DOCSLIB.ORG

Design Considerations for a Pressure-Driven Multi-Stage Rocket

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design Considerations for a Pressure-Driven Multi-Stage Rocket University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 12-2002 Design considerations for a pressure-driven multi-stage rocket Steven Craig Sauerwein University of Tennessee Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Sauerwein, Steven Craig, "Design considerations for a pressure-driven multi-stage rocket. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2002. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/6301 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Steven Craig Sauerwein entitled "Design considerations for a pressure-driven multi-stage rocket." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Aerospace Engineering. Gary A. Flandro, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Steven Craig Sauerwein entitled "Design Considerations for a Pressure-Driven Multi-Stage Rocket." I have examined the final paper copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Aerospace Engineering. We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Accepted for the Council: Graduate Studies DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR A PRESSURE-DRIVEN MULTI-STAGE ROCKET A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Steven Craig Sauerwein December 2002 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using propellant tank pressurization to eliminate the use of high-pressure turbopumps in multi-stage liquid-fueled satellite launchers. Several new technologies were examined to reduce the mass of such a rocket. Composite materials have a greater strength-to-weight ratio than metals and can be used to reduce the weight of rocket propellant tanks and structure. Catalytically combined hydrogen and oxygen can be used to heat pressurization gas, greatly reducing the amount of gas required. Ablatively cooled rocket engines can reduce the complexity and cost of the rocket. Methods were derived to estimate the mass of the various rocket components. These included a method to calculate the amount of gas needed to pressurize a propellant tank by modeling the behavior ofthe pressurization gas as the liquid propellant flows out of the tank. A way to estimate the mass and size of a ablatively cooled composite cased rocket engine. And a method to model the flight of such a rocket through the atmosphere in conjunction with optimization of the rockets trajectory. The results show that while a liquid propellant rocket using tank pressurization are larger than solid propellant rockets and turbopump driven liquid propellant rockets, they are not impractically large. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 II. TANK MATERIAL.......................................................................................... 16 III. TANK CONFIGURATION.............................................................................. 25 IV. PROPELLANTTANKPRESSURIZATION................................................... 31 V. PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM......................................................................... 47 VI. ROCKET ENGINE DESIGN............................................................................ 60 VII. ROCKET ENGINE CHAMBER PRESSURE.................................................. 69 VIII. NUMBER OF STAGES.................................................................................... 76 IX. BOOSTER PERFORMANCE.......................................................................... 82 X. BOOSTER COMPARISON............................................................................. 86 XI. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 89 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................. 96 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................. 101 APPENDIX A. FIGURES............................................................................................. 102 APPENDIX B. TRAJECTORY SIMULATION............................................................ 153 APPENDIXC. TRAJECTORYOPTIMIZATION........................................................ 170 VITA ................................................................................................................................ 196 l1l LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Material Properties............................................................................................ 23 2. Configuration 4 Length to Width Ratio............................................................ 29 3. Experimental Values for Lewis and Lockheed H2 Experiments....................... 44 4. Experimental Values for Lewis and Lockheed He Experiments....................... 44 5. Pressurization Gas Mass.................................................................................... 45 6. Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen O/F Ratio...................................................... 66 7. Mass Comparison.............................................................................................. 67 8. Optimum Engine Chamber Pressure, Thrust to Weight Ratio= 1.5.................. 73 9. Optimum Engine Chamber Pressure, Thrust to Weight Ratio= 2.0.................. 73 10. Mass Penalty ofNon-optimal Chamber Pressure, Thrust to Weight Ratio= 1.5 74 11. Mass Penalty ofNon-optimal Chamber Pressure, Thrust to Weight Ratio= 2.0 75 12. RocketNozzleOptimumAltitude..................................................................... 78 13. 1st Stage Burnout Altitude.................................................................................. 79 14. Hydrogen Fueled Rocket with 100 kg Payload................................................... 84 15. Hydrogen Fueled Rocket with 1000 kg Payload................................................. 84 16. Hydrogen Fueled Rocket with 10,000 kg Payload.............................................. 84 17. Kerosene Fueled Rocket with 100 kg Payload.................................................. 84 18. Kerosene Fueled Rocket with 1000 kg Payload................................................ 85 19. Kerosene Fueled Rocket with 10,000 kg Payload............................................. 85 20. Booster Mass...................................................................................................... 87 IV 21. Booster Comparison........................................................................................... 87 B-1 Drag Coefficients.............................................................................................. 15 8 C-1 Typical Convergence Behavior............................................................................ 181 C-2 Final Burn Magnitude versus Scalar k................................................................ 181 V LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Tank Liner Mass............................................................................................... 103 2. Spherical Tank Mass vs. Pressure.................................................................... 103 3. Spherical Tank Mass vs. Volume...................................................................... 104 4. Cylindrical Tank Mass vs. Pressure.................................................................. 104 5. Cylindrical Tank Mass vs. Volume.................................................................. 105 6. Tank Configuration.......................................................................................... I 06 7. Cylindrical Tank Mass versus Radius, 10,000 kg Stage.................................... 107 8. Cylindrical Tank Mass versus Radius, 100,000 kg Stage.................................. 107 9. Tank Configuration, 10,000 kg Stage, 2 mm Thick Aeroshell.......................... 108 10. Tank Configuration, 10,000 kg Stage, 5 mm ThickAeroshell.......................... 108 11. Tank Configuration, 10,000 kg Stage, 11 mm Thick Aeroshell........................ 109 12. Tank Configuration, 100,000 kg Stage, 2 mm Thick Aeroshell........................ 109 13. Tank Configuration, 100,000 kg Stage, 5 mm Thick Aeroshell........................ 110 14. Tank Configuration, 100,000 kg Stage, 11 mm Thick Aeroshell...................... 110 15. Multiple Cylindrical Tank Configurations....................................................... 111 16. Multiple Cylindrical Tank Mass....................................................................... 112 17. Massvs.NumberofCylindricalTanks............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 29 January 2001
    United Nations A/AC.105/751/Add.1 General Assembly Distr.: General 29 January 2001 Original: English Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space National research on space debris, safety of space objects with nuclear power sources on board and problems of their collisions with space debris Note by the Secretariat* Addendum Contents Chapter Paragraphs Page I. Introduction........................................................... 1-2 2 Replies received from Member States and international organizations .................... 2 United States of America ......................................................... 2 European Space Agency.......................................................... 7 __________________ * The present document contains replies received from Member States and international organizations between 25 November 2000 and 25 January 2001. V.01-80520 (E) 020201 050201 A/AC.105/751/Add.1 I. Introduction 1. At its forty-third session, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space agreed that Member States should continue to be invited to report to the Secretary- General on a regular basis with regard to national and international research concerning the safety of space objects with nuclear power sources, that further studies should be conducted on the issue of collision of orbiting space objects with nuclear power sources on board with space debris and that the Committee’s Scientific and Technical Subcommittee should be kept informed of the results of such studies.1 The Committee also took note of the agreement of the Subcommittee that national research on space debris should continue and that Member States and international organizations should make available to all interested parties the results of that research, including information on practices adopted that had proved effective in minimizing the creation of space debris (A/AC.105/736, para.
    [Show full text]
  • Collezione Per Genova
    1958-1978: 20 anni di sperimentazioni spaziali in Occidente La collezione copre il ventennio 1958-1978 che è stato particolarmente importante nella storia della esplorazio- ne spaziale, in quanto ha posto le basi delle conoscenze tecnico-scientifiche necessarie per andare nello spa- zio in sicurezza e per imparare ad utilizzare le grandi potenzialità offerte dallo spazio per varie esigenze civili e militari. Nel clima di guerra fredda, lo spazio è stato fin dai primi tempi, utilizzato dagli Americani per tenere sotto con- trollo l’avversario e le sue dotazioni militari, in risposta ad analoghe misure adottate dai Sovietici. Per preparare le missioni umane nello spazio, era indispensabile raccogliere dati e conoscenze sull’alta atmo- sfera e sulle radiazioni che si incontrano nello spazio che circonda la Terra. Dopo la sfida lanciata da Kennedy, gli Americani dovettero anche prepararsi allo sbarco dell’uomo sulla Luna ed intensificarono gli sforzi per conoscere l’ambiente lunare. Fin dai primi anni, le sonde automatiche fecero compiere progressi giganteschi alla conoscenza del sistema solare. Ben presto si imparò ad utilizzare i satelliti per la comunicazione intercontinentale e il supporto alla navigazio- ne, per le previsioni meteorologiche, per l’osservazione della Terra. La Collezione testimonia anche i primi tentativi delle nuove “potenze spaziali” che si avvicinano al nuovo mon- do dei satelliti, che inizialmente erano monopolio delle due Superpotenze URSS e USA. L’Italia, con San Mar- co, diventò il terzo Paese al mondo a lanciare un proprio satellite e allestì a Malindi la prima base equatoriale, che fu largamente utilizzata dalla NASA. Alla fine degli anni ’60 anche l’Europa entrò attivamente nell’arena spaziale, lanciando i propri satelliti scientifici e di telecomunicazione dalla propria base equatoriale di Kourou.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite
    46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2008-1131 7 – 10 January 20006, Reno, Nevada Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Stephen A. Whitmore* and Tyson K. Smith† Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 A trade study investigating the economics, mass budget, and concept of operations for delivery of a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium-altitude earth orbit is presented. The mission requires payload deployment at a 19,000 km orbit altitude and an inclination of 55o. Because the payload is a technology demonstrator and not part of an operational mission, launch and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies; consequently a USA licensed launch system is mandated. A preliminary trade analysis is performed where all available options for FAA-licensed US launch systems are considered. The preliminary trade study selects the Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle, derived from the decommissioned Peacekeeper missile system, as the most favorable option for payload delivery. To meet mission objectives the Minotaur V configuration is modified, replacing the baseline 5th stage ATK-37FM motor with the significantly smaller ATK Star 27. The proposed design change enables payload delivery to the required orbit without using a 6th stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the expected accuracy of the final orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wittelsbach-Graff and Hope Diamonds: Not Cut from the Same Rough
    THE WITTELSBACH-GRAFF AND HOPE DIAMONDS: NOT CUT FROM THE SAME ROUGH Eloïse Gaillou, Wuyi Wang, Jeffrey E. Post, John M. King, James E. Butler, Alan T. Collins, and Thomas M. Moses Two historic blue diamonds, the Hope and the Wittelsbach-Graff, appeared together for the first time at the Smithsonian Institution in 2010. Both diamonds were apparently purchased in India in the 17th century and later belonged to European royalty. In addition to the parallels in their histo- ries, their comparable color and bright, long-lasting orange-red phosphorescence have led to speculation that these two diamonds might have come from the same piece of rough. Although the diamonds are similar spectroscopically, their dislocation patterns observed with the DiamondView differ in scale and texture, and they do not show the same internal strain features. The results indicate that the two diamonds did not originate from the same crystal, though they likely experienced similar geologic histories. he earliest records of the famous Hope and Adornment (Toison d’Or de la Parure de Couleur) in Wittelsbach-Graff diamonds (figure 1) show 1749, but was stolen in 1792 during the French T them in the possession of prominent Revolution. Twenty years later, a 45.52 ct blue dia- European royal families in the mid-17th century. mond appeared for sale in London and eventually They were undoubtedly mined in India, the world’s became part of the collection of Henry Philip Hope. only commercial source of diamonds at that time. Recent computer modeling studies have established The original ancestor of the Hope diamond was that the Hope diamond was cut from the French an approximately 115 ct stone (the Tavernier Blue) Blue, presumably to disguise its identity after the that Jean-Baptiste Tavernier sold to Louis XIV of theft (Attaway, 2005; Farges et al., 2009; Sucher et France in 1668.
    [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]
  • The Tubesat Launch Vehicle
    TubeSat and NEPTUNE 30 Orbital Rocket Programs Personal Satellites Are GO! Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com About Interorbital Corporation Founded in 1996 by Randa and Roderick Milliron, incorporated in 2001 Located at the Mojave Spaceport in Mojave, California 98.5% owned by R. and R. Milliron 1.5% owned by Eric Gullichsen Initial Starting Technology Pressure-fed liquid rocket engines Initial Mission Low-cost orbital and interplanetary launch vehicle development Facilities 6,000 square-foot research and development facility Two rocket engine test sites at the Mojave Spaceport Expert engineering and manufacturing team Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Core Technical Team Roderick Milliron: Chief Designer Lutz Kayser: Primary Technical Consultant Eric Gullichsen: Guidance and Control Gerard Auvray: Telecommunications Engineer Donald P. Bennett: Mechanical Engineer David Silsbee: Electronics Engineer Joel Kegel: Manufacturing/Engineering Tech Jacqueline Wein: Manufacturing/Engineering Tech Reinhold Ziegler: Space-Based Power Systems E. Mark Shusterman,M.D. Medical Life Support Randa Milliron: High-Temperature Composites Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Key Hardware Built In-House Propellant Tanks: Combining state-of-the-art composite technology with off-the-shelf aluminum liners Advanced Guidance Hardware and Software Ablative Rocket Engines and Components GPRE 0.5KNFA Rocket Engine Test Manned Space Flight Training Systems Rocket Injectors, Valves Systems, and Other Metal components Interorbital Systems www.interorbital.com Project History Pressure-Fed Rocket Engines GPRE 2.5KLMA Liquid Oxygen/Methanol Engine: Thrust = 2,500 lbs. GPRE 0.5KNFA WFNA/Furfuryl Alcohol (hypergolic): Thrust = 500 lbs. GPRE 0.5KNHXA WFNA/Turpentine (hypergolic): Thrust = 500 lbs. GPRE 3.0KNFA WFNA/Furfuryl Alcohol (hypergolic): Thrust = 3,000 lbs.
    [Show 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.
    [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]
  • Learning from Other People's Mistakes
    Learning from Other People’s Mistakes Most satellite mishaps stem from engineering mistakes. To prevent the same errors from being repeated, Aerospace has compiled lessons that the space community should heed. Paul Cheng and Patrick Smith he computer onboard the Clementine spacecraft froze immediately after a thruster was commanded to fire. A “watchdog” algorithm designed to stop “It’s always the simple stuff the thrusters from excessive firing could not execute, and CTlementine’s fuel ran out. !e mission was lost. Based on that kills you…. With all the this incident, engineers working on the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) program learned a key lesson: the testing systems, everything watchdog function should be hard-wired in case of a com- puter shutdown. As it happened, NEAR suffered a similar computer crash during which its thrusters fired thousands looked good.” of times, but each firing was instantly cut off by the still- —James Cantrell, main engineer operative watchdog timer. NEAR survived. As this example illustrates, insights from past anoma- for the joint U.S.-Russian Skipper lies are of considerable value to design engineers and other mission, which failed because program stakeholders. Information from failures (and near its solar panels were connected failures) can influence important design decisions and pre- vent the same mistakes from being made over and over. backward (Associated Press, 1996) Contrary to popular belief, satellites seldom fail because of poor workmanship or defective parts. Instead, most failures are caused by simple engineering errors, such as an over- looked requirement, a unit mix-up, or even a typo in a docu- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • NYC Aerospace Rocket Program
    NYC Aerospace Rocket Program NYC Aerospace’s 100,000ft rocket program is committed to designing and manufacturing a sounding rocket to reach 100,000ft, above 99% of the atmosphere. The purpose of this mission is to research the applications of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) to large rockets. Many future aerospace engineers have learned a great deal about rocketry from participating in this project, which is one of NYC Aerospace’s many projects involving students citywide. Rocket details Our goal is to send a single-stage rocket to 100,000ft using ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP). In order to reach this altitude, the rocket will likely need to maintain structural integrity at velocities on the order of Mach 2 and above. Therefore, the rocket body will need to be made of a light metal such as aluminum or titanium. A metal body necessitates the capacity of the rocket motor to be in the O range of near 30,000Ns of impulse. Assuming a perfectly efficient motor, this requires around 30lb of propellant. We can calculate fuel fraction by first establishing our delta v budget. Δv = √2gz = √2(9.8m/s2)(30480m) =772m/s= mach 2.25 Using the delta v necessary, we can calculate the minimum fuel fraction using Tsiolkovsky’s ideal rocket equation. Assuming the specific impulse of our motor is 228s: m final Δv =− v eln m initial m final = exp(− 772/2280) = 0.71 m initial Thus, we only need 29% of our rocket to be fuel. This brings the max mass of our rocket to 103lb.
    [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]
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive
    CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY HAER FL-8-B BUILDING AE HAER FL-8-B (John F. Kennedy Space Center, Hanger AE) Cape Canaveral Brevard County Florida PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY BUILDING AE (Hangar AE) HAER NO. FL-8-B Location: Hangar Road, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Industrial Area, Brevard County, Florida. USGS Cape Canaveral, Florida, Quadrangle. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: E 540610 N 3151547, Zone 17, NAD 1983. Date of Construction: 1959 Present Owner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Present Use: Home to NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the Launch Vehicle Data Center (LVDC). The LVDC allows engineers to monitor telemetry data during unmanned rocket launches. Significance: Missile Assembly Building AE, commonly called Hangar AE, is nationally significant as the telemetry station for NASA KSC’s unmanned Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) program. Since 1961, the building has been the principal facility for monitoring telemetry communications data during ELV launches and until 1995 it processed scientifically significant ELV satellite payloads. Still in operation, Hangar AE is essential to the continuing mission and success of NASA’s unmanned rocket launch program at KSC. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A in the area of Space Exploration as Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) original Mission Control Center for its program of unmanned launch missions and under Criterion C as a contributing resource in the CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.
    [Show full text]