Fly Me To The Moon On An SLS Block II

Similar documents
Lunar Cargo Capability with VASIMR Propulsion

Performance Evaluation of a Side Mounted Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle for Lunar Exploration

Architecture Options for Propellant Resupply of Lunar Exploration Elements

SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM. Steve Creech Manager Spacecraft/Payload Integration & Evolution August 29, 2017 A NEW CAPABILITY FOR DISCOVERY

Suitability of reusability for a Lunar re-supply system

Review of iterative design approach Mass Estimating Relationships (MERs) Sample vehicle design analysis

Ares V: Supporting Space Exploration from LEO to Beyond

Lunar Surface Access from Earth-Moon L1/L2 A novel lander design and study of alternative solutions

Artemis: A Reusable Excursion Vehicle Concept for Lunar Exploration

SPACE PROPULSION SIZING PROGRAM (SPSP)

LUNAR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH BASE. Yuzhnoye SDO proprietary

Ares I Overview. Phil Sumrall Advanced Planning Manager Ares Projects NASA MSFC. Masters Forum May 14, 2009

A LEO Propellant Depot System Concept for Outgoing Exploration

Next Steps in Human Exploration: Cislunar Systems and Architectures

A Model-Based Systems Engineering Approach to the Heavy Lift Launch System Architecture Study

Parametric Design MARYLAND

Centurion: A Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle Family for Cis- Lunar Exploration

Analysis of Launch and Earth Departure Architectures for Near-Term Human Mars Missions

lights on, down 2 ½ 40 feet, down 2 ½ Kickin up some dust 30 feet, 2 ½ down faint shadow

Welcome to Vibrationdata

SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS)

Utilizing Lunar Architecture Transportation Elements for Mars Exploration

Mass Estimating Relations

OMOTENASHI. (Outstanding MOon exploration TEchnologies demonstrated by NAno Semi-Hard Impactor)

ULA Briefing to National Research Council. In-Space Propulsion Roadmap. March 22, Bernard Kutter. Manager Advanced Programs. File no.

Development of a Low Cost Suborbital Rocket for Small Satellite Testing and In-Space Experiments

How Does a Rocket Engine Work?

Mass Estimating Relations

Ares V Overview. presented at. Ares V Astronomy Workshop 26 April 2008

Copyright 2016 Boeing. All rights reserved.

MARS-OZ: A Design for a Simulated Mars Base in the Arkaroola Region

Rocket 101. IPSL Space Policy & Law Course. Andrew Ratcliffe. Head of Launch Systems Chief Engineers Team

USA FALCON 1. Fax: (310) Telephone: (310) Fax: (310) Telephone: (310) Fax: (310)

BIMODAL NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET (BNTR) PROPULSION FOR FUTURE HUMAN MARS EXPLORATION MISSIONS

BIMODAL NUCLEAR THERMAL ROCKET (BNTR) PROPULSION FOR FUTURE HUMAN MARS EXPLORATION MISSIONS

CONCEPT STUDY OF AN ARES HYBRID-OS LAUNCH SYSTEM

CHANGING ENTRY, DESCENT, AND LANDING PARADIGMS FOR HUMAN MARS LANDER

Mass Estimating Relations

Cost Estimation and Engineering Economics

TOWARDS A HEAVY LAUNCHER - PROPULSION SOLUTIONS - A. Souchier - C. Rothmund Snecma Moteurs, Direction Grosse Propulsion à Liquides

THE FALCON I LAUNCH VEHICLE Making Access to Space More Affordable, Reliable and Pleasant

The Apollo 13 Mission Compiled by Daniel R. Adamo

Massachusetts Space Grant Consortium

ENERGIA 1. IDENTIFICATION. 1.1 Name. 1.2 Classification Family : K Series : K-1/SL-17 Version : 4 strap-ons

FEDERAL SPACE AGENCY OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION LAVOCHKIN ASSOCIATION PROGRAM OF THE MOON EXPLORATION BY AUTOMATIC SPACE COMPLEXES

Loads, Structures, and Mechanisms Design Project ENAE 483 Fall 2012

THE BIMESE CONCEPT: A STUDY OF MISSION AND ECONOMIC OPTIONS

NASA s Choice to Resupply the Space Station

Preliminary Cost Analysis MARYLAND

Transportation Options for SSP

High Power Solar Electric Propulsion for Human Space Exploration Architectures

Travel: Detailed Flight Plan

Notes: GENERAL DYNAMICS EARLY LUNAR ACCESS [1993]

Abstract. 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Vehicle Reusability. e concept e promise e price When does it make sense? MARYLAND U N I V E R S I T Y O F. Vehicle Reusability

Upper Stage Evolution

Technical Feasibility Panel for the Human Space Flight Study National Research Council

NASA s Space Launch System Marks Critical Design Review

Human Exploration of the Lunar Surface

Development of a Lunar Architecture Simulation Environment for Evaluation the use of Propellant Re-supply

IAC-07- A3.I.A.19 A VALUE PROPOSITION FOR LUNAR ARCHITECTURES UTILIZING PROPELLANT RE-SUPPLY CAPABILITIES

Industrial-and-Research Lunar Base

ReachMars 2024 A Candidate Large-Scale Technology Demonstration Mission as a Precursor to Human Mars Exploration

Future NASA Power Technologies for Space and Aero Propulsion Applications. Presented to. Workshop on Reforming Electrical Energy Systems Curriculum

The European Lunar Lander Mission

H-IIA Launch Vehicle Upgrade Development

Typical Rocketry Exam Questions

Martin J. L. Turner. Expedition Mars. Published in association with. Chichester, UK

Exploration Architecture Update

HYDROS Development of a CubeSat Water Electrolysis Propulsion System

On Orbit Refueling: Supporting a Robust Cislunar Space Economy

Lunette: A Global Network of Small Lunar Landers

USA DELTA DELTA Mc DONNELL DOUGLAS SPACE SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION TO LM-3C

ELECTRIC PROPULSION MISSION TO GEO USING SOYUZ/FREGAT LAUNCH VEHICLE M.S. Konstantinov *, G.G. Fedotov *, V.G. Petukhov ±, G.A.

Blue Origin Achievements and plans for the future

6. The Launch Vehicle

Atlas V Launches the Orbital Test Vehicle-1 Mission Overview. Atlas V 501 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL Space Launch Complex 41

The Apollo 11 Mission Compiled by Daniel R. Adamo

Instruction Manual: Space Launch System Payload Transfer Module (PTM)

Affordable Human Moon and Mars Exploration through Hardware Commonality

AN OPTIMIZED PROPULSION SYSTEM FOR Soyuz/ST

Precision Paper Space Models

SOYUZ-IKAR-FREGAT 1. IDENTIFICATION. 1.1 Name. 1.2 Classification Family : SOYUZ Series : SOYUZ Version : SOYUZ-IKAR SOYUZ-FREGAT

Formation Flying Experiments on the Orion-Emerald Mission. Introduction

Space Propulsion. An Introduction to.

Antares Rocket Launch recorded on 44 1 Beyond HD DDR recorders Controlled by 61 1 Beyond Systems total

Deployment and Flight Test of Inflatable Membrane Aeroshell using Large Scientific Balloon

USA ATHENA 1 (LLV 1)

ARIANEGROUP ORBITAL PROPULSION ROBERT-KOCH-STRASSE TAUFKIRCHEN GERMANY

EuLISA. <Chemical Propulsion> Internal Final Presentation ESTEC, 8 July Prepared by the ICPA / CDF* Team. (*) ESTEC Concurrent Design Facility

The Common Spacecraft Bus and Lunar Commercialization

Reentry Demonstration Plan of Flare-type Membrane Aeroshell for Atmospheric Entry Vehicle using a Sounding Rocket

Modern Approach to Liquid Rocket Engine Development for Microsatellite Launchers

The GHOST of a Chance for SmallSat s (GH2 Orbital Space Transfer) Vehicle

Deployment and Drop Test for Inflatable Aeroshell for Atmospheric Entry Capsule with using Large Scientific Balloon

A Scalable Orbital Propellant Depot Design

AAE STAGING. Ch3 46

Extending NASA s Exploration Systems Architecture towards Longterm Crewed Moon and Mars Operations

Space Launch System. NASA s Reusable Stages and Liquid Oxygen/Hydrocarbon (LOX/HC) Engines

Transcription:

Fly Me To The Moon On An SLS Block II Steven S. Pietrobon, Ph.D. 6 First Avenue, Payneham South SA 5070, Australia steven@sworld.com.au Presented at International Astronautical Congress Adelaide, South Australia 29 September 2017 1

Mission Sequence All 3D artwork courtesy of Michel Lamontagne. 2

RSRMV Boosters Five segment version of four segment RSRM booster from the Space Shuttle. Vacuum thrust curve manually plotted from Orbital ATK catalogue. Curve adjusted to give total impulse of 1,647,887 kns. Exposed area from hold down posts, separation motors and attachments estimated to be 0.763 m 2. Overlap between aft skirt and core calculated to be 0.801 m 2. Additional area is then 0.763 0.801 = 0.038 m 2. Thrust (MN) 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Time (s) RSRMV vacuum thrust against time. RSRMV Parameters Aft Skirt Diameter (m) 5.288 Additional Area (m 2 ) 0.038 Nozzle Exit Diameter (m) 3.875 Sea Level Thrust at 0.2 s (N) 15,471,544 Vacuum Isp (m/s) 2605.4 Total Mass (kg) 729,240 Usable Propellant (kg) 631,185 Residual Propellant (kg) 1,304 Burnout Mass (kg) 96,751 Action Time (s) 128.4 3

Core Stage Six engine core derived from four engine SLS Block I core. Increased dry mass (not including engines) by 15,513 kg and added mass of six RS 25E engines at 3,700 kg each. Examined three engine configurations. Circle of 6 has engines 0.936 m away from RSRMV nozzle, circle of 5 with 1 central is 0.5 m away and two rows of 3 engines is 1.903 m away. Nozzle RSRMV Aft Skirt RS 25E Core Engine Fairing 5m Core Parameters with RS 25E engines Diameter (m) 8.407 Additional Area (m 2 ) 3.087 Nozzle Diameter (m) 2.304 Single Engine Vacuum Thrust (N) 2,320,637 111% RPL Vacuum Isp (m/s) 4420.8 Number of Engines 6 Total Mass at Liftoff (kg) 1,093,602 Dry Mass (kg) 123,595 Usable Propellant (kg) 959,506 Reserve Propellant (kg) 7,984 Nonusable Propellant (kg) 2,517 Startup Propellant (kg) 12,656 4

Large Upper Stage (LUS) Stage size determined in an iterative fashion. Start with fixed total interstage, LUS and payload mass (m t ). Adjust turn time and maximum angle of attack of core and LUS for 37x200 km orbit. Then adjust m t and repeat process until payload is maximised. Uses two J 2X engines for maximum payload into LEO. Due to vehicle height restrictions had to reduce payload mass from 143,165 kg to 140,667 kg and use a common bulkhead. LUS Parameters with J 2X engines Diameter (m) 8.407 Nozzle Diameter (m) 3.048 Single Engine Vacuum Thrust (N) 1,307,777 Vacuum Isp (m/s) 4393.4 Number of Engines 2 Total Mass at Liftoff (kg) 186,716 Dry Mass (kg) 16,894 Total Propellant (kg) 169,426 Startup Propellant (kg) 771 Main Stage Propellant (kg) 166,048 Reserve Propellant (kg) 449 Ullage Gas Propellant (kg) 1,067 Below Tank Propellant (kg) 435 Fuel Bias Propellant (kg) 656 Ullage Motors Propellant (kg) 205 Ullage Motors Dry Mass (kg) 191 Ullage Motors Thrust (N) 141,615 Ullage Motors Action Time (s) 3.87 Ullage Motors Offset Angle ( ) 30 Interstage Mass (kg) 4,624 5

Uses common bulkhead due to vehicle height restrictions. Iterative program used to determine CPS size. Uses four RL 10C 2 engines for Earth Orbit Insertion (EOI), Trans Lunar Injection (TLI), Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) and 75% of Powered Descent (PD). Reaction control system (RCS) uses GH 2 / GO 2 thrusters (3432.3 m/s Isp) for trans Lunar (TL) trajectory correction manoeuvres (TCM) and powered descent initiation (PDI). Boiloff rate assumed at 0.17% per day. Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) CPS Parameters with RL 10C 2 engines Diameter (m) 8.407 Nozzle Diameter (m) 2.146 Single Engine Vacuum Thrust (N) 110,093 Vacuum Isp (m/s) 4535.6 Number of Engines 4 Total Mass at Liftoff (kg) 104,330 Dry Mass (kg) 9,000 Total Propellant (kg) 95,330 EOI Propellant (kg) 49.0 m/s 1,528 TLI Propellant (kg) 3184.9 m/s 70,038 TCM RCS Propellant (kg) 3.8 m/s 76 LOI Propellant (kg) 960.4 m/s 13,004 PDI RCS Propellant (kg) 24.9 m/s 213 PD Propellant (kg) 1531.2 m/s 8,383 PD RCS Propellant (kg) 5.5 m/s 47 Reserve Propellant (kg) 60.8 m/s 460 Propellant Boiloff (kg) 5 days 811 Ullage Gas Propellant (kg) 599 Below Tank Propellant (kg) 71 Fuel Bias Propellant (kg) 101 Interstage Mass (kg) 1,738 6

Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) For initial missions a crew of three astronauts is used. The service module fairing (SMF) and launch abort system (LAS) are ejected at 375 s and 380 s after launch, respectively. Orion 220 N RCS (2650 m/s Isp) used for transposition and docking (TAD), low Lunar orbit (LLO) control and trans Earth (TE) TCM. Due to limited propellant, the plane change (PC) allows latitudes up to 12 to be reached. At TLI the maximum load on the docking ring is 164.6 kn, less than the maximum of 300 kn of the International Docking System Standard. Orion Parameters Diameter (m) 5.029 Vacuum Isp (m/s) 3069.5 Total Mass at Liftoff (kg) 35,259 Launch Abort System Mass (kg) 7,643 Crew Mass (kg) 375 Crew Module Mass (kg) 9,887 Service Module Inert Mass (kg) 6,858 Service Module Fairing Mass (kg) 1,384 Service Module Adaptor Mass (kg) 510 Total Propellant (kg) 8,602 TAD Propellant (kg) 0.6 m/s 6 PC Propellant (kg) 46.2 m/s 380 LLO RCS Propellant (kg) 5.5 m/s 53 TEI Propellant (kg) 1168.7 m/s 8,037 TCM RCS Propellant (kg) 1.7 m/s 11 Reserve Propellant (kg) 12.2 m/s 69 Unusable Propellant (kg) 45 Spacecraft Launch Adaptor Mass (kg) 1,285 7

Lunar Module (LM) The LM initially carries two crew, but is sized for up to four crew. Consists of the crew and propulsion module (CPM) and non propulsive landing and cargo module (LCM). Storable N 2 O 4 /Aerozine 50 propellants are used. LM performs last 25% of PD. Four equal sized spherical tanks of 1.314 m diameter are used. Two outer steerable and throttleable engines used for descent and one fixed position and thrust inner engine used for ascent. If LCM fails to separate from CPS, CPM separates and performs abort. If ascent engine fails can use descent engines as backup. Cabin diameter is 2.4 m. LCM height (not including landing legs) is 1.265 m. LCM has large cargo volume for experiments, tools and Lunar roving vehicle. LM Parameters Landing Engines Isp (m/s) 2991.0 Ascent Engine Isp (m/s) 3040.1 Total Mass at Liftoff (kg) 10,348 CPM Dry Mass (kg) 3,558 LCM Mass (kg) 588 LM Adaptor Mass (kg) 602 Cargo Mass (kg) 509 Total Propellant (kg) 5,092 Descent RCS Propellant (kg) 5.5 m/s 19 Descent Propellant (kg) 510.4 m/s 1,568 Ascent RCS Propellant (kg) 5.5 m/s 14 Ascent Propellant (kg) 1890.0 m/s 3,432 Reserve Propellant (kg) 24.1 m/s 33 Unusable Propellant (kg) 27 Crew Mass (kg) 250 Return Sample Mass (kg) 100 8

Lunar Module Configuration 9

Used custom two dimensional (2D) trajectory simulation program. Runga Kutta fourth order method used to solve differential equations. Can model changing thrust. Standard atmosphere used. Launch from Kennedy Space Center at 28.45 latitude into 32.55 orbit. As 2D program used, adjusted Earth s rotation from 408.9 m/s to 391.1 m/s. Two parameters used to get into orbit, the time at which vehicle is made to follow gravity turn after launch (turn time) and maximum angle of attack for LUS and CPS. Typically require 100 to 200 iterations to find optimum payload mass. Found turn time of 5.051 s and maximum angle attack of 10.9612 for chosen vehicle. Trajectory Simulations For RSRMV and Core Stage, gravity turn has zero air angle of attack. For LUS and CPS, use algorithm that gradually increases angle of attack until maximum value reached. Centrifugal forces then gradually reduce angle of attack to zero. SLS Block II Summary Orbit (km) 200±0.0 Inclination ( ) 32.55 Liftoff Thrust at 0.2 s (N) 42,332,715 Liftoff Mass (kg) 2,895,882 Liftoff Acceleration (m/s 2 ) 14.63 Maximum Dynamic Pressure (Pa) 28,878 Maximum Acceleration (m/s 2 ) 29.02 LAS Jettison Time (s) 375 SMF Jettison Time (s) 380 Total Payload (kg) 140,667 Total Delta V (m/s) 9,155 SLS1C6J2C4 software freely available from http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/ 10

8 Simulation Output 200 7 6 150 5 Speed (km/s) 4 Altitude (km) 100 3 2 50 1 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Time (s) Speed versus time. 30 30 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Time (s) Altitude versus time. 25 25 Acceleration (m/s²) 20 15 10 Dynamic Pressure (kpa) 20 15 10 5 5 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Time (s) Acceleration versus time. 0 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 Time (s) Dynamic pressure versus time. 11

Maximum vehicle length for Kennedy Space Center Vehicle Assembly Building is 118.872 m. With D = 8.407 m diameter and three LOX/LH 2 stages, vehicle is too tall with a separate tank design for the LUS and CPS. Designed LUS and CPS with forward facing common bulkhead design to reduce vehicle length. Has added benefit of increased payload at the expense of increased development and production cost. Even with common bulkheads, vehicle height was exceeded by over two meters. Reduced Vehicle Height propellant load in LUS and CPS to meet vehicle height requirement. LEO payload loss was only 2,498 kg. Assumed dome height H = D/3. Calculated tank side wall lengths of 5.887 m for LUS and 1.422 m for CPS. LOX tank bishell volume is V o D 2 (2H G 3 H 2 3G) 6. Calculated G = 0.688 m for LUS and 1.274 m for CPS. G H Height = 64.86 m LUS CPS LM Orion D LAS Vehicle Height = 118.872 m 10 m 2 x J 2X 4 x RL 10C 2 12

Used Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Cost Model derived from NASA/Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) database. Amounts adjusted to 2017 US dollars. All amount in $M. Element Dry Mass Devel. Prod. Prod. Each (kg) Cost Cost 11 Cost 29 2 RSRMV 96,751 2,023.9 1,854.2 3,894.5 1 Core 101,395 5,933.6 3,214.5 6,751.7 1 LUS 11,950 2,105.1 897.6 1,885.2 1 CPS 7,796 1,664.3 676.4 1,420.8 1 LM 4,145 2,592.3 1,300.1 2,730.7 1 Orion 16,745 5,587.0 3,276.3 6,881.5 1 LAS 5,044 797.3 308.6 648.3 6 RS 25E 3,700 3,880.0 1,324.4 2,781.7 2 J 2X 2,472 3,108.1 437.3 918.5 4 RL 10C 301 976.2 184.4 387.4 Total* 250,299 12,497.7 13,473.8 28,300.3 *Total development cost excludes RSRMV, Orion, LAS, RS 25E, J 2X, RL 10C 2 and Block I core development costs. Includes 10% of RSRMV development cost ($202.1M) to restart steel segment production. Lunar Mission Costs Comparison to dual Block IB mission with EUS delivering Orion and LM to LLO in separate missions. Assume LM mass same as Orion mass of 25,848 kg. Element Dry Mass Devel. Prod. Prod. Each (kg) Cost Cost 11 Cost 29 4 RSRMV 96,751 2,023.9 3,152.1 6,620.7 2 Core 85,898 5,416.3 4,896.5 10,284.3 2 EUS 10,650 1,718.1 1,229.4 2,582.2 1 LM 7,758 3,659.4 1,968.7 4,135.1 1 Orion 16,745 5,587.0 3,276.3 6,881.5 1 LAS 5,044 797.3 308.6 648.3 8 RS 25E 3,700 3,880.0 1,650.6 3,467.0 8 RL 10C 301 976.2 313.6 658.6 Total* 226,847 5,579.9 16,795.8 35,277.7 Total cost for Block II is $25,971.5M for 11 missions and $40,798.0M for 29 Missions. Total cost for Block IB is $22,376.7M for 11 missions and $40,857.6M for 29 Missions. Block II is cheaper for 29 or more missions. Block II per mission costs are 20% cheaper. 13

Comparison With Other Block II Configurations Examined various Block II configurations that achieved 130 t payload (not IMLEO) to LEO. Used earlier lighter versions of LAS and SMF ejected at 300 s. Dry mass of LUS used heavier separate tank design. Orbit inclination of 28.45. All configurations used an LUS with two J 2X engines SLS1C6J2.1 2 RSRMV, 6 RS 25E Core. SLS2C4J2.2 2 Pyrios Boosters each with 2 F 1B engines, 4 RS 25E Core. SLS3C4J2.2 2 Liquid Boosters each with 3 AJ1E6 engines, 4 RS 25E Core. SLS4C5J2.2 2 Solid Advanced Boosters, 5 RS 25E Core. SLS Block II Costs for 11 Flights ($M) Config. Payload (t) Total* Per Flight SLS1C6J2.1 137.0 16,559.4 722.8 SLS2C4J2.2 133.2 27,358.7 1,174.2 SLS3C4J2.2 136.2 25,595.2 1,157.1 SLS4C5J2.2 144.1 18,025.8 701.2 Total costs excludes RSRMV, Block I Core, RS 25E and J 2X development costs. Includes 10% of RSRMV development cost to restart steel segment production. Cheapest Block II option is the one we have chosen with RSRMV boosters and six engine core. Advanced Solid Boosters is next cheapest at 9% greater total. Per flight costs are only 3% cheaper. 14

The first Lunar mission will be the beginning. Later missions will stay for longer periods on the Moon and continue its exploration. But getting to the Moon is like getting to first base. From there we ll go on to open up the solar system and start in the direction of exploring the planets. This is the long range goal. Its a learning process. As more knowledge is gained, more confidence is gained. More versatile hardware can be built. Simpler ways of doing things will be found. The flight crews will do more and more. Fly Me to the Moon And Back, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Mission Planning and Analysis Division, 1966. 15