Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove

            89.3k3300384




            89.3k3300384












            • $begingroup$
              I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
              $endgroup$
              – Russell Borogove
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Agree completely.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago


















            • $begingroup$
              I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
              $endgroup$
              – Russell Borogove
              1 hour ago










            • $begingroup$
              Agree completely.
              $endgroup$
              – Organic Marble
              1 hour ago
















            $begingroup$
            I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
            $endgroup$
            – Organic Marble
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            I'm not advocating the concept, but you might save some mass by not carrying oxidizer for the jet engines.
            $endgroup$
            – Organic Marble
            1 hour ago












            $begingroup$
            Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
            $endgroup$
            – Russell Borogove
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            Absolutely -- that's the most attractive thing about using jet engines. On orbital ascent, though, the useful run time of air-breathers is so short that the added weight of the engine almost eats up the oxidizer savings.
            $endgroup$
            – Russell Borogove
            1 hour ago












            $begingroup$
            Agree completely.
            $endgroup$
            – Organic Marble
            1 hour ago




            $begingroup$
            Agree completely.
            $endgroup$
            – Organic Marble
            1 hour ago










            18ballz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            18ballz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            18ballz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            18ballz is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35540%2fwhy-arent-air-breathing-engines-used-as-small-first-stages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

            Single-Malt-Whisky

            Czorneboh