“can act as” and “are designed for” are two completely different things.
i think you two are discussing different things and trying to read the others texts as if they are about your thing and not theirs thus believing they are wrong.
When in fact i think both if you are correct.
-Grid fins are DESIGNED for guidance and steering.
-They INDUCE DRAG and have the POSIBILITY to be used as airbrakes if needed (even though that isn’t the primary use) by angling them to counteract each others rotational momentum.
Grid fins are not used as airbrakes as their ONLY function in any application where they are present. That would be an extremely bad design choice as there are far more efficient airbrake designs out there.
Non-moving grid fins are used in the exact same way the back end of a dart is; To use the off-angle induced drag to create momentum to right-angle the object whilst moving.
if you design them to be airbrakes then they are no longer grid fins.
no one designs them as air brakes.The “air brake” and the lattice wing is a conditional concept. Since it is possible to make a wing with a large resistance, or it is possible with a small one.
At the same time, they are also used for stabilization and control
And now calculate the thickness of the aerodynamic brake, the fastenings, the power of the hydraulic cylinder that releases the brake and the weight.And you’ll realize that at such speeds, a grid with a lot of plans and a thick profile looks better
i fail to see in any way what so ever how i wrote anything wrong here.
It isn’t. you can’t change the name of something depending on what it does in the moment. it’s designed and named for a primary purpose.
I can use a plastic bag as a parachute, but that doesn’t make it a parachute.
I can use a fork to cut something but that doesn’t make it a knife.
Just because they can be used as brakes doesn’t inherently make them brakes.
at hypersonic speeds yes, but that isn’t its primary purpose. The primary purpose is guidance, that is why they are named fins instead of brakes.
The breaking is primarily done by angular re-entry, making the density of air increase at a slower rate than a straight entry would, utilizing the body of the craft for friction and at times of peak acceleration (or deceleration need) using the engines.
Random user who is upset over a conversation that took place hours ago that had nothing to do with him or the topic.
Here, take an L too.
SpaceX’s first rocket to use Russian engines was the Falcon 9, which launched in June 2010. The company has since used Russian engines on the Falcon 9 v1.1, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon 2 spacecraft.
Yes, SpaceX uses russian RD-180 engines on its Falcon 9 rocket.
Honestly dude, i’ve agreed with some of you points but this one is just… i can’t…
the only source i can find on SpaceX using Russian engines is a random blog post.
the company was literally created to design and build rocket engines, why would they buy and use other ones?
You think space X grid fins are air brakes. You completely made that up and still refuse to provide any source. You never will.
Falcon 9’s is equipped with hypersonic grid fins which manipulate the direction of the stage’s lift during reentry. they control roll, pitch, and yaw the 14-story stage up to 20 degrees in order to target a precision landing.
Falcon 9 Grid Fins do not work as brakes & they are not designed with increase drag either.
That is absurd nonsense because if they designed them with any drag beyond that which is needed to control roll, pitch, and yaw the Grid Fins will simply rip off in reentry & likely tear the vehicle apart in the process.
They cannot be used as airbrakes & must have reduced drag to offset the immensely compressed & superheated airflow of reentry & hypersonic flight.SpaceX
Lastly, The Falcon 9 stands 229.6 feet tall and has a mass of 1.2 million pounds…
You are out of your mind if you think those 4 Grid Fins are slowing it down in reentry.
Source is wrong, every single SpaceX launch has been recorded. Show me one with Russian engines.
They have not ever used the RD-180 in any SpaceX venture.
Yes, and they are. In many cases, grid fins serve multiple purposes. The grid fins help to slow it down and avoid wasting additional propellant in the process. That’s why the grids are so dummy thick.
If they were just for precision control, they wouldn’t want all the excess heat and this could be avoided (while improving the margin for control) by making the grids ultra thin at the points and taper. It doesn’t matter how you scale a grid fin, if it isn’t meant for slowing down… you’d want equally thin points on any size grid fins.
Do you have ANY source to back up that claim? like, anything from spacex saying that they either are or have been used as air brakes?
Edit: here is a post by Musk stating that a future design to help with braking might be considered. meaning that the ones used at that time (2021) were not designed to be used as air brakes.
Show me one case. I am not asking for many cases, just one. Should be easy then.
Thanks
You have no sources, you cannot even articulate in your own written word how would these small 4x5ft grid fins would have any effect in slowing the 229.6 feet tall, mass of 603.96 tons Falcon 9 in reentry.
Everything I provided on the grid fins came studies on the Falcon 9 & from the Space X website.
They do not load fuel that is not intended to be used, genius.
You made that up 100%
Does not exist. All sources & Space X are pretty clear on the matter the exact us of the control surfaces.
No different that the R-77 but designed to operate High hypersonic, hypersonic, supersonic & Transonic regimes. The R-77 Grid fins are designed for Supersonic regimes.
