|
Search | Add a publication |
| ID No : | 805 Edit | Title: | Rocketdyne - SE-7 and SE-8 Engines |
| Summary / Review : | "The 70-pound SE-7 engine is very similar with its two valves, ablative material, a silicon carbide liner, a silicon carbide throat, and overall configuration. There were different wraps. One had a ninety-degree ablative material orientation. That is important because it caused problems with the SE-8, but not for this application. It was not overly stressed. It was a validation of the off-the-shelf application approach. There were two SE-7 engines located on the stage near the bottom. They had their own propellant tanks. That was the application. All it did was give a little bit of gravity by firing to push the propellants to the bottom of the tanks for start or restart. It was not a particularly complicated setup. (See Slides 6 and 7, Appendix F) What had we learned? This was a proven engine in a space environment. There weren't any development issues. Off-the-shelf seemed to work. There were no operational issues, which made the SE-7 very cost-effective. Besides NASA, the customer for this application was the Douglas Aircraft Company. Douglas decided the off-the-shelf idea was cost-effective. With the Gemini Program, the company was McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, which was part of the reason the off-the-shelf idea was applied to the Apollo. (See Slide 8, Appendix F) However, here are some differences between Apollo and Gemini vehicles. For one thing, the Apollo vehicle was really moving at high speed when it re-entered the atmosphere. Instead of a mere 17,000 miles per hour, it was going 24,000 miles per hour. That meant the heat load was four times as high on the Apollo vehicle as on the Gemini craft. Things were vibrating a little more. We had two redundant systems. Apollo was redundant where it could be as much as possible. That was really a keystone or maybe an anchor point for Apollo. We decided to pursue the off-the-shelf approach. However, the prime contractor was a different entity - the North American Space Division. They thought they ought to tune up this off-the-shelf setup. It was a similar off-the-shelf application, but at a higher speed. They wanted to improve it. What they wanted to improve was the material performance of silicon carbide. They were uncomfortable with the cracks they were seeing. They were uncomfortable with the cracks in the throat, and feeling that the environment was a little tougher, that maybe it was going to rattle, perhaps something would fall out, and they would have a problem. They wanted to eliminate the ceramic liner, and they wanted a different throat material. (See Slides 9 and 10, Appendix F) The Rocketdyne solutions were to replace silicon carbide material with a more forgiving ceramic material. Also, due to the multiple locations within the vehicle, the shape of the nozzles varied. Some nozzles were long, and some nozzles were short. We came up with a single engine design with variable nozzle extensions and configurations to fit particular vehicle locations. (See Slides 10 and 11, Appendix F)" (Author's abstract) |
| Author(s) : |
Harmon, Tim, [Stennis Space Center] |
| Publication Date: | 2009 |
| Category(s) : |
Transportation / Lunar launch and landers |
| Web URL : |
http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20100027317
If this link is broken, please Add Comment below. We try to keep author contact details, and a backup copy in our offline library. |
| PERMANENT code(s) : | L,U |
|
(Explanation of the last 3 rows above) |
In the row above, there are up to 4 possibilities: U = URL you can click on to get a copy instantly from another source on the internet, or request it from that source D = Downloadable from PERMANENT (such as because no other URL known...) L = LAN copy, PERMANENT has a digital copy but not downloadable from our website P = Paper copy in the PERMANENT office Typically, only 0 to 3 methods are available. |
| NTRS : | 20100027317 |
| Submitted by : | MEP |
| Comments: |
Please add your thoughtful Comments to this paper after reading it. All comments are reviewed and approved before being posted publicly below. If you wish to submit a private comment to the curator, instead of a public comment, just write "Private" at the start of your comment. Corrections and suggested additions to our records are appreciated. |
Add Comment |