I I 9th Annual AIAA/USU Conference on Small Satellites I THE Scorpius I LOW COST LAUNCH SYSTEM I James R. Wertz I Edward L. Keith I Microcosm, Torrance, CA
I Abstract The program is funded under multiple contracts with the US Air Force Scorpius is a Microcosm program Phillips Laboratory and Microcosm I to develop an entirely new launch vehicle internal IR&D. Microcosm has developed family with the following objectives: an overall system design and built and fired multiple test engines for the I sounding rocket and light lift vehicles. • Better than 99% reliability Southwest Research Institute has • Launch within 8 hours of payload delivered the prototype avionics system. arrival at the launch site At present, the program has substantial I • Weather and equipment delays com design margin in all key cost and parable to commercial airlines technical areas. I • Very low initial recurring cost: Scorpius is an R&D program with -SR-S Small Sounding Rocket: no guarantee of success. Nonetheless, at 220 lbs to 200 km for $95,000 each stage the program has been ahead of I -SR-l Sounding Rocket: schedule and done more for the money 900 lbs to 200 km for $275,000 than called for. It has been through multiple formal reviews with no major -SR-3 Micro Lift: show-stoppers identified. We are I 170 lbs to LEO for $700,000 building major hardware elements at far -Liberty Light Lift: less than 1110th the traditional cost. We 2,200 lbs to LEO for $1.7 million anticipate more than a factor of 30 fewer I -Exodus Medium Lift: parts than a traditional vehicle with almost 15,000 lbs to LEO for $7.9 million no machined or tight tolerance components. If funding proceeds, we -Extendible to heavy lift anticipate being able to reduce total launch I • Total non-recurring development costs by a factor of 10 for small payloads cost for all of the above vehicles within 3 years and for medium payloads through light lift of less than $25 within 4 years. I million ($FY94) I - 1 - I I
Background light-lift applications. Approximately $1.7 million has been spent on the I The Scorpius concept for a program to date. In addition to other dramatically lower cost launch system hardware and systems development, we was originally developed over a 12 year have built a total of five 5,000 lb thrust I period by Edward Keith, currently the engines, which is the size appropriate for Microcosm principal launch system one and two stage sounding rockets and engineer. [l, 2] The original concept has the Liberty Light-Lift launch vehicle. The now been extended and further verified average manufacturing cost of the five I with substantial systems engineering engines has been less than $5,000 each, work and test hardware development on a excluding the injector. We have now total of seven contracts with US Air achieved over 100 seconds cumulative I Force Phillips Laboratory in burn time on the fifth ablatively-cooled Albuquerque, NM, and through engine with substantial life remaining. Microcosm internal IR&D. The current Although much engine development activity was initiated with a Phase I Small remains to be done, the work to date has I Business Innovative Research (SBIR) demonstrated that we can achieve system study, which began in March, appropriate lifetime, performance, and 1993. The SBIR topic came from the cost goals to meet our program I Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, objectives. but was subsequently transferred to Phillips Laboratory for program I oversight. [3] Phase I was intended purely as a study addressing systems issues for a I dramatically reduced cost vehicle. However, it gained substantial support by accomplishing some hardware I development as well. Specifically, a 5,000 lb thrust test engine was manufactured under Phase I in three weeks for less than $5,000. This was I less than the cost of bringing two TRANSCOST E .. pirical Model ofLlqllid prop...... , Rocket EaPo' Reearrinc Costs, 1lIt1 Eclldoll. engineers to California to explain how to [Dietrich B Koelle, 'TRANSCOST: Statistical-Analytical build low cost rocket engines. The end Model fo< Coot Edtimation and Economic Optimization ci Space I Transportation Systems. MBB Report No. URV-I85(91); result was that the two engineers did not March. 199L I attend the final review (there was no extra budget available in Phase I) and, instead, I sent the finished test engine. This initial test engine was successfully fired in December, 1993, on a private test range I east of San Jose, CA. ®_Mi...... 7-eIlPo. pod The initial Scorpius study was 0.1 oriented toward the government's need I for medium and heavy lift. Six subsequent contracts have been awarded by Phillips Laboratory to Microcosm for I both systems studies and the develop Fig 1. Scorpius engine cost compared to ment of specific elements of technology. historical data These have focused principally on demonstrating critical hardware elements I and on the initial sounding rocket and I - 2 - I I
I Space electronics, on-orbit in GEO $50,000.00 perlb RL-1O Centaur Engine (l6.5K Ib thrust) $27,000.00 perlb = $500.00 per Ib of thrust I Space Shuttle Main Engine (470K lb thrust) $10,000.00 perlb $140.00 per lb of thrust Gold $5,500.00 perlb I F-l Saturn Main Engine (1 ,5OOK lb thrust) $3,000.00 pertb = $35.00 per Ib of thrust Macintosh portable computer $300.00 perlb I Silver $77.00 pertb Steak (T-bone) $6.50 per Ib Kellogg's Corn Flakes $2.50 perlb I Hamburger (30% fat) $1.49 perlb Scorpius Liberty Engine (5K Ib thrust) $150.00 per Ib I ;;;; $0.90 per Ib of thrust Fig 2. Cost comparisions. See text for discussion. In addition, to the engine work, model of historical engine costs I substantial effort has gone into the developed over a period of 30 years by guidance, navigation, and control for the Dietrich Koelle of MBB. [5] Fig. 2 vehicle. 3-D and 6-D simulations of the shows similar information presented I launch profile have been developed and somewhat differently. While the items in run. Results from these simulations will the list are not truly comparable, the be presented early next year. [4] The figure is intended to give some insight I computer and pod electronics for the into the scale of the cost reduction. For launch vehicle have been designed and the Scorpius program, thrust is now developed for Microcosm by Southwest cheaper than hamburger. While this Research Institute of San Antonio, TX. certainly does not, by itself, mean that I The prototypes of both units have been launch vehicle costs will be comparably delivered and· are on display at the reduced, we believe that it is a significant Microcosm booth at this conference. The positive step. I recurring selling price for these units will be substantially less than $10,000 each. There is, of course, far more to a I launch vehicle than simply engines and avionics. Scorpius is a complete system design which addresses the entire I problem of low cost launch services, including the vehicle itself, facilities, and operations costs. However, we believe I reducing engine costs by more than two orders of magnitude compared to projections based on empirical historical models is indicative of the capacity to I make truly dramatic reductions in overall launch costs. Specifically, Fig. 1 shows Fig 3. Scorpius Baseline Configuration the projected Scorpius engine recurring I cost plotted on an empirically-based
I - 3 - I I
very adequate control. However, early in Scorpius Concept Overview the design process it became clear that I during portions of the flight, particularly The baseline Scorpius Launch fourth stage burn out, the control margins Vehicle configuration consists of 49 were less than we would have preferred engines arranged in seven clusters or for a robust vehicle. Consequently, I pods as shown in Fig. 3. As illustrated in steering by thrust vector control via Fig. 4, this provides four horizontal secondary fluid injection was added to the stages plus an optional fifth "upper" engine design. This somewhat increased I stage. the cost and complexity of the engine, but insured that the integration of the vehicle STAGE 3 BURNOUT & SEPARATION would be easier with looser tolerances. It I is the overall launch system cost that we t ~ wish to minimize. This robustness, which allows a number of low-cost em ::ooN tffI-;;, .. alternatives for most key functions, I provides much of the strength of the Scorpius system design. I em o@;/ STAGE 2 BU'NO", • " ...",ON Ordinarily, propellants and pressurants are a relatively insignificant part of the cost of a launch vehicle. Because· of the overall very low system I cost, this is not the case for Scorpius. 8:8 ~ @!JS
performance is given in the abstract The vehicle is on the ground. Consequently, I SR-S is a single-engine, single-pod no launch gantry or service tower is configuration which has much the required, and it is relatively appearance of a traditional sounding straightforward to design the vehicle such I rocket. The SR-1 is a single-stage, three that all servicing is done at ground level. engine, four-pod configuration. The SR- Access to the payload is, of course, at the 2 uses two stages with a total of six top of the vehicle. However, for Liberty engines in seven pods. It has the this is only 30 feet above the ground I appearance of a scaled down Liberty which is relatively easy to reach by a Light-Lift Vehicle. With additional variety of means. engines and a third (upper) stage, the SR- I 2 is capable of putting very small As the Space Shuttle example has payloads in low Earth orbit at an shown, designing a launch system to be extremely attractive price. low cost is, in many respects, much easier than actually building it with that I result. It is the construction and testing of Achieving Dramatically hardware that, in the end, will Reduced Cost demonstrate both the cost and I performance characteristics. It is in this Achieving a 10% to 30% percent aspect that we believe Scorpius has been cost reduction can potentially be done by exceptionally successful to date. As I attacking the principal cost drivers and indicated above, the first Scorpius test looking for added simplicity or improved engine was build at extremely low cost. A performance in a few key features of the second test engine, designed for reduced design. Achieving the factor of 10 cost throat erosion, was built at a comparable I reduction which Scorpius proposes cost. Both the first and second engines requires building the entire vehicle in a were fabricated and test fired on a private new way. The Scorpius design could not range at total cost of less than $30,000. I have been built a decade ago. It requires modern advances in low-cost computer This very low cost hardware technology and low-cost, high strength development and test program is also key I composite materials. Nonetheless, there to achieving dramatic reductions in non is no single breakthrough in technology recurring development costs. When or new high performance component engines cost millions of dollars, then it is which results in the low cost Low important not to damage the engine I recurring cost comes about from during testing. This, in turn, adds designing the vehicle from the outset to dramatically to the test preparation and be manufactured. not built and assembled execution cost and reduces the I by engineers. In this respect it is similar information obtained from the test. With in its approach to the Model T, engines at less than $5,000 apiece, it is Volkswagen Bug, or the first personal reasonable to build and test fire a number computers in which optimal performance of engines, even on a very low cost I was given up for the sake of dramatically development program. It is also reduced cost. This closely foIlows the reasonable to destroy engines in the approach proposed by John London in testing process in order to find failure I his extensive study of launch cost mechanisms and understand the strengths reduction [6, 7]. and weaknesses of the design. The testing process itself becomes much I This low cost approach must lower cost. For example, our first engine extend to all facets of the process tests were conducted in very cold including development, manufacturing, weather. This resulted in condensation test, facilities, and operations. For freezing in a line such that a LOX line I example, the short, squat Scorpius design ruptured on the second day of testing provides excellent stability while the with a rather spectacular flame spreading I - 5 I I over the test stand. Fortunately, neither light-lift vehicles can be done with an the engine nor test stand were harmed. extremely low cost engine. Engine I The line rupture was repaired during the number 5 had a total of 18 parts, evening, and testing successfully including fasteners, and was fabricated at resumed the next day. Consequently, our very low cost consistent with the other I first test firings took three days rather test engines and our low cost production than two, as we had planned, with only a approaches. minor impact on cost A new engine test program is now I Our second round of engine underway with initial engine firings in testing took place at the Rocket late August, 1995, at the Energetic Propulsion Directorate at Edwards Air Materials Research Test Center (EMRTC) I Force Base, CA, where additional at New Mexico Tech in Socorro, NM. instrumentation and personnel were available. The objective of these tests was In addition to the engine to demonstrate that reasonable lifetimes development, other key technology I could be achieved in very low cost requirements for Scorpius include low engines. As shown in Fig. 5, our fifth cost composite tanks for cryogens and a engine achieved burn durations of 10, 52, low-cost, environmentally-safe gas I and 48 seconds in three test firings on generator. Both of these technologies are April 24-26, 1995. A video tape of of this being developed under separate contracts engine testing is being shown at the from Phillips Laboratory and both are I Microcosm booth at this conference. applicable to a variety of launch vehicles After the 110 seconds of firing, engine 5 and spacecraft. In addition, the system showed very little erosion either in the wil1 require low cost avionics. Because throat or thrust chamber. It is clear that the Scorpius avionics will have rather I there is substantial life left in the engine, substantial software, a new and indicating that achieving appropriate significantly lower-cost flight computer lifetimes for both sounding rocket and was needed. Both the low cost flight I I I I I I I
Fig 5. 110 sec test firing of Scorpius 5,000lb thrust test engine on Apr. 24-26, 1995. I I 6 I I
computer and associated pod electronics development program. However, there is I module have been developed for sufficient margin in terms of cost and Microcosm by Southwest Research performance that at the conclusion of each Institute of San Antonio, TX. As shown stage we have been ahead of schedule and in Figure 6, prototype units of both the achieved more than planned. We have I computer and pod electronics have been had multiple, formal system-level reviews delivered and are on display at this with government, industry, and conference. Like all of the Scorpius Aerospace Corporation personnel with no I hardware, the key characteristics are "show stoppers" identified. In addition, achieving high reliability and acceptable we have a group of exceptionally performance at very low cost. We believe knowledgeable and experienced I the computer developed by Southwest reviewers, originally very skeptical of the Research meets these characteristics very program, who now believe that we have well. Both the computer and pod made major progress toward achieving electronics are being offered for sale to our objectives. Scorpius is a technology I the space community for substantially development program. Like all such less than $10,000 each, depending on programs, it has potential risk and cannot quantity and delivery. guarantee success. Nonetheless, many of I the key technologies have now been demonstrated, and nearly all technology risks will be evaluated and flight proven I early in the program when the cost risk is minimal. Thus, low cost sounding rockets will be used to flight test hardware for light lift vehicles, which, in I tum, are the test bed for medium lift. We emphasize that the I substantially reduced cost indicated in the abstract are the initial launch costs in FY94 dollars. These costs can be realized at even a very low launch rate and are not I dependent on a launch model requiring a Fig 6. The SC-2DX Low Cost Flight high level of acti vity. On the contrary, we Computer, built for Microcosm by anticipate that any consequent increase in I Southwest Research Institute. the number of launches will provide additional reduction in launch costs as Of course, reducing overall economies of scale and learning curve I launch cost requires significantly more advantages become more relevant. than low cost, high reliability components. It requires an overall system design and development program which Conclusion I dramatically reduces the non-recurring cost at an acceptable level of technical The availability of the key risk. Microcosm has a system design and technology required to reduce launch I development plan to achieve our system cost by a factor of 10 has been objectives for a total non-recurring cost of demonstrated. The United States (both less than $25 million through the Liberty government and commercial) is currently I Light Lift Vehicle (including sounding spending $110 million a month on rocket development). We have low-cost unmanned launches plus an additional alternatives to essentially all of the key $150 million per month for manned components and technologies. Technical flights. In the last five years, the I problems have arisen, as they will in any
I - 7 - I I approximate average expenditure rate has 5. Dietrich E. Koelle, ''TRANSCOST been: Statistical-Analytical Model for Cost I Estimation and Economic • Light lift $3 million/month Optimization of Space Transportation • Medium lift $72 million/month Systems" MBB Report No. URV I ] 85(91), March, 1991. • Heavy lift $39 million/month The technology is available to 6. John R. London III, LEO on the reduce U.S. launch costs (government Cheap-Methods for Achieving I and commercial) by approximately $75 Drastic Reductions in Space Launch million per month with full recovery of Costs (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air the non-recurring investment with University Press, 1994) I approximately one month's savings. 7. John R. London III, "Reducing the A number of studies have shown, Cost of Space Launch," Chap. 4 in I that reducing launch costs will reduce Reducing Space Mission Cost, cd. spacecraft costs as well. Consequently, by J. R. Wertz and W. J. Larson, in we anticipate a potentially substantial press. additional savings. The principle issue I which will have the strongest impact on overall savings is the timing of a full scale development program. This remains I uncertain at present. As has perhaps always been the case, the principle impediments to dramatically reduced cost in space exploration are political and I economic, rather than technical. I References 1. Edward L. Keith, "Low Cost Space I Transportation: The Search for the Lowest Cost" (Paper presented at the AAS/ AIAA Spaceflight Mechanics Meeting, Johnson Space Center, I Houston, TX, Feb. 13, 1991.) 2. Edward L. Keith, "System Analysis I and Description of an Ultra-Low Cost Ground to Low Earth Orbit Cargo Delivery System" (Paper presented at the World Space Congress, I Washington, DC, Aug. 31, 1992.)
3. U.S. Air Force Phillips Laboratory, I Contract No. F29601-93-C-0106. 4. Thomas P. Bauer, "Low Cost GN&C I System for Launch Vehicles" (Paper No. 38, to be presented at the First Conference on Next Generation Launch Systems, Albuquerque, NM, I Jan. 7-11, 1996.) I 8 I