Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) Concept Development for Affordable Multi-Stage Inline Configurations
No abstract available
Beers, Ben↗
Engineering topics
Philips, Alan
Publications and source records attributed to Philips, Alan.
Air Launch: Examining Performance Potential of Various Configurations and Growth Options
The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a high-level analysis of various air launch vehicle configurations, objectively determining maximum launch vehicle payload while considering carrier aircraft capabilities and given dimensional constraints. With the renewed interest in aerial launch of low-earth orbit payloads, referenced by programs such as Stratolaunch and Spaceship2, there existed a need to qualify the boundaries of the trade space, identify performance envelopes, and understand advantages and limiting factors of designing for maximum payload capability. Using the NASA/DARPA Horizontal Launch Study (HLS) Point Design 2 (PD-2) as a point-of-departure configuration, two independent design actions were undertaken. Both configurations utilized a Boeing 747-400F as the carrier aircraft, LOX/RP-1 first stage and LOX/LH2 second stage. Each design was sized to meet dimensional and mass constraints while optimizing propellant loads and stage delta V (ΔV) splits. All concepts, when fully loaded, exceeded the allowable Gross Takeoff Weight (GTOW) of the aircraft platform. This excess mass was evaluated as propellant/fuel offload available for a potential in-flight refueling scenario. Results indicate many advantages such as large, relative payload delivery of approximately 47,000 lbm and significant mission flexibility, such as variable launch site inclination and launch window; however, in-flight cryogenic fluid transfer and carrier aircraft platform integration are substantial technical hurdles to the realization of such a system configuration.
Waters, Eric D.↗
Small Launch Vehicle Design Approaches: Clustered Cores Compared with Multi-Stage Inline Concepts
In an effort to better define small launch vehicle design options two approaches were investigated from the small launch vehicle trade space. The primary focus was to evaluate a clustered common core design against a purpose built inline vehicle. Both designs focused on liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP-1) stages with the terminal stage later evaluated as a LOX/methane (CH4) stage. A series of performance optimization runs were done in order to minimize gross liftoff weight (GLOW) including alternative thrust levels, delivery altitude for payload, vehicle length to diameter ratio, alternative engine feed systems, re-evaluation of mass growth allowances, passive versus active guidance systems, and rail and tower launch methods. Additionally manufacturability, cost, and operations also play a large role in the benefits and detriments for each design. Presented here is the Advanced Concepts Office's Earth to Orbit Launch Team methodology and high level discussion of the performance trades and trends of both small launch vehicle solutions along with design philosophies that shaped both concepts. Without putting forth a decree stating one approach is better than the other; this discussion is meant to educate the community at large and let the reader determine which architecture is truly the most economical; since each path has such a unique set of limitations and potential payoffs.
Waters, Eric D.↗
NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools
The Earth to Orbit (ETO) Team of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshal Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the preeminent group to go to for prephase A and phase A concept definition. The ACO team has been at the forefront of a multitude of launch vehicle studies determining the future direction of the Agency as a whole due, in part, to their rapid turnaround time in analyzing concepts and their ability to cover broad trade spaces of vehicles in that limited timeframe. Each completed vehicle concept includes a full mass breakdown of each vehicle to tertiary subsystem components, along with a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. Additionally, a structural analysis of the vehicle based on material properties and geometries is performed as well as an analysis to determine the flight loads based on the trajectory outputs. As mentioned, the ACO Earth to Orbit Team prides themselves on their rapid turnaround time and often need to fulfill customer requests within limited schedule or little advanced notice. Due to working in this fast paced environment, the ETO team has developed some finely honed skills and methods to maximize the delivery capability to meet their customer needs. This paper will describe the interfaces between the 3 primary disciplines used in the design process; weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis, as well as the approach each discipline employs to streamline their particular piece of the design process.
Waters, Eric D.↗
Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) Concept Development for Affordable Multi-Stage Inline Configurations
No abstract available
Beers, Ben↗
Analysis of Parallel Burn, No-Crossfeed TSTO RLV Architectures and Comparison to Parallel Burn with Crossfeed and Series Burn Architectures
Three dominant Two Stage To Orbit (TSTO) class architectures were studied: Series Burn (SB), Parallel Bum with crossfeed (PBw/cf), and Parallel Burn, no-crossfeed (PBncf). The study goal was to determine what factors uniquely affect PBncf architectures, how each of these factors interact, and to determine from a performance perspective whether a PBncf vehicle could be competitive with a PBw/cf or a SB vehicle using equivalent technology and assumptions. In all cases, performance was evaluated on a relative basis for a fixed payload and mission by comparing gross and dry vehicle masses of a closed vehicle. Propellant combinations studied were LOX: LH2 propelled booster and orbiter (HH) and LOX: Kerosene booster with LOX: LH2 orbiter (KH). The study observations were: 1) A PBncf orbiter should be throttled as deeply as possible after launch until the staging point. 2) A PBncf TSTO architecture is feasible for systems that stage at mach 7. 2a) HH architectures can achieve a mass growth relative to PBw/cf of <20%. 2b) KH architectures can achieve a mass growth relative to Series Burn of <20%. 3) Center of gravity (CG) control will be a major issue for a PBncf vehicle, due to the low orbiter specific thrust to weight ratio and to the position of the orbiter required to align the nozzle heights at liftoff. 4) Thrust to weight ratios of 1.3 at liftoff and between 1.0 and 0.9 when staging at mach 7 appear to be close to ideal for PBncf vehicles. 5) Performance for HH vehicles was better when staged at mach 7 instead of mach 5. The study suggests possible methods to maximize performance of PBncf vehicle architectures in order to meet mission design requirements.
Smith, Garrett↗