Author Topic: H3 development update thread  (Read 58880 times)

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2103
  • Liked: 374
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #20 on: 03/07/2014 06:47 PM »
The LE-7 is an RS-25 class engine, and probably cost wise very similar

Only in terms of the cycle, otherwise not quite. The specs of the LE-7A vs RS-25

Thrust: 1,098 vs 2,279kN
CC pressure: 12.0 vs 20.6MPa
ISP (sl/vac): 338/440 vs 366/452s

Its actually at the upper end of what you could do with a GG (pressure, isp), surprising they went with SC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LE-7

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #21 on: 03/26/2014 02:35 AM »
New information from JAXA about the H-III?

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2014/03/20140325_rocket_e.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Quote
[ Special features ]
- The main liquid-engine core rockets will be the same specifications for all launch vehicles in the new series so that manufacturing and operation can be more efficiently performed.
- Up to six solid rocket boosters (depending on the needs) can be attached for a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) mission to be able to flexibly cope with diversified needs.

[ Development schedule ]
The development will begin in early Japan Fiscal Year 2014 targeting a maiden launch in JFY 2020.

[ Development details ]
- Launch vehicle development (structure, electronics/avionics, propulsion system, payload fairing)
- Engine development (for the first and second stages)
- Solid rocket booster development
- Launch pad, launch site ground facility development

So a modified H-IIB, but with a core capable of being flying without solids?
« Last Edit: 03/26/2014 02:36 AM by Lars_J »

Offline Comet

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #22 on: 03/26/2014 11:44 AM »
At the IAF spring meeting in Paris last week, it was named "H-X".

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #23 on: 03/26/2014 12:36 PM »
At the IAF spring meeting in Paris last week, it was named "H-X".

Wow, Launch cost reduction by Half.   Impressive program.

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #24 on: 03/26/2014 01:52 PM »
I hope they take a hard look at all the Delta IV lessons because it was supposed to be the dirty cheap launcher and ended up as a black sheep that only survived because of very questionable tactics of its parent company. I hope they are successful.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12662
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3458
  • Likes Given: 576
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #25 on: 03/26/2014 03:09 PM »
At the IAF spring meeting in Paris last week, it was named "H-X".
Wow, Launch cost reduction by Half.   Impressive program.
In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle.  Two production lines reduced to one.  That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #26 on: 03/26/2014 06:43 PM »
At the IAF spring meeting in Paris last week, it was named "H-X".
Wow, Launch cost reduction by Half.   Impressive program.
In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle.  Two production lines reduced to one.  That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

 - Ed Kyle

You might be right Ed.....However I get the impression Mitsubishi wishes to be a serious player in the launch business.   Noticed this last launcher (GPM) was cheaper to make. The program now in place seems designed to be a continuous cost reduction, could add up real fast.

« Last Edit: 03/26/2014 06:51 PM by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2190
  • Canada
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 434
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #27 on: 03/26/2014 09:44 PM »
At the IAF spring meeting in Paris last week, it was named "H-X".
Wow, Launch cost reduction by Half.   Impressive program.
In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle.  Two production lines reduced to one.  That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Since the H-3 is not developing new engines or new tooling. The development cost should be minimal.

Of course the cost estimate and the actual cost might be quite different.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #28 on: 03/26/2014 11:45 PM »
At the IAF spring meeting in Paris last week, it was named "H-X".
Wow, Launch cost reduction by Half.   Impressive program.
In my opinion, that "reduction by half" claim is based on the fact that both H-2A and H-2B will be replaced by this new vehicle.  Two production lines reduced to one.  That doesn't make it a cheap rocket.

 - Ed Kyle

Since the H-3 is not developing new engines or new tooling. The development cost should be minimal.

Of course the cost estimate and the actual cost might be quite different.

Nope, new first and second stage engines and new SRBs.......  ::)
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Online Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2172
  • Likes Given: 1575
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #29 on: 07/31/2014 06:57 PM »
In many ways, H3 and A6 seem to tread the same path now, yet in very different countries / cultures.

Its a very difficult challenge to address a low cost LV involving solids/hydrolox. Delta IV went from the potential of cheap to the reality of extreme expense. Commonality to reduce cost fights optimality to achieve vehicle performance. Presumption of high launch frequency - a common political over reach, predestines failure to reach cost targets before vehicle obsolescence.

And then the cycle starts anew, as the components of the launch system including vehicle either are shared/not evolved enough and the past cost/performance/scale burdens are inherited from the past, or too much is novel for not enough gain in this cycle of development.

Atlas was a excellent study in caution from a technical/operations perspective. Incremental refinement that invested but did not over invest in the future. But perhaps this caution indirectly and unavoidably caused a vulnerability in the form of dependancy - if say one could have determined the future, would Atlas V with an American kerolox engine (perhaps from TRW?) from the Atlas II days ... been as much of a success? Or was the dependency/outsourcing also much of the success of Atlas V?

Likewise, Musk added significant risk in F9.1.1/F9R. Have though about kevinrf's "every LV over reaches market demand" while watching the roll out of it.

As well as the potentially successful overreach of ATK's Advanced Boosters for SLS as follow on post EM 1/2 flights, against the backdrop of an OrbATK merger and unclear follow-on for SLS given potential global economic instabilities being signalled.

The nature of industry integration (Japan/Europe) or of CONOPs operation (Musk's reusability) or of forcing strategic funding (ATK/Russia/others) as competing means to address the future launch services, the ways forward don't seem clear.

"What you can do" vs. "what you should do" is clouded by industrial biases/practices/social/culture issues.

Clearly the only way forward is to reuse/leverage/scale/volume the past propulsion w/o additional costs or unneeded new development. In this case, common solids with Epsilon (is this possible?), a common engine for US/1 stages (works against optimal stage design), low cost common stage/tank construction. None of this was possible for A5/DIV. And it goes against both European and Japanese practice/culture. Its even worse if one talks about pad flows/GSE/"issues".

Also clear is that should Musk get practical reusable launch services, he'll own them globally for 5-10 years just with what is already developed and launching at the moment. Meaning many countries LV's might likely never see much launch frequency, making follow-on development of future LV's much more uncertain/uneconomic.

Pride/reliance could become very costly. How do very smart people facing this choose how to play out the near future?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #30 on: 08/11/2014 03:09 AM »
If they use an expander open cycle for the upper stage engine, they could probably do a niner like the F9, just with H2. So at least in that sense the Japanese don't appear to be doing any sort of dead end development.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5109
  • Liked: 768
  • Likes Given: 528
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #31 on: 08/11/2014 09:46 PM »
Interesting, to use an expander (bleed) on a first stage. This has been proposed before but has been left unexplored for some reason.

As I understand it, it's tough to get high pressure with an expander cycle, and that's an issue for an engine that must operate at sea level.  But if it's an open expander cycle (has that ever been used before?), then that eases the problem a bit.

EDIT: "ease" to "eases"
« Last Edit: 08/19/2014 03:37 AM by Proponent »

Offline Damon Hill

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
  • Auburn, WA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #32 on: 08/11/2014 10:34 PM »
The LE-X engine is an open expander-bleed cycle; dumping the hydrogen used in the expander wastes the chemical energy content (though it may be manifolded into the exhaust nozzle downstream of the throat), but generates more turbopump power since the expander sees more of a vacuum rather than trying to stuff mass into the high pressure combustion chamber in a fully closed cycle as the RL10 and Vinci engines do.  It's really more of a greatly scaled-up LE-5A/B, as used on the second stage.

https://www.mhi-global.com/company/technology/review/pdf/e484/e484036.pdf

There are a lot of ways to build a rocket engine, with sub-sets of design paths, and I'm having fun trying to discover and follow those different designs.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #33 on: 08/11/2014 11:14 PM »
If you like that look for a full flow expander that Aerojet worked on.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #34 on: 04/08/2015 01:02 PM »
This article shows a CGI image by JAXA of the H-III being raised from a horizontal position on a strongback.



-Are the solid rocket boosters small and light enough for this to work, or does it have to be all-liquid?
-Will the VAB be dismantled and replaced with a horizontal integration facility, or will the rocket still be assembled vertically, then lowered to a horizontal position for transport to the launch pad?
« Last Edit: 04/08/2015 01:05 PM by Pipcard »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3726
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #35 on: 04/08/2015 06:50 PM »
This article shows a CGI image by JAXA of the H-III being raised from a horizontal position on a strongback.



-Are the solid rocket boosters small and light enough for this to work, or does it have to be all-liquid?
-Will the VAB be dismantled and replaced with a horizontal integration facility, or will the rocket still be assembled vertically, then lowered to a horizontal position for transport to the launch pad?
appears to use the H-II family pads. Other info shows that H-III will be made launch site flexible like Epsilon so there may be additional pads elsewhere
Also the TEL design in some previous graphic show it is only employed on the core alone version but that was 2013.

EDIT: Existing MLs will be modified and reused for H-III (H-X)
« Last Edit: 04/11/2015 01:09 AM by russianhalo117 »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #36 on: 04/10/2015 10:08 AM »
Latest report on the H-III - it has passed the mission definition and system readiness review phase.

Looks like the team is still looking at the core stages with the number of engines on both stages still undecided (2-3 for the 1st stage and 1-2 for the 2nd), and they seems to have went back to vertical integration.

Hmm....while I still hold on to some expectations, I'm sure that some fans of a certain SoCal aerospace company will say that this one will also be "obsolete by next Monday".  ::)
« Last Edit: 04/10/2015 10:08 AM by Galactic Penguin SST »
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline Fuji

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1174
  • Japan
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #37 on: 04/10/2015 12:41 PM »
Latest report on the H-III - it has passed the mission definition and system readiness review phase.

Looks like the team is still looking at the core stages with the number of engines on both stages still undecided (2-3 for the 1st stage and 1-2 for the 2nd), and they seems to have went back to vertical integration.

SDR is finished and agreed transition to the preliminary design phase.

The team is decided 1st stage engines number are selectable 2 or 3.
2nd stage number of engines  (1 or 2) are not defined yet.
Modified SRBs are selectable 0 or 2 or 4.
Launch pad ML2 is upgraded for this rocket.

This next generation rocket's name is not defined yet.  H-III is not official name.

Offline Pipcard

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 92
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #38 on: 04/10/2015 03:26 PM »
So the solid boosters will mostly be the same as H-IIA/B instead of having two to six smaller SRBs?

If H-III and H-X aren't official names, what else would they call it? H-IIC?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3726
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
Re: H-3 development update thread
« Reply #39 on: 04/10/2015 03:30 PM »
So the solid boosters will mostly be the same as H-IIA/B instead of having two to six smaller SRBs?

If H-III and H-X aren't official names, what else would they call it? H-IIC?
Yes, they will be a derivative of the SRB/A A3 version employed on Epsilon LV and H-IIB, BUT with different attachment and separation system.

As for naming I can't say except MHI calls it only H-III and JAXA calls it H-X in most documents.

Tags: