In Apollo hardware, why were sump tanks needed?

Question

I'm looking at the Apollo CSM Propulsion Systems. These were bi-propellant hypergolic systems. However, for some reason each type of propellant was divided into a storage and sump tank.

For example, it says:

Sector 2 (70°) contained the service propulsion system (SPS) oxidizer sump tank, so called because it directly fed the engine and was kept continuously filled by a separate storage tank, until the latter was empty.

Same thing for the fuel tanks, one storage and one sump. That is four tanks total for the main engine.

The question is why? Why divide tanks like this?

Was it needed for some kind of pressure regulation? I don't see how. The total prop mass is given as 18.41 t, and the sump tanks appear to be the exact same size as the storage tanks. So if the sump couldn't be used when the previous tank was empty, that is wasting 50% of of the props or about 9.2 tons as unusable... That sounds like a huge, impossibly wasteful amount of unusable props.

A quick Tsiolkovsky equation check confirms. Total mass 24.52 t, only using 9.2 t of fuel with a Ve of 3.08 km/s, so dv would be 3.08*(24.52/15.32) = 1.449 km/s. The article says that the Apollo CSM dv was 2.8 km/s which is almost 2x bigger, and keep in mind there was supposed to be an Apollo LEM attached to the CSM for about half of its burns anyway. So all this to say, no I don't think the props in the sump tank becomes unusable if the storage tank goes empty.

And also I don't think any sump tanks exist for the RCS systems despite using the same bi-propellant pressure-fed style (AFAIK).

Edit: This is wrong. The ACS system in the article says:

Each cluster of thrusters had its own independent primary fuel (MMH) tank containing 69.1 pounds (31.3 kg), secondary fuel tank containing 45.2 pounds (20.5 kg), primary oxidizer tank containing 137.0 pounds (62.1 kg), and secondary oxidizer tank containing 89.2 pounds (40.5 kg). The fuel and oxidizer tanks were pressurised by a single liquid helium tank containing 1.35 pounds (0.61 kg).[23] Back flow was prevented by a series of check valves, and back flow and ullage requirements were resolved by containing the fuel and oxidizer in Teflon bladders which separated the propellants from the helium pressurant.

So each ACS cluster also splits up the fuel and oxidizer into two tanks each or four total. I don't know if they were considered "sump" or not or have the same reasons.

Could it have something to do with ullage? I don't see how. In Apollo spacecraft, ullage was provided by the RCS, which doesn't have a sump tank.

Could it have something to do with restrictive geometry? Looking at the diagrams, I'd have to say no. The sump tank appears to always be right next to the storage tank. I see no reason why all that volume cannot be collectivized into a single tank in the same location.

Could it have something to do with redundancy/safety? Again, looking at the diagrams, I'd have to say no. If the storage and sump are directly adjacent, then any kind of tank explosion is almost certainly gonna disable the other one too.

Edit 2: The Apollo LEM Descent Stage also had 4 large tanks instead of 2.

DPS propellant mass: 18,000 lb (8,200 kg) stored in four 67.3-cubic-foot (1.906 m3) propellant tanks

This appears to be a deliberate system design choice for all the hardware, but I cannot understand why.

So, why was Apollo designed this way? Why use sump tanks and storage tanks instead of one big tank?

Answer 1

I'm not sure if a definite answer can be given by anyone except the original design engineers, but here's an educated guess.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website hosts two excellent documents:

1. "NASA Apollo Command Module News Reference, North American Aviation, 1968", of which a scanned copy is found here. In particular, section 7, " Service Module Overview", is relevant.
2. "Apollo Operations Handbook, Block II Spacecraft, Volume 1", wich can be found here. The relevant section is "Service Propulsion System (SPS)", which starts on page 2.4-1.

First to address is why two tanks were used, instead of one big one. From the News Reference:

The service module is a relatively simple structure consisting of a center section or tunnel surrounded by six pie-shaped sectors. The basic structural components are forward and aft (upper and lower) bulkheads, six radial beams, four sector honeycomb panels, four reaction con­ trol system honeycomb panels, an aft heat shield, and a fairing.

(source: "NASA Apollo Command Module News Reference")

A few pages further the following diagram is shown:

(source: ibid)

Here the beams are indicated as "radial web beam", and it can be seen that the beam extends along the full height of the center tunnel and radially outwards to the outside perimeter. The document explains:

The radial beams are made of solid aluminum alloy which has been machined and chem-milled (metal removed by chemical action) to thicknesses varying between 2 inches and 0.018 inch, thus mak­ ing a lightweight, efficient structure.

(source: ibid)

The six compartments separated by "walls" (the radial web beams) are a structural design choice. From the above quote it can be concluded that they tried to make these beams as thin as possible, but leaving them out to make a bigger section was apparently not an option. Hence, the need to divide up the fuel and oxidizer storage over two tanks.

In this top-view image it can be seen that the tanks completely fill up their respective sections (they have to be cylindrical, because they're pressurized):

(source: "Apollo Operations Handbook, Block II Spacecraft, Volume 1" (Figure 2.4-3))

This should answer as to why there were two tanks instead of one. Why one was named "sump" tank, I can only guess: a "sump" tank is is typically a tank that collects a fluid (e.g. engine oil, water in a basement, etc.) and then that liquid is pumped from there to somewhere else, i.e. a collection tank. Looking at the following functional diagram, that name makes sense:

(source: ibid (excerpt from Figure 2.4-1))

Fuel/oxidizer is expelled from the storage tank by pressurized helium, then collected in the second (sump) tank, and then fed from there to the engine:

The total propellant supply is contained within four similar tanks; an oxidizer storage tank, oxidizer sump tank, fuel storage tank, and fuel sump tank [...] The storage and sump tanks for each propellant system are connected in series by a single transfer line. The regulated helium enters the fuel and oxidizer storage tank, pressurizing the storage tank propellants, and forces the propellant to an outlet in the storage tank which is directed through a transfer line into the respective sump tank standpipe pressurizing the propellants in the sump tank. The propellant in the sump tank is directed to the exit end into a propellant retention reservoir. [...] The propellants flow from the propellant sump tank, through their respective plumping [...] to the engine injector.

(source: ibid)

I'm assuming that the sump tank needed to have a slightly bigger diameter to accommodate the retention reservoirs, engine feed lines, etc., which would explain why the sectors of the SM were not identically sized (i.e. 65/65 degrees instead of 70/60 degrees), but this is speculation.

Similarly for the LM: the descent engine in the center precluded large tanks, hence the split among to similar-sized tanks on opposite sides of the engine to maintain the center of mass as much as possible.

Answer 2

This answer is almost 2 years on, and it's only conjecture on my part.
That said, what I've read in numerous accounts of other systems leads me to think it worth suggesting the following.

Re

• Sector 2 (70°) contained the service propulsion system (SPS) oxidizer sump tank, so called because it directly fed the engine and was kept continuously filled by a separate storage tank, until the latter was empty.

The key factor here may be "kept continuously filled".
When a motor must restart in 'weightless' conditions the restart is often preceded by an ullage burn using thrusters to settle the propellants in the 'bottom' of the tanks. Pumping vapour is not a good idea.

When a craft operates at a mix of low thrust, sudden thrust decreases or change of direction or attitude, situations may arise where propellant presence at the exit point cannot be guaranteed with an adequately high degree of confidence. In such cases, having a sump tank that is guaranteed full, or always so close to full that not ingesting vapour can be guaranteed, would make overall system design far less demanding. ie no need to always monitor all factors and guarantee safe pumping, or prevent pumping if unsafe.
Having the latter occur when eg on final on Lunar approach would be a very bad idea.