Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byStella Porter Modified over 9 years ago
1
Ryan Mayes Duarte Ho Jason Laing Bryan Giglio
2
Requirements Overall: Launch 10,000 mt of cargo (including crew vehicle) per year Work with a $5M fixed cost for operations/flight Launch Vehicle: Minimize total program transport cost Achieve a 500 km circular orbit Crew Entry Vehicle: Maximize operational flexibility (L/D) Direct re-entry from 75,000 km HEO Capable of landing on ground ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design2
3
Assumptions Overall 20 year program life All costing estimates in 2012 dollars Launch vehicle 85% learning curve for vehicle costing For initial design, 9.2 km/s to LEO Crew vehicle Vehicle mass of 10,000 kg Quoted mass includes EDL systems ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design3
4
LV: Costing Trade Study Base/Expendable ΔV = 9,200 m/s Stage Safe life > 30 flights +100 m/s ΔV per Stage Reusable upper stage: +300 m/s ΔV Resulting ΔV Maximums 2 Stage = 9,700 m/s 3 Stage = 9,800 m/s All Costing and MER Analysis Completed in MS Excel 2007 ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design4
5
LV: Costing Calculator (MS Excel) ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design5
6
LV Trades: Fuel Types & Staging Words, words, tables, words… Add Cost totals, maybe a table or something ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design6
7
LV Trades: Modularity Effects ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design7
8
8 LV Trades: Safe Life Effects
9
Launch Vehicle: Costing Conclusions 2 Stages, Both LH2/LOX, Ballistic & Re-usable Upper: TPS, Parachutes, Legs, +100m/s Δ V for VL Lower: Parachutes, Legs, +100m/s Δ V for VL Payload is 50,000 kg to reasonably minimize cost ~ 200 launches per year ~ 2 weeks between flights of the same vehicle ~ 4 flights per week Trades suggest lower cost for payloads above 50MT, but the greater required thrust negates any benefits and/or requires SRBs (3 rd Stage) 641.68 $/kg 2012$ Total Lifetime Mission = $128.3 Billion 2012$ ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design9
10
Engine Selection Launch: S1 = 9 x Space Shuttle main engines (SSME/RS-25) S2 = 1 x J-2X Re-entry: S1: 20 x P&W CECE, S2 = 1 x J-2X Number of engines on each stage was chosen to launch the maximum payload per launch in to orbit and maintain a mass margin of ~30% ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Main_Engine
11
Launch Vehicle: Final Design Total ΔV = 9,700 m/s Max. Payload = 50,000 kg Diam. 1 (Stage 1) = 10.2 m Diam. 2 (Stage 2) = 6 m Length = 80 m ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design11 D2 D1 L
12
Launch Vehicle: ΔV – Stages Target ΔV = 9,700 m/s St 1: ΔV 1 = V E ln(m 0 /m f,1 )St 2: ΔV 1 = V E ln(m 2 /m f,2 ) ΔV 1 = 5,256 m/sΔV 2 = 4,444 m/s ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design12 Final Design Choice for Stage 2 ΔV
13
Launch Vehicle: Overview 2 Stage Uses LOX/LH2 propellant systems Total ΔV = 9,700 m/s Stage 1 = 4,444 m/s Stage 2 = 5,256 m/s Total ΔV includes: 9,200 m/s to orbit 300 m/s for reusables 200 m/s for deceleration components ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design13 Stage 1 Stage 2 Payload Propellant 2 Propellant 1 Engine 2 Engines 1
14
Launch Vehicle: Stage 1 Total Propellant = 1,031,884 kg Fuel (LH2) / Oxidizer (LOX) ratio = 6 Number of Engines = 9 SSME, 20 P&W CECE Inert Mass fraction δ =.0914 Payload Mass fraction λ =.1953 I sp = 363 sec (SL) ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design14 LH2 LOX
15
Launch Vehicle: Stage 2 Total Propellant = 197,193 kg Fuel (LH2) / Oxidizer (LOX) ratio = 5.5 Number of Engines = 1 J-2X Inert Mass fraction δ =.1251 Payload Mass fraction λ =.177 I sp = 448 sec (Vac) ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design15 LH2 LOX
16
Launch Vehicle: Inert Mass Stage 1 ComponentMass (kg) LOX Tank9464 LOX Tank Ins97 LH2 Tank18869 LH2 Tank Ins670 Payload Fairing5099 Intertank Fairing14104 Aft Fairing1737 Launch Engines31734 ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design16 ComponentMass (kg) Re-entry Engines3180 TPS System0 Thrust Structure4338 Gimbals228 Avionics1675 Wiring3234 Landing Gear3966 Parachutes3305 Initial Estimate (Stage 1) = 132,208 kg Final Inert Mass (Stage 1) = 101,699 kg Final Design Margin = 30%
17
Launch Vehicle: Inert Mass Stage 2 ComponentMass (kg) LOX Tank1785 LOX Tank Ins25 LH2 Tank3883 LH2 Tank Ins235 Payload Fairing1178 Intertank Fairing4099 Aft Fairing1584 J-2X Engine2472 ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design17 ComponentMass (kg) TPS System7070 Thrust Structure494 Gimbals93 Avionics929 Wiring1399 Landing Gear1060 Parachutes884 Initial Estimate (Stage 2) = 35,349 kg Final Inert Mass (Stage 2) = 27,191 kg Final Design Margin = 30.0%
18
Launch Vehicle: Analysis Initial thrust/weight = 1.2 Stage 2 thrust/weight = 0.7 Assume constant mass flow rate (m_dot) based on number of engines and all thrusters at full throttle Thrust / weight ratio is a function of time; increases as propellant is burned. Assume: Gravity; no drag Analysis performed in MATLAB using integrated equations of motion ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design18
19
Launch Vehicle: Ascent First Pass Initial pitch angle: 89° (from horizontal) Total Down Range after entire burn: 21 km Down range distance of 2 km from the launch pad is achieved after 123 seconds ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design19 Down Range vs. Time
20
Launch Vehicle: Ascent First Pass T stage,1 : 215.7 sec T stage,2 : 49.8 sec Total Burn: 265.5 sec Final Height = 500 km This solution is not optimized because final velocity is not totally in the x-direction ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design20 Altitude vs. Time
21
Launch Vehicle: Ascent TPBVP Matlab solver: Two Point Boundary Value Problem (function: bvp4c.m) Initial conditions: x = y = V x = V y = 0 km Final conditions: y = 500 km V x = Orbital Vel. @500 km TPBVP solver in MATLAB creates the optimal trajectory to satisfy boundary conditions Output: Min. flight time (saves cost) ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design21
22
Launch Vehicle: Ascent TPBVP Stage 1 thrust scaled down to achieve an appropriate burn time New Optimal Burn Time = 242.5 sec Indicates that another iteration required to optimize ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design22 Altitude vs. Time Final Velocity is fully in the x- direction for this optimal solution to the trajectory Velocity vs. Time
23
TPBVP Burn Time = 242.5 (cont.) Total Velocity V Final = 7.612 km/s (@ 500 km) Downrange Distance Max ~ 500 km (X-dir) ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design23
24
ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design24
25
ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design25
26
ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design26
27
ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design27
28
Crew Vehicle: Costing Assuming: Refurbishment rate of 3% Nonrecurring cost for reusable vehicles doubled over expendable 1 crew vehicle for the program ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design28 Expendable vehicles cheaper up to 21st flight Reusable vehicles more cost efficient after 21st
29
Crew Vehicle: Lift and Drag Wanted cross range of roughly 2,000 km to span entire continental US Drove selection for L/D = 1.3 Corresponds to angle of attack of 37.57° Newtonian Flow Estimations C D,Sphere = 1 C D,Cone = 2sin 2 (δ) Nominally chose C D = 1.3 as a baseline Based on Newtonian estimations and Soyuz figures Sphere-cone with half angle δ = 54° ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design29
30
Crew Vehicle: Ballistic Coefficient Using parachutes necessitates that vehicle be at M = 1 or lower at 3,000 m β = 2000 kg/m 2, vehicle area of 3.846 m 2, diameter of 2.21 m ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design30
31
Crew Vehicle: Nominal Entry Trajectory Beta = 2,000 kg/m 3 L/D = 1.3 FPA = -2° Downrange Max 35 km ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design31 Peak velocity: 1.296 m/s at 30.3 km Peak deceleration: 5.4483 g’s at 11.9 km
32
Crew Vehicle: Entry Heating Heating rate approximation at stagnation point Leading edge radius r LE = 3.298 m Max heating rate = 18.09 W/cm 2 Total heat load = 470.94 J/cm 2 ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design32
33
Crew Vehicle: TPS Mass Estimation ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design33 Ablative Heuristic a function of total heat load Q = 470.94 J/cm 2 TPS mass ○ 2.18% of vehicle mass Reusable (Shuttle tiles) Small sample size, no heuristics Mass was scaled based on shuttle TPS mass o 8.63% of vehicle mass
34
Crew Vehicle: Landing Drogues upon entering atmosphere to stabilize, parachutes employed as final reentry phase M = 1 achieved at roughly 3000m as a result of β selection; allows for parachute deployment Parachute radius of 10m: terminal velocity of roughly 10 m/s 3 Parachutes: Loss of 1 chute results in a 20% terminal velocity increase. ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design34
35
Crew Vehicle: Landing ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design35
36
Crew Vehicle: Landing ENAE 791: Launch and Entry Vehicle Design36
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.