Boeing AMLLV (Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicle)

[XP67_Moonbat]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069565_1975069565.pdf

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690030192_1969030192.pdf

 

[Triton]

Inboard profile of Boeing AMLLV (Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicle) from 1968 with Saturn V for scale.

Source:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=148104&start=25

 

[Triton]

Study of Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles - Technical Report
January 1, 1968

Prepared under Contract No. NAS 2-4079
The Boeing Company
Huntsville, Alabama
for
Ames Research Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Abstract

Study results are presented for a conceptual design analysis of "Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles." This vehicle concept incorporates a single-stage-to-orbit main stage that orbits a million pound payload; and, with the addition of building block elements that include strap-on motors and a small injection stage, provides payload flexibility to nearly four million pounds. The objective was to develop practical, representative vehicle configurations through a series of design and performance trade studies, and to assess this vehicle system in terms of technology needs and implications. A vehicle family design is provided with its estimated performance and weight summaries for each possible flight configuration. Vehicle system information provided includes propulsion, pressurization, thermal, and control data. The design and performance data developed in trade studies of the design variables are presented. Both multichamber/plug and toroidal/aerospike systems were considered for main stage propulsion. The design and performance relationship between the main stage vehicle and its engine system options is stressed.

Strap-on boost assist elements investigated included various diameter solid motors and N204/UDMH pressure-fed pods. The structural impact of strap-ons to the main stage is described. The performance of the various strap-on configurations is given for both zero stage and parallel burn operation. Both the design impact and performance of the configuration with a small orbital injection stage are presented. The implications of this possible future vehicle system on technology and resources requirements are assessed to provide data for technology planning, resource estimating, and mission analysis studies.

URL:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069565_1975069565.pdf

 

[Triton]

Additional line drawings from Study of Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles - Technical Report

URL:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069565_1975069565.pdf

 

[Triton]

Additional line drawings from Study of Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles - Technical Report

URL:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069565_1975069565.pdf

 

[Triton]

Study of Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles Summary Report
January 1, 1968

Prepared under Contract No. NAS 2-4079
The Boeing Company
Huntsville, Alabama
for
Ames Research Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration


Abstract:

Study results are summarized for a conceptual design analysis of "Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles." This vehicle concept incorporates a single-stage-to-orbit main stage that orbits a million pound payload; and, with the addition of building block elements that include strap-on motors and a small injection stage, provides payload flexibility to nearly four million pounds. The objective was to develop practical, representative vehicle configurations through a series of design and performance trade studies, and to assess this vehicle system in terms of technology needs and implications. A vehicle family design is provided with its estimated performance and weight summaries for each possible flight configuration. Vehicle system information provided includes propulsion, pressurization, thermal, and control data. The design and performance data developed in trade studies of the design variables are presented. Both multichamber/plug and toroidal/aerospike systems were considered for main stage propulsion. The design and performance relationship between the main stage vehicle and its engine system options is stressed.

Strap-on boost assist elements investigated included various diameter solid motors and N204/UDMH pressure-fed pods. The structural impact of strap-ons to the main stage is described. The performance of the various strap-on configurations is given for both zero stage and parallel burn operation. Both the design impact and performance of the configuration with a small orbital injection stage are presented. The implications of this possible future vehicle system on technology and resources requirements are assessed to provide data for technology planning, resource estimating, and mission analysis studies.

URL:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680010577_1968010577.pdf

 

[Triton]

Concept for a Large Multipurpose Launch Vehicle
by Edward W Gomersall, Research Scientist, and John G Brunk, Advanced Vehicle System Manager, Launch Systems Branch, Space Division, The Boeing Company.

Mission Analysis Division, OART
Ames Research Center, NASA
Moffett Field, Calif. 94035

The key results of a NASA-sponsored study of a large multipurpose launch concept are summarized. The study evolved, through parametric performance and detailed design analyses, the characteristics of an attractive launch vehicle approach for consideration in future mission planning studies. The reported vehicle system has only two stages - a LOX/LHz main stage and a solid-motor strap-on stage. The main stage has the performance capability to fly single stage to orbit and the structural capability to accommodate strap-on stages to achieve a broad range of payload flexibility. The salient features of the vehicle system, sized to deliver one to four million pounds to low earth orbit, are described. The major resource and technology implications of the system are discussed.

URL:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680025115_1968025115.pdf

 

[Grey Havoc]

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[Nik]

Wow, that's a BIG booger !!

 

[sferrin]

Scott has a good article on this in APR.

 

[Michel Van]

Here More Links from NTSR

Cost Studies of Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicles:

Volume One: Summary
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690030191_1969030191.pdf

Volume Two: Half size (MLLV) Conceptual Design
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690030192_1969030192.pdf

Volume Three: Resource Implication
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690030193_1969030193.pdf

Volume Four: Baseline AMLLV Cost
Volume Five: Baseline MLLV Cost

Volume Six: Cost implications of Vehicle Size
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690030194_1969030194.pdf

Volume Seven: Advanced Technology Implication
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690030195_1969030195.pdf

Volume Eight: uncassified Appendices
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700001226_1970001226.pdf

Volume Nine: Propulsion Data and Trajectories (Classifed Appendices)

Study of advanced multipurpose large launch vehicles:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750069565_1975069565.pdf

also (Parts of Volume Five?)
Baseline MLLV costs - Get ready or A costs, book A Final report - Document ID: 19700001823
Baseline MLLV costs - Developmental or B costs, book B Final report - Document ID: 19700001824
Baseline MLLV costs - Operational or C costs, book C Final report - Document ID: 19700001825

Wow, that's a BIG booger !!

there studied two size: A(dvance)MLLV and half size MLLV
all Payload in 100 n.m. 185,2 km orbit

AMLLV standard size: 266 ft x 71.6 ft ø / 81 meter x 21,8 meter ø
1.0 million lbs / 453592,0 kg

MLLV standard size: 220 ft x 56.6 ft ø / 67 meter x 17,2 meter ø
471000 lbs / 213642 kg

 

[sferrin]

IIRC Scott's article also mentions the possibility of 372" dia. solid boosters as well.

 

[bobbymike]

More depressing information about a time decades ago when it seemed we wanted to take on any challenge. I say this as I watched the last shuttle flight and the end of the US manned space program.

 

[fredymac]

If there is actually an existing thread on this, please move.

Never heard of this before. 1968 concept using a cluster of 372" diameter solid rockets to lift 4.2 million pounds of payload.

 

[sferrin]

Far as I know, short of the giant Orion concept, this is the largest launch vehicle ever put to paper.

 

[FighterJock]

Anyone know the actual thrust of Boeing's large rocket? It certainly looks impressive size wise. SpaceX's Starship rocket looks small by comparison.

 

[Gerald Roberts]

Inboard profile of Boeing AMLLV (Advanced Multipurpose Large Launch Vehicle) from 1968 with Saturn V for scale.

Source:
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=148104&start=25

If there is actually an existing thread on this, please move.

Never heard of this before. 1968 concept using a cluster of 372" diameter solid rockets to lift 4.2 million pounds of payload.

Can't believe this video was made of my AMLLV design. Amazing.
This conceptual design was made by Boeing under contract for NASA Ames as a follow-on to the Saturn V. It was intended to make a vehicle able to launch a complete space station into orbit and then transfer it from 100nm to a 300 nm orbit. By building a modular vehicle, the launch vehicle could be tailored to whatever the payload weight was instead of trying to make the payload match the launch vehicle capability. The core areospike vehicle was made to launch the basic 1 million pound payload to 100nm. Solid rocket motors were added in pairs to reach intermediate payloads. The injection stage was also modular in design to transfer the 1 thru 4 million pound payloads from 100 to 300nm orbits. Because of the diameter, torus (donut) tanks were used with the large diameter LH2 tank able to hold the much heavier LOX tank from the inside. Extendable nozzle engines were nested in the interior to make a compact design.
A companion conceptual design was made for the launch site of this vehicle. Because the db level was so high, we choose to build a concrete launch site on the Florida continental shelf with a slit to allow the ships to bring the solid rocket motors directly to the launch gantry. It was fun to do the conceptual designs for both the vehicle and the launch site. My notes and drawings were donate to the Huntsville, AL Space and Rocket Center. Gerald Roberts
(I was the sole Boeing designer for these conceptual designs. Mr Brunk was the Boeing manager.)

 

[publiusr]

Others are looking into something similar, Gerald!

From:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/spacex-falcon-heavy.12339/page-7#post-456193

Thought Experiment - NOVA Sized Payload using Shuttle Era Hardware and M1 with SpaceX retropropulsion

Upsizing the External Tank to something the size of the T10RE-1 by increasing the tank from 8.4 meters to 24.4 meter diameter and length accordingly obtains a tank propellant mass of 17,367 tonnes of propellant with 708 tonnes of inert weight. A total of 18,075 tonnes take off weight. To lift this at 1.5 gee requires 266 MegaNewtons. Each M1 produces 1,500,000 pounds force or 6.675 MN. That's M1 40 pumpsets and combustion chambers expanding on to an aerospike nozzle. Attaining its growth target o 8 MN means 33 pumpsets and combustion chambers would suffice. This is just a measure of specific impulse and mass flow rate. With a 5.5 to 1.0 oxidizer fuel ratio this is 2,672 tonnes of LH2 and 14,695 tonnes of LOX.

Three of these strapped together like a Falcon Heavy and using retropropulsion to recover the three, requires some propellant to recover the empty tank. An empty tank has a high surface area to volume, so slows to subsonic speeds as it descends. By putting the retropropulsive propellant off-center inside the later tanks at the common bulkhead between the two, a small amount of lift is obtained. Enough to stay in the lower density atmosphere at re-entry and slow speed and descent, so that without any thrust, but with a few fins, you can slow to 0.3 km/sec. So, you need enough propellant to bring 708 tonnes to 0 velocity at 0 altitude at 0.3 km/sec approach speed. At 4.59 km altitude you apply 13.9 MegaNewtons of force on the rocket to land it. At 4.2 km/sec exhaust speed you need

708*(exp(0.3/4.2)-1) = 52.421 t ~ 52.5 tonnes

of propellant. For each. So, there si 17,314.5 tonnes of propellant in each of the three boosters operated in this way.

So, we have the following equation to solve;

9.4 km/sec = 4.2 km/sec * ln((3*18075+p)/(3*18075+p-2*17314.5))+4.65*ln((18075+p)/(18075+p-17314.5))

p=1883.06 tonnes (4,151,400 pounds!!) payload.

Nearly 19x the size of Starship/Heavy payload and 29.4x a Falcon Heavy payload.

At $2 million per to$nne construction cost this is $1.416 billion per vehicle and $4.248 billion for the trio and with 5x fly away cost being the development cost this is $7.080 billion develoment cost. Supposing we can fly these 35,000 times with one chance of loss in 6.5 million (the likely goal of the Starship/Heavy system, which is admittedly challenging) the cost is $121,371 per launch. Likely half that cost for launch operations. The cost of hydrogen in quantity made from natural gas is $1000 per tonne and the cost of LOX is $400 per tonne so the cost of propellant is

3*(1000*2672+400*14695)=$25.65 million

Per launch.

Dividing this by the payload

25.65/1.88306 = $13.62/kg