Author Topic: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS  (Read 57532 times)

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Two papers by W.D. Greene at ntrs. - attached

20130013956_2013013760.pdf
Consolidated Development Objectives Document (CDOD) For MB‐60

>>>
This document defines the objectives related to liquid rocket engine system development to be undertaken by JAXA in support of the Space Launch System (SLS) Program managed out of the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).
...
the engine controller will be supplied and integrated by NASA.
...
Nominal Vacuum Thrust 60,000 lbf

Thrust Precision ± 3%

Throttling to a single set point not less than 75%

Vacuum Specific Impulse 462 seconds

Nominal Mixture Ratio 5.40

Mixture Ratio Precision ± 2%

Mission Profile five engine start, mainstage, and shutdown sequences within a single mission

Gimbal Flexure five‐degree circular

Mass dry 1,300 lbm

Dimensions 130 inches in length

Starts seven starts after engine delivery

Life – Seconds 3,500 seconds after engine delivery

Continuous Firing Duration 800 seconds
<<<
edit: Engine qualities are TBR


and

20130013956_2013013761.pdf
Visit from JAXA to NASA MSFC: The Engines Element & Ideas for Collaboration
22 April 2013


>>>
This activity will be conducted by JAXA in support of the NASA Space Launch System Program

JAXA is responsible for fulfilling the development objective

NASA is responsible for insight to enable a smooth transition from a development activity into an implemented facet of the exploration initiative

The specific objective of the effort (with respect to engines) is the development of a high-performance, 60,000-lbf, liquid hydrogen / liquid oxygen rocket engine for use with human-rated missions

The development effort scope…

Will achieve a ready-for-certification level of maturity with regards to design, development, fabrication, and associated infrastructure

Will include the entire engine system except for the engine controller unit

For now, what follows in terms of engine certification and production planning is to be left open for later discussion
<<<
« Last Edit: 07/24/2013 09:55 am by renclod »

Offline MP99

Wow - that is big news (even if they don't go ahead with this for SLS).

Very CRS-like - "meets the intention of".

cheers, Martin

PS are the Japanese fans of Rankine vs Kelvin (see page 42)?  ;)


Edit: put four of those on DUUS, and how close would it get to 130t to LEO?
« Last Edit: 07/24/2013 12:45 pm by MP99 »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #2 on: 07/24/2013 01:29 pm »
Damn, that's one nice engine, and props to whomever guessed they would look at it for SLS.

I am seeing conflicting info regarding RL60 vs MB60, is it the same engine and is it a joint development between Mitsubishi and Rocketdyne?

Is this more of a thread for L2? Don't want to get anyone in trouble...
« Last Edit: 07/24/2013 01:31 pm by newpylong »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #3 on: 07/24/2013 04:57 pm »
Damn, that's one nice engine, and props to whomever guessed they would look at it for SLS.

I am seeing conflicting info regarding RL60 vs MB60, is it the same engine and is it a joint development between Mitsubishi and Rocketdyne?

Is this more of a thread for L2? Don't want to get anyone in trouble...

I'm a little confused too, and would like more info.

As best as I've been able to gleen, in the early 2000's when Boeing owned PWR, they had a joint engine program to upgrade the RL-10 for Delta IV.  This was the RL-60, and would have parts built by PWR and parts by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.  This got about 90% developed, and was test fired in both the US and Japan by 2005.  For some reason, Delta IV stuck with RL-10 (maybe because of the ULA merger?), and H-IIA went with the LE-5B.  So it got shelved although it was mostly complete.
It's also referred to as the MB-XX or MB-60. 
I'm not 100% sure if it's the same engine, or if the MB-XX/60 would be totally built in Japan, where an RL-60 would be built in the US...but being basically the same engine...just manufactured in two different places.
But I'm not sure on that.

Not sure if this is right or wrong, just what I've been able to cobble together.

5 of these would have more thrust and more ISP than J2X...and it was over 90% developed already.  NASA didn't consider it for the Ares V upper stage, why?  And without the nozzle extension, give of these should have fit under the Ares 1 upper stage diameter.  The nozzle extension wouldn't really be needed for A1US to just get to LEO.

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #4 on: 07/24/2013 05:48 pm »
Put this on ACES as well?  Then using common thrust structure between 5m ACES LOX tank and a 5m LOX tank on EUS(DUUS) starts making a lot of sense.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #5 on: 07/24/2013 06:34 pm »
Put this on ACES as well?  Then using common thrust structure between 5m ACES LOX tank and a 5m LOX tank on EUS(DUUS) starts making a lot of sense.

Good idea.  I'd although thought about using the EUS/DUUS as a way to get ACES done for ULA, in that, if NASA were to buy a modified ACES stage from ULA, they could just mate that up to the 8.4m LH2 tank assembly they'd make at MAF using SLS core tooling. 
I'm not sure volume-wise how the EUS/DUUS LOX tank needs to be compared to the whole volume of an ACES stage, but perhaps if an ACES tank were made without the common bulkhead in it, and if that is about the right size for the EUS/DUUS LOX tank, NASA could have ULA develop that and buy that from them, which would make the overall EUS/DUUS development partially common with ACES and split it. 
When you look at the exploded view of the DUUS concept, the LOX tank with the four RL-10's on the back looks similar to an ACES stage.

If the whole ACES tank is too big or too small for the volume of LOX needed for the EUS, then a modified one could be made for NASA and the whole one for ULA's needs.  Obviously the closer it is to the production ACES, the better. 

And with RL-60, or MB-XX, or MB-60 or whatever, then only two would be needed for either.  But again, they could share a common tank/MPS assembly.


Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #6 on: 07/24/2013 07:43 pm »
Lots of confusion on the RL-60 vs MB-60. Per a few papers I have read around the web, the RL-60 was a P&W expander engine (around the size of the RL-10) to be built using components from the US, Japan, Europe and Russia. The MB-60 (or MB-XX) program was a joint Boeing Rocketdyne and Mitsubishi project to create an expander bleed engine that could be assembled in either country.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #7 on: 07/24/2013 07:52 pm »
Looking at the tea leaves, given the current moratorium of RL-10 manufacture, could this yet be the new common high-energy upper stage engine for SLS and EELVs?
"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 Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #8 on: 07/24/2013 08:19 pm »
I have always understood the two to be a single engine, with MB vs RL depending on the company building it at the time. However, in further digging, it looks that MB-60 refers to a joint Mitsubishi-Boeing engine. In addition, I am finding some interesting differences between the engines, particularly in the turbopump design.

Well, learn something new every day.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #9 on: 07/24/2013 10:01 pm »
I have always understood the two to be a single engine, with MB vs RL depending on the company building it at the time. However, in further digging, it looks that MB-60 refers to a joint Mitsubishi-Boeing engine. In addition, I am finding some interesting differences between the engines, particularly in the turbopump design.

Well, learn something new every day.

Ahhh...MB=Mitsubishi-Boeing.  Seems so obvious now but I was wondering what the "MB" designation meant.

What does the RL in RL-10 or RL-60 stand for.  Rocketdyne-[something that begins with an "L"?]

Either way it's a good engine and would be good to perhaps finish and manufacture.  Especially since development was pretty much already all done, and it can be used to replace RL-10's on EELV's (as I understand, that was the original purpose of the RL-60 anyway). 

Again, imagine if NASA had decided to just finish it back during CxP rather than developing J2X?  Five of them have better thrust and much better isp than a single J2X, and about the same weight.

Hopefully the J2X development can be largely used on RS-25E and at least we can get some development savings there, and that's not a complete waste of money.
And then RL-60 or MB-60 can be the new common high energy vacuum engine.  Already almost finished, and Aerojet/PWR can tool up to make this moder engine rather than the old RL-10 design and methods.

Seems like a great engine.  About the only thing it can't do is be the 2nd stage engine on Saturn V class LV with low isp GG kerolox or solid first stage.  (although I can't imagine a solid stage the equal of the S-IC.)
But the only two LV's that would be that class would be SLS and SpaceX's MCT, and SLS won't need an S-II like stage with it's design.  And MCT will use something with SC methalox and not need a high thrust hydrolox engine. 

With reasonable clusters, it could duplicate a single J2X, which would have been good enough for both Ares 1 and Ares 5 upper stages, back i the day.
(Ares 1 upper stage without the nozzle extensions.  Not enough room with them under a 5.5m stage  :-)  )

 

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #10 on: 07/24/2013 10:24 pm »
What does the RL in RL-10 or RL-60 stand for.  Rocketdyne-[something that begins with an "L"?

"Rocketdyne - Light", I suspect.  "RS" is probably "Rocketdyne - Standard".
"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 geoallegrezza

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #11 on: 07/24/2013 11:02 pm »
RL was a Pratt & Whitney (pre-Rocketdyne) designation for Rocket (Liquid).  For example, the RL20 was the immediate precursor to the XLR-129 and an ancestor of P&W's design for the SSME.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #12 on: 07/25/2013 04:21 am »
RL was a Pratt & Whitney (pre-Rocketdyne) designation for Rocket (Liquid).  For example, the RL20 was the immediate precursor to the XLR-129 and an ancestor of P&W's design for the SSME.

Interesting.

What did "RS" stand for then?

Offline MP99

@Lobo,

I was wondering where this leaves Aerojet Rocketdyne, but I'd be surprised if they end up manufacturing MB-60.

Perhaps something more like RD-Amross & their prep of RD-180 (fairly limited, IIUC)? Could involve fitting the US controller, which you'd assume would be the one from J-2x.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #14 on: 07/25/2013 05:07 pm »
@Lobo,

I was wondering where this leaves Aerojet Rocketdyne, but I'd be surprised if they end up manufacturing MB-60.

Perhaps something more like RD-Amross & their prep of RD-180 (fairly limited, IIUC)? Could involve fitting the US controller, which you'd assume would be the one from J-2x.

Cheers, Martin

Yea, the paper specifically says the engine less the controller.  So I'm sure that means NASA using the new universal controller they are working on for J2X that will be used on RS-25E as well. 

As to where they would be manufactured, Ed or Downix would probably have some good insight there.
Since the MB-60 is Mitsubishi and Boeing back when Boeing owned PWR, I'm not sure if Boeing has the rights to the US part of it, or if PWR does, and thus now Aerojet?

Not sure how the legals work out, but from a technical point, I don't know why PWR couldn't make it in the US, along with RS-68A and RS-25E.  I think it was intended to be manufactured in both the US by PWR for Delta IV, and in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for H-II.  As Downix said, apparently multiple engines can be made in the same facility at the same time in today's modern age.  Maybe it'd be assembled at the PWR facility, but use some components produced in Japan.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22010.msg1076856#msg1076856

I'm trying to remember, but I think the higher pressure thrust chamber was to be made in Japan, and the turbopump assembly and nozzle in the US?  I read that somewhere.

Of course, the documents posted at the beginning of this thread seems to indicated NASA is thinking about having the engines supplied less the controller by JAXA whole?  So I dunno.


Offline geoallegrezza

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #15 on: 07/25/2013 05:19 pm »

Interesting.

What did "RS" stand for then?

Unknown.  The convention goes way back in Rocketdyne/NAA history.  Maybe something like "rocket system"?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #16 on: 07/25/2013 05:35 pm »
As to where they would be manufactured, Ed or Downix would probably have some good insight there.
To me this looks like a Mitsubishi engine with a NASA-contracted engine controller.  It fits right into the April DUUS presentation.  Two MB-60 engines would power the stage if they were used. 

Once again NASA seems intent on outsourcing this project beyond U.S. borders.  It has outsource the entire Orion Service Module.  It has outsourced the core stage dome panels.  Now it seems to be planning to kill off RL-10, the best U.S. built upper stage engine.  I'm starting to wonder what will happen once the existing SSME inventory runs out.   

I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

 - Ed Kyle

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #17 on: 07/25/2013 05:47 pm »

Interesting.

What did "RS" stand for then?

Unknown.  The convention goes way back in Rocketdyne/NAA history.  Maybe something like "rocket system"?

I think it may stand for "Rocket System".  I'm still confused about a lot of the early rocket engine names.  There were sometimes more than one Rocketdyne name for a given engine.  An engine might have a Rocketdyne name and a different DoD name.  There were different names for individual engines and for systems of combined engines.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #18 on: 07/25/2013 05:49 pm »

Once again NASA seems intent on outsourcing this project


"Outsourcing" may not be the proper word here.

JAXA would develop the MB-60 (sans controller) and the Japanese taxpayer will foot the bill, but NASA won't pay for this effort (IMO).

What JAXA (or the Japanese government) would get in exchange for it is not known - to me, at least - beside a participation in NASA-led "exploration".

« Last Edit: 07/25/2013 05:52 pm by renclod »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #19 on: 07/25/2013 06:01 pm »
I'm trying to remember, but I think the higher pressure thrust chamber was to be made in Japan, and the turbopump assembly and nozzle in the US?  I read that somewhere.


Ahhh...here we go.

http://archive.ists.or.jp/upload_pdf/2009-a-03.pdf

A few excerpts:

"Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) have been co-developing the MB-60
cryogenic upper stage engine since 1999."

"These integrated features included: high chamber
pressure operation, the engine start and shutdown sequences, engine specific impulse, and the ability of the MHI/PWR team
to co-develop an engine within the constraints imposed by government export regulations."

"Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Pratt and
Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) began work on the MB-60
engine in 1998. This work was facilitated by a technology
assistance agreement (TAA) that enabled co-development
of a 267 kN (60 Klbf) cryogenic upper stage engine.
Work was divided 50/50 between PWR and MHI. PWR
was responsible for the turbomachinery and the nozzle.
MHI was responsible for the thrust chamber assembly
(TCA), valves, controls, and ducts. System level tasks
were performed jointly and it was agreed that engine
assembly would be performed in the country in which it
was to be delivered. Comparable capabilities of the two
companies made it possible for both companies to be a
system integrator under the constraints imposed by
government export regulations."

That last part is the interesting part.  That it would be assembled in the country where it would be delivered.  So it could be assembled either by PWR or MHI, to comply with export regulations.

Although Aerojet owns PWR now instead of Boeing, this document mentions PWR specifically.  So I'd guess they can still do this?

Although, I'm still unclear about how the MB-60 and RL-60 are related.  We are talking the same time frame so it seems unlikely the PWR was working on two completely independant projects for a new engine with the same performance.  So the two must be related some how, or are perhaps the same engine with two different designations depending on who PWR was talking too.  (Calling it RL-60 when discussing it as an upgrade to RL-10 on EELV's with USAF or NASA, calling it MB-60 when discussing it with JAXA about an upgrade on H-II ??)

Or maybe the RL-60 is all US made, where MB-60 has some components jointly developed with MHI? 

Not sure...

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #20 on: 07/25/2013 07:11 pm »
I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

Everybody outsources these days, Ed.  Even NASA it seems.  I don't think it is the loss of jobs or money that should worry Americans though; it is the clear implication that The Powers That Be do not believe that any American company can do it on-time and/or on-budget.

So, if MB-60 is anything like RL-60, it will have a vacuum Isp of about 450s, right? That's better than J-2X and RL-10A-4 but not as good as RL-10B-2 or RL-10C.
"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 MP99

See the OP.

Cheers, Martin

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #22 on: 07/25/2013 07:36 pm »
Convince us how the RL-10 is better than the requirements for this RL/MB-60...


As to where they would be manufactured, Ed or Downix would probably have some good insight there.
To me this looks like a Mitsubishi engine with a NASA-contracted engine controller.  It fits right into the April DUUS presentation.  Two MB-60 engines would power the stage if they were used. 

Once again NASA seems intent on outsourcing this project beyond U.S. borders.  It has outsource the entire Orion Service Module.  It has outsourced the core stage dome panels.  Now it seems to be planning to kill off RL-10, the best U.S. built upper stage engine.  I'm starting to wonder what will happen once the existing SSME inventory runs out.   

I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #23 on: 07/25/2013 07:45 pm »

Isn't 462s a bit ambitious for an expander bleed cycle engine?

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #24 on: 07/25/2013 08:54 pm »
462 seconds is the precise Isp of RL-10B-2, so no. ;)

Big, fully expanded nozzles make a difference.

Offline MP99

462 seconds is the precise Isp of RL-10B-2, so no. ;)

Big, fully expanded nozzles make a difference.

But, full flow rather than bleeder?

Cheers, Martin

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #26 on: 07/25/2013 10:35 pm »
Lots of confusion on the RL-60 vs MB-60. Per a few papers I have read around the web, the RL-60 was a P&W expander engine (around the size of the RL-10) to be built using components from the US, Japan, Europe and Russia. The MB-60 (or MB-XX) program was a joint Boeing Rocketdyne and Mitsubishi project to create an expander bleed engine that could be assembled in either country.
This about how I remember it.

MB-60 and RL-60 where two different engines by two competing companies, Rocketdyne (owned by Boeing) and Pratt and Whitney.
At the beginning of the millennium the market for satellite launches crashed and in 2005 I believe Boeing sold Rocketdyne to Pratt and Whitney.
Which of the two companies was ahead was regularly discussed on old newsgroups.
Neither engine survived the merger.

I believe there was talk of an MB-35 as well.

Offline Halidon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 848
  • whereabouts unknown
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 533
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #27 on: 07/25/2013 11:54 pm »
I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

 - Ed Kyle
Congress has made it abundantly clear that NASA is supposed to build the SLS with a shrinking agency budget, all other priorities rescinded. Having JAXA pay for this engine may help them meet that goal, assuming all goes well, and the same goes for the other partnerships. If fostering/promoting American technology were at all a concern, programs like Commercial Crew would not be taking it on the chin.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2013 11:55 pm by Halidon »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #28 on: 07/26/2013 12:04 am »
I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

 - Ed Kyle
Congress has made it abundantly clear that NASA is supposed to build the SLS with a shrinking agency budget, all other priorities rescinded. Having JAXA pay for this engine may help them meet that goal, assuming all goes well, and the same goes for the other partnerships. If fostering/promoting American technology were at all a concern, programs like Commercial Crew would not be taking it on the chin.

{rant}
More of a space policy discussion topic, but I am certainly not liking this new approach to space exploration by the United States (in the context of trying to attain/maintain a dominating role in space). Ever since the Orion service module going to ESA announcement, the evidence of dilution is becoming more and more apparent. Not a good sign for things to come for America's once coveted position.

Of course from the position of being able to play a continuing role in space exploration, it makes total sense, as America's position is becoming more and more fragile.
{/rant}

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #29 on: 07/26/2013 12:38 am »
462 seconds is the precise Isp of RL-10B-2, so no. ;)

Big, fully expanded nozzles make a difference.

But, full flow rather than bleeder?

Cheers, Martin

I've seen 465s and 470s depending on the source for RL-60/MB-60.
And that'd be the the big extendable nozzle.


Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #30 on: 07/26/2013 01:49 am »
Convince us how the RL-10 is better than the requirements for this RL/MB-60...
RL-10 already exists, has a long flight history, and already meets the described ISP requirements.  It boggles my mind that NASA might let this key piece of U.S. space exploration infrastructure slip through its fingers.   

I would like to see NASA and the U.S. Air Force jointly fund both continued RL-10 improvements and serious development of a higher-thrust U.S. manufactured follow-on.  The resulting engine could be used in multiple launch vehicles, including SLS, Atlas V, Delta IV, Pegasus 2, and possibly others. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #31 on: 07/26/2013 04:44 am »
Programatically, that's probably not the best, as it's never better to continue developing a project at the same time as developing its replacement. It usually leads to the axe falling on the new project as soon as money gets tight.

IMHO, USAF would be better served with a drop-in replacement for RL-10 (same thrust, Isp, etc) designed from scratch to use modern manufacturing techniques (i.e. like Merlin 1D). RL-10C is a halfway house, but it still requires vast amounts of touch labor (and therefore oversight) and will never be a truly cheap engine.

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #32 on: 07/26/2013 05:23 am »
IMHO, USAF would be better served with a drop-in replacement for RL-10 (same thrust, Isp, etc) designed from scratch to use modern manufacturing techniques (i.e. like Merlin 1D). RL-10C is a halfway house, but it still requires vast amounts of touch labor (and therefore oversight) and will never be a truly cheap engine.

What's preventing Aerojet Rocketdyne (P&W) from J-2xing the RL-10c by introducing a channel wall nozzle, simplified turbo pump, etc. Since it seems that all work on the NGE has either gone underground or been discontinued... Wouldn't it be easier to continue to upgrade the already existing reliable engine than starting ( / never getting around to adequately fund) a new replacement engine. With the consolidation of the "old space" propulsion providers, sustainment of the various engine lines seems to be the name of the game going into the future. Long live the RL-10 8).

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #33 on: 07/26/2013 05:54 am »
Lots of confusion on the RL-60 vs MB-60. Per a few papers I have read around the web, the RL-60 was a P&W expander engine (around the size of the RL-10) to be built using components from the US, Japan, Europe and Russia. The MB-60 (or MB-XX) program was a joint Boeing Rocketdyne and Mitsubishi project to create an expander bleed engine that could be assembled in either country.
This about how I remember it.

MB-60 and RL-60 where two different engines by two competing companies, Rocketdyne (owned by Boeing) and Pratt and Whitney.
At the beginning of the millennium the market for satellite launches crashed and in 2005 I believe Boeing sold Rocketdyne to Pratt and Whitney.
Which of the two companies was ahead was regularly discussed on old newsgroups.
Neither engine survived the merger.

I believe there was talk of an MB-35 as well.


Ahhhh...interesting... That makes more sense.  Thanks for the background.

Were they two different competing engines for a specific competition?  Or were the two very similar engines just a coincidence?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #34 on: 07/26/2013 05:56 am »
Programatically, that's probably not the best, as it's never better to continue developing a project at the same time as developing its replacement. It usually leads to the axe falling on the new project as soon as money gets tight.

IMHO, USAF would be better served with a drop-in replacement for RL-10 (same thrust, Isp, etc) designed from scratch to use modern manufacturing techniques (i.e. like Merlin 1D). RL-10C is a halfway house, but it still requires vast amounts of touch labor (and therefore oversight) and will never be a truly cheap engine.

Wasn't the RL-60 supposed to be that modern replacement engine for the RL-10?

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1750
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1132
  • Likes Given: 3156
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #35 on: 07/26/2013 06:03 am »
Quote
Once again NASA seems intent on outsourcing this project beyond U.S. borders.  It has outsource the entire Orion Service Module.  It has outsourced the core stage dome panels.  Now it seems to be planning to kill off RL-10, the best U.S. built upper stage engine.  I'm starting to wonder what will happen once the existing SSME inventory runs out.   

I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

Why not complete J2-X then?
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #36 on: 07/26/2013 08:55 am »
Quote from: simonbp
462 seconds is the precise Isp of RL-10B-2, so no. ;)

Big, fully expanded nozzles make a difference.

RL-10B-2 has a 250:1 nozzle extension. Vinci and potentially RL-60 manage 465s. I thought expander bleed cycle engines have ISPs similar to GG engines, but are capable of higher thrust than open cycle.

Quote from: edkyle99
The resulting engine could be used in multiple launch vehicles, including SLS, Atlas V, Delta IV, Pegasus 2, and possibly others. 

Indeed, RL-60 or a renewed RL-10 could be the one of few worthwhile developments in the SLS program.
 

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2725
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 992
  • Likes Given: 668
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #37 on: 07/26/2013 09:18 am »
Quote from: simonbp
462 seconds is the precise Isp of RL-10B-2, so no. ;)

Big, fully expanded nozzles make a difference.
RL-10B-2 has a 250:1 nozzle extension. Vinci and potentially RL-60 manage 465s. I thought expander bleed cycle engines have ISPs similar to GG engines, but are capable of higher thrust than open cycle.

Judging by the pic in astronautix the turbine exhaust is not just bled overboard but fed into the nozzle extension a la F-1 to do some useful work.







AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #38 on: 07/27/2013 03:01 pm »
As to where they would be manufactured, Ed or Downix would probably have some good insight there.
To me this looks like a Mitsubishi engine with a NASA-contracted engine controller.  It fits right into the April DUUS presentation.  Two MB-60 engines would power the stage if they were used. 

Once again NASA seems intent on outsourcing this project beyond U.S. borders.  It has outsource the entire Orion Service Module.  It has outsourced the core stage dome panels.  Now it seems to be planning to kill off RL-10, the best U.S. built upper stage engine.  I'm starting to wonder what will happen once the existing SSME inventory runs out.   

I thought NASA was supposed to foster U.S. technology, not send money overseas.

 - Ed Kyle

While I can agree with you on the service module I am not sure I understand your argument here.
This was/is a joint Mitsubishi Rocketdyne engine.
As long as Rocketdyne is still a partner it sounds like a win-win.

Here is the statement from the 2009 paper:
PWR was responsible for the turbo machinery and the nozzle.
MHI was responsible for the thrust chamber assembly
(TCA), valves, controls, and ducts. System level tasks
were performed jointly and it was agreed that engine
assembly would be performed in the country in which it
was to be delivered.


Also for GEO and high C3 missions a smaller RL-10 third stage could still make sense.

RL-60 was a joint PW(USA), Volvo(Sweden), IHI (Japan), Russian engine.
Very little of it would have been manufactured in the US.
There is an old paper here:
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Space_Engines/RL60.pdf

Offline DGH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #39 on: 07/27/2013 03:05 pm »
Lots of confusion on the RL-60 vs MB-60. Per a few papers I have read around the web, the RL-60 was a P&W expander engine (around the size of the RL-10) to be built using components from the US, Japan, Europe and Russia. The MB-60 (or MB-XX) program was a joint Boeing Rocketdyne and Mitsubishi project to create an expander bleed engine that could be assembled in either country.
This about how I remember it.

MB-60 and RL-60 where two different engines by two competing companies, Rocketdyne (owned by Boeing) and Pratt and Whitney.
At the beginning of the millennium the market for satellite launches crashed and in 2005 I believe Boeing sold Rocketdyne to Pratt and Whitney.
Which of the two companies was ahead was regularly discussed on old newsgroups.
Neither engine survived the merger.

I believe there was talk of an MB-35 as well.


Ahhhh...interesting... That makes more sense.  Thanks for the background.

Were they two different competing engines for a specific competition?  Or were the two very similar engines just a coincidence?

No specific mission just expectation of 80 launches a year.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #40 on: 07/27/2013 04:04 pm »
This was/is a joint Mitsubishi Rocketdyne engine.
As long as Rocketdyne is still a partner it sounds like a win-win.
The development effort described in the presentation listed earlier in this thread is not consistent with the original MB-60 work breakdown.  The presentation described an engine created by Mitsubishi with the only U.S. contribution being an engine controller.

The Rocketdyne that contemplated the original MB-60 no longer exists. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #41 on: 08/27/2013 07:03 pm »
Two papers by W.D. Greene at ntrs. - attached

Throttling to a single set point not less than 75%


So, an MB-60 would have just one throttle point at 75% of thrust?

Could that be changed?  Could it have an adjustable throttle lower?  Just thinking this could be a pretty good methalox engine on a lunar lander if it could throttle continuously, as would be needed for a lander.
Can RL-10 throttle continuously?  Or is that what the CECE project was about.  Could a variant of MB-60 running on methalox be [relatively easily] made to throttle such that it could be used for a lander?
Be a nice tie in if MB-60 is used for SLS.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #42 on: 08/27/2013 10:23 pm »
Also looks like from the paper on the RL-60 linked ealier in this thread, that it could throttle anywhere between 40,000lbs and 65,000lbs.

Almost 40% throttle down, and not just at a single throttle set point.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #43 on: 08/28/2013 03:21 pm »
Given the politicization of government space efforts these days, any system using a new engine, or any effort to modify an existing engine would take many years to reach flight status and cost all the money in the world.

Although rockets are not Legos, if it would normally be possible to adapt engine X to work with rocket Y, the political system now inhibits most such efforts. The exception is if the politics are in place, suddenly things move quickly.

When discussing these potential technical systems, ignore the politics at your own risk.


Offline MP99

Two papers by W.D. Greene at ntrs. - attached

Throttling to a single set point not less than 75%


So, an MB-60 would have just one throttle point at 75% of thrust?

Could that be changed?  Could it have an adjustable throttle lower?  Just thinking this could be a pretty good methalox engine on a lunar lander if it could throttle continuously, as would be needed for a lander.
Can RL-10 throttle continuously?  Or is that what the CECE project was about.  Could a variant of MB-60 running on methalox be [relatively easily] made to throttle such that it could be used for a lander?
Be a nice tie in if MB-60 is used for SLS.

Altair was to have four engines (each throttling to 10%, IIRC).

I guess a single MB-60 could do similar duty if it throttled to about 16%, but then you have the issue of how to mount it in the structure without creating something massively tall - and Altair had enough issues with tallness.

Dual-axis lander might do it, I guess.

cheers, Martin

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #45 on: 08/28/2013 10:34 pm »
Altair was to have four engines (each throttling to 10%, IIRC).

I guess a single MB-60 could do similar duty if it throttled to about 16%, but then you have the issue of how to mount it in the structure without creating something massively tall - and Altair had enough issues with tallness.

Dual-axis lander might do it, I guess.

cheers, Martin

Cal the MB-60 nozzle extension retract once deployed?  If not, could it be made to do so?
If it could retract, then it's overall height would be far less on the ground, but it could still benefit from the big nozzle while in flight.  Or just have a cut down version of the nozzle of the MB-60, perhaps more like the LEM descent stage engine?  And cluster the tanks around the engine also like the LEM. 

I think the Boeing lander has three methalox engines (assuming lower thrust and deep, continuous throttle), so I'd assume a single MB-60 could fit right about where they are. 

If a crasher stage with large nozzles did most of the descent, the lander engine might not need a very big nozzle.

Offline MP99

MB-60 would only get height benefit from retracting nozzle if it can retract in flight. RL-10 sure can't.

Maybe makes more sense as engine on crasher stage. Maybe methalox or storable prop on the lander.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #47 on: 08/29/2013 04:05 pm »
MB-60 would only get height benefit from retracting nozzle if it can retract in flight. RL-10 sure can't.

Maybe makes more sense as engine on crasher stage. Maybe methalox or storable prop on the lander.

Cheers, Martin

Well, this question implies the use of methalox with MB-60 on a lander, which apparently has already tested and is pretty easy to do. 
But, the methalox MB-60 on a lander could just have a shortened nozzle.  And then let a hydrolox crasher stage take it almost the whole way to the surface, utilizing it's hydrolox MB-60 engines with nozzle extensions.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #48 on: 05/02/2014 10:26 pm »
I just noticed this, and am not sure if this is old news or new news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10

I recall something about USAF looking at a next generation upper stage engine, but I don't recall RL-60 specfically being mentioned for the EELV's, although it was originally in development as a RL-10 replacement in the early 2000's (as was MB-60).  Articles like this are two years old but don't mention RL-60.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nasa-us-air-force-to-study-joint-rocket-engine-370660/

The Wikipedia page mentions an SLS 3rd stage with SLS J2X 2nd stage, so perhaps this is old info and I just missed it or don't recall it.

Just wondering if there's a current movement with USAF and NASA to bring back the RL-60 and finish it up?  Especially with MB-60  being looked at for the EUS.  And more specifically USAF? which I thought was going to be flying RL-10C's for awhile for Atlas and Delta.
Or is this old news?


Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #49 on: 05/02/2014 10:46 pm »
This report has some information about the Air Force's AUSEP program.

Space Launch System Advanced Development
Office, FY 2013 Annual Report

Starts on Page 68

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #50 on: 05/02/2014 10:58 pm »
This report has some information about the Air Force's AUSEP program.

Space Launch System Advanced Development
Office, FY 2013 Annual Report

Starts on Page 68

Intersting, thanks.  Although it looks to have about half the power of the RL-60, at 30klbs.
I wonder why the downgrade for either RL-60 or MB-60?  Both of those were also meant to be RL-10 replacements, and similar enough in size to replace it on existing vehicles, from what I understand.

Offline MP99

This report has some information about the Air Force's AUSEP program.

Space Launch System Advanced Development
Office, FY 2013 Annual Report

Starts on Page 68

Great document. Loads of stuff in there.

Cheers, Martin

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #52 on: 05/04/2014 07:39 am »
Perhaps it's only a "coincidence." But the most recent (March 24, 2014) entry by wdgreene in his Liquid Rocket Engines blog covers "for fun" some of the key differences between various upper stage hydrolox engine cycles.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2014/03/24/inside-the-leo-doghouse-the-art-of-expander-cycle-engines/

It's worth reading in the context of the AUSEP information in the Advanced Development Office report.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #53 on: 05/05/2014 07:10 am »
From Page 81 (99 of the pdf). We see that all configurations that get 130 t use a five engine core. The Block 2A with advanced boosters, five engine core, 2xJ-2X upper stage, and 2xRL-10 5 m diameter CPS can only carry cargo. The stack is too high to carry crew.

"Crew: None Cannot stack and rollout DAC1 J-2 based 23000 or 24000 due to VAB limitations (MPCV + 50 ft CPS)"

There are of course many ways to reduce stage height such as using a common bulkhead, have the LOX tank the same diameter as the LH2 tank, use deployable nozzles or have a wider stage. Get creative NASA!
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #54 on: 05/05/2014 10:59 am »
{snip}
There are of course many ways to reduce stage height such as using a common bulkhead, have the LOX tank the same diameter as the LH2 tank, use deployable nozzles or have a wider stage. Get creative NASA!

Or raise the roof.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #55 on: 05/05/2014 04:02 pm »
From Page 81 (99 of the pdf). We see that all configurations that get 130 t use a five engine core. The Block 2A with advanced boosters, five engine core, 2xJ-2X upper stage, and 2xRL-10 5 m diameter CPS can only carry cargo. The stack is too high to carry crew.


Yea, I noticed that too.  There's been a few on the forums who've said definitively that NASA is not even considering anything except the 4-engine core now.  And while I'm sure that's the favorite, last I heard NASA was still officially considering 3 options.  The Block 1B/2B path, which would retain the 4-engines and not have any more.  But also two Block 1A/2A paths, involving a 5-engine core, J2X upper stage, and 5m CPS.  (Per an article by Chris last year) This document seems to support that.  It's from last year, but it's not that old.


"Crew: None Cannot stack and rollout DAC1 J-2 based 23000 or 24000 due to VAB limitations (MPCV + 50 ft CPS)"

There are of course many ways to reduce stage height such as using a common bulkhead, have the LOX tank the same diameter as the LH2 tank, use deployable nozzles or have a wider stage. Get creative NASA!

Yup.  They can look to Direct's JUS, as that was a common bulkhead dual use upper stage (2nd stage and EDS stage).  Eliminate both a J2X upper stage and the 5m CPS, and combine into one high thrust and high performance upper stage.  The stack would only be a little taller than the Block 1B/2B stack, and should be able to get 130mt to LEO with either Advanced SRB's or Advanced liquid boosters (assuming 5 engines on the core, and 4-5 MB-60's on the upper stage).  Advanced solids would be an option that would meet the 130 performance then.

 


Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #56 on: 05/05/2014 04:10 pm »
{snip}
There are of course many ways to reduce stage height such as using a common bulkhead, have the LOX tank the same diameter as the LH2 tank, use deployable nozzles or have a wider stage. Get creative NASA!

Or raise the roof.

Modifying the (thus far paper-only) U/S would probably be a lot cheaper, given the size and nature of the VAB.
« Last Edit: 05/05/2014 04:11 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"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 Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #57 on: 05/05/2014 04:22 pm »
There are of course many ways to reduce stage height such as using a common bulkhead, have the LOX tank the same diameter as the LH2 tank, use deployable nozzles or have a wider stage. Get creative NASA!

A common bulkhead! Stop the crazy talk. :D No-one has ever used such cutting edge technology on a stage that big... or have they?  ;)

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #58 on: 05/05/2014 06:26 pm »
Its also interesting that it mentions that ATK is a part of a team that has submitted an engine to the Air Force AUSEP program.

Quote
2.4.2.1 Description. Exquadrum, along with teammates WASK Engineering and ATK,
is developing the dual-expander, short-length aerospike (DESLA) upper stage engine concept.

Might this be the mystery Hydrolox engine for the Pegasus II/Antares upper stage?

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #59 on: 05/05/2014 09:37 pm »
From Page 81 (99 of the pdf). We see that all configurations that get 130 t use a five engine core. The Block 2A with advanced boosters, five engine core, 2xJ-2X upper stage, and 2xRL-10 5 m diameter CPS can only carry cargo. The stack is too high to carry crew.


Yea, I noticed that too.  There's been a few on the forums who've said definitively that NASA is not even considering anything except the 4-engine core now.  And while I'm sure that's the favorite, last I heard NASA was still officially considering 3 options.  The Block 1B/2B path, which would retain the 4-engines and not have any more.  But also two Block 1A/2A paths, involving a 5-engine core, J2X upper stage, and 5m CPS.  (Per an article by Chris last year) This document seems to support that.  It's from last year, but it's not that old.

The document is over 16 months old. It uses the term DUUS rather than EUS. It is out of date. In Fig. 70 the Block IIB is shown as achieving 130 mt with a 5 engine core, a DUUS, and any advanced booster, be that solid or liquid. Now we know that the liquids are far more capable than the solids. Steven, your own calculations seem to fit pretty well with this schematic. Since this document was published we've heard consistantly that the core will be 4 engines. That means the balance has to come from liquid hydrocarbon boosters. A five engine core burns through prop too quickly to reach disposal orbit. Thus the next stage must employ lower ISP J-2X to fight gravity losses. The sustainers are not optimally employed this way. A 4 engine core burns sustainers to disposal orbit. All US engines are then for Earth departure only and thus have better ISP than J-2X.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #60 on: 05/06/2014 06:22 am »

 Since this document was published we've heard consistantly that the core will be 4 engines.


But to my knowledge, we've still not seen any official announcement from NASA to this effect.  Just some people saying the 4-engine core is the favorite.

This article from Chris mentions 3 options, two having 5-engine cores, a J2X upper stage and a 5m CPS.  I've not seem anything more current than this saying those had been formally dropped for Block 1B/2B.  And it's less than a year old.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/06/sls-pdr-evolved-rocket-dual-upper-stage/

I agree that from comments around the forums, it seems like Option 3 is the most likely.  But I've yet to hear any formal decision on that.


That means the balance has to come from liquid hydrocarbon boosters. A five engine core burns through prop too quickly to reach disposal orbit. Thus the next stage must employ lower ISP J-2X to fight gravity losses. The sustainers are not optimally employed this way. A 4 engine core burns sustainers to disposal orbit. All US engines are then for Earth departure only and thus have better ISP than J-2X.

Yes, that's what Options 1 and 2 are all about.

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #61 on: 05/06/2014 08:13 am »
The document is over 16 months old.

The document we are talking about, "Space Launch System Advanced Development Office, FY 2013 Annual Report"  is dated December 2013, which makes it five months old.

Quote
It uses the term DUUS rather than EUS. It is out of date.

The document does not mention DUUS except in Figure 70 which describes the stage as "Dual Use US" or "Dual Function LTUS". The rest of the document describes this stage as the EUS. In the acronym list, DUUS is not there while EUS and LTUS (Low Thrust Upper Stage) are.

Quote
In Fig. 70 the Block IIB is shown as achieving 130 mt with a 5 engine core, a DUUS, and any advanced booster, be that solid or liquid. Now we know that the liquids are far more capable than the solids. Steven, your own calculations seem to fit pretty well with this schematic. Since this document was published we've heard consistantly that the core will be 4 engines. That means the balance has to come from liquid hydrocarbon boosters. A five engine core burns through prop too quickly to reach disposal orbit. Thus the next stage must employ lower ISP J-2X to fight gravity losses. The sustainers are not optimally employed this way. A 4 engine core burns sustainers to disposal orbit. All US engines are then for Earth departure only and thus have better ISP than J-2X.

Using 4 x MB-60 engines with a four engine core and advanced liquid boosters will get you 130 t to LEO. However, the EUS in the document is I believe assuming four RL-10 class engines (the AUSEP which only has 133 kN of thrust). The reduced thrust means you'd need a fifth engine on the core to get back up to 130 t.

By the way, its nonsense to talk about the core burning propellant too quickly. In fact, the quicker it burns the lower the gravity losses during the core burn, which means the greater the performance that can be achieved. Now, depending on the thrust of the upper stage, there will be a certain size for the upper stage that will give you best performance. However, once a certain level of thrust is reached for the upper stage, which depends on the core and booster configuration, performance gains can no longer be achieved (in fact performance will decrease due to the extra mass of the engines).

My simulations show that ATK advanced boosters, five engine core and two J-2X engines gives a 140 t payload. I haven't simulated that configuration with liquid boosters, but I would expect around 150 t. The Block 2A is more capable than 2B with the CPS giving you the option to perform trans Lunar injection (TLI), Lunar orbit insertion (LOI) and staged Lunar descent (SLD).
« Last Edit: 05/06/2014 08:39 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #62 on: 05/06/2014 11:08 am »
I'm just glad that they're already bending metal on SLS. That will stop the thing bloating into a remake of the 10m-diameter core, 7 x RS-86 'Godzilla rocket' that was the final configuration of Ares-V before it imploded.
"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 TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #63 on: 05/06/2014 07:50 pm »
By the way, its nonsense to talk about the core burning propellant too quickly. In fact, the quicker it burns the lower the gravity losses during the core burn, which means the greater the performance that can be achieved. Now, depending on the thrust of the upper stage, there will be a certain size for the upper stage that will give you best performance. However, once a certain level of thrust is reached for the upper stage, which depends on the core and booster configuration, performance gains can no longer be achieved (in fact performance will decrease due to the extra mass of the engines).

But if you burn 5 or 6 engines, you are going to burn through the prop more quickly, unless you throttle way down, and why do that? Sure, you can fly at higher acceleration and G load, but isn't there a g-load max of about 3G for Orion? Mission specialist astronauts today cannot all take the punishment that the test pilot Mercury-Atlas guys did at 11G. You also have MaxQ issues at high acceleration. This means 4 engines running nominally, 5 to 6 engines throttled down, or 5 to 6 engines running nominally with 5 segment solids. In that latter case, the core engines are making up for the lack of thrust of the boosters. You stage before reaching disposal orbit. Sure a LUS can make up the slack, but that means the second stage is still fighting gravity losses. That means more raw thrust is needed. That means J-2X. That means that if this same stage restarts for Earth departure, it is lower ISP than you would have if using RL-10 or RL/MB-60. I get the impression they really don't want to use J-2X , which means burning sustainers to disposal. And besides, why would you want to throw away 5 or 6 high priced sustainers before they finish a job they're capable of doing? Is any part of this incorrect?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #64 on: 05/06/2014 07:50 pm »
I'm just glad that they're already bending metal on SLS. That will stop the thing bloating into a remake of the 10m-diameter core, 7 x RS-86 'Godzilla rocket' that was the final configuration of Ares-V before it imploded.

I think Ares V had switched back to RS-25E's in it's final version before it got the Axe.  I think that's what Direct 3.0 switching from RS-68 to RS-25E was all about. 

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #65 on: 05/06/2014 09:32 pm »
I'm just glad that they're already bending metal on SLS. That will stop the thing bloating into a remake of the 10m-diameter core, 7 x RS-86 'Godzilla rocket' that was the final configuration of Ares-V before it imploded.

I think Ares V had switched back to RS-25E's in it's final version before it got the Axe.  I think that's what Direct 3.0 switching from RS-68 to RS-25E was all about.

I think you're right, but it may simply have been in writing, not in detailed schematics. Don't know for sure. It had come full circle, though. And looks like after all that effort SLS engineers knew where to start with it.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2014 11:17 pm by TomH »

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #66 on: 05/07/2014 08:01 am »
But if you burn 5 or 6 engines, you are going to burn through the prop more quickly, unless you throttle way down, and why do that?

The higher acceleration reduces gravity losses.

Quote
Sure, you can fly at higher acceleration and G load, but isn't there a g-load max of about 3G for Orion?

Peak acceleration with four, five and six engines and RSRMV boosters are 2.43g, 2.49g and 2.77g, respectively, so we are under the 3g limit. All these maximum accelerations occur at the end of the core burn.

Quote
You also have MaxQ issues at high acceleration.

MaxQ with four, five and six engines and RSRMV boosters are 21.9, 24.3 and 27.8 kPa, respectively. The limit for SLS is 38.3 kPa. The Space Shuttle had a MaxQ of 31.4 kPa which we are under.

Quote
This means 4 engines running nominally, 5 to 6 engines throttled down, or 5 to 6 engines running nominally with 5 segment solids.

The above values have no throttling of the engines, either during the booster burn or near core burnout.

Quote
Sure a LUS can make up the slack, but that means the second stage is still fighting gravity losses. That means more raw thrust is needed. That means J-2X.

Not necessarily. If your US has low thrust, you just reduce the total mass of the US and payload so that the core does more of the delta-V. This means though that you are not getting the most out of your launch vehicle.

Quote
And besides, why would you want to throw away 5 or 6 high priced sustainers before they finish a job they're capable of doing?

Well, that's part of the price versus performance tradeoff. In the configurations I've examined, a six engined core with RSRMV boosters and 2xJ-2X does come out in front. I've yet to examine the Block 2B configurations.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #67 on: 05/07/2014 04:13 pm »
O.K. Steven,

Thanks for taking this amateur to school rather than just saying, You're Wrong, the way some others would do. I appreciate you having the patience to teach me.

Tom

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #68 on: 05/07/2014 05:11 pm »

Quote
And besides, why would you want to throw away 5 or 6 high priced sustainers before they finish a job they're capable of doing?

Well, that's part of the price versus performance tradeoff. In the configurations I've examined, a six engined core with RSRMV boosters and 2xJ-2X does come out in front. I've yet to examine the Block 2B configurations.

It's a trade as Steve mentions.  The RS-25 is a sexy sustainer engine designed for great performance both at sea level and in vacuum and was designed for reuse.  And it's not optimally utilized in Steve's concept.  An RS-68 would be a better engine for Steve's concept.  Lower cost, higher thrust, and they wouldn't be burning long enough for their lower ISP vs. RS-25 to be a detriment.

But RS-68 can't be used for obvious reasons, and a regen version just isn't in the cards.  So we trade a little less than optimal use of RS-25 for the ability to get 130mt to LEO without needed advanced boosters.

Still, I don't think they are looking at all at a 6 engine core, so it's probably a moot point.  Obviously they are look at more powerful boosters rather than upgrading the core.  And there's the issue with limited number of steel booster casings, and likely ATK won't retool up to make any more.  They want to go composite instead.  So replacement boosters of some sort will be needed, even if there were a 6-engine core.

« Last Edit: 05/07/2014 05:22 pm by Lobo »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #69 on: 05/07/2014 07:54 pm »
Of course the easiest solution would be for all the rocket scientists in congress to decide that 120mt is plenty of payload.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #70 on: 05/07/2014 11:02 pm »
Of course the easiest solution would be for all the rocket scientists in congress to decide that 120mt is plenty of payload.

Heh, yea!

Or since it's a system meant to -not- just go LEO, it seems pretty odd to have a LEO benchmark to specify for it.  I think they'd have been much better off in NAA2010 to specify a TLI or Escape benchmark.  So we aren't trying to get heavy LEO performance from an LV that's meant to go BLEO.
« Last Edit: 05/07/2014 11:57 pm by Lobo »

Online Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #71 on: 05/08/2014 05:24 am »
The RS-25 is a sexy sustainer engine designed for great performance both at sea level and in vacuum and was designed for reuse.  And it's not optimally utilized in Steve's concept.  An RS-68 would be a better engine for Steve's concept.  Lower cost, higher thrust, and they wouldn't be burning long enough for their lower ISP vs. RS-25 to be a detriment.

The other problem is that the lower Isp of the RS-68 hurts performance more than the extra thrust helps. Witness Ares-V growth from 8.4 m to 10 m diameter when they switched to RS-68 from RS-25.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #72 on: 05/08/2014 07:11 am »
RS-25 is a sexy sustainer engine

Agreed! But are we discussing SLS missions beyond the first four? I'm assuming yes, in which case we should focus on RS-25E. One major difference just has to be transitioning the main combustion chamber manufacturing process to HIP (Hot Isostatic Pressure) bonding. It will share this process with J-2X, RS-68, and (the topic of this thread) MB-60. Check out the attached image showing RS-25E modifications. (Wish I had a higher resolution version!) It shows increased commonality with RS-68 in other ways too.

HIP bonding will let MB-60 have a long combustion chamber, which combined with its open cycle will allow really high chamber pressure; see the third attached image. The latter two are both from the most excellent paper also attached. It's from 2008, but in 2013 William Sack (the first-listed author) was still at Rocketdyne in Canoga Park doing Bantam engine development.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #73 on: 05/08/2014 05:00 pm »
Agreed! But are we discussing SLS missions beyond the first four? I'm assuming yes, in which case we should focus on RS-25E.

Mainly we were discussing the use of the RS-25 engine in general, on an LV that would burn out faster and stage lower (like Steve's 6XRS-25 concept would) vs. using it to take the core to disposal orbit (like STS) or near it (like 4-engine SLS).  And would a higher thrust, lower ISP engine like RS-68(R) have been a better choice.  Then you offload the work during the latter ascent to a smaller and lighter upper stage with a dedicated vacuum engine, vs. towing that big heavy core up through latter ascent with a complex sustainer engine like RS-25.


One major difference just has to be transitioning the main combustion chamber manufacturing process to HIP (Hot Isostatic Pressure) bonding. It will share this process with J-2X, RS-68, and (the topic of this thread) MB-60. Check out the attached image showing RS-25E modifications. (Wish I had a higher resolution version!) It shows increased commonality with RS-68 in other ways too.

HIP bonding will let MB-60 have a long combustion chamber, which combined with its open cycle will allow really high chamber pressure; see the third attached image. The latter two are both from the most excellent paper also attached. It's from 2008, but in 2013 William Sack (the first-listed author) was still at Rocketdyne in Canoga Park doing Bantam engine development.

Well, the point of using anything besides RS-25 on SLS is moot at this point, for better or worse.  So like you said, the RS-25E is what we should be looking at as, it will be the permanent SLS core engine.  Possibly in a 5-engine configuration, but most likely in it's current 4-engine configuration.

So really cool info here.  Thanks.
Maybe you can help educate me.  If there was an MB-60 to finish development for use on the SLS EUS, would it be made along side the RS-25E and J2X by Aerojet Rocketdyne?  (although if the MB-60 were being made, I assume the J2X would not be then).   JAXA is mentioned in supporting it back at the beginning of this thread.  Wouldn't it have to be built by AJR in order to share facilities as you describe? 
I'm still a little confused on the particulars of MB-60 (and RL-60).   They started out as different engines being developed by Mitsubishi-Boeing/Rocketdyne and Pratt &Whitney respectively.  Then in 2005 when PW bought Rocketdyne from Boeing, they formed PWR.  I assume the intellectual property of the two engines was comingled at that time?  And so a lot and people often think they are the same engine (as stated back on page 1 of this thread).

So now, Rocketdyne has been separated from P&W.  So does RL-60 stay with P&W and MB-60 stay with Rocketdyne?  Or is it all a single intellectual property now, and retained by Rocketdyne?  Which is why NASA's stalking about MB-60 and not RL-60 for EUS?
Also, RL-10 started out as a P&W engine back in the 50's and 60's.  Which is why their upgrade was the RL-60.  But RL-10 production stayed with Rocketdyne after Aerojet bought them, so it's an AJR engine now?  But the upgraded "60" version of it by AJR would be an MB-60?  Is there RL-60 intellectual property still with P&W?  Or is that all with AJR now for both RL-60 and MB-60?
And how does JAXA and MHI play into it?

oof...I'm getting a headache....   

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #74 on: 05/08/2014 05:24 pm »
Didn't the MB-60 get renamed as the MARC-60 (Mitsubishi Aerojet Rocketdyne Collaboration - 60 klbf engine)?

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #75 on: 05/08/2014 09:19 pm »
Didn't the MB-60 get renamed as the MARC-60 (Mitsubishi Aerojet Rocketdyne Collaboration - 60 klbf engine)?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003115.pdf

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #77 on: 05/09/2014 05:50 am »
Wouldn't it have to be built by AJR in order to share facilities as you describe? 

I think the HIP commonality has advantages even if the process takes place at multiple different facilities. That's because it allows the engine programs to share expertise. The same people can monitor the manufacturing and quality assurance processes without having to understand what goes on (and what goes wrong) in multiple different types of combustion chambers.

Quote
why NASA's stalking about MB-60 and not RL-60 for EUS?

Apparently the history concerns are over-taken by events. The MARC-60 name says it all.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003115.pdf

I had this in mind as well:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003113.pdf

From the second of those I've taken two images. The "SLS Post Block 1" image shows lots of performance data points; enough to make pretty solid guesses about their assumed stage masses, etc. (I notice they daren't actually mention "Trans Lunar", using "Earth Escape" as a proxy for that. Sigh.)

The second image shows a nice break down of the MARC-60 components.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #78 on: 05/09/2014 01:13 pm »
Wouldn't it have to be built by AJR in order to share facilities as you describe? 

I think the HIP commonality has advantages even if the process takes place at multiple different facilities. That's because it allows the engine programs to share expertise. The same people can monitor the manufacturing and quality assurance processes without having to understand what goes on (and what goes wrong) in multiple different types of combustion chambers.

Quote
why NASA's stalking about MB-60 and not RL-60 for EUS?

Apparently the history concerns are over-taken by events. The MARC-60 name says it all.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003115.pdf

I had this in mind as well:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003113.pdf

From the second of those I've taken two images. The "SLS Post Block 1" image shows lots of performance data points; enough to make pretty solid guesses about their assumed stage masses, etc. (I notice they daren't actually mention "Trans Lunar", using "Earth Escape" as a proxy for that. Sigh.)

The second image shows a nice break down of the MARC-60 components.

Now this I like...

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #79 on: 05/09/2014 04:48 pm »
Didn't the MB-60 get renamed as the MARC-60 (Mitsubishi Aerojet Rocketdyne Collaboration - 60 klbf engine)?

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003115.pdf

I had this in mind as well:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003113.pdf

Ahhh...I wasn't aware of the new name.  Looks like Rocketdyne must have kept all the IP for the RL or MB 60 when they went to Aerojet, and now they are collaborating with MHI on a singel 60klbs engine, the MARC-60.    Looks like MHI will be developing the new H-X LV for JAXA, Which will use this engine.  AJR will collaborate with MHI on the engine's development (perhaps made at AJR facilities in the US?) and sell to JAXA.  JAXA will supply to NASA for SLS, and may supply the MPS and 5m LOX tank too.  (very interesting).  In which case Boeing/NASA would build the EUS 8.4m LH2 tank, and perhaps get the LOX tank, MPS and two MARC-60's from JAXA.   JAXA would ge trides on SLS from NASA in return then perhaps?

I wonder where MARC-60 would actually be built?  I guess it could have parts made in Japan and part made at the AJR engine plant in the US, and still have synergy as sdsds mentioned. 

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #80 on: 05/09/2014 05:55 pm »
Here's another document I came across recently that sets out a number of options that MSFC wanted JAXA to consider for their proposal to NASA (which was due by end December 2013).

It also has some interface plumbing schematics and 'cartoons' which may be of interest.


Propulsion System Elements - MSFC Options and Thoughts - August 9, 2013 23pp
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003103.pdf
« Last Edit: 05/09/2014 05:57 pm by AnalogMan »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #81 on: 05/09/2014 10:47 pm »
Very interesting.  I wonder if this potential path is looking more likely than the four RL-10 path?  Or the other way around, at this point?  I thought the RL-10 version was the more likely because it would use existing engines...but perhaps not.

So would there be any chances for AJR to start supplying these to ULA rather than RL-10's, once the exisiting stock of upgraded RL-10C's runs out?  That extra thrust would give a boost in performance, due to the lower gravity losses, especially on D4H.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #82 on: 07/01/2014 07:28 pm »
I had this in mind as well:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003113.pdf
Very interesting.  I wonder if this potential path is looking more likely than the four RL-10 path?  Or the other way around, at this point?  I thought the RL-10 version was the more likely because it would use existing engines...but perhaps not. ...
Question; Aren't these engines too small for the EUS?
Using Isp*g = exhaust V, Thrust(N)/exhaust V = Fuel rate, and the life expectancy of the engines I don't see how the configurations shown can go through the 130,000kg or 285,000lb of propellant carried by the EUS.
Did I fat-finger my calculator, because I show an MB-60 only drinking 47,158kg in its 800s "Continuous Firing Duration". That's a minimum of 3 engines and no engine-out.
If the RL10C can match the RL10B's 1,125s burn it'll only drink 27,211kg. That's five engines and no engine-out.

As a bit of an aside; what is the continuos firing duration of the RL10B? I have my own SLS design (as I'm sure many here do) and was wondering if it'll handle a 1,500s constant burn. Of note; The RL10B and MB-60 have 3,5000s life expectancy while the RL10C is 2,000s. Any errors here?

Offline MP99

I had this in mind as well:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140003113.pdf
Very interesting.  I wonder if this potential path is looking more likely than the four RL-10 path?  Or the other way around, at this point?  I thought the RL-10 version was the more likely because it would use existing engines...but perhaps not. ...
Question; Aren't these engines too small for the EUS?
Using Isp*g = exhaust V, Thrust(N)/exhaust V = Fuel rate, and the life expectancy of the engines I don't see how the configurations shown can go through the 130,000kg or 285,000lb of propellant carried by the EUS.
Did I fat-finger my calculator, because I show an MB-60 only drinking 47,158kg in its 800s "Continuous Firing Duration". That's a minimum of 3 engines and no engine-out.
If the RL10C can match the RL10B's 1,125s burn it'll only drink 27,211kg. That's five engines and no engine-out.

As a bit of an aside; what is the continuos firing duration of the RL10B? I have my own SLS design (as I'm sure many here do) and was wondering if it'll handle a 1,500s constant burn. Of note; The RL10B and MB-60 have 3,5000s life expectancy while the RL10C is 2,000s. Any errors here?

I don't believe EUS is in place to extend LEO payload.

It's expected to perform a partial burn to LEO, then a later injection burn.

800s-in-one-go may be fine for ascent, if it can do another long burn for injection.

cheers, Martin

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: MB-60 JAXA 60,000 lbf thrust in-space engine for NASA SLS
« Reply #84 on: 07/04/2014 01:40 pm »
I don't believe EUS is in place to extend LEO payload.
It's expected to perform a partial burn to LEO, then a later injection burn.
800s-in-one-go may be fine for ascent, if it can do another long burn for injection.

cheers, Martin
Regardless of the mission, I was simply pointing out an upper with 2x MB-60s or 4x RL10s cannot consume the EUS's 130mt of propellant in one burn. They would have to layover in LEO before injection, as you mentioned, or coast after the initial burn before refiring.
Using a single J-2X would consume all the propellant in one burn to throw the same payload BEO. By my calcs, it can drink about 161mt in one 540sec firing at 100% thrust or the 130mt proposed for the EUS at 81% thrust. If two burns are used, a single J-2X can power a larger upper constructed of one 6.7m barrel section with common bulkhead (~ 215mt propellant) for increased performance.

Offline MP99

I don't believe EUS is in place to extend LEO payload.
It's expected to perform a partial burn to LEO, then a later injection burn.
800s-in-one-go may be fine for ascent, if it can do another long burn for injection.

cheers, Martin
Regardless of the mission, I was simply pointing out an upper with 2x MB-60s or 4x RL10s cannot consume the EUS's 130mt of propellant in one burn. They would have to layover in LEO before injection, as you mentioned, or coast after the initial burn before refiring.
Using a single J-2X would consume all the propellant in one burn to throw the same payload BEO. By my calcs, it can drink about 161mt in one 540sec firing at 100% thrust or the 130mt proposed for the EUS at 81% thrust. If two burns are used, a single J-2X can power a larger upper constructed of one 6.7m barrel section with common bulkhead (~ 215mt propellant) for increased performance.
I don't think that is likely to be the operational mode of SLS.

Ares V would not have injected with a single burn, and Atlas / Delta never seem to do this, either.

Cheers, Martin

Tags:
 

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