Lessons Learned: Rockets in the 1980s and 1990s and now

[Danderman]

We know that Blue Origin attempted to use H2O2 early on, and abandoned the effort. There must be a cause for that decision.

[RanulfC]

Which begs the question as to where the rest of the Kistler people went, apart from the top brass.  They spent > $500 million, but it is not clear to me that they didn't blow it on sub contractors rather than staffing up themselves.

Which gets us into the management side of the Lessons Learned.

As far as I can tell, (some mentions at various aerospace sites, companies, and articles from a quick Google search) most employees and management are still working in the field at various and sundry other companies and no one seems to be blaming them or Kistler or counting the time as a black-mark on their employment records or resumes.

"Lessons Learned" from Kistler would seem to be find a plan, stick with it and don't change and if you are going to innovate don't just assume that innovation can or should be a single aspect but keep looking for and finding ways to reduce your costs along the way and improving the product. And make sure you have a market before you start

Randy

[HMXHMX]

Which begs the question as to where the rest of the Kistler people went, apart from the top brass.  They spent > $500 million, but it is not clear to me that they didn't blow it on sub contractors rather than staffing up themselves.

Which gets us into the management side of the Lessons Learned.

As far as I can tell, (some mentions at various aerospace sites, companies, and articles from a quick Google search) most employees and management are still working in the field at various and sundry other companies and no one seems to be blaming them or Kistler or counting the time as a black-mark on their employment records or resumes.

"Lessons Learned" from Kistler would seem to be find a plan, stick with it and don't change and if you are going to innovate don't just assume that innovation can or should be a single aspect but keep looking for and finding ways to reduce your costs along the way and improving the product. And make sure you have a market before you start

Randy

I'd argue the reverse regarding Kistler.  I met with Walt Kistler and Bob Citron in 2000 to suggest to them that they pivot to a modular booster with recoverable engine capsule.  They had engines, avionics designed for fault-tolerance and a good systems engineering team which could have knocked out a decent-sized (call it ~130MT) module that could later be clustered for increased performance.  All they would have need is to tool for cheap tank fabrication.  They could have had an F9 level of performance by 2005 if they had adopted the suggestion but they were unwilling to move off their then-current design.

[RanulfC]

We know that Blue Origin attempted to use H2O2 early on, and abandoned the effort. There must be a cause for that decision.

The cause was stated; they found they were able to move forward much faster than they had initially anticipated and skipped further H202/Kerosene AND the planned LOX/Kerosene engines in favor of moving directly to LOX Hydrogen engine design. The main reason they were aiming for LOX/Hydrogen in the first place was the idea that it was a more favorable combination for reuse but were convinced by both operation of the H2O2/Kerosene and research on LOX/Kerosene engines in use and development that either combination was adequate for use in reusable engines of that power margin. Like SpaceX however they had always planned on moving to a higher impulse propellant combination which for them was LOX/Hydrogen rather than LOX/Methane because that was always the focus end result they required. They have since allowed that the BE-4 can also use LOX/Methane as sold to ULA but they maintain on their site that THEY will be using it as a LOX/Hydrogen engine.

Operationally they had NO problems using H2O2 over the Goddard test program so assuming that such issues were in fact a 'reason' for switching when they had a stated plan to do so as testing went on is a little disingenuous to say the least. Beal used it in testing and had no plans to change propellants. In fact the choice of propellants was not a significant factor in the overall failure of any of the companies so consistently putting the 'blame' on the propellant choice as a "point-of-failure" or sign of such seems to distort the idea of trying to identify "lessons learned" in the first place.

Randy

[RanulfC]

I'd argue the reverse regarding Kistler.  I met with Walt Kistler and Bob Citron in 2000 to suggest to them that they pivot to a modular booster with recoverable engine capsule.  They had engines, avionics designed for fault-tolerance and a good systems engineering team which could have knocked out a decent-sized (call it ~130MT) module that could later be clustered for increased performance.  All they would have need is to tool for cheap tank fabrication.  They could have had an F9 level of performance by 2005 if they had adopted the suggestion but they were unwilling to move off their then-current design.

I should have worded that better in that it wasn't the design they started to build that I was referring to but everything from the initial patent onward and didn't have a way to "put" it correctly Which is why I tacked on the "keep innovating" which obviously didn't get the job done either

And that's probably the most relevant point-of-failure is trying to do too much and/or not being willing to change when its needed. And of course running out of money/support/time/etc

I seem to recall that Kistler was given a very hard time about the idea of "boost-back" recovery and now the tune has changed so there would seem to be some obvious "lessons" to learn about 'common wisdom' right there along with the admitted other issues which came along. (Considering how many people who really should know better continue to consider 'cluster' designs a failure I really believe that a HUGE lesson to be learned is that we quite obviously still don't know the 'best' way to do anything and to quit trying to insist we do just because SOME cases have worked out )

Randy

[Jim]

Ever, again, because till it's totally cleaned that's the most direct route of ingestion. However you'd be very wrong there Jim, it can be absorbed through the skin or across the eyes as either liquid or fumes. And that thimble full will also expose and probably be fatal to anyone within a 5 to 10 foot radius as it spreads.

See: http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Hydrazine

You not only require sealed breathing units to handle these propellants but full environmentally sealed suits and inner garments. Fumes are the most direct exposure route but are far from the only one.

Randy

Quite wrong

They could cause some burns but not death.

I know people that have been splashed with more.

I have help set up prop loading operations and know what PPE is needed.

That thimble of Ox is no more dangerous than pool muriatic acid.  It can be vaporized by tossing it in the air.

[john smith 19]

Ever, again, because till it's totally cleaned that's the most direct route of ingestion. However you'd be very wrong there Jim, it can be absorbed through the skin or across the eyes as either liquid or fumes. And that thimble full will also expose and probably be fatal to anyone within a 5 to 10 foot radius as it spreads.

See: http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Hydrazine

You not only require sealed breathing units to handle these propellants but full environmentally sealed suits and inner garments. Fumes are the most direct exposure route but are far from the only one.

When I realized NTO and Hydrazines have exposure levels in ppm like those of nerve agents in micrgrams per kilogram of body mass I thought "Why bother with the nerve gases when you've got this stuff?"

It's kind of amazing what people can get used to handling if they don't think about how lethal this stuff is.

As it turns out Chlorine and Mustard gases are even cheaper. 

Which begs the question as to where the rest of the Kistler people went, apart from the top brass.  They spent > $500 million, but it is not clear to me that they didn't blow it on sub contractors rather than staffing up themselves.

Which gets us into the management side of the Lessons Learned.

There were IIRC 2 generations of Kistler management. The first planned a near vertical true "Launch Assist Platform" before being replaced by the ex NASA people.

And at the time the estimate was more like $900-1000m sunk in Kistler. 

Operationally they had NO problems using H2O2 over the Goddard test program so assuming that such issues were in fact a 'reason' for switching when they had a stated plan to do so as testing went on is a little disingenuous to say the least. Beal used it in testing and had no plans to change propellants. In fact the choice of propellants was not a significant factor in the overall failure of any of the companies so consistently putting the 'blame' on the propellant choice as a "point-of-failure" or sign of such seems to distort the idea of trying to identify "lessons learned" in the first place.

Which raises the question of wheather we could turn this observation on its head?

Could we say the lesson leaned should be that almost any propellant combination could be made to work. It's the management issues and funding that cause trouble. 

[john smith 19]

An interesting note from the XS-1 thread is that Garvey Space Systems has been bought by Vector Space.

Note Garvey TSTO is a pressure fed LV and seems to be using the Orbitec vortex cooled engine approach and the Microcosm composite LOX tank technology.

[RanulfC]

Quite wrong

They could cause some burns but not death.

I know people that have been splashed with more.

I have help set up prop loading operations and know what PPE is needed.

That thimble of Ox is no more dangerous than pool muriatic acid.  It can be vaporized by tossing it in the air.

I also work with people who handle this stuff on a daily basis and they in fact agree the stuff is deadly and dangerous and the PPE I quoted are used whenever they actually handle the stuff. The 'burns' are serious and if it vaporizes inhalation is deadly dangerous and as noted in the various Safety Data Sheets it CAN be absorbed through the skin with serious health effects. The other point is that H2O2 would in fact be less dangerous than Muriatic (Hydrochloric) acid so you're not helping your case at all.

Randy

[Danderman]

Discussions about which oxidizers are more lethal does nothing to help us understand the history of commercial space launch, and the lessons learned thereof.

If you have a case study of an employee injured by an oxidizer beyond what is already mentioned in this thread, that would be useful.

[Jim]

I also work with people who handle this stuff on a daily basis and they in fact agree the stuff is deadly and dangerous and the PPE I quoted are used whenever they actually handle the stuff.

There are a lot of things that are deadly and dangerous that are in daily use.  You are over hyping things.
And full environmentally sealed suits and inner garments are not required in all cases in dealing with these propellants.

[Katana]

I also work with people who handle this stuff on a daily basis and they in fact agree the stuff is deadly and dangerous and the PPE I quoted are used whenever they actually handle the stuff.

There are a lot of things that are deadly and dangerous that are in daily use.  You are over hyping things.
And full environmentally sealed suits and inner garments are not required in all cases in dealing with these propellants.

Ground service personnels of X37B do use full environmentally sealed suits on the landing runways.

Let aside fuelling or disassembling.

Anyway , for a weak company incapable to use kerolox turbopump or electrical turbopump, using NTO does not means success.

Let aside the terrible public influence on PR, HR and funding of playing with poison and cancer. In the age everything are claiming to go "green".

[Katana]

We know that Blue Origin attempted to use H2O2 early on, and abandoned the effort. There must be a cause for that decision.

 They have since allowed that the BE-4 can also use LOX/Methane as sold to ULA but they maintain on their site that THEY will be using it as a LOX/Hydrogen engine.

In fact the choice of propellants was not a significant factor in the overall failure of any of the companies so consistently putting the 'blame' on the propellant choice as a "point-of-failure" or sign of such seems to distort the idea of trying to identify "lessons learned" in the first place.

Randy

BE-4 with hydrogen? Do you have a link on the news?

I agree with you. Liquid propellant itself is too simple that everybody with high school chemistry could argue on it.

Engine matters a lot, but GNC (including software) and reliability management problems kills even more projects, half of them die on various coupled vibrations.

Reliability managements are systematic , vibration modes are complicated, GNC are delicated , turbopumps are precize , while pressure feds are of brute force.

Few amateur liquid rocket engines got to flight , and extremely few amateur rockets have GNC , even in this age while consumer drones are aboundant.

(This is not caused by legal restrictions on missile technology, university projects without legal problems still hardly have GNC or have simplified partial controls.)

Amateur liquid rockets with GNC = "commercial space company" at the level of Armadillo or Masten, even Firefly or Vector.

[RanulfC]

BE-4 with hydrogen? Do you have a link on the news?

What I get for checking an archived rather than current website Was supposed to be developed as a hydrogen engine but that changed.

I agree with you. Liquid propellant itself is too simple that everybody with high school chemistry could argue on it.

One of the reasons I 'vigorously discuss' it when I see them posted as "signs" or "causes" for failure. If you really look you can find a 'failed' company that used/proposed just about ANY propellant combination (After all anyone who suggests using LNG/LOX as a propellant is OBVIOUSLY setting themselves up for failure )

Engine matters a lot, but GNC (including software) and reliability management problems kills even more projects, half of them die on various coupled vibrations.

Reliability managements are systematic , vibration modes are complicated, GNC are delicated , turbopumps are precize , while pressure feds are of brute force.

Few amateur liquid rocket engines got to flight , and extremely few amateur rockets have GNC , even in this age while consumer drones are aboundant.

(This is not caused by legal restrictions on missile technology, university projects without legal problems still hardly have GNC or have simplified partial controls.)

Amateur liquid rockets with GNC = "commercial space company" at the level of Armadillo or Masten, even Firefly or Vector.

Interesting, I don't see GNC brought up other than within general software discussions very much. Good point.

Randy

[acsawdey]

Few amateur liquid rocket engines got to flight , and extremely few amateur rockets have GNC , even in this age while consumer drones are aboundant.

(This is not caused by legal restrictions on missile technology, university projects without legal problems still hardly have GNC or have simplified partial controls.)

Amateur liquid rockets with GNC = "commercial space company" at the level of Armadillo or Masten, even Firefly or Vector.

Interesting, I don't see GNC brought up other than within general software discussions very much. Good point.

If you're not going to orbit, is there really any need for precision GNC beyond "keep the sharp end pointed towards the zenith"?

After all a suborbital rocket with precision GNC is just a ballistic missile.

And then there's this guy, who has apparently built a thrust vector mount for off-the-shelf hobby-size solid motors:
http://www.bps.space/test-vehicles/
Seems likely he is using the same components you'd find in a drone's control system.

[Katana]

What's wrong of LNG/LOX? Impurities in commercial grade LNG? Blue Origin sometimes label methane as LNG.

Nealy every succeed or failed launcher vendor with vehicles flown (goverment of different countries, X-43A on Pegasus, SpaceX Falcon1, BO early version, Armadillo, Constoga, OTRAG) have lost some vehicles on coupled oscillation of GNC and vehicle vibration modes (liquid slosh, elastic body, aerodynamic resonance, transonic turbulence, etc). Many of them died when they can't afford more launch to trial on errors.

Faults on quality control of GNC (coding /circult / EMC and ESD inference / safty interlock) are less frequent, but have caused nearly every large space disasters involves ground life loss up to now (Brazil launcher explosion and Russia SS-19 explosion on launchpad, Chinese LM-3B crash, Apollo 1 fire), and quite a few unmanned vehicle loss (Ariane 5 maiden flight, several mars probes).

[Katana]

Few amateur liquid rocket engines got to flight , and extremely few amateur rockets have GNC , even in this age while consumer drones are aboundant.

(This is not caused by legal restrictions on missile technology, university projects without legal problems still hardly have GNC or have simplified partial controls.)

Amateur liquid rockets with GNC = "commercial space company" at the level of Armadillo or Masten, even Firefly or Vector.

Interesting, I don't see GNC brought up other than within general software discussions very much. Good point.

If you're not going to orbit, is there really any need for precision GNC beyond "keep the sharp end pointed towards the zenith"?

After all a suborbital rocket with precision GNC is just a ballistic missile.

And then there's this guy, who has apparently built a thrust vector mount for off-the-shelf hobby-size solid motors:
http://www.bps.space/test-vehicles/
Seems likely he is using the same components you'd find in a drone's control system.

This retro rocket only fires very short before land , without problem of Karman filter breakup or gyro error accumulation.

Liquid rockets with low T/W ratio can't self stablize on aerodynamic fins without tumble, the tower clearing velocity is too low for fins. This kept most of them without GNC on test bench, unless use a big engine with small tanks of fuel, poorer performance than solids and very expensive.

Precize GNC to missile grade is easier said than done.

Civil GPS cuts off at mach speed, drift performance of drone gyros could only barely "keep the sharp end pointed towards the zenith", or worse. Karman filter algorithm designed for drones (with gravity correction) easily breakes up under sustained acceleration of liquid engines, and stable algorithm need to accept accumulated drift error of gyro.

Valuable GNC generally need gyros with drift <1deg/hr. Best MEMS gyro available on civil market (ADIS16375 or 16488, price >$1000, so called as "tactical" by manufacturer) could serve as a flying prototype with target accuracy far worse than a cannon, unless with military ITAR GPS it's possible for a coarse launcher.

[RanulfC]

What's wrong of LNG/LOX? Impurities in commercial grade LNG? Blue Origin sometimes label methane as LNG.

Nothing and BO (and SpaceX as far as I can tell) ARE actually using LNG which is why they label it the way they do. LNG is almost pure methane normally anyway. My 'point' was more a dig at some assumptions as since an X-Prize commercial company designed, built, and tested an LNG/LOX rocket with great success BUT since they 'failed' according to some metric's given that means that choosing LNG/LOX is an "obvious" step towards failing

Nearly every succeed or failed launcher vendor with vehicles flown (goverment of different countries, X-43A on Pegasus, SpaceX Falcon1, BO early version, Armadillo, Constoga, OTRAG) have lost some vehicles on coupled oscillation of GNC and vehicle vibration modes (liquid slosh, elastic body, aerodynamic resonance, transonic turbulence, etc). Many of them died when they can't afford more launch to trial on errors.

Faults on quality control of GNC (coding /circult / EMC and ESD inference / safty interlock) are less frequent, but have caused nearly every large space disasters involves ground life loss up to now (Brazil launcher explosion and Russia SS-19 explosion on launchpad, Chinese LM-3B crash, Apollo 1 fire), and quite a few unmanned vehicle loss (Ariane 5 maiden flight, several mars probes).

GNC is getting cheaper, and easier to access all the time and seems set to continue to do so. But it's an often overlooked factor, even by the 'experts' out there

Randy

[Robotbeat]

All liquid methane is LNG, not all LNG is pure liquid methane.

[Steven Pietrobon]

The presentation I saw said it could in fact be detonated by sunlight. 

That sounds like phooey to me. To test HTP stability they heat the liquid to 66 C or put it in a bath at 100 C! A bit of sunlight will do nothing. All the literature I've read says that HTP is very difficult to detonate. Here's what the British guide says on HTP detonation.

"Explosion Hazard: The action of detonators on H.T.P. has shown that it is possible to partially explode 90% material if it is closely confined, and under severe conditions of shock and confinement it has been known to detonate at 80%-85% strength."

But Isp beats all other considerations if you're the military, or someone else is paying to have the problems of toxicity dealt with.

Density also matters. HTP has a quite high density. 98%HTP/RP-1 has an average density of 1.3 kg/L, about the same solids when you include the void in the middle. Isp of this combination is about 14% better than solid. This makes HTP/RP-1 an excellent first stage propellant.

D'oh! How could I have forgotten about hydrogen peroxide? How about stabilised hydrogen peroxide?

The stabilisers interfere with combustion, reducing performance. The British engines used a silver catalyst in the engine to decompose the HTP which would then combust with the kerosene. Thus, rocket grade HTP does not have any stabilisers.

*Very not-well-known fact is that peroxide stored at 40F does not in fact decompose at all. FMC stored a batch of 98% H202 in an air conditioned storage unit for over 17 years and the batch showed NO decomposition when tested and no loss of volume even though it was vented.

It was actually 90.5% HTP at 5 C. A paper on this was posted previously.