AFRL Hydrocarbon Boost / IHPRPT Engine Development Q&A

• AFRL Hydrocarbon Boost / IHPRPT Engine Development Q&A by JosephB on 26 Mar, 2014 18:39
• A few layperson questions if I may:
  
  
  
  Prime Contractor - Aerojet
  
  TRL5 - 250K lbf Engine Cycle Testing
  TRL6 - 430K/860K lbf Prototype Engine
  TRL9 - 860K lbf Flight Weight Engine
  
  Deep Throttle Capability
  Scalable to 1.6 Mlbf
  
  Employs Mondaloy 200
  Single Nozzle??? (The .pdf depicts 2 nozzles for the 860K flight weight engine)
  
  
  http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_06_21_2013_p03-01-590327.xml
  “Aerojet has been building on work with the U.S. Air Force to propose a 1-million-lb.-thrust, hydrocarbon-fuel engine designated the AJ-1E6 for the NASA application, which would use four of the staged ox-rich combustion cycle rocket engines to power each of the twin strap-on boosters needed to get the SLS to the 130-metric-ton capability mandated by Congress.”
  
  So the AJ-1E6 sounds like Hydrocarbon Boost  TRL 5 engine? (250K x 4 = 1 Mil.)
  
  
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#cite_note-31
  “For SLS Block II, NASA has begun the Advanced Booster Competition that is expected to end in 2015.[3][29] On June 17, 2011, Aerojet announced a strategic partnership with Teledyne Brown to develop and produce a domestic version of an uprated Soviet NK-33 LOX/RP-1 engine, an engine derived from the NK-15 initially designed to lift the unsuccessful N-1 Soviet moonshot vehicle, with each engine's thrust increased from 394,000 lbf (1.75 MN) to at least 500,000 lbf (2.2 MN) at sea level. This booster, with eight AJ-26-500,[30] or four AJ-1E6[31] engines is to compete against the Shuttle-derived solid rocket booster for the later Blocks of the SLS launch vehicle.[32] On February 14, 2013, NASA awarded a $23.3 million 30-month contract Aerojet to build a full-scale 550,000-pound thrust class main injector and thrust chamber to be used in the advanced booster.[33]”
  
  Or, is the AJ-1E6 a 550K lbf engine?
  Is the work done so far on HCB shoehorned into a NK-33 to have an offering to compete in time for the Advanced Booster Competition instead of waiting for the 860K lb HCB flight weight engine?
  
  
  
  http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Monica-Jacinto/585998312
  “Jacinto has developed and patented Mondaloy 100 and 200, which are burn resistant alloys for gaseous oxygen environment applications that greatly reduce the weight of the components over conventional materials used on previous engine development programs. Its properties allow space vehicles to be made thinner and lighter and remove the need for protective coatings. As a result, the vehicles have increased safety and reliability, and decreased cost.”
  
  Have any test components been made yet from Mondaloy 200?
  

  ---

  a556159.pdf
• #1 by JosephB on 27 Mar, 2014 13:10
• Yet another reference to the AJ-1E6:
  
  http://www.aerospaceamerica.org/Documents/AerospaceAmerica-PDFs-2013/October-2013/Commentary_October_2013_AerospaceAmerica.pdf
  “The only new Lox-kerosene prospects on the horizon are the current attempt by Aerojet Rocketdyne and Dynetics to resurrect the half-century-old Apollo-era F-1, and the far-future million-lb-thrust AJ-1E6 engine concept being promoted by Aerojet Rocketdyne for the eventual upgrade of the yet-to-be-born SLS.”
  
  
  Is this an inference to the “Scalable to 1.6 Mlbf” part of the HCB program?
  Maybe the 1 million number is the best figure (sweet spot if you will) for both the Air Force & NASA to share?
  
  Seems like some muddy if not conflicting info out there on the internets…
  
  Thanks  Mr. Gore
  
• #2 by JosephB on 27 Mar, 2014 16:12
• Thanks to Ed:
  
  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34267.msg1177333#msg1177333
  
  Space Launch System Advanced Development Office, FY 2013 Annual Report
• #3 by JosephB on 29 Mar, 2014 00:51
• Found this to be interesting and ties in with the subject.
  Sounds like a comprehensive gameplan.
  
  
  NIRPS   National Institute for Rocket Propulsion Systems
  
  https://nirps.msfc.nasa.gov/home
  
  

  ---

  20130014234.pdf
• #4 by JosephB on 22 May, 2014 20:01
• http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1
  Griffin said he was confident that the US had the capability to develop a domestic version of the RD-180 if needed. “There’s been enough investment in the US side to replicate the coating and metallurgy technology that goes into the RD-180,” he said. “I think the national-level question is not could we, but should we.” He noted that the license to produce the RD-180 in the US expires in 2022. “It might be renewed, but maybe it won’t.”
  
  
  I've been confused on this for some time, why would we exercise this license at all when we can design our own?
  I can't see any benefit. Am I missing something?
  
  
  
• #5 by MP99 on 22 May, 2014 20:30
• Quote from: JosephB on 22 May, 2014 20:01

  http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2512/1
  Griffin said he was confident that the US had the capability to develop a domestic version of the RD-180 if needed. “There’s been enough investment in the US side to replicate the coating and metallurgy technology that goes into the RD-180,” he said. “I think the national-level question is not could we, but should we.” He noted that the license to produce the RD-180 in the US expires in 2022. “It might be renewed, but maybe it won’t.”
  
  
  I've been confused on this for some time, why would we exercise this license at all when we can design our own?
  I can't see any benefit. Am I missing something?
  

  
  Time to market?
  
  Cheers, Martin
• #6 by JosephB on 13 Jul, 2014 01:54
• First, Aerojet Rocketdyne has done a great job with their website:
  
  http://www.rocket.com/aerospace
  http://www.rocket.com/ar1-booster-engine
  
  
  Hypothetical question:
  
  Let's say there was a need for a new launcher to lift a heavy Orion. Oh, say in a 1.5 Architecture.
  Not to mention heavier typical EELV payloads.
  
  Could this new launcher have as a standard, an AR1 Twin Booster Engine matched with a Single Booster Engine for a "3 engine" booster? (see second link above)
  
  
  Further, could this 3 engine booster have as an option, to add a fourth? Thus, (2) Twin Boosters.
  
  This (2) Twin Booster might also be the basis of an SLS Booster?
• #7 by john smith 19 on 13 Jul, 2014 07:43
• Quote from: JosephB on 29 Mar, 2014 00:51

  Found this to be interesting and ties in with the subject.
  Sounds like a comprehensive gameplan.
  
  
  NIRPS   National Institute for Rocket Propulsion Systems
  
  https://nirps.msfc.nasa.gov/home
  

  So is this like an all civilian version of the CPIAC?
  
  https://www.cpiac.jhu.edu/
  
  Or is meant to be more of a leadership and advocacy group?
  
  I've seen the PDF. I'm not overly impressed by their grand challenges.
  
  I'd suggest there is only one grand challenge.
  
  How to make the market for rocket propulsion hardware in the US work.
  
  When that happens the companies themselves will invest new hardware and developments.
  
  That however is a real grand challenge. 
• #8 by JosephB on 13 Jul, 2014 13:54
• John, Thanks for the CPIAC link as that is new to me.
  I think you're right. NIRPS sure sounds like a civilian advocacy group.
  
  There is no shortage of options for the U.S. space program / industry.
  
  As long as there is no real money to be made independent of govt. contracts.... well, the fight for Fed $ continues.
  
  DOD has done a good job of taking care of its needs but
  it's a shame NASA is at the whim of W.H. "leadership."
  
  Maybe a major restructuring of NASA is needed? Blasphemy!
• #9 by john smith 19 on 13 Jul, 2014 16:46
• Quote from: JosephB on 13 Jul, 2014 13:54

  John, Thanks for the CPIAC link as that is new to me.
  I think you're right. NIRPS sure sounds like a civilian advocacy group.
  
  There is no shortage of options for the U.S. space program / industry.
  
  As long as there is no real money to be made independent of govt. contracts.... well, the fight for Fed $ continues.
  
  DOD has done a good job of taking care of its needs but
  it's a shame NASA is at the whim of W.H. "leadership."
  
  Maybe a major restructuring of NASA is needed? Blasphemy!
  

  Also illegal AFAIK only Congress can close NASA centres (I've always wondered is that SOP for all federal agencies or is NASA a special case?)
  
  The whole WH/Congress/NASA (with the Congress in 2 houses for good measure) seems designed to guarantee delay, disagreement and veto at just about every turn. 
  
  People forget that James Webb was not an engineer (in fact IIRC was not even a Democrat) yet he implement Kennedy's vision very effectively.
  
  I fear anyone operator as capable as Webb today is far too smart to want to be hired for the Administrators post. 
  
  
• #10 by RonM on 13 Jul, 2014 17:29
• Quote from: john smith 19 on 13 Jul, 2014 16:46

  Also illegal AFAIK only Congress can close NASA centres (I've always wondered is that SOP for all federal agencies or is NASA a special case?)
  
  The whole WH/Congress/NASA (with the Congress in 2 houses for good measure) seems designed to guarantee delay, disagreement and veto at just about every turn. 
  

  
  All federal agencies get their marching orders from Washington. While the President runs the agencies, Congress sets the budgets. Agency administrators have leeway on how to spend money within budget line items, but they have none between the line items.
  
  Closing military bases or NASA centers requires Congressional approval. Rarely will any choice made by Congress be worthy of a Presidential veto, since the veto applies to the entire appropriations bill. Back in 1996, a line item veto bill was passed to allow the President more options in appropriations bills, but the Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional. Basically, that would give legislative power to the President. The Supreme Court said it would take a constitutional amendment to give line item veto power to the President.
  
  So there's no need to discuss changing the system because it's not going to happen.
  
  Anyway, I thought this thread had something to do with engine development. 
  
• #11 by Wayne Hale on 14 Jul, 2014 20:16
• "The whole WH/Congress/NASA (with the Congress in 2 houses for good measure) seems designed to guarantee delay, disagreement and veto at just about every turn. "
  
  Many of us non-Washington types have been through a practical class on how to work in the system.  One of the first lectures was the history of what the US founding father's thinking was on this subject.  As the professor told us several times:  "Its all Oliver Cromwell's fault".
  
  I guess if you don't understand how the English Civil War resonated with the colonists 80 years later, you probably don't get it. 
  
  There is a great series of Heinlein quotations from "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" when those fictitious colonist try to write their own constitution.  One of the leaders proposes a 3/4 majority to pass a law.  If you can't get that many folks in favor of it, perhaps it shouldn't be a law, he says.  Great book for libertarians.
  
  Frustrating as it seems at times, the entire US government is designed to make sure nothing happens until most people agree on it . . .
• #12 by JosephB on 15 Jul, 2014 17:04
• Hope springs eternal for space enthusiasts.
  
  
  There is probably a Psychology Thesis somewhere in that statement.
  
• #13 by gongora on 23 Nov, 2017 14:50
• I didn't even realize this program existed, but it's still chugging along:
  
  Nov. 17, 2017
  

  Quote

  Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc., Rancho Cordova, California, has been awarded a $22,763,966 contract modification (P00139) to a previously awarded (FA9300-07-C-0001) in support of the existing contractual effort for the design, build, and test of a reusable oxidizer rich staged combustion cycle booster engine with utilizing baseline propellants liquid oxygen.  The modification brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $218,442,413.  Work will be performed in Rancho Cordova, California, with an expected completion date of Dec. 24, 2020.  Air Force Test Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California, is the contracting activity.

  
  http://www.rocket.com/hydrocarbon-boost-hcb
  
  [USAF Sep. 2, 2016] Air Force advances rocket technology, tests first full-scale component of Hydrocarbon Boost Program
  
  https://www.google.com/patents/US8596960