[AR] Re: Saturns (was Re: APCP ...)

  • From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Arocket List <arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2023 23:36:53 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 29 Apr 2023, Michael Kelly wrote:

Atlas sustainer could have been a lot better, but it was designed to run at sea level (they didn't want to risk an air start early in the program).

Indeed, the whole point of "stage-and-a-half" was to get much of the benefit of staging without having to do in-flight engine starts.

You can tolerate a certain amount of overexpansion at sea level, but you don't want the flow to separate. That beats the crap out of the nozzle.

Interestingly, Sutton's "History of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines" says that the Atlas sustainer -- or at least the final version of it -- in fact usually ran separated at sea level. They pushed overexpansion a bit too far, but fortuitously got stable, symmetrical separation. (Separation in itself typically isn't that bad; what really beats up nozzles and gimbal actuators is when the separation is asymmetrical or wanders around.)

Henry

Other related posts: