370 likes | 593 Views
X-43A Flights 2 and 3 Overview. Luat T. Nguyen NASA Langley Research Center Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee Meeting Salt Lake City, Utah March 3, 2005. Background. Air-Breathing Launch Systems Are More Efficient.
E N D
X-43A Flights 2 and 3 Overview Luat T. NguyenNASA Langley Research CenterAerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee MeetingSalt Lake City, UtahMarch 3, 2005
Background Air-Breathing Launch Systems Are More Efficient Air-Breathing Systems Possess Significantly Higher Propulsive Efficiency Hydrogen Fuel Hydrocarbon Fuels Turbojets Rocket Rocket Based Combined Cycle Specific Impulse Turbine Based Combined Cycle Ramjets Scramjets Turbojets Ramjets Scramjets Rockets 0 10 20 MACH NUMBER
Goals/Objectives ofHyper-X Program GOALS: Demonstrate, validate and advance the technology, experimental techniques, and computational methods and tools for design and performance predictions of a hypersonic aircraft powered with an airframe-integrated, scramjet engine. FLIGHT OBJECTIVES: - Three flights: two @ Mach 7 and one Mach 10 - Methods verification - Scaling confirmation Primary Metric: Accelerate Comparison of Ground & Flight Data • TECHNOLOGY • OBJECTIVES: • - Vehicle design & risk reduction • - Flight validation of design methods • Design method enhancement • Hyper-X Phase 2 and beyond Wind Tunnel-to- Wind Tunnel Comparison
X-43 Vehicle Geometry 148" 60" Length: 12'4" (3.7 meters) Width: 5'0" (1.5 meters) Height:: 2'2" (0.6 meters) Weight: 3000 lb max 19" 26" 30" 144"
Approach and Methodology X-43 Vehicle 1 Rudder H2O Fads PPTs Controller N2 Actuator Battery FMU H2 SiH4 Wing
Approach and Methodology Hyper-X Research Vehicle Key Mission Events
First Flight MishapJune 2, 2001 • Nominal flight to launch point • Drop of booster stack and ignition at 5 seconds after drop nominal • At ~13 seconds after drop booster departed controlled flight -- right fin broke off, followed, within one second, by left fin and rudder • Wing broke off at 15 seconds • Booster data stream lost at 21 seconds • At 48.5 seconds, FTS initiated by Navy Range Safety Officer while booster was within cleared corridor – no hazard to civilians on ground or air crews • X-43 data stream lost at 77.5 seconds
Mishap Description ORIG_F1.avi
MIB Findings • Modeling deficiencies causing over-prediction of autopilot stability margins • Fin Actuation System • Aerodynamics • Mass/Geometry Characteristics • Over-prediction of fin actuator torque margin • Misprediction of aerodynamic hinge moments • Other areas for improvement • Validation/Cross Checking/Reviews • Documentation • Workforce
X-43A RTF Risk ReductionMajor Actions Launch Vehicle Stage Separation Research Vehicle • Higher fidelity models • Aerodynamics • Actuators • Structures • Autopilot • Actuator upgrade for greater torque capability • Lower loads trajectory: booster propellant off-load • Autopilot trades/optimization • Independent simulation • Higher fidelity models • Increased AOA for flameout robustness and greater thrust • Upgraded engine control logic for unstart robustness • Adapter fluid systems improvements • Redesign of wing control horns • Aircraft-in-the-loop timing tests • Independent simulation • Higher fidelity models • Additional separation mechanism testing • Control law refinements for robustness • Independent simulation
X-43A Flight #1 Profile vs. Pegasus Pegasus X-43A Flt. #1 2000 1600 q psf 1200 6/01 Mishap 800 400 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mach
Booster Modification • Approximately 3,345 lbs of propellant removed
Propellant Off-Load Halfway through Machining Machining Completed
X-43A Flight Profiles vs. Pegasus Pegasus X-43A Flt. #1 X-43A Flt. #2 2000 1600 q psf 1200 6/01 Mishap 800 400 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mach
Fin Actuation System Upgrade • Objective: To increase the FAS hinge torque capability from 1850 ft-lbs to 3000+ ft-lbs • Modifications: • Add second motor in torque summing arrangement • Fabricate new gears to handle higher loads • Change housing material from aluminum to stainless steel • Add two additional batteries • Redesign the power and pre-driver boards in the ECU Electronic Control Unit (ECU) Actuator
Ejector Piston Force Tail Surface Deflection Stage Separation Aerodynamics • Independent time accurate, N-S CFD w/ coupled 3DOF trajectory simulation performed by CFD Research Corp. as part of RTF risk reduction • Results indicate excellent agreement with NASA SepSim tool and CFD results • Coupled time accurate simulation predicts clean, controlled separation (no re-contact) trajectory
Scramjet Unstart Prevention:Durascram • Unstart occurs when pressure from combustion causes isolator shock train to propagate forward into the inlet causing massive flow spillage • Actively controlling fuel flow via isolator pressure feedback (Durascram) to enhance unstart robustness
Flight Simulations Boost Separation Research Flight NRTSim (Orbital) • Full Stack sim up to separation • Pegasus heritage • LV analysis, autopilot design, trajectory analysis SepSim (Langley) • 6+6 DOF sim of LV & RV during separation • Built on MSC/ADAMS code • Sep analysis, sensitivity studies, collision detection RVSim (Dryden) • RV flight from post separation to splash • Dryden sim environment • RV analysis, autopilot design, sensitivity studies Primary Drop-to-Splash (Dryden) • Full mission simulation • NRTSim + StepSim + RVSim • Manual linking of sims • Validation of individual sim phases/integrated flight LVSim-D (Dryden) • Independent LV sim • Dryden sim environment • Independent LV analysis Post 2 Sep (Langley) • 6+6 DOF sep simulation • Built on POST2 code • Independent Sep analysis Back-Up End-to-End Sim (Langley) • Full mission simulation • NRTSim + SepSim + RVSim • Single user interface, automated linking/integration • Validation of Drop-to-Splash & individual sims
Flight Objectives Met:High Quality Vehicle and Engine Data Obtained – Provides Basis for Extensive Analysis and Research Thrust predicted to ~3% Mach 7 Flight
Alpha Comparisons Mach Comparisons M Time, sec Time, sec Engine Cowl HeatingParameter Comparisons Engine Cowl Heating Parameter Comparisons Dynamic Pressure Comparisons q (lb/ft2) HeatingParameter (Btu/ft2sec) Time, sec Time, sec Flight 3 / Flight 2 Boost Comparison
Flight 3 Hardware Configuration Fillet Assembly - Localized Reinforcement - Revised Attachment Method - Upgraded Pegasus TPS - Additional structural composite plies Wing Assembly - Standard Pegasus - Upgraded LE TPS - Additional themocouples on the right side FAS - Dual Motors - Gear train - Electronics/Batteries - Through-bolted actuator mount Bulkhead Mounted Avionics - HXLV Specific Ballast Assembly - Adjusted for Mach 10 trajectory NOZZLE - Upgraded TPS Orion 50S Rocket Motor - Upgraded Pegasus TPS - No propellant offload X-43 - Upgraded LE TPS AFT Skirt Assembly - Aluminum - Upgraded TPS on Fins LE - Standard Pegasus Fins Ballast/Avionics Module - Aluminum Hyper-X Adapter - Strengthened panels, GN2 mod - Aluminum
X-43A Mission DetailsFlight 3 versus Flight 2 MACH 9.6 (3 sec) NONE 110,000 ft -0.5g’s (3 sec) 2.5g’s
X-43A Demonstrated Propulsive Efficiency Required for Future Launch SystemsSafe, Flexible, Affordable Airframe Integrated Turbojets X-43 scaled I sp Ramjets Scramjets Rockets 0 10 20 MACH NUMBER
X-43 2004 Flight Summary • All program objectives were met • A wealth of high quality flight data substantiateshypersonic vehicle and engine design tools and scalingmethodologies • Stability and control, aerodynamics, boundary layer transition,vehicle structure, TPS, and internal environment performedas predicted • Proved in flight that an airframe-integrated scramjetworks well - engine performance was very close topreflight predictions • X-43 accelerated at Mach 6.83 • X-43 cruised at Mach 9.68, the design condition • Proved that non-symmetrical high q/high Mach stage separation is very doable, leading the way to future safe staged launch systems • Paved the way for future systems • Why were we successful? • Exceptional teamwork across multiple government and industry organizations • Thorough understanding of what we wanted to do and how we were doing it from an integrated systems perspective • Rigorous processes for design, development, testing, and checking