1 / 31

Content

Heavy Launchers by Alain Souchier president Association Planète Mars France EMC11 Neuchâtel, 1 Octobre 2011. Content. Heavy launchers of the past World heavy and semi heavy launchers NASA heavy launcher Space X proposals Russian heavy and semi heavy launchers

anitra
Download Presentation

Content

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Heavy Launchersby Alain Souchierpresident Association Planète Mars FranceEMC11 Neuchâtel, 1 Octobre 2011

  2. Content • Heavy launchers of the past • World heavy and semi heavy launchers • NASA heavy launcher • Space X proposals • Russian heavy and semi heavy launchers • Chinese heavy and semi heavy launcher • European capabilities • Heavy launchers missions

  3. Heavy launchers of the past N1 1969 – 1972 4 flights 95 t Saturn 5 1967 – 1973 13 flights 130+15 t Shuttle 1981 – 2011 135 flights 35 +70+20 t Energya 1987 – 1988 2 flights 88 t +

  4. World heavy and semi heavy launchers LEO payload comparisons In green: projects or development Chinese HLLV 100-150t SLS 100-150t Angara 4-35t Delta 4H 24t Liberty 21t A5ECB 21-23t Rus-M 23-50t Long March GSLV Mk2 Mk3 5t 10t Proton 20t Falcon 9 Heavy 53t Atlas 5 18t 35 12t 25-50t HII B 16,5t A6 13t USA Europe Japan Russia China India

  5. US NASA heavy launcher Configuration frozensummer 2011: 8.4 m diametercore (identical to ET) with 3 SSME/RS25, 5 segments boosters Payloadwith boosters and central core: 70t Payloadwith second stage (J2X) and 5 SSMEs: 130t Operations requestedstarting in 2017 (unmanned) and 2021 (manned) Devt costs: 12 B$ Docs. NASA

  6. US NASA heavy launcher The selected configuration remains close to the old Ares 5 J2X engine 130 t thrust (later versions) 130 t payload version Boosters with 5 segments (4 for the shuttle) RS25 = SSME shuttle engine in an expandable version Poussée 225 t vacuum thrust Specific impulse 453 s Docs. NASA

  7. Space Xproposals

  8. Space X proposals Beginning of 2011, Space X has proposed to fly the Falcon 9 Heavy as soon as 2013. Falcon 9 Heavylower composite is an assembly of 3 Falcon 9 first stages (27 engines). The central coreengines as well as the boosters engines are fedfrom the booster tanks at lift off and during the mission first part. When the boosters tanks are empty the boosters are shut off and jettisonned. The central corethenoperates on itsown tanks which are still full atseparation. This operating mode iscalled « cross feeding ». This concept has been known for a long time but has never been applied. It isprobably the reasonwhy the payloadgiven by Space X has grownfrom 32 t mid 2010 (precedingchart) to 54 t beginning of 2011.

  9. Space X proposals Experience on large multiengines propulsion bays: - Soyouz: 5 turbopumps and 20 chambers on the first stage; very good reliability • N1 lunar launcher: 30 engine on the first stage; 4 failures on 4 launches • Ariane 4: 8 Viking engines on the first stage; very good reliability • Saturn 1 and 1 B: 8 H1 engines on the first stage; very good reliability but few flights

  10. Space X proposals • After Falcon 9 Heavy: Space X foresees the development of 2 new engines: The 600 t Merlin 2 and the 70t LOX/LH2 Raptor. One Merlin 2 replaces the 9 Merlin 1 on the Falcon 9 and in a cluster is the basis for a heavy launcher family Falcon X, Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX.

  11. Space X future engines Raptor Merlin 2 LOX/RP GG cycle LOX/LH2 SC cycle Merlin 2 J-2X Propellant LOX/RP LOX/LH2 Thrust (vac) [klbf] 1,700 292 Isp (vac) [sec] 322 448 T/W [lbf/lbm] 150 55

  12. Angara family 2014 ? RD 190 LOX/kéro staged combustion 196-212 t thrust engine

  13. Angara familycryo upper stages Isayev KVD1 RD56M 7.4 t thrust H2/O2 staged combustion engine

  14. Rus M family From 6 to 50 t in LEO Launch from Vostochny 2015 ? Upper stage powered by four 10 t thrust RD0146 LOX/LH2 engine First stage and boosters powered by the 150/170 t thrust NK33 LOX/keroengine (N1 lunar rocket)

  15. Chineseheavy and semi heavylaunchers Heavylauncher Long March 5 family

  16. Long March 5 10to 25 t LEO - 6 to 14t GTO 2015 ? Diametrer 5 m 2 YF 75D LOX/LH2 Diameter 3,35 m 1 YF 75D LOX/LH2 Diameter5 m 2 YF 77 (50t) LOX/LH2 Diameter 3,35 m 2 YF 100 (120t) LOX/kero and CZ5-DY with 6 boosters (next chart) Diameteer 2,25 m 1 YF 100 (120t) LOX/kero

  17. China Heavy version of the Long March 5 6 boosters LOX/kero each with 2 YF-100 120 thrust engines 5 m diameter LOX/LH2 central core with 4 YF-77 50 thrust engines 50 t LEO payload

  18. China The Long March 5 et the heavy launcher Two different versions of the heavy launcher To the left with LOX/kero boosters (YF-650 engines), LOX/Kero first stage (4x YF-650) and cryo upper stage (2x YF-220) To the right solid propellants boosters , cryo first stage (5 x YF-220) and cryo second stage (1x YF-220)

  19. Heavy chinese launcher engines Ground thrust Vacuum thrust Ground specific impulse Vacuum specific impulse Chamber pressure Mixture ratio Oxydiser flowrate Propellant flowrate Area ratio

  20. Heavychineselauncherengines LOX/Kero 700 t engine: staged combustion cycle LOX/LH 200 t engine: gaz generator cycle

  21. Chine Chinese Moon programme: heavy launcher use

  22. European capabilities (1) LEO payload in tonnes Ariane 5 growth potential for space exploration 140 A5 ECB VULCAIN 2 3EPC 4 MPS1 120 100 A5 H620 Ø 8m 5 VULCAIN 2 2 MPS 4 SRB (US) A5 ECB VEDA MPS2 A5 ECB VULCAIN 2 MPS2 A5 ECB VULCAIN 2 (+rallumage) 80 A5 H920 5 VULCAIN 2 2 MPS 4 SRB(US) A5 H620 Ø 8m 5 VULCAIN 2 4 MPS 60 40 20 Increasing modifications A5 ECA VULCAIN 2 Launch pad modifs Production facilities modifs International cooperation No launch pad modifications A5 ECB VULCAIN 2 4 MPS1 Limit for human Mars missions A5 H Ø 9,8m 5 VULCAIN 2 6 MPS Limit for mannedmoon or NEO asteroids missions

  23. European capabilities (2) Examples of heavy launchers derived from Ariane 5 For 541C and 543C: production synergywith the basic Ariane 5

  24. European capabilities (3) Examples of heavy launchers derived from Ariane 5 Ariane 5SH Till more than 100 t in LEO

  25. Lift off with 4SRB + 5 VulcainEAP ignition at SRB shut off European capabilities (4) Example of US Europe cooperation SRB US DésignationCentral CoreBoostersLEO payload A5L4pH6204 EAP80t A5L4PpH6202 EAP 2SRB100t A5L6PpH 6202 EAP 4SRB110t A5L+6PpH7452EAP 4SRB130t A5L++6PpH9202EAP 4SRB140t

  26. Europeancapabilities (5)Budgetarycapabilities 1 752 000 Russie

  27. Heavylaunchers missions examples Heavy launches may be linked to semi heavy launches for example to launch the crew • Martian exploration • 3 launches (Mars Direct) to • 7 launches (NASA DRA 5) • Lunar exploration • 1 launch • NEO asteroids exploration • 1 to 2 launches • Defense against NEO asteroids • 1 to x launches • New geostationary missions (antenna farms, Earth observation more secure than in SSO, solar power stations,…)

  28. Space X proposals Questions around Falcon 9 Heavy • What are the budgetary sources for the launcher development? • A 5,2 m diameter fairing is far too small for 50 t payloads. Space X is now presenting versions with a 8 m diameter fairing. • Cross feeding is not so easy to develop (transition for the central core engines from one tank to an other) • The 27 engine configuration enables an « engine out » capability if the monitoring system is very efficient in detecting anomalies before it is too late which may lead to a complicated monitoring system. • In some cases engines present catastrophic failures (fire, explosion) which propagate to the other engines or propulsion bay equipments which cannot be dealt with the engine out capability. This failure mode probability is no more neglectible in a 27 engines configuration. This failure rate may be evaluated at 1 or 2 on 1000 which means 3 to 6 % on a 27 engines configuration to which other failure modes have to be added The impressive Falcon 9 Heavy 27 engines propulsion bay

  29. Russianheavy and semi heavylaunchers Angara family

  30. Russianheavy and semi heavylaunchers Angara family • Angara Family Performance Data • Descriptions Angara 1.2 (Small-lift) Angara 3 (Medium-lift) Angara А5(Heavy-lift) Angara А7 (Heavy-lift) • Lift-off mass,t 171  481  773  1133  • Payload mass (kg) •  Parking orbit • ( H circ = 200 km, i  = 63 ° ) 3.8 14.6 24.5 35.0 •   Geotransfer ( i  = 25 ° ,  • H p  = 5500 km), • Breeze M/KVSK (com. SC) - 3.6 (w/KVSK) 7.5 (w/KVTK ) 12.5 (w/KVTK-A7) 2.4 (w/Breeze M) 5.4 (w/Breeze M) • GSO ( H circ  = 35,786 km, i  = 0°), • Breeze M/KVTK (federal SC) - 2.0 (w/KVSK) 4.6 (w/KVTK) 7.6 (w/KVTK-A7) 1.0 (w/Breeze M) 3.0 (w/Breeze M)

  31. Long March 5 - Engines CZ-5-540 :10 engines in the lower stack

More Related