Author Topic: Epsilon launch - SPRINT-A, Sept.14, 2013 (0500UTC)  (Read 117265 times)

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #20 on: 03/04/2013 03:05 AM »
Lots of interesting rockets debuting this year, and this is one of the less known ones. Good to see it's still on target for first flight in August: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_03_01_2013_p03-02-554161.xml
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #21 on: 03/04/2013 10:02 AM »
Japanese police force getting a new just-in-case toy.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #22 on: 03/04/2013 01:14 PM »
Japanese police force getting a new just-in-case toy.

No.  It's an orbital launcher, based on SRB-A solids used for H-2A boost.  It is too big to be a useful missile at any rate. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #23 on: 03/04/2013 01:48 PM »
Japanese police force getting a new just-in-case toy.
It is too big to be a useful missile at any rate. 

Replace PLF with 'atomic police force projection device' and it won't be much taller than Minuteman.

Leave 3rd stage away (not needed to greet Kim Jong-un) and it's even shorter.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #24 on: 03/04/2013 01:54 PM »
Japanese police force getting a new just-in-case toy.
It is too big to be a useful missile at any rate. 

Replace PLF with 'atomic police force projection device' and it won't be much taller than Minuteman.

Leave 3rd stage away (not needed to greet Kim Jong-un) and it's even shorter.
Epsilon is going to weigh 91 tonnes at liftoff.  Minuteman III only weighs 34.5 tonnes.  Russia's Topol-M missile only weighs 47.2 tonnes.  And even these smaller missile are strategic intercontinental range missile systems, something that Japan simply has no use for. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/04/2013 01:57 PM by edkyle99 »

Online Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2929
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #25 on: 03/04/2013 02:21 PM »
So this is based around the current SRB-A3?

Is this correct SRB-A2 were intended for H-2A204? But used since 2005. Two variants were available, for rockets with either two or four units. Now replaced by SRB-A3 in 2009, also with two loadings, configurations?

http://www.rocket.jaxa.jp/rocket-engine/engine/srba/
http://www.jaxa.jp/press/nasda/2003/srba2_20030418_j.html
http://www.jaxa.jp/countdown/f11/presskit/h2a-f11_guide_e.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/04/2013 02:29 PM by Stan Black »

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #26 on: 03/04/2013 02:25 PM »
Epsilon is going to weigh 91 tonnes at liftoff.  Minuteman III only weighs 34.5 tonnes.  Russia's Topol-M missile only weighs 47.2 tonnes.

So? R-36 weighs 200+ tonnes, still in use.

Quote
And even these smaller missile are strategic intercontinental range missile systems, something that Japan simply has no use for.

One could say the same about things like French SLBM, yet they exist. And as said, leave stage(s) away, decrease range.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #27 on: 03/04/2013 02:35 PM »
A 1/3 cost reduction is interesting.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #28 on: 03/04/2013 05:29 PM »
Epsilon is going to weigh 91 tonnes at liftoff.  Minuteman III only weighs 34.5 tonnes.  Russia's Topol-M missile only weighs 47.2 tonnes.

So? R-36 weighs 200+ tonnes, still in use.
R-36 is outmoded, and is supposed to be phased out.  It is a dinosaur from the coldest days of the Cold War.  Neither Japan, nor any other modern country, should have use for such a costly weapons system.
Quote
Quote
And even these smaller missile are strategic intercontinental range missile systems, something that Japan simply has no use for.

One could say the same about things like French SLBM, yet they exist. And as said, leave stage(s) away, decrease range.

France isn't orbiting satellites with SLBMs. And M51 weighs only 52 tonnes compared to Epsilon's 92 tonnes.

If Japan wanted a strategic missile force, it would most likely develop SLBMs, and they would weigh far less and be smaller in diameter than Epsilon.  But Japan is not doing any of that.  Epsilon is a space rocket, not a missile.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/04/2013 05:57 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1447
  • Likes Given: 4506
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #29 on: 03/04/2013 05:45 PM »
It's pretty difficult to design a small & cheap launcher and not be called a potential SLBM. In South America we have that problem. You'd be surprised at how many hops and turns (plus visits and invitations) we've needed to convince the rest of the world that Tronador is not an ICBM technology development program. And even them we have extremely stupid journalists calling it that.
There's a lot of potential for 100kg LEO satellites. Regrettably, that's pretty close to an slightly oversized SLBM. And if you want to do it for cheap, doing solids that you can launch with minimum infrastructure and campaign is a very reasonable alternative. Again, just like an SLBM.
I still think that the real issue for an SLBM is the warhead. I.e. the nuclear head, the reentry TPS, guidance, etc. And both Japan, Argentina and Brazil have their whole nuclear programs audited so they can't move uranium unaccounted for.
Brazil does have a reentry project, though (SARAL suborbital).
I still think that calling this a SLBM project would show a serious lack of professional analysis.

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #30 on: 03/05/2013 02:23 PM »
It's pretty difficult to design a small & cheap launcher and not be called a potential SLBM.

It's not that hard, just leave solids out of the picture. Use them as side boosters if you really must incorporate your national defense contractor.  And have a cryogenic part somewhere, at least LOX in the booster. All solids / completely storable design always screams of xxBM manufacturing capability.

Argentina can soothe the criticism by rolling out La President:-*. On top of looking good she could help by not rehashing the Falklands agenda. Border tensions always bring military issues under microscope.


AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1447
  • Likes Given: 4506
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #31 on: 03/05/2013 03:38 PM »
Easy means either solid or hypergolic. Cryo is the most desirable, in fact, we tried. But ended up with the hypergolic due to the technical difficulties of cryo. And Brazil didn't even tried at first. Simply expanded their sounding rocket program, which was obviously all solid. Only now they are making a small CH4/LOX pressure fed engine (the L5) and developing a pump fed kerosene/LOX (the L75). But if the first stages are solid, you have a very capable xxBM.
The japanese had some very specific requirements for Falcon 1. Mainly to do with minimum launch campaing and on pad work and infrastructure. I don't think it's possible to do it with anything bu solids. They even talked that they were developing a formula that they could model like clay and even melt back if they found an anomaly.
And please, please, please. Don't mention her. Things are not exactly rosy here.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2013 03:40 PM by baldusi »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4825
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1248
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #32 on: 03/05/2013 03:56 PM »
Should we have a Mod change the thread title to actually match the launcher's name: Epsilon Space Launch Vehicle (SLV)?

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #33 on: 03/05/2013 06:19 PM »
They even talked that they were developing a formula that they could model like clay and even melt back if they found an anomaly.

This is the technically interesting part here, any information of the composition of this stuff available? Performance versus traditional solids etc?
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #34 on: 03/05/2013 06:26 PM »
It's pretty difficult to design a small & cheap launcher and not be called a potential SLBM.
It's not that hard, just leave solids out of the picture.

That's ridiculous.  That's like saying it is o.k. to build an airplane, just don't use jet engines to power it.

Military missiles have different design goals than space launchers, which lead to different design solutions regardless of propellant type.

 - Ed kyle

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #35 on: 03/05/2013 06:53 PM »
It's pretty difficult to design a small & cheap launcher and not be called a potential SLBM.
It's not that hard, just leave solids out of the picture.
That's ridiculous.  That's like saying it is o.k. to build an airplane, just don't use jet engines to power it.

Incorrect comparison so argument is non-sequitur + straw man. Ed, please, you are better than this.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4102
  • Likes Given: 769
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #36 on: 03/06/2013 02:38 PM »
It's pretty difficult to design a small & cheap launcher and not be called a potential SLBM.
It's not that hard, just leave solids out of the picture.
That's ridiculous.  That's like saying it is o.k. to build an airplane, just don't use jet engines to power it.

Incorrect comparison so argument is non-sequitur + straw man. Ed, please, you are better than this.
You said that a solid rocket motor implies that a rocket is also a missile, which is not true.  By your logic, comparing propulsion types, since fighter planes use jet engines, any plane powered by a jet engine is also a fighter plane.  Etc.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 03/06/2013 02:39 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #37 on: 03/06/2013 03:43 PM »
You said that a solid rocket motor implies that a rocket is also a missile

No. What I said is that if you don't want your small & cheap launcher to be called a potential SLBM then don't do design similar to SLBMs.

Quote
By your logic, comparing propulsion types, since fighter planes use jet engines, any plane powered by a jet engine is also a fighter plane.  Etc.

This is your strawman logic and fails to address the special issues in rocket propulsion types which have no comparison in aircrafts. The special issues are storability and rapid deployment. For aircrafts piston or jet, all the same, burns kerosene anyway, it's ready to go just turn the key. Rockets, big differences between solids vs liquids. Solids make the perfect choice for military application, years of relatively effortless compact storage while ready to deploy pretty much instantly, just remember to open the silo roof/sub hatch. You can stare thru the throat at motor grain all day long and it won't attack you.

Now try to replicate previous with cryogenic or toxic/corrosive storable liquids. "What Mr President, oh the WW3 is on? OK we can decimate the enemy in .... a few hours, gotta condition the tanks and load cryogenics first". Stare at IRFNA fueled missile while it develops a leak and notice your lungs are missing.

You know the reasons why all-solids/storable rockets have potential tactical military advantage over other designs, I think you are just having me on :) You can't handwave those reasons away but course you can always try. Chemical compositions are secondary, the warhead levels the city just as good whether there were HMX in the motor grain or not.
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7437
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1447
  • Likes Given: 4506
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #38 on: 03/06/2013 05:01 PM »
It's pretty difficult to design a small & cheap launcher and not be called a potential SLBM.
It's not that hard, just leave solids out of the picture.
You insist on forgetting that the easiest liquid engines to design are the hypergolic. Which I think was used by some xxBMs. I can't think of any country that tries to get into the LV club that didn't started either with solids or hypergolics. The industrial base of the military industry might help it. But there are good technical reasons, too. The only reasons even start ups in USA can do cryo is that they have a huge industrial and technical base inside. Ask anyone that's been successful and NASA did help them greatly. But for the rest of the world, ITAR doesn't allows us to tap on that experiences.
But, as I said before, trying to do micro launcher means that the infrastructure and campaign costs have to be slashed. Microlaunchers is about launching things for very little money. Not for cheap on a $/kg basis. But for little amount of money. If you could launch just 20kg for 1M to LEO, it would be a boom. Even though the cost per kg would be even higher than using the space shuttle.
But for that money you could launch 15 cubesats and charge them 67k per launch. Which would mean that for 120k they could have the whole satellite up. That's money any university or small company can get.
That was extreme, but the idea is always that you have to minimize time on pad and launch campaign. And spend very little on research. So, unless you are Russian or American you'd most probably use solids or hypergolics. And people are going to say "that's an xxBM in disguise!".

Offline R7

  • Propulsophile
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
    • Don't worry.. we can still be fans of OSC and SNC
  • Liked: 954
  • Likes Given: 662
Re: JAXA's solid fuel "Falcon 1"
« Reply #39 on: 03/06/2013 05:26 PM »
You insist on forgetting that the easiest liquid engines to design are the hypergolic.

No; "And have a cryogenic part somewhere, at least LOX in the booster."

Btw the fact that hypergolics autoignite is not the most relevant issue in military applications, more like nice to have side-bonus. It's the long term room-temperature storability that matters. An igniter is a nonissue, pretty much first thing every amateur rocketeer builds :)

I respectfully disagree that propellant prodution and handling is more difficult with cryogenics involved than NTO/MMH. Heck you can build nitrogen liquifier with $500, someone on youtube is working on a project to build airliquifier using junkyard parts. Good luck with producing NTO/MMH with similar budget/means.

Quote
And spend very little on research. So, unless you are Russian or American you'd most probably use solids or hypergolics.

The relevant research for both solids and liquids was pretty much all done in the 60s and is widely available on internet and bookstores for every nationality.

edit:
Quote
I can't think of any country that tries to get into the LV club that didn't started either with solids or hypergolics.

How unsurprising. Countries wanting to get into LV club have hardly ever had purely peaceful motives. OTOH many serious newSpace efforts, in and outside existing LV capable countries, are utilizing LOX in their system. AFAIK none are using NTO/MMH and HTP has shortage issues.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2013 05:48 PM by R7 »
AD·ASTRA·ASTRORVM·GRATIA

Tags: