PHASE A EFFORT FINAL REPORT

FOR

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A PRESSURE-FED ENGINE

FOR A WATER RECOVERABLE SPACE SHUTTLE BOOSTER

Volume I - Executive Summary

Prepared For

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama

Contract NAS 8-28217 18 January 1972

COPY

A E R O J E T L IQUID R O C K E T C O M P A N YA D I V I S I O N O F A E R O J E T - G E N E R A L

S A C R A M E N T O , C A L I F O R N I A

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720013109 2020-06-04T04:38:33+00:00Z

, PHASE A EFFORT FINAL REPORT

FOR

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A PRESSURE-FED ENGINE

FOR A WATER RECOVERABLE SPACE SHUTTLE BOOSTER

Volume I - Executive Summary

Prepared For

National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationGeorge C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama

Contract NAS 8-28217 18 January 1972

DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST

MSFC DATA PROCUREMENT DOCUMENT NO. 303

DATA REQUIREMENT MA-04

P R E S S U R E - F E D B O O S T E R E N G I N E -

FUEL INLET LINE ALTERNATETHRUST MOUNT(HEAD ENDGIMBAL ORFLUID INJECTION)

"-CONCENTRICRING THRUST

MOUNT(HINGED)

OXIDIZERINLET

INE

FUEL CONTROL VALVES

OXIDIZERCONTROLVALVES -

BAFFLEDIMPINGINGELEMENTINJECTOR

CHAMBERSTRUCTURALJACKET

REGENCOOLED

CHAMBER/NOZZLE(2 PASS)

HINGEBELLOWS

NOZZLESTRUCTURAL

BANDS

OPERATING CONDITIONS

• PROPELLANT - LOX RP-1

• THRUST - 1.200.000 LBS

• CHAMBER PRESSURE - 250 PSIA

• MIXTURE RATIO - 2.6:1

• EXPANSION RATIO - 6:1

FEATURES

• DEMONSTRATED LOX RP-1 INJECTION

• DEVELOPED REGEN CHAMBER COOLING

• INJECTOR SHEET STOCK FAB

- LOW UNIT COST- SHORT DEVEL. LEAD TIME

• INJECTOR ELEMENT

_ FABRICATION

- ELEMENT OPTIMIZATION

• REENTRY IMPACT SURVIVABILITY

FOREWORD

This Final Report on the Phase A Level effort for a feasibility study

of a Pressure-Fed Booster engine has been prepared for the NASA-Marshall Space

Flight Center. Design and system considerations have provided an engine con-

cept selection for further preliminary design and program evaluation during

the Phase B level of the study. This data has been prepared in compliance

with Data Requirement MA-04 of the Contract NAS 8-28217 for a Feasibility

Study of a Pressure-Fed Engine for a Water Recoverable Space Shuttle Booster.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. ACTIVITIES 2

A. TASK I - BOOSTER VEHICLE COORDINATION 2

B. PRESSURE-FED ENGINE CONCEPT TRADEOFFS 4

III. CONCEPT SELECTION 12

IV. TECHNOLOGY/DEVELOPMENT PHASE 16

V. PROGRAM PLANNING 22

TABLE LIST

Table

IV-1 PFE Engine Technology/Development Areas 19

FIGURE LIST

Figure

II-l PFE Study Task Schedule 5

II-2 PFE Study Mileposts and Data Requirements Schedule 6

II-3 PFE Thrust Chamber Preliminary Screening 7

II-4 PFE Injector Screening . 8

II-5 PFE Ignition System Preliminary Screening 9

II-6 Control System Design Screening 10

II~7 Thrust Vector Control System Screening 11

•III-l Propellant Considerations - RP vs Propane 14

III-2 Pressure-Fed Booster Engine 15

IV

I. INTRODUCTION

The proposed ocean recoverable Pressure-Fed Booster for the Space

Shuttle Vehicle provides a concept that has inherent reliability advantages

when compared with other recoverable vehicle concepts. The NASA has con-

tracted with vehicle airframe contractors and propulsion contractors to

evaluate the feasibility of the Pressure-Fed Booster such that early decisions

can be reached prior to initiation of the Space Shuttle Vehicle Phase C/D

procurement. Aerojet Liquid Rocket Company (ALRC) was awarded contract

NAS 8-28217 by NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center to provide propulsion support

to the vehicle study contracts and to evaluate the Pressure-Fed Engine at a

Phase A/B level over a thirteen week period beginning 1 December 1971.

The Phase A level effort of the contract has been completed and this

Final Report documents the results. The Phase A level effort has provided a

tentative concept selection for a Pressure-Fed Engine and propulsion support

for the vehicle contractors. The Phase A effort evaluated multiple engine

design concepts through parallel engine major component and system analyses.

The report has been presented in two parts in compliance with the Data

Requirement MA-04. Volume I contains the Executive Summary and Volume II

provides the Technical description.

Page 1

II. ACTIVITIES

The Phase A level effort of the contracted Phase A/B study to evaluate

the feasibility of a Pressure-Fed Engine has been completed. This effort has

been divided between the Task I - Booster Vehicle Coordination and the parallel

PFE analysis tasks, Task II - Engine Major Component Analysis and Task III -

Engine System Analysis.

A. TASK I - BOOSTER VEHICLE COORDINATION

The purposes of Booster Vehicle coordination task are to: (1)

determine engine requirements based on vehicle contractor and NASA input, and

(2) provide an interface to assure free and rapid data exchange between ALRC

and the vehicle contractors. The vehicle contractors have been under contract

to evaluate the Pressure-Fed Booster before the award of the parallel propul-

sion contracts and have conducted significant analyses of the propulsion/

vehicle interfaces. Therefore, their prime interest has been directed toward

resolution of particular design or program concerns.

Personnel have been organized to communicate directly with the

vehicle contractors. Vehicle contractors questions are documented in an

informal document titled "Vehicle Contractors Questions and Responses", which

is maintained within the project to provide a record of the status of vehicle

contractor questions. The ALRC baseline engine is described in the ALRC

Pressure-Fed Booster Engine Interface Data book. Formal responses to Vehicle

Contractor questions are by letter, TWX or Data Fax.

1. Revision 0 of the ALRC Pressure-Fed Booster Engine Interface

Data book (Report 9755-71-3) has been issued.

2. Formal responses to Vehicle Contractors are maintained.

Page 2

II, A, Task I - Booster Vehicle Coordination (cont.)

3. Current engine requirements based on discussions with vehicle

contractors are tabulated and provided as a reference for the PFE design

analysis.

4. Vehicle exchange ratios were obtained in discussions with

vehicle contractors for use as weighted tradeoff factors in the selection of

PFE design concepts.

Page 3

II, Activities (cont.)

B. PRESSURE-FED ENGINE CONCEPT TRADEOFFS

The first six weeks of the contract has provided for the design

and.system analyses of the Pressure-Fed Engine as shown by the Task II - Engine

Major Component Analyses and Task III - Engine Systems Analyses activities

shown in the task schedule in Figure II-l. An early definition of a Pressure-

Fed Engine concept and program cost and schedule data was provided to NASA-MSFC

on 6 December 1971. This data was provided to assist in the evaluation of

vehicle contractor supplied data.

The analyses conducted to define the best concept for a Pressure-

Fed Engine was performed in agreement with the procedures identified in the

Study Plan submitted to NASA on 6 December 1971 in compliance with Data Require-

ment MA-01, as shown in Figure II-2. These analyses included preliminary con-

cept screening of the major components, design analyses and tradeoffs of the

remaining candidate concepts, and evaluation of the system impact of each

approach. The major component screening charts showing all concepts con-

sidered are shown in Figures II-3 through II-7. Detailed tradeoffs were con-

ducted for the engine major characteristics to determine the impact on vehicle

gross liftoff weight. This served as a relative performance index for the

engine characteristics.

Engine performance models, physical characteristics data, and

steady state flow models were computerized for the different concepts and

propellants under consideration. This capability was used to assist the

design tradeoffs for the different concepts as well as assist in the data

evaluation for the Task I - Vehicle Contractor Coordination.

Page 4

ino

CO

o

oLULJ_

ILUce

COLUcea,

S Q-

88

--

-R

«

1

U

rcuXL

*"

c

iV

o-

•o

•o

(ft

uu

coor

1

I2

il! **

< i^

£l r~'" r/ X

? P— U

i' ^

0 £,

3 |0 §

^ <a: Qr.O 3

'o )f* 5-^ o

2 i11 :;

[_; J

3 - -^>

s - ~

1

] 1

\ • • ! l li 1-

zr !u

•r

€ -" 0

* 9 fj

i; ; M u^ m

-V '^0 - J2

< ^- — ~ CL. *' uj

8 -5 f, 5 < ^ 5 g£ .x, " < £ s '; '" ^

1 1 § 1 i 1 ! i S 3 c 1

= 5 S * y o * 5 is § 3 3 5 " 3< S z "" S " " - « "' " * f " g £- ' - ' i s g ^ S S 2 5 g g m | « o

i: § ~ 5 g 2 ^ S ^ < 5 K S 2 g §~ - ^ i c u ^ ^ ^ [ T i " ^ ^ 5 a ^ S? r ^ ^ " - § ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ; ^ 1 ^ 5^ -~ ,:i -J •- •-!. i^ u .u ? Q ui ;/> uj ? s." 'T •- =.' r? i: - '- -'- "' 5 S Q ^ UJ IJ^ .;. •— ^ c\. o o o o ^ o o LU o t- LU

- = i r- w Hi UJ -J « 0 LU U- LU 2 a

= = = = = = -_' ~ = = = = = = i

1z

Z3

oQ

0

zou

u<

uj ;

o >-„ a:z z

D -J

i £ ii o£ i2 <s 5 £

Ij Q- U

x a.

41s

n

— (C~•T

LLJ

< < _

UJ UJ

ZJ Z)p a a^ LU LLJ

0 SO <J l> i

o 5 3 J5

§ „, iu 5 ? §83 ?, S t ^ ^, ™> "' " G ^ !^ ^_ tu< 5 < -t o uj i: Xa ^ x u - u c o - o

; ?

O

UJ

(D

0 I3 in

cc >

LU

UJ

zirou.

Figure II-lPage 5

NTS

-SC

HED

ULE

l_l_l

UJir7

ZD0UJ

^^C

^^c

Qi

^—~

^^

CO1 —COOD_i i i— 1W^B

^^^

^>;

^ .Q•' "*i

1 —CO

UJLJ_a..

^i— °u

\— CL

88s

fi

_ —

="

R

~

<?

"

o

I

6oj-<.-EO

0-

co

•o

=

»

r~"

-

_

*Ul

2

^J0OITa

<«

i '

L-m

^

z

oj-

52Q

i/>o:0

u

1-

0

u

U

X

>-

o

i6

ia.

?

K <

o < ~uJ jj; —

^ <3 Ia

3

i 'L~

• sr1

oz

.o

u

oQ-

Q

<

j"

Q«- UJ

i 2 5>— *°

I §• ° z

a o 1'5 s 3UJ Q UJ

1 I S 1_J * < LJJ

§ 5 s |x uj o 5

. " i i 1o o o a^ ^ < °" u,

5 | | 1 S

111 S < < < 5S a "z z z SICL <

O

<:

<

t

|

11

* \ s

II1

3 S< <S £

a

m

< ^LJJ <^ h-

5 o°- ~Z-

a. J

6 8H- Q.

^ ->

^j 6Q. 5S

1 sI/> o:

C

<:

c<

~-

C

P

S3

—

!•"i

OOft"

Q.

i

t7

=

80

oiloil

i111

•«• O

1

t 1

cf Cl O S O

< < '

UJ

h-

UJ

o

'- Q ^O ^ <

a S 1 *-

^7 < ** "°a: x ° ^j °- | Si ?. Q KU. LJ_

i i11- Ou

n. tx

>- ID^ <

^~ 2

2U0

o £O n

0c

1— « UJ1<

IJ ^ IL

^£ 0

O J

DC :'Q

a <

^y Z

• IB O

_| t

I- S•"• O^^^ h-^^ Z^3 ujf^& ^^C <nl cUJ u

^*fc (/)

VcT^QiSv\AsS«uNv^^p

Figure II-2Page 6

l§

I 8

I?

< z «•f= 3 *-« S °

_l-<t-

t- z o3 UJ Z

£ "o£ t 8

3I/I

^\a \

\

..ses!Uio: i

S O i" ou a. u

^02 = o

-fj3U.

'

1 • • • • — r~ —I — 1 — 1\

\• z

—*=!

1_, f-I . _•< Z U.

—£0

r~\s\s

< h-11J OX Z

_l

z ^ >r 5 *H a j* _l 0

Q- UQ_

2 1rhX 0UJ Z

1•^^^•^H

_1UJ

u.

L

^•^^B

9

J

n•<. M-^"

ac

ee«<m

Mi

IM

•••••a£a;<m

n5I i

o sS3.•w < >

Q r

LU ce_j t—M UJISI So o^ UJ

1 1

v«S "-x\*? £

p\

Q

5?'ft1- 2O UJ

\:f\Sl

Si-U, UJ\

Q

5 ?i z»- a

1

_J

•<

>

<

UJ0

Figure II-3Page 7

co•H

82

35?!

Figure II-4Page 8

aQ)

aM

w

""

* UJDC X-< UJ0- X1/1 (j

U ">

flU t-

u !£

\

^\\1

J «£ *£ <Q. UUj 0

< <a9 oQ ?

• • ,

>ou>-a>ocO(LH-

<D

\\ 2

I\lx\s=! u-y"5 V

\

i

S« a

S^ I

8*§5 -»U 0

^£ 1o£ 3z* *• •

QUJt-<

EisSxOK *~<a.

L-y

3 UJUJ UJ(- o:

g <•

UJQLO. K 5 5

X Z -I

i 1 |S:LiiSb?pli' =

o rs -,X Z

Figure II-5Page 9

Io

£2^Z=5 £

uj o: Q ujiv a. uj </>

</>0 UJ< 0!

Z) [V«>=3HU

"^ U

O ">

IISi

Q <S>uj o:_,UJ

H <

08

3 «3 2

UJ UJ

^ in

P9<So.

*/> (J uz

Ul_lU

5 << a.UJzozUJ

u<

a: o:

OO

Z

H-ZO(J

(J

o: _i Z) 3i U Ou ui

; < QL

UJOO

aui a.</> o

3 IrO_ (/) r}_

ill

-3 OL

>• U S< U <S < Q

(J

UJ UJQ a

o:S

CK u OfX < uii- a

Figure II-6Page 10

o

uUJ—Iz

or

zou

oI—o

LUCO

CO

>-

CO

zoI-uUJ,JUJ•/>2UJ

If!

U

(JUJ

Q=>

zUJ

Q.O

UJ>• UlUJ UQ Z

<!or oUJ U_

< UJ

Zo

uLU

zI/I<

OX

O3

t-oUJ

O

o3O

I-o

as.

LU(JZ

orO >-U- K

S 2Q_ CO

z5

LUI—<

LU>

0.

ouz

UJ(Jz<iou.KUJD.

IU UJU I-z << h-

o:O -iU_ LUQ: >UJ UJQ- Q

U ZZ LU< sS Q.a o

>UJQ

Oo

oI—oLU>

I—CO

ZUJ

UJu

UJzozUJ

aUJoz

>-(-Ij

<

<oorX

Q_O

Q

KO

a.O

zLU

<J•

Q<O

Oz

LU

a.o

aUJ

CD2O

x.o— (/5UJ Qs <o °z -1

5 o

O in» • Q

<O

Oz

Oc-LT\

wa;

oo

Figure II-7Page 11

III. CONCEPT SELECTION

A primary consideration was the evaluation of the propellant combina-

tion to be baselined for the PFE design concept. Both LOX/RP-1 and LOX/Propane

were evaluated from an engine performance and thrust chamber cooling standpoint.

In addition, the propellant handling and facility considerations were evaluated.

Based on this review, LOX/RP-1 were selected for baseline consideration in view

of the known injection, combustion, and cooling capabilities with the RP-1.

Figure III-l summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each propellant

combination.

The engine concept identified as baseline for further evaluation in the

Phase B level of the contract is shown in Figure III-2. The engine has a

regeneratively cooled combustion chamber and nozzle in conjunction with an

impinging element injector. The injector is designed to be fabricated using

predominately sheet stock materials with the impinging elements fabricated

separately and then installed into the injector face. Combustion stabilizing

baffles are used to assure dynamic combustion stability. The baffles are

fabricated with internal coolant flow which injects at the tip. The coolant

is shown to be oxidizer in the injector design shown in Figure III-3; however,

this will be evaluated further in Phase B.

The engine has two oxidizer valves and two fuel valves to provide

better distribution of the propellant into the injector and regeneratively

cooled chamber, and to provide better valve sealing characteristics by mini-

mizing valve seat diameter. The valves are hydraulically actuated with high

pressure RP-1 obtained from a small engine mounted pump.

The combustion chamber is shown as a two-pass regenerative jacket with

the fuel entering at the head-end, Figure III-4. The study considered head-

end gimbaling, fluid injection, and hinged at the center of gravity for

thrust vector control. The TVC concept shown in Figure III-2 is a C.G. hinged

Page 12

Ill, Concept Selection (cont.) '

approach to allow better restraint of the engine assembly during the signifi-

cant transverse acceleration loads projected for ocean impact by the vehicle

studies. The moments generated by the cantilevered engine would be excessive

for a head-end gimbaled engine. In addition, the hinged approach allows the

use of the Saturn SIC vehicle gimbal actuator.

The selected method of ignition utilizes a hypergolic cartridge con-

taining a mixture of TEA and TEB which is hypergolic with liquid oxygen.

This method provides for reliable, flight proven ignition while minimizing

weight and cost.

A closed loop control system utilizing a small engine mounted controller

was selected to provide thrust and mixture ratio control by modulating the

propellant valves. This small controller can be used to provide self check-

out, self start, and self shutdown capability upon command from the vehicle.

Page 13

tu

in GOoo <"

1 i- LU

IS 3 ^z -JooH•rf — ' ~y ^

s 1 III< LI °i<5Q- Qi Z °- °* <

O LU O LU t) 1-CC Q_ r; ZQ <°- _J<52>-

< N Z Q tK- Qi UJ U ">Z°-l>-gLU Q- <f , r. —>-< z>oQ

P>QS H

1-^03Ql Z LU U <LU LU Qi LU r~-, GO

5| , ,§X < (J

• • • .

UJU Vz >- oo rUJ H 1- t

5E z 2 d -LU < • O CQ LL-Q. 1— U. tjj <; LL.x Q/ LL Q; Q_ LULUUJUJ0<0.ULL I^UUV- Z 00 — ,r^ Qig=5<-J^lDS2 . uj o ±. u. o_i u. _i o _i oo yU. Qi LU U O Z ^rv, UJ Di ,y, O < -1Lt_ |-» LL. / i <-uo0- >-UJUQ:O. Q O CQ Z ^ CQ

_l UJ Qi 2 ^ 1- --uj a: LU < 2: < ,> LU Z X £ LU =!LU > LU U [2 X LL^ J t )o u : 1 1 5 1 1Z Q =>

• • •

v\TS

V1B

IEN

T.N

T

LOS

SE

SLD

UP

UN

CE

RT

AIN

'

^•^^ 5O -J LU I- _l cQQi < LU -1

0->-%d<Jf-gu_

zz5:zLU LU O ^OQ Z <-^cv-Zi0.-^ LU — 1 —,.° UJ Ci ±=, 5: Z^1 O < O-I XU

• • •

(D

LU

C/0

CELUgtoZoo

LUQ.OCQ.

^

Q

LU

LU < Q- ±: Q U

toUJO

OO

z<

JH< <

- ^Zr7 J O,>-Z<XLuUm, D ^ CK

LL. U O &. ^ UJ LU

uu u >~ o:a: LU t LU

oo Q-_ < o o LU LUx LU _i _i a i—

COUJo

ooO

00 " UJ_l >-CLuj tr o

- xLU O_1 i_CQ

> ID LU

ujQ[^m

QZ<v:OO

Di

h- ,

gb

O _J_J COu. <

LU Q: (j LU

_LU XQ_ LU

LU

j-LUD.

LU Qi 9 LU> LU U_ UL^OZZQ Z O <00 =DU2LU . _, Di1 \ r- IX- t-\

g- -^ UI_J^LU"- < < a: u. x Q-X h- ooI- GO — I [O O 0.CQ U Di

cc<•5.

00

zco

oHZUJ2<CO

oc—

111K

Oo

Figure III-l

Page 14

COZgtQZ

'ER

AT

ING

CO

I

LLO

,_

dtrXo

i

PR

OP

EL

LA

NT

CO00.JO§§

TH

RU

ST -

10in

1

LUOC3

8

CH

AM

BE

R

PR

ET-

CP

CM

1

O

MIX

TU

RE

R

AT

I

TTCD

1

O1-^

EX

PA

NS

ION

R

*

P-1

IN

JE

CT

ION

OC

XoQLU

COUJccDt-

LLJLL

tri-CO

0

LUO

•

AM

BE

R C

OO

LIN

G

IO

D

RE

GE

N

LUa0_JUJ

LUQ

•

GO

LL

8

5X

trot-uLU-5Z

•

coOOH

Z

I_J

1

LU

K

O

LU-J

r D

EV

EL

.

\ —

OCoco

1

EL

EM

EN

T

ccOi-

INJE

C'

•

ICA

TIO

N

OCCD

LL

1

AT

ION

N

Ha0i-zLUSLU

LU

1

'IV

AB

ILIT

Y

CC3

MP

AC

T S

I

CC

ZLULUOC

•

oo

LU

CO

OOGO

ooLU

u

o

Figure III-2

Page 15

IV. TECHNOLOGY/DEVELOPMENT PHASE

One of the objectives during.the Phase A study was to identify problem

areas associated with the selected engine concepts. These problem areas then

became the basis for recommended technology programs which are presented in

Table IV-1.

Water recovery of the booster exposes the engines including internal

manifolding to contamination from both the minerals and sea life that exists

in the water. This and the requirement to reuse the engines in subsequent

launches established the requirement for materials compatibility and cleaning

technology programs.

Propane offers a performance advantage over RP-1 if the propellant

can be used in a film boiling heat transfer mode for regenerative cooling of

the thrust chamber. Since this type of data is not available for the coolant

velocity and heat fluxes experienced in this engine, a technology program

to obtain film boiling data was recommended. In addition, further informa-

tion is required on the phase change characteristics of propane for duct

cooling studies and the rate of material buildup on the inside of the regenera-

tive tubes due to propellant cracking for both RP-1 and propane.

A thorough evaluation of propane and RP-1 cannot be completed until

more data is obtained on the mixing and combustion characteristics of propane

with liquid oxygen. This includes the effect of injection element type since

RP-1 and propane are significantly different in fluid properties.

Vehicle contractors in general favor a fixed engine with fluid injec-

tion into the nozzle for thrust vector control since the structural weight

and boattail dimensions of the booster are significantly reduced over a

gimbaled engine. However, performance degradation due to the injected fluid

can easily cost the vehicle more in weight penalty than was saved with the

Page 16

IV, Technology /Development Phase (cont.)

light weight structure. To properly compare the two methods of thrust vector

control, it is necessary to obtain further liquid injection performance data.

The large thrust level and vehicle sensitivity to low pressure drop

results in valve diameters and sealing loads that are beyond state-of-the-art

technology. Since this is a major component in the pressure fed system, data

on seal loading and cyclic life is required.

One method of obtaining thrust vector control involves hinging the

engine in one plane versus the normal two plane gimbal. This enables the

propellant inlet lines from the vehicle to interface with the engine through

a swivel seal which eliminates the requirements for large, diameter articulating

bellows and results in a significant weight savings. This swivel seal is

larger in diameter than those utilized on past engine programs and, therefore,

requires a technology program to verify seal life capability.

Feed system coupling is a problem involved in any vehicle design. To

provide for proper control of this situation, a detailed system stability

analysis is required to establish proper stability margins and design criteria.

The most severe loads (up to 25 g's) imposed on the engine occur dur-

ing water reentry slap down. Since the weight of the chamber and nozzle is

largely a function of the loading, a detailed dynamic load analysis of water

reentry is recommended as a technology program to ensure that engine weight is

maintained at a minimum.

Vehicle contractor studies have indicated that a monopropellant N H

gas generator provides an efficient method of tank pressurization. In addi-

tion, the N_H. exhaust would be used to power hydraulic pumps on the engine

Page 17

IV, Technology/Development Phase (cont.)

which are needed for gimbal actuator power. Due to the large flow rate required,

state-of-the-art technology does not exist for this size gas generator and,

therefore, warrants a technology program.

Page 18

OO CD_J OcC —IK-. OCC. *-iLU CO

Q

<coo

GO«=rUJ

oQ

s:LU z: >-

OH-

I— •=£ 1-1z: • CD CQLU CD i—i t—i

CO CCLU D_

O I-H0- I—s: oo > s:o LU z oCJ I— i—i CJ

Qz: •<C 00

LUZ CD0<Ci—i ooI— oo<C <=Cro o_

LU —IU_

CDz _i—• <3iZ CJeC >-<LU Q-_l >-CJ I—

•

Z: I—I O O LU •LU z s: i—i o • z zCD <=C CC 00 LU LU Z OLULU LU |— z. I CQ cC i—iCC —1 D C < C L U _ I Z P 3 T h —\CJ 1—LU I— 01— CJ CCcc n: x cc DOO" LU LU (— ah- —Ih- Z CQ CD Z UJ CJ eC00 •=> Z h- O t— =5 >LU •—i h- i—i Z O <£ CDl LU•-3 OO • —1 LU LUZ a: h- QH-II—i Z3C QCJi—i LU ZD L U O O O LU i—is: o H-CQ 1-1 >-" 3: t— s:LU S-: eC U-l— I— <CeC> i—i cj LU s: u- cc >—i LU 2:•-. LU DC _i LU cc: s 3z >-h- eC DZ i-i O ZD QeCLUCJ QU-CJ Oh- O Oi—oo LU -z. LU s:z h- _i cc: cc: Q LU —i cc:LUQiOO I O LU LUS: —ILUOOLULU OLl_Ll_ Q I—I O3ZLUCQI— CC <S) Z. CC CC \—DCS: i— cc z LU LU i—Q_ca:Q Z h- eC I— Q. 'Z.CCLurnz occcc: xx ooCC CJ ct CJ Q I— LULU CJ Ll_

D_

O

ID

auzLIa

KunOtru<

a; CD1 '

UJ1 1

1UJC-

— iC/50-5t i 1

O£

U J>•1 1 1(13

* ^

>—CDCj

I

CD

h-ccCC\—oozoLUQ

LUCQ

O1—

OOeCLUcc:

cc:LUh-cc

h-_1eCoooo

1eCt— iccLU1—eCs:

>-h-i— i

ii — iCQI— i

| —eCQ_

s:oCJ

ccLUCQs:ccDCCJ

CC CDO Z.\— i— icj zLU <Cr-3 LU

•z. _ii— i CJ

LULl-COZ.cCcc:t—h-eCLU3Z

LU•z.eCCL.Occ:D_

oi—ooCJ»—4h-ooI-H

cc:LU1—C_)£<£DCCJ

•z.sXZD

— 1Ll_

1—=cLU3T

r*

CDt— iOOLUQ

•z. ao_ioo _ih- cC»-. 3OOO LUCL. caLU ZDQ h-—1 _1cc <t>-< Zcc ccLU LUh- 1—cC Z^" 1 — t

f — 1

oeC -cc: LUCJ Z.

cCh- Q-"Z. Occ cc:

1 Q_— 1LU QQ- Z.O eCccCL. i —

1O Q_h- CC

LU1 CD_1 Z.•-i cCLl_ DZ1 CJQLU LU1— 00CJ CC=> 3ZQ CL.

LU h-z: z:cC cCQ 10 OCC 0Ct_ CJ

UJ

UJ

z(TOL.

C-D

LU

oo

LUQi

Q-O

CDO

0

LU

oCJ

i— i CO

CC LULU a;CQs: _j<c <c3: z.o o

oo <<o Q:D: LUm a.I— o

oo

CQ•=CQ_CCCJ

OoCJ w

IOo

Page 19

1 —J*ot^_^

^ x

C/D

QLU of"V* U—

LU<c s:

l —

"

QZ.

COh-COLU\-

•3.O_JLUz

1— OZ i— iLU 1—

LU =5_1 _J

LU e£

LU LU1

<C CD

CO I-HCQ CC> 1-H

CO U_

o

_l1-H

CQZ, 1-HO I—1-H eC1—0-«=C SIM OI-H Os:M Q:1— LUQ- COo 2:«cLU IE0 O

<: c£2: o0 CJLU 1 i 1fV ""LU 2:D_ I-H

1 1

•z.t— i

LUOZ

^C£OLuo:LUo_CJ

1—»-HCD

LU1—<c

1•=£

LU

O

CD•z.I-HK-coLUh-

LU

t-HCDZLU

LU Q)

I-Ht— CO<S.=)1—0Z LULU COCO =tLU CDC£O_ 1LUC£

LUZ •D_

OC£0-

QiOr-*1 «j-Q. 31CC. CMStB »*x:_J LU

coQ OLU Q-t-s:CJ Oo: oLU LUo: Q

i i

CD

COLUh-

O•z.^COI-H LUCO >>- —1—1 <Cz "t r

LU

C ^LU — 1co rsLU I— i>• coi•=C Z.^> 1 — 1

o

1—COLUh-

OZ

CO

CO>-_Jz.z.

LU OLU I-H

•-H h-— J =t

_J

•a: s:LU I-HCO CO

O

LUOCOI-H

CO>-_J<:

^OHH

<

«oQLU_lI — i•<H-LUQ

0

IV

OLurLUh-CO

CO

oLULULu

0Z.

^UJ

1— 1CDZ.LU

LU_l

1—OC£.n:h-CdLU>O

COzI-H

CDct:<cs:>-i—»-H

1 •I-H LU

CQ CD«=C ZI— <=ECO CC

aa LULU MM I-H

1 I-H

CQ =t<t h-1— COCO

LUz. co1 — I c^C

CD D_

1 1

LU

LUOZ.

=3

00C/5

LU

<JD

cr>i

CD

LU

QLU

onh-CO

LUQ

co<:LU

LUCOCJ

uj x co^" I — 1 1— <«c s: a:Q_ LUO I— I—

^x LU <;o —i nr_J UJ CJ

oi—i

. i—o

LU QQ_ i—iCD ID LUC£ _1 OQ_ U_ "Z.

Q CO 2!LU 3 CCI— O OC_> LU U_<: co a:LU ct LUa: CD a.

COQ«=co

LU i

CDZ.I—tQI-H Q

I 'Z.CO «=C

C£ CO

I-H CDCQ I-H

«=C •=£ COl-l I— LUC£ CO QLU

LUCD

CJ "Si CCL I—i LU ^I-H CC LU CH I— <C—I t-H I— CJ CO «CCJ Q cC >- CO i—c>- s: z: co z. ct:CJ UJ CD i—i UJ

CD _J i—i Q CD I—Q C£ =H CO LU OC i—i

co o o

COctUJ

Q.o

CDo

O(—\

et

D-o

UJ

CD

CO

O —I1-H O

CJUJ

CD

o:oCJ)LU

oCJ

a:Q O

<cLUCO

LU>_l

=a:>•

hca: LU_J U-_l I-HI I I 1Ul— 1 — JD_

O Qcc o_ ca;o

z.i — ii

<cLUCO

— 1LU

^t— 1

S

oo_lCQ

^h— tCD

0

CD•z.1 — 1

1D_•=>OCJ

LUh- >-CO I—>- i— iCO _l

Q CQLU ca;LU t—U_ CO

o

o\-zUJ•5.

of-

w

oo

Page 20

co co

CD

GO

<r.LUce:

O31

00 «=C 2:>- LU_i co s:CC Q LU2: <C cc

Q o-ej; Q LU0 LU o:—I COo 2:C_5 0- CD1 — i IEI i — is: >— i coe=C LU^ LU Q>- ZQ H-. _1

. LU <_>

LU O I—Q I— CO

I— OO I—LUCO CfLo

o -z.I—I LUI— CD

CO>-_lef. LU

co «E co coH: cj o >-o co LU c_> _js: z: <cLU —I l-l 3 I—Q _i s: o «cr> a: _i <_>i— u_ LUco i— i iLU Ll_ LUI— O Q

co•<:es

<_>CO

o

CO

O

U_ Q

(D

Q_

CD

O

LULU

LU

CO <J3

CO CDLU _ I

a±: CDo_ s:

LU

<C

CO

coeCLU

COQ

LUO LU

QLU CDCO 2:O •-"a. c£

COetCD

O 0. O-J O I—

n QiO LU

I— i O LUacs: CD

O

2a:ou.

oH-ZLJ2

CO

a.o

LUa>-oo

CJ>LU

Q«co

>- coQ; >—<LU CO> >-O —ICJ ctLU 2:

C£ OO «-i

LU o: MQ. LU i— io 2: ccCC LU r>a. CD coo co2: co LUO «C cc1 CD Q_

[ilK

OO

Page 21

COoo

V. PROGRAM PLANNINGj

The objective of the Phase A study was to provide a selected engine

concept that would best meet the shuttle vehicle booster requirements. To

accomplish this objective, it was necessary that critical vehicle data oni

general concept selection be available by the midpoint of Phase A as shown

in Figure 11-2. Since this data is still not available on some of the

vehicles, it was necessary to postpone some of the concept selections. Thei

major concept selections that are still in question include injector elementi

type, method of thrust vector control, combustion chamber geometry, type of

cooling geometry (two pass, single pass, etc.), and type of baffle coolant

(fuel vs oxidizer).

V

The first activity accomplished in Phase B will be the reevaluation of

the engine based on consistent vehicle exchange ratios as determined by NASA.

This will enable all the concepts to be selected for the engine. The study

will then conduct a preliminary design of the selected engine concept as

originally proposed for Phase B. To insure that proper vehicle considerations

continue to be incorporated into the design, parallel support from the vehicle

contractors is recommended during Phase B.

Page 22