The Space Shuttle Booster

1971 (8th) Vol. 1 Technology Today And The Space Congress® Proceedings Tomorrow

Apr 1st, 8:00 AM

Robert A. Lynch Space Shuttle Preliminary Design, General Dynamics, Convair Aerospace, San Diego, California

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings

Scholarly Commons Citation Lynch, Robert A., "The Space Shuttle Booster" (1971). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 1. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1971-8th/session-1/1

This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SPACE SHUTTLE BOOSTER

Robert A. Lynch Space Shuttle Preliminary Design General Dynamics, Convair Aerospace San Diego, California

"delta" wing approach. Sub- ABSTRACT selecting the so called variants including high and low wing locations as well as discussed (Figure 1). An analysis and status report of Space Shuttle booster canard influences will be configuration design features is presented. In comparing of the Shuttle program, the stowed, fixed straight, and "delta" wing basic configura During the early phases (Figure 2) showed great promise. tions; the "delta" wing approach with a canard has been stowed wing concept the hypersonic and super selected. Wing planform shape and cross-section is This approach "decoupled" the low subsonic cruise and landing strongly influenced by air breathing engine installation sonic function from could be a lifting body during high requirements rather than purely aerodynamic perform function. The vehicle could be extended at subsonic ance optimization. speed flight and the wings speeds where aerodynamic heating was not a factor. This approach when applied to the booster encountered technical problems.

INTRODUCTION in particular the pivot, re The Space Shuttle reusable launch system is reaching a The stowed wing structure, Ib gross weight booster would be high level of preliminary design definition. This dis quired for a 600, 000 2). Pivot structure depths of cussion will trace some of the major booster design formidable in size (Figure diameters of two feet could be anti tradeoff studies and will present a configuration status six feet and pivot pin the low temperature environment report. The emphasis here is on configuration design cipated. Even though low weights, the uncertainty associ aspects rather than performance oriented tradeoffs. The of the wing promised thought to preclude this approach. first section discusses the basic configuration including ated with size was comparisons of stowed, fixed straight, and "delta" wing the air breathing cruise- approaches. The next part presents a current example For the stowed wing approach located forward on the body. The en configuration. The third part discusses in some detail, back engines were in the body for launch and entry and selected specific design features including air breathing gines were stowed cruise. The forward body location engines, stage mating, wings and fins, etc. The trade extended for subsonic for the inherent aft center of studies of these features are still active in many cases. was selected to compensate the booster. Two potential problems Finally, a discussion of evaluation factors and their gravity tendency of this arrangement. First, the jet relationship to configuration design is presented. developed relative to wake of the engines passing over the body introduced the possibility of "pumping down" the body base area by effect (Figure 2); thereby, aggra BASIC CONFIGURATION means of an aspirating vating what was already a significant base drag contribu early subsonic wind tunnel testing indi One of the most significant factors in establishing the tion. Second, forward engine nacelle protrusions were basic configuration of the Space Shuttle booster has been cated that the large destabilizing moment even the selection of lifting surface arrangements: wings and creating an unexpectedly were semi-buried in the body. Alter tails. The cylindrical body shape having a length to when the engines locations which avoid these problems are diameter ratio of approximately 7 has been dictated by native engine on a stowed wing vehicle. its propellant containment function (Ref. 1). Most not readily attainable booster candidates have adopted this cylindrical body aft center of gravity tendency of the booster geometry. Three major wing variations: stowed, Finally, the wings to be located well aft on the body (Fig straight, and delta have been considered (Figure 1). The caused the Since the most attractive wing stowage scheme following discussion will briefly evaluate each of these ure 2). an aft rotation stowage position, wing span was wing alternatives and will identify the major reasons for required

1-11 a canard surface forward. limited by stowage space. This span limitation was a may have major factor in determining subsonic L/D and cruise The "delta" wing approach has certain inherent advan performance. tages and disadvantages as shown in Figure 4. As the cen ter of gravity of the straight wing concept became better The stowed wing approach had looked attractive in the defined, the wing tended to move aft and merge with the Triamese three-element concept (Ref. 2) and also for the horizontal tail. The delta wing essentially accepts this orbital element of two-stage systems; but, the developing trend blending the wing with the horizontal tail and in so of specific booster requirements and data severely de doing eliminates horizontal tail heating influences. The creased its attractiveness for that application. delta wing is generally compatible with the inherent aft center of gravity of the booster. However, the vertical tail arm (distance from center of gravity to centroid of vertical fin) is short, necessitating a large fin to prov was based on The straight wing booster concept (Figure 3) ide subsonic directional stability (hypersonic stability is flown at the worthy objectives of: (1) When a booster is provided by nose mounted reaction control motors). high angles of attack during entry (up to 60°) the wing planform acts as a protrusion from the body rather than a is highly swept thereby wing. The flow separates from the leading and trailing The leading edge of the delta wing minimizing launch edges and the aerodynamic heating is tolerable. (2) This lowering leading edge temperatures, attack transonic flight same straight, thick wing in normal low angle of attack drag, and permitting low angle of without severe buffet. subsonic flight is the most efficient device for providing using a structurally thick wing booster cruiseback and landing. Performance in these a delta wing is low (~ 90 lb/ft2 two different speed regimes indicates potential for a The entry wing loading of area) and the entry parameter simple, lightweight approach. However, as more detailed based on theoretical with a straight wing booster. investigations were made, it became apparent that the CL.S/W is high compared permits high angles of attack in com maneuver necessary to transition from hypersonic flight This characteristic to control down-range distance dur to subsonic flight was going to be the controlling factor. bination with banking exceeding limit temperatures. Two basic approaches were available (Figure 3). First, a ing entry without transition from high angle of attack to low angle of attack large area and volume of the delta could be made at supersonic velocity (supersonic transi The relatively air breathing engine installation (to be tion). Second, the high angle of attack could be held wing facilitates below) and landing gear installation. through the transonic regime with a pitch down at sub discussed further area presents a weight risk potential. sonic velocity (subsonic transition). Supersonic transi Of course this large of the delta helps keep the unit tion was discarded because of the control and buffet prob The low aspect ratio thickness must be limited (~ 10% maxi lems which might occur with a straight blunt wing at weight low and control minimum gage rib and spar normal angles at transonic velocity. The subsonic tran mum thickness) to low unit weight of a delta sition was favored beacuse the wing flow remained sep web penalties. The inherent of sonic fatigue from rocket and arated through the critical transonic region. However, wing also makes control more difficult than for surfaces the subsonic transition maneuver, or pitch down, itself air breathing engines to accommodate higher air loads. presented a problem. The maneuver would begin with having heavier structure the vehicle in a deep stall (angle of attack «60° , flight beneath the body at some angle of in path «60° downward). Assuming that there was enough A delta wing located create base area above its trail control power to rapidly pitch the vehicle down to a low cidence (~ 2°) tends to area. To minimize this trend the angle of attack (a problem in itself), the vehicle would ing edge in the body the body even to the extent of then begin to accelerate in a dive and the wing would be wing must be nested with locally in the body area. restricted to a pull-out lift limited by thick wing buffet reducing wing spar depth margins at high subsonic velocity. Using a straight wing with a delta wing (Figure 5) pre sized for landing speed (~ 2000 ft2 ), the vehicle could A canard in combination First, the pitch con not pull out to level flight at a high enough altitude to per sents a promising configuration. canard presents additional flex mit safe air breathing engine start. In order to provide trol arm provided by the and location. Higher a safe pull-out altitude, the wing area must be increased ibility in terms of wing planform considered without concern (~28%) and the straight wing concept begins to lose some aspect ratio wings can be control with limited arm trail of its potential weight advantage. over accomplishing pitch ing edge surfaces. Similarly, the trailing edge surfaces with a canard are smaller The third major alternative is to select a "delta" wing needed on a wing operating edge surfaces need only be for the booster. Actually the "delta" wing concept in and lighter. These trailing cludes a wide variety of wing shapes other than classical sized for roll control. delta; however, all of the approaches are tail-less and

1-12 wing geometry and particularly thickness. A delta/canard arrangement provides a maximum of aero mining outboard near the tips could result in dynamic flexibility in terms of wing location, hypersonic Excessive wing thickness and control problems. and subsonic stability and trim, etc. In general, a situ transonic stability ation where there is a lifting surface forward and aft of gear on a high wing booster must be stowed the center of gravity provides configuration flexibility. The landing in extra body side pods (instead of wing root fairings such the low wing). The gear tread is limited by body As was mentioned above, the wing area is established by as for the landing gear turn-over angle for cross winds landing speed (current target is 180 knots maximum at width and sea level standard conditions). The canard is used to could become critical. trim the booster to landing attitude with the elevens posi tioned slightly down (similar to normal landing flaps) to maximize wing lift and minimize required wing area. EXAMPLE CONFIGURATION of the current On the negative side, a canard has always been a contro Figure 7 shows an example configuration orb Her is versial device in terms of normal commercial and mili Space Shuttle booster. A typical delta wing the booster is tary aircraft. Design attention is required to avoid un also indicated. The cylindrical body of diameter provides desirable destabilizing influences and wake interaction approximately 36 ft in diameter. This ratio and stage attach with aft portions of the vehicle. Canard lift relative to an acceptable length/diameter also compatible with avail wing lift must be carefully controlled in various flight arrangement. The diameter is nose is relatively blunt modes, particularly landing. All of these factors have able tooling and facilities. The while permitting a cyl been successfully designed into operational aircraft to maintain volumetric efficiency The canard is (B-70, Swedish VIGGEN, etc. ). The booster has one indrical LOX tank (cost consideration). slightly above the additional problem. The canard is subject to severe located between the propellant tanks, in all positions. aerodynamic heating and the wake from the canard causes centerline to facilitate fairing to the body to the body at a 2° additional body heating. The canard used on the booster The low mounted delta wing is nested are individually is relatively thick (~ 14%) compared to normal super incidence. The 12 air breathing engines within the wing. The sonic canards to minimize leading edge heating. extended from stowed positions main landing gear retracts forward into the body wing engine inlet flow Having selected a delta wing/canard arrangement, the fairing in a fashion which minimizes next question might be low wing/high canard vs. high interference. wing/low canard. Figure 6 indicates some of the poten tial advantages of each of these arrangements. Both approaches are feasible and the differences are slight DESIGN FEATURES except for one major area of consideration. When the reviews specific booster design high wing arrangement is operated at high angles of The following discussion breathing engines and wing geom attack during entry, the body lower surface generates a features including: air relative to these de "bow" shock which impinges the outboard wing lower etry. In most cases trade studies some surface, increasing heating significantly. The side of the sign features are still in process; however, body beneath the wing is also hotter than the body above a trends are becoming evident. high wing. Aerodynamic heating could be a significant factor in the final evaluation of the high wing. There are other major design features under considera discussed here but could The aft portion of the body beneath a high wing can be tion which are not specifically aft versus LOX tank used to provide some hypersonic aerodynamic directional be major booster drivers: LOX tank surfaces. stability to reduce reaction control motor and propellant forward, booster/orbiter mating, stabilizing requirements. Aft end treatment ("boat-tailing ") on the A major design feature of the body in conjunction with the high wing might be used to Air Breathing Engines. engine installation. These reduce subsonic base drag. booster is the air breathing engines basically provide thrust for cruise back (~ 400 approach and "go-around". They The air breathing engines extended below a high wing are n. mi. ) and landing for takeoff and ferry; however, somewhat less susceptible to foreign object ingestion. also can provide thrust as a ferry "kit" may be necessary. However, inlet interference from the low mounted canard augmentation provided deals mainly with the basic wake could be a major consideration. The high wing also The following discussion than ferry. necessitates stowing all engines in the outboard wing sec cruise back function rather tions (the low wing can have engines stowed within the questions regarding the air breathing engine wing beneath the body). For the high wing, this engine The basic (1) What propellant will be used (LH2 or stowage requirement becomes a dominant factor in deter system are:

1-13 altitude (one engine inoperative) and JP)? (2) Which available engine design will be used? cruise above 7400 ft landing approach go-around (3) How many engines are required? (4) How will they will also provide a missed (all 12 engines operating). be installed? climb out at 4% climb gradient large jet engines is a Studies have been conducted periodically comparing li The installation of 12 relatively faced by any other aircraft. quid hydrogen and JP as air breathing fuels. These problem which has not been by requirements to studies have been relatively inconclusive. There are no The problem is further complicated launch and entry while still outstanding benefits for either approach. Figure 8 shows protect the engine during a comparison resulting from a recent study. It shows providing good subsonic performance. that the booster dry weight is reduced for LH2 even decisions which must be though the total size (volume) of the vehicle remains the There are two basic installation engines be located on the body same as a JP fueled version. The dry weight reduction made. First, should the the engines be stowed and results mainly from the reduction in the number of rocket or the wing. Second, should should they be protected in a and air breathing engines. The LH2 approach also extended for operation, or perimeter to locate affords better growth potential in the event that bopster fixed location. There is insufficient Lack of body volume cruise back range must be increased as a result of boost the 12 engines around the body. in this location. Also, pre trajectory and staging point changes. The JP approach, precludes a stowed concept that body base drag may be on the other hand, provides low development risk and liminary tests have indicated The wing location seems eases operational problems, including ferry flight. JP increased by jet wake pumping. stowed approach can be also has the important potential advantage that in-flight to be ideal since both a fixed and on the lower surface refueling can be readily accomplished within the current considered. A fixed pod approach wing heating. An inlet state of the art. Cost differences between the approaches of the wing adversely affects could degrade engine have been difficult to establish. The reduced weight (and cover scheme is required which configuration when cost) of the LH2 fueled vehicle is just about offset by the performance due to non-optimum appreciable launch drag. additional development cost of the LH2 system including open. The fixed pods introduced Several alter engine conversion. A stowed engine approach is indicated. native stowed engine approaches are shown in Figure 9. rotation deployment is From a configuration point of view, the JP approach The rather unique 180° forward requires mini provides more flexibility than the LH2 approach. The favored for many reasons. This approach smallest deployment relatively large LH2 volume must be provided in the body mum wing space and requires the and the inlet and ex (Figure 8) while the increased density of the JP allows it doors. The deployed pods are light velocity subsonic to be located in body fairings, wings, etc. The JP can be haust configuration is ideal for low more readily utilized to control vehicle center of gravity flight. in the various flight modes. Wing volume (span and chord) necessary to stow the air major influence on wing For economic reasons, the booster must utilize cur breathing engines can have a ratio (small area, rently planned air breathing engines. The choices in shape determination. Higher aspect greater weight penalties clude the low bypass fan engines in the less than 20, 000 short chord) wings tend to suffer ratio wings Ib SLS thrust class (P&W JTF 22A-4 and GE F101/F12A3) for engine stowage than do lower aspect influence the and the high bypass engines in the 40, 000 Ib SLS thrust (Figure 11). This factor might strongly aerodynamic per class (GE CF6-50C). selection of a wing away from purely formance considerations. The fuel economy of the large high bypass engines is arrangements: fixed initially attractive; however, the higher engine weight Wing. The basic types of wing been discussed above. tends to reduce this advantage. Installation of six of straight, stowed, and delta have approach, the next ques these large diameter engines (~ 10ft installed diameter) in Having selected a delta/canard acceptable wing an acceptable fashion (see installation discussion below) tions might be: What is the smallest of this wing? Reference is extremely difficult. Installation penalties would pro area? What should be the shape with the performance bably negate any performance advantage. 3 presents a trade study dealing factors influencing this decision. Figure 10 summarizes 3. Figure 10A presents The two candidate low bypass engines are essentially the data presented in Reference wing theoretical aspect comparable. The F101 engine provides lower fuel con the relative entry weight vs. engine and exposed sumption but installation weight penalties due to larger ratio for both a stowed air breathing occurs at an size offset this advantage. Either of these engines can engine version. Minimum entry weight arrangements. be used on the booster. aspect ratio of ~4. 0 for both engine Figure 10B presents landing weight (approximately empty a minimum near an A twelve low by-pass engine installation will provide weight) vs. aspect ratio indicating

1-14 is illustrated aspect ratio of 3.5 for a stowed engine version. The growth on a booster configuration decision weight landing weight is probably the parameter of most signifi in Figure 12. This figure shows the booster for two- cance because it tends to be an indicator of system cost penalty as a function of center of gravity location (JP4 fuel costs are not very significant). If however, at wing arrangements. It shows that the straight wing ve aspect ratio of 3.5 it was found that some or all of the hicle is much more sensitive to aft eg movement. The of air breathing engines could not be stowed in the wing, delta/canard has a lower weight growth risk in terms launch drag would cause the landing weight to spiral up to aft eg. The delta/canard has greater growth potential in the upper curve. Under these circumstances, a lower that higher thrust rocket engines (higher weight) can be weight could be obtained at a lower aspect ratio which accommodated with less booster weight growth. would permit stowage of the air breathing engines. Fig ure 11 shows three comparable vehicle arrangements; two low wing and one high wing. For the low aspect ratio CONCLUSIONS vehicle the 12 required low bypass ratio engines are shown stowed within the wing center section and outboard 1. Some Space Shuttle booster basic configuration de sections. The maximum airfoil thickness just outboard cisions have been made. The "delta" wing approach of the outboard engine is 10%. The higher aspect ratio has been selected in preference to straight and low wing has a reduced wing area to provide comparable stowed wings. (Ref. 3). In this case, engines are landing performance 2. The use of a canard and the planform shape of the wing and the maximum airfoil thickness stowed within the wing are less firmly established. at the outboard section is 15%. However, due to the ex tensive cut-outs relative to the total wing structure, the 3. Many booster configuration trade areas have been weight of the higher aspect ratio wing is probably higher investigated but firm conclusions have not been than that used in Reference 3 and the minimum point shown reached. of Figure 10B will shift to the left. In in the lower curve a. High wing vs. low wing outboard sections of the order to stow the engines in the b. LOX tank forward or aft wing area might have high wing shown in Figure 11, the c. Booster/orbiter mating arrangement minimum. to be increased above the theoretical d. JP vs. LH2 flyback fuel will This discussion is intended to indicate that wing shape 4. The major criteria for configuration decisions can be strongly influenced by design and arrangement be technical risk and growth potential. factors as well as purely performance factors.

EVALUATION & SELECTION REFERENCES

There are three major criteria areas that will be used to 1. Lynch, R. A.; Space Shuttle Booster Configuration evaluate the Space Shuttle booster: Features; paper to 7th Space Congress; Cocoa Beach, Fla.; April 22, 1970. 1. Effectiveness 2. Technical Risk 2. Lynch, R. A.; The Launch Cost Bottleneck; paper 3. Growth and Flexibility to 6th Space Congress; Cocoa Beach, Fla.; March 17, 1969. well the vehicle does Effectiveness is a measure of how 3. Struck. H. G. and Butsko, J. E.; Booster Wing data that its job. This is perhaps the major quantitative Geometry Trade Studies; paper to Space Shuttle (payload and orbit) the is available. With a fixed mission Technology Conference; Langley, Va.; March 2, to develop and operate the boost variable will be the cost 1971. er.

Technical risk is the least quantitative measure and per haps the most important. We have never built a reusable booster before. Areas of risk are difficult to identify and quantify. Risk could be a "go" "no go" factor.

Growth and flexibility is the "safety valve". Risks can be reduced if unforeseen problems can be quickly over come by design flexibility. Dwindling effectiveness can be compensated for by growth.

One specific example of the influence of both risk and

1-15

WING

HIGH HIGH WING

LOW LOW

CANDIDATES

CANARD

WITH WITH

CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION

1. 1.

FIGURE FIGURE

WING

' '

WING, WING,

WING

STRAIGHT STRAIGHT

DELTA DELTA

STOWED STOWED FIXED FIXED

BASE BASE

PRESSURE

NEGATIVE NEGATIVE

WINGS

STOWED STOWED

2. 2.

FIGURE FIGURE

RATIO

STRUCTURE

PUMPING

ASPECT ASPECT

WING WING

BASE BASE PIVOT PIVOT

VELOCITY

AT AT

SUPERSONIC SUPERSONIC

TRANSITION

PITCH-OVER PITCH-OVER SUPERSONIC SUPERSONIC

60°

= =

SUPERSONIC

y y a a

WING WING

TRANSITION

BUFFET

FT)

WING WING

(1000 (1000

ALTITUDE ALTITUDE

--10

.STRAIGHT .STRAIGHT

3. 3.

WITH WITH

FIGURE FIGURE

SIZED SIZED

LANDING

FOR FOR

PULL-OUT PULL-OUT

WING WING

SUBSONIC

SUBSONIC SUBSONIC

TRANSITION

WITH WITH

AREA AREA

PITCH-OVER

INITIATE INITIATE

28%WING 28%WING

PULL-OUT PULL-OUT

INCREASE 00

TRAVEL

DOWN-RANGE DOWN-RANGE

WING

WEIGHT

FLEXIBILITY

REDUCED REDUCED

TOLERANCE

DELTA DELTA

DRAG

PROVIDES PROVIDES

4. 4.

WEIGHT

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

DRAG DRAG

LOADING LOADING

GRAVITY GRAVITY

TRANSITION TRANSITION

SWEEP SWEEP

AREA, AREA,

FIGURE FIGURE

OF OF

SUBSONIC SUBSONIC

HEATING HEATING

AREA, AREA,

FIN FIN

LAUNCH LAUNCH

EDGE EDGE

WING WING

AREA, AREA,

PROBLEMS:

PLANFORM PLANFORM

CENTER CENTER

LOW LOW

REDUCE REDUCE

TRANSONIC TRANSONIC

LARGE LARGE

LOW LOW LEADING LEADING

BASE BASE

VERTICAL VERTICAL

AFT AFT

2. 2.

2. 2. 3. 3.

1. 1.

3. 3.

1. 1.

ADVANTAGES: POTENTIAL POTENTIAL ADVANTAGES ON) 1. CENTER OF GRAVITY TOLERANCE 2. MINIMUM SUBSONICCRUISE TRIM DRAG

- 3. MINIMUM WING AREA FOR LANDING(ELEVON "DROOP") 4. WING PLANFORM FLEXIBILITY (ASPECT RATIO) 5. GOODCANARD PITCH CONTROLEFFECTIVENESS

POTENTIAL PROBLEMS 1. CANARDINTERFERENCE BODY HEATING

WAKE EFFECTS ON WING & FIN

FIGURES. DELTA WING/CANARD

WING

HIGH HIGH

WING

LOW LOW

HIGH HIGH

vs. vs.

LOW LOW

6. 6.

FIGURE FIGURE

STAB1L. STAB1L.

LIFT LIFT

LENGTH LENGTH

TREAD TREAD

STOWAGE STOWAGE

INTERFER. INTERFER.

HEATING HEATING

MATING

GEAR GEAR

AREA AREA PIT" PIT"

DIRECTIONAL DIRECTIONAL

HYPERSONIC HYPERSONIC

INLET INLET

ENGINE ENGINE

DING DING

LAN LAN

LANDING LANDING

ORBITER ORBITER

ENG ENG

BASE BASE

HYP. HYP.

A-B A-B

"ARM "ARM WING WING

SL SL

1,500

144K

504

5,047

628K

3.377M

K K

4.188M

ENGINES ENGINES

= =

= = = =

= =

35)

.= .=

550 550

= =

(JP) (JP)

MAIN MAIN

(12) (12)

FT)

TAIL TAIL

CANARD CANARD

WING WING

PROPELLANT PROPELLANT

(LB)

22A-4

PROPELLANT PROPELLANT

(SO (SO

JTF JTF

VERTICAL VERTICAL

LANDING LANDING

EXPOSED EXPOSED

AREAS AREAS

EXPOSED EXPOSED

CRUISE CRUISE

(12) (12)

BOOSTER-LIFTOFF BOOSTER-LIFTOFF

ASCENT ASCENT

WEIGHT WEIGHT

FT-

102 102

143.5 143.5

ARRANGEMENT

BOOSTER BOOSTER

EXAMPLE EXAMPLE

7. 7.

FIGURE FIGURE

ORBITER

WING WING DELTA DELTA

^5«.&

^n!o^

<*55jr--4'— <*55jr--4'—

•

......

' '

-2

-99K -13

-49K

SAME

-1

465K

-49K

+0.012

-7K

"-148K "-148K

m m

^ ^

/ff. /ff.

c c

— —

i i

' '

— —

^ ^

» »

_ _

- -

, ,

10,832

624 11

1.320

579

4.582

262

797

.398" .398"

COMPARISON

^^ ^^

>Cij >Cij

;

CONFIGURATION CONFIGURATION

2 2

144

411 411

& &

772

10,832 12

1.308 1.308

628

846

5.047

269

fr?£x£f

JP JP

•<=poob=*i

8. 8.

FIGURE FIGURE

LB.)

-/Zf

(1,000 (1,000

FT.)

(1,000 (1,000

•-— •-—

(1,000 (1,000

WT. WT.

(N.MI.)

WT. WT. CD. CD.

WT. WT.

ENGINES

DRY DRY

ENGINES

. .

(1,000 (1,000

FUEL FUEL

RANGE RANGE

LB.)

LANDING LANDING

FB FB

ENTRY ENTRY

(FPS)

!7^T !7^T

(M (M

SYSTEM SYSTEM

VOL. VOL.

ROCKET ROCKET

BOOSTER BOOSTER

BOOSTER BOOSTER BOOSTER BOOSTER AIRBREATHING AIRBREATHING

FA/ FA/

MAIN MAIN

V/STAGE V/STAGE

GLOW GLOW

TOTAL TOTAL

TOTAL TOTAL \Jv[ \Jv[ POSITION

SOURCE

POSITION

POWER

STOWED

DEPLOYED

DEPLOYMENT

ACTUATION

LOADS)

VERTICAL

LATERAL

ALTERNATES

DnciTiriM POSITION

9D.

9C.

SYNCRONIZATION

POSITION

A/Fn

FIREWALLBHDS

(VERTICAL

™

FIGURE

c STOWED

FIGURE

INSTALLATION

DEPLOYED

MECHANISM

SCREWJACKS

ENGINE

MECHANISM

STOWED

BREATHING

HINGE

AIR

POWER

ROTATION

DEPLOYMENT

DOORS

STOWED

ACTUATOR

FWD

POSITION

TRAPEZE

180°

CLOSURE

FIGURE

POSITION

9B.

9A.

DEPLOYMENT

STOWED

DEPLOYED

FIGURE

DEPLOYED

NACELLE

10B

RATIO RATIO

FIGURE FIGURE

ASPECT ASPECT

234

540

520

600

580

MISSION MISSION

LB.)

DEFINITION

DRAG

SENSITIVITIES

TOTAL TOTAL

LANDING LANDING

(1,000 (1,000

WEIGHT WEIGHT

WING WING

INCLUDING INCLUDING

FOR FOR

J J

LAUNCH LAUNCH

10. 10.

FIGURE FIGURE

PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE

NACELLE NACELLE

ADJUSTED, ADJUSTED,

ADJUSTED ADJUSTED

RATIO RATIO

FIGURE10A

ASPECT ASPECT

680

660

700

720

740

LB.)

ENTRY ENTRY

(1,000 (1,000 WEIGHT WEIGHT

17%

4.0

4300

HIGH HIGH WING

6ENGS

WING

IN IN

INSTALLATION INSTALLATION

15%

4.0

4300

ENGINE ENGINE

11. 11.

WING

FIGURE FIGURE

4ENGS

LOW LOW

10%

2.3

5047

(FT2)

OUTBOARD OUTBOARD

ENGINE

THICKNESS THICKNESS

AT AT EXPOSED EXPOSED RATIO

AREA AREA

WING WING ASPECT ASPECT

DRAG DRAG

TRIM TRIM

AREA

FLYBACK FLYBACK

VERTICAL VERTICAL

* *

WING

AFT AFT

70 70

DRAG DRAG

Sw)

LENGTH)

AREA

TRIM TRIM

SPEED SPEED

69 69

ARRANGEMENT

BODY BODY

.(% .(%

WING WING

(INCREASED (INCREASED

LANDING LANDING

FLYBACK FLYBACK

68 68

12. 12.

•^•VERTICAL •^•VERTICAL

WING

/* /*

LOCATION LOCATION

FIGURE FIGURE

CG CG

67 67

FORWARD FORWARD

2,000

4,000 6.000

8,000

PENALTY PENALTY

BOOSTER BOOSTER

(LB.) WEIGHT WEIGHT

DRA6

TR|M TR|M

AREA

FLYBACK FLYBACK

VERTICAL VERTICAL

WING

.-" .-"

AFT AFT

DRAG DRAG

LENGTH)

Sw)

AREA

SPEED SPEED

ARRANGEMENT

BODY BODY

.(% .(%

WING WING

(INCREASED (INCREASED

LANDING LANDING

FLYBACK FLYBACK TRIM

VERTICAL VERTICAL

13. 13.

WING

X* X*

LOCATION LOCATION

/ /

FIGURE FIGURE

CG CG

FORWARD FORWARD

2,000

6,000

4,000

8,000

PENALTY PENALTY

BOOSTER BOOSTER

(LB.)

WEIGHT WEIGHT 00