The future of space depends on dependable propulsion hardware for non expendable systems
Download
1 / 60

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


  • 60 Views
  • Uploaded on

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?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The Future of Space Depends on Dependable Propulsion Hardware for Non-Expendable Systems' - nevada-meyer


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
The future of space depends on dependable propulsion hardware for non expendable systems
The Future ofSpace Depends on Dependable PropulsionHardware for Non-Expendable Systems

Prof. Claudio Bruno

University of Rome

Prof. Paul Czysz

St. Louis University


Ad astrium possible
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?


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


A 1985 estimate for the beginning of the 21 st century
A 1985 Estimate for the Beginning of the 21st Century

Circa 1985


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


What if these 1960 s opportunities were not missed
What If These 1960’s Opportunities Technology of High Performance Launchers Applies to Airbreathing Aircraft, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1971 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


Vdk czysz sizing system identifies the solution space for the identified requirements
VDK-Czysz Technology of High Performance Launchers Applies to Airbreathing Aircraft, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1971 Sizing SystemIdentifies theSolution Spacefor theIdentifiedRequirements

Where Design

Parameters

Converge

Identifying the

Solution Space


Necessary volume and size for ssto blended body convergence

Necessary Volume and Size for SSTO Blended Body Convergence Technology of High Performance Launchers Applies to Airbreathing Aircraft, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1971

Blended

Body

Impractical

Solution area

Delineates the possible from the not possible


Little difference in empty weight a significant difference in gross weight
Little Difference in Empty Weight, Technology of High Performance Launchers Applies to Airbreathing Aircraft, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1971 A Significant Difference in Gross Weight

Practical Solution Space within Industrial Capability about 1/5 the Total Possible


The solution space for four configuration concepts identifies configuration limitations
The Solution Space for Four Configuration Concepts Identifies Configuration Limitations

ft2

Why was Delta Clipper

A Circular Cone ?


Even an All Rocket TSTO Has More Identifies Configuration LimitationsVersatility,Flexibility& Payload Volume Than a SSTOA TSTO is One-Half the Mass


Staging above mach 10 minimizes tsto system weight

Individual components Identifies Configuration Limitations

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


Mig/Lozinski 50-50 Identifies Configuration Limitations

Aerospatiale

Since

The

1960’ s

There

Were

And

Are

Many

Good

Designs

Daussalt

Sänger

Canadian Arrow

MAKS


As a first step we can have a versatile flexible recoverable and reusable rocket system
As a First Step We Can Identifies Configuration LimitationsHave 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


Unless the wr is less than 5 5 hto is an unacceptable penalty
Unless the WR is Less Than 5.5 Identifies Configuration LimitationsHTO is anUnacceptable Penalty

HTO is not a

Management

Option !!

40% penalty


Airbreathing option pays at speeds less than 14 500 ft sec
Airbreathing Identifies Configuration LimitationsOption PaysAt SpeedsLess Than14,500 ft/sec

Confirmed by

A Blue Ribbon

Panel Headed by

Dr. B. Göthert in

Circa 1964

After Reviewing

Available Data


Lace offers an existing rocket benefit almost equal to a combined cycle
LACE Offers An Identifies Configuration LimitationsExisting RocketBenefit Almost Equal to a Combined Cycle

OWE Solution Spaces

Overlap. Marginal

Difference in OEW


Popular choice not the better choice
Popular Choice not the Better Choice Identifies Configuration Limitations

Thrust @ Mach 6.7 compared ≈ 1 ≈ 0.25

to thrust @ takeoff


10 year Operational Life, 30,000 lb payload, Identifies Configuration LimitationsUp 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


Cost data is consistent fly more often with sustained use aircraft
Cost Data is Consistent, Fly More Often Identifies Configuration LimitationsWith Sustained Use Aircraft

By H. D. Froning

And

Skye Lawrence

Circa 1983


It s the flight rate not technology
It’s the FLIGHT RATE, not technology Identifies Configuration Limitations

Shuttle

O’Keefe

5 B747’s Operated

At Same Schedule

And payload As

The Space Shuttle

Charles Lindley,

Jay Penn


What s wrong with this picture
What’s Wrong with This Picture ??? Identifies Configuration Limitations

No Change in the past 40 years !!

Circa 1985


Augustine committee
Augustine Committee Identifies Configuration Limitations

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


Can this be our future infrastructure
Can This Be Our Future Infrastructure ? Identifies Configuration Limitations


We need a nuclear electric shuttle
We Need a Nuclear Electric Shuttle Identifies Configuration Limitations

V. Gubonov NPO Energia

Bonn 1972



Moon or Mars Hardware

Conditions are similar

This is only a transient visit


Moon-Mars Human Infrastructure HardwareNeeds 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


Cape verde on victoria crater this is not similar the moon
Cape Verde on Victoria Crater HardwareThis is Not Similarthe Moon



We seem to be trapped by chemical propulsion will we lead or follow
We Seem to be Trapped by Chemical Propulsion HardwareWill We Lead or Follow ?


Nuclear Propulsion - Present/future interplanetary missions Hardware

Professor

Claudio Bruno

Will Now Take

Us Beyond Mars

Toward the

Heliopause


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


Nuclear Propulsion - Times and distances interplanetary missions

with Acceleration

34


Nuclear Propulsion - Times and Isp interplanetary missions

35


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


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


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


Nuclear Propulsion - Einstein’s Equation Chemical Propulsion

NP Nuclear Energy

  • massenergy

m a mc2

  • a depends on fundamental forces

39


Nuclear Propulsion Potential Energy Chemical Propulsion

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


Nuclear Propulsion - Isp Chemical Propulsion

41


Nuclear Propulsion Isp Chemical Propulsion

Nuclear Propulsion - Isp

Isp/c as function of a : the limit Isp = speed of light !

42


Nuclear Propulsion - Thrust (F) Chemical Propulsion

43


Nuclear Propulsion Chemical 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



Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies Chemical Propulsion

Schematics of NTR – Nuclear Thermal Rocket

Figure 7-6: Conceptual scheme of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (Bond, 2002)

46


Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies Chemical Propulsion

Schematics of NER – Nuclear Electric Rocket

Figure 7-7: Conceptual scheme of a Nuclear-Electric Rocket. Note the mandatory radiator (Bond, 2002)

47


Nuclear Propulsion - NTR Applications Chemical Propulsion

NTR – US Developments (1954-1972)

[M.Turner, “Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion”, 2005]

48


Nuclear Propulsion - NTR Applications Chemical Propulsion

NTR – US Developments (1954-1972)

The Phoebus IIA solid-core nuclear reactor on its Los Alamos test stand (Dewar, 2004 )

49


Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies Chemical Propulsion

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


Nuclear Propulsion - Comparisons Chemical Propulsion

  • Must set ground rules (otherwise, apples & pears)

  • Here: based on Itot,s = (Isp toperation)/(MP + m) ~ Isp3 ηtot/PR

  • Itot,s is a distance traveled/unit ‘fuel’ mass, as in cars

    • Normalize Itot,s using Itot,s of LOX/LH2 : this ratio is the ‘performance Index, I’:

  • 51


    NEP: Applied to ORBIT TRANSFER Chemical Propulsion

    Travel Time is Still Greater Than One Year

    52

    52


    NEP: Applied to ORBIT TRANSFER Chemical Propulsion

    Delta V versus Power

    NEP

    ΔV (km/s)

    POWER (Mwe)

    MASS: 120 to160 ton

    Compared with CP total ΔV is 406.76% to 574.9% higher

    53

    53


    NEP: Applied to ORBIT TRANSFER Chemical Propulsion

    Propellant Consumption Dominates

    Propellant and Crew Consumables

    Propellant

    54

    54


    Power to Travel 73 AU Distance Chemical Propulsion

    Kuiper Belt

    Power as function of Isp; 8-year mission and initial mass M0 as parameter order of magnitude more power than 20 year mission

    55


    Power to Travel 73 AU Distance Chemical Propulsion

    Kuiper Belt

    Power as function of Isp; 20-year mission

    and initial mass M0 as parameter

    56


    Power to Travel to the Heliopause Chemical Propulsion

    100 AU Distance for

    Two Travel Times

    100 AU

    100 AU

    57


    540 AU Distance to the Sun Focal Point for Chemical Propulsion

    Two Travel Times

    540 AU

    540 AU

    58


    Nuclear propulsion some conclusions
    Nuclear Propulsion ~ Some Conclusions Chemical Propulsion

    • The combination of Isp and power of the Gridded Ion System for a M3 result in predictions for both mass and mission times that are significantly better than with other CP and NTR propulsion systems.

    • A NEP-powered M3 appears not only feasible, but also more convenient than CP- and likely also NTR-powered missions in terns of cost, besides being the only way to drastically reduce HUMEX travel time and thus GCR dose for the crew.

    • To enable a future NEP M3, investing in this propulsion technology is necessary. That is an unlikely prospective in the current financial climate, but would spare much time and effort to our future generations.

    • NTR systems may be the only propulsion enabling quick reaction missions, e.g., to counter unexpected asteroid threats

    59

    59


    ad