Author Topic: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster  (Read 205254 times)

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2239
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #20 on: 03/13/2012 06:29 pm »
Also, the corestage would have to be redesigned to tolerate the extreme thrust oscillation that 4x SRBs would generate. Even empty, the SRB segments weigh more than 100 tons each! Placing an extra 10x segments on the MLP, crawler and road would be intolerable.

To draw a parallel for some folk: even empty the entire Apollo/Saturn V stack weighed less than 240 tons and about 2900 tons loaded. An SLS with 4x loaded SRBs would weigh far more than that before any propellants had even been loaded into the corestage!!
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #21 on: 03/13/2012 09:57 pm »
Also, the corestage would have to be redesigned to tolerate the extreme thrust oscillation that 4x SRBs would generate. Even empty, the SRB segments weigh more than 100 tons each! Placing an extra 10x segments on the MLP, crawler and road would be intolerable.

To draw a parallel for some folk: even empty the entire Apollo/Saturn V stack weighed less than 240 tons and about 2900 tons loaded. An SLS with 4x loaded SRBs would weigh far more than that before any propellants had even been loaded into the corestage!!


I see your point. The extra two 5 segment SRBs would add over 1200 extra tonnes of weight to the vehicle needed to be transported  to the launch site.

Another alternative would be to use a  configuration similar to the  design of Boeing's supper heavy concept by using three SLS LOX/LH2 core boosters. This would only add about 170 tonnes of extra inert weight to the launch vehicle needed to be transported to the launch site before fueling.

Again, the advantage here would be that  no new booster would have to be developed.

Marcel F. Williams


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #22 on: 03/13/2012 10:32 pm »
Also, the corestage would have to be redesigned to tolerate the extreme thrust oscillation that 4x SRBs would generate. Even empty, the SRB segments weigh more than 100 tons each! Placing an extra 10x segments on the MLP, crawler and road would be intolerable.

To draw a parallel for some folk: even empty the entire Apollo/Saturn V stack weighed less than 240 tons and about 2900 tons loaded. An SLS with 4x loaded SRBs would weigh far more than that before any propellants had even been loaded into the corestage!!


I see your point. The extra two 5 segment SRBs would add over 1200 extra tonnes of weight to the vehicle needed to be transported  to the launch site.

Another alternative would be to use a  configuration similar to the  design of Boeing's supper heavy concept by using three SLS LOX/LH2 core boosters. This would only add about 170 tonnes of extra inert weight to the launch vehicle needed to be transported to the launch site before fueling.

Again, the advantage here would be that  no new booster would have to be developed.

Marcel F. Williams



I’ve seen that concept before too.  Here’s the issues with that.

a)   Would require a significant number of relatively spendy RS-25 engines.  (6 per core?)   Even the RS-25E’s, though will be cheaper, still won’t be a cheap engine like the RS-68 was designed to be.
b)   Hydrolox makes a bad sole first stage propellant.  FH will be able to put much more into LEO than D4H, although D4H will be far larger.  Hydrolox works ok as a “sustainer” stage, as it was on STS and will be on SLS, with either kerolox or solid booster doing the early high-thrust lifting.  Then the RS-25’s doing all the high altitude work, where kerolox is very beneficial.  So all hydrolox on a first stage isn’t really the most desirable configuration.
c)   Both pads at LC39 would need totally new flame trenches (I think) because this LV would be wider than the current flame trench, which was built for Saturn V.
d)   Not sure if this LV could even fit on the Ares 1 ML, as SLS will have to.
e)   NASA specified that LRB’s would need to be no wider than 5.5m.  These 8.4m booster cores would exceed that.  (c & d above).
f)   I’m not totally sure, but I think the boosters would not even net much cost savings (for commonality, which is the driver in this concept), because SLS’s boosters need to lift from the top, like SRB’s.  The 8.4 dia core will be designed to be a core, not a booster, so I think you’d need two 8.4m cores, a booster core, and a central core.  And then your cost savings for commonality evaporate. (someone correct me if I’m in error on this). 

Other than those reasons, it’d work fine.  :-)

Myself, I think something like AJAX would have been the best way to go.  It’d use a shorter 8.4m core, with either Atlas 5, or Atlas 5-Phase 2 CCB boosters.  The booster would be cores pretty much identical to the ones ULA would fly as EELV’s.  So there you have your commonality, you are within your width restrictions for the ML and flame trench, and you could add boosters as needed for the mission.  But the AJAX core would need to be designed from the start to take the LRB CCB’s, which lift from the bottom.  So the core would loose it’s upper thrust beam, and have some sort of structure built into the MPS to take the loads of the boosters lifting from the bottom.  So you can’t do an AJAX core they want they want to do SLS. 
But, I think that train has left the station….  So we have what we have.  Hopefully, we’ll get LRB’s rather than advanced SRB’s!

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #23 on: 03/13/2012 10:39 pm »
That rocket doesn't work because SLS has an underpowered core.

15 x SSME is very expensive and not much thrust.

SLS is pretty much how to build a rocket without needing to develop new high thrust engines.

Reusing SSME and hoping that grants will be given for RS-25E.

Congress wants to build a rocket that has problems galore because they refused to fund RAC2 even though it was the design NASA wanted for the SLS.

Now they're left with the problem that SLS has such little funding it's not going to be built anytime soon anyway no matter how much "on schedule" the test flights using spare parts might be.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #24 on: 03/14/2012 01:14 am »
That rocket doesn't work because SLS has an underpowered core.

15 x SSME is very expensive and not much thrust.

SLS is pretty much how to build a rocket without needing to develop new high thrust engines.


I agree with what you are saying re SLS, but a 14-15 SSME tri core could roughly match or even beat Block 1.  I worked that out on another thread somewhere.  There would have to be propellant offloading on the boosters.

Ed Kyle

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #25 on: 03/14/2012 03:04 am »
I started another thread regarding putting more than 2 boosters on SLS and there was a lot of feedback about the issues with the thrust beam design.

Regarding the tri-core CCB SLS, there would be a need for strong backs to support the weight. Also, isn't the T/W < 1? You'd have to half fill the tanks  to achieve T/W > 1 and still throw away 15 RS25Es. Nobody's going to do that. The thing has to have either solid or RP-1 boosters for the initial high thrust. AJAX was a better design, but unfortunately too many politicians see NASA as pork for home, not a tool for science.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #26 on: 03/14/2012 03:15 am »
That would be in this thread here I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27563.0

The thread goes off talking about RS-68As and other stuff and not sure we should drag this one here too far off topic.

I do look forward to any possible upcoming news from booster competitors. I know there's some stuff in L2 and we've been waiting a while to see an article about it. Will be interesting to see if more competitors throw in a liquid booster offering.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #27 on: 03/14/2012 04:56 am »
PWR will compete with F-1A.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #28 on: 03/14/2012 06:39 am »
I think the best engine for a LRB would be to dust off the TR-107 from SLI as it was designed for this type of work.
It also would be a cheap engine to manufacture due to it's simplicity.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/172380main_tr107.pdf
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/tr107.htm
« Last Edit: 03/14/2012 06:40 am by Patchouli »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #29 on: 03/14/2012 11:18 am »
Regarding the tri-core CCB SLS, there would be a need for strong backs to support the weight. Also, isn't the T/W < 1? You'd have to half fill the tanks  to achieve T/W > 1 and still throw away 15 RS25Es. Nobody's going to do that. The thing has to have either solid or RP-1 boosters for the initial high thrust. AJAX was a better design, but unfortunately too many politicians see NASA as pork for home, not a tool for science.
Some propellant offload would be needed, but thrust is going to be 111 percent for RS25E, helping a little.  Booster tanks might just need to be a little thicker.  The payback would be from core-booster commonality to cut costs, though the config would be less than ideal.

Ed Kyle

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #30 on: 03/14/2012 02:26 pm »
It would probably be cheaper for NASA to substantially increase the lifting capability of the SLS by just  strapping  on another pair of 5-segment SRBs.

Plus if ATK successfully manages to get the Liberty concept going as a commercial crew launch vehicle then the 5-segement SRBs may come down in cost.

Marcel F. Williams
New pad would be needed.

And new crawlerway, and VAB floor, and crawler, and ML... four SRBs will be heavy.

Pad would be a nightmare!

Also doubles the number of separation events (4 instead of 2) at 1st staging. That does not move flight risk in the "good" direction.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #31 on: 03/14/2012 05:48 pm »
You know, these boosters sound like an ideal synergy with the USAF/LM flyback booster concept for an EELV replacement. Also, bonus points as commonality with USAF systems could lower the annual cost considerably...

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #32 on: 03/14/2012 08:55 pm »
PWR will compete with F-1A.

I'm skeptical; do you have a source? Why would PWR resurrect the F-1 when they already have the RD-180?

Edit: related thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24553.0 .
« Last Edit: 03/14/2012 09:08 pm by deltaV »

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #33 on: 03/14/2012 09:22 pm »
I think the best engine for a LRB would be to dust off the TR-107 from SLI as it was designed for this type of work.
It also would be a cheap engine to manufacture due to it's simplicity.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/172380main_tr107.pdf
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/tr107.htm

Or if we were even smarter, we could resurrect both the TR-107 as the strap on booster engine and the TR-106 for the SLS main engines. Talk about "massive savings" if both engines were to also be used by ULA in the Atlas/Delta families. I don't know about the TR-107 but wasn't the TR-106 on its way to completion before it was canceled by Griffon (completed quite a few tests at Stennis). 

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #34 on: 03/14/2012 10:12 pm »
PWR will compete with F-1A.

I'm skeptical; do you have a source? Why would PWR resurrect the F-1 when they already have the RD-180?

Edit: related thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24553.0 .

1 F-1A produces the same thrust as roughly 3 RD-180s ?? Sounds like it might fit in the 5m booster structure as well.

This is roughly the same effort as Aerojet taking the 50+ yr old NK-33 design to create the domestic AJ-26-500, right ? Both designs are basically the same age, and need to be updated to modern manufacturing technology. There also appears to be a supply of both legacy engines available, even though they would need some updates / re-certification before flying. At least the F-1 design documents were written in english.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #35 on: 03/14/2012 10:38 pm »
PWR will compete with F-1A.

I'm skeptical; do you have a source? Why would PWR resurrect the F-1 when they already have the RD-180?

Edit: related thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24553.0 .

1 F-1A produces the same thrust as roughly 3 RD-180s ?? Sounds like it might fit in the 5m booster structure as well.

This is roughly the same effort as Aerojet taking the 50+ yr old NK-33 design to create the domestic AJ-26-500, right ? Both designs are basically the same age, and need to be updated to modern manufacturing technology. There also appears to be a supply of both legacy engines available, even though they would need some updates / re-certification before flying. At least the F-1 design documents were written in english.


F-1A would have been about 1,800 Klbs at sea level (astonautix)
RD-180 is 860.5 Klbs at sea level.

So F-1A is a little more than double RD-180.

But, NASA baseball cards shoed the LRB was looking for about 3 M lbs @ vacuum.
RD-180 is 933 Klb at vacuum.  I couldn't find a number for F-1A at vacuum, but I'll assume it's pushing 2M lbs at vacuum?

So, 3 X RD-180 will about do it, especially if they were upgraded a bit by PWR and built domestically.

With F-1A, two would be 50% than needed, but one would be 2/3 of what's needed.  SO you'd have to use two, and then derate or throttle them back some I'd imagine.  Or just build longer boosters so they can feed two at full throttle...which would up SLS's Block 1A performance.

The same with SpaceX and Merlin-2, if Merlin 2 is 1.7 M Lbs.

But since RD-180 is already shared with a current LV, and PWR probably wouldn't mind an excuse (and funding) to start producing them domestically, my guess would be they'd bid Domestically built RD-180's, that are maybe upgraded a bit to hit 1 M lb (vac) thrust or more each.

A new F-1A would not be used by any other LV, and thus be fairly costly to develop and build, and keep going.

Even Aerojet's AJ-500 would be shared with Antares.

SpaceX is already considering replacing the 9 Merlin 1's with a single Merlin 2 on their F9 cores, if it's ever built, ...so there could be some sharing there.

I too am skeptical of PWR bidding a new F-1A...



Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #36 on: 03/14/2012 10:54 pm »
Funny reading this… I brought this idea up with an AJAX using an F-1 engined booster with Downix last year.
Interesting….

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22266.1170
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #37 on: 03/14/2012 11:08 pm »
Too bad the RD-171 is not in the running for advanced LRB engine. 2 RD-171 generates 3.395 Mlbs thrust at sea level and 3.546 Mlbs thrust in vacuum.

About roughly what the paper F-1A and Merlin 2 engines will produce. Except it's operational on the Zenith rocket. Maybe NPO Energomash could find an US partner to marketed it.  :o

I think not, even it might be the cheapest and quickest option.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #38 on: 03/15/2012 12:40 am »
PWR will compete with F-1A.

I'm skeptical; do you have a source? Why would PWR resurrect the F-1 when they already have the RD-180?

Source: talking to PWR. They prefer F-1A because it is American-made, which coincidentally means many more jobs for them.

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Engine For Advanced SLS Liquid Booster
« Reply #39 on: 03/15/2012 01:14 am »
Source: talking to PWR. They prefer F-1A because it is American-made, which coincidentally means many more jobs for them.

1. Would it be safe to assume that PWR would be a subcontractor rather than the prime for a SLS booster bid?

2. The cheapest to develop American-made liquid booster might be one using ~25 Merlin 1d. IIRC NASA doesn't allow survivable engine-out in LOC/LOM calculations. Such a booster would therefore be unacceptable to NASA, right?

Tags:
 

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