DOCSLIB.ORG

Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140002716 2019-08-29T14:36:45+00:00Z Liquid Propulsion Systems – Evolution & Advancements Launch Vehicle Propulsion & Systems LPTC Liquid Propulsion Technical Committee Rick Ballard Liquid Engine Systems Lead SLS Liquid Engines Office NASA / MSFC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, unless for course participation and to a paid course student, in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of AIAA and/or course instructor. Contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Professional Development Program, Suite 500, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4344 Modules 1. Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2. LRE Applications 3. Liquid Propellants 4. Engine Power Cycles 5. Engine Components Module 1: Rocket Propulsion TOPICS Fundamentals • Thrust • Specific Impulse • Mixture Ratio • Isp vs. MR • Density vs. Isp • Propellant Mass vs. Volume Warning: Contents deal with math, • Area Ratio physics and thermodynamics. Be afraid…be very afraid… Terms A Area a Acceleration F Force (thrust) g Gravity constant (32.2 ft/sec2) I Impulse m Mass P Pressure Subscripts t Time a Ambient T Temperature c Chamber e Exit V Velocity o Initial state r Reaction ∆ Delta / Difference s Stagnation sp Specific ε Area Ratio t Throat or Total γ Ratio of specific heats Thrust (1/3) Rocket thrust can be explained using Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws of motion. 2nd Law: a force applied to a body is equal to the mass of the body and its acceleration in the direction of the force. F ma 3rd Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Fa Fr In rocket propulsion, a mass of propellant (m) is accelerated (via the combustion process) from initial velocity (Vo) to an exit velocity (Ve). The acceleration of this mass is written as: a Ve Vo / t Thrust (2/3) Combining terms, we get: F m(V V ) /t e o Which can be rearranged: m F (Ve Vo ) t The term of mass of propellant divided by time is referred to as mass flow rate (m-dot), expressed as F m (Ve Vo ) Substituting weight flow rate for mass flow rate and assuming a zero initial velocity, the thrust produced by propellant flow (momentum thrust, F1) is shown as m F (V ) 1 g e Thrust (3/3) Another component of thrust (pressure thrust, F2) comes from the force exerted by external pressure differences on the system. This is described by the difference of the pressure of the flow leaving the engine (Pe) through the exit area (Ae) compared to the external (ambient) pressure (Pa). F2 (Pe Pa )Ae In space, Pa is assumed to be zero (which explains why thrust rated at vacuum is higher than at sea level). Combining the two thrust components gives m F (V ) (P P )A g e e a e Specific Impulse (1/4) The total impulse (It) is the thrust integrated over the run duration (time, t) t I Fdt t 0 Assuming constant thrust and negligible transients (i.e., start and shutdown), this becomes I Ft t The specific impulse, (Isp) is the total impulse generated per weight of propellant t Fdt This is really what you need to know about I . F sp I 0 If you want to learn some more, stay seated. sp t m The rest of you can go get some coffee for g mdt about 10 minutes… o 0 Specific Impulse (2/4) Substituting the thrust equation for F gives V A e e Isp (Pe Pa ) g w Under optimal conditions the pressure of the flow exiting the nozzle is equal to that of the C =molar specific heat of exhaust gas ambient pressure (i.e., optimally expanded). pm M = molecular weight of exhaust gas The Isp equation then becomes Ps= isentropic stagnation pressure of the flow at the throat (almost always equivalent Ve to chamber pressure, Pc) I sp g γ= ratio of specific heats of exhaust gas Where the flow exit velocity is calculated by Don’t be intimidated by this 1 – just understand that Ve (and hence I ) is enhanced by sp Pe high release of energy from Ve 2gC pmTc / M 1 the combustion process (high Ps C ) and low molecular pm weight (low M) of the exhaust Specific Impulse (3/4) By definition The equation for Isp then becomes C C 1 p pm 2C pmTc P C C e v vm I sp 1 gM Ps and Cpm Cvm R From this, optimum Isp becomes Where R is the universal 1 gas constant, then 2 RTc Pe Cpm / 1R I spopt 1 1 gM Ps Primarily a function of the Primarily a function of the expansion of combustion process, which is the exhaust gases through the nozzle, influenced by the propellants, which is influenced by back pressure and the mixture ratio and area ratio Specific Impulse (4/4) From an empirical standpoint, determining Isp from test results involves calculating the total impulse generated by the engine and dividing it by the weight of the propellant consumed. t Fdt 0 I sp wconsumed The Isp for flight engines is established (i.e., tagged) on the test stand under simulated flight conditions to ensure acceptance of engine operation and adequate propellant loading of the vehicle. Other primary performance parameters J-2X Acceptance Test Profile (i.e., Thrust, MR) are also tagged during acceptance testing. Mixture Ratio Rocket propellants are mixed in relative quantities to produce the highest possible system Isp. This ratio of propellant consumption is called mixture ratio, MR. w MR o w f In most cases, MR is selected for maximum energy release per weight of propellant. This can be achieved by mixing the propellants in a stoichiometric reaction in the combustion chamber, where all the propellants are thoroughly combusted. However, a stoichiometric MR does not necessarily provide an optimized Isp. The SSME uses a MR of ~6 (stoichiometric for LO2/ LH2 combustion is 8) to reduce the internal and plume temperatures, but also to allow a small amount of H2 to remain in the exhaust. The lighter molecule is able to accelerate to a higher velocity and generate higher kinetic 2 energy (KE = ½ mV ) than a H2O steam exhaust. Isp vs. MR VACIDEAL VACIREAL 480 W inPlot v4.54 460 440 2X - J SSME • “Ideal” for SSME-like fluid 420 2 Vacuum Isp (sec) Isp Vacuum LH conditions (for LO2/LH2 combustion) / 2 and nozzle having ε = 77 used with LO CEA FORTRAN code. 400 • “Real” obtained by accounting for Stoichiometric Stoichiometric typical LO2/LH2 combustion/nozzle efficiencies. 380 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mixture Ratio Density vs. Isp . Liquid bipropellant combinations offer a wide . As an example, the densities range of performance capabilities. and Isp performance of the . Each combination has multiple factors that following propellant should be weighed when selecting one for a combinations will be vehicle. compared. • Performance (I ) Density Density sp 3 • Density (higher is better) (g/ml) (lb/ft ) • Storability (venting?) Hydrogen 0.07 4.4 • Ground Ops (hazards?) Methane 0.42 26.4 • Etc. RP-1 0.81 50.6 . One of the more critical trades is that of Oxygen 1.14 71.2 performance versus density. P = 300 psia . LO2/LH2 offers the highest Isp performance, c expanded to MR Isp but at the cost of poor density (thus increasing 14.7 psia (O/F) (sec) tank size). LO /LH 3.5 347(1) . Trading Isp versus density is sometimes 2 2 referred to as comparing “bulk impulse” or LO2/CH4 2.33 263(2) “density impulse”. LO2/RP-1 2.4 263(2) (1) SC (2) FC Propellant Mass vs. Volume 3500000 160000 3000000 140000 ) 3 -24% 120000 2500000 -54% -66% 100000 2000000 80000 1500000 60000 1000000 40000 Total Propellant Volume (ft Volume Propellant Total Total Propellant Mass (lbs) Propellant Total 500000 20000 0 0 1 2 3 LO2/LH1 2 LO2/CH2 4 LO2/RP3 -1 LO2/LH2 LO2/CH4 LO2/RP-1 . For an impulse requirement similar to . When the propellant mass is the 3 SSME’s used on the Shuttle compared against the tank volume, (~1.5 Mlbf for 520 seconds), the there is a significant disparity from required propellant masses are the low hydrogen density that can calculated. adversely impact the size (and total weight) of the vehicle. LO2/LH2 requires 24% less propellant mass than the others. Lesson: Isp isn’t everything – . However… especially with boost stages. Area Ratio (1/2) The parameter that determines exit velocity and pressure of the exhaust gases is area ratio or nozzle expansion ratio, MR A e At • As ε increases, the exit velocity increases and the exit pressure decreases (higher Isp). • When possible, ε is selected so that Pe = Pa and the engine operates at optimum thrust. • For in-space propulsion (i.e., J-2X), the ε is made as large as the weight requirements or volume limitations permit. • If Pe > Pa , then the nozzle is identified as underexpanded and will not provide optimal performance as the plume will continue to expand after exiting the nozzle. • If Pe < Pa , then the nozzle is identified as overexpanded and will not provide optimal performance as the exit shock will migrate inside the nozzle. This can be hazardous from thrust imbalances and damage to the nozzle. Area Ratio (2/2) • Criteria to be considered for selecting a design ε can include the following: • ε provides the optimal integrated performance over the engine operating period. Trajectory analysis is used to determine the altitudes (and Pa) that the engine will operate, which can be used to provide an integrated Isp based on ε.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Qualification Over Ariane's Lifetime
    r bulletin 94 — may 1998 Qualification Over Ariane’s Lifetime A. González Blázquez Directorate of Launchers, ESA, Paris M. Eymard Groupe Programme CNES/Arianespace, Evry, France Introduction Similarly, the RL10 engine on the Centaur stage The primary objectives of the qualification of the Atlas launcher has been the subject of an activities performed during the operational ongoing improvement programme. About 5000 lifetime of a launcher are: tests were performed before the first flight, and – to verify the qualification status of the vehicle 4000 during the subsequent ten years. – to resolve any technical problems relating to subsystem operations on the ground or in On-going qualification activities of a similar flight. nature were started for the Ariane-3 and 4 launchers in 1986, and for Ariane-5 in 1996. Before focussing on the European family of They can be classified into two main launchers, it is perhaps informative to review categories: ‘regular’ and ‘one-off’. just one or two of the US efforts in the area of solid and liquid propulsion in order to put the Ariane-3/4 accompanying activities Ariane-related activities into context. Regular activities These activities are mainly devoted to In principle, the development programme for a launcher ends with the verification of the qualification status of the qualification phase, after which it enters operational service. In various launcher subsystems. They include the practice, however, the assessment of a launcher’s reliability is a following work packages: continuing process and qualification-type activities proceed, as an – Periodic sampling of engines: one HM7 and extension of the development programme (as is done in aeronautics), one Viking per year, tested to the limits of the over the course of the vehicle’s lifetime.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Thrust In-Space Liquid Propulsion Stage: Storable Propellants
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institute of Transport Research:Publications Space Propulsion 2014 – ID 2968378 High-Thrust in-Space Liquid Propulsion Stage: Storable Propellants Etienne Dumont, Alexander Kopp, Carina Ludwig, Nicole Garbers DLR, Space Launcher Systems Analysis (SART), Bremen, Germany [email protected] Abstract In the frame of a project funded by ESA, a consortium led Subscripts, Abbreviations by Avio in cooperation with Snecma, Cira, and DLR is ATV Automated Transfer Vehicle performing the preliminary design of a High-Thrust in- CDF Concurrent Design Facility Space Liquid Propulsion Stage for two different types of ECSS European Cooperation on Space manned missions beyond Earth orbit. For these missions, Standardization one or two 100 ton stages are to be used to propel a Elec assy electronic assembly manned vehicle. Three different propellant combinations; EPS Etage à propergols stockables (Ariane 5’s LOx/LH2, LOx/CH4 and MON-3/MMH are being storable propellant stage) compared. GNC Guidance Navigation and Control HTS High-Thrust Stage The preliminary design of the storable variant (MON- IF Interface 3/MMH) has been performed by DLR. The Aestus II ISS International Space Station engine with a large nozzle expansion ratio has been LEO Low Earth Orbit chosen as baseline. A first iteration has demonstrated, that LEOP Launch and Early Orbit Phase it indeed provides the best performance for the storable LH2 Liquid Hydrogen propellant combination, when considering all engines LOx Liquid Oxygen available today or which may be available in a short- to MLI Multi-Layer Insulation medium term.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigation of Condensed and Early Stage Gas Phase Hypergolic Reactions Jacob Daniel Dennis Purdue University
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Dissertations Theses and Dissertations Fall 2014 Investigation of condensed and early stage gas phase hypergolic reactions Jacob Daniel Dennis Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Propulsion and Power Commons Recommended Citation Dennis, Jacob Daniel, "Investigation of condensed and early stage gas phase hypergolic reactions" (2014). Open Access Dissertations. 256. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/256 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. i INVESTIGATION OF CONDENSED AND EARLY STAGE GAS PHASE HYPERGOLIC REACTIONS A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Jacob Daniel Dennis In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2014 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii To my parents, Jay and Susan Dennis, who have always pushed me to be the person they know I am capable of being. Also to my wife, Claresta Dennis, who not only tolerated me but suffered along with me throughout graduate school. I love you and am so proud of you! iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Timothée Pourpoint, for guiding me over the past four years and helping me become the researcher that I am today. In addition I would like to thank the rest of my PhD Committee for the insight and guidance. I would also like to acknowledge the help provided by my fellow graduate students who spent time with me in the lab: Travis Kubal, Yair Solomon, Robb Janesheski, Jordan Forness, Jonathan Chrzanowski, Jared Willits, and Jason Gabl.
    [Show full text]
  • The SKYLON Spaceplane
    The SKYLON Spaceplane Borg K.⇤ and Matula E.⇤ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA This report outlines the major technical aspects of the SKYLON spaceplane as a final project for the ASEN 5053 class. The SKYLON spaceplane is designed as a single stage to orbit vehicle capable of lifting 15 mT to LEO from a 5.5 km runway and returning to land at the same location. It is powered by a unique engine design that combines an air- breathing and rocket mode into a single engine. This is achieved through the use of a novel lightweight heat exchanger that has been demonstrated on a reduced scale. The program has received funding from the UK government and ESA to build a full scale prototype of the engine as it’s next step. The project is technically feasible but will need to overcome some manufacturing issues and high start-up costs. This report is not intended for publication or commercial use. Nomenclature SSTO Single Stage To Orbit REL Reaction Engines Ltd UK United Kingdom LEO Low Earth Orbit SABRE Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SOMA SKYLON Orbital Maneuvering Assembly HOTOL Horizontal Take-O↵and Landing NASP National Aerospace Program GT OW Gross Take-O↵Weight MECO Main Engine Cut-O↵ LACE Liquid Air Cooled Engine RCS Reaction Control System MLI Multi-Layer Insulation mT Tonne I. Introduction The SKYLON spaceplane is a single stage to orbit concept vehicle being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. It is designed to take o↵and land on a runway delivering 15 mT of payload into LEO, in the current D-1 configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a Reliable Performance Gas Generator of 75 Tonf-Class Liquid Rocket Engine for the Korea Space Launch Vehicle II
    DOI: 10.13009/EUCASS2019-521 8TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR AERONAUTICS AND SPACE SCIENCES (EUCASS) Development of a Reliable Performance Gas Generator of 75 tonf-class Liquid Rocket Engine for the Korea Space Launch Vehicle II Byoungjik Lim*, Munki Kim*, Donghyuk Kang*, Hyeon-Jun Kim*, Jong-Gyu Kim*, and Hwan-Seok Choi* *Korea Aerospace Research Institute 169-84, Gwahak-ro, Yuseong-Gu Daejeon, 34133, South Korea [email protected] Abstract In this paper, development history and result of a reliable performance gas generator of 75 tonf-class liquid rocket engine is described. Based on the experience acquired from the 30 tonf-class gas generator development, the almost identical concept was adopted to 75 tonf-class gas generator such as a coaxial swirl injector and a regeneratively cooled combustion chamber. During the entire development process using the full-scale and subscale technological demonstration model and development model up to now, combustion tests of over 430 times and cumulative time of over 17 700 seconds have been carried out for a 75 tonf-class gas generate. Now the 75 tonf-class fuel-rich gas generator shows very reliable and reproducible characteristics throughout the entire lifetime including the flight test which was done with the test launch vehicle in November 2018. Thus, it can be said that the development of a 75 tonf-class fuel rich gas generator which will be used in Korea first independent space launch vehicle, KSLV-II was finished successfully. 1. Introduction As a leading institute for technology which is related with space launch vehicle and a national space development agency in the Republic of KOREA, the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) has been continuously researching and developing technology related to space launch vehicles since establishment in 1989.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Chemical-Nuclear Propulsion MAE 342 2016
    2/12/20 Chemical/Nuclear Propulsion Space System Design, MAE 342, Princeton University Robert Stengel • Thermal rockets • Performance parameters • Propellants and propellant storage Copyright 2016 by Robert Stengel. All rights reserved. For educational use only. http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE342.html 1 1 Chemical (Thermal) Rockets • Liquid/Gas Propellant –Monopropellant • Cold gas • Catalytic decomposition –Bipropellant • Separate oxidizer and fuel • Hypergolic (spontaneous) • Solid Propellant ignition –Mixed oxidizer and fuel • External ignition –External ignition • Storage –Burn to completion – Ambient temperature and pressure • Hybrid Propellant – Cryogenic –Liquid oxidizer, solid fuel – Pressurized tank –Throttlable –Throttlable –Start/stop cycling –Start/stop cycling 2 2 1 2/12/20 Cold Gas Thruster (used with inert gas) Moog Divert/Attitude Thruster and Valve 3 3 Monopropellant Hydrazine Thruster Aerojet Rocketdyne • Catalytic decomposition produces thrust • Reliable • Low performance • Toxic 4 4 2 2/12/20 Bi-Propellant Rocket Motor Thrust / Motor Weight ~ 70:1 5 5 Hypergolic, Storable Liquid- Propellant Thruster Titan 2 • Spontaneous combustion • Reliable • Corrosive, toxic 6 6 3 2/12/20 Pressure-Fed and Turbopump Engine Cycles Pressure-Fed Gas-Generator Rocket Rocket Cycle Cycle, with Nozzle Cooling 7 7 Staged Combustion Engine Cycles Staged Combustion Full-Flow Staged Rocket Cycle Combustion Rocket Cycle 8 8 4 2/12/20 German V-2 Rocket Motor, Fuel Injectors, and Turbopump 9 9 Combustion Chamber Injectors 10 10 5 2/12/20
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Orbital Fueling Architectures Leveraging Commercial Launch Vehicles for More Affordable Human Exploration
    ORBITAL FUELING ARCHITECTURES LEVERAGING COMMERCIAL LAUNCH VEHICLES FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HUMAN EXPLORATION by DANIEL J TIFFIN Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: Master of Science Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY January, 2020 CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES We hereby approve the thesis of DANIEL JOSEPH TIFFIN Candidate for the degree of Master of Science*. Committee Chair Paul Barnhart, PhD Committee Member Sunniva Collins, PhD Committee Member Yasuhiro Kamotani, PhD Date of Defense 21 November, 2019 *We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary material contained therein. 2 Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 6 List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... 8 1. Introduction and Background.................................................................................. 14 1.1 Human Exploration Campaigns ....................................................................... 21 1.1.1. Previous Mars Architectures ..................................................................... 21 1.1.2. Latest Mars Architecture .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Design for Demise Analysis for Launch Vehicles
    A first design for demise analysis for launch vehicles Henrik Simon, Stijn Lemmens Space debris: Inactive, manmade objects in space Source: ESA Overview Introduction Fundamentals Modelling approach Results and discussion Summary and outlook What is the motivation and task? INTRODUCTION Motivation . Mitigation: Prevention of creation and limitation of long-term presence . Guidelines: LEO removal within 25 years . LEO removal within 25 years after mission end . Casualty risk limit for re-entry: 1 in 10,000 Rising altitude Decay & re-entry above 2000 km Source: NASA Source: NASA Solution: Design for demise Source: ESA Scope of the thesis . Typical design of upper stages . General Risk assessment . Design for demise solutions to reduce the risk ? ? ? Risk A Risk B Risk C Source: CNES How do we assess the risk and simulate the re-entry? FUNDAMENTALS Fundamentals: Ground risk assessment Ah = + 2 Ai � ℎ = =1 � Source: NASA Source: NASA 3.5 m 5.0 m 2 2 ≈ ≈ Fundamentals: Re-entry simulation tools SCARAB: Spacecraft-oriented approach . CAD-like modelling . 6 DoF flight dynamics . Break-up / fragmentation computed How does a rocket upper stage look like? MODELLING Modelling approach . Research on typical design: . Elongated . Platform . Solid Rocket Motor . Lack of information: . Create common intersection . Deliberately stay top-level and only compare effects Modelling approach Modelling approach 12 Length [m] 9 7 5 3 2 150 300 500 700 800 1500 2200 Mass [kg] How much is the risk and how can we reduce it? SIMULATIONS Example of SCARAB re-entry simulation 6x Casualty risk of all reference cases Typical survivors Smaller Smaller fragments fragments Pressure tanks Pressure tanks Main tank Engine Main structure + tanks Design for Demise .
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas V Cutaway Poster
    ATLAS V Since 2002, Atlas V rockets have delivered vital national security, science and exploration, and commercial missions for customers across the globe including the U.S. Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Oice and NASA. 225 ft The spacecraft is encapsulated in either a 5-m (17.8-ft) or a 4-m (13.8-ft) diameter payload fairing (PLF). The 4-m-diameter PLF is a bisector (two-piece shell) fairing consisting of aluminum skin/stringer construction with vertical split-line longerons. The Atlas V 400 series oers three payload fairing options: the large (LPF, shown at left), the extended (EPF) and the extra extended (XPF). The 5-m PLF is a sandwich composite structure made with a vented aluminum-honeycomb core and graphite-epoxy face sheets. The bisector (two-piece shell) PLF encapsulates both the Centaur upper stage and the spacecraft, which separates using a debris-free pyrotechnic actuating 200 ft system. Payload clearance and vehicle structural stability are enhanced by the all-aluminum forward load reactor (FLR), which centers the PLF around the Centaur upper stage and shares payload shear loading. The Atlas V 500 series oers 1 three payload fairing options: the short (shown at left), medium 18 and long. 1 1 The Centaur upper stage is 3.1 m (10 ft) in diameter and 12.7 m (41.6 ft) long. Its propellant tanks are constructed of pressure-stabilized, corrosion-resistant stainless steel. Centaur is a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen-fueled vehicle. It uses a single RL10 engine producing 99.2 kN (22,300 lbf) of thrust.
    [Show full text]
  • IAF Space Propulsion Symposium 2019
    IAF Space Propulsion Symposium 2019 Held at the 70th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2019) Washington, DC, USA 21 -25 October 2019 Volume 1 of 2 ISBN: 978-1-7138-1491-7 Printed from e-media with permission by: Curran Associates, Inc. 57 Morehouse Lane Red Hook, NY 12571 Some format issues inherent in the e-media version may also appear in this print version. Copyright© (2019) by International Astronautical Federation All rights reserved. Printed with permission by Curran Associates, Inc. (2020) For permission requests, please contact International Astronautical Federation at the address below. International Astronautical Federation 100 Avenue de Suffren 75015 Paris France Phone: +33 1 45 67 42 60 Fax: +33 1 42 73 21 20 www.iafastro.org Additional copies of this publication are available from: Curran Associates, Inc. 57 Morehouse Lane Red Hook, NY 12571 USA Phone: 845-758-0400 Fax: 845-758-2633 Email: [email protected] Web: www.proceedings.com TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 PROPULSION SYSTEM (1) BLUE WHALE 1: A NEW DESIGN APPROACH FOR TURBOPUMPS AND FEED SYSTEM ELEMENTS ON SOUTH KOREAN MICRO LAUNCHERS ............................................................................ 1 Dongyoon Shin KEYNOTE: PROMETHEUS: PRECURSOR OF LOW-COST ROCKET ENGINE ......................................... 2 Jérôme Breteau ASSESSMENT OF MON-25/MMH PROPELLANT SYSTEM FOR DEEP-SPACE ENGINES ...................... 3 Huu Trinh 60 YEARS DLR LAMPOLDSHAUSEN – THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AND TEST SITE FOR CHEMICAL SPACE PROPULSION SYSTEMS ....................................................................................... 9 Anja Frank, Marius Wilhelm, Stefan Schlechtriem FIRING TESTS OF LE-9 DEVELOPMENT ENGINE FOR H3 LAUNCH VEHICLE ................................... 24 Takenori Maeda, Takashi Tamura, Tadaoki Onga, Teiu Kobayashi, Koichi Okita DEVELOPMENT STATUS OF BOOSTER STAGE LIQUID ROCKET ENGINE OF KSLV-II PROGRAM .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]