FYI RSC Energia supplied Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank for Delta Cliper in the 90s
How does this differ from the composit cryogenic tanks that were in development for the X-33 other than that they are a simple shape and done without an autoclave like so many modern composites? Is it just process refinement?
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-tests-game-changing-composite-cryogenic-fuel-tank_marshall_news/#.UdOfqPnQlc4This technology looks cool.Could be used for SLS upper stage.Commercial providers might want to use it in their launch vehicles.40% weight saving over traditional aluminum tanks.
Did you read the test results Oli? The small tank did not crack. It passed with flying colors.
Afaik it depends on the number of fill-and-drain cycles. For the application in an expendable rocket that may not be a big issue.
... The biggest difference (to the X-33) seems to be a lot thinner plys that prevent cryowicking completely. ...
Could this development lead to a revival of the X-33?I thought that X-33 was largely developed, except for the cryo tanks problem.
I thought (the aerospike engine) wasn't so much flawed but had two problems. ...
Quote from: kevin-rf on 07/06/2013 02:48 amI thought (the aerospike engine) wasn't so much flawed but had two problems. ...I assumed the aerospike engine had two design flaws.a) It didn't work at altitude. This is a guess, but I figure without atmosphere keeping the exhaust pinned to the spike via the Coanda effect it didn't work. Instead of following the spike, exhaust was completely uncontained and even ricocheted off the spike. It's claimed the engine suffered at low-mach speeds due to vacuum, but I figure the engine simply doesn't work without atmospheric pressure.b) It had zero fault tolerance. Again, a guess that the failure of a single injector would vector thrust along that side provided the failure wasn't dead center. Increasing thrust in adjacent injectors would only compound the problem. Increasing injectors away from the failed one would correct the thrust vector, but create off-center thrust.As one hiccup would throw the whole engine out of whack, I figure it was deemed unreliable at all altitudes and incapable at higher altitudes. Just my guesses, though, as very little (reliable) information has ever been made public. Thoughts, links or corrections?
Quote from: Comga on 07/03/2013 05:23 amHow does this differ from the composit cryogenic tanks that were in development for the X-33 other than that they are a simple shape and done without an autoclave like so many modern composites? Is it just process refinement? The fact that it works is probably a factor. The failed tank on the X-33 was the main reason it never flew. The biggest difference seems to be a lot thinner plys that prevent cryowicking completely. It would be interesting to find out if this new design could enable an X-33 tank that met original specs.
Apparently there was a down select from 4 contractors.
Why start over with a very similar, but different, technology base and go through the small, 2-2.5m test articles over again?
Quote from: dark.blue.nineWhy start over with a very similar, but different, technology base and go through the small, 2-2.5m test articles over again? Maybe because Boeing is ultimately more capable of manufacturing a 5.5 tank at low cost?The 787 fuselage is composite and 5.7m in diameter.
Being an arm chair rocket guy, if the SLS block 1a/b can throw 105mT with LiAl tanks, would the substitution of these tanks bring the throw weight to 130mT? The LH2 tank on the STS External Tank weighs 234,265 lbs (liAl 2195), a 30% reduction in weight using the composite methods and materials results in a LH2 tank weighing 163,985 lbs, a reduction of 70,279 lbs, roughly 35 tons. Since tank reduction can be translated into payload, might the Block 1 SLS fit the requirements for block 2?
Boeing mentions 30% COST savings over Al-Li tanks.
Quote from: LegendCJS on 07/10/2013 08:26 pm Boeing mentions 30% COST savings over Al-Li tanks. Source for the 30% weight reduction number?
Reading all the links I think that the reason they wanted a do-over was about cost and simplicity... But the NG tank folks talked about composites offering 10-25% WEIGHT savings over aluminum metal tanks, while Boeing mentions 30% COST savings over Al-Li tanks. If NG tanks were any cheaper than metal tanks then I think they would have mentioned that, but instead they play up weight savings and allowing for larger payloads. Maybe this is why they had a do-over, to see if a decade of new process improvements could result in significant cost reductions.
RECOVERY - NASA LARC intends to conduct a competition among the existing multipleaward Structures, Materials, Aerodynamics, Aerothermodynamics, and Acoustics, Research,and Technology (SMAAART) contractors for a research effort entitled "Composite CryotankTechnologies and Demonstration Design, Analysis, and Testing for Composite LH2Cryotanks. The current SMAAART contractors are: Analytical Services & Materials, Inc.(AS&M) (NNL10AA03B); ATK Space Systems (NNL10AA04B); The Boeing Company (NNL10AA05B);Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company (NNL10AA06B); and Northrop Grumman SystemsCorporation (NNL10AA07B). The required services include exploring advanced composite materials and processes toreduce the overall cost and weight of liquid hydrogen (LH2) cryotanks. For this effort,the Contractor shall perform equivalency testing to ensure current autoclave materialsproperties match those established under the 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)Cryotank Development program and to determine the suitability of out-of-autoclavematerials and processes for use in composite cryotanks. The Contractor shall also designa 10-meter composite cryotank based on a Government provided Aluminum Lithium (Al-Li)design to determine accurate cost and weight savings associated with composite cryotanks.The Contractor shall also evaluate the technical readiness level (TRL), manufacturingreadiness level (MRL), and risk associated with fabricating large composite cryotanks. Knowledge gained from these activities will be used to design two -scale compositecryotanks. One from autoclave materials and another from out-of-autoclave materials. The Contractor shall then create a phase 2 plan detailing the cost, design, andmanufacturing options for creating and testing two -scale composite cryotank testarticles. The proposed effort will be funded by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)funding and is in support of the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) and theExploration Technology Development Programs (ETDP) Advanced Composites Technology (ACT)Project. It is NASAs intent to make multiple awards under this RFP.
Quote from: BrightLight on 07/10/2013 09:21 pmBeing an arm chair rocket guy, if the SLS block 1a/b can throw 105mT with LiAl tanks, would the substitution of these tanks bring the throw weight to 130mT? The LH2 tank on the STS External Tank weighs 234,265 lbs (liAl 2195), a 30% reduction in weight using the composite methods and materials results in a LH2 tank weighing 163,985 lbs, a reduction of 70,279 lbs, roughly 35 tons. Since tank reduction can be translated into payload, might the Block 1 SLS fit the requirements for block 2?Also armchair, but I recall that only weight reductions of the final stage translate to a 1:1 ratio of increased payload. Marginal weight reductions in a first stage have a lower ratio of payload increase. I've heard it said that 7lb of increased first stage mass equates to a loss of ~1lb of payload, and I'm willing to bet that its just a sign flip to cover reduction in first stage mass.
Being an arm chair rocket guy, if the SLS block 1a/b can throw 105mT with LiAl tanks, would the substitution of these tanks bring the throw weight to 130mT? The LH2 tank on the STS External Tank weighs 58,500 lbs (liAl 2195), a 30% reduction in weight using the composite methods and materials results in a LH2 tank weighing 40,950 lbs, a reduction of 17,500 lbs, roughly 8.8 tons. Since tank reduction can be translated into payload, might the Block 1 SLS fit the requirements for block 2?
Quote from: BrightLight on 07/10/2013 09:21 pmBeing an arm chair rocket guy, if the SLS block 1a/b can throw 105mT with LiAl tanks, would the substitution of these tanks bring the throw weight to 130mT? The LH2 tank on the STS External Tank weighs 58,500 lbs (liAl 2195), a 30% reduction in weight using the composite methods and materials results in a LH2 tank weighing 40,950 lbs, a reduction of 17,500 lbs, roughly 8.8 tons. Since tank reduction can be translated into payload, might the Block 1 SLS fit the requirements for block 2?Don't forget SLS will use 2219, not 2195 on the core (but that materials properties mean it's similar mass). [There's an article about that somewhere on-site :-) ]Need to be careful how large changes in scale change the balance between "superior" and "inferior" materials.Cheers, Martin
If the tanks work for LH2, will the thin-ply composite and cure process also work for O2? and yes, scaling is a physics and material science issue and the larger tanks will tell a more (or less) compelling story.
Quote from: BrightLight on 07/11/2013 01:52 pmIf the tanks work for LH2, will the thin-ply composite and cure process also work for O2? and yes, scaling is a physics and material science issue and the larger tanks will tell a more (or less) compelling story.I can't see how you could trust a perfect chemical bonding reaction for the glues in a pure oxygen environment. Dangerous. I'm not sure it's viable in a pure carbon matrix anyway.
Quote from: LegendCJS on 07/10/2013 09:29 pmQuote from: BrightLight on 07/10/2013 09:21 pmBeing an arm chair rocket guy, if the SLS block 1a/b can throw 105mT with LiAl tanks, would the substitution of these tanks bring the throw weight to 130mT? The LH2 tank on the STS External Tank weighs 234,265 lbs (liAl 2195), a 30% reduction in weight using the composite methods and materials results in a LH2 tank weighing 163,985 lbs, a reduction of 70,279 lbs, roughly 35 tons. Since tank reduction can be translated into payload, might the Block 1 SLS fit the requirements for block 2?Also armchair, but I recall that only weight reductions of the final stage translate to a 1:1 ratio of increased payload. Marginal weight reductions in a first stage have a lower ratio of payload increase. I've heard it said that 7lb of increased first stage mass equates to a loss of ~1lb of payload, and I'm willing to bet that its just a sign flip to cover reduction in first stage mass.While you're right on 1b, block 1a has no upper stage - so there's *almost* 1:1 core mass vs payload.But, wonder how well these designs would scale tk that size tank?Cheers, Martin
For me the big winner might be NASA's Orion. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27265.0 I said many months ago substantial weight savings for an LEO Orion from composite materials could be done. This was not including this program. This manufacturing program adds to the cost, and weight savings. Not only could this be done....this should be done.
Quote from: Prober on 07/14/2013 02:29 pmFor me the big winner might be NASA's Orion. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27265.0 I said many months ago substantial weight savings for an LEO Orion from composite materials could be done. This was not including this program. This manufacturing program adds to the cost, and weight savings. Not only could this be done....this should be done. No, this is unrelated Orion. It is not applicable to complex structures like a crew module.Interstages are already composite on Atlas and Delta.And it should not be done to Orion. Its structure design is complete and a GTA and first flight shell have been built. It would be a huge setback
^What about Delta IV core?
Make sure you turn the sound down lol
Would composite tanks like these make sense for storing hypergolic propellants in e.g. Orion's service module?
The test stand for the monster tank is on google:https://www.google.com/maps?t=h&ll=34.6284812,-86.6728124&spn=0.0012141,0.0019673&output=classic&dg=ntvbthanks to:http://swampcastle-scrapbook.blogspot.com/2014/03/cryo-composite-tank-development-testing.html
The 4.5 meter (394 inches) tank had a volume of 22,400 ft^3 (634 m^3) according to the attached image. Is the volume of the 18-foot (5.5-meter) tank being shipped to Marshall been published? How about the other design requirements?
I'm curious as to how much mass ULA would save on both DIV and AV if it switched all of its tanks/stages to this composite materials as this newly tested technological advance for tanks as it is eventually spun off outside NASA for implementation by other US corporations.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2014/M14-045.html#.UzHM2PldU-c
NASA Engineers Prepare Game Changing Cryotank for Testinghttp://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2014/14-063.html#.U0cFSfnIYgE
I wonder if it could end up with a composite SLS upper stage or a Delta V. It would certainly help with Delta IV weight issues. And might even be useful for ACES. But Delta IV has so many issues, like having most of the electric checkout done vertical, that it would have to be a new vehicle (hence Delta V).
Quote from: baldusi on 04/10/2014 09:42 pmI wonder if it could end up with a composite SLS upper stage or a Delta V. It would certainly help with Delta IV weight issues. And might even be useful for ACES. But Delta IV has so many issues, like having most of the electric checkout done vertical, that it would have to be a new vehicle (hence Delta V).couldn't the delta iv be used for a test bed?
How much LH2 would fit in a tank that size ? How does that compare to the size of the current DCSS LH2 tank ? I assume Boeing chose a 5.5m diameter because that is the reference dimension of the SLS second stage, and not to support the Delta series, which they don't build. I assume Boeing left all of the 5.2m tooling in Decatur when they turned the Delta factory over to ULA.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 04/11/2014 02:48 amHow much LH2 would fit in a tank that size ? How does that compare to the size of the current DCSS LH2 tank ? I assume Boeing chose a 5.5m diameter because that is the reference dimension of the SLS second stage, and not to support the Delta series, which they don't build. I assume Boeing left all of the 5.2m tooling in Decatur when they turned the Delta factory over to ULA.DIVUS H2 (the LOX tank is smaller) tank is 5.2m, like the core and the 5m fairing. So it could not be done as a drop in. It would require new faring adapter, new interstage and to analyze and qualify everything again.Delta IV and Decantur plant now belongs to ULA. Boeing is just a stockholder. But the work Boeing is doing is for NASA, not and internal development program. And the Ares I project did bought the tooling and made a pathfinder 5.5m LOX tank. I know a 5.5m upper stage is or was being considered for SLS. Of course the ULA might ask Boeing to license this technology for its future Common Upper Stage.
How much LH2 would fit in a tank that size ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 04/11/2014 02:48 amHow much LH2 would fit in a tank that size ? To follow on baldusi's good info, the article itself says 28,000 gallons. I find the 5.5 meter size a bit confusing too, as the article also says it is the same size as the prop tanks "used on today's full size rockets".Of course this implies D-IV since SLS doesn't even really exist. (btw, what constitutes a "full size rocket"?) Adding to the confusion: if this is for SLS, it would seem to be better to go with a tank more appropriately sized for the 8.4 meter 1B EUS. Or is this for yet another stage--a "true" CPS "third stage"?
Quote from: PahTo on 04/11/2014 07:59 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 04/11/2014 02:48 amHow much LH2 would fit in a tank that size ? To follow on baldusi's good info, the article itself says 28,000 gallons. I find the 5.5 meter size a bit confusing too, as the article also says it is the same size as the prop tanks "used on today's full size rockets".Of course this implies D-IV since SLS doesn't even really exist. (btw, what constitutes a "full size rocket"?) Adding to the confusion: if this is for SLS, it would seem to be better to go with a tank more appropriately sized for the 8.4 meter 1B EUS. Or is this for yet another stage--a "true" CPS "third stage"?The EUS conceptually has an 8.4m LH2 tank but the LOX tank is smaller at 5.5m. Which If I am not mistaken takes advantage of tooling left by Ares I.
I'm not sure exactly what this is, I think its the tank at marshal with the shipping mount still in place. I think the tank is being inspected before being released from the mount and prepped for insulation, etc. and mounted in the test rig
I knew they were lighter but didn't realise they were also 25% cheaper.
I take pleasure in the 5.5 meter diameter of these test tanks, both of this composite tank and of at least one earlier aluminum tank built at Michoud. That number - where have I seen it before? http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/231430main_UpperStage_FS_final.pdfhttp://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html - Ed Kyle
The Ares tanks were common bulkhead, right ? Would you do the same thing with composite ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 04/18/2014 04:53 pmThe Ares tanks were common bulkhead, right ? Would you do the same thing with composite ?Good question. I'd note the tank ends are metal. So a concave end is possible. Other questions would be have they solved the cryo cracking problem and found a way to detect if impact damage has lost 30% of its strength with no visible damage.
In some ways, notably in heat conduction, composites may make common bulkhead tanks more practical. The Saturn S-II (and S-IV and Centaur?) had a phenol honeycomb between the two tanks for insulation. Do we know if SpaceX uses common bulkheads for F9 like it did for F1?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 04/18/2014 08:34 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 04/18/2014 04:53 pmThe Ares tanks were common bulkhead, right ? Would you do the same thing with composite ?Good question. I'd note the tank ends are metal. So a concave end is possible. Other questions would be have they solved the cryo cracking problem and found a way to detect if impact damage has lost 30% of its strength with no visible damage. The pictures I've seen, btw, do not appear to have metal ends, nor does that make sense to me from a structural joining point of view. Concave is possible with composites, not really harder. Not sure what the state of the art with regard to cryogenic composite shapes.
Hope to see this as LOX tank on EUS. It's almost exactly the right size based on latest prop mass quoted for EUS.
I hope the tanks can take methane and RP-1.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/20/2014 06:05 pmI hope the tanks can take methane and RP-1.I assume that they can, but they would have to be certified for those propellants.
I contemplated starting a new thread, but I didn't want to put it in Advanced Concepts because I don't consider cryogenic all-composite tanks to have been "advanced" for about the past two decades.Neither does it fit in SLS unless NASA pays Boeing big bucks to build composite tanks for SLS. That would be a big improvement for the SLS, according to Boeing.What's the difference between the new TRL 6 4.3m tank (see Chris's article) and the "game-changing" tanks Boeing and LockMart and ATK have already built (see this topic), other than that Boeing now deems composite cryogenic tanks as TRL 6?Boeing also claims that they'd get a big increase in payload from switching to composite tanks for SLS. Has anybody found enough data to do the calculations?And lastly, since Boeing and GE have both gotten great results using infusion molds rather than autoclaving, does anyone know whether they're testing infusion for large cryogenic tanks?
It is already apart of the proposed SLS EUS upgrades path and builds off of previous NASA joint procjects. Note the Saturn family test article in the background from the mothballed MSFC test stand it was removed from and borken over to its horizontal storage position.https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-releases-statements?item=130996
Quote from: JEF_300 on 02/04/2022 05:56 pmIs it the LOX or the H2 tank? Both are cryogenic, and both would be impressive, but a composite LOX tank has been done before several times now, and I don't think a composite H2 tank has been done at all.This latest test tank was representative of a 4.3m diameter ICPS LOX tank. The previous NASA project tested 2.4m prospective subscale tank. In 2014 a representative 5.5m diameter ICPS LH2 tank was tested. The next test tank will be a representative 8.4m diameter EUS LH2 tank.2012 tankhttps://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/cryotank.html2014 tank:https://www.nasa.gov/content/game-changing-cryotank
Is it the LOX or the H2 tank? Both are cryogenic, and both would be impressive, but a composite LOX tank has been done before several times now, and I don't think a composite H2 tank has been done at all.