1 / 12

AAE 450- Propulsion LV

AAE 450- Propulsion LV. Stephen Hanna Critical Design Review 02/27/01. 15.24m Max. 30.48 m. 24.00 m  NTR. {~8 m}. 54.864 m. 3.9 m. 7.985 m D. Launch Vehicle (Stephen Hanna). Energia Total Payload to LEO ~179 Tonnes $1.2 billion – $2.8 billion per launch (2000 dollars)

karyn-everett
Download Presentation

AAE 450- Propulsion LV

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. AAE 450- Propulsion LV Stephen Hanna Critical Design Review 02/27/01

  2. 15.24m Max 30.48 m 24.00 m  NTR {~8 m} 54.864 m 3.9 m 7.985 m D Launch Vehicle (Stephen Hanna) • Energia • Total Payload to LEO ~179 Tonnes • $1.2 billion – $2.8 billion per launch (2000 dollars) • All facilities Exist • Available for licensed production overseas

  3. Flight Time (Min:Sec) 1) Liftoff00:00 2) Booster Staging 2:20 3) Core Separation6:30 Disposal Area Side Boosters Side Booster from launch site 400 Km At altitude of 80km Core Core from Launch Site19200 Km At altitude of 110Km y b Effective Atmosphere 3 2 1 Earth LV Flight Sequence (Stephen Hanna)

  4. LV Reliability (Stephen Hanna) • Reliability is important as ~90% of all sever emergencies in space occurring during launch. • Reliability by component • Booster- similar to zenith first stage • One booster failure is acceptable • 87.5% reliability needed • 96% success rate using Zenith first stage record • Main Core- 3 engines • 2 engines needed for LEO insertion • 66% reliability needed • No success rate that is practical • Overall Reliability • 87.5% Reliability needed for successful mission based on booster • 96% Success rate based on booster • Therefore Zero Abort is needed to improve overall success rate

  5. Destruction of launcher caused by (28.3%)* Boost explosion Structural failure Any of the following causes Ignition failure (25.7%)* Loss of Thrust or Insufficient Thrust – depending where in mission profile demes if it is critical( 15.9%)* Loss of Attitude (13.2%)* Guidance failure Loss of control Stage separation failure and other (10.6%)* *Launch failures of unmanned launchers Launch Risk** Coverage of the Mission*** On- The- Pad escape systems2.5% Intact abort12.5% Open injection seats 64% Escape Cabin 84% **89% of failures occur during launch ***85% of launch failures in first stage therefore 15% scaled for upper stages Considered Launch Failures

  6. y b Effective Atmosphere 3 2 1 Earth Abort Scenario Earth (Stephen Hanna) • 1) Zero altitude – Ejection seat abort • 2) Booster separated at altitude of 80km speed is Ejection seat is viable • Theoretical not viable higher than 40km b/c of pressure suits but has been used at 90 km with survival • 3) Main core separation at altitude of 110 km - abort to orbit using RCS thruster usable after main core separation with a 99%* success rate *3 failures out of 207 launches after 1970 improvements to system

  7. Pressure suits Protect against loss of pressure up to an altitude of 40 km Extreme temperatures and dynamic pressure in case of an abort Suits self contained Autonomous oxygen Survival kits and Backup Parachutes 40kg10 kg per person * 4 Ejection Seats Self Contained Propulsive device Autonomous oxygen Parachutes (drone chute and main chute) 816 kg for all four seats (conservative estimates) 204kg each*4 crew = 816 kg total Proven at varied speeds and altitudes Abort Scenario Earth cont…(Stephen Hanna)

  8. Abort Scenario Earth (Stephen Hanna) • Pyrotechnics **Not to scale

  9. Abort Scenario Earth (Stephen Hanna) Ohh! Spaghetti O’s!! • Pyrotechnics **Not to scale

  10. Abort Scenario Mars • CTV is jettisoned using RCS thrusters from MLV • Parachutes are deployed for landing in use with RCS thrusters

  11. Ejection Pod • Mass of Ejection Pod 140 kg + Ejection seats 816 kg + Suits 40 kg  996kg • Costly • Effects total payload due to volume requirements of system therefore reducing payload capacity

  12. Escape Tower  • Mass Total = 93,680 Kg (can we do this?) • Mass payload = 75,000 Kg • Escape Tower = 18,680kg • ‘Dry Mass’ Rocket= 6,125 Kg • Mass prop = 12555 Kg {Mass of tower/ Mass of Cabin} Historically: Mercury = 0.29 Apollo = 0.71 Soyuz = 0.31 Hermes = 0.43 Ariane = 0.44 Comparison Our system=0.25 • Assumptions: • Liquid engine • Safety height of 1 km • Using solid rocket motor • 6 seconds burn time • Max acceleration of 12g’s • Structural mass of 10% • Reduces payload capacity by less than 20% of its own mass? • No drag or gravity considered

More Related