ALBERT

Description: For many decades, the U.S. rocket propulsion industrial base has performed remarkably in developing complex liquid rocket engines that can propel critical payloads into service for the nation, as well as transport people and hardware for missions that open the frontiers of space exploration for humanity. This has been possible only at considerable expense given the lack of detailed guidance that captures the essence of successful practices and knowledge accumulated over five decades of liquid rocket engine development. In an effort to provide benchmarks and guidance for the next generation of rocket engineers, the Joint Army Navy NASA Air Force (JANNAF) Interagency Propulsion Committee published a liquid rocket engine (LRE) test and evaluation (T&E) guideline document in 2012 focusing on the development challenges and test verification considerations for liquid rocket engine systems. This document has been well received and applied by many current LRE developers as a benchmark and guidance tool, both for government-driven applications as well as for fully commercial ventures. The USAF Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) has taken an additional near-term step and is directing activity to adapt and augment the content from the JANNAF LRE T&E guideline into a standard for potential application to future USAF requests for proposals for LRE development initiatives and launch vehicles for national security missions. A draft of this standard was already sent out for review and comment, and is intended to be formally approved and released towards the end of 2017. The acceptance and use of the LRE T&E guideline is possible through broad government and industry participation in the JANNAF liquid propulsion committee and associated panels. The sponsoring JANNAF community is expanding upon this initial baseline version and delving into further critical development aspects of liquid rocket propulsion testing at the integrated stage level as well as engine component level, in order to advance the state of the practice. The full participation of the entire U.S. rocket propulsion industrial base is invited and expected at this opportune moment in the continuing advancement of spaceflight technology.

Description: As NASA began technology risk reduction activities and planning for the next generation launch vehicle under the Space Launch Initiative (SLI), now the Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) Program, a review of past large liquid rocket engine development programs was performed. The intent of the review was to identify any significant lessons from the development testing programs that could be applied to current and future engine development programs. Because the primary prototype engine in design at the time of this study was the Boeing-Rocketdyne RS-84, the study was slightly biased towards LOX/RP-1 liquid propellant engines. However, the significant lessons identified are universal. It is anticipated that these lessons will serve as a reference for test planning in the Engine Systems Group at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Towards the end of F-1 and J-2 engine development testing, NASA/MSFC asked Rocketdyne to review those test programs. The result was a document titled, Study to Accelerate Development by Test of a Rocket Engine (R-8099). The "intent (of this study) is to apply this thinking and learning to more efficiently develop rocket engines to high reliability with improved cost effectivenes" Additionally, several other engine programs were reviewed - such as SSME, NSTS, STME, MC-1, and RS-83- to support or refute the R-8099. R-8099 revealed two primary lessons for test planning, which were supported by the other engine development programs. First, engine development programs can benefit from arranging the test program for engine system testing as early as feasible. The best test for determining environments is at the system level, the closest to the operational flight environment. Secondly, the component testing, which tends to be elaborate, should instead be geared towards reducing risk to enable system test. Technical risk can be reduced at the component level, but the design can only be truly verified and validated after engine system testing.

Description: I.Human-rating is specific to each engine; a. Context of program/project must be understood. b. Engine cannot be discussed independently from vehicle and mission. II. Utilize a logical combination of design, manufacturing, and test approaches a. Design 1) It is crucial to know the potential ways a system can fail, and how a failure can propagate; 2) Fault avoidance, fault tolerance, DFMR, caution and warning all have roles to play. b. Manufacturing and Assembly; 1) As-built vs. as-designed; 2) Review procedures for assembly and maintenance periodically; and 3) Keep personnel trained and certified. c. There is no substitute for test: 1) Analytical tools are constantly advancing, but still need test data for anchoring assumptions; 2) Demonstrate robustness and explore sensitivities; 3) Ideally, flight will be encompassed by ground test experience. III. Consistency and repeatability is key in production a. Maintain robust processes and procedures for inspection and quality control based upon development and qualification experience; b. Establish methods to "spot check" quality and consistency in parts: 1) Dedicated ground test engines; 2) Random components pulled from the line/lot to go through "enhanced" testing.