-
#280 by meiza on 15 Sep, 2007 18:17
-
What was wrong with Fastrac?
-
#281 by cpt palmer on 15 Sep, 2007 22:17
-
nothing.it needs some fine tuning thats all.
-
#282 by antonioe on 16 Sep, 2007 02:05
-
Well... maybe more than just "some fine tuning"; the program was cancelled way before any of the key thermal balance and propellant mix excursion measurements could be done. While it is true that MSFC had devised a way to "super instrument" the engine so that what would have taken many static firings in the past could be obtained in fewer tests, FasTrac was kicked out of the test stand at Stennis (to make room for RS-68 tests) after just a few (4, I believe) multi-10's of seconds test firings (the initial start-up transient tests of 2-3 seconds duration each where done "in the lab"). The original plan included some 75-80 test firings. This link shows a video of one of these tests (I was there for this one). Notice that the railing that you see overlooks a 20-story drop. From the ground you can barely make out the engine itself without binoculars: the test stand is big enough to swallow a Saturn-V FIRST STAGE!!! (it is also strong enough to survive the complete "unintended dissasembly" of a said stage fully fueled!!!!!!!!)
There was an attempt to resume the testing at the old Santa Susana GOCO (owned by the government, operated by Rocketdyne) test area, but I think by then it was environmentally impossible. When the Stennis test stand became available again, FasTrac and X-34 had been terminated by Mr. Goldin. Art Stevenson "took one for the boss" and claimed in his phone call to DWT that he was the one that terminated the programs, but I will die believing it was a personal decision by Mr. Goldin. Danny Davis was the FasTrac Program Manager, and he poured his heart on it (MSFC kind of compensated him by awarding him a Program Management award for that work... but I'm sure he would have rather seen the engine fly... now he's the Ares Upper Stage manager).
Detractors nicknamed the program the "Side Trak" engine, but I think that's very unfair to the team that worked on it. While not a super-high performance engine (for example, its T/W was never much above 30), it did prove that a much, much smaller team that was considered possible could design and build a new LOX/Kerosene engine. I also believe that its recurring cost would have been "very reasonable". FasTrac was never intended to be used as an operational engine. It was a test unit, specifically designed to meet the X-34 program goals. For example, the unusual angle at which the test unit was mounted on the stand was determined by the acceleration vector that the engine and tank system would have seen on an X-34 drop.
Comparisons with the NK-39 (the "russian engine" mentioned above), a higher performance, fully developed almost-operational engine, are not fair.
Also, comparisons between X-33 and X-34 are totally inappropriate: X-33 was meant to demonstrate the feasibility of SSTO (or put a final nail on its coffin - that would have been a very useful result). X-34 was meant to measure the cost of reuseability of a reuseable first stage (in terms of parts to be replaced, labor required for turnaround, degree of inspection and retesting required, etc.) Vital data to validate the non-mass-fraction costs of reusability for which there is still only ONE data point.
-
#283 by meiza on 16 Sep, 2007 02:31
-
Fascinating to hear this story and the details!
What about the vehicle? What kind of design choices turned up? -
#284 by antonioe on 16 Sep, 2007 03:49
-
Which vehicle? X-34?
-
#285 by antonioe on 16 Sep, 2007 03:57
-
Quote
Seer - 13/9/2007 11:56 AM [I'm wondering whether Orbital will go after RpK's spare $175M. But what's CSTS?
Read the NASA August 7 RFI CAREFULLY...
-
#286 by meiza on 16 Sep, 2007 15:53
-
Quote
antonioe - 16/9/2007 4:49 AM
Which vehicle? X-34?
Yeah, that.
I'm a big reusable first stage fan myself, and there isn't that much hardware that has been built for that anywhere, ever.
-
#287 by CFE on 17 Sep, 2007 05:45
-
I also weep in thinking about the potential that was wasted when X-34 was cancelled. It would have greatly expanded our knowledge of how to build and operate a truly reusable first stage for an RLV.
When the X-34 program first started, I recall a lot of controversy over the engine selection process. After the program was scaled back and refocused (a wise decision, IMHO,) Fastrac became a part of the X-34 program. It appears that Fastrac became the critical path item on the X-34 schedule. While some would dispute the idea of designing a brand-new engine for X-34, the truth is that the existing engines would have been overkill. Unless somebody is audacious enough to propose taking the XLR-99's out of museums, I'm really not aware of any existing engine that could have put out similar performance to the Fastrac.
There was some speculation that X-34 would be resurrected for the AReS/Hybrid Launch Vehicle effort. If that ever happened, would the booster have been very similar to the X-34, or would it be drastically changed by the time it was adapted to the AReS/HLV mission?
I don't lose much sleep over the X-33 (aside from the money that was wasted) because SSTO is an impractical fantasy. I still have no clue how such an absurd idea could have gotten the go-ahead. While X-33 didn't purport to be an SSTO, and would have demonstrated useful technologies that could be applied to more practical TSTO vehicles, the program was far too complex and brought aboard too many untested technologies despite the ambitious schedule. -
#288 by antonioe on 18 Sep, 2007 18:49
-
The "Camarillo Incident" corrected.
Quoteantonioe -
28/8/2006 7:56 PMIn February of that year, Dick Bergen, who was our USAF/L.A. rep, and I visited AMROC. Koopman gave us an appointment for, I believe, 1 pm. Dick and I show up around 12:45. We are ushered into a large conference room. Fifteen minutes later, someone shows up, says "hi" and sits down. I later found out that was George French. Ten minutes later somebody ELSE shows up, same routine. I later found out he was Bill Claybough. Five minutes later, somebody else I didn't know then but who later joined Orbital, and now works at NASA (a certain Mike Griffin). A few more minutes, and Bevin McKinney (who, again, I did not know at the time) enters.
One of the above-mentioned individuals (whose identity I will protect) reminds me that the French in question was JIM French, not GEORGE French (I had been dealing with George sometime before I wrote that text, and my poor overworked brain got confused). Also, since there are TWO Jim French's in our industry, let me be specific: "California" Jim, not "Florida" Jim (Actually, "California" Jim now lives in N.M., and "Florida" Jim now lives in Huntsville... c'est la vie...) "California" Jim French is the co-author, with Mike G., of the AIAA book on Space Mission Design.A year later, George died when his BMW 630 went off the twisty road between Lancaster and LompocQuote
Actually, he was on his way to the Rocket Lab (East of Edwards), not VAFB (Lompoc), so I had the wrong road. Air Force Captain Bob Jones (who appears later in the Pegasus story) had an accident on the Lompoc-to-Lancaster road years later involving an 18-wheeler and a large bull (yes, a male cow - seriously!). I had the two confused. -
#289 by kevin-rf on 19 Sep, 2007 13:28
-
antonioe,
Any thought on ULA's answer to the Delta-II class vehicle problem in the just released ULA responce to COTS-2? (For those that did not read it they are talking an Atlas V with a Delta-II upperstage).
If they really build the vehicle, would orbital still proceed with a new Delta-II class vehicle or just buy from ULA? You think they would be able to fly it for the old Delta-II $50 million price (ooops almost typed $500 million
?
-
#290 by Rocket Girl on 20 Sep, 2007 17:38
-
Antonio:
(Ahem!) My arm is getting tired of holding my coffee cup waiting for your next installement of the "Saga of the Pegasus". I am now beginning to tap my foot (politely).
-
#291 by antonioe on 28 Sep, 2007 16:05
-
My apologies to all for the long pause in resuming my story - I've been a bit busy with Taurus II (hopefully soon to be renamed "Cygnus", a name proposed by one of you). I will work on the next installement this weekend.
In the menawhile - Aerojet has assigned a designation for the version of the AJ26's that will be used on Cygnus/T 2: it's the "-62" (the Kistler Stage 1 version was "-58" and it included, among other things, restart capability).
The -62 will have the appropriate interfaces for the OBV-derived avionics as well as a heat exchanger for the helium.
-
#292 by Skyrocket on 28 Sep, 2007 16:11
-
Quote
antonioe - 28/9/2007 6:05 PM
My apologies to all for the long pause in resuming my story - I've been a bit busy with Taurus II (hopefully soon to be renamed "Cygnus", a name proposed by one of you).
If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus.
-
#293 by antonioe on 28 Sep, 2007 19:18
-
Quote
Skyrocket - 28/9/2007 11:11 AM
If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus.
From Orbital???!!!
-
#294 by NotGncDude on 28 Sep, 2007 19:47
-
Now that you mention the Kistler stage 1, what were the differences between the K1 first stage and the expendable replacement that Orbital proposed to them? (Or is that under wraps?)
-
#295 by JIS on 28 Sep, 2007 21:12
-
Quote
antonioe - 28/9/2007 5:05 PM
My apologies to all for the long pause in resuming my story - I've been a bit busy with Taurus II (hopefully soon to be renamed "Cygnus", a name proposed by one of you). I will work on the next installement this weekend.
In the menawhile - Aerojet has assigned a designation for the version of the AJ26's that will be used on Cygnus/T 2: it's the "-62" (the Kistler Stage 1 version was "-58" and it included, among other things, restart capability).
The -62 will have the appropriate interfaces for the OBV-derived avionics as well as a heat exchanger for the helium.
So what is the latest config of Cygnus?
-2x AJ26-62 (Russian NK-33) for the 1st stage
-what engine for the 2nd stage? Is LOX/LHX RL-10 still the top candidate?
-or is there 2nd and 3rd stage with alternative engines?
-are you also considering AJ-10 or solid props stages from other Orbital launchers? -
#296 by tnphysics on 28 Sep, 2007 22:30
-
Sounds like EELV (8mt to LEO) class.
-
#297 by Skyrocket on 28 Sep, 2007 22:44
-
Quote
antonioe - 28/9/2007 9:18 PM
I remember reading a report in (i think) Flight International at this time about OSC planning a wingless Pegasus version. Unfortunately i do not have a copy of it. Never heared about it again, but the report mentioned about half of the Pegasus payload performance and the Name Cygnus.QuoteSkyrocket - 28/9/2007 11:11 AM
If i remember correctly, in the early 90ies 'Cygnus' was also the name of a proposed ground launched, wingless Pegasus.
From Orbital???!!!
-
#298 by antonioe on 29 Sep, 2007 00:01
-
Quote
JIS - 28/9/2007 4:12 PM
So what is the latest config of Cygnus? -2x AJ26-62 (Russian NK-33) for the 1st stage -what engine for the 2nd stage? Is LOX/LHX RL-10 still the top candidate?
I wish - my favorite config. But DWT and others think that the jump from a 20 MT X-34 to a 200 MT LOX-Kerosene stage is enough of a jump for little Orbital without the added challenge of a cryo US, and I'm afraid I must agree with that thinking, no matter how much I like the RL-10 solution. X-34 was a good start, and we learned a lot about LOX/Kerosene in the process of making it work in an air-dropped, horizontal-start configuration (e.g., huge anti-slosh baffles and one-way flapper valves in the main tanks, super-efficient insulation to avoid having to top off the LOX from the L-1011, etc).
But for T 2/Cygnus we're paying somebody to teach us the fine details of large LOX/Kerosene boosters: the subtle design trades, how to load, start and operate them (e.g., how to make the prop management system REALLY work), all the neat little tricks of the trade you only get after 60 launches and 20 years of experience. No high-tech here, just a lot of tradecraft.
Quote-or is there 2nd and 3rd stage with alternative engines? -are you also considering AJ-10
No, the AJ-10 fell off the trade sometime in August due to burn duration issues, the large amounts of "nasty" stuff it would require and the cost to modify it to use straight hydrazine (instead of Aerozyne-50) and to modify the ablative throat to increase the max burn time; but we carried this option until then!
Quoteor solid props stages from other Orbital launchers?
(*TRIPLE SIGH*) yes, we will end up there, with a Super-HAPS to provide both final burn trim as well as circularization to higher altitude orbits, where the solid component of S2 is used as part of the main burn (no significant performance advantage at lower altitudes).
From a recurring cost and performance standpoint, it gets us to our target payload mass and payload environmental conditions (acceleration, acoustics, shock, vibration, etc.) From an operational standpoint, it is not pretty: you have to get the safety permits, etc. for LOX/Kerosene, solids, and the same amount of N2O4/Hydrazine as a StarBus for the Super-HAPS. Fortunately, we've done the latter two in the past, and the former promises to be easier. The expected QD for this stack, by the way, is smaller than a Minotaur IV!!! (and a lot easier to handle!)
As far as I'm concerned, this is a temporary upper stage until we get the experience, guts, market demand and revenue to buy a decent RL-10 based "mini centaur". On the other hand, ULA/Boeing/L-M may be interested in sharing a "mini-centaur" with us which we would use as the T 2/Cygnus Stage 2 (no need for a HAPS, then), and they could use as a Stage 3 for EELV high ΔV-low payload mass missions if the ever get one like that... (e.g. another JWST-like thingy or a lunar lander).
Everybody tells me that working with LH2, once you pay the basic penalties for vacuum-jacketed GSE lines, prechill, recirc, etc. it is actually a breeze. But that will be a PPI.
-
#299 by antonioe on 29 Sep, 2007 00:06
-
Quote
tnphysics - 28/9/2007 5:30 PM Sounds like EELV (8mt to LEO) class.
Not with the current US. More like 5.5 MT to 250 km 28.5 degrees (classical "marketing"orbit). Clearly meets the Delta 7920 payload performance lines for all practical inclinations and altitudes (not the 7925's for high ΔV/low mass missions, though - but neither does the 7920!)
?