3
$\begingroup$

Whilst looking for something else entirely, I came across this amazing looking rocket design mentioned in passing on this nasaspaceflight.com forum page, talking about the San Diego Air and Space Museum Photo Archive:

Atlas missile variant with second stage engines mounted forwards of their fuel tank

Searching for "Tandel missile" doesn't seem to have turned up anything relevant. The forum users suggested it was a proposed Atlas missile design.

The use of forward-mounted "second stage" engines that would apparently operate whilst the first stage rockets were running too seems fairly eccentric to me, and isn't a design I've come across before. I understand this was the 50s and people were throwing all sorts of stuff at the wall to see if it would stick, but this just stands out as unusual.

Was this arrangement of rockets ever used anywhere? Were any designs using this rocket placement ever seriously considered? What intoxicants might the engineers have been using whilst coming up with this design?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't seem to be too crazy for a design idea. You don't need an interstage, and you don't need to carry engines as dead weight during the first stage burn. On the negative side we have additional air drag, additional insulation and piping for the cross feed. It's not an orbital vehicle so in total it could be a gain... $\endgroup$
    – asdfex
    Commented Aug 1, 2022 at 15:59

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

I can't think of a production missile or launcher that used this setup, but it's not a crazy idea.

One of the major drivers for the final "stage-and-a-half" design of the Atlas, with its single stage of tankage and drop-off booster engines, was that air-starting an engine was considered risky in the mid-1950s. Convair's final Atlas design solved this by putting the booster and sustainer engines side by side, and igniting all three at once. If the three engines didn't all ignite at once, they'd be shut down before liftoff, and the rocket would (hopefully) be saved for another try (maybe more of a consideration for test flights than for production units; if an ICBM doesn't fly when it's asked to, it probably won't be useful later).

This "Tandel" missile avoids the air-start problem as well, and has the additional advantage that it does get to drop empty tankage at staging, unlike the Atlas. asdfex's analysis is correct: there's a drag penalty and the mass of the extra plumbing and heat shielding, but the elimination of dead engine weight and interstage should more than cover that. A crossfeed system that effectively fuels the second stage engines from the first stage tankage gives a further performance advantage; the first stage can be dropped earlier in the ascent.

The Sea Dragon super-heavy launcher concept had something slightly similar: small thrusters on the second stage would fire throughout the first-stage burn for attitude control, but there was also a large second-stage engine that wasn't ignited until staging. Sea Dragon was only ever built and flown in CGI, for the alternate-history TV series For All Mankind.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.