-
Buran Kerosene/Oxygen RCS - Future Potential?
by
drbuzz0
on 01 Apr, 2009 23:24
-
I was recently doing some reading on the design of the Buran spacecraft. (the magnification Soviet design that flew only once, in an unmanned test and is commonly known as the "Russian Version of the Space Shuttle" although it is very different in a number of fundamental ways)
I was surprised to find out that the ODU of the Buran, the system that provided both the Reaction control system and the orbital engines of the spacecraft. The ODU can be likened to the Shuttle's RCS/OMS system
The RCS on the shuttle is a monofuel system, which is what most spacecraft use for RCS purposes. It used hydrazine, although other systems have used hydrogen peroxide or nitrous oxide - neither of which are as effecient as hydrazine. The shuttle RCS works very well, but hydrazine is highly toxic and requires special handling. The Shuttle's OMS uses a biprollent hypergolic system of Dinitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine. (other similar orbital engine systems have used Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine or Aerozine-50).
Although both the OMS and RCS use hydrazine-based propellants, they have entirely seperate fuel supplies and systems.
The Buran system is much different than anything I've heard of before. The main orbital engines of the Buran used kerosene-based fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidizer. That's not really that remarkable, but the RCS actually used the same fuel and fuel supply for the small reactionary thrusters. They ran on kerosene fuel and oxygen vapor, as opposed to liquid, but it was drawn from the same tanks.
That kind of a system would have a lot of advantages if it could have the same kind of reliability as the standard monofuel variety. For one thing, the fuel is not highly toxic. Also, it;s far more effecient and offers better specific impulse as well as simplified logistics due to the need for only standard fuel which wouldn't need the same kind of handling as hydrazine-based fuels.
I'm wondering how well the system worked in terms of utility and reliability and whether or not an O2/RP1 RCS is something we might see in future spacecraft/
-
#1
by
Danderman
on 02 Apr, 2009 00:10
-
I hate to be a spoilsport, but the OMS engines for Buran were basically the RD-58 engines used for 40 years aboard the Block-DM stage.
-
#2
by
kch
on 02 Apr, 2009 00:31
-
If I'm reading it right, the OP's point was that the RCS thrusters on Buran also used (gaseous) oxygen and kerosene, as compared with Shuttle's hydrazine RCS system. It appears that the Isp for the two RCS systems was fairly close (289 sec for Shuttle, 275-295 for Buran), so no advantage there, but the relatively non-toxic propellants could be safer to handle.
-
#3
by
drbuzz0
on 02 Apr, 2009 00:48
-
I hate to be a spoilsport, but the OMS engines for Buran were basically the RD-58 engines used for 40 years aboard the Block-DM stage.
Yeah I didn't mention that, but the OMS engines were not remarkable in any way. The small RCS thrusters are what I found interesting. I don't know of any similar small space thrusters that use a fuel anything like that.
(hydrazine, nitrous oxide, high test peroxide and even occasionally just compressed gas, as on some suborbital spacecraft).
I'm just asking whether this concept worked well enough to make it worth perusing for future spacecraft.
-
#4
by
MKremer
on 02 Apr, 2009 00:54
-
Apart from the toxicity difference, another is that a kerolox thruster would also need some type of spark igniter in addition to valves. I'm assuming there was some redundancy for that?
-
#5
by
Danderman
on 02 Apr, 2009 01:06
-
DC-X also used Gox thrusters, IIRC.
-
#6
by
Jim
on 02 Apr, 2009 01:29
-
1. The RCS on the shuttle is a monofuel system,
2. Although both the OMS and RCS use hydrazine-based propellants, they have entirely seperate fuel supplies and systems
Incorrect,
1. It is biprop. It uses the same propellants as the OMS
2. true, but the aft RSC can be also fed from the OMS tanks
-
#7
by
Jim
on 02 Apr, 2009 01:39
-
I'm just asking whether this concept worked well enough to make it worth perusing for future spacecraft.
Current practices would say no, since no spacecraft has adopted it.
hypergolics are easy to manage once loaded on a spacecraft.
Comsats are lasting 10 to 15 years, so propellants that cause a little hardship for the short period of ground operations have onorbit benefits that are greater
-
#8
by
drbuzz0
on 02 Apr, 2009 01:41
-
1. It is biprop. It uses the same propellants as the OMS
Well excuse me.. I stand corrected on that. I have no idea about the orion capsul but many spacecraft have used monopropellant systems for orientation control and other maneuvering purposes.
-
#9
by
mmeijeri
on 02 Apr, 2009 01:49
-
Current practices would say no, since no spacecraft has adopted it.
hypergolics are easy to manage once loaded on a spacecraft.
Comsats are lasting 10 to 15 years, so propellants that cause a little hardship for the short period of ground operations have onorbit benefits that are greater
Adding to what Jim said: ethanol and lox were proposed for the CLV-P "mini-orbiter", perhaps because there would be far more ground operations than with comsats. It was not adopted of course.
-
#10
by
Jim
on 02 Apr, 2009 01:59
-
Adding to what Jim said: ethanol and lox were proposed for the CLV-P "mini-orbiter", perhaps because there would be far more ground operations than with comsats. It was not adopted of course.
Green and/or non toxic propellants would be a consideration for RLV's. But for spacecraft, hypergols rule
-
#11
by
mmeijeri
on 02 Apr, 2009 02:02
-
Green and/or non toxic propellants would be a consideration for RLV's. But for spacecraft, hypergols rule
What about reusable spacecraft if and when they happen?
-
#12
by
Jim
on 02 Apr, 2009 02:03
-
1. It is biprop. It uses the same propellants as the OMS
Well excuse me.. I stand corrected on that. I have no idea about the orion capsul but many spacecraft have used monopropellant systems for orientation control and other maneuvering purposes.
Not US manned spacecraft
-
#13
by
Jorge
on 02 Apr, 2009 02:27
-
That kind of a system would have a lot of advantages if it could have the same kind of reliability as the standard monofuel variety. For one thing, the fuel is not highly toxic. Also, it;s far more effecient and offers better specific impulse as well as simplified logistics due to the need for only standard fuel which wouldn't need the same kind of handling as hydrazine-based fuels.
It also has disadvantages, such as the need for ignition systems in the RCS thrusters and OMS engines since the propellants aren't hypergolic.
I'm wondering how well the system worked in terms of utility and reliability.
Many in the west are wondering as well. I haven't seen any Russian reports of how the system performed on its one and only flight.
-
#14
by
drbuzz0
on 02 Apr, 2009 03:06
-
Green and/or non toxic propellants would be a consideration for RLV's. But for spacecraft, hypergols rule
I agree it would not be a credible replacement for unmanned systems like satellites or space probes. For one thing, those often are designed for long endurance and that would mean problems for liquid oxygen. If the mission is long enough boil off of cryogenic stored oxygen becomes an issue.
So it's out for that kind of application.
Still might have some kind of potential on a manned spacecraft or perhaps for upper stage control.
-
#15
by
MySDCUserID
on 04 Apr, 2009 15:48
-
1. It is biprop. It uses the same propellants as the OMS
Well excuse me.. I stand corrected on that. I have no idea about the orion capsul but many spacecraft have used monopropellant systems for orientation control and other maneuvering purposes.
Not US manned spacecraft
Orion's CM is monoprop.
-
#16
by
Danny Dot
on 04 Apr, 2009 17:25
-
I was recently doing some reading on the design of the Buran spacecraft. (the magnification Soviet design that flew only once, in an unmanned test and is commonly known as the "Russian Version of the Space Shuttle" although it is very different in a number of fundamental ways)
I was surprised to find out that the ODU of the Buran, the system that provided both the Reaction control system and the orbital engines of the spacecraft. The ODU can be likened to the Shuttle's RCS/OMS system
The RCS on the shuttle is a monofuel system, which is what most spacecraft use for RCS purposes. It used hydrazine, although other systems have used hydrogen peroxide or nitrous oxide - neither of which are as effecient as hydrazine. The shuttle RCS works very well, but hydrazine is highly toxic and requires special handling. The Shuttle's OMS uses a biprollent hypergolic system of Dinitrogen tetroxide and monomethylhydrazine. (other similar orbital engine systems have used Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine or Aerozine-50).
Although both the OMS and RCS use hydrazine-based propellants, they have entirely seperate fuel supplies and systems.
The Buran system is much different than anything I've heard of before. The main orbital engines of the Buran used kerosene-based fuel and liquid oxygen as oxidizer. That's not really that remarkable, but the RCS actually used the same fuel and fuel supply for the small reactionary thrusters. They ran on kerosene fuel and oxygen vapor, as opposed to liquid, but it was drawn from the same tanks.
That kind of a system would have a lot of advantages if it could have the same kind of reliability as the standard monofuel variety. For one thing, the fuel is not highly toxic. Also, it;s far more effecient and offers better specific impulse as well as simplified logistics due to the need for only standard fuel which wouldn't need the same kind of handling as hydrazine-based fuels.
I'm wondering how well the system worked in terms of utility and reliability and whether or not an O2/RP1 RCS is something we might see in future spacecraft/
It absolutely is. While at NASA we looked long and hard at many different propellants for OMS and RCS. Can you provide a link to the Buran design?
BTW, on shuttle OMS and RCS use the same propellants. In fact the aft RCS can be feed from the OMS tanks.
Danny Deger