Aerojet Rocketdyne's LCS 2 Technology Demonstrator

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,296
Reaction score
2,879
Same as previous post on solid rocket test but from different source;

Big Blast Two

Technicians at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold AFB, Tenn., fired the largest solid rocket motor ever tested at the facility last week. Aerojet Rocketdyne's Large Class Stage 2 technology demonstrator, built for the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, is a proof of concept for potential Air Force and Navy intercontinental strike as well as space applications, according to a Feb. 14 release. "The primary purpose of this simulated altitude test firing is to demonstrate the performance, functionality, and structural integrity of the motor case, solid propellant, nozzle, and thrust vectoring actuation (TVA) systems," said Richard Kirkpatrick, AEDC test project manager. The 92-inch diameter LCS2 is designed to specifications similar to the second stage of the Air Force's now retired Peacekeeper ICBM, producing an estimated 257,000 pounds of thrust, according to the release. "This stage is a significant improvement over currently fielded systems," such as the Minuteman III, said Tyler Evans, Aerojet Rocketdyne vice president for advance programs
------------------------------------------------------------
I can't find 'Stage 2' thrust information on Peacekeeper, is this a 'higher' thrust 2nd stage?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,614
Reaction score
3,535
bobbymike said:
Same as previous post on solid rocket test but from different source;

Big Blast Two

Technicians at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold AFB, Tenn., fired the largest solid rocket motor ever tested at the facility last week. Aerojet Rocketdyne's Large Class Stage 2 technology demonstrator, built for the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, is a proof of concept for potential Air Force and Navy intercontinental strike as well as space applications, according to a Feb. 14 release. "The primary purpose of this simulated altitude test firing is to demonstrate the performance, functionality, and structural integrity of the motor case, solid propellant, nozzle, and thrust vectoring actuation (TVA) systems," said Richard Kirkpatrick, AEDC test project manager. The 92-inch diameter LCS2 is designed to specifications similar to the second stage of the Air Force's now retired Peacekeeper ICBM, producing an estimated 257,000 pounds of thrust, according to the release. "This stage is a significant improvement over currently fielded systems," such as the Minuteman III, said Tyler Evans, Aerojet Rocketdyne vice president for advance programs
------------------------------------------------------------
I can't find 'Stage 2' thrust information on Peacekeeper, is this a 'higher' thrust 2nd stage?

Peacekeeper 1st stage was half a million. I'll see if I can dig up 2nd stage later. (If nobody else has by then anyway. :) )

Hmmm. Designation Systems has:
"2nd stage: Aerojet SR119 solid-fueled rocket; 1225 kN (275000 lb)"

Mark Wade's site lists the SR119 as:

SR119

Aerojet solid solid rocket engine. 1365 kN.
Gross mass: 27,800 kg (61,200 lb).
Unfuelled mass: 2,900 kg (6,300 lb).
Height: 5.40 m (17.70 ft).
Diameter: 2.35 m (7.70 ft).
Thrust: 1,365.00 kN (306,864 lbf).
Burn time: 54 s.

???
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,296
Reaction score
2,879
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
Same as previous post on solid rocket test but from different source;

Big Blast Two

Technicians at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold AFB, Tenn., fired the largest solid rocket motor ever tested at the facility last week. Aerojet Rocketdyne's Large Class Stage 2 technology demonstrator, built for the US Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, is a proof of concept for potential Air Force and Navy intercontinental strike as well as space applications, according to a Feb. 14 release. "The primary purpose of this simulated altitude test firing is to demonstrate the performance, functionality, and structural integrity of the motor case, solid propellant, nozzle, and thrust vectoring actuation (TVA) systems," said Richard Kirkpatrick, AEDC test project manager. The 92-inch diameter LCS2 is designed to specifications similar to the second stage of the Air Force's now retired Peacekeeper ICBM, producing an estimated 257,000 pounds of thrust, according to the release. "This stage is a significant improvement over currently fielded systems," such as the Minuteman III, said Tyler Evans, Aerojet Rocketdyne vice president for advance programs
------------------------------------------------------------
I can't find 'Stage 2' thrust information on Peacekeeper, is this a 'higher' thrust 2nd stage?

Peacekeeper 1st stage was half a million. I'll see if I can dig up 2nd stage later. (If nobody else has by then anyway. :) )

Hmmm. Designation Systems has:
"2nd stage: Aerojet SR119 solid-fueled rocket; 1225 kN (275000 lb)"

Mark Wade's site lists the SR119 as:

SR119

Aerojet solid solid rocket engine. 1365 kN.
Gross mass: 27,800 kg (61,200 lb).
Unfuelled mass: 2,900 kg (6,300 lb).
Height: 5.40 m (17.70 ft).
Diameter: 2.35 m (7.70 ft).
Thrust: 1,365.00 kN (306,864 lbf).
Burn time: 54 s.

???

So what is it exactly a great improvement over? Higher thrust/ISP then MMIII solids? But seemingly less then the 20 year old MX solid?

Could he mean weight, cost?? Count me confused.

So my next question is, having a 2nd stage at 67% of 1st stage thrust is that normal? It seems high when the first stage has pushed it up into the thin air already so to speak?
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,804
Reaction score
3,187
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
I can't find 'Stage 2' thrust information on Peacekeeper, is this a 'higher' thrust 2nd stage?

Appears lower:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/sr119.htm
Thrust: 1,365.00 kN (306,864 lbf).

SR119 is the second stage motor on the Peacekeeper (not the Minuteman). The minuteman 2nd stage:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/m55tu122.htm

Thrust
: 792.00 kN (178,048 lbf).

This new motor would thus seem to be an intermediary design.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,296
Reaction score
2,879
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
I can't find 'Stage 2' thrust information on Peacekeeper, is this a 'higher' thrust 2nd stage?

Appears lower:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/sr119.htm
Thrust: 1,365.00 kN (306,864 lbf).

SR119 is the second stage motor on the Peacekeeper (not the Minuteman). The minuteman 2nd stage:
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/m55tu122.htm

Thrust
: 792.00 kN (178,048 lbf).

This new motor would thus seem to be an intermediary design.

I posted an Air Force Monthly article from 1987 about how solid propellants were supposed to greatly improve as well as information from the IHPRPP that showed the same thing. There does not seem to be progress in this regard, unless I am missing something.

I suppose the 'greatly improved' propulsion could mean from and 'environmental' stand point, then who cares :D
 

GeorgeA

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
709
Reaction score
76
Or density, which would be of great interest to the Navy.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,804
Reaction score
3,187
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
I posted an Air Force Monthly article from 1987 about how solid propellants were supposed to greatly improve as well as information from the IHPRPP that showed the same thing. There does not seem to be progress in this regard, unless I am missing something.

There has not been a lot of meaningful improvement in solid rocket propellant since '87, at least from the standpoint of basic rocket performance. And nor is there likely to be anytime soon; the basic chemistry of solid rockets is pretty well nailed down, and there's not much room for growth unless some rather surprising and unlikely advances are made.


However, this does not mean that meaningful improvements can't be made in other areas:
1) Cost of materials
2) Cost of manufacture
3) Safety
4) Stability (long term storage)
5) Detectability
6) Long term availability of the raw materials
7) Structural properties
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,296
Reaction score
2,879
Here is the quote;

Rocket engines are also in for a big shot of change as a result of research rallied by Forecast II. Such research is generating a new class of fuels—"high-energy-density propellants"—that are expected to double the thrust of existing solid and liquid propellants in space boosters. Their energy density—thrust per unit of mass—may be ten times or more that of current propellants. This will make them amenable to containment in boosters of dwarfish dimensions and of puny poundage in comparison with the boosters that now loom like skyscrapers on planetary launchpads. The implications for the US space program are profound.
------------------------------------------------
Ya don't think this happened :eek:
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
8,804
Reaction score
3,187
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
bobbymike said:
Ya don't think this happened :eek:

Probably not outside the realms of theory and maybe small-scale lab demos. HED propellants are great in theory but have proven seriously challenging. Metastable hydrogen, metastable helium, N20 and others... great on paper.

In the realm of conventional but advanced chemical propellants you get stuff like C6H6N6(NO2)6 which provides a dozen percent increase in energy density and maybe a dozen seconds better Isp. Nice, but only a very modest increase over conventional solid propellants, at some vast cost.
 

Similar threads

Top