DOCSLIB.ORG

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems SpaceOps 2010 Conference<br><b><i>Delivering on the Dream</b></i><br><i>Hosted by NASA Mars AIAA 2010-2370 25 - 30 April 2010, Huntsville, Alabama Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems Benjamin Donahue1 Lee Brady2 Mike Farkas3 Shelley LeRoy4 Neal Graham5 Boeing Phantom Works, Huntsville, AL 35824 Doug Blue6 Boeing Space Exploration, Huntington Beach, CA 92605 This paper describes Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle concepts that are based on existing propulsion systems. Both In-Line and Sidemount configurations for Crew, Crew plus cargo and Cargo only missions are illustrated. Payload data includes launches to due East LEO, ISS, Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) and the Earth-Sun L2 point. Engine options include SSME and RS-68 for the Core stage and J-2X and RL-10 engines for Upper stages. Heavy Lift would provide the large volumes and heavy masses required to enable high science return missions, while utilizing proven propulsion elements. I. Introduction Both In-line and Sidemount Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV) concepts, utilizing Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) and Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) elements, would enable exploration missions1-6 that might otherwise be impractical with current launch vehicles. Potential missions and payloads (Fig. 1) include space telescopes, fuel depots, Mars, Venus, Europa, and Titan sample return vehicles, Crewed Lunar and Near Earth Object (NEO) vehicles, power beaming platforms and others. The use of existing main propulsion systems (SSME, RS-68 engines, SRBs) would minimize the upfront cost and shorten the time to initial operational capability (IOC) of any new HLLV as compared to a similar program with new propulsion elements. The SSME and RS-68 are flight proven; their use would result in reduced development risk, compared to, for example, that for a HLLV based on a new, high thrust LO2/Hydrocarbon (HC) engine. Although HC engine/tank systems may have advantages from a packaging and density impulse prospective, the benefit might be marginal, and DDT&E costs and schedule impacts would be substantial. Transitioning existing propulsion assets to a HLLV program could lead to a first flight in 2017 and an IOC in 2018- 19. Both the In-Line and Sidemount configurations could use the 8.4 meter diameter tank tooling at the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF); 8.4 m upper stage tank sets could be fabricated there also. It will be shown that a 4 SSME, 5 segment SRB based In-line HLLV could lift 107 mt to LEO and 42 mt to TLI velocity with a 10% margin. LEO Missions Near Earth Space Crew Missions Outer Planets Cargo Delivery Telescopes Lunar Europa LEO Fuel Power Beaming Near Earth Objects Saturn / Titan Depots Platforms Figure 1. Potential HLLV Missions and Payloads 1Boeing Defense, Space & Security (BDS), Space Vehicle Solutions Group, MC JP-22, PO Box 240002 Senior Member AIAA. 2-5BDS, Space Vehicle Solutions Group, Mail Code JP-22. 3BDS, N&SS, Space Exploration Systems, GN&C Flight Mechanics, MC H013-C328. 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 092407 Copyright © 2010 by the Boeing Company. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. Copyright © 2010 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Governmental purposes. All other rights are reserved by the copyright owner. Saturn S-IV B S-IV B andAres-1 Upper Stage Common Features • Single J-2 Engine • LO2/LH2 Common Bulkhead Tanks • Helium Pressurant bottles in LH2 Tank • Avionics Ring at Top • Final Stage to Orbit Ares-1 Upper Stage Figure 2. The Saturn-IV HLLV is shown at left. Its upper stage, the Saturn S-IV B, and the Ares-1 upper stage are similar in several ways. Like the S-IV B, the Ares stage uses a single J-2 derivative engine, LO2/LH2 propellants, and a common bulkhead tank design. Other similarities include an avionics ring at the top of the stage, and high pressure Helium tanks (for LO2 tank pressurization) immersed in the LH2 tank, providing dense Helium and reduced mass. II. Configurations Figure 3 The HLLV In-Line configuration features a modified Shuttle first stage with 4 or 5 segment SRBs. Expendable SSME or RS68 In-Line LO2/LH2 main engines are mounted to the bottom of the Core via a conical thrust structure. A cylindrical Upper stage adaptor is added at the top of the Core. All Configurations SSME or RS-68 propulsion thrust loads are carried axially through the 8.4 m diameter Core tanks directly to the Upper stage. Configurations include Cargo only, and Crew + cargo variants (left); the latter is shown with a Launch Abort System (LAS) for the crew capsule and an 8.4 m diameter shroud. An identical Core and Upper stage would also serve to boost Cargo only payloads. The Cargo vehicle might utilize an 8.4 m or 10 m diameter shrouds. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 092407 Copyright © 2010 by the Boeing Company. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. rd Planetary Launcher with 3 Stage Increase C3 injection capability for Outer Planet and Sample Return Missions Launcher for Earth-Sun L2 Point or other Telescope Large Shroud Very large Eliminate Launcher without EDS for LEO platforms Add 3rd dia EDS Missions that do not require an EDS Stage shroud Planetary Stretched Stretched Core Launcher launcher Large LEO core Cargo Cargo Crew Telescope platforms tanks Orion Block launcher launcher launcher launcher launche I Crew 1 2 Stage Staging Core Alternative Alternative 10 m dia 8.4 m dia 84 m dia 84 m dia Figure 4. In-Line options, including an early IOC Core only vehicle without an upper stage are shown; including a version with 2 upper stages (planetary missions), a version with a large diam shroud (Telescopes), and a Variant with a stretched core. The In‐Line HLLV First Stage is an 8.4m . diameter system for both ISS and Lunar ISS & LEO Configurations Configurations (no Upper Stg) Capsule Lunar Configurations Lander Upper Stg Adaptor SRBs Crew First Stage Cargo Crew & Cargo Crew In‐Line Cargo First Stage Figure 5. An In-Line HLLV architecture featuring Crew, Cargo and Crew+Cargo vehicles for ISS, LEO and Lunar missions 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 092407 Copyright © 2010 by the Boeing Company. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. One In-Line HLLV ISS configuration delivers capsule to ISS without the use of SRBs ISS & LEO Configurations Launch (no Upper Stage) Configuration (no Upper Stage) ISS Rendezvous • 20 mt Capsule mass • 6 crew delivered & returned • No SRBs or Upper Stage • SM performs 2nd stage burn • Four RS-68 Core Stage Crew • Max Q <800 psf Cargo • LAS active thru RS-68 shutdown Crew & Cargo Figure 6. In-Line Crew only vehicle (Capsule to ISS or other LEO) lifts a 20mt capsule; the Service Module (SM) performs the 2nd stage burn to orbit. This concept utilizes RS-68 main engines and does not require SRBs or an upper stage. One In-Line HLLV ISS configuration delivers crew & cargo on a single launch (with SRBs) Launch Configuration ISS & LEO (no Upper Stage) Configurations (no Upper Stage) ISS Crew & Rendezvous Cargo Any ISS Apollo type LEO Servicing Element LEO Docking (20mt) Example Cargo Carrier • LIDS to CBM Docking Adapter • LEO Servicing Airlock • Cargo Carrier Crew - 3,500 lb Internal Cargo Cargo - 7,000 lb External Cargo Figure 7. In-Line Crew+cargo option lifts a capsule and cargo element. The vehicle utilizes SRBs but does not require an upper stage. A representative Cargo Carrier is shown at lower right. 4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 092407 Copyright © 2010 by the Boeing Company. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. III. Performance Analysis: HLLV Payload Capabilities Performance values presented in this section are dependant on the assumptions and ground rules given in Appendix A. Cargo and Crew+Cargo HLLV’s are analyzed for 4 mission types. All HLLVs in this section are configured with 4 SSMEs and 5 seg SRBs. 1. Due East LEO (130x130nmi 29 deg inclination orbit) (low energy) 2. ISS orbit (30x130nmi 51.6 deg, with payload or SM providing additional dV to reach final 130x130nmi) (low energy) 3. Trans-Lunar Injection (130x130 nmi 29 deg, with 2nd Upper Stage burn injecting to a C3= -0.4 km2/s2 (high energy) 4. Earth-Sun L2 injection (130x130 nmi 29 deg orbit, 2nd Upper Stage burn injecting to a C3= - 0.7 km2/s2 (high energy) Payloads are presented in Tables 1-2 (Cargo HLLV), and in Tables 3-4 (Crew+Cargo). Upper stages (US) are identical except for their engines; single J-2X and 6 engine RL-10-A-2 versions are assessed. Payloads are calculated for both optimal payload and payload with additional 10% reserve. Upper stage propellant loading varies among the missions; the max loading (345.2 klb) only occurs for the high energy TLI and E-Sun L2 missions with the J-2X option. For LEO and ISS significantly less propellant is required. These US designs are over-sized for the lower energy state (LEO, ISS). Rather than evaluating multiple Upper stages, only one design was considered. Individually optimized stages would have smaller tanks, lower inert masses than the “common stage” discussed here. US mass fractions are conservative (0.89 Col 4, Fig. 8). This single Upper Stage approach anticipates only one US procurement. More work is to be done in quantifying the technical and programmatic consequences of a common stage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160008869 2019-08-29T17:47:59+00:00Z CHAPTER 12 Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems John A. Halchak Consultant, Los Angeles, California James L. Cannon NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Corey Brown Aerojet-Rocketdyne, West Palm Beach, Florida 12.1 Introduction Earth to orbit launch vehicles are propelled by rocket engines and motors, both liquid and solid. This chapter will discuss liquid engines. The heart of a launch vehicle is its engine. The remainder of the vehicle (with the notable exceptions of the payload and guidance system) is an aero structure to support the propellant tanks which provide the fuel and oxidizer to feed the engine or engines. The basic principle behind a rocket engine is straightforward. The engine is a means to convert potential thermochemical energy of one or more propellants into exhaust jet kinetic energy. Fuel and oxidizer are burned in a combustion chamber where they create hot gases under high pressure. These hot gases are allowed to expand through a nozzle. The molecules of hot gas are first constricted by the throat of the nozzle (de-Laval nozzle) which forces them to accelerate; then as the nozzle flares outwards, they expand and further accelerate. It is the mass of the combustion gases times their velocity, reacting against the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle, which produce thrust according to Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [1] Solid rocket motors are cheaper to manufacture and offer good values for their cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstellar Probe on Space Launch System (Sls)
    INTERSTELLAR PROBE ON SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS) David Alan Smith SLS Spacecraft/Payload Integration & Evolution (SPIE) NASA-MSFC December 13, 2019 0497 SLS EVOLVABILITY FOUNDATION FOR A GENERATION OF DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION 322 ft. Up to 313ft. 365 ft. 325 ft. 365 ft. 355 ft. Universal Universal Launch Abort System Stage Adapter 5m Class Stage Adapter Orion 8.4m Fairing 8.4m Fairing Fairing Long (Up to 90’) (up to 63’) Short (Up to 63’) Interim Cryogenic Exploration Exploration Exploration Propulsion Stage Upper Stage Upper Stage Upper Stage Launch Vehicle Interstage Interstage Interstage Stage Adapter Core Stage Core Stage Core Stage Solid Solid Evolved Rocket Rocket Boosters Boosters Boosters RS-25 RS-25 Engines Engines SLS Block 1 SLS Block 1 Cargo SLS Block 1B Crew SLS Block 1B Cargo SLS Block 2 Crew SLS Block 2 Cargo > 26 t (57k lbs) > 26 t (57k lbs) 38–41 t (84k-90k lbs) 41-44 t (90k–97k lbs) > 45 t (99k lbs) > 45 t (99k lbs) Payload to TLI/Moon Launch in the late 2020s and early 2030s 0497 IS THIS ROCKET REAL? 0497 SLS BLOCK 1 CONFIGURATION Launch Abort System (LAS) Utah, Alabama, Florida Orion Stage Adapter, California, Alabama Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle RL10 Engine Lockheed Martin, 5 Segment Solid Rocket Aerojet Rocketdyne, Louisiana, KSC Florida Booster (2) Interim Cryogenic Northrop Grumman, Propulsion Stage (ICPS) Utah, KSC Boeing/United Launch Alliance, California, Alabama Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter Teledyne Brown Engineering, California, Alabama Core Stage & Avionics Boeing Louisiana, Alabama RS-25 Engine (4)
    [Show full text]
  • Delta IV Parker Solar Probe Mission Booklet
    A United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV Heavy what is the source of high-energy solar particles. MISSION rocket will deliver NASA’s Parker Solar Probe to Parker Solar Probe will make 24 elliptical orbits an interplanetary trajectory to the sun. Liftoff of the sun and use seven flybys of Venus to will occur from Space Launch Complex-37 at shrink the orbit closer to the sun during the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. NASA seven-year mission. selected ULA’s Delta IV Heavy for its unique MISSION ability to deliver the necessary energy to begin The probe will fly seven times closer to the the Parker Solar Probe’s journey to the sun. sun than any spacecraft before, a mere 3.9 million miles above the surface which is about 4 OVERVIEW The Parker percent the distance from the sun to the Earth. Solar Probe will At its closest approach, Parker Solar Probe will make repeated reach a top speed of 430,000 miles per hour journeys into the or 120 miles per second, making it the fastest sun’s corona and spacecraft in history. The incredible velocity trace the flow of is necessary so that the spacecraft does not energy to answer fall into the sun during the close approaches. fundamental Temperatures will climb to 2,500 degrees questions such Fahrenheit, but the science instruments will as why the solar remain at room temperature behind a 4.5-inch- atmosphere is thick carbon composite shield. dramatically Image courtesy of NASA hotter than the The mission was named in honor of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of the Performance Potential of A
    AN INVESTIGATION OF THE PERFORMANCE POTENTIAL OF A LIQUID OXYGEN EXPANDER CYCLE ROCKET ENGINE by DYLAN THOMAS STAPP RICHARD D. BRANAM, COMMITTEE CHAIR SEMIH M. OLCMEN AJAY K. AGRAWAL A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2016 Copyright Dylan Thomas Stapp 2016 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT This research effort sought to examine the performance potential of a dual-expander cycle liquid oxygen-hydrogen engine with a conventional bell nozzle geometry. The analysis was performed using the NASA Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) software to develop a full steady-state model of the engine concept. Validation for the theoretical engine model was completed using the same methodology to build a steady-state model of an RL10A-3- 3A single expander cycle rocket engine with corroborating data from a similar modeling project performed at the NASA Glenn Research Center. Previous research performed at NASA and the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) has identified the potential of dual-expander cycle technology to specifically improve the efficiency and capability of upper-stage liquid rocket engines. Dual-expander cycles also eliminate critical failure modes and design limitations present for single-expander cycle engines. This research seeks to identify potential LOX Expander Cycle (LEC) engine designs that exceed the performance of the current state of the art RL10B-2 engine flown on Centaur upper-stages. Results of this research found that the LEC engine concept achieved a 21.2% increase in engine thrust with a decrease in engine length and diameter of 52.0% and 15.8% respectively compared to the RL10B-2 engine.
    [Show full text]
  • Additive Manufacturing Development Methodology for Liquid Rocket Engines
    Additive Manufacturing Development Methodology for Liquid Rocket Engines Quality in the Space and Defense Industry Forum Cape Canaveral, FL March 8, 2016 Jeff Haynes Aerojet Rocketdyne Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited Presentation Outline •The additive manufacturing “opportunity” •Specific additive manufacturing process considerations •Scale up challenges •Aerojet Rocketdyne development and production approach •Considerations and gaps to be closed for production Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited Demonstrated Benefits of Additive Manufacturing Liquid Rocket Engine Attributes Additive Manufacturing Low production volumes Print parts when needed High complexity, compact designs Complexity adds no cost High value = high quality levels Bulk material like wrought not cast Additive Manufacturing • Part count reduction • No plating / no braze • No tooling • 60% lead time savings • 70% cost savings • Reduced weight 9-lbs Heritage Saturn V F1 Gas Generator Injector Printed F1 GG Injector (2009) Early Demonstrated Realization of Potential Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited Demonstrated Benefits of Additive Manufacturing Transforming heritage engines and … enabling new ones 14-inch • Complex injector assemblies diameter Reduce part count Eliminates long lead forgings Eliminates high touch labor machining RS-25 Ball Shaft (left) Eliminates hundreds of braze joints RL10 Main Injector (right) • Sheet
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology for Identifying Key Parameters Affecting Reusability for Liquid Rocket Engines
    Methodology for Identifying Key Parameters Affecting Reusability for Liquid Rocket Engines Presented by: Bruce Askins Rhonda Childress-Thompson Marshall Space Flight Center & Dr. Dale Thomas The University of Alabama in Huntsville Outline • Objective • Reusability Defined • Benefits of Reusability • Previous Research • Approach • Challenges • Available Data • Approach • Results • Next Steps • Summary Objective • To use statistical techniques to identify which parameters are tightly correlated with increasing the reusability of liquid rocket engine hardware. Reusability/Reusable Defined Ideally • “The ability to use a system for multiple missions without the need for replacement of systems or subsystems. Ideally, only replenishment of consumable commodities (propellant and gas products, for instance)occurs between missions.” (Jefferies, et al., 2015) For purposes of this research • Any space flight hardware that is not only designed to perform multiple flights, but actually accomplishes multiple flights. Benefits of Reusability • Forces inspections of returning hardware • Offers insight into how a part actually performs • Allows the development of databases for future development • Validates ground tests and analyses • Allows the expensive hardware to be used multiple times Previous Research – Identification of Features Conducive for Reuse Implementation 1. Reusability Requirement Implemented at the Conceptual Stage 2. Continuous Test Program 3. Minimize Post-Flight Inspections & Servicing to Enhance Turnaround Time 4. Easy Access 5. Longer Service Life 6. Minimize Impact of Recovery 7. Evolutionary vs. Revolutionary Changes MSFC Legacy of Propulsion Excellence (Evolutionary Changes) Saturn V J-2S 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 Challenges • Engine data difficult to locate • Limited data for reusable engines (i.e. Space Shuttle, Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) and Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) • Benefits of reusability have not been validated • Industry standards do not exist Engine Data Available Engine Time from No.
    [Show full text]
  • SLS Case Study
    CASE STUDY Supporting Space Flight History with the Space Launch System (SLS) Technetics Group is a proud sup- Boeing representatives held a sup- plier to NASA, Boeing and Aerojet plier recognition presentation for Rocketdyne, and proved instru- the Technetics team members, mental in working with these orga- citing outstanding performance nizations on the development of in providing hydraulic accumula- NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). tors and reservoirs for the Thrust The SLS is an advanced, heavy-lift Vector Control hydraulic system, BELFAB Edge-Welded launch vehicle that will send astro- located within the Core Stage of Metal Bellows nauts into deep space and open the rocket. Technetics was one up the possibility for missions to of the first suppliers on the pro- Qualiseal Mechanical neighboring planets. The program gram to have provided all Flight 1 Seals is enabling humans to travel fur- requirements and subsystem test ther into space than ever before units. and paving the way for new sci- Aerojet Rocketdyne also rec- entific discoveries and knowledge ognized Technetics and stated that was once out of reach. that Technetics “has gone above Technetics has worked closely and beyond to produce quality with program design teams for hardware and support aggressive critical applications for the Core schedules,” and that “Technetics Stage and Upper Stage on the SLS. efforts and those of Technetics NAFLEX Seals Specifically, a number of preci- employees have not gone unno- sion sealing solutions and fluid ticed.” To express their appre- management components were ciation, Aerojet Rocketdyne needed for Aerojet Rocketdyne’s representatives visited the RS-25 and RL10 engines to ensure Technetics Deland, FL facility to the integrity of the overall system.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to the Outer Solar System
    Interstellar Probe Study Webinar Series Access to the Outer Solar System Presenters • Michael Paul • Program Manager, Interstellar Probe Study, Johns Hopkins APL • Robert Stough • Payload Utilization Manager for NASA’s SLS Rocket, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 12:05 PM EDT Thursday, 9 July 2020 Interstellar Probe Study Website http://interstellarprobe.jhuapl.edu NOW: The Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium Our Habitable Astrosphere Sol G2V Main Sequence Star 24 km/s Habitable Mira BZ Camelopardalis LL Orionis IRC+10216 Zeta Ophiuchi Interstellar Probe Study 9 July 2020 2 Voyager – The Accidental Interstellar Explorers Uncovering a New Regime of Space Physics Global Topology Cosmic Ray Shielding Unexpected Field Direction Force Balance Not Understood Required Hydrogen Wall Measured (Voyager) Interstellar Probe Study 9 July 2020 3 Opportunities Across Disciplines Modest Cross-Divisional Contributions with High Return Extra-Galactic Background Light Dwarf Planets and KBOs Early galaxy and star formation Solar system formation Today Arrokoth Big Bang Pluto 13.7 Gya First Stars & Galaxies Circum-Solar Dust Disk ~13Gya Imprint of solar system evolution Sol 4.6 Ga HL-Tau 1 Ma! Poppe+2019 Interstellar Probe Study 9 July 2020 4 Earth-Jupiter-Saturn Sequences • Point Solutions indicated per year (capped at C3 = 312.15km2/s2) C3 Speed Dest. 2037 2 2 Year Date (km /s ) CA_J (rJ) CA_S (rS) (AU/yr) (Lon, Lat) 2036 17 Sept 182.66 1.05 2.0 5.954 (247,0) 2038 2037 15 Oct 312.15 1.05 2.0 7.985 (230,0) 2038 14 Nov 312.15 1.05 2.0 7.563 (241,0.1) 2036 2039 2039 15 Nov 274.65 1.05 2.0 5.055 (256,0.3) Interstellar Probe Study 9 July 2020 5 SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM INTERSTELLAR PROBE Robert Stough SLS Spacecraft/Payload Integration & Evolution (SPIE) July 9, 2020 0760 SLS EVOLVABILITY FOUNDATION FOR A GENERATION OF DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION 322 ft.
    [Show full text]
  • Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems
    CHAPTER 12 Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems John A. Halchak Consultant, Los Angeles, California James L. Cannon NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Corey Brown Aerojet-Rocketdyne, West Palm Beach, Florida 12.1 Introduction Earth to orbit launch vehicles are propelled by rocket engines and motors, both liquid and solid. This chapter will discuss liquid engines. The heart of a launch vehicle is its engine. The remainder of the vehicle (with the notable exceptions of the payload and guidance system) is an aero structure to support the propellant tanks which provide the fuel and oxidizer to feed the engine or engines. The basic principle behind a rocket engine is straightforward. The engine is a means to convert potential thermochemical energy of one or more propellants into exhaust jet kinetic energy. Fuel and oxidizer are burned in a combustion chamber where they create hot gases under high pressure. These hot gases are allowed to expand through a nozzle. The molecules of hot gas are first constricted by the throat of the nozzle (de-Laval nozzle) which forces them to accelerate; then as the nozzle flares outwards, they expand and further accelerate. It is the mass of the combustion gases times their velocity, reacting against the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle, which produce thrust according to Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [1] Solid rocket motors are cheaper to manufacture and offer good values for their cost. Liquid propellant engines offer higher performance, that is, they deliver greater thrust per unit weight of propellant burned.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition Story 54 Introduction 2 Who We Were 4 194Os 8 195Os 12
    table of contents Introduction 2 Who We Were 4 194Os 8 195Os 12 196Os 18 197Os 26 198Os 30 199Os 34 2OOOs 38 2O1Os 42 Historical Timeline 46 Acquisition Story 54 Who We Are Now 58 Where We Are Going 64 Vision For The Future 68 1 For nearly a century, innovation and reliability have been the hallmarks of two giant U.S. aerospace icons – Aerojet and Rocketdyne. The companies’ propulsion systems have helped to strengthen national defense, launch astronauts into space, and propel unmanned spacecraft to explore the universe. ➢ Aerojet’s diverse rocket propulsion systems have powered military vehicles for decades – from rocket-assisted takeoff for propeller airplanes during World War II – through today’s powerful intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The systems helped land men on the moon, and maneuvered spacecraft beyond our solar system. ➢ For years, Rocketdyne engines have played a major role in national defense, beginning with powering the United States’ first ICBM to sending modern military communication satellites into orbit. Rocketdyne’s technology also helped launch manned moon missions, propelled space shuttles, and provided the main power system for the International Space Station (ISS). ➢ In 2013, these two rocket propulsion manufacturers became Aerojet Rocketydne, blending expertise and vision to increase efficiency, lower costs, and better compete in the market. Now, as an industry titan, Aerojet Rocketdyne’s talented, passionate employees collaborate to create even greater innovations that protect America and launch its celestial future. 2011 A Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptor is being developed as part of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s sea-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.
    [Show full text]
  • EELV Phase 2 – an Old Configuration Option with New Relevance To
    Phase 2 EELV – An Old Configuration Option with New Relevance to Future Heavy Lift Cargo Jonathan Barr and Bernard Kutter United Launch Alliance (ULA) 9100 E. Mineral Avenue Centennial, CO 80112 Abstract In 2004, the Atlas program of Lockheed Martin created a vision for performance evolution of the Atlas V family focused on NASA growth missions, with performance options ranging up to 140t. The 5m diameter, 70t class Phase 2 Atlas Heavy, assuming dual RD-180s, was a key vehicle in this evolution. With Constellation, this configuration was put on the back burner, but there is now renewed interest with Augustine Commission identifying this vehicle on its short list of candidate Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles (HLLVs). With a dearth of publicly available data on this vehicle concept, this paper summarizes this configuration and its merits. The creation of United Launch Alliance has created important synergies with the availability of 5m tank hardware and production facilities from Delta IV, allowing ULA to incorporate the best of Atlas and Delta. The Phase 2 design leverages existing assets, including the Delta IV factory and the Atlas V launch pad, makes this a true EELV evolution. Newer upper stages alternatives now conceptually exist that might leverage NASA developments from the Constellation program to further enhance the Phase II EELV concept. I. Introduction In the late 1990s, Boeing was developing the Delta IV and Lockheed Martin the Atlas V as competitors for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program. In the midst of that activity, the focus was on getting the Delta IV and Atlas V fleets developed and flying.
    [Show full text]
  • Aerojet Rocketdyne Delivers RL10 Engines That Will Help Send NASA Astronauts to Deep Space
    Aerojet Rocketdyne Delivers RL10 Engines That Will Help Send NASA Astronauts to Deep Space February 3, 2020 WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., Feb. 03, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne recently delivered four RL10 upper stage engines to NASA’s Stennis Space Center that will help power NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket as it carries astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft to deep space. These missions are part of NASA’s Artemis program, which will land the first woman and next man on the Moon, and set the stage to send astronauts to Mars. Four Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 rocket engines – shown here at the company’s facility in West Palm Beach, Florida – were recently delivered to NASA. The engines will be used to help power the upper stage of the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. “Nearly 500 Aerojet Rocketdyne RL10 engines have powered launches into space,” said Eileen Drake, Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and president. “Aerojet Rocketdyne continues to upgrade and improve this highly-reliable, flight-proven engine. The RL10’s we just delivered to NASA will power the SLS upper stage on missions that safely launch our astronauts to explore deep space destinations.” A single RL10 engine will provide nearly 25,000 pounds of thrust and serve as the main propulsion for the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) that will fly atop the SLS rocket Block 1 in support of each of the first three Artemis missions. Later Artemis missions will use the evolved SLS Block 1B rocket configuration that includes the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) powered by four RL10 engines to send Orion and large cargos to the Moon.
    [Show full text]