Reverse Engineering the Falcon 9 Two Stage Rocket,

Merlin 1D Engine
Shane Bonner, Patrick Cieslak, Kyle Criscenzo, Allyson Smith
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, Florida, 32114
Multiple performance and operating characteristics of the Falcon 9 two stage rocket were calculated
based on published data of its Merlin 1D rocket engines designed and manufactured by SpaceX. The
parameters calculated relate to mass ratios, performance, dimensions, and ideal to actual relationships of
individual stages and the rocket as a whole. In order to evaluate some criterion, perfect expansion of exhaust
gasses or sea level altitude assumptions were made where described.

Nomenclature
m2

Mb

= Mass, burnout

kg

= Area, exit of nozzle

Ml

= Mass, payload

kg

= Acceleration

m/s 2

Mp

= Mass, propellant

kg

Ms

= Mass, structure

kg

c Ideal = Velocity, characteristic of idealized rocket /

C ,Actual = Thrust coefficient, actual rocket
/

= Mass flow rate

= Pressure, static

kg/s
Pa

Ae
a

= Area, choked

c * Actual = Velocity, characteristic of actual rocket

*

C ,Ideal = Thrust coefficient, ideal rocket

d*
= Diameter, choked
de
= Diameter, exit

= Structural coefficient

= Specific heat ratio

P
P*

= Pressure, choked

Pa

m
m
/
/

P0
Pe

=
=
=
=

Pressure, combustion
Pressure, exit
Mass ratio
Gas constant, specific

Pa
Pa
/
J/kg*K

ge

= Acceleration of gravity, Earth

m/s 2

RU

= Gas constant, universal

J/mol*K

= Altitude

= Density, static

kg/m3

h Optimal = Altitude, optimal

= Thrust

I sp

M
Me
M0

s
/
kg/kmol
/
kg

T
TC
tb
u eq
v

=
=
=
=
=

K
K
s
m/s
m/s

=
=
=
=
=

Impulse, specific
Payload ratio
Mass, molar
Mach number, exit of nozzle
Mass, total

Temperature, static
Temperature, combustion
time, burn
velocity, equivalent of exhaust
velocity

I. Introduction

he goal of this project was to apply the learned theories and concepts to an existing rocket design and reverse
engineer its performance parameters. The Falcon 9 two stage rocket from SpaceX was chosen. The Falcon 9
utilizes nine Merlin 1D liquid propellant engines during the first stage burn followed by a second stage with just one
of the same engine.
Several parameters of the rocket had to be found before analysis could begin. The mass properties of both stages
were found. This includes the mass of the propellant, payload, structure, and total for both stages. The specific
impulse, burn time, expansion ratio, chamber pressure, and thrust of the engines are also known. The propellant used
was RP-1 and LOX as the oxidizer.

1
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

II. History
The Falcon 9 v1.1 is the second rocket in the Falcon orbital launch vehicle family. Developed by SpaceX in
2011, it is still used in combination with the Dragon capsule to resupply the International Space Station for NASA.
It is planned to be used with the Dragon V2 capsule to transport crew to the International Space Station under the
Commercial Crew Program in the future. The v1.1 has much better performance than the v1.0, with an increase of
60% in the thrust to weight ratio. The rocket has the thrust capability to lift 13,150 kg to low Earth orbit, or 4,850 kg
to geostationary transfer orbit.
The first stage is powered by nine Merlin 1D engines, producing 5,885 kN of thrust at sea-level. The stage burns
for 180 seconds, with 6,672 kN of thrust at the burn-out altitude. The first stages engines are aligned in an
Octaweb pattern which streamlines the manufacturing process by arranging the engines in a simple arrangement of
eight engines in a circle and an ninth in the middle. The second stage is powered by a single Merlin 1D engine
designed with a larger nozzle for optimal performance in the near-vacuum of space.

III. Parameter Determination

Seven parameters from Falcon 9 were determined using the information that was found on the rocket combined
with known relations between them. Since the Falcon 9 is a two stage rocket, each of the seven parameters were
found for both stages. The parameters that were found include: Payload Ratios, Structural Coefficients, Mass Ratios,
Mass Flow Rates, vs, Throat and Exit Diameters, Optimal Altitudes, Characteristic Velocities (actual and ideal),
and Thrust Coefficients (actual and ideal).
A. Payload Ratio, Structural Coefficient, and Mass Ratio
The payload ratio is used to gauge how much payload the rocket will be able to propel to its final destination.
Keeping this in mind, a higher value is desired. The payload ratio for stage 1 is defined in Equation 1, where M02 is
the total mass of the second stage (109,720 kilograms) and M01 is the total mass of the first stage (531,020
kilograms). Using these values the payload ratio for the first stage is equal to 0.260.

M 02
M 01 M 02

Equation 1

The payload ratio for the second stage is defined in Equation 2, where ML is the payload mass (13,150
kilograms). Using these values the payload ratio for the second stage is equal to 0.136.
Equation 2
M

M 02 M L

The structural coefficient is a parameter that is used to show how much structure is needed to support the rocket.
Less structure leaves more room for propellant and payload, therefore a small value for the structural coefficient is
desired. The structural coefficient for the first stage is defined below in Equation 3, where Ms1 is the structural mass
of the first stage. This value was found to be 25,600 kilograms. Plugging in the known values into the equation gives
a structural coefficient of 0.061 for the first stage.
Equation 3
M

s1

M 01 M 02

The structural coefficient of the second stage is found using Equation 4, where Ms2 is the structural mass of the
second stage (3,900 kilograms). Using this value, along with the payload and total mass of stage 2 gives a structural
coefficient of 0.040.

M s2
M 02 M L

Equation 4

Quickly comparing the two stages shows that the second stage is more structurally efficient that the first.
However, the first stage can carry more payload than the second stage. Note that because of the multiple stage
configuration of Falcon 9, the payload of stage 1 is the mass of all stages above it.
Using the previous two ratios, a third can now be calculated. The mass Ratio, (), is defined as the ratio of the
total mass of the stage to the mass at burnout. In Equation 5 below, substitutions were made based on the definitions
2
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

of the previous ratios. By using the previously calculated payload ratios and structural coefficients, the mass ratios
of the first and second stages were found to be 3.924 and 6.435, respectively.
Equation 5
1

B. Mass Flow Rate

The mass flow rate for a rocket determines how much propellant is being expelled over time. This will cause the
total mass of the rocket to change over time as well. The average mass flow rate for each stage can be estimated by
dividing the mass of propellant (Mp) by the burn time (tb), as seen in Equation 6, assuming a constant mass flow rate
over the burn time

m M p / tb

Equation 6

For the first stage the propellant mass is known to 395,700 kilograms with a burn time of 180 seconds, giving a
mass flow rate of 2,198.3 kilograms per second for the first stage. However, nine of the same engines make up the
first stage, so that 2,198.3 kilograms per second being expelled is of all nine engines. The mass flow rate per engine
can be found by dividing the total mass flow by 9, giving 244.25 kilograms per second per engine.
For the second stage the propellant mass is known to be 92,760 kilograms burned over 372 seconds, giving a
mass flow rate of 249.11 kilograms per second. For the second stage, only 1 Merlin 1D engine is used.
C. v
v is an important parameter that characterizes a rockets ability to accelerate, neglecting drag and gravity.
Equation 7 defines this parameter, where ueq is the equivalent exhaust velocity and R is the mass ratio that was
defined above.
Equation 7
v u ln R
eq

Before v can be determined, the equivalent velocity needs to be defined. Equation 8 defines the equivalent
velocity to be equal to the specific impulse multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity at Earths surface (9.81
m/s2). For the first stage the specific impulse is known to be 282 seconds, making the equivalent velocity equal to
27,662.4 m/s. For the second stage the specific impulse is known to be about to be 345 seconds, making the
equivalent velocity equal to 3,384.5 m/s.
Equation 8
u I g
eq

sp

Now, going back to Equation 7 the v for stage 1 and stage 2 is calculated to be 3,872 meters per second and
6,301 meters per second, respectively. The total v of the rocket is found by adding the vs from each stage. This
gives a total v equal to 10,083 meters per second.
Calculating v shows how much speed the rocket will gain over a complete burn time, but it is also very
important to analyze what the instantaneous change in velocity is over a short time. This term, also known as
acceleration, is crucial to know because as propellant is burned, weight is lost and the rocket has more excess thrust
available. This means that as a stage progresses through its burn period, it actually accelerates at a faster rate than
initially. Due to this, the acceleration of the rocket as a function of time was found. By taking the initial total mass of
each stage (M0i) and subtracting the product of mass flow rate of fuel () and time (t), mass as a function of time
was then found as shown in Equation 9.
Equation 9
M (t ) M mt
0

Next, Newtons 2 Law of motion was utilized to find the acceleration. Although a high mass of propellant is
being used in a short time, the assumption of constant mass was made to simplify the calculations, as shown in
Equation 10. With acceleration (a) now equaling the divisor of thrust (T), assumed to be a constant, and the time
dependent mass (Mi(t)), acceleration as a function of time was now found.
Equation 10
a(t ) T / M (t )
nd

To enhance analysis, this acceleration was then divided by Earths gravity (g e) to return the acceleration of the
rocket in terms of Gs, as shown in Equation 11.

g (t ) a(t ) / ge
3
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Equation 11

With Equation 11 now giving the acceleration of

the rocket in terms of gs as a function of time, this
could be plotted versus each stages respective burn
times. In Figure 1, stage 1 was plotted from 0s to tb1
=180s. Stage 2 was plotted from tb1 =180s to
tb2=372s. Upon inspection of Figure 1, it can be
noticed that as time progresses, the acceleration
increases with time as predicted. It can also be
identified that the time of peak acceleration is right
before stage burnout. To find the initial and final
values for accelerations of each stage, the respective
time was substituted into Equation 11 for the
respective stage. For stage 1, the rocket initially
experienced 1.13gs becoming 4.43 as the stage
burned out. The second stage initially accelerated at
1.26 gs becoming 4.79 as that stage burned out. The
accelerations experienced towards the end of the
stages burn might be outside of the design limitations Figure 1. The relationship between burn time and gof the rocket or payload, so the Falcon 9 does reduce acceleration for both stages of the Falcon 9 rocket.
throttle of the engines as burn time progresses, a factor
not accounted for in this report3.
D. Throat and Exit Diameters
To find the dimensions of the nozzle, the first step was getting the exit diameter. The exit diameter of the first
and second stage nozzles was found to be .923m and 2.58m by measuring the known width of the body and
comparing it to the relative size of the nozzle. Notice on the latter that the nozzles exit is much larger to allow for
more optimal expansion as back pressure is reduced at higher altitudes. With this diameter, the area of the exit for
each nozzle could be calculated. To get the throat dimensions, the known exit-to-choked area ratios of 16 for stage 1
and 117 for stage 2 were used. Lastly, these throat areas were converted to diameters for stage 1 and 2 of .231m and
.238m respectively.
E. Optimal Altitudes
It is known that a rocket provides is most
thrust when the exit pressure of the exhaust
gasses is perfectly expanded to the ambient
pressure, Pe = Pa. Assuming isentropic flow
through the nozzle, isentropic relations
provide an exit pressure-to-chamber
pressure ratio for a certain exit-to-choked
area ratio as exit Mach numbers will be the
same between the two. For both stage
engines, the chamber pressure is 9.7MPa.
Multiplying that by a ratio of .0064 for stage
1 and .000497 for stage 2, exhaust pressures
for stage 1 and 2 are found to be 62.25kPa
and 4.82kPa respectively. These pressures
can then simply be compared to standard
atmospheric tables which related altitude
and pressure to find at which altitude the
exhaust and ambient temperatures will
equal, and hence perfect expansion. From
this method, it was found that the first stage
will be perfectly expanded at 3,930m and the
second at 21,182m.

Figure 2. Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene combustion charts.

The top left graph shows optimal mixture ratios versus combustion
pressures at Pe=1. The top right graph estimates the combustion
chamber temperature while the bottom left graph estimates the
molecular weight of the products. The bottom right graph
estimates the specific heat ratio.

4
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

F. Engine Performance
The performance of the engine is characterized by 2 parameters: the characteristic velocity and coefficient of
thrust. These values can be defined for an ideal rocket which is then used to compare to actual rocket performance.
The ideal values are based on the chemical and physical properties of the exhaust gasses while the actual values
come from measure performance parameters. Specifically, the combustion temperature (T0), molecular weight (M),
and the specific heat ratio () were estimated using propellant combustion charts as shown in Figure 24. These values
were found based on the known combustion pressure of 9.7 MPa and assuming an ambient pressure of 1atm. The
combustion temperature was found to be 3,575K, a molecular weight of 21.85 kg/kmol, and a specific heat ratio of
1.217. These three parameters will be used in the calculation of the characteristic velocity and thrust coefficient.
1) Characteristic Velocity
The characteristic velocity is a measure of the combustion chambers operation independent of the
nozzle. The ideal combustion chamber is shown in Equation 12 as a function of the specific heat ratio,
combustion temperature, and molecular weight as previously found, but also the universal gas constant (R u),
8.314 J/mol*K. Using these values, an ideal characteristic velocity of 1789 m/s was found for both engines, as
they have identical combustion chambers.

*
ideal

1 1

( 1)/( 1)

RT0
M

Equation 12

To find the actual combustion chamber performance, the combustion pressure, throat area (A *), and mass
flow rate of propellant are analyzed as shown in Equation 13. Between both engines the combustion pressure is
the same as shown previously, but the throat areas and mass flow rates are slightly different, being .042m 2 and
244.3kg/s for stage 1 and .045m2 and 249.1 kg/s for stage 2. As a result, it is found that the actual combustion
chamber performance is just slightly lower than ideal, being 1662 m/s for stage 1and 1737 m/s for stage 2.

c*actual

P0 A*
m

Equation 13

2) Coefficient of Thrust
Now that the combustion chamber has been analyzed, it is necessary to analyze the nozzles operation. The
nozzles ideal operation is characterized by a thrust coefficient. It is a function of the specific heat ratio, exit
pressure (Pe), chamber pressure, and exit-to-choked area ratio. Upon inspection of Equation 14, the second
term accounts for non-ideal expansion, however ideal expansion will be assumed in this analysis. For stage 1,
the ideal coefficient of thrust is 1.682 and 1.881 for stage 2.

cTideal

2 2 1

1 2

( 1)/( 1)

P ( 1)/ P P A
1 e
e a e*
P0 A
P0

Equation 14

To compare the real nozzles performance, a similar equation to that of the real characteristic velocity will
be used. Equation 15 shows how the real coefficient of thrust is a factor of thrust, chamber pressure, and throat
area. Thrust for the first stage, assuming sea level conditions, will be the per-engine thrust, 645kN, and simply
801kN for the second stage. From this, a very well designed nozzle is found at perfect expansion conditions,
with actual values of 1.661 for stage 1 and 1.851 for stage 2.
Equation 15
T

cTactual

P0 A*

IV. Conclusion
When studying the calculated parameters and comparing them ideal cases or to other rockets where possible, it is
evident that the Falcon 9 was and still is a well-designed vehicle. Its structural and payload ratios make it an
efficient transportation device while doing it on just two stages versus the normal three to get into space. Although
these calculations are just approximations based on available information, they all seem to be within reasonable
means, but further verification of the results would be desirable. However, due to the extremely competitive nature
of the rocketry business, most performance specifications can be expected to remain company proprietary for many
years.
5
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

V. Regenerative Rocket Engine Cooling

The Falcon 9 utilizes nine Merlin 1D engines to achieve the required thrust to go into orbit, so it should be no
surprise that these rockets operate at high temperatures; high flame temperatures lead to excellent thrust
performance. However, this flame temperature is limited in part by the chemical properties of the materials that
make up the combustion chamber and nozzle of the engine. Even the most
resilient materials that exist today cannot by themselves withstand the
temperatures generated when the oxidizer and propellant mix resulting in
combustion. In addition to the high operating temperatures, rocket engines also
have burn times that can last up to several minutes. These thermal stresses over
a long period of time make the need for engine cooling arise 2. Both the
combustion chamber and nozzle must be cooled in order to retain the structural
integrity of the engine4. Although several techniques have been used throughout
the evolution of rocketry, one of the most popular options has been that of
regenerative cooling for liquid fueled rocket engines.
By observing the nozzle on a Merlin 1D engine as shown in Figure 3, metallic
tubes can be seen around the circumference. These tubes, as will be discussed,
play a pivotal role in keeping the rocket assembly at a manageable operating
temperature. The structural weight of any vehicle, rockets inclusive, has a large
impact on its overall performance. The heavier the structure, the lower the
efficiency of the vehicle. In order to minimize weight of rockets, designers can
utilize the regenerative cooling method like used for the Merlin 1D. Cooling is
accomplished by pumping liquid propellant from the storage tank and routing it
around channels in the nozzle and combustion chamber on its way to the fuel
injectors for burning. During its passage through the channels of the engine, the
Figure 3. A Merlin 1D engine
utilizes regenerative cooling as
fuel absorbs heat energy from the engine which was heated by the exhaust
shown by circumferential tubes on
gases. This conduction and radiation of heat into the liquid coolant adds energy
its nozzle5.
to it which then increase performance by a small fraction once injected into the
combustion chamber and utilized as a propellant1. This process is shown in Figure 4.
Now that is has been shown that cooling of the engine is necessary in most applications, it must now be identified
where the highest heat flux occurs along the axial direction of the combustion chamber and nozzle. Although one
might assume that this occurs in the combustion chamber, the highest heat flux actually occurs at the throat of the
nozzle. This happens due to three factors: Flow compression, combustion, and a minimal radial diameter 3 . With an
increase in the local heat flux rate, the cooling rate must be increased in this area as well. While the throat could be
the design condition for a constant geometry cooling channel system, overcooling of the other sections of the engine
is detrimental to engine performance according to Naraghi 3, so the channels geometry or flow characteristics
must be varied at the throat when compared to
the rest of the engine. Many different crosssectional shapes have been used for coolant
channel design, but one of the most popular is a
high aspect ratio rectangle, or a very tall and
skinny shape perpendicular to the engines
wall1. This increases the area of the sidewall
around the coolant allowing a higher heat
transfer rate from the engine wall to the liquid
coolant. Another method to increase this
sidewall area around the nozzle is to decrease
the
cross-sectional area of the channels, but to
Figure 4. A simplified schematic of a basic regenerative cooling process
increase the number of channels4. In essence,
used in liquid propellant rocket engines. 1
taking a few big tubes and separating them into
more numerous smaller tubes. Although it can be observed that an increase in wall area will provide more friction
going against the flow which will require a more powerful pump, this will aid in adding turbulence in the channel,
bettering heat absorption in the coolant. With a certain combination of the discussed techniques, the required cooling
at the throat and the rest of the engine can be obtained using regenerative cooling in not only the Merlin 1D, but
most liquid rocket engines.

6
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Appendix
A. MATLAB Code

A.

Payload Ratio, Structural Coefficient, and Mass Ratio ..................................................................... 2

B.

Mass Flow Rate ................................................................................................................................. 3

C.

v ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

D.

Throat and Exit Diameters ................................................................................................................ 4

E.

Optimal Altitudes .............................................................................................................................. 4

F.

Engine Performance.......................................................................................................................... 5

1)

Characteristic Velocity ...................................................................................................................... 5

2)

Coefficient of Thrust ......................................................................................................................... 5

A.

MATLAB Code ................................................................................................................................... 7

B.

Final Project - Falcon 9 Two Stage Rocket, Merlin 1D Engine........................................................... 7

C.

Constants and Parameters ................................................................................................................ 7

D.

1. Payload, Structural, Mass Ratios ................................................................................................... 9

E.

2. Mass Flow Rates.......................................................................................................................... 10

F.

3. Delta v and Acceleration ............................................................................................................. 10

G.

4. Throat and Exit Diameter ............................................................................................................ 13

H.

5. Optimal Altitudes ........................................................................................................................ 14

I.

6. Characteristic Velocity ................................................................................................................ 14

J.

7. Thrust Coefficient........................................................................................................................ 15

K.

Results ............................................................................................................................................. 16

B. Final Project - Falcon 9 Two Stage Rocket, Merlin 1D Engine

%{
Shane Bonner, Patrick Cieslak, Kyle Criscenzo, Ally Smith
December 19, 2015
AE 408 Turbines and Rockets
Dr. Mark Ricklick
%}
clear all
close all
clc

C. Constants and Parameters

Constants (assume standard atmosphere at sea level)
ge
= 9.81;
%[m/s^2]
Rbar
= 8.314*1000;
%[KJ/mol*K]
%Pressure as a function of altitude

7
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

atmprops
= [...
0
288.15 9.807 101325
1.225
1000 281.65
9.804 89880 1.112
2000 275.15
9.801 79500 1.007
3000 268.66
9.797 70120 0.9093
4000 262.17
9.794 61660 0.8194
5000 255.68
9.791 54050 0.7364
6000 249.19
9.788 47220 0.6601
7000 242.7 9.785 41110 0.59
8000 236.21
9.782 35650 0.5258
9000 229.73
9.779 30800 0.4671
10000
223.25
9.776 26500 0.4135
15000
216.65
9.761 12110 0.1948
20000
216.65
9.745 5529 0.08891
25000
221.55
9.73 2549 0.04008
30000
226.51
9.715 1197 0.01841
40000
250.35
9.684 287
0.003996
50000
248.15
9.654 79.78 0.001027
60000
247.02
9.624 21.96 0.0003097
70000
219.58
9.594 5.2
0.00008283
80000
198.64
9.564 1.1
0.00001846];
%
h(m)
T(K)
g(m/s2) P(Pa)
rho(kg/m^3)
% LOX/RP-1
gamma
Tc
Mbar
P0
R

=
=
=
=
=

1.217;
3575;
21.85;
9.7e6;
Rbar/Mbar

%
%[K]
%[kg/kmol]
%[Pa]
%[J/Kg*K]

% First Stage
m_prop_s1
m_pay_s1
m_struct_s1
m_total_s1
Isp_s1
tb_s1
AeoverAstar_s1
TperE_s1
Ttotal_s1
Mexit_s1
PoverP0_s1
PoverPstar_s1

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

395700;
0;
25600;
531020;
282;
180;
16;
654e3;
TperE_s1*9;
3.668;
0.00641798;
0.01143640;

%[kg]
%[kg]
%[kg]
%[kg]
%[s]
%[s}
%
%[N]
%[N]

%mass of propellant in first stage

%mass of payload in first stage
%mass of stucture of first stage
%initial total mass of rocket
%specific impulse of first stage
%burn time of the first stage
%exit to throat area ratio
%Thrust per engine of the first stage
%Total thrust of first stage
%http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~devenpor/aoe3114/calc.html

% Second Stage
m_prop_s2
m_pay_s2
m_struct_s2
m_total_s2
Isp_s2
tb_s2
AeoverAstar_s2
T_s2

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

92670;
13150;
3900;
109720;
345;
372;
117;
801e3;

%[kg]
%[kg]
%[kg]
%[kg]
%[s]
%[s}
%
%[N]

%mass of propellant in second stage

%mass of payload in second stage
%mass of stucture of second stage
%total mass of rocket when second stage begins
%specific impulse of second stage
%burn time of the second stage
%exit to throat area ratio
%Total thrust of second stage

8
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Mexit_s2
PoverP0_s2
PoverPstar_s2

= 5.153;
= 0.00049738;
= 0.00088630;

%http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~devenpor/aoe3114/calc.html

R =
380.5034

D. 1. Payload, Structural, Mass Ratios

M0_s1 = m_total_s1
M0_s2 = m_total_s2
% First Stage
lambda_s1 = M0_s2/(M0_s1-M0_s2)
eps_s1 = m_struct_s1/(M0_s1-M0_s2)
R_s1 = (1+lambda_s1)/(eps_s1+lambda_s1)
% Second Stage
lambda_s2 = m_pay_s2/(M0_s2-m_pay_s2)
eps_s2 = m_struct_s2/(M0_s2-m_pay_s2)
R_s2 = (1+lambda_s2)/(eps_s2+lambda_s2)

M0_s1 =
531020

M0_s2 =
109720

lambda_s1 =
0.2604

eps_s1 =
0.0608

R_s1 =
3.9242

9
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

lambda_s2 =
0.1362
eps_s2 =
0.0404
R_s2 =
6.4352

E. 2. Mass Flow Rates

First Stage
mdottotal_s1 = m_prop_s1/tb_s1
mdotperE_s1 = mdottotal_s1/9
%Second Stage
mdot_s2 = m_prop_s2/tb_s2

mdottotal_s1 =
2.1983e+03

mdotperE_s1 =
244.2593

mdot_s2 =
249.1129

F. 3. Delta v and Acceleration

First Stage
%delta v
ueq_s1 = Isp_s1*ge
Mb_s1 = m_total_s1 - m_prop_s1
R_s1 = M0_s1/Mb_s1
dv_s1 = ueq_s1*log(R_s1)
%accel assuming constant mdot and thrust throughout burn
syms t
Mt_s1 = vpa(m_total_s1 - mdottotal_s1*t) %mass of stage as a function of time
at_s1 = Ttotal_s1/Mt_s1 %acceleration of stage as a function of time
gt_s1 = at_s1/ge %"g" acceleration as a function of time %assuming constant g per altitude
gti_s1 = double(subs(gt_s1,0)) %g's at begining of stage

10
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

gtb_s1 = double(subs(gt_s1,tb_s1)) %g's at end of stage

% Second Stage
%delta v
ueq_s2 = Isp_s2*ge
Mb_s2 = m_total_s2 - m_prop_s2
R_s2 = M0_s2/Mb_s2
dv_s2 = ueq_s2*log(R_s2)
%accel assuming constant mdot throughout burn
Mt_s2 = vpa(m_total_s2 - mdot_s2*t) %mass of stage as a function of time
at_s2 = T_s2/Mt_s2 %acceleration of stage as a function of time
gt_s2 = at_s2/ge %"g" acceleration as a function of time
gti_s2 = double(subs(gt_s2,tb_s1)) %g's at begining of stage
gtb_s2 = double(subs(gt_s2,tb_s2)) %g's at end of stage
% Total
dv_total = dv_s1+dv_s2

ueq_s1 =
2.7664e+03

Mb_s1 =
135320

R_s1 =
3.9242

dv_s1 =
3.7821e+03

Mt_s1 =
531020.0 - 2198.3333333333333333333333333333*t

at_s1 =
-5886000/(2198.3333333333333333333333333333*t - 531020.0)

gt_s1 =
-600000/(2198.3333333333333333333333333333*t - 531020.0)

11
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

gti_s1 =
1.1299

gtb_s1 =
4.4339

ueq_s2 =
3.3845e+03

Mb_s2 =
17050

R_s2 =
6.4352

dv_s2 =
6.3011e+03

Mt_s2 =
109720.0 - 249.11290322580645161290322580645*t

at_s2 =
-801000/(249.11290322580645161290322580645*t - 109720.0)

gt_s2 =
-8900000/(109*(249.11290322580645161290322580645*t - 109720.0))

gti_s2 =
1.2585

gtb_s2 =
4.7889

12
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

dv_total =
1.0083e+04

G. 4. Throat and Exit Diameter

First Stage
Dexit_s1
Aexit_s1
Astar_s1
Dstar_s1

=
=
=
=

1.8796/570*280 %elon musk comparison

(pi/4)*Dexit_s1^2
Aexit_s1/AeoverAstar_s1
sqrt(4*Astar_s1/pi)

%Second Stage
Dexit_s2 = 3.66/115*81
Aexit_s2 = pi/4*Dexit_s2^2
Astar_s2 = Aexit_s2/AeoverAstar_s2
Dstar_s2 = sqrt(Astar_s2*4/pi)

Dexit_s1 =
0.9233

Aexit_s1 =
0.6696

Astar_s1 =
0.0418

Dstar_s1 =
0.2308

Dexit_s2 =
2.5779

Aexit_s2 =
5.2195

13
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Astar_s2 =
0.0446
Dstar_s2 =
0.2383

H. 5. Optimal Altitudes
First Stage
Pe_s1 = PoverP0_s1*P0 %Exit pressure of the stage
hea_s1 = interp1(atmprops(:,4),atmprops(:,1),Pe_s1) %Altitude where stage is perf expanded
% Second Stage
Pe_s2 = PoverP0_s2*P0 %Exit pressure of the stage
hea_s2 = interp1(atmprops(:,4),atmprops(:,1),Pe_s2) %Altitude where stage is perf expanded

Pe_s1 =
6.2254e+04

hea_s1 =
3.9297e+03

Pe_s2 =
4.8246e+03

hea_s2 =
2.1182e+04

I. 6. Characteristic Velocity
First Stage
CstarActual_s1 = P0*Astar_s1/mdotperE_s1
CstarIdeal_s1 = sqrt((1/gamma)*((gamma+1)/2)^((gamma+1)/(gamma-1))*(Rbar*Tc/Mbar))
% Second Stage
CstarActual_s2 = P0*Astar_s2/mdot_s2
CstarIdeal_s2 = sqrt((1/gamma)*((gamma+1)/2)^((gamma+1)/(gamma-1))*(Rbar*Tc/Mbar))

CstarActual_s1 =

14
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

1.6618e+03

CstarIdeal_s1 =
1.7893e+03

CstarActual_s2 =
1.7371e+03

CstarIdeal_s2 =
1.7893e+03

J. 7. Thrust Coefficient
First Stage
CTActual_s1 = TperE_s1/(P0*Astar_s1)
CTIdeal_s1 = sqrt((2*gamma^2/(gamma-1))*(2/(gamma+1))^((gamma+1)/...
(gamma-1))*(1-(Pe_s1/P0)^((gamma-1)/gamma)))+...
(Pe_s1-interp1(atmprops(:,1),atmprops(:,4),hea_s1))/P0*AeoverAstar_s1
% Second Stage
CTActual_s2 = T_s2/(P0*Astar_s2)
CTIdeal_s2 = sqrt((2*gamma^2/(gamma-1))*(2/(gamma+1))^((gamma+1)/...
(gamma-1))*(1-(Pe_s2/P0)^((gamma-1)/gamma)))+...
(Pe_s2-interp1(atmprops(:,1),atmprops(:,4),hea_s2))/P0*AeoverAstar_s2

CTActual_s1 =
1.6112

CTIdeal_s1 =
1.6818

CTActual_s2 =
1.8511

CTIdeal_s2 =
1.8809

15
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

K. Results
disp('%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%')
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('1. Mass ratio
()
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 = %3.3f\n',R_s1,R_s2)
fprintf('
Payload ratio
()
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 =
%3.3f\n',lambda_s1,lambda_s2)
fprintf('
Structural coeff.
()
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 = %3.3f\n',eps_s1,eps_s2)
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('2. Delta v
(m/s) : Stage 1 = %4.0f
Stage 2 = %4.0f
Total =
%4.0f\n',dv_s1,dv_s2,dv_total)
fprintf('
Initial Acceleration (Gs)
: Stage 1 = %2.1f
Stage 2 = %2.1f\n',gti_s1,gti_s2)
fprintf('
Final Acceleration
(Gs)
: Stage 1 = %2.1f
Stage 2 = %2.1f\n',gtb_s1,gtb_s2)
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('3. Mass Flow Rate
(kg/s) : Stage 1 = %3.1f
Stage 2 = %3.1f
\n',mdotperE_s1,mdot_s2)
disp('
- Average per Engine')
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('4. Throat Diameter
(m)
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 =
%3.3f\n',Dstar_s1,Dstar_s2)
fprintf('
Exit Diameter
(m)
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 =
%3.3f\n',Dexit_s1,Dexit_s2)
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('5. Optimal Altitude
(m)
: Stage 1 = %3.0f
Stage 2 = %3.0f\n',hea_s1,hea_s2)
disp('
- Pe = Pa')
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('6. C* (Actual)
(m/s) : Stage 1 = %3.0f
Stage 2 =
%3.0f\n',CstarActual_s1,CstarActual_s2)
fprintf('
C* (Ideal)
(m/s) : Stage 1 = %3.0f
Stage 2 =
%3.0f\n',CstarIdeal_s1,CstarIdeal_s2)
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
fprintf('7. C_T (Actual)
()
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 =
%3.3f\n',CTActual_s1,CTActual_s2)
fprintf('
C_T (Ideal)
()
: Stage 1 = %3.3f
Stage 2 =
%3.3f\n',CTIdeal_s1,CTIdeal_s2)
disp('
- at respective optimal altitudes')
disp('----------------------------------------------------------------------------------')
disp('%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%')
%"g" plot
t1_vec = [0:1:tb_s1];
t2_vec = [tb_s1:1:tb_s2];
g_s1 = subs(gt_s1,t1_vec);
g_s2 = subs(gt_s2,t2_vec);
figure (1)
plot(t1_vec,g_s1,t2_vec,g_s2)
title('G load per Time')
xlabel('t (s)')
ylabel('Gs (1/ge)')
legend('Stage 1','Stage 2','location','northwest')

16
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Mass ratio
()
: Stage 1 = 3.924
Stage 2 = 6.435
Payload ratio
()
: Stage 1 = 0.260
Stage 2 = 0.136
Structural coeff.
()
: Stage 1 = 0.061
Stage 2 = 0.040
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Delta v
(m/s) : Stage 1 = 3782
Stage 2 = 6301
Total = 10083
Initial Acceleration (Gs)
: Stage 1 = 1.1
Stage 2 = 1.3
Final Acceleration
(Gs)
: Stage 1 = 4.4
Stage 2 = 4.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------3. Mass Flow Rate
(kg/s) : Stage 1 = 244.3
Stage 2 = 249.1
- Average per Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. Throat Diameter
(m)
: Stage 1 = 0.231
Stage 2 = 0.238
Exit Diameter
(m)
: Stage 1 = 0.923
Stage 2 = 2.578
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. Optimal Altitude
(m)
: Stage 1 = 3930
Stage 2 = 21182
- Pe = Pa
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------6. C* (Actual)
(m/s) : Stage 1 = 1662
Stage 2 = 1737
C* (Ideal)
(m/s) : Stage 1 = 1789
Stage 2 = 1789
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------7. C_T (Actual)
()
: Stage 1 = 1.611
Stage 2 = 1.851
C_T (Ideal)
()
: Stage 1 = 1.682
Stage 2 = 1.881
- at respective optimal altitudes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

17
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Published with MATLAB R2014b

References
Presentations and Theses
1 Boysan, Mustafa E., Analysis of Regenerative Cooling in Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, [Thesis], URL:
https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12610190/index.pdf [cited 19 November 2015].
2 Heat Transfer and Cooling, [Presentation], Massachusetts Institute of Technology. URL:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-50-introduction-to-propulsion-systems-spring-2012/lecturenotes/MIT16_50S12_lec14.pdf. [cited 7 December 2015].
3 Naraghi, Mohammad H., Thermal Analysis of Liquid Rocket Engines, [Presentation], Manhattan College, Department of
Mechanical Engineering. URL:
home.manhattan.edu%2F~mohammad.naraghi%2Frte%2Fnotes%2Flp%2520heat%2520transfer%2520notes.ppt. [cited
30 November 2015].
Web Sites
4 Braeunig, Robert A., Rocket Propulsion, [webpage], URL: www.braeunig.us [cited 19 November 2015].
5 New Merlin Engine Firing, SpaceX. [webpage], URL: http://www.spacex.com/media-gallery/detail/1661/172 [cited 4
December 2015].

18
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University