-
Expander bleed cycle rocket engine for upper stage, the future ULV & ISRO by bhoomil on 02 May, 2015 12:37
-
How much ISRO is serious about expander bleed power cycle based rocket engine? I have seen that Japan's next decade launch vehicle H-III will be use expander bleed power cycle by utilizing LE-X(1st stage)& LE-5B(upper stage) hydrolox engines.
At least for the intermediate time for the new ULV we really require ultra light expander bleed upper stage for the low cost point of view as well as attracting future's GTO customers.
The intention behind this post is only to hit few points,
1) As we know that expander bleed/open cycle is most reliable one and less complex as compared to gas-generator or staged combustion because expander bleed cycle never used gas-generator or pre-burner for moving turbo pumps. Due to less complex design & low cost why ISRO is not focusing on R&D of Hydrolox expander bleed engine.
2) Currently SCE-200 project is in the mid-age and it is confirmed internationally that SCE-200 is the clone of RD-810 yuzhnoye, Ukraine. Design is ready made(inheritance of RD-170 classical family of NPO Energomash) but development as partnership basis but don't forget about instability of staged combustion as opposed to higher Isp and efficiency. Japan currently developing LE-X booster engine for 1st stage of H-III which is less complex as compared to SCE-200 engine.
ULV have more depends on solid booster rather den cryo or semi-cryo... why??? as compared to SpaceX(yup I know SpaceX don't have expander bleed engine but comparing ISRO to SpaceX in terms of R&D, I respect ISRO engineers but FACT is FACT), those people done all R&D within decade and now with 50-56M USD falcon 9v1.1 took 13 flights within 1.5 year of time span. -
#1 by Steven Pietrobon on 03 May, 2015 04:43
-
ISRO considered Expander, Gas Generator and Stage Combustion cycles. They considered the small increase in Isp not worth the extra complexity.
-
#2 by seshagirib on 03 May, 2015 08:01
-
^ Also the payload weight gain is 200Kg(~5%), over the projected payload ~4T capacity of LVM3. ISRO might have considered this to be too small to justify switching to the expander technology, given the very low frequency launch rate ~1 per year.
-
#3 by bhoomil on 03 May, 2015 09:47
-
its ok fine... but what I have calculate in my mind is,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
with bigger upper stage falcon 9 deliver ~4500kg in GTO with 2 burn. actually after seperation of 1st stage of falcon 9 around 100 to 105km the upper stage handle rest of the appoge parigee events for creating GTO ellipse. as we know Merlin 1D vaccum provide 803kN thrust. So, bigger upper stage is really a merit point for advance rocket development. bur Merlin engine is SEMI CRYO engine and provide less Isp around ~340 sec. in vaccum so what i have predicted for ULV is, with ~450 sec of vaccum Isp & ~500kN expander bleed LOX/LH2 CRYO upper stage will be sufficientfor ULV??? could deliver 4500kg of GTO payload!!!?
it is possible without any strap on booster but with cluster of 2 SEC-200 in 1st stage which provide 358 metric ton sea level trust??!!!!!
In terms of upper stage I have relavent the ULV with Falcon 9.
And in terms of 1st stage I relavent ULV to Atlas 5 401 which don't have strap on booster but payload to GTO is ~4800kg. Basically 1 RD-180 is more or less equal to 2xSCE-200.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My configuration are as follows :
1st stage -
- 2xSCE-200
- Total fuel flow(LOX/RP-1)for both engines around 1220kg/sec
- Burn time -190 sec.
- Fuel mass -231800kg
- empty mass(predicted no.) - 27140kg
- gross mass -258940kg
- the main job of 1st stage of ULV is to deliver upper stage and payload to 100-110 km of altitude.
upper stage
-500kN LOX/LH2 engine
-Total fuel flow(LOX/LH2) around 68kg/sec
- total Burn time - 420 sec.
-fuel mass - 28560kg
-empty mass(predicted no.) - 5000kg
-gross mass - 33560kg
- the main job of the upper stage of ULV is to deliver payload to ~185/200kmX~36000km of elliptical orbit
payload fairing
- 2500kg
So total mass of rocket without payload around ~293000-295000kg.
Thrust at sea level around 358000-360000kg. so rocket takes a flight without booster. -
#4 by baldusi on 03 May, 2015 14:36
-
Your first stage dry mass is too heavy. Modern first stages should be 5% to 7.5% of wet stage mass. Then you should calculate that first stage, plus second stage, plus fairing and payload should have a T/W between 1.2 and 1.15, if the LV can be enhanced with solid rocket boosters, like Atlas V. Then calculate that the second stage will have a pmf (propellant mass fraction) around 88%, because H2 is so light. Tht should give you the numbers.
If you are getting the GTO numbers, please remember that current Indian launch site can achieve 19deg orbit on the launch, which is something like a 1,650m/s GTO. I think that a 35768km x 4000km x 19deg would have a 1,500m/s deficit to GSO, which is the industry standard. SpaceX numbers cheat because they quote 1,800m/s GTO.
Regarding the upper stage engine, don't confuse the expander with the bleed expnder cycle. The latter is more akin to a gas generator in performance, and much more complicated to master. ISRO is moving in the right direction with the ULV. I just hope that they abandon the S200 concept and settle on variable number of S35 or so. -
#5 by baldusi on 04 May, 2015 05:08
-
How much ISRO is serious about expander bleed power cycle based rocket engine? I have seen that Japan's next decade launch vehicle H-III will be use expander bleed power cycle by utilizing LE-X(1st stage)& LE-5B(upper stage) hydrolox engines.
Hydrolox has very low density, the engines are really heavy, and thrust is extremely expensive. It's also real PITA to handle and store. No cheap LV has ever worked with an hydrolox first stage. Besides, the expander cycle only scales so much, it couldn't do 2MN of thrust and the ORSC cycle is very efficient, the propellant is easy to handle, the density is great and a lot of thrust can be had in a compact and high T/W system. Nobody is doing H2 for first stage save the Japanese, and they are not exactly the price nor efficiency leaders.
At least for the intermediate time for the new ULV we really require ultra light expander bleed upper stage for the low cost point of view as well as attracting future's GTO customers.
The intention behind this post is only to hit few points,
1) As we know that expander bleed/open cycle is most reliable one and less complex as compared to gas-generator or staged combustion because expander bleed cycle never used gas-generator or pre-burner for moving turbo pumps. Due to less complex design & low cost why ISRO is not focusing on R&D of Hydrolox expander bleed engine.
Nothing that you say is such. The RD-810 is a project of Yuzhnoye, based on the NPO Energomash RD-120, a 1MN engine for which they have a build license. It has been rumored, that the Chinese YF-120 is based on that technology. But nothing says that the Indian SCE-200 is using that technology. In fact, the thrust is the double, and the development seems to start from injectors and TP at such a low pace that it's clearly not a copy of an external engine.
2) Currently SCE-200 project is in the mid-age and it is confirmed internationally that SCE-200 is the clone of RD-810 yuzhnoye, Ukraine. Design is ready made(inheritance of RD-170 classical family of NPO Energomash) but development as partnership basis but don't forget about instability of staged combustion as opposed to higher Isp and efficiency. Japan currently developing LE-X booster engine for 1st stage of H-III which is less complex as compared to SCE-200 engine.
If you must know, the oxidizer rich metallurgy is not that difficult if you have an uranium enrichment background, since you have to work with hot and gaseous fluoride, which is a lot more corrosive.
Don't take JAXA's word on bleed expander. As stated above, H2 is a bad first stage propellant, is thrust limited, and no cheap LV has ever used it. JAXA/MHI use it because that's what they know to do, and already have most of the technology developed. But to go on that technological route is an expensive dead end.
ISRO already mastered H2 staged combustion and is now doing the simpler gas generator, getting into yet another H2 cycle when they have to simplify and enhance the first stage of the vehicle would be a waste of time and money.
SpaceX has all the USA/NASA knowledge, technology, know how and financing behind them. In any case, ISRO has been launching for a lot longer, and with a lot less mission demand. And look at them, they did chose semi-cryo and now are doing staged combustion on CH4/LOX. So is Blue Origin, and KBKhA is on the same path, NPO Energomash is still insisting on ORSC RG-1/LOX and even AeroJet wants to do ORSC RP-1/LOX and the Chinese are moving everything to RP-1/LOX. Nobody save big government which want to keep giving money to certain propulsion companies insist on hydrolox for first stage (ESA and JAXA).
ULV have more depends on solid booster rather den cryo or semi-cryo... why??? as compared to SpaceX(yup I know SpaceX don't have expander bleed engine but comparing ISRO to SpaceX in terms of R&D, I respect ISRO engineers but FACT is FACT), those people done all R&D within decade and now with 50-56M USD falcon 9v1.1 took 13 flights within 1.5 year of time span.
So, go do some extra research on the subject. -
#6 by sportyfailure on 03 Jan, 2016 15:34
-
2) Currently SCE-200 project is in the mid-age and it is confirmed internationally that SCE-200 is the clone of RD-810 yuzhnoye, Ukraine. Design is ready made(inheritance of RD-170 classical family of NPO Energomash) but development as partnership basis but don't forget about instability of staged combustion as opposed to higher Isp and efficiency. Japan currently developing LE-X booster engine for 1st stage of H-III which is less complex as compared to SCE-200 engine.
Ukranians are not working with ISRO and will not as it will be a violation of Missile Technology Control Regime which Ukraine is part of and India is not . There is no joint development. ISRO likely obtained some soviet era kerolox documents as part of the agreement in 2005 and then started working on it's own.
India collaborated with France in the 70's because MTCR didn't exist then. KVD-1 documents were only transferred to India prior to Russia signing MTCR.
MTCR partners weren't happy with this cooperation and clearly indicated their displeasure.
As per wikileaks:
<snip>Since September 2004,
the United States has discussed with Ukrainian
authorities information indicating that the Ukrainian
firm Yuzhnoye - a company with expertise in missile and
space launch vehicle (SLV) design - was planning to
assist the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in
developing a liquid oxygen-kerosene (LOX-kerosene)
rocket engine (Refs). We noted that this type of engine
would almost certainly be a Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) Category I item and that such a transfer
would directly support India's development of Category I
systems that are inherently capable of WMD delivery.
Moreover, as an MTCR Partner, Ukraine is committed
under the MTCR Guidelines to apply a strong presumption
of denial, regardless of the purpose of the export, to
all exports of Category I items and to notify the MTCR
Partners in advance of its intention to approve a
license for any Category I transfer to non-Partners
such as India. </snip> -
#7 by baldusi on 03 Jan, 2016 22:41
-
Please go and read all the notes on the Wikipedia page of the SCE-200 (I know, I wrote it). It states that the Ukrainians did, in fact, sold the blue prints of the engine. But without transferring any know-how, nor software, nor algorithms for designing, simulating and validating the design. And the design was not actually built by the Ukrainians. The US understood that just the blueprints of an RG-1/LOX engine was not really a transfer of technology under the MTCR, specially considering that kerosene engine technology is widespread.
2) Currently SCE-200 project is in the mid-age and it is confirmed internationally that SCE-200 is the clone of RD-810 yuzhnoye, Ukraine. Design is ready made(inheritance of RD-170 classical family of NPO Energomash) but development as partnership basis but don't forget about instability of staged combustion as opposed to higher Isp and efficiency. Japan currently developing LE-X booster engine for 1st stage of H-III which is less complex as compared to SCE-200 engine.
Ukranians are not working with ISRO and will not as it will be a violation of Missile Technology Control Regime which Ukraine is part of and India is not . There is no joint development. ISRO likely obtained some soviet era kerolox documents as part of the agreement in 2005 and then started working on it's own.
India collaborated with France in the 70's because MTCR didn't exist then. KVD-1 documents were only transferred to India prior to Russia signing MTCR.
MTCR partners weren't happy with this cooperation and clearly indicated their displeasure.
As per wikileaks:
<snip>Since September 2004,
the United States has discussed with Ukrainian
authorities information indicating that the Ukrainian
firm Yuzhnoye - a company with expertise in missile and
space launch vehicle (SLV) design - was planning to
assist the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) in
developing a liquid oxygen-kerosene (LOX-kerosene)
rocket engine (Refs). We noted that this type of engine
would almost certainly be a Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) Category I item and that such a transfer
would directly support India's development of Category I
systems that are inherently capable of WMD delivery.
Moreover, as an MTCR Partner, Ukraine is committed
under the MTCR Guidelines to apply a strong presumption
of denial, regardless of the purpose of the export, to
all exports of Category I items and to notify the MTCR
Partners in advance of its intention to approve a
license for any Category I transfer to non-Partners
such as India. </snip>
Since it was just the blue prints, ISRO took seven years to understand the design and develop their own software and algorithms and actually validate and certificate the design. So they did got a lot of help from the Ukrainians but they also had to put a lot of effort into it and I'm pretty sure they could develop anything similar on their own now since they have had to actually develop the technology. -
#8 by sportyfailure on 03 Jan, 2016 23:21
-
I agree that blueprints were transferred. I just pointed out that that there is no joint development.
it is possible without any strap on booster but with cluster of 2 SEC-200 in 1st stage which provide 358 metric ton sea level trust?