Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
STUDY SUMMARY: Solid Propellant NOVA and comparison to Liquid Vehicle
#1
Here's a study summary and pics from May of 1962 discussing the options for a solid-propellant NOVA launch vehicle for a direct-ascent flight to the Moon with direct landing on the Moon by the Apollo spacecraft. This is another study made around the same time as the JPL study on this same topic published at roughly the same time period, alongside numerous other industry studies on large solid propellant rocket concepts.

This one would have produced a 35 million pound vehicle with 40 million pounds of liftoff thrust, built around clustered solid rocket motors in four stages. The first stage would have been 75 feet in diameter, and it would have stood about 282 feet high (less payload). It would have been capable of delivering 500,000 lbs to LEO, or inject 130,000 lbs to the Moon.

It also makes some basic comparisons to the "C-8" Saturn NOVA proposal, which would have had 8 F-1 engines in the first stage.

Enjoy! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

.txt   Study Summary- Applicability of Solid Propellants for NOVA Vehicle and Comparison with Liquid Vehicle.txt (Size: 91.2 KB / Downloads: 1)

First, the solid NOVA system...
   

Second, A model of the NOVA injection vehicle...
   

Third, liquid and solid NOVA vehicles in scale with the Washington Monument...
   

Fourth, estimated vehicle parameters...
   

Fifth, propulsion characteristics...
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, rocket motor production facility concepts...
   

Second, propellant processing facility proposal at the Cape...
   

Third, physical description of the facilities...
   

Fourth, launch operations schedule...
   

Fifth, final assembly and launch site (offshore launch pads).
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, cost summary...
   

Second, comparison of various solid NOVA studies by industry and critiques...
   

Third, relative occurrence of malfunctions in rocket flight (as it pertains to flight reliability)...
   

Fourth, Solid Nova and C-8 schedule comparisons...
   

Fifth, Solid Nova and C-8 cost comparisons...
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, comparison of solid and liquid stage system complexities (solid motor vs. Agena)...
   

Second, Agena hydraulic system complexity...
   

Third, static test of Aerojet 100 inch solid August 1961...
   

Fourth, clustered solid rockets for Explorer upper stages...
   

Fifth, conceptual NOVA designs...
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, summary of stage weights...
   

Second, truss type interstage concept...
   

Third, longeron type interstage concept...
   

Fourth, pressurized vs. turbopump TVC thruster systems...
   

Fifth, continuation of previous slide...
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, secondary injection TVC system configuration study...
   
Second, drag coefficient vs. Mach number, faired vs. unfaired solid NOVA vehicle (with or without aerodynamic fairings over exposed SRM head-ends, interstages...)
   

Third, CG/CP locations over time...
   

Fourth, Vehicle performance parameters...
   

Fifth, stage inert weights (also referred to as "steps" in this study).
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, comparison of computed and assumed stage weights for solid NOVA...
   

Second, sensitivity of gross vehicle weight to vehicle dry weight to propellant load ratios...
   

Third, physical description of the facilities...
   

Fourth, various propellant components and 1961 production capabilities...
   

Fifth, spacecraft mass projections breakdown...
   

More to come! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]

First, spacecraft design study for liquid vehicles (would work with the solid NOVA)...
   

Second, spacecraft design using hybrid rocket engines... (Convair designs, as previous)...
   

Third, lunar landing velocity increments and weights for liquid propellant lunar lander...
   

Finally, lunar landing velocity increments and weights, for hybrid or solid motor lunar lander vehicle...
   

That's all... Later! OL JR [Image: smile.gif]
Reply
#2
Glad you are continuing these summaries  Cool
Member of MDRA, NAR and NARHAMS;
Level-2 certified but mostly fly G and under;
Volunteer compiler of manufacturer's news for ROCKETS Magazine.
Reply
#3
(06-17-2015, 03:19 PM)rstaff3 Wrote: Glad you are continuing these summaries  Cool

Thanks... as I can, I will...

You'll have to find them here or on YORF... I quit TRF months ago and won't go back. 

Later!  OL JR Smile
Reply
#4
   

Greetings to all:

The years 1959-61 were very creative years for the new Aerospace Industry that emerged out of Sputnik.  I recently reviewed the US Army Project Horizon reports Volume 1-2.  They are WAY TOO LARGE to post (try 300+ pages).  One can find them on NASA's Marshall Spaceflight Center website.  I did see a recent post from BBC that showed a comparison of the Nova proposal with 8 F-1s alongside several more familiar rockets and the SLS.  The Nova is next to the Saturn-V.  Note how wide the first stage tanks would have been.  Saturn and shuttle tankage was 33 ft in diameter.  Nova probably inspired the Estes SPEV of the 1970s.

Astrosaint Cool

   
Greetings to all:

I found another image of liquid fueled Nova.  I was inspired to find some images with specification of the subject.  One interesting page noted that the all solid version of the NOVA proposal had NO aerodynamic skirts.  All of those motors would have been strapped on "Russian style" and raw propulsion was to overcome drag in the lower atmosphere.  At first, I though the model was strange looking until I did the research.  It is not an ascetic design.

My apologies to the tread author for adding the images. The diagrams are fascinating and I do not wish to detract from your work. Shy

Astrosaint
Reply
#5
Oh, that's fine Astrosaint... I DID do a "study summary" of at least one of the "Project Horizon" downloads of the original study I picked up off NTRS (NASA Technical Resources Server-- their "library" of literally many thousands of studies and documents) a long time ago. It's posted in the Scale Section of YORF and also in the scale section of TRF, which of course I no longer frequent. A search of the term "study summary" should bring it up.

Yes, the original studies themselves are FAR too large .pdf files to be uploaded directly, and frankly, there's an AWFUL lot of stuff in there that is of little/no practical use or interest to the average rocketeer... That's why I summarize them, sort of a "Cliff's Notes" version ("Jeff's Notes" perhaps??) paring it down to the information that would be most of interest to rocketeers who might be looking for a future/fantasy scale subject, or historical information on the space program, or just information of historical interest about how the rocket vehicles and spacecraft we came to have evolved and changed over time, the thought process, proposals, "What-If's", and ideas that held prevalence or tried to gain traction and for whatever reason never did. I find those sorts of things interesting, and so when I summarize a study, I look at it from that point of view.... I could just go through and snip the pics and upload them, strictly of measurable profiles or dimensioned drawings, sufficient to "clone" the design into a flyable rocket (with of course sufficient model propulsion and stability engineered into it by whatever means) but I try to go a bit beyond that, to include information of interest to those seeking to understand the space program a little better, a little deeper, or various aspects of it (aerodynamics, propulsion, solid motor design, thrust vector control, spacecraft, payload, or mission proposals over time, modes of operation, etc.) so that information is put out in a more easily accessible way, without being burdened down with tons of "minutia" and long strings of various arguments and data and mathematical formulae examining the finer points of some particularly arcane subject matter that really is of limited interest to most rocketeers... (though for some I'm sure I summarize too narrowly, as others might consider I post too much information). It's a tradeoff, just like in rocket design...

Yes, the all-liquid C-8 NOVA vehicle is also in one of the many study summaries I've posted on TRF and YORF. All that is in the scale sections. Sadly due to the continual and ongoing decline in TRF, I no longer participate in that forum-- all future summaries will be contained here on RC, on YORF, and if possible, "The Sagitta Cantina".

BTW, while the Saturn V first and second stages were 33 feet in diameter (roughly-- the second stage was actually slightly different, since it was built by North American Aviation and the first stage was built by Boeing) the shuttle External Tanks (built in the old S-IC plant at Michoud in New Orleans) was actually 331 inches in diameter-- 27.5 feet, making it noticeably smaller than the S-IC tank diameters...

One other thing-- the decision of whether aerodynamic fairings would be necessary on the "All-Solid Novas" was really never actually made. The proposals were never developed sufficiently and the expensive and detailed aero-analysis done on the "sufficiently developed design" to actually determine if the aerodynamic fairings were actually necessary or not. Not having them would save considerable weight and greatly simplify the design and assembly of the vehicle, BUT, it also would cause considerable additional atmospheric drag and probably created some atmospheric frictional heating issues in certain areas of the vehicle, as well as the need for "shielding" certain areas or parts of the vehicle from the force and heat of the slipstream, as well as plume recirculation effects (such as the low pressure area created around the S-IC due to shock cone interference patterns created by the S-II/S-IVB conical interstage (33 foot second stage down to the 260 inch (21.7 ft) diameter third stage) on Saturn V... This low pressure area caused flames to "leap up" the side of the S-I first stage for over half it's length, sucked up into this low-pressure region after the rocket went supersonic and entered the upper atmosphere, and which was of considerable concern when it was first observed in flight, though subsequent analysis proved it was a manageable problem. It's quite possible that unfaired solid motor clusters would also have had some unanticipated high-heat flow problems due to aerodynamics, which would have had to be addressed to construct a safe and reliable launch vehicle. The JPL Solid Nova proposal, which I also summarized in the scale sections of TRF and YORF, discussed the issues somewhat more and showed both faired and unfaired vehicle proposals and discussed the various tradeoff positives and negatives of each... Had developmental study and refinement of the vehicle proposals continued, we could definitively say whether such a solid NOVA vehicle would have flown with fairings or without them... but sadly, these studies ended due to decisions made elsewhere in the space program-- most notably Kennedy's challenge to complete the moon goal by the end of the decade, which basically ruled out development of even Von Braun's "C-8" all liquid NOVA vehicle, as there simply was not enough time in which to design, build, test, and perfect such a huge vehicle. With the move away from the Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) and "Direct Ascent" proposals for the mission mode to perform lunar missions, and the decision to go with Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) as the mission mode, it eliminated the necessity of a NOVA vehicle, either liquid or solid propellant-- the Saturn C-5 (Saturn V) was sufficient to perform the mission (especially since the decision was taken pretty rapidly in the definition and refinement of the Saturn C-5 proposal to add a fifth engine in the center of the first stage, instead of using four as originally proposed...)

Anyway, enjoy the studies and feel free to post additional material, ask questions, or pose discussion as you see fit!

Thanks for looking! OL JR Smile

That's an interesting pic you posted there Astrosaint... That one is in one of the summaries I've posted before as well... Smile

That's from some very early proposals for the Saturn vehicles... Notice the differences in the vehicles, especially the spacecraft and how they attach to the rockets... these clearly show the fourth "crasher stage" for a Direct Ascent lunar mission profile where the entire Apollo CSM would have landed on the moon tail-first. Notice there is no lunar module and no provision for room for adding one to the stacks. Notice as well the three-stage Saturn C-1, with the S-IV second stage and presumably some predecessor to the lunar "crasher" fourth stage (which would have braked the Apollo spacecraft from it's translunar trajectory directly into a powered descent trajectory to the surface of the Moon, shutting down and detaching to "crash" into the lunar surface shortly before the Apollo CSM itself did the final descent and landing on the lunar surface-- this plan didn't even have Apollo go into lunar orbit at all, but directly to the landing! Even at this early stage, there was considerable debate over whether this was the right way to go or not-- some felt it necessary for the spacecraft to go into LLO (low lunar orbit) first as a safety precaution, rather than following a trajectory that, if there was a problem, would end up with the Apollo smashing straight into the Moon at high speed... if for no other reason than to reconnoiter the landing site from a safe orbit and checking out the spacecraft systems before committing to a powered descent to the lunar surface. This second approach won out in short order, but the greater question on whether to pursue Direct Ascent, Earth Orbit Rendezvous, or Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission modes, was to continued for some time, with the direct ascent method falling out of favor first.

A couple of other interesting things about these proposals... notice the second stage of the C-8 proposal, and the ENORMOUS LH2 engines shown--these were to be the gigantic liquid hydrogen powered M-1 engines, the turbopump of which was tested but the engine itself was never completed. It would have been the liquid hydrogen burning equivalent (roughly) of the F-1 kerosene burning engine. Notice also the several different stage diameters and lengths proposed at that time... this goes back to the early proposals for the Saturn vehicles, and the stages and how their naming system came about... hence the S-I first stage (which we know from the early Saturn I series of unmanned flight tests, with the clipped delta fins) and the later refinement to it, the S-IB first stage for Saturn IB (which had many improvements in the design to reduce weight and increase performance, like the eight highly swept fins and lighter spider beam holding the tank cluster together). The S-II, as originally proposed, was to be powered by four J-2 engines and be 220 inches in diameter, as a second stage for the S-I stage. S-IC became the all-new design first stage for Saturn V, 33 feet in diameter and powered by (first, four, but later...) five F-1 kerosene engines. S-II was later upgraded to the 33 foot diameter and a fifth J-2 was added to create a million-pound second stage for Saturn V. The S-III I can't recall at the moment... seem to recall maybe it was a single J-2 engine version of the old smaller S-II design?? The S-IV was the small diameter (220 inch) liquid hydrogen upper stage created for Saturn I... powered by six RL-10 engines. S-IV was upgraded basically to take the place of S-III (IIRC) by increasing the diameter to 260 inches (which made it more compatible with the S-IB stage) and repowering it with a single J-2 engine of much greater thrust than the original RL-10 six engine cluster, making it a much more capable second stage for Saturn IB. The S-IVB stage, with modifications, was a capable in-space propulsion stage and third stage for the Saturn V, and completely replaced the S-IV on the Saturn I vehicles when they were upgraded to the Saturn IB specs... and S-IV was retired. S-V was basically going to be a "Centaur like" fourth stage for the Apollo CSM spacecraft, to provide braking at the Moon and the lion's share of the powered descent propulsion. Once the direct ascent mission mode was ruled out, there was no need for the S-V stage, and it never went any further than rudimentary proposals.

Notice too that *this* NOVA proposal shows a FIFTY foot diameter first stage, and FORTY foot diameter second stage, meaning it would have NOTHING in common with the Saturn C-5 vehicle. Later/other proposals for the C-8 NOVA would show it with a FORTY foot diameter first stage (which was basically required to be able to fit 8 F-1 engines into a workable cluster, and to keep the vehicle from being too enormously tall, complicating design of the VAB, erection, handling, transport, etc.) with a THIRTY-THREE foot diameter second stage, powered not by the M-1 engine (which it was realized would take too long to develop, test, and certify safe for manned flight) but instead powered by eight J-2 engines-- basically a "barrel stretch" version of the S-II stage from Saturn V, produced in the same factory using the same tooling. In fact I summarized some rather interesting proposals for uprated Saturn V's in the scale sections of other forums that showed a SIX F-1 engine upgrade for Saturn V, as well as a seven J-2 engine S-II stage for the Saturn V with a stretched second stage to contain the necessary extra propellants.

Interesting stuff to be sure... Smile OL JR Smile
Reply
#6
Greetings:

Amy Shira Teitel maintains a YouTube channel called Vintage Space.  She posts a new video every Tuesday and Friday about aspects of the space program.  Her June 26, 2015 edition discusses the Nova liquid rocket project.  She took a copy of the Nova image that I recently posted and superimposed it onto a picture of LC 34 launch gantry.  It is a nice piece of artwork.   Her channel is worth a twice weekly visit.
A
Reply
#7
I am scared if the posting word limit is higher here than at YORF!

Trojanowski confirmed to me on Facebook he has purged much of the content from Rocketry Online which he purchased, which is a tragic loss to rocket history during the ATF suit, and is precluded by contract from letting an interested third party to publish historical TRF posts.

That means the current commercially motivated owner will let it all go someday and Trojanowski has washed his hands of any responsibility for his own actions.

Jerry
Exemptions not regulations. Please purchase a few rockets from http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm
Thanks. Support eliminating explosive treatment of slow burning solids by DOT.
Reply
#8
(06-26-2015, 07:19 PM)Astrosaint Wrote: Greetings:

Amy Shira Teitel maintains a YouTube channel called Vintage Space.  She posts a new video every Tuesday and Friday about aspects of the space program.  Her June 26, 2015 edition discusses the Nova liquid rocket project.  She took a copy of the Nova image that I recently posted and superimposed it onto a picture of LC 34 launch gantry.  It is a nice piece of artwork.   Her channel is worth a twice weekly visit.
A

Linky??

OL JR Smile

(06-26-2015, 07:31 PM)Rocketman Wrote: I am scared if the posting word limit is higher here than at YORF!

Trojanowski confirmed to me on Facebook he has purged much of the content from Rocketry Online which he purchased, which is a tragic loss to rocket history during the ATF suit, and is precluded by contract from letting an interested third party to publish historical TRF posts.

That means the current commercially motivated owner will let it all go someday and Trojanowski has washed his hands of any responsibility for his own actions.

Jerry

Ummm-kay... that was random... LOLSmile 

Not really surprising considering the track record of the individuals involved...  from what I've seen, RO has been "dead" for a LONG time, (never a single new post in like a year or two when I checked it fairly regularly) and as for "the forum that shall not be named", well, I could care less what happens to that cat box...

Later!  OL JR Smile
Reply
#9
Greetings:

Perhaps there is a limit to image storage.  I was going to add an image but it Rocketry Center rejected the file.

Anyhow, Jerry Irvine's post reinforces an article I read in Byte Magazine around 1998.  The Magazine stated that computers are NOT good for archiving.  The best way to archive is to print out on paper and bind the document into a book.   Huh Computer storage has evolved several times since the 2 inch Ampax magnetic tape of the 1960s and 1970s.  Visit a site called web site called MoonViews.  They detail what it took to recover 1960s Lunar Orbiter data from the those tapes.  It was a herculean task.

Some agencies are concerned about this matter.  When Geocities went away, all of the pages were archived in at a site called Riocities.  My old Astrosaint Recycled Rocket Page is there.  There a Saturn V semi-scale plans on my page.


A
Reply
#10
(06-27-2015, 12:45 PM)Astrosaint Wrote: Greetings:

Perhaps there is a limit to image storage.  I was going to add an image but it Rocketry Center rejected the file.

Anyhow, Jerry Irvine's post reinforces an article I read in Byte Magazine around 1998.  The Magazine stated that computers are NOT good for archiving.  The best way to archive is to print out on paper and bind the document into a book.   Huh Computer storage has evolved several times since the 2 inch Ampax magnetic tape of the 1960s and 1970s.  Visit a site called web site called MoonViews.  They detail what it took to recover 1960s Lunar Orbiter data from the those tapes.  It was a herculean task.

Some agencies are concerned about this matter.  When Geocities went away, all of the pages were archived in at a site called Riocities.  My old Astrosaint Recycled Rocket Page is there.  There a Saturn V semi-scale plans on my page.


A

Yes quite true...

I read an article years ago about the efforts to save data from some of the early missions that used highly specialized equipment and/or arcane computer languages to record the data... in some cases, the teams working to save the data had to go to museums and use their display machinery (after getting it into proper working order in many cases) to actually run the tape or read the data off and re-record it in a format that modern machines can work with.   In some cases the arcane computer languages or encoding formats made the data nearly impossible to translate into a modern format, or the necessary equipment to do it no longer existed, and the data was essentially "lost"...

Definitely better to have it as some form of "hard copy".  I watched a program, maybe "life after people" or one of those type shows, where they discussed how long certain methods of information storage would last... magnetic tape such as video tape, data tape, or audio tape are surprisingly short-lived, and most modern electronic means of data storage aren't much better... even DVD-ROMs and other such data storage discs are only expected to be usable for about a century.  The longest lasting "modern" method so far is low-acid archival paper stored in sealed, climate controlled environments, but even that isn't likely to last beyond a few centuries.  The only storage media that has proven capable of lasting for millennia is actually clay or stone tablets... LOLSmile 

Later!  OL JR Smile
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)