Mass Estimating Relationships MARYLAND. Review of iterative design approach Mass Estimating Relationships (MERs) Sample vehicle design analysis

Similar documents
A little more about costing Review of iterative design approach Mass Estimating Relationships (MERs) Sample vehicle design analysis

Propulsion Systems Design MARYLAND. Rocket engine basics Solid rocket motors Liquid rocket engines. Hybrid rocket engines Auxiliary propulsion systems

Propulsion Systems Design MARYLAND. Rocket engine basics Survey of the technologies Propellant feed systems Propulsion systems design

Propulsion Systems Design MARYLAND. Rocket engine basics Survey of the technologies Propellant feed systems Propulsion systems design

MARYLAND. Rocket engine basics Survey of the technologies Propellant feed systems Propulsion systems design U N I V E R S I T Y O F

Propulsion Systems Design

Propulsion Systems Design

Rocket Performance MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Rocket Performance. ENAE 483/788D - Principles of Space Systems Design

Rocket Performance MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Rocket Performance. ENAE 483/788D - Principles of Space Systems Design

Parametric Design MARYLAND. The Design Process Regression Analysis Level I Design Example: Project Diana U N I V E R S I T Y O F.

Design And Analysis Of Thrust Chamber Of A Cryogenic Rocket Engine S. Senthilkumar 1, Dr. P. Maniiarasan 2,Christy Oomman Jacob 2, T.

Rocket Performance MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Rocket Performance. ENAE 483/788D - Principles of Space Systems Design

Rocket Performance MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Rocket Performance. ENAE Launch and Entry Vehicle Design

Rocket Performance MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Rocket Performance. ENAE Launch and Entry Vehicle Design

Basic Ascent Performance Analyses

Parametric Design MARYLAND. The Design Process Level I Design Example: Low-Cost Lunar Exploration U N I V E R S I T Y O F

Rocket Propulsion Basics Thrust

Applied Thermodynamics - II

MARYLAND. The Design Process Regression Analysis Level I Design Example: UMd Exploration Initiative U N I V E R S I T Y O F.

Power, Propulsion, and Thermal Preliminary Design Review James Black Matt Marcus Grant McLaughlin Michelle Sultzman

Comparison of Return to Launch Site Options for a Reusable Booster Stage

ENAE483: Principles of Space System Design Power Propulsion Thermal System

ENAE 483: Principles of Space System Design Loads, Structures, and Mechanisms

The Design Process Level I Design Example: Low-Cost Lunar Exploration Amplification on Initial Concept Review

PROPULSIONE SPAZIALE. Chemical Rocket Propellant Performance Analysis

Robotic Mobility Above the Surface

11.1 Survey of Spacecraft Propulsion Systems

Rocket Performance MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Ballistic Entry ENAE Launch and Entry Vehicle Design

3. Write a detailed note on the following thrust vector control methods:

IV. Rocket Propulsion Systems. A. Overview

Rocket Propulsion Overview

SOLAR ROCKET PROPULSION Ground and Space Technology Demonstration. Dr. Michael Holmes, AFRL/PRSS

MagBeam: R. Winglee, T. Ziemba, J. Prager, B. Roberson, J Carscadden Coherent Beaming of Plasma. Separation of Power/Fuel from Payload

Power, Propulsion and Thermal Design Project ENAE483 Fall 2012

ENAE 483/788D MIDTERM FALL, 2018 NAME: a 3 = a = 42970] 1. So after one sol, the subspacecraft point would have gone 88773

Technology of Rocket

Performance Characterization of Supersonic Retropropulsion for Application to High-Mass Mars Entry, Descent, and Landing

Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecrafts

Propulsion and Energy Systems. Kimiya KOMURASAKI, Professor, Dept. Aeronautics & Astronautics, The University of Tokyo

Homework 2, part 2! ii) Calculate and plot design spike contour,

Departures from Ideal Performance for Conical Nozzles and Bell Nozzles, Straight-Cut Throats and Rounded Throats Charles E. Rogers

ENAE 483/788D FINAL EXAMINATION FALL, 2015

Solar Thermal Propulsion

Rocket Performance MARYLAND

Robotic Mobility Atmospheric Flight

JPL ISM STP Study Summary

Robotic Mobility Atmospheric Flight

Electric Sail Propulsion Modeling and Mission Analysis

Rocket Dynamics. Forces on the Rocket

How Small Can a Launch Vehicle Be?

Engineering Sciences and Technology. Trip to Mars

A COMPARISON OF NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKETS WITH TRADITIONAL CHEMICAL ROCKETS FOR SPACE TRANSPORT. Joshua T. Hanes

Concurrent Trajectory and Vehicle Optimization for an Orbit Transfer. Christine Taylor May 5, 2004

Robotic Mobility Atmospheric Flight

CHAPTER 3 PERFORMANCE

Shen Ge ECAPS LLC. Yvonne Vigue-Rodi Adelante Sciences Corporation May 6, 2016 AIAA Houston Annual Technical Symposium

At time t 0, the velocity of a body moving along the horizontal s-axis is v = t 2 4t + 3.

California State Science Fair

Low Thrust Trajectory Analysis (A Survey of Missions using VASIMR for Flexible Space Exploration - Part 2)

Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Advanced Rocket Nozzle

Multidisciplinary Optimization Techniques for Branching Trajectories

IAC 17 D2.8 A5.4 FLY ME TO THE MOON ON AN SLS BLOCK II

A Study of CPS Stages for Missions beyond LEO Final Distribution

Lecture 9 Hybrid Rocket Propulsion Liquefying Fuels

CHAPTER 3 PERFORMANCE

Satellite Orbital Maneuvers and Transfers. Dr Ugur GUVEN

Gravitation_AHL_P1. 1. [1 mark]

Positron Propelled and Powered Space Transport Vehicle for Planetary Missions

Electrically Propelled Cargo Spacecraft for Sustained Lunar Supply Operations

Investigation of Combined Airbreathing/Rocket. Air Launch of Micro-Satellites from a Combat Aircraft

Exercise 7: Thrust and the Rocket Equation

Fly Me to the Moon on an SLS Block II

A STUDY OF CRYOGENIC PROPULSIVE STAGES FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION BEYOND LOW EARTH ORBIT

Propulsion Technology Assessment: Science and Enabling Technologies to Explore the Interstellar Medium

Rocket Science 102 : Energy Analysis, Available vs Required

A trendsetting Micro-Launcher for Europe

Thermal Radiation Studies for an Electron-Positron Annihilation Propulsion System

Conceptual Design of Manned Space Transportation Vehicle (MSTV) Using Laser Thruster in Combination with H-II Rocket

1. (a) Describe the difference between over-expanded, under-expanded and ideallyexpanded

Thermal Systems Design

IAC-17- D Suitability of reusability and in-situ propellant production for a Lunar transportation system

AAE SOLID ROCKET PROPULSION (SRP) SYSTEMS

HM7B Simulation with ESPSS Tool on Ariane 5 ESC-A Upper Stage

Multistage Rockets. Chapter Notation

Danish Parvez, Samadarshi Adhikari. Amity University Gurugram,

All questions are of equal value. No marks are subtracted for wrong answers.

Optimal Control based Time Optimal Low Thrust Orbit Raising

Learn From The Proven Best!

Final Examination 2015

Lunar Orbit Propellant Transfer

but is fed to the rotor motor. (The reverse process will be employed when the tether is reeled back in.) The counter balance tether length is servodri

Chapter 7 Rocket Propulsion Physics

Variations of Solid Rocket Motor Preliminary Design for Small TSTO launcher

Bifrost: A 4 th Generation Launch Architecture Concept

The development of a family of Resistojet Thruster Propulsion Systems for Small Spacecraft

Low Thrust Mission Trajectories to Near Earth Asteroids

Robotic Mobility Above the Surface

Rocket Propulsion. Combustion chamber Throat Nozzle

Study of Required Thrust Profile Determination of a Three Stages Small Launch Vehicle

Supplementary Problems

Transcription:

Mass Estimating Relationships Review of iterative design approach Mass Estimating Relationships (MERs) Sample vehicle design analysis 2006 David L. Akin - All rights reserved http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu

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.

Vehicle-Level Preliminary Design - 1st Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicle 5000 kg payload LOX/LH2 propellants Isp=430 sec δ=0.08 ΔV gi r = e sp = 0.1127 λ = r δ = 0.0327 M 0 = M L = 153,000 kg λ M i = δm 0 = 12, 240 kg M p = M ( 0 1 r) =135,800 kg

System-Level Estimation Start with propellant tanks (biggest part) LOX/LH2 engines generally run at mixture ratio of 6:1 (by weight) LH2: 19,390 kg LOX: 116,400 kg Propellant densities ρ LOX = 1140 kg m 3 ρ LH2 =112 kg m 3

LOX Tank MERs Mass of Tank M LOX Tank Mass of Insulation ( kg) = 0.0152M ( LOX kg) + 318 M LOX Insulation kg ( ) =1.123 kg m 2

LOX Tank Design Mass of LOX=116,400 kg M LOX Tank ( kg) = 0.0152( 116,400) + 318 = 2087 kg Need area to find LOX tank insulation mass - assume a sphere V LOX Tank = M LOX / ρ LOX =102.1 m 3 r LOX Tank = V 1 LOX 3 = 2.90 m 4π / 3 M LOX Insulation ( kg) =1.123 kg 2 A LOX Tank = 4πr LOX m 2 =105.6 m 2 ( 105.6 ) m2 = 119 kg

LOX Tank Mass Estimating Relation from C. R. Glatts, WAATS: A Computer Program for Weights Analysis of Advanced Transportation Systems NASA CR-2420, 1974.

LH2 Tank MERs Mass of Tank M LH2 Tank Mass of Insulation M LH2 Insulation kg ( kg) = 0.0694M ( LH 2 kg) + 363 ( ) = 2.88 kg m 2

LH2 Tank Design Mass of LH2=19,390 kg M LH2 Tank ( kg ) = 0.0694( 19,390) + 363 = 1709kg Again, assume LH2 tank is spherical V LH2 Tank = M LH2 / ρ LH2 = 346.3 m 3 r LH2 Tank = V LH 2 4π / 3 M LH2 Insulation kg 1 3 = 3.46 m ( ) = 2.88 kg A = 4πr 2 LH2 Tank LH 2 m 2 = 150.2 m 2 ( 150.2 ) m2 = 433 kg

Current Design Sketch Masses LOX Tank 2089 kg LOX Tank Insulation 1709 kg LH2 Tank 119 kg LH2 Tank Insulation 433 kg

Other Tankage MERs Storable Propellants (RP-1, N 2 O 4, N 2 H 4 ) M Storables Tank Small tank (liquids) M Small Liquid Tank ( kg) = 0.316 M Storables kg Small tank (pressurized gases) M Small Gas Tank [ ( )].6 ( kg) = 0.1M ( contents kg) ( kg) = 2M ( contents kg)

Boost Module Propellant Tanks Low-Cost Return to the Moon Gross mass 23,000 kg Inert mass 2300 kg Propellant mass 20,700 kg Mixture ratio N 2 O 4 /A50 = 1.8 (by mass) N 2 O 4 tank Mass = 13,310 kg Density = 1450 kg/m 3 Volume = 9.177 m 3 --> r sphere =1.299 m Aerozine 50 tank Mass = 7390 kg Density = 900 kg/m 3 Volume = 8.214 m 3 --> r sphere =1.252 m Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

N 2 O 4 Tank Sizing Low-Cost Return to the Moon Need total N 2 O 4 volume = 9.177 m 3 Single tank Radius = 1.299 m Mass = 94.2 kg Dual tanks Radius = 1.031 m Mass = 62.2 kg (x2 = 124.3 kg) Triple tanks Radius = 0.900 m Mass = 48.7 kg (x3 = 146.2 kg) Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

Other Structural MERs Fairings and shrouds Avionics M ( Fairing kg) = 13.3 kg m 2 Wiring M Avionics M Wiring ( kg) = 10 M 0 kg [ ( )] 0.361 ( kg) =1.058 M ( 0 kg) l 0.25

Fairing Analysis Payload Shroud Area 51.74 m 2 Mass 688 kg Intertank Fairing Area 126.1 m 2 Mass 1677 kg Aft Fairing Area 107.7 m 2 Mass 1433 kg

Avionics and Wiring Masses Avionics M Avionics Wiring ( kg) = 10[ 153, 000 kg] 0.361 = 744 kg M Wiring ( kg) = 1.058 153, 000 ( 16.95 m) 0.25 = 840 kg

Propulsion MERs Liquid Pump-Fed Rocket Engine Mass M Rocket Engine ( kg) = 7.81 10 4 T( N) + Solid Rocket Motor 3.37 10 5 T( N) A e A t + 59 M Motor Casing = 0.135M propellants Thrust Structure Mass M Thrust Structure ( kg) = 2.55 10 4 T( N)

Propulsion MERs (continued) Gimbal Mass M Gimbals Gimbal Torque τ Gimbals kg P 0 (Pa) ( ) = 237.8 T(N).9375 ( N m) = 990,000 T(N) P 0 (Pa) 1.25

Propulsion System Assumptions Initial T/mg ratio = 1.3 Keeps final acceleration low with reasonable throttling Number of engines = 6 Positive acceleration worst-case after engine out Chamber pressure = 1000 psi = 6897 kn Typical for high-performance LOX/LH2 engines Expansion ratio A e /A t =30 Compromise ratio with good vacuum performance

Propulsion Mass Estimates Rocket Engine Thrust (each) Rocket Engine Mass (each) M Rocket Engine ( kg) = 7.81 10 4 324,900 Thrust Structure Mass M Thrust Structure T( N) = m 0g( T / W) 0 n engines = 324,900 N ( ) + 3.37 10 5 324, 900 ( ) 30 + 59 = 373 kg ( kg) = 2.55 10 4 ( 324,900) = 497 kg

First Pass Vehicle Configuration

Mass Summary - First Pass Initial Inert Mass Estimate 12,240 kg LOX Tank 2087 kg LH2 Tank 1709 kg LOX Insulation 119 kg LH2 Insulation 433 kg Payload Fairing 688 kg Intertank Fairing 1677 kg Aft Fairing 1433 kg Engines 2236 kg Thrust Structure 497 kg Gimbals 81 kg Avionics 744 kg Wiring 840 kg Reserve - Total Inert Mass 12,543 kg Design Margin -2.4 %

Modifications for Second Pass Keep all initial vehicle sizing parameters constant Pick vehicle diameter and make tanks cylindrical to fit Redo MER analysis

Effect of Vehicle Diameter on Mass Margin 0.2000 0.1500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000-0.0500-0.1000 0 2 4 6 8 Vehicle Diameter (m)

Effect of Mass-Optimal Diameter Vehicle has L/D of 25.2 - severe complications from structural dynamics Mass margin goes from -2.4% to +18.3% Decreased volume for rocket engines in aft fairing Infeasible configuration

Effect of Diameter on Vehicle L/D 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 Vehicle Diameter (m)

Second Pass Vehicle Configuration

Mass Summary - Second Pass Initial Inert Mass Estimate 12,240 kg 12,240 kg LOX Tank 2087 kg 2087 kg LH2 Tank 1709 kg 1709 kg LOX Insulation 119 kg 133 kg LH2 Insulation 433 kg 547 kg Payload Fairing 688 kg 689 kg Intertank Fairing 1677 kg 669 kg Aft Fairing 1433 kg 585 kg Engines 2236 kg 2236 kg Thrust Structure 497 kg 497 kg Gimbals 81 kg 81 kg Avionics 744 kg 744 kg Wiring 840 kg 985 kg Reserve - - Total Inert Mass 12,543 kg 10,960 kg Design Margin -2.4 % +11.7 %

Modifications for Iteration 3 Keep 4 m tank diameter Change initial assumption of δ iteratively, with resulting changes in m 0 and m i, to reach 30% mass margin

Vehicle-Level Preliminary Design - 3rd Pass Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) vehicle 5000 kg payload LOX/LH2 propellants Isp=430 sec δ=0.08655 ΔV gi r = e sp = 0.1127 λ = r δ = 0.0261 M 0 = M L = 191,300 kg λ M i = δm 0 = 16,560 kg M p = M ( 0 1 r) =169,800 kg

Third Pass Vehicle Configuration

Mass Summary - Third Pass Initial Inert Mass Estimate 12,240 kg 12,240 kg 16,560 kg LOX Tank 2087 kg 2087 kg 2530 kg LH2 Tank 1709 kg 1709 kg 2046 kg LOX Insulation 119 kg 133 kg 162 kg LH2 Insulation 433 kg 547 kg 672 kg Payload Fairing 688 kg 689 kg 689 kg Intertank Fairing 1677 kg 669 kg 669 kg Aft Fairing 1433 kg 585 kg 585 kg Engines 2236 kg 2236 kg 2708 kg Thrust Structure 497 kg 497 kg 622 kg Gimbals 81 kg 81 kg 100 kg Avionics 744 kg 744 kg 807 kg Wiring 840 kg 985 kg 1146 kg Reserve! -! -! Total Inert Mass 12,543 kg 10,960 kg 12,740 kg Design Margin -2.4 % +11.7 % +30 %

Mass Budgeting Estimates Budgeted Margins Initial Inert Mass Estimate 16,560 kg 16,560 kg 3826 kg LOX Tank 2530 kg 2910 kg 380 kg LH2 Tank 2046 kg 2354 kg 307 kg LOX Insulation 162 kg 187 kg 24 kg LH2 Insulation 672 kg 773 kg 101 kg Payload Fairing 689 kg 793 kg 104 kg Intertank Fairing 669 kg 769 kg 100 kg Aft Fairing 585 kg 673 kg 88 kg Engines 2708 kg 3115 kg 407 kg Thrust Structure 622 kg 715 kg 93 kg Gimbals 100 kg 115 kg 15 kg!! Avionics 807 kg 928 kg 121 kg Wiring 1146 kg 1318 kg 172 kg Reserve 1913 kg! 1913 kg Total Inert Mass 12,740 kg 16,560 kg