Jul 302018
 

Today, the notion of building a space launch system that uses solid rocket boosters is kinda… silly. Liquids have much higher performance and, as SpaceX has conclusively demonstrated, liquids are quite recoverable and reusable, far easier than solids. But fifty, sixty years ago, solids made a *lot* of sense. They worked, they were reliable, they did not require a whole lot of delicate , constant babying. And for military purposes, they were (and remain) fantastically useful; load them up, stick them in a tube, forget about them for a few years, fire them at a moments notice.

This piece of Aerojet artwork dates from 1961 at the latest and depicts a large solid rocket booster, presumably for space launch. The diameter was 288 inches… larger than the largest actually-tested solid rocket motor at 260″, smaller than the 396″ diameter of the Saturn V (also the diameter of the largest solid rocket motor design I can recall seeing). Note that it uses four nozzles. This is not uncommon on military solids such as the first and second stages of the Minuteman and some sea launched ballistic missiles; it’s costlier and weighs more than a single nozzle, but it give you the same performance at a shorter length. And when your missile is stuffed into a silo or, worse, a submarine, compactness is important. but those missiles all also constrain the maximum dimensions of the nozzle assemblies to be no greater than the motors they are attached to… again, so the missile can fit in a  tube. THIS design went another way, with nozzles well outboard. This precludes silo launch. The advantage for a non-silo launched space booster to split up the nozzles like this is unclear. Some small reduction in total length, and some roll control authority.

Vaguely related: US Bomber Projects #17 has an article and diagrams of a somewhat smaller 260″ diameter solid rocket boosted ICBM from Thiokol.

 Posted by at 6:20 pm
Jul 242018
 

Very late 1950’s Convair promo art of their “Outpost” space-base built from an Atlas launch vehicle. This was publicized enthusiastically by the likes of Krafft Ehricke; it preceded the MOL program, and would have resulted in a  manned facility somewhat similar in size, thought dissimilar in capability. The MOL was a pre-finished, single-launch space lab, while the “Outpost” as a  “wet lab” would have required considerable effort by workers in space suits to finish. To service the Outpost, an Atlas with a Centaur-like upper stage would orbit two wedge-like lifting bodies.

 Posted by at 4:21 pm
Jul 242018
 

This video tackles the question “why don’t we just make more F-1 rocket engines?” A similar question, “Why don’t we just restart production of the Saturn V” has been  common among space fans for *decades.* And the fact is… we can’t.

The video points to the loss of skills and direct knowledge of those who worked the F-1 fifty years ago. When the F-1s were built, it took more than the blueprints; it also took manufacturing instructions. It’s more than juat “weld these parts together,” it’s *how* to weld. And while the blueprints still exist, the notes – and the knowledge stored only in the technicians heads – are long gone. This is a problem I saw directly back in my days working at United Tech and ATK. A story I’ve related before is how through virtually sheer random chance, while working at ATK I was called up by one of the techs hoping that I could direct them to a former co-worker from United Tech, because that co-worker was responsible for the manufacturing instructions on a motor that had been transferred from the one company to the other (because United Tech collapsed and all their programs were transferred to other companies). I got them to explain just what the issue they were having was… and then I burst out laughing because *I* was the guy at United Tech who had figured out how to solve the manufacturing issue. My co-worker had apparently never gotten around to re-writing the instructions, so an important detail had been lost and only rediscovered through an unlikely circumstance. Now, the ATK techs certainly could have figured out a solution, quite possibly the exact same solution, or maybe even a better solution… but they’d never have known if their solution was the “right” one, and Odin only knows how long it would have taken them to work the problem. And in government rocketry, “well, we’re unsure how it was supposed to be done, so we’re doing it this way” is almost never the right answer. Management will Freak The Hell Out.

And along with the loss of knowledge and skills is the loss of *stuff.* If you try to rebuild the Saturn V based on a complete and pristine set of fifty-year-old blueprints, one of many problems you’ll discover is that a lot of the off-the-shelf stuff meant to go in it… doesn’t exist anymore. “Install a MomNPopCo Brand temperature sensor model 14B HERE.” Ooops, they went out of business in 1971. “Wrap with Bleedin’ Lungs Brand six-inch-wide asbestos tape.” Ooops. “Install a HAL 90 computer here.” Ooops, especially because the mass of the thing is require for balance, but that’s not called out in the blueprint because why would it be. “Insulate with bakelite.” Ooops. “Machine from thorium-alloy component 128047h-8 from Bomarc program.” Ooops.

In aerospace, once it’s lost, it’s *very* hard to get back. No more Saturns. No more F-1s. No more SR-71s. No more Avro Arrows or Peacekeeper missiles or F-22s.

See also “FOGBANK.” Never let your nuclear weapons manufacturing programs sit idle.

 Posted by at 12:16 pm
Jul 222018
 

This video, while being in somewhat poor condition, having a giant watermark splashed on it and having what seems to be added sounded effects, is just plain interesting, showing the effects upon two QF-80 drones flying not far above a 1955 nuclear test. Both drones were equipped with film cameras in the cockpits that looked aft, so you can see how the horizontal stabilizers fared; the first shows the mushroom cloud rapidly rising behind the aircraft. This is a somewhat impressive shot.

 

 

 Posted by at 7:42 pm
Jul 092018
 

China reveals details for super-heavy-lift Long March 9 and reusable Long March 8 rockets

Long March 8: meant to emulate the Falcon 9 with a vertically-recovered core, but also use vertically-recovered solid rocket boosters (likely via parachute, though art seems to indicate that they too will have landing legs).

Long March 9: intended to be Saturn V class for manned missions to the Moon and beyond.

No indication that the Long March 9 is aiming for reusability, so it seems likely that the Chinese are emulating not the BFR but the SLS. It is too much to hope that China will emulate the spectacular economics of the SLS as well.

 

 

 Posted by at 11:30 pm
Jul 092018
 

There was a time when rocket engineers and launch vehicle/spacecraft designers felts reasonably comfortable proposing the use of propellants that today would be considered *insane.* One of these was fluorine, an oxidizer so powerful that it will oxidize *oxygen.* Liquified it is denser than LOX and provides a higher specific impulse than LOX when burned with the same fuels. On paper, liquid fluorine is spectacular. In reality, fluorine is toxic and just about all of the combustion compounds are toxic (burn it with hydrogen and you get hydrofluoric acid, which will eat your bones). Fluorine has the added bonus that it will merrily combust with a whole lot of structural materials, so you have to be careful in your design and preparation for tanks, pumps, lines, etc.

Consequently, it was important to know your stuff. To that end, Douglas Missile & Space Systems Division produced a Fluorine Systems Handbook.

This Handbook contains criteria for the design of airborne fluorine feed
systems and associated components. Two types of information are presented:
1) philosophical information defining general methods, and 2) detailed specifications
and procedures. Although the major emphasis has been upon
criteria for components exposed to elemental fluorine, the information is
general applicable to systems utilizing other cryogenic oxidizers which contain
fluorine as a constituent.

So if you are planning on fueling your rocketship with liquid fluorine… here ya go. You’re welcome.

Fluorine Systems Handbook

 Posted by at 1:52 am