Author Topic: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank  (Read 64148 times)

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« on: 07/03/2013 04:21 am »
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-tests-game-changing-composite-cryogenic-fuel-tank_marshall_news/#.UdOfqPnQlc4

This 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.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #1 on: 07/03/2013 04:52 am »

Cool, how much does it cost?  ;)

Could be very interesting for reusable vehicles though. I'm sure Blue Origin already ordered one.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #2 on: 07/03/2013 05:02 am »
They say it's cheap because no autoclave is needed.

The tooling also eliminates bolted joints.

It's very promising from an economic standpoint.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #3 on: 07/03/2013 05:23 am »
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?

And why does every small, evolutionary technical advance HAVE to be trumpeted as "game changing"?  NASA sounds like a teenage girl at a Justin Beiber concert.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 05:24 am by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #4 on: 07/03/2013 05:54 am »
FYI RSC Energia supplied Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank for Delta Cliper in the 90s
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline MP99

Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #5 on: 07/03/2013 07:07 am »
OK, so if this gives a 40% weight saving and is targeted at SLS, could a 1Bus using this get 130t to LEO using RSRMVs?

Would have benefits for TLI (etc), too.

Cheers, Martin

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #6 on: 07/03/2013 07:18 am »
Quote from: fregate
FYI RSC Energia supplied Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank for Delta Cliper in the 90s

??

Russia delivered the aluminium LOX tank which had to be reworked because of poor quality.

http://www.silverengineers.com/uploads/HPCJUL06.pdf

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #7 on: 07/03/2013 11:16 am »
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?


 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.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 11:17 am by Nomadd »
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #8 on: 07/03/2013 11:59 am »
Game Changing is the name of the program. Managed by LaRC.

http://gcd.larc.nasa.gov/

I think it's lovely to see money being spent on technology development.

If these tanks are cheaper, lighter and leak less LH2 because of the strong seams it will change the game. That's exciting  ;D

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #9 on: 07/03/2013 02:53 pm »
40% is the upper limit, more like 20%-40%. So lets assume 20% less dry mass for first and second stage (its not only tanks). For a Delta IV type vehicle with 4.2t to GTO Schilling's rocket calculator gives me an increase of payload to 5.45t. Not bad but hardly a game changer.

Also I heard composite cyro tanks suffer from microcracking, I guess that could make reuse somewhat difficult.
« Last Edit: 07/03/2013 02:54 pm by Oli »

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • ~ 1 AU
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 348
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #10 on: 07/03/2013 03:35 pm »
Wow... looks very promising! Perhaps it will be the advancement needed for SSTO? Cutting up to 40% is a lot of dry mass...
Clayton Birchenough

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #11 on: 07/04/2013 01:13 am »
The aim was 30% weight saving. If they're now saying 40% that means they've exceeded their target.

Did you read the test results Oli? The small tank did not crack. It passed with flying colors.

The big 5.5m tank is to be tested next.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #12 on: 07/04/2013 02:55 am »
Does anyone have an idea of how this compares to aluminum-lithium tanks?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #13 on: 07/04/2013 03:14 am »
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-tests-game-changing-composite-cryogenic-fuel-tank_marshall_news/#.UdOfqPnQlc4

This 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.

time to look at this technology for transfer to a low weight Orion
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #14 on: 07/04/2013 04:22 am »
Quote from: spectre9
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.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #15 on: 07/04/2013 04:44 am »
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.

Fair enough. I think we'll know more when they do the testing on the 5.5m tank.

This technology has potential but it's yet to be seen if it will be adopted by industry.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #16 on: 07/04/2013 06:01 am »
They say 40% reduction in tank mass, but in comparison to what? Is it AL2219, AL2195, Steel or something else?
« Last Edit: 07/04/2013 06:02 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #17 on: 07/04/2013 06:42 am »
Good thing you asked Steve because in my effort to find the answer to your question I stumbled upon a recent NTRS paper about this project  8)

On the first page it is confirmed that the benchmark is Al-Li 2195.

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #18 on: 07/04/2013 09:38 am »
... The biggest difference (to the X-33) seems to be a lot thinner plys that prevent cryowicking completely. ...

Question to all; Is this lined as I'd assume?
Theories; Ply thickness is probably the least important difference as a culmination of advances were need to get to this point.

a) The first is the problem of thermal expansion, or contraction in this case. I'm assuming heavy polymer liners designed in the last half decade for fuel cell tanks is used here as its thermal expansion should match that of the structural CFRP much better while also being much lighter than a metallic liner.
Secondly, they've switched from a honeycomb laminate design to a single fluted design, preventing the chance of an internal panel peeling off it's structure.

b) The second problem remains microcracking and resulting leakage. All polymers will to some extent, but work done for the James Webb revealed semi-cured CFRP maintained a degree of elasticity, lower microcracking and greater tensile strength at cryogenic temperatures when only cured to about 80% ;
http://code541.gsfc.nasa.gov/Uploads_recent_publications/05-12_Polis.pdf
CRYOGENIC DURABILITY OF A CARBON FIBER REINFORCED CYANATE ESTER COMPOSITE: DEGREE-OFCURE EFFECT
"The results of this study demonstrate that by controlling the degree-of-cure, one can optimize the cryogenic durability of carbon fiber reinforced cyanate ester composites. Specifically, an 81% DoC was superior to 77%, 89%, and 95% DoC. The 81% DoC laminate exhibited the lowest
microcrack density and the highest flatwise tensile strength following thermal cycling between 25°C and -253°C. These results are summarized in Figure 9, which displays the flatwise tensile strength at -196°C and a cryogenic durability parameter defined as the inverse of the microcrack
density. This durability parameter was determined from the average of cracks in all of the plies, both 0° and 45°, following 25 thermal cycles.

The occurrence of a maximum in both the mechanical and physical responses of the composites as a function of DoC indicate competing mechanisms. One possible origin is the competition between resin strength and residual stress from cure. Typically, it is expected that as the DoC progresses, crosslink density will increase and in turn increase the resin strength. However, the increase in DoC is also associated with an increase in Tg, which affects the resins ability to relax stress at a lower test temperature (Ttest), effectively increasing the stress free temperature (Tstressfree). Therefore, at cryogenic temperatures, high DoC laminates may have high resin strengths, but they also have the high residual stresses from the larger (Ttest - Tstressfree). The balance between these factors could be the cause for the behavior observed in Figure 9. This competition provides a design parameter outside of constituent types and ply orientations, namely degree-of-cure, which can be used to improve the cryogenic performance of composites."

c) The final issue is selecting and simply knowing your material. While there is no autoclave, the CFRP is pre-cured to achieve the desired traits. Switching to the thinnest ply possible that can still be worked with is much more time consuming, but increases layering to stop crack propagation.

Thoughts, links or corrections?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #19 on: 07/05/2013 05:59 am »
Thanks spectre9. A 40% reduction relative to AL2195 would be huge!
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

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: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #20 on: 07/05/2013 07:03 am »
Image from spectre9's pdf, not bad. But this things isn't LOX compatible?
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5974
  • Liked: 1312
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #21 on: 07/06/2013 02:03 am »
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.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #22 on: 07/06/2013 02:06 am »
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.

Wasn't the linear aerospike engine fundamentally flawed too?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #23 on: 07/06/2013 02:22 am »
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.
The X-33 tanks were not only composite, but conformant. I.e. it wasn't a cylinder but had a countoured form. Doing a composite cylinder is easy, because the thread work at maximum tension, and equally distributed.A conformal tank is a whole different beast, because it has non equal stresses and has to actually avoid deforming to a cylinder.
Regarding the aerospike, I've never read anything definitive. I just know that the J-2S was developed, and they had the arospike of the X-33, plus they flew one prototype on an SR-71, and after all that they went back to stock RL-10, Constellation went for the J-2X and nobody ever mentioned the aerospike again in the industry. Neither was there much effort around the world. So I can only speculate, but it would seem that the little experience showed a non viable future. But you know how this things are, may be is just of enough development money or a new twist.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #24 on: 07/06/2013 02:36 am »
Aerospike was cold flow tested on the back of an SR-71 and successfully hot fired on the ground.
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #25 on: 07/06/2013 02:48 am »
I thought it wasn't so much flawed but had two problems.

1. The mass of it threw the aerodynamics of the vehicle all out of wack during the "glide" reentry and landing phase resulting in it being a very interesting control problem to be solved.

2. I also think it was heavier than a standard nozzle, but the reason to do it was an attempt to go from sea level to vacuum with excellent ISP the whole way.

I would not call that flawed. The problem with Aerospikes is they weigh more than a standard nozzle and only make sense when you need an engine that has excellent ISP from sea level all the way to vacuum.

btw. X-33 thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1184.msg14719#msg14719
« Last Edit: 07/06/2013 02:52 am by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1681
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #26 on: 07/06/2013 02:56 am »
It's cool to see progress on technologies like this. I just wish that Griffin hadn't funded the work XCOR was doing on LOX-compatible composites back in 2005 as part of his "let's gut technology funding to build Ares-I" campaign. Imagine where things would be if we were hitting this point 5-6 years ago instead of today.

~Jon

Offline rusty

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 18
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #27 on: 07/06/2013 05:57 am »
I 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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #28 on: 07/06/2013 01:53 pm »
I 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?

Neither of those. 
1.  The concept does work,
2.  How would increasing thrust in adjacent injectors not work?  It is just like a multi engine airplane losing an engine.

no, it was very reliable and robust, it was just too heavy

Offline Moe Grills

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 780
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #29 on: 07/06/2013 09:07 pm »
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?


 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.


   So this Game Changing fuel tank can handle LH2 without leakage?
No serious issues about hydrogen molecules migrating through (a type of osmosis) the thin light metal? Good!
Well...NASA has come a long way since May, 1962 and the
failed Atlas-Centaur that year. That failure was pinned down to the issue
of hydrogen molecules worming their way through the thin metal shell
of the original Centaur.

  BTW, Jim, if you are reading this; how did NASA engineers resolve the
issue of hydrogen loss through the original Centaur fuel-tank shell?
Teflon-sealed metal pores? electroplating?
« Last Edit: 07/06/2013 09:07 pm by Moe Grills »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #30 on: 07/09/2013 02:12 pm »
Second article on these tanks in AvWeek
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_08_2013_p18-592556.xml

On Microcracking:
"Dan Rivera, Boeing's project manager on the tanks, while the thin-ply approach, already in use on satellite structures and other Boeing products, prevents microcracking that causes leaks."
On H2 migration
 “It's been known theoretically that thin plies could reduce permeability of the hydrogen through the laminate, but the work we've done recently has been quite comprehensive and has shown that not only can it reduce permeability through the laminate, but it can eliminate it completely.”

These are cylindrical or spherical tanks, can conformal structures also be fabricated?

Offline dark.blue.nine

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #31 on: 07/10/2013 04:30 am »
Dumb question for anyone with insight or a good reference...

Why is this composite LH2 tank technology "game changing" over the composite LH2 tank technology that was proven in the prior decade?

For example, under NASA's old Next Generation Launch Technology Program, Northrup Grumman developed and successfully tested a six-foot-diameter, out-of-autoclave, composite liquid hydrogen tank through 40 fill/axial loading cycles back in 2003-4:

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=50053

http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=63264

Under NASA's current Game Changing Technology Program, Boeing has developed and tested an eight-foot-diameter (2.4-meter), out-of-autoclave, composite liquid hydrogen tank through one fill/axial loading cycle as of June this year:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_01_2013_p0-592975.xml

So what's new here?  Instead of scaling up the Northrop Grumman tank technology from the Next Generation Launch Technology Program, NASA's Game Changing Technology Program seems to have expensively reinvented similar technology with Boeing a decade later at about the same scale and subjected it to less strenuous testing to date.

Is NASA really just reinventing the wheel at a cost to the taxpayer of millions to tens of millions of dollars?  Or am I missing something obvious here?

Please hit me with a clue-by-four if it's the latter.

Thanks in advance for any critical insights or links.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #32 on: 07/10/2013 09:05 am »
Apparently there was a down select from 4 contractors.

Found it!!! Googling skills.  ;D

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=7a0e7a44613997a2fdca54a4094b0ac8&_cview=0

Northrop lost. How'd they lose if they were so far ahead?

I can only guess they weren't or Boeing overtook them.

Offline dark.blue.nine

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #33 on: 07/10/2013 01:40 pm »
Apparently there was a down select from 4 contractors.

Thanks for the link.  What I don't understand is why the NASA Game Changing Technology Program bothered to have a competition, at least one that started the technology over from scratch, to begin with?  Why not pick up the previous Northrop Grumman work and scale it up to a 5.5m tank?  Or if a competition was needed, why not go straight to a 5.5m test article, given that at least one contractor (NG) already had the technology in hand to do that?  Why start over with a very similar, but different, technology base and go through the small, 2-2.5m test articles over again?

We must be missing part of the story, e.g., there was a big drawback to the old Northrop Grumman approach or politics forced NASA to level the playing field between NG, Boeing, and others.  Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to blow a decade and tens of millions of dollars doing the same thing twice.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1304
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #34 on: 07/10/2013 01:59 pm »
 Chris Bergin had an excellent article on the whole X-33 opera.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #35 on: 07/10/2013 03:59 pm »
Quote from: dark.blue.nine
Why 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.


Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #36 on: 07/10/2013 08:26 pm »
Quote from: dark.blue.nine
Why 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.


Reading all the links I think that the reason they wanted a do-over was about cost and simplicity.  NG's tanks needed a special liner to stop leaks, but Boeing used a thin-ply technology to stop their leaks without additional liners. Based on the lessons of X-33 both teams (NG and Boeing) talk about designs that safely vent gasses through the wall's support structure in the event of a leak.  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.

Edit: I got weight and cost confused for the Boeing tank, its 25% cost reduction, 30% weight reduction from the avweek article.  But the NG tank team again mentions only weight reductions, no cost savings at all.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 11:32 pm by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #37 on: 07/10/2013 09:21 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: 07/10/2013 09:28 pm by BrightLight »

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #38 on: 07/10/2013 09:29 pm »
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?
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.
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #39 on: 07/10/2013 10:25 pm »
Boeing mentions 30% COST savings over Al-Li tanks. 
Source for the 30% weight reduction number?
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #40 on: 07/10/2013 10:55 pm »
Boeing mentions 30% COST savings over Al-Li tanks. 
Source for the 30% weight reduction number?
from AvWeek:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_01_2013_p0-592975.xml
"So far it appears the project is achieving its goal of reducing the cost of building tanks by at least 25% from that of conventional aluminum-lithium tanks, while cutting the weight of tanks made from the lightweight aluminum alloy by at least 30%."

Offline D_Dom

  • Global Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #41 on: 07/11/2013 12:01 am »
Thanks for the link, great news indeed.

Good job Boeing for advancing the state of the art. Next, flight loads and 5.5 meter tank.
Space is not merely a matter of life or death, it is considerably more important than that!

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #42 on: 07/11/2013 12:55 am »
The goal is 30%

So far they've achieved 40% but that's their margin.

If they have test failures they might have to add more weight to solve the issues they're having.

Offline dark.blue.nine

  • Member
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #43 on: 07/11/2013 03:38 am »
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.

Thanks for the fresh eyes.  You may be right that the NG tank offered no cost savings over Al-Li.  But I don't think 30% cost savings on LH2 tanks promised by the Boeing technology is going to contribute much to NASA's actual bottom-line.

For example, the old Space Shuttle External Tank cost around $50 million per copy, including the LOX tank, the intertank, the insulation, etc.  By the time all that other stuff was stripped out, production of the Shuttle's old Al-Li LH2 tank was probably in the range of $10 million per copy.  30% of $10 million is only $3-4 million per copy.  Given the very low launch rate for SLS, those savings are in the noise compared to the overall SLS budget.  And NASA's Game Changing Technology Program has probably already spent more than that just bringing the Boeing technology up to where the NG technology was a decade ago.

Even if the NG technology offered no cost savings, the actual dollar savings from the Boeing technology don't seem to be a compelling reason for NASA to have started their non-autoclave composite LH2 tank work over again from scratch with a new contractor.  It must be something else, either technical or political.

Thanks again.

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #44 on: 07/11/2013 06:28 am »
The dollar saving is on launch mass capability, not on construction cost.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #45 on: 07/11/2013 06:50 am »
It's in the link I provided.

I might as well copy and paste.

Quote
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.

Bolded what I believe the key parts of the Phase 1 competition were.

Boeing obviously bid cheaper and had a better MRL. I'm guessing this is because they already had existing infrastructure. I think Northrop lost fair and square especially if they were 10 years ahead at the start.

Offline MP99

Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #46 on: 07/11/2013 07:46 am »
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?
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
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 07:48 am by MP99 »

Offline MP99

Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #47 on: 07/11/2013 07:59 am »
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?

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

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #48 on: 07/11/2013 01:52 pm »
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?

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.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7688
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #49 on: 07/11/2013 03:14 pm »

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.

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.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #50 on: 07/11/2013 03:59 pm »

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.

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.
I just got a reply from NASA suggesting that they are looking at O2 as well.  The bonding resin (or whatever it is) is key and the physics of its ion exchange and is unknown to me so i can only speculate.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #51 on: 07/14/2013 02:29 pm »
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?
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

this opens the door to many possibilities.   First Congress is talking going direct to Block 2.  Maybe the way to go?
 
First quick application can be low cost and weight interstages. 
Aces looks more possible now.
 
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.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2013 02:38 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #52 on: 07/14/2013 05:22 pm »

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.

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

Offline Oli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
  • Liked: 605
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #53 on: 07/14/2013 07:04 pm »

^

What about Delta IV core?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #54 on: 07/14/2013 07:58 pm »

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.

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

Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying Jim.   This is new technology to bring the costs down and the quality of composite tanks up.   While the project is focused on LH2 tanks the process can be applied to other projects as I listed above.
 
A Cryogenic Fuel Tank is a higher end "pressure vessel no?
 
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-tests-game-changing-composite-cryogenic-fuel-tank_marshall_news/#.UdOfqPnQlc4
 
"development milestone by successfully testing a pressurized, large cryogenic  propellant tank made of composite materials." 
 
Jim maybe you can explain where your coming from with this question.   
 
What are the pressures and temps within a LH2 tank vs the pressures and temps within a HLV living area?  Not going into other matters.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #55 on: 07/14/2013 08:02 pm »

^

What about Delta IV core?

yep, I thought of that first off plus the Centaur, or take the Delta design "as is" and convert it to this tanking.   
 
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline MP99

Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #56 on: 07/14/2013 08:12 pm »
AFAIK, composites work best for simple cylindrical / dome structures. Orion has a complex structure with many holes in the shell and points which mount to metal structures.

ATK already did a test structure for Orion, and it was no lighter - and IIRC there were concerns about repairs if structure got damaged.

Cheers, Martin

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #57 on: 08/23/2013 03:31 am »
Make sure you turn the sound down lol


Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #58 on: 08/23/2013 03:46 am »
Make sure you turn the sound down lol



cool video! It shows them going to Mars in the end!
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #59 on: 08/23/2013 02:57 pm »
Make sure you turn the sound down lol



very exciting tech....noticed they noted the Delta IV use, hope they run with this idea!


Edit: misspell
« Last Edit: 02/18/2014 05:35 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline deltaV

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 619
  • Likes Given: 2127
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #60 on: 10/03/2013 12:49 am »
Would composite tanks like these make sense for storing hypergolic propellants in e.g. Orion's service module?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #61 on: 10/04/2013 05:50 pm »
Would composite tanks like these make sense for storing hypergolic propellants in e.g. Orion's service module?
Hypergolic are a lot more dense, and incredibly corrosive. So it's probably not that much of an advantage. What pressure fed tanks have, also, is a membrane. So you push some gas on one side (He, usually), and it pushes the liquid out. Thus, the design is quite different. But I do believe that some of those tanks are, at least, fiber wrapped.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #62 on: 02/12/2014 07:59 pm »
NASA says that between March 10 and April 3 the 5.5m tank will be delivered and testing will start in May.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #63 on: 03/10/2014 03:11 pm »
The Boeing 5.5m tank is in the last stages of fabrication before being delivered to Marshall, via NASA web site:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/stmd-msfc-visit-to-boeing/#.Ux3j73dAcbA

STMD & MSFC Visit to Boeing

Officials from NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) and NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently visited Boeing's facility in Tukila, Wa., where work is wrapping up on the 18-foot (5.5-meter) cryotank. Boeing is NASA's prime contractor for the Composite Cryotank and Technologies Demonstration (CCTD) project, which is funded by STMD's Game Changing Development Program Office. The project is proving out the technology for out-of-autoclave composite cryogenic tanks, which will greatly reduce the cost and weight for future launch vehicles, enabling NASA's mission to explore deep space. The tank will soon leave the Boeing facility to head to NASA Marshall for further testing. From left to right are: Pete Lillehei,  principal investigator for materials and structures; John Vickers, CCTD project manager; Dan Schumacher, director of the Science & Technology Office at NASA Marshall; Chris Crumbly, manager of the Advanced Development Office, SLS Program, at NASA Marshall; Lanetra Tate, principal investigator for Advanced Manufacturing Technology; and James Reuther, Deputy Associate Administrator for Programs, STMD.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2014 06:40 pm by BrightLight »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #65 on: 03/11/2014 04:13 pm »
In the FY 15 budget, the composite structures - which i assume is the 5.5m tank is supposed to get 18 million for testing - is this enough to validate the methodology and technology?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #66 on: 03/11/2014 04:29 pm »
Would composite tanks like these make sense for storing hypergolic propellants in e.g. Orion's service module?

COPV's are standard for current spacecraft.

Offline Adaptation

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #67 on: 03/13/2014 06:51 am »
Any reason this would not work for hydrogen slush? 

How do permeability issues with hydrogen compare with LNG. 

Are these prices something SpaceX could consider for a raptor based falcon 1.2.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #68 on: 03/13/2014 10:48 am »
Boeing technology is liquid hydrogen exclusively. LNG has a whole industry, but no space qualified tank (again, with the industrial base that shouldn't be hard to develop). The missing piece of the puzzle is a composite cryogenic LOX tank (but there's people working on that).
« Last Edit: 03/13/2014 06:01 pm by baldusi »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #69 on: 03/13/2014 05:43 pm »
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=ntvb

thanks to:
http://swampcastle-scrapbook.blogspot.com/2014/03/cryo-composite-tank-development-testing.html
A side note: I was looking around and i came across two abandoned Saturn-1/1B 1st stages. one is still vertical on a test stand and another nearby sitting horizontally on processing stand rings which might be on its shipping trailer. Edit: the one vertical might be something else now that i look at it.
End Side Note.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2014 06:08 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #70 on: 03/14/2014 12:15 am »
The 4.5 10 meter (394 inches) tank has a volume of 22,400 ft^3 (634 m^3) according to the attached image. Has the volume of the 18-foot (5.5-meter) tank being shipped to Marshall been published? How about the other design requirements?

(EDIT: unit conversion correction)
« Last Edit: 03/15/2014 05:40 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #71 on: 03/15/2014 01:55 am »
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.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #72 on: 03/15/2014 06:01 am »
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.

It's a good question, but I think no one (yet) has a good answer. This current 5.5m tank testing will apparently determine whether a composite tank of that particular shape weighing 30% less than an aluminum tank will equally well meet that particular set of strength requirements. I believe for different design loads and maybe for different shapes, different materials might come out as mass winners.

Looking carefully at the wording on http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/game_changing_development/composite-cryotank.html it seems clear the 5.5m tank is a sub-scale test article. In the picture attached above, the diameter is 2.24 times the barrel length. For a 5.5m diameter tank of the same shape, the barrel length would be roughly 2.5m, so I'm estimating the tank holds 146 m^3 of LH2, which masses something like 10t. The matching amount of LO2 masses much more; it looks like a stage using that size LH2 tank might hold a total of 70t of propellant.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #73 on: 03/24/2014 06:00 pm »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #76 on: 03/25/2014 06:51 pm »
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2014/M14-045.html#.UzHM2PldU-c

wish I could be at this event. 8)

"Journalists will need a photo identification and proof of car insurance"

the car insurance part, is that a security measure or some need for the insurance?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline joncz

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Atlanta, Georgia
  • Liked: 296
  • Likes Given: 390
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #77 on: 03/25/2014 08:53 pm »
"Journalists must report to the Redstone Visitor Center at Gate 9, Interstate 565 interchange at Rideout Road/Research Park Boulevard no later than 6 a.m., Thursday, March 27, for escort to the Redstone Army Airfield."

Redstone AAF is just a few miles south on Rideout Road from the north gate.  I read this as the journalists will be driving themselves to the field with an escort.  You're not allowed to drive on the base without proof of insurance.


Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #78 on: 03/25/2014 10:31 pm »
Other uses for a big tank.

Propellant depot.
Reusable space tug - the engines may be available.
Large lunar lander - they are very weight critical.

Tanks able to contain methane and LOX are also likely to be useful.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #80 on: 03/28/2014 04:50 pm »
96-wheeled KAMAG rolls beneath cryotank, will take it 5 mph max. speed to test area

https://twitter.com/NASA_Marshall/status/449202592858800129/photo/1

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #81 on: 03/28/2014 04:59 pm »
Very nice.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #82 on: 03/29/2014 11:36 pm »
I found this image particularly worthwhile. Original at https://flic.kr/p/muVyFF

— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #83 on: 04/02/2014 02:46 pm »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #84 on: 04/10/2014 05:55 pm »
NASA Engineers Prepare Game Changing Cryotank for Testing

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2014/14-063.html#.U0cFSfnIYgE

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #85 on: 04/10/2014 06:03 pm »
NASA Engineers Prepare Game Changing Cryotank for Testing

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2014/14-063.html#.U0cFSfnIYgE

some great eye candy pics there.  Grab while you can :P
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #86 on: 04/10/2014 06:39 pm »
The number of signatures on the tank indicates the team responsible for its manufacture was quite large. No wonder these things are expensive!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #87 on: 04/10/2014 09:42 pm »
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).
« Last Edit: 04/10/2014 09:43 pm by baldusi »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #88 on: 04/10/2014 09:55 pm »
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).

couldn't the delta iv be used for a test bed?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #89 on: 04/11/2014 02:25 am »

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).

couldn't the delta iv be used for a test bed?
Current composite tooling is 5.5m, while Delta IV is 5.2. And then you'd need to redo the whole body, basically qualify everything again. Not really doable.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #90 on: 04/11/2014 02:48 am »
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.
 

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #91 on: 04/11/2014 03:26 am »

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.
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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #92 on: 04/11/2014 07:55 pm »

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.
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.

Getting a little confused now.   Is this hard tooling or Flex tooling?    Most new composite tooling is flex and scalable.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #93 on: 04/11/2014 07:59 pm »
How 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"?

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #94 on: 04/11/2014 08:19 pm »
How 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.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #95 on: 04/11/2014 08:30 pm »
How 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.

tooling for Ares I still might be around?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #96 on: 04/11/2014 09:03 pm »
Yup and it's what Dynetics is using to make their advanced boosters for the SLS. I believe that it's at Marshall.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2014 09:04 pm by USFdon »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #97 on: 04/17/2014 07:51 pm »
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

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #98 on: 04/17/2014 08:46 pm »
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

See this link for more details:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/multimedia/photos/2014/14-063.html

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #99 on: 04/17/2014 08:57 pm »
I knew they were lighter but didn't realise they were also 25% cheaper.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #100 on: 04/17/2014 09:17 pm »
I knew they were lighter but didn't realise they were also 25% cheaper.
Yes that's pretty amazing.

I can only presume it's because there's much less parts handling and much more near net shape forming.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #101 on: 04/18/2014 12:12 pm »
Allow me to throw cold liquid hydrogen on that.

Cheaper using what accounting metric?

Does that include all the overhead, man hours, engineering hours, tooling costs? Or are they ignoring the tooling and development costs and just using the cost of the materials savings?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline MP99

Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #102 on: 04/18/2014 01:18 pm »
I wonder if using this for EUS would make enough difference that the Black Knights could get SLS up to 130t?

Cheers, Martin

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #103 on: 04/18/2014 04:40 pm »
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.pdf
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/18/2014 04:41 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #104 on: 04/18/2014 04:53 pm »
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.pdf
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html

 - Ed Kyle

The Ares tanks were common bulkhead, right ?
Would you do the same thing with composite ?

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10350
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13605
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #105 on: 04/18/2014 08:34 pm »
The 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.  :(
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline a_langwich

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 735
  • Liked: 212
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #106 on: 04/18/2014 11:06 pm »
The 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.  :(

And aren't those questions exactly why they have moved it to a testing facility? 

I would think, based on their description of being able to detect miniscule voids and delaminations, that they feel they can detect such damage, at least where they have good NDE equipment (maybe not on orbit, in other words).

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.

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?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #107 on: 04/19/2014 12:14 am »

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?

Centaur has a vacuum between

and yes

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #108 on: 04/19/2014 04:09 pm »
The 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.


Let me excite your brain cells for a moment.   :D
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1175108#msg1175108    Some have eyes but can't see.
  This is will fully scale.



2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #109 on: 04/19/2014 04:14 pm »
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.pdf
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares1.html

 - Ed Kyle

Ed want to get really excited?    Re read and run some numbers.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29407.msg928241#msg928241
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Online AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3430
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1599
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #110 on: 05/28/2014 11:17 pm »
Composite Cryotank Testing Kicks Off At Marshall Center
The Marshall Star - May 28, 2014

Engineers recently began the first in a series of tests of one of the largest composite cryotanks ever built. The 18-foot-diameter (5.5-meter) cylinder-shaped tank was lowered into a structural test stand at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.

To check tank and test stand operations, the first tests are being conduced at ambient temperature with gaseous nitrogen. Future tests this summer will be with liquid hydrogen cooled to super cold, or cryogenic, temperatures. The orange ends of the tank are made of metal and attach to the test stand so that structural loads can be applied similarly to those the tank would experience during a rocket launch.

The composite cryotank is part of NASA’s Game Changing Development Program and Space Technology Mission Directorate, which is innovating, developing, testing and flying hardware for use in NASA’s future missions. NASA focused on this technology because composite tanks promise a 30 percent weight reduction and a 25 percent cost savings over the best metal tanks used today.

The tank was manufactured with new materials and processes at the Boeing Developmental Center in Tukwila, Washington.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/star140528.pdf

Photo Caption:

The 18-foot-diameter (5.5-meter) cylinder-shaped composite cryotank being lowered into a structural test stand at the Marshall Center.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #111 on: 06/20/2014 03:53 pm »
NASA Tests Large Composite Rocket Tank

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2242
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 487
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #112 on: 06/20/2014 04:16 pm »
Hope to see this as LOX tank on EUS. It's almost exactly the right size based on latest prop mass quoted for EUS.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #113 on: 06/20/2014 04:28 pm »
Hope to see this as LOX tank on EUS. It's almost exactly the right size based on latest prop mass quoted for EUS.
LOX testing will follow LH2 testing on this GTA then they will build a couple of larger GTAs first one at 8.4 meters and second one 10 meters, which will be built later in the future to further support the industry. only the 5.5 and 8.4 meter GTAs are funded at this time because they are required for SLS EUS R&D.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #114 on: 06/20/2014 06:05 pm »
I hope the tanks can take methane and RP-1.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #115 on: 06/20/2014 06:12 pm »
I hope the tanks can take methane and RP-1.
I assume that they can, but they would have to be certified for those propellants.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #116 on: 06/20/2014 06:41 pm »
I hope the tanks can take methane and RP-1.
I assume that they can, but they would have to be certified for those propellants.

The ability to hold space storable propellants means the new tanks could be used in a reusable space tug.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #117 on: 06/20/2014 11:24 pm »
Hope to see this as LOX tank on EUS. It's almost exactly the right size based on latest prop mass quoted for EUS.
The LOX tank is relatively little important, dry mass wise. LOX is dense and the tank is small. The important would be the 8.4m version for the H2. In fact, if they ever do it they could think about using it for the core in SLS.

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #118 on: 08/26/2014 09:10 pm »
This series of tests appear to be complete for H2:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/august/nasa-completes-successful-battery-of-tests-on-composite-cryotank/#.U_z20WM0cg8
"Engineers filled the tank with almost 30,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen chilled to -423 degrees Fahrenheit, and repeatedly cycled the pressure between 20 to 53 pounds per square inch -- the pressure limit set for the tests."
and
 “We are a step closer to demonstrating in flight a technology that could reduce the weight of rocket tanks by 30 percent and cut costs by at least 25 percent.”

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Liked: 346
  • Likes Given: 66
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #119 on: 03/20/2022 06:41 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: 03/20/2022 06:50 pm by daveklingler »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4671
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: Game Changing Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank
« Reply #120 on: 03/20/2022 07:26 pm »
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?
So that I do not have to retype everything see my posts and the press releases here:

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
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.
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 tank
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/cryotank.html

2014 tank:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/game-changing-cryotank

As for the latter question I'm not aware of any joint NASA funded projects using that method.
« Last Edit: 03/20/2022 07:29 pm by russianhalo117 »

Tags:
 

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