Course Overview/Systems Engineering

Transcription

1 Course Overview/Systems Engineering Course Overview Goals Web-based Content Syllabus Policies Project Content Systems Design Case Study U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND 2006 David L. Akin - All rights reserved Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

2 Contact Information Dr. Dave Akin Space Systems Laboratory Neutral Buoyancy Research Facility/Room 2100D TA: Peter Gardner (contact info TBD) U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

3 Goals of ENAE 483/484 (and 788D) Learn the basic tools and techniques of systems analysis and space vehicle design Understand the open-ended and iterative nature of the design process Simulate the cooperative group engineering environment of the aerospace profession Develop experience and skill sets for working in teams Perform and document professional-quality systems design of focused space mission concepts U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

4 Outline of Space Systems ENAE 483 (Fall) Lecture style, problem sets and quizzes Design as a discipline Disciplinary subjects not contained in curriculum Engineering graphics Engineering ethics ENAE 484 (Spring) Single group design project Externally imposed matrix organization Engineering presentations Group dynamics Peer evaluations U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

5 Web-based Course Content Data web site at Course information Syllabus Lecture notes Problems and solutions Interactive web site at Communications for team projects Lecture videos U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

6 Syllabus Overview Fundamentals of Spacecraft Design Vehicle-Level Design Systems-Level Estimation Component Detailed Design Team Projects U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

7 Syllabus 1: Fundamentals of Space Systems Systems Engineering Space Environment Orbital Mechanics Engineering Graphics Engineering in Teams Engineering Ethics Engineering Economics Design Case Studies U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

8 Syllabus 2: Vehicle/System-Level Design Rocket Performance Parametric Analysis Cost Estimation Reliability and Redundancy Confidence, Risk, and Resiliency Mass Estimating Relations Resource Budgeting U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

9 Syllabus 3: Component-Level Design Loads, Structures, and Mechanisms Loads Estimation Structural Analysis Structures and Mechanisms Design Propulsion, Power, and Thermal Propulsion System Design Power System Design Thermal Design and Analysis Avionics Systems Attitude Dynamics/Proximity Operations Data Management; GN&C Communications U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

10 Syllabus 4: Component-Level Design Crew Systems Space Physiology Human Factors and Habitability Life Support Systems Design Other Topics Atmospheric Entry Rover Technologies Topics Supporting 484 Project... U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

11 Akin s Laws of Spacecraft Design - #3 Design is an iterative process. The necessary number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time. U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

12 Grading Policies Grade Distribution 25% Problems 15% Midterm Exam 10% Graphics Team Project* 20% Design Team Project* 30% Final Exam Late Policy On time: Full credit Before solutions: 70% credit After solutions: 20% credit * Team Grades U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

13 ENAE 483 Roster Benic, Christopher Alan Besser, Rebecca Leigh Dorman, Keri Lyn Easley, Joseph Wilson Felikson, Denis Furgione, Christine Marie Gardner, Victor Hean Gorman, Eric Taylor Kirkpatrick, Jeffrey Kumme Knutsen, Daniel Mark Kutty, Prasad Marx, Erin Nicole McCall, Brian Eric Meyer, John Daniel Michael, James Bennett U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Nagia, Danielle Ashley Patel, Ronak Arvind Schmidt, Walter Thomas Shah, Jatin Vasant Silliman, John David Smith, Eric Sesto Spatafore, Bradley Martin Spitale, Jenna Marie Superfin, Emil Alexander Tomlinson, Zakiya Alexandr Trout, Julie Nicole Trujillo, Diana Urbina, Jeffry D Walter, Sibylle Frederike Webster, Eric Joshua Westenburger, Gavin Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

14 ENAE 788D Roster Beerman, Adam Farrell Dillow, Barrett England, Gretchen Pauline Kaur, Amandeep Gland, Joseph Lee, Taejoo Jung Lewandowski, Craig Michael Sankaran, Jaganath Liszka, Michael Scott Shoemaker, Michael Andrew Trepp, Samuel Gottlieb Veeraragavan, Ananthanaray U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

15 Graphics Team Project Intended to give you a start at systems engineering and group dynamics Picking and operating in small teams How to perform research Engineering graphics Technical presentation preparation Prepare a viewgraph presentation describing a historical spacecraft or launch vehicle (Note: vehicles, not missions: e.g., Apollo lunar module, not Apollo 17 ) Topics and teams picked for you Details linked to course syllabus U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

16 Assigned Groups and Topics Mercury spacecraft Benic, Christopher Alan Michael, James Bennett Atlas (Mercury launch version) Besser, Rebecca Leigh Urbina, Jeffry D Redstone (Mercury launch version) Kutty, Prasad Trout, Julie Nicole Gemini spacecraft Spatafore, Bradley Martin Westenburger, Gavin Titan II (Gemini launch version) Superfin, Emil Alexander Webster, Eric Joshua Apollo Command/Service Module Marx, Erin Nicole Smith, Eric Sesto Apollo Lunar Module Nagia, Danielle Ashley Tomlinson, Zakiya Alexandr U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Saturn IB Dorman, Keri Lyn Shah, Jatin Vasant Saturn V Kirkpatrick, Jeffrey Kumme Schmidt, Walter Thomas X-20 "Dynasoar" Gardner, Victor Hean Silliman, John David Space Shuttle Felikson, Denis Gorman, Eric Taylor Mercury spacecraft Furgione, Christine Marie McCall, Brian Eric Atlas (Mercury launch version) Easley, Joseph Wilson Walter, Sibylle Frederike Redstone (Mercury launch version) Knutsen, Daniel Mark Spitale, Jenna Marie Gemini spacecraft Meyer, John Daniel Patel, Ronak Arvind Trujillo, Diana Titan II (Gemini launch version) Beerman, Adam Farrell Dillow, Barrett Apollo Command/Service Module England, Gretchen Pauline Kaur, Amandeep Apollo Lunar Module Gland, Joseph Lee, Taejoo Jung Saturn IB Lewandowski, Craig Michael Sankaran, Jaganath Saturn V Liszka, Michael Scott Shoemaker, Michael Andrew Space Shuttle Trepp, Samuel Gottlieb Veeraragavan, Ananthanaray Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

17 Project for ENAE 483 and 484 Clean-Sheet Design for Human Lunar Exploration President announced the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in January, 2003 NASA developed their preferred architecture for human return to the moon - Exploration System Architecture Study (ESAS) Involves developing two new spacecraft and two new heavy-lift launch vehicles - Project Constellation Intended to optimize reuse of existing shuttle components and infrastructure Costs are extremely high and growing rapidly U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

18 NASA Constellation Vehicle Concepts Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) - Orion Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV - Ares 1) Cargo Launch Vehicle (CaLV - Ares 5) U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

19 ENAE 483/484 Design Project Goals Develop detailed objectives and requirements for lunar exploration, both initial and long-term Examine alternative architectures for program, focusing on innovative solutions to maximize capabilities while minimizing costs Present an alternative to NASA s Exploration Systems Architecture Study which is faster, more feasible, more flexible, and more farsighted Win NASA RASC-AL competition U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

20 483/484 Design Project Implementation Fall Semester ~5 person teams working independently Perform preliminary architecture studies, trade studies, develop configuration, concept of operations, preliminary vehicle designs Preliminary design reviews at end of 483 Spring Semester Single (~30 person) design team Synthesize best architecture from results of 483 Perform detailed design of vehicles and missions Critical Design Review Splinter team performing design-build-test U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

21 ENAE 788D Design Project Same project as ENAE 483/484, except all program elements must have relevance to Mars exploration as well Single term, teams of 4 students Best project submitted to RASC-AL competition in May 2007 U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

22 Assigned Groups for Design Project Team 1 Easley, Joseph Wilson Marx, Erin Nicole Michael, James Bennett Tomlinson, Zakiya Alexandr Trujillo, Diana Team 2 Benic, Christopher Alan Besser, Rebecca Leigh Dorman, Keri Lyn Knutsen, Daniel Mark McCall, Brian Eric Nagia, Danielle Ashley Team 3 Kutty, Prasad Meyer, John Daniel Schmidt, Walter Thomas Shah, Jatin Vasant Urbina, Jeffry D Team 4 Gardner, Victor Hean Kirkpatrick, Jeffrey Kumme Patel, Ronak Arvind Spatafore, Bradley Martin Trout, Julie Nicole Team 5 Felikson, Denis Silliman, John David Spitale, Jenna Marie Superfin, Emil Alexander Westenburger, Gavin Team 6 Furgione, Christine Marie Gorman, Eric Taylor Smith, Eric Sesto Walter, Sibylle Frederike Webster, Eric Joshua Team 7(G) England, Gretchen Pauline Gland, Joseph Lewandowski, Craig Michael Liszka, Michael Scott Team 8(G) Dillow, Barrett Kaur, Amandeep Lee, Taejoo Jung Veeraragavan, Ananthanaray Team 9(G) Beerman, Adam Farrell Sankaran, Jaganath Shoemaker, Michael Andrew Trepp, Samuel Gottlieb U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

23 Course Syllabus Maintained on web site (follow links at Contains links to reference material, problem sets, solution sets, team project details, etc. U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

24 Low-Cost Return to the Moon Case Study: Utilizing On-Orbit Assembly and Servicing to Enable Minimum-Cost Space Mission Architectures David L. Akin Mary L. Bowden AIAA Space 2005 Conference Long Beach, CA August 31, 2005

25 NASA Plan (Monolithic Architecture) Low-Cost Return to the Moon Launch entire mission vehicle on single heavy-lift vehicle Launch crew in CEV on human-rated vehicle Earth orbit rendezvous docks crew and CEV to mission spacecraft Lunar orbit staging site leaves CEV in orbit while crew descends to lunar surface Lunar orbit rendezvous for crew to return to CEV CEV departs lunar orbit and travels back to earth (direct atmospheric entry)

26 Modular Architecture Low-Cost Return to the Moon Multiple boost modules launched on EELVs and docked together Lunar landing/ascent vehicle launched on EELV and docked to boost module stack Launch crew in CEV on human-rated EELV Earth orbit rendezvous docks crew and CEV to mission spacecraft Lunar orbit staging site leaves CEV in orbit while crew descends to lunar surface Lunar orbit rendezvous for crew to return to CEV CEV departs lunar orbit and travels back to earth (direct atmospheric entry)

27 So What s the Argument? Low-Cost Return to the Moon Both approaches are ELOR (Earth and lunar orbital rendezvous) Both approaches use CEV and dedicated lunar landing vehicle Both approaches use components from existing launch systems Both approaches have identical safetycritical rendezvous and docking operations

28 What are the Issues? Low-Cost Return to the Moon Pros Cons Monolithic Minimize orbital operations Simpler operations Develop new large launch vehicles and associated ground infrastructure Modular Maximize use of existing assets Minimize nonrecurring costs Multiple docking operations increase odds of mission failure

29 Low-Cost Return to the Moon Lunar Program Assumptions 2 lunar missions/year First lunar mission lunar missions total CEV entry vehicle mass 6000 kg Lander cabin mass 3000 kg ELOR mission with CEV as return craft LOX/LH2 Isp=450 sec Storables Isp=320 sec Inert mass fraction δ=0.1 except 0.15 for landing stage All launch vehicles asymptotically approach 97% reliability Rendezvous and docking reliability 99%

30 Lunar Mission ΔV Requirements Low-Cost Return to the Moon To: From: Low Earth Orbit Lunar Transfer Orbit Low Lunar Orbit Lunar Descent Orbit Lunar Landing Low Earth Orbit km/sec Lunar Transfer Orbit km/sec km/sec km/sec Low Lunar Orbit km/sec km/sec Lunar Descent Orbit km/sec km/sec Lunar Landing km/sec km/sec

31 Candidate Cargo Launch Vehicles Low-Cost Return to the Moon Delta IV Heavy 23K kg to LEO Operational Unmanned Representative of current large EELVs In-line SDLV 125K kg to LEO Conceptual Manned heritage

32 In-line SDLV Assumptions Low-Cost Return to the Moon $8.4B nonrecurring (published estimate) 6 year development cycle $400M first unit production (shuttle parallel) 10 units at 85% learning curve $285M average flight cost

33 Shuttle-Derived CEV Assumptions Low-Cost Return to the Moon $2B nonrecurring (NASA SVLCM estimate for second stage alone) 6 year development cycle $200M first unit production (shuttle parallel) 10 units at 85% learning curve $144M average flight cost

34 Delta IV Heavy Assumptions Low-Cost Return to the Moon RDT&E amortized $2B nonrecurring for human rating $250M first unit 85 vehicle block buy and 85% learning curve yields $92M average cost (includes learning for 255 CBCs) 50% production surcharge for 11 human rated units ($138M)

35 First Boost Module Low-Cost Return to the Moon Mtotal=23,000 kg Mprop=20,700 kg Minert=2300 kg Isp=320 sec

36 Orbital Assembly of Boost Modules Low-Cost Return to the Moon Assembly Mass=138,000 kg

37 Assembly Ready for Crew Launch Low-Cost Return to the Moon Assembly Mass=161,000 kg

38 Earth Departure Configuration Low-Cost Return to the Moon ΔV1=391 m/sec ΔV2=455 m/sec ΔV3=542 m/sec ΔV4=671 m/sec ΔV5=882 m/sec Initial Mass=176,400 kg

39 Lunar Orbit Arrival Low-Cost Return to the Moon ΔV6=166 m/sec (end of TLI) ΔV6=837 m/sec (LOI burn)

40 Lunar Descent Initiation Low-Cost Return to the Moon ΔV6=397 m/sec (start of PDI)

41 Lunar Landing Low-Cost Return to the Moon Ascent stage: Minert=800 kg Mprop=4200 kg Mcrew module=3000 kg Descent stage: Minert=2250 kg Mprop=12,750 kg

42 Lunar Orbit Departure Low-Cost Return to the Moon Earth return stage: Minert=900 kg Mprop=2110 kg MCEV=6000 kg

43 Monolithic Launch Operations Low-Cost Return to the Moon $429M average launch recurring cost Average amortized launch cost $1.45B 93% probability of individual mission initiation Probability of N missions initiating successfully 49% 10/10 85% 9/10 97% 8/10

44 Modular Launch Operations Low-Cost Return to the Moon $829M average launch recurring cost (includes cost of 5 fleet spares) Average amortized launch cost $1.10B 73% probability of individual mission initiation (no spares) Probability of 10 missions initiating successfully 16% (no spares) 71% (2 spares) 88% (3 spares) 96% (4 spares) 99% (5 spares)

45 Head-to-Head Launch Comparison Low-Cost Return to the Moon 2000 Nonrecurring cost ($M) 10, Average production cost per mission ($M) 1096 Average amortized cost per mission ($M) 85 Total production run 432 NPV discounted cost per mission ($M)

46 Sensitivity to Monolithic Costing Low-Cost Return to the Moon $432M Baseline NPV discounted cost per mission $432M Development costs cut in half $432M Production costs cut in half $432M $432M $878M $508M $809M Production is free $740M All costs cut in half $439M

47 Discussion of Reliability Low-Cost Return to the Moon Monolithic architecture loses a mission when a launch or docking fails 75% of modular architecture failures occur on a boost module launch Plan for ready alert spare launch vehicle and boost module Continue mission buildup LV commonality allows robust spares strategy (boost module, CEV, lander) Can work full sparing for monolithic system, but requires both launch vehicle types, pads, etc.

48 Discussion of Costs Low-Cost Return to the Moon Cost benefits of modular systems: Learning curve effects for large production runs Minimum up-front nonrecurring costs Modular systems also benefit from other markets for the same launch vehicles Minimal market synergy for monolithic vehicles In-line SDLV too large (5x current largest vehicle) SRB-based vehicle offers few intrinsic advantages to commercial/dod payloads Lesson: spend your money flying, not developing new vehicles (suggested mantra: flight rate, flight rate, flight rate )

49 Additional Caveats Low-Cost Return to the Moon Didn t consider costing of mission vehicles CEV and lander are comparable for both architectures Additional cost advantages to modular system for smaller size/large production of boost modules as compared to monolithic TLI stage Modular system is sensitive to docking reliability, but it primarily shows up in spares strategy (low marginal cost for larger production run) Could use modular approach with SRBbased CEV launcher - minor overall impact to cost

50 Comments on Modular Architecture Low-Cost Return to the Moon Modular system is highly adaptive to new missions and mass growth (add/subtract modules) Standard boost modules provide infrastructure for aggressive on-orbit operations ( space tugs ) Even with SDLV heavy-lift vehicles, will have to adopt modular-type operations for Mars missions but it is inelegant, complex, and just plain ugly

51 What You Just Saw... Orbital Mechanics Parametric Design Trade Studies Reliability Analysis Cost Estimation Engineering Economics Engineering Graphics U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design

52 Akin s Laws of Spacecraft Design - #1 Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion. U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Introduction to Systems Engineering Principles of Space Systems Design