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.

Similar documents
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.

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

Human Lunar Exploration Mission Architectures

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

Electrically Propelled Cargo Spacecraft for Sustained Lunar Supply Operations

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

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

MIKE HAWES VICE PRESIDENT & ORION PROGRAM MANAGER

Human Spaceflight Value Study Was the Shuttle a Good Deal?

Congreve Rockets This rockets were invented by Englishman, Sir William Congreve. Congreve successfully demonstrated a solid fuel rocket in 1805, and

Rocket Propulsion Basics Thrust

Mission to Mars. MAE 598: Design Optimization Final Project. By: Trevor Slawson, Jenna Lynch, Adrian Maranon, and Matt Catlett

Development, Structure, and Application of MAST: A Generic Mission Architecture Sizing Tool

Satellite Orbital Maneuvers and Transfers. Dr Ugur GUVEN

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

Orbital Mechanics MARYLAND

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

Interplanetary Spacecraft. Team 12. Alliance: Foxtrot

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

Design of Orbits and Spacecraft Systems Engineering. Scott Schoneman 13 November 03

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

Reliability, Redundancy, and Resiliency

SAFETY GUIDED DESIGN OF CREW RETURN VEHICLE IN CONCEPT DESIGN PHASE USING STAMP/STPA

A Notional Round Trip To The Trans-Lunar Libration Point (EML2)

Robotic Mobility Above the Surface

Reliability, Redundancy, and Resiliency

Apollo System Architecture Decision Process

The Path to Mars. December Matthew Duggan. Copyright 2010 Boeing. All rights reserved.

The Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) Mission Design: A Pegasus Class Mission to a High Energy Orbit

Fusion-Enabled Pluto Orbiter and Lander

ENAE 483/788D FINAL EXAMINATION FALL, 2015

MAE 180A: Spacecraft Guidance I, Summer 2009 Homework 4 Due Thursday, July 30.

Basic Ascent Performance Analyses

ORION/MOONRISE: JOINT HUMAN-ROBOTIC LUNAR SAMPLE RETURN MISSION CONCEPT

Propulsion Systems Design

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

Propulsion Systems Design

Apollo 10. The NASA Mission Reports. Compiled from the NASA archives & Edited by Robert Godwin. SUB G6ttingen

Power, Propulsion and Thermal Design Project. Jesse Cummings Shimon Gewirtz Siddharth Parachuru Dennis Sanchez Alexander Slafkosky

LOW EARTH ORBIT RENDEZVOUS STRATEGY FOR LUNAR MISSIONS. William M. Cirillo

Launch Vehicle Family Album

Guidance Strategy for Hyperbolic Rendezvous

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

LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

4.8 Space Research and Exploration. Getting Into Space

Launch strategy for Indian lunar mission and precision injection to the Moon using genetic algorithm

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

Rocket Science 102 : Energy Analysis, Available vs Required

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

HEOMD Overview March 16, 2015

MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Orbital Mechanics. Principles of Space Systems Design

LAUNCH SYSTEMS. Col. John Keesee. 5 September 2003

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

Facts Largest Moon of Saturn. Has an atmosphere containing mostly Nitrogen and methane. 1 gram on Earth would weigh 0.14g on Titan. Only know moon in

The Mars-back Approach to Moon-Mars Exploration System Commonality

Rocket Performance MARYLAND

The Launch of Gorizont 45 on the First Proton K /Breeze M

2024 Mars Sample Return Design Overview

A New Plan for Sending Humans to Mars: The Mars Society Mission

Space Exploration Earth and Space. Project Mercury Courtesy of NASA Images

Thank you for your purchase!

ENAE 791 Course Overview

Mars Sample Return Mission

Fly Me to the Moon on an SLS Block II

Lunar Orbit Propellant Transfer

Proton Launch System Mission Planner s Guide SECTION 2. LV Performance

DRAFT. Caption: An astronaut climbs down a lunar module on the surface of the Moon. <Insert figure 1.4 here; photograph of the surface of Mars>>

PPT Design Project. ENAE483 November 8, 2010 Stef Bilyk, Kip Hart, John Pino, Tim Russell

Multistage Rockets. Chapter Notation

The time period while the spacecraft is in transit to lunar orbit shall be used to verify the functionality of the spacecraft.

Optimal Control based Time Optimal Low Thrust Orbit Raising

Power, Propulsion and Thermal Design Project ENAE483 Fall 2012

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

Launch Vehicles! Space System Design, MAE 342, Princeton University! Robert Stengel

Course Overview/Orbital Mechanics

Mission Design Options for Solar-C Plan-A

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

Target Selection and Architecture Design for a Manned Near Earth Object Mission

DARPA Lunar Study: Reducing the technical risk associated with lunar resource utilization and lunar surface presence

Revisited Virtues of Lunar Surface Rendezvous (LSR)

CHAPTER 3 PERFORMANCE

Paper Session I-B - Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion Application to Mars Missions

CHAPTER 3 PERFORMANCE

LAUNCH OPTIONS FOR MARS NETWORK MISSIONS USING SMALL SPACECRAFT. Walter K Daniel'

RAPID GEOSYNCHRONOUS TRANSFER ORBIT ASCENT PLAN GENERATION. Daniel X. Junker (1) Phone: ,

Orbital Mechanics MARYLAND. Orbital Mechanics. ENAE 483/788D - Principles of Space Systems Design

Title: Space flight landing a Space Shuttle

Proton Launch System Mission Planner s Guide APPENDIX F. Proton Launch System Options and Enhancements

HYPER Industrial Feasibility Study Final Presentation Orbit Selection

ENAE 483/788D MIDTERM FALL, 2015 NAME:

ASEN 6008: Interplanetary Mission Design Lab Spring, 2015

What is the InterPlanetary Superhighway?

Transcription:

Parametric Design The Design Process Regression Analysis Level I Design Example: U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND 2003 David L. Akin - All rights reserved http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

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 Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Overview of the Design Process Program Objectives 1 System Requirements Vehicle-level Estimation (based on a few parameters from prior art) Basic Axiom: Relative rankings between competing systems will remain consistent from level to level Increasing complexity Increasing accuracy System-level Estimation (system parameters based on prior experience) Decreasing ability to comprehend the big picture U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND System-level Design (based on disciplineoriented analysis) Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Regression Analysis of Existing Vehicles Veh/Stage prop mass gross mass Type Propellants Isp vac isp sl sigma eps delta (lbs) (lbs) (sec) (sec) Delta 6925 Stage 2 13,367 15,394 StorabN2O4-A50 319.4 0.152 0.132 0.070 Delta 7925 Stage 2 13,367 15,394 StorabN2O4-A50 319.4 0.152 0.132 0.065 Titan II Stage 2 59,000 65,000 StorabN2O4-A50 316.0 0.102 0.092 0.087 Titan III Stage 2 77,200 83,600 StorabN2O4-A50 316.0 0.083 0.077 0.055 Titan IV Stage 2 77,200 87,000 StorabN2O4-A50 316.0 0.127 0.113 0.078 Proton Stage 3 110,000 123,000 StorabN2O4-A50 315.0 0.118 0.106 0.078 Titan II Stage 1 260,000 269,000 StorabN2O4-A50 296.0 0.035 0.033 0.027 Titan III Stage 1 294,000 310,000 StorabN2O4-A50 302.0 0.054 0.052 0.038 Titan IV Stage 1 340,000 359,000 StorabN2O4-A50 302.0 0.056 0.053 0.039 Proton Stage 2 330,000 365,000 StorabN2O4-A50 316.0 0.106 0.096 0.066 Proton Stage 1 904,000 1,004,000 StorabN2O4-A50 316.0 285.0 0.111 0.100 0.065 average 312.2 285.0 0.100 0.089 0.061 standard deviation 8.1 0.039 0.033 0.019 U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Regression Analysis of Inert Mass Fraction Hypergolic stages 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 Inert Mass Fraction 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.030 Hypergolic stages 0.020 0.010 0.000 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07 Stage Gross Mass (lbs) U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Regression Analysis Given a set of N data points (x i,y i ) Linear curve fit: y=ax+b find A and B to minimize sum squared error error = N Â( Ax i + B - y i ) 2 i=1 Analytical solutions exist, or use Solver in Excel Power law fit: y=ax B N error = Â Alog( x i )+ B - log(y i ) i=1 Polynomial, exponential, many other fits possible U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND [ ] 2 Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Regression Values for Design Parameters Isp (vac) delta Max DV (sec) (m/sec) LOX/LH2 433 0.078 10825 LOX/RP-1 320 0.063 8670 Storables 312 0.061 8552 Solids 283 0.087 6772 U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Additional Issues for Parametric Analysis Propulsion system design Structural mass estimates Propellant performance Costing factors Scaling factors Etc U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Objective Design a system to return humans to the moon before the end of this decade for the minimum achievable cost.

Applicable Requirements System must be based on the use of American launch vehicles in operational status as of 2005 System shall be at least as capable for lunar exploration as the J-mission Apollo system Two landed crew 72 hour stay time, 3 x 6 hour EVAs 300 kg of science payload (each way)

U.S. Heavy-Lift Vehicles (2005) Space Shuttle - 27K kg to LEO Delta IV Heavy - 23K kg to LEO

Lunar Mission DV Requirements From: To: Low Earth Orbit Lunar Transfer Orbit Low Lunar Orbit Lunar Descent Orbit Low Earth Orbit 3.107 km/sec Lunar Transfer Orbit 3.107 km/sec 0.837 km/sec Low Lunar Orbit 0.837 km/sec 0.022 km/sec Lunar Descent Orbit 0.022 km/sec Lunar Landing 3.140 km/sec 2.684 km/sec Lunar Landing 2.890 km/sec 2.312 km/sec

Mission Scenario 1 What can be accomplished with a single shuttle payload (27K kg)? Assume d=0.1, Isp=320 sec Direct landing LEO-lunar transfer orbit DV=3.107 km/sec Lunar transfer orbit-lunar landing DV=3.140 km/sec Lunar surface-earth return orbit DV=2.890 km/sec Direct atmospheric entry to landing

Scenario 1 Analysis Trans-lunar injection r TLI = e - DV TLI gi sp = 0.3713 m TLI = m ( o r TLI -d) = 27,000(0.3713-0.1) = 7325 kg Lunar landing r=0.3674 m LS =1958 kg Earth return r=0.3978 m ER =583 kg This scenario would work for a moderate robotic sample return mission, but is inadequate for a human program.

Mission Scenario 2 Assume a single shuttle payload is used to size the lunar descent and ascent elements Shuttle payload performs landing and return Something else performs TLI for shuttle payload Assume d=0.1, Isp=320 sec Direct landing (unchanged from Scenario 1) LEO-lunar transfer orbit DV=3.107 km/sec Lunar transfer orbit-lunar landing DV=3.140 km/sec Lunar surface-earth return orbit DV=2.890 km/sec Direct atmospheric entry to landing

Scenario 2 Analysis Lunar landing (27,000 kg at lunar arrival) r=0.3674 m LS =7219 kg Earth return r=0.3978 m ER =2150 kg Trans-lunar injection r=0.3713 m LEO = m TLI r TLI -d ( ) Payload mass still too low for human spacecraft. TLI stage mass of 72,520 kg is too large for any existing launch vehicle. = 99,520 kg

Mission Scenario 3 Assume three Delta-IV Heavy missions carry identical boost stages which perform TLI and part of descent burn Space shuttle payload completes descent and performs ascent and earth return All other factors as in previous scenarios

Scenario 3 Standard Boost Stage m o =23,000 kg m i =2300 kg m p =20,700 kg LEO departure configuration is three boost stages with 27,000 kg descent/ascent stage as payload m LEO =96,000 kg

Scenario 3 TLI Performance Boost stage 1 Ê DV 1 = -gi sp ln m LEO - m prop ˆ Á = 762 m Ë m LEO sec V TLI remaining=2345 m/sec Boost stage 2 r=0.7; DV 2 =1046 m/sec V TLI remaining=1300 m/sec Boost stage 3 r=0.55; DV 3 =1300 m/sec Residual DV after TLI=376 m/sec Total booster performance=3484 m/sec

Alternate Staging Possibilities Three identical stages Serial staging (previous chart) DV=3483 m/sec Parallel staging (all three) DV=3264 m/sec Parallel/serial staging (2/1) DV=3446 m/sec ÂPure serial staging is preferred

Ascent/Descent Performance 376 m/sec of lunar descent maneuver performed by boost stage 4 Remaining descent requires 2764 m/sec r=0.4143 m i =2700 kg m LS =8485 kg Earth return r=0.3978 m i =849 kg m ER =2528 kg Return vehicle mass is still significantly below that of the Gemini spacecraft - need to examine other numbers of boost vehicles

Effect of Number of Boost Stages Earth Return Payload (kg) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 Payload 583 1068 1809 2528 3229 Number of Boost Modules

Creating a Baseline Need to modify Scenario 3 to provide more than 3000 kg of Earth return mass (Geminiclass spacecraft) Select 4 boost modules based on trade study performed Repeat calculations Establish as an early baseline: something to use as standard, vary parameters to identify promising modifications Often termed strawman design It won t last!!! Design iteration will continue

Baseline System Schematic Boost Stage 1 23,000 kg Boost Stage 2 23,000 kg Boost Stage 3 23,000 kg Boost Stage 4 23,000 kg Descent/ Landing Stage 16,160 kg Ascent Stage 7611 kg Crew Cabin 3299 kg

Initial Configuration Sketch Crew Cabin Ascent/TEI Stage Descent Stage Boost Module Boost Module Boost Module Boost Module

Akin s Laws of Spacecraft Design - #20 (von Tiesenhausen's Law of Engineering Design) If you want to have a maximum effect on the design of a new engineering system, learn to draw. Engineers always wind up designing the vehicle to look like the initial artist's concept. U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Transport Architecture Options Transportation node at intermediate point (low lunar orbit, Earth-Moon L1) Leave systems at node if not needed on the lunar surface, e.g.: TransEarth injection stage Orbital life support module Entry, descent, and landing systems Will increase payload capacities at the expense of additional operational complexity, potential for additional safety critical failures

Variation 1: Lunar Orbit Staging Assume same process as baseline, but use lunar parking orbit before/after landing Additional DV s required for LLO stops Lunar landing additional DV=+31 m/sec Lunar take-off additional DV=+53 m/sec Low lunar orbit waypoint changes baseline payload to 3118 kg (-3.5%) Not useful without taking advantage of node to limit lunar landing mass

Variation 2: Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Use specialized vehicle for descent/ascent Use four boost stages as per baseline Boost stage 4 residual propellants 10,680 kg following trans lunar insertion 1315 kg following lunar orbit insertion Use remaining stage 4 capacity to aid descent stage Leave TEI stage in lunar orbit during ascent/descent Descent DV=2334 m/sec Ascent DV=2084 m/sec TEI DV=837 m/sec

LOR System Schematic Boost Stage 1 23,000 kg Boost Stage 2 23,000 kg Boost Stage 3 23,000 kg Boost Stage 4 23,000 kg TEI Stage Descent/ Landing Stage 15,010 kg Ascent Stage 5811 kg 2066 kg Crew Cabin 4114 kg

Variation 2 Sketch TEI Stage Crew Cabin Ascent Stage Descent Stage Boost Module Boost Module Boost Module Boost Module

Variation 3: Maximal LOR Retain all features of Variation 2: Use specialized vehicle for descent/ascent Use four boost stages as per baseline Boost stage 4 residual propellants 10,680 kg following trans lunar insertion 1315 kg following lunar orbit insertion Use remaining stage 4 capacity to aid descent stage Leave TEI stage in lunar orbit during ascent/descent Also leave equipment for earth return and entry in lunar orbit Heat shield Parachutes Total assumed mass = 1000 kg

Akin s Laws of Spacecraft Design - #9 Not having all the information you need is never a satisfactory excuse for not starting the analysis. U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Variation 3 System Schematic Boost Stage 1 23,000 kg Boost Stage 2 23,000 kg Boost Stage 3 23,000 kg Boost Stage 4 23,000 kg TEI Stage Landing Equip. Descent/ Landing Stage 14,174 kg Ascent Stage 5488 kg 2453 kg 1000 kg Crew Cabin 3885 kg

Variation 3 Sketch TEI Stage Entry/Landing Equipment Crew Cabin Ascent Stage Descent Stage Boost Module Boost Module Boost Module Boost Module

Akin s Laws of Spacecraft Design - #10 When in doubt, estimate. In an emergency, guess. But be sure to go back and clean up the mess when the real numbers come along. U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design

Sensitivity to Orbital Payload Payload Mass (kg) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Payload in Lunar Orbit (kg) Landed Payload (kg) Total Payload (kg) One kg on surface = 4.4 kg in orbit Mass left in orbit increases total payload by 30%

The Next Steps From Here Perform parametric sensitivity analyses Inert mass fractions Specific impulse Investigate reduction from 4 to 3 boost stages for minimal system Trade studies, e.g. 2 crew cabins vs. 1 Cryo first stage for TLI Reach decision(s) on revision of baseline design Configuration design

Overview of the Design Process Program Objectives 1 System Requirements Vehicle-level Estimation (based on a few parameters from prior art) Basic Axiom: Relative rankings between competing systems will remain consistent from level to level Increasing complexity Increasing accuracy System-level Estimation (system parameters based on prior experience) Decreasing ability to comprehend the big picture U N I V E R S I T Y O F MARYLAND System-level Design (based on disciplineoriented analysis) Parametric Design Principles of Space Systems Design