>>10823766CHAD
>>10823783In the case that they really NEED a bigger engine, it'd still only make sense to go as big as they can without running into instability issues, because the solutions to those issues invariably add weight, reduce performance, and increase complexity. 3x current Raptor (in terms of thrust) is probably close to if not the limit for building an engine that doesn't need things like injection plate baffles or reduced chamber pressure to function without exploding. That being said, 3x Raptor would still be getting very close to the power of an F-1 anyway.
>>10823783>Hell, maybe NASA should develop a methalox F-1B and sell the rights to the highest (American) bidderNo one would buy that, because everyone other than SpaceX wouldn't want to spend any money on designing a new vehicle to use it, and SpaceX would rather just develop a new engine in-house which would probably end up at least ten times cheaper and would probably perform better as well.
What I'd like to know is, will SpaceX ever build themselves a hydrolox engine/rocket? It's really the only direction to move in in terms of increasing efficiency beyond what Raptor achieves, and with their experience building the super high chamber pressure FFSC design and getting it to work they're probably the most qualified on Earth right now to take up the challenge of developing a hydrolox engine that actually gets a good thrust to weight ratio and high thrust overall. Nobody has ever done an oxygen-rich or FFSC hydrolox engine cycle before, which in theory offers better performance across the board than fuel-rich staged combustion using hydrogen simply because oxygen is so much more dense and requires a much smaller turbine to produce the same amount of power compared to a hydrogen-rich gas generator driven turbine. Smaller turbine = lighter, which also means if you make it big you can generate a LOT more pumping power and get much higher chamber pressure/thrust out of a smaller engine.
