Author Topic: Kerosene Super Heavy (Read 233873 times)

edkyle99 · « **on:** 05/30/2010 09:12 pm »

UPDATED: I plan to discuss RP super-heavy lift concepts in this thread.

The MSFC HLLV Study released recently included a two-stage concept named Concept 103 with a kerosene first stage (shown in attached image). First stage power was provided by six 1.7 Mlbf kerosene engines. Two J-2X engines powered the second stage. LEO Payload was said to be 149 "tons", which I take to mean 149,000 kg or 149 metric tons (tonnes).

There are several possible breakdowns for this rocket. I'll present one, assuming the following.

Stage 1 engines (each):
RP/LOX, Thrust sea-level = 1.55 Mlbf
ISP avg = 329 sec (consistent with RD-180 staged-combustion engine)
Stage 1 usable propellant mass fraction 0.93

Stage 2 engines J-2X
Thrust vacuum = 293 Klbf
ISP vac = 448 sec
Stage 2 usable propellant mass fraction 0.90

Stage 1:
Gross Mass: 3,096 tonnes
Usable Propellant: 2,879 tonnes
Liftoff Thrust 4,218 tonnesf
T/W = 1.2

Stage 2:
Gross Mass: 260 tonnes
Usable Propellant: 234 tonnes
Thrust 266 tonnesf
T/W = 0.65

Fairing: 10 tonnes
Payload: 149.4 tonnes
Delta-v = 9,237 m/s

If Payload = 45 tonnes
Delta-v = 12,398 m/s

- Ed Kyle

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/30/2010 09:23 pm »

The only other kerolox-core super-heavy launch vehicle that I know of is the ULA Atlas-V Phase 3B. That has a 8.4m core with five RD-180-class engines (I imagine, if it were ever to proceed, it would have the future US 1Mlbf engine currently being proposed) and a ACES-41 upper stage (4 x RL-10B-2). The vehicle can also have up to four strap-ons in the form of Atlas-V Phase 2 cores (2 x RD-180 each). In its max-lift configuration, it is estimated to have an IMLEO of about 140t.

JohnF · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/30/2010 09:52 pm »

Put an Orion and a LES on top and I think we may have something there.

edkyle99 · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/30/2010 10:12 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 05/30/2010 09:23 pm

The only other kerolox-core super-heavy launch vehicle that I know of is the ULA Atlas-V Phase 3B. That has a 8.4m core with five RD-180-class engines (I imagine, if it were ever to proceed, it would have the future US 1Mlbf engine currently being proposed) and a ACES-41 upper stage (4 x RL-10B-2). The vehicle can also have up to four strap-ons in the form of Atlas-V Phase 2 cores (2 x RD-180 each). In its max-lift configuration, it is estimated to have an IMLEO of about 140t.

I'm not sure that Phase 3 used RL10 engines. The ESAS version used four J-2S engines, providing a boatload of thrust that allowed up to 78 tonnes payload to LEO. That upper stage carried 300 tonnes of propellant!

An ACES71 type second stage would have a limited propellant load by comparison - only about 70 tonnes usable. Even then it would need six RL10s to have a 0.7 T/W ratio at ignition. I figure only 45 tonnes to LEO for a two stage rocket powered off the pad by five RD-180s and with six RL10s on the second stage.

Bolting a single J-2X like engine on that second stage would put this rocket in business. The second stage could then carry 145 tonnes propellant (this is an Ares I Upper Stage, isn't it?) and the payload would increase to 65 tonnes to LEO.

- Ed Kyle

EE Scott · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/30/2010 10:13 pm »

We'll need names for these beasts to keep them straight. The RP Super Heavy that starts this thread looks well designed, as long as there is a budget and mission for it, which there is not really right now. But I wouldn't want to say it's impossible, with all the surprises we've experienced up to this point. Great idea for a thread - I look forward reading this as it progresses.

neilh · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/31/2010 12:57 am »

What kind of pad would be required for something like that?

Downix · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/31/2010 01:41 am »

Quote from: neilh on 05/31/2010 12:57 am

What kind of pad would be required for something like that?

Actually could fit up to the MLP that they built for the Ares I with minor mods.

JosephB · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/31/2010 01:42 am »

Are shuttle SRB's super expensive in relation to kerolox engines?
What about 5 seg SRB's with a two engine kerolox core? Bad idea?
Or is the supposedly "unsolvable" base heating going to rear it's head again?

JosephB · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/31/2010 01:48 am »

On second thought, bad idea. You'd be losing out on a wide core diameter for payload space.

Downix · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/31/2010 01:50 am »

Quote from: JosephB on 05/31/2010 01:42 am

Are shuttle SRB's super expensive in relation to kerolox engines?
What about 5 seg SRB's with a two engine kerolox core? Bad idea?
Or is the supposedly "unsolvable" base heating going to rear it's head again?

The biggest loss with SRB is weight. The SRB has to have it's fuel added BEFORE it's put on the pad, making it much heavier to move.

Another big issue is toxicity, due to the shuttles SRB's, several sections of the VAB are unusable for their intended purposes.

HappyMartian · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/31/2010 01:57 am »

But my questions are, 'Why we doing this? Does someone want to go check out the life on Mars? Are we heading back to the Moon to mine ice? Is such a launcher affordable?'

If Ed Kyle or someone else writes that we will refuel the second stage while in orbit, from fuel made from Lunar ice, and then use it as an EDS for various types of Martian missions...

NASA will need a real plan in order to sell to the American taxpayers such a huge new launcher...

Cheers!

Downix · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/31/2010 02:01 am »

Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/31/2010 01:57 am

But my questions are, 'Why we doing this? Does someone want to go check out the life on Mars? Are we heading back to the Moon to mine ice? Is such a launcher affordable?'

If Ed Kyle or someone else writes that we will refuel the second stage while in orbit, from fuel made from Lunar ice, and then use it as an EDS for various types of Martian missions...

NASA will need a real plan in order to sell to the American taxpayers such a huge new launcher...

Cheers!

Indeed, which is why for now I fully support the DIRECT proposal, since it does *not* require a huge up-front investment, and a real plan to sell the whole enchilada. It also gives growth and flexibility for the future, which means we now are not tied to any one mission, but can do what missions we need to.

neilh · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/31/2010 02:13 am »

Quote from: Downix on 05/31/2010 02:01 am

Indeed, which is why for now I fully support the DIRECT proposal, since it does *not* require a huge up-front investment, and a real plan to sell the whole enchilada. It also gives growth and flexibility for the future, which means we now are not tied to any one mission, but can do what missions we need to.

Right. If MSFC really wants this thing built they should propose an evolutionary approach to get from here to there, with intermediate steps which produce useful products, much like the approach taken with DIRECT and EELV evolution.

JosephB · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/31/2010 02:25 am »

Warning! Warning!: The following post is opinion (aren't they all)

If a heavy booster is to be built it should have highly capable Mars missions as it's ultimate use. Anything else can be accomplished with EELV.

If such a mission is a priority, Congress will fund it accordingly.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17578.msg425720#msg425720

sdsds · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/31/2010 02:38 am »

I'm guessing Ed wants to discuss the concept from an engineering point of view, rather than a "political pork" point of view or a "selling to the American people" point of view. Even so it's reasonable to ask what kinds of missions are enabled by a vehicle that launches a 135 t payload into LEO.

Take for example a one-way cargo mission to the lunar surface. How much mass (not counting the lander itself) could be landed by a system that massed 135 t in LEO? Are the vehicle designs Ed describes even appropriate for that type of mission, or would the proportions be very different if the second ascent stage were to be used again for the Earth-orbit departure burn?

HappyMartian · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/31/2010 03:51 am »

Quote from: Downix on 05/31/2010 02:01 am

Quote from: HappyMartian on 05/31/2010 01:57 am
But my questions are, 'Why we doing this? Does someone want to go check out the life on Mars? Are we heading back to the Moon to mine ice? Is such a launcher affordable?'

If Ed Kyle or someone else writes that we will refuel the second stage while in orbit, from fuel made from Lunar ice, and then use it as an EDS for various types of Martian missions...

NASA will need a real plan in order to sell to the American taxpayers such a huge new launcher...

Cheers!
Indeed, which is why for now I fully support the DIRECT proposal, since it does *not* require a huge up-front investment, and a real plan to sell the whole enchilada. It also gives growth and flexibility for the future, which means we now are not tied to any one mission, but can do what missions we need to.

Yes. The J-130 is a quickly doable launcher...

So maybe some of the questions could be about the advantages and disadvantages of this type of launcher compared to the PoR and Direct and the ULA Atlas and Delta IV launchers...

Cheers!

edkyle99 · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/31/2010 03:55 am »

Quote from: sdsds on 05/31/2010 02:38 am

t's reasonable to ask what kinds of missions are enabled by a vehicle that launches a 135 t payload into LEO?

The HLLV study said that this rocket would be able to boost nearly 41 tonnes to trans lunar injection velocity. That's more than an early Apollo TLI payload, making sortie landings plausible. An interesting aspect of this design appears to be that it might do TLI with only two stages and eight engines, rather than the three stages and 11 engines of Saturn V.

The study also said that this rocket could do a Mars mission with seven launches, fewer than any other rocket.

Finally, the study said that this rocket would cost less to operate than any of the studied Shuttle-derived alternatives and that it would be ready in nearly the same amount of time.

- Ed Kyle

rjholling · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/31/2010 04:22 am »

Query: Would it really be possible given the expected funding levels to develop a new kerolox super heavy lifter by late 2018 as mentioned in the report?

hydra9 · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/31/2010 05:42 am »

1. Why spend billions of NASA money studying global warming only to launch a vehicle that contributes to global warming?

2. It cost more to develop than a sidemount or an inline directly shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle

3. It takes longer to develop than a directly shuttle derived vehicle

4. It utilizes a fossil fuel that is likely to be substantially more expensive a decade from now.

Marcel F. Williams

hydra9 · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/31/2010 05:45 am »

Quote from: Downix on 05/31/2010 01:50 am

Quote from: JosephB on 05/31/2010 01:42 am
Are shuttle SRB's super expensive in relation to kerolox engines?
What about 5 seg SRB's with a two engine kerolox core? Bad idea?
Or is the supposedly "unsolvable" base heating going to rear it's head again?

The biggest loss with SRB is weight. The SRB has to have it's fuel added BEFORE it's put on the pad, making it much heavier to move.

Another big issue is toxicity, due to the shuttles SRB's, several sections of the VAB are unusable for their intended purposes.

You could shave off 10 or 20 tonnes from the SRBs if they were expendable with no need of recovery.

Marcel F. Williams