On the shoulders of Apollo

Archibald

Banned
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
ON THE SHOULDERS OF APOLLO, PART 10
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

NASA Headquarters - Washington DC
June 1973

"A Saturn-Titan hybrid ? how about that ?" Simon Ramo was surprised.
"That's my point exactly." the leader of the Marshall team said.
"Imagine Titan solids clustered together, with a Saturn S-IVB above them as the second stage. Ares..."
"What ?"
"ARES - that our rocket name. Not only does that name screams "MARS !" it also has a hidden meaning."
"Which is?"
"Advanced REcoverable Solid. As the name implies, we want to parachute spent solid rocket motors into the ocean. They are essentially rugged steels tubes; its a low risk approach we could even try on a standard Titan."
"I don't like it that much." Ramo said "Solids have a nasty habit of exploding without a warning, and how many of them will be clustered ? you can neither shut down nor even throttle. It is too much of a brute force approach for me."
"We thought about that. A low cost Saturn SIVB combined with clusters of Titan 7-segment, 1,400,000 l b thrust solid rocket motors (SRM) could serve as an interim launch vehicle. Payload such a vehicle could deliver into a 100 nm 28 degree easterly orbit was calculated for several launch configurations made up of four to eight SRM as the first stage, either one or two SRM as the second stage, and the SIVB as the third stage.

The analysis took into account the aerodynamic load limitations of the SIVB but did not fully consider other aerodynamic effects that might result from the different configurations. Results indicated payloads ranging from 88,000 lb for a four SRM first stage and one SRM second stage to 121,000 lb for six and two.
If the present SIVB aerodynamic load limits can be exceeded, payloads as high as 148,000 lb may be obtained with an eight and two SRM configuration.That, with the J-2 or its much simplified variant the J-2S.

Now there's one hell of a better engine that was partially tested a while back. It is called the XLR-129, and was to power ISINGLASS, once the SR-71 / A-12 ultra fast successor. Pratt&Whitney tried to sold it as the space shuttle main engine, but they were told thrust was too low.

The XLR-129 has an extremely high level of performance, much higher than the J-2. In fact it is so good that a S-IVB powered by it could haul itself into orbit with an impressive payload even if boosted only by low performance solids.
Our numbers show that a cluster of eight Titan solids topped with a XLR-129 could launch 180 000 pounds of payload to Earth orbit. This is high enough that such a monster of launcher could try and replace the Saturn V."

Ramo sighed

"Indeed the budget cutters are killing us, and that huge Saturn V stands like an immense, fat target."

"We know that. ARES would drop costs by recovering the solids while the other part of the system - the XLR-129 S-IVB - would have superb performance. It would make for an impressive Earth-Moon tug. Cost could be as low as 100$ a pound to orbit, a number targeted by the long cancelled space shuttle. Unlike the shuttle that low cost doesn't come from reusability but from the other way around, that is, cheap and dirty subsystems. Solids don't cost much; neither the J-2 nor the S-IVB structure are really expensive. The more S-IVB and solids we build, the lower the cost. And we have all that Titan and Saturn experience to build from. There might be two variants, one with the J-2 for Earth orbit duties such as hauling loads of propellants; and at a later date the XLR-129 could enhance performance on the Earth-Moon trajectory."

"Ok, you convinced me. But - a Saturn Titan hybrid, how do we call that ?Satan ?" Ramo said, laughing. "Sounds much less politically correct than Ares. Yet I'm quite sure the astronaut corp will call it Satan rather than Ares. Oh well."

 
Last edited:
What are the performance specs on the XLR-129? I am having trouble nailing down anything beyond 250,000 lbf for thrust. I was trying to nail down the ISP for the engine.

Is there a reason they are not going with the HG-3 for consideration? From my research this was seriously being looked at by Rocketdyne for the successor to the J-2 and J-2S on the Saturn upper stages.

Good choice on the use of solids.
 
...That seems rather ominous. Were there any major historical disasters with this sort of rocket setup?

we discuss that problem in post 48#

on XLR-129
according those PDF
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/881744.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/881796.pdf
http://www.yang.gatech.edu/publications/review/JPP (2010, Casiano).pdf

a Dual-Manifold Injectors rocket engine (reusable)
the pre burner work at maximum pressure of 5123 psia, standard 4200 psis
Engine pressure at 2740 psia main.
thrust 1535.2 kN or 250000 lb max {Throttling Continuous from 100 to 20%)
Isp 459sec.
weight: 3520 lb with flight-type actuators and engine command unit

XLR129P1.png
 
Last edited:
So you did! The Titans seem to have had significant failure rates then.

only twice at 106 launch, a significant failure rate ?

the 1986 SRM failure was similar to Challenger, type malfunction of an O-ring seal in one of SRB
the 1993 accident was caused by damage on SRM caused during maintenance on ground.
the rest failure of Titans were by Cora stage or by it payload.

assuming that a Manned launch of "Satan" is much under supervision as a unmanned Titan IIIC or IV
the 1993 accident can be averted, still there is problem of O-ring seal under cold weather.
but that the SRM are recovered there will notice this problem also and correct it, i Hope….
 

Archibald

Banned
I've never heard of the HG-3 outside of astronautix.

I wonder however if the XLR-129 and HG-3 were related in any way ? (was the companies the same ? can't remember what engine is from Rocketdyne and what engine is Pratt).

The XLR-129 was the SSME immediate forerunner, and once again, this is OTL (unfortunate) Ares 1 revenge.

What I like very much with the Titan SRM + J-2 / XLR-129 is that the rocket ends rather similar to an Ariane 5.

I readily accepts that the crew might be launched separately on a two-SRM only Satan / Ares. Considering Ariane 5 payload to orbit plus the XLR-129 excellent performance, the Satan should be able to loft a Block II CSM to Earth orbit, eventually with a SPS firing as the third stage.

An interesting aspect of the Satan / Ares is that LC-34, -37A and 37B might be linked to the Titan LC-40 and 41 SMAB - Solid Motor Assembly Building. Add to that the good old LC-39A and -B, and there's a load of launch pads ready to shoot Ares loaded with propellant to a Earth- Mars parking orbit...
 
I've never heard of the HG-3 outside of astronautix.

I wonder however if the XLR-129 and HG-3 were related in any way ? (was the companies the same ? can't remember what engine is from Rocketdyne and what engine is Pratt).

The XLR-129 was the SSME immediate forerunner, and once again, this is OTL (unfortunate) Ares 1 revenge.

What I like very much with the Titan SRM + J-2 / XLR-129 is that the rocket ends rather similar to an Ariane 5.

I readily accepts that the crew might be launched separately on a two-SRM only Satan / Ares. Considering Ariane 5 payload to orbit plus the XLR-129 excellent performance, the Satan should be able to loft a Block II CSM to Earth orbit, eventually with a SPS firing as the third stage.

An interesting aspect of the Satan / Ares is that LC-34, -37A and 37B might be linked to the Titan LC-40 and 41 SMAB - Solid Motor Assembly Building. Add to that the good old LC-39A and -B, and there's a load of launch pads ready to shoot Ares loaded with propellant to a Earth- Mars parking orbit...


There is a fair amount of information on wikipedia on the Shuttle Main Engine development history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Main_Engine

The HG-3 was Rocketdyne and the XLR-129 was P&W. To me it looks like HG-3 and XLR-129 where competing engine basis for the SME. However Rocketdyne won the competition. Where Apollo comes in is that Rocketdyne was building the J-2 and they had where working on the HG-3 which was developed from the J-2 which would have replaced the J-2. Versus the XLR-129 came in from outside from a Air Force contract. Both HG-3 and XLR-129 where both high-pressure rocket engines just developed by different companies. In this instance if the Apollo hardware is continuing to be used then probably Rocketdyne has the inside track since their Engine is already being used on the S-IVB stage and S-II stage. However I can also see where the XLR-129 comes into play also. To me both of the engines seem to have similiar performance with a ISP of around 450.
 

Archibald

Banned
Thank you Brovane, it helps. I also do know that some elements of the XLR-129 were bench tested. I suppose its because the XLR-129 had military funding, ISINGLASS and, most importantly, Bernard Schriever behind it.
I don't know if any element of the HG-3 was ever build. That's the reason why I picked the XLR-129 in the first place.
 
Thank you Brovane, it helps. I also do know that some elements of the XLR-129 were bench tested. I suppose its because the XLR-129 had military funding, ISINGLASS and, most importantly, Bernard Schriever behind it.
I don't know if any element of the HG-3 was ever build. That's the reason why I picked the XLR-129 in the first place.

So Far i Know,

The P&W XLR-129 was USAF military R&D program (for CIA ?), while Rocketdyne HG-3 NASA civilian R&D for Advance Saturn V
according PDF, many systems were developed and tested, But never a complete engine was build.

HG-3 study was a J-2 as High Pressure Engine with Dual Gas Generator
After the Saturn V production was shut down, Study on HG-3 stop, Rocketdyne try to sell HG-3 design as Shuttle engine to NASA.
But NASA wanted something more reusable, at lower cost what let to RS-25.

HG-3 data
expendable High Pressure Engine with Dual Gas Generator
Thrust: 400000~315000 pound
Isp vac: 451 seconds
 

Archibald

Banned
At first I thought that TL still led to an impasse sooner or later because cost of space transport to Earth orbit was not lowered. Supporting space travel with a load of Saturn V ain't cheap by any mean, and sooner or later that was going to bit NASA, with congress.
Yet the Satan changed that. I took myself a long time to realize that mass produced S-IVBs plus a big load of solids could lower cost to predicted shuttle levels, that is, the magical $100 a pound to orbit (my bad, was $200 a pound) where space travel starts to be economical.
Yet that doesn't really solves cheap crew transportation to Earth orbit. Solids remain troublemakers.
 
Last edited:
I look in cost of Satan ;)
using 4 x UA1207 booster would cost $67 million (today) under assumption 15 x UA1207 are build per year. [1]
even $55 million (today) if 35 UA1207 are build per year, what is more realistic if NASA and USAF use then on Satan and Titan IIIM/F [1]
and this are cost for not reusable version !

on S-IVb production cost (using J-2 engine ) cost $42 million today, if 6 are build /per year [2]
after 30 units the production cost drops to $30 million for one S-IVB

so cost on a Satan would be approximative so $140 million at program start !
and get around 38000 kg in 185 km orbit at 28°

[1] a Study of Performacne and Cost improvement potential of 120-in diameter Solid rocket motor, NASA CR 114.389, December 1971.
[2] Near Term intermediate Launch vehicle low cost S-IVB Stage Case 103-8 Bellcom. Inc March 18, 1969
 
Last edited:

katchen

Banned
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
ON THE SHOULDERS OF APOLLO, PART 10
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

NASA Headquarters - Washington DC
June 1973

"A Saturn-Titan hybrid ? how about that ?" Simon Ramo was surprised.
"That's my point exactly." the leader of the Marshall team said.
"Imagine Titan solids clustered together, with a Saturn S-IVB above them as the second stage. Ares..."
"What ?"
"ARES - that our rocket name. Not only does that name screams "MARS !" it also has a hidden meaning."
"Which is?"
"Advanced REcoverable Solid. As the name implies, we want to parachute spent solid rocket motors into the ocean. They are essentially rugged steels tubes; its a low risk approach we could even try on a standard Titan."
"I don't like it that much." Ramo said "Solids have a nasty habit of exploding without a warning, and how many of them will be clustered ? you can neither shut down nor even throttle. It is too much of a brute force approach for me."
"We thought about that. A low cost Saturn SIVB combined with clusters of Titan 7-segment, 1,400,000 l b thrust solid rocket motors (SRM) could serve as an interim launch vehicle. Payload such a vehicle could deliver into a 100 nm 28 degree easterly orbit was calculated for several launch configurations made up of four to eight SRM as the first stage, either one or two SRM as the second stage, and the SIVB as the third stage.

The analysis took into account the aerodynamic load limitations of the SIVB but did not fully consider other aerodynamic effects that might result from the different configurations. Results indicated payloads ranging from 88,000 lb for a four SRM first stage and one SRM second stage to 121,000 lb for six and two.
If the present SIVB aerodynamic load limits can be exceeded, payloads as high as 148,000 lb may be obtained with an eight and two SRM configuration.That, with the J-2 or its much simplified variant the J-2S.

Now there's one hell of a better engine that was partially tested a while back. It is called the XLR-129, and was to power ISINGLASS, once the SR-71 / A-12 ultra fast successor. Pratt&Whitney tried to sold it as the space shuttle main engine, but they were told thrust was too low.

The XLR-129 has an extremely high level of performance, much higher than the J-2. In fact it is so good that a S-IVB powered by it could haul itself into orbit with an impressive payload even if boosted only by low performance solids.
Our numbers show that a cluster of eight Titan solids topped with a XLR-129 could launch 180 000 pounds of payload to Earth orbit. This is high enough that such a monster of launcher could try and replace the Saturn V."

Ramo sighed

"Indeed the budget cutters are killing us, and that huge Saturn V stands like an immense, fat target."

"We know that. ARES would drop costs by recovering the solids while the other part of the system - the XLR-129 S-IVB - would have superb performance. It would make for an impressive Earth-Moon tug. Cost could be as low as 100$ a pound to orbit, a number targeted by the long cancelled space shuttle. Unlike the shuttle that low cost doesn't come from reusability but from the other way around, that is, cheap and dirty subsystems. Solids don't cost much; neither the J-2 nor the S-IVB structure are really expensive. The more S-IVB and solids we build, the lower the cost. And we have all that Titan and Saturn experience to build from. There might be two variants, one with the J-2 for Earth orbit duties such as hauling loads of propellants; and at a later date the XLR-129 could enhance performance on the Earth-Moon trajectory."

"Ok, you convinced me. But - a Saturn Titan hybrid, how do we call that ?Satan ?" Ramo said, laughing. "Sounds much less politically correct than Ares. Yet I'm quite sure the astronaut corp will call it Satan rather than Ares. Oh well."

You could move the letters around and call it Santa! :p ho! ho! ho!
 
I look in cost of Satan ;)
using 4 x UA1207 booster would cost $67 million (today) under assumption 15 x UA1207 are build per year. [1]
even $55 million (today) if 35 UA1207 are build per year, what is more realistic if NASA and USAF use then on Satan and Titan IIIM/F [1]
and this are cost for not reusable version !

on S-IVb production cost (using J-2 engine ) cost $42 million today, if 6 are build /per year [2]
after 30 units the production cost drops to $30 million for one S-IVB

so cost on a Satan would be approximative so $140 million at program start !
and get around 38000 kg in 185 km orbit at 28°

[1] a Study of Performacne and Cost improvement potential of 120-in diameter Solid rocket motor, NASA CR 114.389, December 1971.
[2] Near Term intermediate Launch vehicle low cost S-IVB Stage Case 103-8 Bellcom. Inc March 18, 1969
I don't follow your calculations. You say 4xSRM is 67M$ (55 if more produced), and SIVB is 42M$ (30 if more produced). How do you get 140M$ from that? The only thing I can think of is 2*55+30, but by your words, that should be half of 4SRMs, not twice... What am I missing?

Assuming 140M$ and 38k kg in orbit, that works out to 3700 $/kg or 1700 $/lb. (both to 2 significant figures)
 
I don't follow your calculations. You say 4xSRM is 67M$ (55 if more produced), and SIVB is 42M$ (30 if more produced). How do you get 140M$ from that? The only thing I can think of is 2*55+30, but by your words, that should be half of 4SRMs, not twice... What am I missing?

Assuming 140M$ and 38k kg in orbit, that works out to 3700 $/kg or 1700 $/lb. (both to 2 significant figures)

additional cost

structural components to connect UA1207 together with S-IVB
payload faring
Transport cost from Manufacture to Cap and VAB
salaries for worker at Manufacture and launch site and Salvage crew for SRB
Fuel cost
Fleet of boats for Salvage the SRB
cost for general overhaul of launch site after take off (SRB make horribly things with Launch pad and Tower)
insurance


Note
Congress Renames NASA Flight Center After Neil Armstrong - See more at: http://www.space.com/24236-neil-armstrong-nasa-flight-center-name.html#sthash.N5AeK6CW.dpuf
 
nice configuration

check out "a Study of Performacne and Cost improvement potential of 120-in diameter Solid rocket motor, NASA CR 114.389, December 1971."
it show a lot of configuration for 4 and 6 and 7 SRB launcher on page 126, 129 132, 133 on Volume 2
the version on page 133 (Vol2) is a 7 SRM booster were 5 SRB are first stage and 2 SRB the second stage
now that be easy adapted for 8 SRM


here link to vol 1&2
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720007149
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/19720007150
 
The Bellcomm memo on solid - S-IVB had some crude pictures of what "satan" would look like.

as for the cost numbers, I've traced back (my HD is a mess) another Bellcomm memo called Near Term Intermediate Launch Vehicle: Low Cost SIVB Stages

The document mentions $260 a pound to orbit; or even $200 a pound to orbit with standardized S-IVBs.

Hunh! they're costing out SIVB's at 6.5M$ in 1967, that sure sounds cheap.

That's an interesting memo, alright.
 

Archibald

Banned
More on this before the next update. The $200 dollar a pound to orbit is pretty interesting. It is based on a flight rate of 15 launch a year only ! And with non recoverable SRMs. I've found that the shuttle estimates were around $118... at a rate of 60 flight a year. The vehicle is a Saturn / Titan hybrid build from proven elements; plus all the Cape main launch pads (34, 37A, 37B, 39A, 39B, 40 and 41) could be connected to the SMAB solid rocket motor assembly.

So we end with a dirt-cheap launch vehicle with a very large payload that fill all The Cape and CCAFS important launch pads.

The more "Satans" fired from all these pads, the more SRMs build, fired, and recovered, the lower the cost.

Perhaps NASA could launch a cheap Manned Mars flight in the 80's after all. :D
 

Archibald

Banned
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]ON THE SHOULDERS OF APOLLO, PART 10
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

FEBRUARY 23, 1975

Faraway from Earth


near_mos_20001016.jpg


"Houston, this is Eros Command Module"
"Roger"
"Over the last week we gradually slowed down, relative to Eros, until flying in formation with the asteroid at a closing speed of perhaps 8 m/s.

Searches for satellites of Eros took place on January 28, and 4 and 9 February; none were found. The scans were for scientific purposes and to mitigate any chances of collision with a satellite.

We ultimatey settled into a 321 x 366 km elliptical orbit around Eros on February 14. We then moved into a 200 km circular orbit and shifted the orbit from prograde near-polar to a retrograde near-equatorial orbit.

WholeEros.jpg


The orbit was slowly decreased to a 35 km circular polar orbit before maneuvers in mid-October led to a flyby of Eros within 5.3 km of the surface. Starting on January 24 we began a series of close passes (5 to 6 km) to the surface and on January 28 passed 2 to 3 km from the asteroid.

near_0155883756.jpg


Yesterday we made a slow controlled descent to the surface of Eros, ending with a touchdown just to the south of the saddle-shaped feature Himeros on February 12, at approximately 20:01 UT (3:01 p.m. EST).

Now I'm standing on Eros tortured surface. I can see our Lunar Module with the enormous Apollo planted on its roof, something evidently never seen on lunar missions. Thanks Eros very low gravity for that.

Within the last stage of descent we fired harpoons that solidly tethered our Lunar Module to Eros surface; otherwise we might have bumped on the surface like a soccer ball.

The landscape is just stunning; flaming aluminium grey contrast with the pitch black space. There are boulders and dust and little rocks all over the place.

near_0152339984.jpg


We spent a great deal of time remote sensing and photographing Eros. Preliminary analysis has most of the larger rocks strewn across Eros ejected from a single crater in an impact approximately 1 billion years ago.
This event may also be responsible for the 40 percent of the Erotian surface that is devoid of craters smaller than 0.5 kilometers across. A preliminary analysis of crater densities over the surface indicates that the areas with lower crater density are within 9 kilometers of the impact point. Some of the lower density areas were found on the opposite side of the asteroid but still within 9 kilometers.
It is theorized that seismic shockwaves propagated through the asteroid, shaking smaller craters into rubble. Since Eros is irregularly shaped, parts of the surface antipodal to the point of impact can be within 9 kilometres of the impact point (measured in a straight line through the asteroid) even though some intervening parts of the surface are more than 9 kilometres away in straight-line distance. A suitable analogy would be the distance from the top centre of a bun to the bottom centre as compared to the distance from the top centre to a point on the bun's circumference: top-to-bottom is a longer distance than top-to-periphery when measured along the surface but shorter than it in direct straight-line terms.

Not too far above my head is our big Mission Module of Skylab, eeerh, I mean, ISS heritage. One could ask why did we used Moon machines, that is, a complete CSM and Lunar Module, to land on Eros surface since gravity is ridiculous when compared with the Big Moon. And the fact is, we didn't spent a lot of propellant, only a tiny amount of our Service Module, Descent and Ascent stages.

But that enormous amount of delta-v won't be wasted. We will ascent, or more exactly hop, to our Mission Module; once there we will expend the Lunar Module stage propellants like some huge rocket booster. It will drastically cut into our return time to Earth. Same goes for our Apollo ship; we will burn the Service Module to the last drop."

Gene Sheomaker sought the remote Earth in Eros sky, and ultimately found it. It was nothing more than a pale blue dot. How hard it had been for him to accomplish the dream of a lifetime, that is, to fly to an asteroid as an astrogeologist with that fucking Addison disease. He had had first to proof he could manage it during a long duration flight aboard Skylab B. And he had done it, clearing his path toward Eros. [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
Top