Quote from: Harry Cover on 01/31/2023 05:19 pmThat hydrolox LR87 (if it ever existed for real) has been mentionned by Astronautix since at least 25 years. Of course it would be great to confirm it ever existed outside Astronautix, because of that website usual caveats. That would make the LR87 the one and only engine in history to have run on a) kerolox b) storables and c) hydrolox. Quite a notable feat pulled out by Aerojet.I understand the caveat re Astronautix but the Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerojet_LR87 cites another source for some of what it says, Page 383 of Sutton, George P. (2006). History of liquid propellant rocket engines. Reston, Va.: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 1-56347-649-5. OCLC 63680957. If anyone has access to that book please take a look. It exists online but I don't have access, the page reference is in its Chapter 7:
That hydrolox LR87 (if it ever existed for real) has been mentionned by Astronautix since at least 25 years. Of course it would be great to confirm it ever existed outside Astronautix, because of that website usual caveats. That would make the LR87 the one and only engine in history to have run on a) kerolox b) storables and c) hydrolox. Quite a notable feat pulled out by Aerojet.
The memo mentions the Golovin committee. While I see an offline copy in the NASA archives, I wonder whether anyone has a PDF format scan? Was it maybe part of meetings before Congress? Anyway, I'd love to know more of the technical discussions, Golovin committee, and any of our insights. The committee's work is also in books like "The Spaceflight Revolution" online and on p255-257.
Attached one relevant Nova memo from November 6th, 1963 for discussion. It clarifies certain decision making on the NOVA vehicles. I do not know whether this memo is widely known but to me it clarified a significant part of the NOVA process.
Quote from: leovinus on 02/02/2023 08:15 pm Attached one relevant Nova memo from November 6th, 1963 for discussion. It clarifies certain decision making on the NOVA vehicles. I do not know whether this memo is widely known but to me it clarified a significant part of the NOVA process. Thanks for this memo. It's November 1961, not 63. .
Quote from: LittleBird on 02/02/2023 09:20 pmQuote from: leovinus on 02/02/2023 08:15 pm Attached one relevant Nova memo from November 6th, 1963 for discussion. It clarifies certain decision making on the NOVA vehicles. I do not know whether this memo is widely known but to me it clarified a significant part of the NOVA process. Thanks for this memo. It's November 1961, not 63. . Sorry. Did my best proofreading and still missed it.
It almost looks like Kennedy's speech was the death of the "direct launch to the moon with NOVA".
Somewhere during this Part I to II transition, with NOVA rockets and solids vs liquid propulsion, there is President Kennedy's famous speech on May 25, 1961 to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. To me, it looks like this was the clincher in many ways. The NOVA engineers knew that to build a large new NOVA rocket, and to make it reliable, they would need 7 to 9 years. 1961 + ~8 is 1969, i.e., that would probably be too late for Kennedy. As a likely consequence, this memo starts to look at smaller vehicles plus rendez-vous.
(I don't know if boxes were added by leovinus or already in the doc.)
A three engine first stage ? That's Saturn C-3 no ? And four M1s ??! that would make the other rocket a true monster.
From the Moonbase thread, the ARAGO Nova rocket discussion is probably better suited here. In the SR-183/Vol 2, page II-17, the term is it used for a NOVA-6/ 9 million lbs thrust vehicle. Page II-21 shows LOX/LH2 throughout. Here in the attached "Exploring the Unknown Vol2 External relations", p307, ARAGO is used for a 6 million lbs NOVA-4. On p307 is says "ARAGO is the term used to describe the 6 million pound thrust, liquid hydrogen and oxygen, propulsion stage". Therefore, at least two iterations or variants of ARAGO with 4 or 6 engines.
In astronomy, Arago is best known for his part in the dispute between U.-J.-J. Le Verrier, who was his protégé, and the English astronomer John C. Adams over priority in discovering the planet Neptune and over the naming of the planet. Arago had suggested in 1845 that Le Verrier investigate anomalies in the motion of Uranus. When the investigation resulted in Le Verrier’s discovery of Neptune, Arago proposed that the newly found planet be named for Le Verrier.
From the Moonbase thread, the ARAGO Nova rocket discussion is probably better suited here. In the SR-183/Vol 2, page II-17, the term is it used for a NOVA-6/ 9 million lbs thrust vehicle. Page II-21 shows LOX/LH2 throughout. Here in the attached "Exploring the Unknown Vol2 External relations", p307, ARAGO is used for a 6 million lbs NOVA-4. On p307 is says "ARAGO is the term used to describe the 6 million pound thrust, liquid hydrogen and oxygen, propulsion stage". Therefore, at least two iterations or variants of ARAGO with 4 or 6 engines. Finally, the NovaRockets.pdf from earlier in this thread has a 6-engine vehicle on page 39 of 41. The ARAGO difference seems LOX/LH2 throughout instead of LOX/Kerosene. Still would be nice to see a primary report on NOVA-4/6, roughly 1959, comparing the various engines
I understand the caveat re Astronautix but the Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerojet_LR87 cites another source for some of what it says, Page 383 of Sutton, George P. (2006). History of liquid propellant rocket engines. Reston, Va.: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 1-56347-649-5. OCLC 63680957. If anyone has access to that book please take a look. It exists online but I don't have access, the page reference is in its Chapter 7:
Main thing that strikes me about the November 1961 memo that leovinus has uploaded is that iti) recommends direct ascent and describes a NOVA (first grab), including the name M-1,ii) describes what became Saturn V (second grab)and iii) seems to represent some sort of emerging modus vivendi between NASA and USAF ambitions, with the latter pushing Titan III.
Quote from: LittleBird on 01/31/2023 06:34 pmI understand the caveat re Astronautix but the Wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerojet_LR87 cites another source for some of what it says, Page 383 of Sutton, George P. (2006). History of liquid propellant rocket engines. Reston, Va.: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. ISBN 1-56347-649-5. OCLC 63680957. If anyone has access to that book please take a look. It exists online but I don't have access, the page reference is in its Chapter 7: