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-IO and J-2 Programs. These problems were combined in the M-I Engine Program."
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!
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/07/2023 10:17 pmReport 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.
Quote from: rsnellenberger on 01/07/2023 10:50 pm"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.
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
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/07/2023 11:20 pmQuote from: rsnellenberger on 01/07/2023 10:50 pm"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.
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 ?
Quote from: LittleBird on 01/09/2023 04:02 pmIs 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.
Quote from: Dmitry_V_home on 01/10/2023 05:44 pmReview 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 QuoteThe present M-1 program calls for a 1971 PFRT date and about 300 M $expenditure through PFRT. Strong political pressures are behind this projectwhere I have added emphasis. Presumably we have no idea what these political pressures were, except maybe local ones in Sacramento ?
Review by Dr. H.H.Koelle. The information on the Russian rocket is N-1, of course, inaccurate.
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
Quote from: rsnellenberger on 01/07/2023 10:50 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 01/07/2023 10:17 pmReport 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.
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.