Author Topic: The M-1 1.5-million pound thrust hydrogen/oxygen rocket engine  (Read 11835 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16374
  • Liked: 9189
  • Likes Given: 2
https://thespacereview.com/article/4506/1

M is for MONSTER ROCKET: the M-1 cryogenic engine
by Dwayne A. Day
Tuesday, January 3, 2023

By the mid-1960s NASA was on a roll. The agency was consuming nearly four and a half percent of the federal budget—compared to less than half a percent today—and going full-bore to build Apollo and its required infrastructure in time to meet President Kennedy’s deadline for landing men on the Moon by the end of the decade. Agency officials were also thinking beyond the Moon, and funding the next steps. NASA funded many paper studies on advanced propulsion and technology and spacecraft. However, the agency also funded a surprising number of advanced hardware projects that received significant funding and proceeded to hardware testing, but were canceled and have largely been forgotten today. One of these projects was the powerful M-1 rocket engine.

Had it been built, the M-1 would have been a monster, the most powerful rocket engine ever developed. It would have fueled the upper stages and possibly even the first stage of rockets to follow the Saturn V. Contractor Aerojet began development work in 1963, conducted a number of component tests over the next few years, and was constructing numerous facilities including large test stands. But reality caught up with the monster engine, and the program was canceled in early 1965, before it could achieve a full-scale test.
« Last Edit: 01/07/2023 01:03 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16374
  • Liked: 9189
  • Likes Given: 2
I would love to have a good image of the color painting. This is apparently in Aerojet Rocketdyne's HQ lobby.

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Interesting how NASA wanted the best of many different propulsion systems
- F-1A for kerolox
- M-1 for hydrolox
- AJ-260 for solid fuel
- NERVA nuclear rocket

Sound pretty obvious their ultimate "wet dream" was to bring all four together.
Something akin to:
4*AJ-260 (stage 0), 5*F-1A (stage 1), 2*M-1 (stage 2) and one NERVA (stage 3).
Would have been one hell of a launch vehicle.  But - for what ?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16374
  • Liked: 9189
  • Likes Given: 2
Report on the M-1 rocket engine.


Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 348
I'm missing something obvious here.  Wouldn't an M-1 hyrdolox stage require a larger hydrogen tank than an equivalent kerolox RP-1 stage, hence a taller rocket than could be accommodated in the VAB?  Wasn't that why RP-1 was chosen for the S-V first stage?  Or were the M-1 studies not concerned about required ground systems and facilities?
PS:  Thanks Blackstar for this fascinating read!
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Offline rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 62
Report on the M-1 rocket engine.
"The problems associated with high thrust that were significant in the F-I Program and those problems that are unique to liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines were significant in the RL-10 and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."

Hooray??? Thanks for posting, Blackstar.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2023 06:57 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16374
  • Liked: 9189
  • Likes Given: 2
"The problems associated with high thrust that were significant in the F-I Program and those problems that are unique to liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines were significant in the RL-IO and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."

The Murray and Cox book "Apollo: The Race to the Moon" has a great account of trying to get the S-II stage to work. It was not easy.

Here are the J-2s igniting in a ground test:

https://twitter.com/LM__Steve/status/1612504009918582789

« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 08:09 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7394
  • Liked: 2905
  • Likes Given: 1505
I'm missing something obvious here.  Wouldn't an M-1 hyrdolox stage require a larger hydrogen tank than an equivalent kerolox RP-1 stage, hence a taller rocket than could be accommodated in the VAB?  Wasn't that why RP-1 was chosen for the S-V first stage?  Or were the M-1 studies not concerned about required ground systems and facilities?
PS:  Thanks Blackstar for this fascinating read!

At the time the need for a Saturn V- or Nova-class launch vehicle was identified, the F-1 was the only large engine under development.

But I think a lox-hydrogen first stage would have been a bad idea anyway. It's only in upper stages (or possibly SSTOs) that hydrogen's advantage in Isp outweighs its disadvantage in density.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7702
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2456
  • Likes Given: 2282
Just for kicks I compared the map provided in the Space Review article with what Google Maps shows today. Apparently the M-1 test stand would have been where Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Area is located today.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8950
  • Liked: 4893
  • Likes Given: 768
I'm missing something obvious here.  Wouldn't an M-1 hyrdolox stage require a larger hydrogen tank than an equivalent kerolox RP-1 stage, hence a taller rocket than could be accommodated in the VAB?  Wasn't that why RP-1 was chosen for the S-V first stage?  Or were the M-1 studies not concerned about required ground systems and facilities?
PS:  Thanks Blackstar for this fascinating read!
The M-1's were primarily intended in place of the second stages 5 J-2's as an upgrade path with most documentation calling for 2 to 3 M-1's with 10m diameter stages and 4 with 12m diameter stsges if my memory serves me well today. Borrowed from NOVA and Saturn C-8
« Last Edit: 01/08/2023 02:30 am by russianhalo117 »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
Report on the M-1 rocket engine.
"The problems associated with high thrust that were significant in the F-I Program and those problems that are unique to liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines were significant in the RL-10 and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."

Hooray??? Thanks for posting, Blackstar.

The SSME development program circa 1977-80 was in serious trouble (one exploded on its test stand - from memory).
So was the F-1 circa 1963, with combustion instabilities driving engineers crazy. They ended up throwing dynamite at combustion chambers to try and understand and solve the vexing problems. And they succeeded.
Now imagine the M-1 having both teething development troubles - combined. Would have been a technical nightmare indeed.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2023 06:58 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13317
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 8950
  • Likes Given: 88665
Moderator:
Splinter thread created.
The many versions of Nova and Advanced Saturn

(I fixed the link.)
« Last Edit: 01/11/2023 12:09 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38172
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 22652
  • Likes Given: 432
Some was MSFC and its contractors trying to stay busy and some marketing involved.  Much like Big Gemini.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1403
  • UK
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 713
"The problems associated with high thrust that were significant in the F-I Program and those problems that are unique to liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines were significant in the RL-IO and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."

The Murray and Cox book "Apollo: The Race to the Moon" has a great account of trying to get the S-II stage to work. It was not easy.

If i recall correctly there's also good stuff in the book Angle of Attack about Harrison "Stormy" Storms of North American, his company had to do the CSM and the S-II at same time. 
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 04:29 pm by LittleBird »

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1403
  • UK
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 713
Re this bit of Blackstar's TSR article

Quote
The engines that eventually powered NASA’s Saturn V rocket originally started as Air Force projects. The F-1 was an Air Force engine, as was the J-2 hydrogen-oxygen engine, and both were eventually incorporated into what later became known as the Saturn V. Initially, the Air Force planned Project Lunex to send humans to the Moon, and a Space Launching System launch vehicle that would take them there. One SLS design used a cluster of twelve J-2 engines for the second stage, but Air Force officials were concerned that this was overly complex and so they contracted Aerojet to begin work on a new engine, named the M-1, with 1.2 million pounds-force (5.3 million newtons) of thrust with the goal of replacing twelve J-2s with two M-1s

Is there a chronology for the Air Force part of the story ? Did M-1 start in say 1958ish which would be about right for Lunex, and was it then funded by USAF until a transfer to NASA ? And if so when did it transfer ?
« Last Edit: 01/09/2023 04:03 pm by LittleBird »

Offline Harry Cover

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 119
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 146
"The problems associated with high thrust that were significant in the F-I Program and those problems that are unique to liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines were significant in the RL-IO and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."

The Murray and Cox book "Apollo: The Race to the Moon" has a great account of trying to get the S-II stage to work. It was not easy.

If i recall correctly there's also good stuff in the book Angle of Attack about Harrison "Stormy" Storms of North American, his company had to do the CSM and the S-II at same time.

He almost killed himself through exhaustion and a coronary heart attack. Not only did they had to endure Apollo 1 colossal shitstorm (N.A vs NASA vs politicians - it was pretty ugly) - but the S-II had exploded only weeks or months before.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16374
  • Liked: 9189
  • Likes Given: 2
Is there a chronology for the Air Force part of the story ? Did M-1 start in say 1958ish which would be about right for Lunex, and was it then funded by USAF until a transfer to NASA ? And if so when did it transfer ?


I do not know if there is a chronology, so I cannot directly answer your question. However, there is a recent book on Air Force launch from David Spires. That is available online somewhere. I admit that I have only made a quick skim. I should find it and post it here.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1403
  • UK
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 713
Is there a chronology for the Air Force part of the story ? Did M-1 start in say 1958ish which would be about right for Lunex, and was it then funded by USAF until a transfer to NASA ? And if so when did it transfer ?


I do not know if there is a chronology, so I cannot directly answer your question. However, there is a recent book on Air Force launch from David Spires. That is available online somewhere. I admit that I have only made a quick skim. I should find it and post it here.

Thanks. I was just struck by the possibly quite large gap between the start mentioned in your piece, which would presumably have been well before 1961, and the point at which the NASA final report starts which is 1962.

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1403
  • UK
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 713
Crossposting from Nova thread as this is perhaps more an M-1 than Nova question. I am curious about the pro-M1 "political pressures" that are referred to in this 1964 Post-Saturn Study Plan. Maybe allies of Aerojet ?

Review by Dr. H.H.Koelle. The information on the Russian rocket is N-1, of course, inaccurate.

Some interesting stuff there, particularly e remark on page 33, in POST-SATURN FPO Study Plan for FY 1965
(approved by Dr.von Braun June -10,1964), that

Quote
The present M-1 program calls for a 1971 PFRT date and about 300 M $
expenditure through PFRT. Strong political pressures are behind this project

where I have added emphasis. Presumably we have no idea what these political pressures were, except maybe local ones in Sacramento ?

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1403
  • UK
  • Liked: 406
  • Likes Given: 713
Report on the M-1 rocket engine.
"The problems associated with high thrust that were significant in the F-I Program and those problems that are unique to liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen engines were significant in the RL-10 and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."

Hooray??? Thanks for posting, Blackstar.

The SSME development program circa 1977-80 was in serious trouble (one exploded on its test stand - from memory).
So was the F-1 circa 1963, with combustion instabilities driving engineers crazy. They ended up throwing dynamite at combustion chambers to try and understand and solve the vexing problems. And they succeeded.
Now imagine the M-1 having both teething development troubles - combined. Would have been a technical nightmare indeed.

Interesting stuff about the M-1 testing programme at NASA Lewis' Rocket Engine Test Facility (RETF) and about the screech instability is at bottom of this NASA web page. https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/historic-facilities/rocket-engine-test-facility/apollo-era-testing/

Quote
From 1962 to 1966, the RETF studies also explored combustion instability in Aerojet’s 1.23-million pound thrust M‒1 engine. The M‒1 was a liquid hydrogen engine for the upper stage of the Nova rocket. NASA planned on using the Nova launch vehicle, which would be more powerful than the Saturn, to send a manned mission directly to the Moon. RETF testing determined that the inclusion of baffles in the M‒1 combustion chamber sufficiently reduced instability. NASA’s decision in 1962 to use a lunar-orbit-rendezvous approach for the Moon rather than a direct-ascent meant that the Nova would not be needed for the Apollo Program. NASA ultimately cancelled the M‒1 program in 1966.
« Last Edit: 01/17/2023 04:48 am by LittleBird »

Tags: m-1 NOVA 
 

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