1 / 60

The Future of Space Depends on Dependable Propulsion Hardware for Non-Expendable Systems

The Future of Space Depends on Dependable Propulsion Hardware for Non-Expendable Systems. Prof. Claudio Bruno University of Rome Prof. Paul Czysz St. Louis University. Ad Astrium Possible?. What opportunities have we rejected? How far can we travel with our hardware capabilities?

nevada-meyer
Download Presentation

The Future of Space Depends on Dependable Propulsion Hardware for Non-Expendable Systems

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. The Future ofSpace Depends on Dependable PropulsionHardware for Non-Expendable Systems Prof. Claudio Bruno University of Rome Prof. Paul Czysz St. Louis University

  2. Ad AstriumPossible? What opportunities have we rejected? How far can we travel with our hardware capabilities? What do we need in terms of hardware performance to travel farther within human organizational interest?

  3. Prof. Bruno Focus on exploring Beyond LEO Outer Planets Kuiper Belt Heliosphere Prof. Czysz Focus on LEO, GSO, and Lunar support as Recommended by Augustine Committee Earth-Moon Inner Planets

  4. A 1985 Estimate for the Beginning of the 21st Century Circa 1985

  5. Space and Atmospheric Vehicle Development Converge, So the Technology of High Performance Launchers Applies to Airbreathing Aircraft, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1971 Buck, Neumann & Draper were Correct in 1965

  6. What If These 1960’s Opportunities Were Not Missed ? Star Clipper FDL-7MC M=12 Cruise 176H SERJ Combined Cycle 8 flts/yr For 10 yr LACE 42 flts between Overhaul P&W XLR-129

  7. VDK-CzyszSizing SystemIdentifies theSolution Spacefor theIdentifiedRequirements Where Design Parameters Converge Identifying the Solution Space

  8. Necessary Volume and Size for SSTO Blended Body Convergence Blended Body Impractical Solution area Delineates the possible from the not possible

  9. Little Difference in Empty Weight,A Significant Difference in Gross Weight Practical Solution Space within Industrial Capability about 1/5 the Total Possible

  10. The Solution Space for Four Configuration Concepts Identifies Configuration Limitations ft2 Why was Delta Clipper A Circular Cone ?

  11. Even an All Rocket TSTO Has MoreVersatility,Flexibility& Payload Volume Than a SSTOA TSTO is One-Half the Mass

  12. Individual components 1st Stage Staging Above Mach 10 Minimizes TSTO System Weight TSTO system Dwight Taylor McDonnell Douglas Circa 1983 Toss-Back is all metal toss-back booster staging at Mach 7 is low cost, fully recoverable and sustained use at acceptable mass

  13. Mig/Lozinski 50-50 Aerospatiale Since The 1960’ s There Were And Are Many Good Designs Daussalt Sänger Canadian Arrow MAKS

  14. As a First Step We Can Have aVersatile,Flexible,RecoverableandReusable RocketSystem Cargo ISS Crew From McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, Huntington Beach, circa 1983 It can be a rocket and does not have to be an ejector rocket/scramjet

  15. Unless the WR is Less Than 5.5 HTO is anUnacceptable Penalty HTO is not a Management Option !! 40% penalty

  16. AirbreathingOption PaysAt SpeedsLess Than14,500 ft/sec Confirmed by A Blue Ribbon Panel Headed by Dr. B. Göthert in Circa 1964 After Reviewing Available Data

  17. LACE Offers AnExisting RocketBenefit Almost Equal to a Combined Cycle OWE Solution Spaces Overlap. Marginal Difference in OEW

  18. Popular Choice not the Better Choice Thrust @ Mach 6.7 compared ≈ 1 ≈ 0.25 to thrust @ takeoff

  19. 10 year Operational Life, 30,000 lb payload, Up to 10 Flights/year per Aircraft for FourPropulsion Systems Expendable Sustained Use By H. D. Froning And Skye Lawrence Circa 1983 Sustained Use LLC Constant

  20. Cost Data is Consistent, Fly More OftenWith Sustained Use Aircraft By H. D. Froning And Skye Lawrence Circa 1983

  21. It’s the FLIGHT RATE, not technology Shuttle O’Keefe 5 B747’s Operated At Same Schedule And payload As The Space Shuttle Charles Lindley, Jay Penn

  22. What’s Wrong with This Picture ??? No Change in the past 40 years !! Circa 1985

  23. Augustine Committee Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee expressed an eagerness with a concept that with Werner von Braun originated in the 1950’s – orbital refueling. AEROSPACEAMERICA October 2009 Page 19

  24. Can This Be Our Future Infrastructure ?

  25. We Need a Nuclear Electric Shuttle V. Gubonov NPO Energia Bonn 1972

  26. The Moon Can Be A Development Site for Both Moon & Mars Hardware

  27. Moon or Mars Conditions are similar This is only a transient visit

  28. Moon-Mars Human InfrastructureNeeds to be Proven by SustainedApplications, First on the Moon Then Mars We need to lift Habitats, Food, Water, Green Houses and Soil Handling Equipment In Addition to People to confirm long term hardware viability RTV powered Automatic Greenhouse With 10 year operational life

  29. Cape Verde on Victoria CraterThis is Not Similarthe Moon

  30. Chemical Propulsion is a Poor Option to Mars

  31. We Seem to be Trapped by Chemical PropulsionWill We Lead or Follow ?

  32. Nuclear Propulsion - Present/future interplanetary missions Professor Claudio Bruno Will Now Take Us Beyond Mars Toward the Heliopause

  33. Nuclear Propulsion - Times and distances of present/future interplanetary missions Manned: constrained by physical/psychological support air, victuals cosmic & solar radiation, flares bone/muscle mass loss enzymatic changes, …? Unmanned: public support, apathy @ > 1-2 years: funding difficult To reduce constraints, risks, and ensure public (financial) support faster missions with less mass(cost ~ mass) 33

  34. Nuclear Propulsion - Times and distances with Acceleration 34

  35. Nuclear Propulsion - Times and Isp 35

  36. NP - What it really means ‘to increase Isp’ If J = specific energy (energy/unit mass) 1-D, ideal, propellants acceleration: J = (1/2)Ve2 Ve = exhaust velocity = Isp [m/s] thus: Isp = Ve = (2J)1/2  to increase Isp, J must be increased much more Nuclear Propulsion - What Increases Isp ? 36

  37. NP - Mission Time and Power Faster missions, lower mass consumption feasible with / if non-zero acceleration  not boost-coast higher Isp Isp = Ve = (2J)1/2 thrust power~ Isp3 = (2J)3/2  faster missions + high Isp = largepower Large mass consumption: driven by low J of chemical propellants J of Chemical Propellants 4.0 to 10.0 MJ/kg too low need to find higher energy density materials Nuclear Propulsion - Mission Time & Power 37

  38. NP - Energy Density in Chemical Propulsion Max performance improvement with chemical propulsion: with metallic Hydrogen, theoretical Isp ~ 1000-1700 s existence, stability, control of energy release  unsolved issues J increases by O(10) at most, but Isp ~  Must increase J by orders of magnitude Nuclear energy Nuclear Propulsion - Energy Density in Chemical propellants 38

  39. Nuclear Propulsion - Einstein’s Equation NP Nuclear Energy • massenergy m a mc2 • a depends on fundamental forces 39

  40. Nuclear Propulsion Potential Energy Compare alphas and energies: • a and energy density J ( J = [E/m] = ac2 ) • No known a between 3.75 x 10-3 and 1 • Even a = 1 produces not directly useable energy (e.g., g rays) 40

  41. Nuclear Propulsion - Isp 41

  42. Nuclear Propulsion Isp Nuclear Propulsion - Isp Isp/c as function of a : the limit Isp = speed of light ! 42

  43. Nuclear Propulsion - Thrust (F) 43

  44. Nuclear Propulsion Thrust Power P Let’s look at the power needed by F: • P = F · Isp = F · V • P scales with V3: ‘high’ thrust (‘fast’) missions need ‘much larger’ P, affordable ONLY with nuclear power 44

  45. Nuclear Propulsion - How to Utilize Nuclear Power 45

  46. Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies Schematics of NTR – Nuclear Thermal Rocket Figure 7-6: Conceptual scheme of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (Bond, 2002) 46

  47. Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies Schematics of NER – Nuclear Electric Rocket Figure 7-7: Conceptual scheme of a Nuclear-Electric Rocket. Note the mandatory radiator (Bond, 2002) 47

  48. Nuclear Propulsion - NTR Applications NTR – US Developments (1954-1972) [M.Turner, “Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion”, 2005] 48

  49. Nuclear Propulsion - NTR Applications NTR – US Developments (1954-1972) The Phoebus IIA solid-core nuclear reactor on its Los Alamos test stand (Dewar, 2004 ) 49

  50. Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies Nuclear propulsion strategies Nuclear Electric Propulsion Two main NEP classes: charged species accelerated by: • Coulomb Force (only electric field imposed) • Lorentz’ forces (electric and magnetic field) 50

More Related