Author Topic: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn  (Read 28089 times)

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #60 on: 02/02/2023 07:54 pm »
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.

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:
FYI, I have the book but I see no hydrolox/LH2 LR87 in there. Just the other two variants.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #61 on: 02/02/2023 08:15 pm »
Earlier this week, I browsed a tiny portion of the NASA Historical archive RG-11, boxes 10284-10288 regarding NOVA. In the material, about five similarly long memos, two dozen smaller ones, and two technical summary reports by Martin and Boeing from the period 1959 to 1964.

Attached one relevant Nova memo from November 6th, 1961 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.

Now for some personal views to open a wider discussion :)

To me, it looks like after Sputnik, there was a tremendous investment of the US Government in space related studies and prototypes. Rockets, satellites, studies on lunar bases and space stations. Really, anything. About two dozen contractors working on stuff. Some of these projects and studies related to "How to get to the moon?" and "What engines would power such a rocket?".

In the conceptual Part I of the NOVA studies, there are the solid and liquid engines, and up to 5 rocket stages. Much concern in the memos on mass-fraction staging, and solid vs liquid. In Part II of the NOVA studies, the number of contractors was minimized and more concrete vehicles designed. The attached memo mentions several committees to discuss rockets et al, to inform the Large Launch Vehicle Group (LLVP) in 1961/62 where all this work should go, and for what mission. Example missions considered were lunar bases, space stations, and interplanetary flight based on the large vehicles it seems.

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.

It seems to me that the memo really tries to focus the NOVA and other efforts into an executable program to go to the moon. Like recommendation #4 "Large Solid rockets should not be considered as a 'requirement for manned lunar landing' " or recommendation #5  "Development of the one J-2 engine S-IVB stage should, be started, aiming toward, flight tests on a Saturn C-1 in late 1964. It should be used as the third stage of both C-5 and NOVA [snip]".

In addition, the memo is clear with recommendation #6 that the TITAN vehicle is of less interest "NASA has no present requirement for the TITAN III vehicle. Should the TITAN III be developed by the DOD, NASA should maintain continuous liaison with the DOD development to ascertain if the vehicle can be used for future NASA needs."

It almost looks like Kennedy's speech was the death of the "direct launch to the moon with NOVA". I speculate that as an unintended consequence, the later Phase III of NOVA with re-usable vehicles like NEXUS and ROMBUS was during Apollo and got no money and therefore no further that a paper study. So we got a flags-and-footprint moon landing but no re-usable launchers.

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.

PS: Nothing obvious on the earlier 4 and 5 stage NOVA rockets (Which NASA report are they detailed in?), LR87, and only a few memos on DOD. More later.

EDIT: 1963-> 1961 thx @littebird
« Last Edit: 02/02/2023 09:32 pm by leovinus »

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #62 on: 02/02/2023 08:54 pm »


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.

 

I *think* there's a nice summary re Golovin committee in the recent Spires book attached to Blackstar's post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58046.msg2449433#msg2449433 , has good historical context for the 1960-62 period iirc.

Edit: There is.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2023 09:26 pm by LittleBird »

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #63 on: 02/02/2023 09:20 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. So fact it mentions M-1 is interesting to me, as NASA docs we've seen date M-1 to mid 1962.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #64 on: 02/02/2023 09:27 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.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2023 09:30 pm by leovinus »

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #65 on: 02/02/2023 09:49 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.

Noworries, that's what we are for

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #66 on: 02/03/2023 12:31 pm »
Quote
It almost looks like Kennedy's speech was the death of the "direct launch to the moon with NOVA".

Random musings about the three major modes considered: Direct Ascent, EOR, LOR.

Direct Ascent was initially  (1959-1961) a leader if not the "natural" choice because it was hard to figure a different way to go to the Moon.

 I would say that JFK deadline had Direct Ascent split into smaller chunks on smaller rockets (with smaller - easier to land - lunar landers) and that become EOR. For the exact reason you mentions -

Quote
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 often think of von Braun's EOR vision as Direct Ascent except reborn as a "split" mission. They had a lot in common - for obvious reasons: mostly technical.

By this point LOR was a dark horse - despite Vought (MALLAR) and John Houbolt best efforts.

I think it is no coincidence that the largest "early" Saturn - C-8 - evenly matches NOVA at 180 metric tons to LEO. That what it takes to make Direct Ascent happen. At some point the major difference between C-8 and NOVA was the second stage: "lots of J-2s" vs "a couple of M-1".

Saturn V's  S-II ended with five J-2s and (on paper at least) could have 1*M1 in place of them. The even larger C-8 could have taken two M-1s (would have made the alternate S-II massively overpowered).

Saturn C-1 / C-2 / C-3 = EOR

Saturn C-4 / C-5 = LOR

Saturn C-8 & NOVA = Direct Ascent
« Last Edit: 02/03/2023 12:44 pm by Harry Cover »

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #67 on: 02/04/2023 06:23 pm »
Main thing that strikes me about the November 1961 memo that leovinus has uploaded is that it

i) 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.

So as leovinus has said  it is a snapshot  of a very pivotal moment. (I don't know if boxes were added by leovinus or already in the doc.)
« Last Edit: 02/04/2023 06:24 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #68 on: 02/04/2023 07:05 pm »
A three engine first stage ? That's Saturn C-3 no ?

And four M1s ??!  that would make the other rocket a true monster.
« Last Edit: 02/04/2023 07:10 pm by Harry Cover »

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #69 on: 02/04/2023 07:19 pm »
(I don't know if boxes were added by leovinus or already in the doc.)
Boxes were part of the original memo.

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #70 on: 02/04/2023 07:45 pm »
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 :)

Offline leovinus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1095
  • Porto, Portugal
  • Liked: 866
  • Likes Given: 1727
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #71 on: 02/04/2023 08:33 pm »
A three engine first stage ? That's Saturn C-3 no ?

And four M1s ??!  that would make the other rocket a true monster.
Yep, and the NovaRocket.pdf titled "They might be ... Giants" from earlier even had a Martin design with >5< M-1s on the 2nd stage on image 20, page 19.

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #72 on: 02/05/2023 01:27 am »
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.




And here's the original of second item above https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB479/docs/EBB-Moon03.pdf  from 1960. So it seems the term Arago already in use for a stage and/or the whole booster before what became the M-1 engines had a name (earliest use of M-1 I've seen is Nov 1961 memo) ?

And when was the name Phoenix first used ? as far as I can see it was 1961 for designs which had solid first stages ? Tempting to see Phoenix as Arago reborn. [Edit: sorry, seems Phoenix is a pre 1961 name, at least according to the recent Spires book.]

Very few usages of the name Arago on the web, an interesting choice-possibly after the French scientist.  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Francois-Arago

It would be fun if they'd wanted to call it Neptune because it was beyond Saturn ;-) ... and this was an in joke:

Quote
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.

Only Neptune rocket I've ever heard of was the fictional one mentiend in passing in the book of 2001.
« Last Edit: 02/05/2023 05:07 am by LittleBird »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #73 on: 02/05/2023 11:51 am »
Arago was a weird guy with a strong caracter. A bit like that British Lord Kelvin that thoroughly demonstrated heavier than air were utterly unrealistic... in 1895.

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #74 on: 02/05/2023 04:14 pm »
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 think the nicest table I've seen so far is from the Vol II of the SR 183 study that you recently uploaded, see grab below, because it compares pure Nova, combined Nova/Arago and pure Arago options for the most demanding mission studied. It's not clear to me if Arago was a stage, a booster or an engine, or all 3-perhaps it just meant "USAF hydrolox booster" at that moment. 

Re the original motivating question of the M-1 and its origins, what I think all this has done for me at least is make it pretty clear that the USAF was indeed talking about large LH2 stages, and engines for them that weren't the J-2, as early as 1960, and quite possibly earlier. So that's something. [Edit 2: It's also clear from the table that the Arago engine was 1.5 million lb thrust, so essentially an M-1 in 1960]

I guess I am intrigued as to how much NASA and before them ABMA knew about this, and how much the spending on Saturn and Nova would have compared with the USAF efforts. [Edit: I do realise the USAF efforts are largely paper studies unless the hydrolox LR87 really did exist, but they seem to be a bit more than a historical curiosity.]

« Last Edit: 02/05/2023 11:45 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #75 on: 02/06/2023 11:32 am »
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:

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #76 on: 02/06/2023 11:58 am »
Okay, makes some sense. It was a Titan I engine (hence LR87-3 ) so it already burned LOX - although RP-1 and LH2 are radically different fuels, for sure.
Very interesting.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #77 on: 02/07/2023 02:17 am »
Main thing that strikes me about the November 1961 memo that leovinus has uploaded is that it

i) 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.

The mention of version of the Saturn V with a 3-engine first stage might be thought of as the first mention of the Saturn INT-21!

I do not understand how the S-IVB could serve as an escape stage in all three of the LOR, EOR and direct modes.  As we know, it was right-sized for LOR, but in either EOR or direct, the mass through TLI would have been much greater.

Another weird concept that gets a mention is the Saturn IB with an S-IV third stage, for escape missions.

Online LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #78 on: 02/07/2023 07:27 am »
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:

Thanks very much for digging this out. Does it give any other primary source info like an endnote for this ? Astronautix  always alleged this was originally  highly secret development programme, which may well be true of course, and would explain why it doesn't for example appear even as a brief mention in the NASA book Taming Liquid Hydrogen: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4230.pdf which does mention the important role of the Suntan LH2 aircraft project at roughly the same time in the genesis of Pratt & Whitney's RL10 (pp 13-19 are a nice snapshot of early work from 40s onwards).

I had wondered if this would be the first ever  firing of an LH2 rocket but interestingly the NASA book says that milestone was actually achieved at JPL in late 40s !
« Last Edit: 02/07/2023 10:28 am by LittleBird »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Re: The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn
« Reply #79 on: 02/07/2023 10:39 am »
A subtility about the S-IVB that I took some time to realize.

On Saturn V with a mass of 120 mt plus 45 mt of CSM-LM, total 165 mt: the S-IVB had to burn part of its prop load as a third stage. And after that it could only push 45 mt through TLI.

Now, on a more powerful rocket or on an EOR profile, if the S-IVB was orbited with its full propellant load, total 120 mt of weight; then the (very very approximate) rule of thumb with hydrolox on TLI is, it can push its own mass through TLI - actually a bit less, perhaps 10% less.

So  a 120 mt S-IVB burning 100% of its propellant on a TLI should be able to deliver 100 - 110 mt to Earth escape velocity or TLI.

Which is more than enough for a Direct Ascent lander, or an EOR variant of it. Depends a lot from the rocket below the S-IVB and its own payload. Saturn V was 120 mt but NOVA or C-8 would be 180 mt.

So the latter two could deliver a fully-fueled S-IVB with a pretty massive lander attached to it. If 180 mt with a 120 mt S-IVB then "only" 60 mt would be left for the Direct Ascent lander.
Which is already huge: for the sake of comparison, the LM with the CSM attached to it in LLO was 45 mt, and of course that was LOR.

I would say
- 120 mt S-IVB is orbited fully fueled with a 60 mt D.A lander - and together they max out C-8 / NOVA LEO payload
or
- S-IVB act as a third stage as in Apollo so burns part of its propellants during ascent to deliver an even more massive lander. As long as enough propellants remains in the S-IVB to push that lander through a 3150 m/s TLI, it will be fine. No idea how large beyond 60 mt could that lander grows.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2023 10:41 am by Harry Cover »

Tags: nova rocket 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0