Hlv industry day hybrid launch vehicle phase i concept development demonstration planning
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 15

HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 92 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

ORS AoA Review. HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning. Mr. Bob Hickman Aerospace Corporation Space and Missile Systems Center 07 March 2005. Rapid reconstitution of space capabilities lost due to enemy action

Download Presentation

HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hlv industry day hybrid launch vehicle phase i concept development demonstration planning

ORS AoA Review

HLV Industry DayHybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning

Mr. Bob Hickman

Aerospace Corporation

Space and Missile Systems Center

07 March 2005


Ors aoa mission areas

  • Rapid reconstitution of space capabilities lost due to enemy action

  • Augmentation of critical ISR capabilities

  • Global Precision Strike

    • Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) Flexible Weapon Carrier

    • Centers of Gravity

    • HDBT & WMD Defeat

  • Response from CONUS

    • < 120 min

Force Application

Force Enhancement

  • Cost Effective Lift

  • Responsive launch

  • Routine launch

  • Recover Space Assets

  • On-Orbit Servicing

  • Support ACTDs & Testing

  • Defensive Counterspace

    • Satellite Protection

  • Offensive Counterspace

  • Space Surveillance

  • Small (300-lb) PLs to high-energy orbits

Space Support

Counterspace

ORS AoA Mission Areas

AoA defined lift capacity, responsiveness, and affordability to enable these missions


Ors effect on military utility

50%

40%

30%

Replenishment

20%

Red OCS

Blue OCS

SFA

10%

0%

low

medium

high

ORS Effect on Military Utility

FEBA Penetration

% Improvement

Aggressiveness Assumption

ORS capability has significant military utility across all three aggressiveness levels examined


Ors aoa military utility analysis

SFA

ORS AoA Military Utility Analysis

  • Many thousands of military campaign simulations

  • Identified specific performance parameters to guide spacecraft design


Space alternatives vs launch alternatives

Space Alternatives vs. Launch Alternatives

Space Vehicle Architectures

Current Way of Doing Business

Responsive

Micro-Sats

Recoverable

Satellites

Store SpHLV

On-Orbit

Responsive

Satellites

Serviceable

Satellites

Retrievable

Satellites

Distributed

Micro-Sats

Launch Vehicle Architectures

71

Launch Vehicle Architectures

AoA Process considered how different future space architectures would affect the desirability of each launch option


Spacelift vehicle options

Spacelift Vehicle Options

EELV

  • RLV (TSTO)

  • Optimized LH-LH

  • Optimized RP-RP

  • Optimized RP-LH

  • Bimese LH-LH

  • Bimese RP-RP

  • Hypersonic Rocket

  • New ELVs

  • 3-Stage Solid

  • 2-Stage Liquid

  • Hybrid

  • LH Reusable Booster

  • RP Reusable Booster

  • Liquid or Solid Upper Stages

  • Payload Classes

  • 1 Klb – 45 Klb to LEO


The hybrid vehicle hybrid reusable booster expendable upper stages

Hybrid Vehicle Based Architectures

Best choice in 85% of representative futures(1)

Best or within 6% of best choice in 92% of representative futures

Best or within 15% of best choice in 96% of representative futures

Hybrid architectures minimize the worst outcome (max regret) for all levels of production costs, levels of operability, and levels of military utility

Why?

Relatively low development costs

Reduces launch costs by 67%(2)

2-4 Day turn-around time

Low technical risk

AFFORDABILITY

RESPONSIVENESS

RISK

The Hybrid* Vehicle*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

___

1) Based on 20-Year LCC

2) Compared to EELV prices, published as of Dec 2003


The hybrid vehicle hybrid reusable booster expendable upper stages1

~Mach 7 Separation

~200,000 ft

REUSABLE

BOOSTER

$1k-$2k/lb to LEO

1-2 Day Turn Time

EXPENDABLE UPPER STAGES

The Hybrid* Vehicle*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages


Why hybrids cost less

RLV

ELV

Hybrid*

36% of ELV

0

33

12

196

0

61

31% of RLV

  • Fully-Reusable RLVs

  • Are big because orbiter must go to/from orbit

  • Drives higher development and production costs

  • Fully-Expendable ELVs

  • Expend large amounts of hardware

  • Drives higher recurring costs

  • Hybrid ELV-RLVs

  • Balance ELV-RLV Production and Development costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases

Why Hybrids* Cost Less

Expended Hardware (Klb)

Reused Hardware (Klb)

Hybrids offer cost-effective combination of RLV & ELV characteristics

(This example based on 15 Klb to LEO capability, LH2 Propellant)


Hybrid vehicle responsiveness based on shuttle ops data

Launch Vehicle

Launch

Vehicle

1st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems

  • Modern Engines

  • Fewer Engines

  • High Margins

  • Benign Environment

  • Modern Self-Contained Actuation

  • Batteries only

  • No Fuel Cells

  • No APUs

  • No TPS Required

  • No OMS

  • Non-toxic RCS

  • Canisterized Payloads

  • No Crew or long duration missions

439 man-hrs

0

0

7

42

34

2

ORS

Propulsion

Mechanical

Electrical

Thermal

OMS/RCS

P/L Integration

Crew Support

STS

5,771

7,764

8,205

10,434

12,482

15,893

18,914

Hybrid Vehicle Responsivenessbased on Shuttle Ops Data

Industrial

Base

Infrastructure

Integration

Launch Vehicle

Payloads

Spaceport

Post Ops

Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs

* Result Supported By ORS AoA & AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies)


The hlv mach 6 flight environment

199 FLIGHTS:

The X-15: 1959 -1968

DEMONSTRATED:

High Speed: Mach 6.33, with Inconel hot structure

Low Cost: < ~$1.6M / flight (inflated to FY04)

Fast Turn: < 48 hours

Robust Rocket Engine (XLR-99): Throttleable, restartable, 24 MFBO

The HLV (Mach 6+) Flight Environment

Demonstrated operable rocket powered flight above Mach 6


Design curve sensitivity

Incentive to optimize performance

Region of State-of-the-Art Technologies

Design Curve Sensitivity

7

6

5

1-Stage RLV (SSTO)

4

Vehicle Gross Weight (106 lb)

3

2-Stage RLV (TSTO)

2

1

Hybrid

0

0.76

0.78

0.80

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.90

Propellant Mass Fraction

Hybrids facilitate robust designs, with low risk.


Hlv planned modular development notional example

HLV Planned Modular DevelopmentNotional Example

ORS

2-Booster

Hybrid (Growth)

Shuttle depicted

for size comparison

only.

ORS

2-Booster

Hybrid

ORS

Hybrid

Peacekeeper

or

Falcon SLV

PK* Stg 1 & 3

Upper Stagesor FALCONPK or FALCON 2 New U/S Payload to LEO 1,500 lb14,100 lb** 24,000 lb**45,000 lb

Payload to GTO4,500 lb8,200 lb15,000 lb

Flyback Method noneJet FlybackJet FlybackJet Flyback

*PK=Peacekeeper

** Constrained to Mach 7 staging

*** GTO performance requires STAR or MIS upper stages


Afrocc decision 15 july 2004

AFROCC Decision (15 July 2004)


Summary findings

Summary Findings

  • Hybrids can reduce costs by factor of 3-6 and have 1-2 day turn time

  • Planned evolution recommended by ORS AoA, beginning with subscale demo, followed by full-scale Y-vehicle

  • AFROCC approved the AoA’s recommendations

  • Low risk compared to Mach 25 Vehicles

  • Modular architecture of hybrid launch vehicles can be designed to cover all weight classes


  • Login