Author Topic: Kerosene Super Heavy  (Read 224483 times)

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #40 on: 05/31/2010 08:41 pm »
t's reasonable to ask what kinds of missions are enabled by a vehicle that launches a 135 t payload into LEO?
The HLLV study said that this rocket would be able to boost nearly 41 tonnes to trans lunar injection velocity.  That's more than an early Apollo TLI payload, making sortie landings plausible.  An interesting aspect of this design appears to be that it might do TLI with only two stages and eight engines, rather than the three stages and 11 engines of Saturn V. 

The study also said that this rocket could do a Mars mission with seven launches, fewer than any other rocket. 

Finally, the study said that this rocket would cost less to operate than any of the studied Shuttle-derived alternatives and that it would be ready in nearly the same amount of time. 

 - Ed Kyle

Note, however, that they did the operating cost comparison assuming a constant flight rate: four launches a year, regardless of size. That tilts the analysis in favor of the bigger launchers. if your mission model requires 560 tons a year in LEO, that's at least 8 launches for a 70t launcher, and that changes the economics a lot.

If what you are inferring is that 8 launches of a smaller LV would provide significant cost savings, I would be a little skeptical of that idea until somebody (e.g. ULA) provided some credible numbers outlining such a savings.  Also 8 launches vs 4 launches would increase the complexity and therefore risk of the mission - just think how many delays would be possible by weather alone, not to mention hardware issues, etc.  I'd like to keep it to as few launches as possible, realizing that there is a cost vs. risk trade to be done.
Scott

Offline MP99

Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #41 on: 05/31/2010 08:42 pm »
Wouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? :D

Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...

Cheers!

Or if it was a pure H2/LOX based rocket, such as the suggested Boeing SD-HLV evolution

Where is that from, and what is its payload to orbit? I can't find it the Boeing SpaceOPS 2010 presentation.

Page 9, figure 14. 16.0 mT to ISS.

cheers, Martin

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #42 on: 05/31/2010 09:44 pm »
Wouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? :D

Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...

Cheers!

Or if it was a pure H2/LOX based rocket, such as the suggested Boeing SD-HLV evolution

Where is that from, and what is its payload to orbit? I can't find it the Boeing SpaceOPS 2010 presentation.

Page 9, figure 14. 16.0 mT to ISS.

cheers, Martin

I meant that 3-core version, with 2 core stages instead of SRBs.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #43 on: 05/31/2010 10:20 pm »
...Take for example a one-way cargo mission to the lunar surface.  How much mass (not counting the lander itself) could be landed by a system that massed 135 t in LEO?...

I'll take that example, thank you very much!  Now that we don't have to carry water ice up to the Moon, would it be possible to fit an entire H2/LOX factory into one 41t payload?  If those craters are as cold as I've heard, you can store liquid hydrogen down in the shadows, and not worry about boiloff and not worry about refrigeration either.

The question is always priority.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #44 on: 06/01/2010 12:04 am »
I'd be willing to suggest a name...
Neptune 8.

For now I would like to stick with MSFC Concept 103, which is how it is identified in the HLLV study. 

MSFC also considered an ET-diameter kerosene rocket, augmented by two Atlas V CCBs, called Concept 101, but this concept (which would have been powered by a total of seven RD-180s and a single J-2X upper stage engine) appears to have been dropped or bypassed in favor of Concept 103. 

 - Ed Kyle



Does anyone know why MSFC Concept 101 was dropped?



Wouldn't naming a rocket after the god of sea and water be asking for trouble? :D


Not if it is going to send us to Ceres...

Cheers!

Or if it was a pure H2/LOX based rocket, such as the suggested Boeing SD-HLV evolution


Were they also comparing it to the Boeing SD-HLV evolution launcher?


Is anyone suggesting that the MSFC Concept 103 would have any relevance to the International Space Station and the Orion spacecraft?


A long ISS mission is the current song
Because getting the data is affordable and doable...
Ice on the Moon is really nice,
but the times are a bit mean and lean...


Cheers!


Edited.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2010 12:17 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #45 on: 06/01/2010 12:10 am »
Is there a Boeing 2010 pdf that I'm missing out on?
Can someone direct me to the thread where it's posted? Thanks!

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #46 on: 06/01/2010 12:12 am »
1. Why spend billions of NASA money studying global warming only to launch a vehicle that contributes to global warming?

4. It utilizes a fossil fuel that is likely to be substantially more expensive a decade from now.

 Marcel F. Williams

  These type of  posts are determine whether a poster's opinions should be listened to or ignored. 

This post screams ignore

SRB's are more polluting than a Kerosene, in ozone depleting and acid clouds and many other areas that include perchlorates in ground water.  They also put many other more harmful contaminates in the air.

1.  SRB contributes to global warming too.  Water contributes to global warming.  Same goes for hydrogen powered vehicle.   Hydrogen is made from hydrocarbons and contribute more carbon.  This is not going to change for decades (many years past the program life of any current launch vehicle)

4.  the cost of liquid propellant is insignificant, less than a few percent of the whole cost of the vehicle.  Even a ten times increase in the cost of propellant is not going to have a significant affect on the percentage.  Anyways, the increase in cost of fossil fuels is going to increase the cost of SRB's too.

Please, not the water is a greenhouse gas argument again:-)

Hydrogen can be derived from the electrolysis of of water using nuclear or hydroelectric power plants. If we are to mitigate global warming and global sea rise while also reducing our dependence of foreign oil, we have to move towards a nuclear and renewable energy economy. It still may be possible to produce the kerosene rocket fuel from hydrogen by synthesizing it with CO2 extracted from the atmosphere or from biowaste. But it would probably be more expensive than liquid hydrogen.

Bolden's advocacy for a greenhouse gas polluting rocket while spending billions of tax payer money for NASA to study global warming is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Marcel F. Williams


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #47 on: 06/01/2010 12:22 am »
1.  Please, not the water is a greenhouse gas argument again:-)

2.  Hydrogen can be derived from the electrolysis of of water using nuclear or hydroelectric power plants. If we are to mitigate global warming and global sea rise while also reducing our dependence of foreign oil, we have to move towards a nuclear and renewable energy economy.

3 It still may be possible to produce the kerosene rocket fuel from hydrogen by synthesizing it with CO2 extracted from the atmosphere or from biowaste. But it would probably be more expensive than liquid hydrogen.

4.  Bolden's advocacy for a greenhouse gas polluting rocket while spending billions of tax payer money for NASA to study global warming is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Please, not another one of your nonsensical posts.

1.  just because you don't like then does not change facts

2.   Fine, but we are talking now, not 20 years from now.  Your point is meaningless.

3.  You don't know that

4.  hypocrisy would be to continue to use SRB's and LH2 which pollute more.

A further hypocrisy would be to continue to entertain posts  like yours.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2010 12:24 am by Jim »

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #48 on: 06/01/2010 12:27 am »
I thought the kerolox strap-ons envisaged for shuttle would be interesting to post here.

http://www.nss.org/resources/library/shuttledecision/chapter09.htm

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #49 on: 06/01/2010 03:01 am »
Is there a Boeing 2010 pdf that I'm missing out on?
Can someone direct me to the thread where it's posted? Thanks!

SpaceOPS 2010 HLV presentations
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21468.0

This one?

Also I looked, but the 3-core SD-HLV on the previous page, with the SRBs replaced with 2 more core stages, isn't in any of the 3 pdfs in that thread.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #50 on: 06/01/2010 03:24 am »
Concept 1
Stg 2 (2xJ-2x = 266 tonnesf) Gross Mass 319 tonnes
PL=135 tonnes
Delta-v = 9,299 m/s

Concept 2
Stg 2 (2xJ2X T=266 tonnesf) Gross Mass 293 tonnes
PL=135 tonnes
Delta-v = 9,192 m/s

Is there any kerosene design using only a single J-2X that could achieve performance anything like this?  Asked another way, how much better are these than a launcher using a stretched Ares I Upper Stage?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #51 on: 06/01/2010 04:27 am »
Is there any kerosene design using only a single J-2X that could achieve performance anything like this?  Asked another way, how much better are these than a launcher using a stretched Ares I Upper Stage?
I'm going to have to amend/correct my original post.  A closer look has convinced me that 149.4 tonnes (329,367 lbs) is the LEO payload for Concept 103.  The following model works for that payload.

Stage 1:
Gross Mass: 3,096 tonnes
Usable Propellant:  2,879 tonnes
Liftoff Thrust 4,218 tonnesf
T/W = 1.2

Stage 2:
Gross Mass:  260 tonnes
Usable Propellant:  234 tonnes
Thrust 266 tonnesf
T/W = 0.65

Fairing:  10 tonnes
Payload:  149.4 tonnes
Delta-v = 9,237 m/s

If Payload = 45 tonnes
Delta-v = 12,398 m/s

Trimming down to a single J-2X engine substantially reduces LEO payload.  Only 113 tonnes is possible if the Atlas 402 second stage T/W ratio of 0.57 is allowed - but this assumes use of the Atlas lofted trajectory.  A single-J-2X makes less difference for a TLI payload - only cutting it to 41 tonnes from 45 tonnes.

If Concept 103 works the way I think it does, it really is a clever design.  It can do essentially what Saturn V did, but with two stages rather than three.  The second stage is smaller than might be expected - and uses fewer engines than, for example, the S-II stage, but that allows it to serve not just as an ascent stage, but also as an Earth Departure Stage.  The advanced staged combustion kerosene first stage makes this possible.

In contrast, any Shuttle-Derived concept needs four propulsion stages for escape velocity (2 SRBs, one Core, and one Departure Stage).  That is why Concept 103 is projected to cost substantially less to operate. 

On the other hand, Concept 103 is not modular like Atlas Phase 2/3, so it would not be cost effective if the mission called for, say, only 70 tonnes to LEO.  No part of it can, obviously, serve as an ISS crew launcher in a cost effective manner.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/11/2011 04:21 am by edkyle99 »

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #52 on: 06/01/2010 04:39 am »
How much would you need to beef up the pads and sound-suppression systems to handle 9-12 million tons of thrust-exhaust? Keeping in mind they were designed for the 7.5 million ton Saturn V, and modified for the ~7 million ton Shuttle...

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #53 on: 06/01/2010 04:47 am »
Does anyone know why MSFC Concept 101 was dropped?

My guess is that it didn't meet the requirements of the study.  An 8.4 meter kerosene core with five RD-180s, augmented by two Atlas CCBs with one RD-180 each, topped by a 4xJ-2X second stage and a 5xRL10 third stage could only lift 99.7 tonnes to LEO or 40 tonnes to TLI.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #54 on: 06/01/2010 04:50 am »
How much would you need to beef up the pads and sound-suppression systems to handle 9-12 million tons of thrust-exhaust? Keeping in mind they were designed for the 7.5 million ton Saturn V, and modified for the ~7 million ton Shuttle...

I remember a previous discussion about margin built into the launch pad system.  Something like 10 million pounds thrust comes to mind, which should accommodate the Concept 103 liftoff thrust.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #55 on: 06/01/2010 04:51 am »
For BEO missions (with a large diameter core and US) could you use a single J-2X in the middle of the US with several(4-6) RL-10s in some flavor surrounding it? How difficult would it be to "eject" the J-2X just suborbital and continue from there on the higher ISP RL-10s alone? Or are the tanking pressures incompatible?

My other thought here was.. could a cluster of TAN(kero or H2) variant of RL-10s provide enough extra thrust to elminate the need for J-2X?

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #56 on: 06/01/2010 04:55 am »
How much would you need to beef up the pads and sound-suppression systems to handle 9-12 million tons of thrust-exhaust? Keeping in mind they were designed for the 7.5 million ton Saturn V, and modified for the ~7 million ton Shuttle...

I remember a previous discussion about margin built into the launch pad system.  Something like 10 million pounds thrust comes to mind, which should accommodate the Concept 103 liftoff thrust.

 - Ed Kyle

That makes sense given that post Apollo Saturn V rockets were going to be powered by 5 F-1As at 2 million pounds of thrust a peice.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #57 on: 06/01/2010 09:30 am »
I thought the kerolox strap-ons envisaged for shuttle would be interesting to post here.

Very interesting.  Were the engines on the kerolox strap-on existing, like the H-1s from the Saturn-IB, or were they to be developed specially?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #58 on: 06/01/2010 09:42 am »
Does anyone know why MSFC Concept 101 was dropped?

My guess is that it didn't meet the requirements of the study.  An 8.4 meter kerosene core with five RD-180s, augmented by two Atlas CCBs with one RD-180 each, topped by a 4xJ-2X second stage and a 5xRL10 third stage could only lift 99.7 tonnes to LEO or 40 tonnes to TLI.

 - Ed Kyle

My guess is it wasn't enough work for MSFC.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Kerosene Super Heavy
« Reply #59 on: 06/01/2010 09:42 am »
As regards Common Bulkheads, from their EDS design, it seems MSFC doesn't have much confidence designing LOX/LH2 common bulkheads, but is comfortable with LOX/Kero.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1