Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for Public Release. Approval # AFRL/XXXX-XXXX/ For more information on this document contact AFRL/RQ, 2130 Eighth Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7541
Integrity Service Excellence
AFRL Perspective Responsive &
Reusable Boost System (RBS)
ASEB-NRC Briefing
Bruce Thieman Jess Sponable
Air Force Research Laboratory 17 February 2012
2 2
AFRL Briefings to NRC on RBS
• AFRL Perspective on Reusable Booster Technology
– 1/2 hour
• RBS Program
– 1 hour (40 min brief and 20 min discussion)
• Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Program
(Tomorrow)
– 1 hour (40 min brief and 20 min discussion)
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
4 4
Emerging Themes/Needs
• 3X cost reduction for RBS, 10X achieved via full reusability • Payloads
– Pico, Nano, +
– 10-15K (CPGS, Small Medium, etc.)
– EELV Replacement to 17-64K lbs
• Global ISR/Strike • Sortie Payloads • Disaggregated Payloads (AFSPC/CC) • Hypersonic testing/testbed • Commercial providers • Point to Point Transport? • Many potential users: AFSPC, GSC, ACC (ASC), STRATCOM,
AMC, NCA, OSD, NRO, NASA, etc.
AFSPC LONG TERM S&T CHALLENGES
Provide a full spectrum launch capability at dramatically lower cost
Provide real-time cross-domain, predictive, assured situational
awareness
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
5 5
A Decade of Studies Recommend: Initial Steps Reusable Boost System
• Predicted launch savings at 50 to 67% – Reduces expendable hardware by a factor of three
(Key element is reusable engines) – Avoid Shuttle-like manpower-intensive support
• Recent analysis: – AFRL Responsive Space Advanced Technology Study
(2003) – Operationally Responsive Spacelift AOA (2004) – USECAF Vector 1 Launch Study (2005) – Aerospace Future Launch Study (2006) – AF SAB Future Launch Vehicles Study (2010) – SMC Spacelift Development Plan (draft 2010) – EELV/RBS Total Cost of Ownership (2011) AFRL S&T Goals
• 66% cost reduction • 24 hr turn-around • 2-8 hr call up
UnclassifiedContains Contractor Proprietary Data
UnclassifiedContains Contractor Proprietary Data
Spacelift Development Plan Strategy
* Future Responsive Access to Space Technologies
Medium/Heavy
FY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035SYSTEM PRODUCTION
Future Reusable Upper Stage
Reusable Booster
SYSTEM DEMOs & DEVELOPMENT
TECHNOLOGY DEMOs & DEVELOPMENT
AFRL FAST* Ground Demo
EELV
AFRL HC Boost Engine Tech Demo
RBCC
Small(Up to ~5 kLb)
Next Gen Med/Heavy Lift
FY12 POM Commitment
Small RBS + SES Dev
RBS Flt Demo
*Funded
Decision
Unfunded
Partially Funded
Large RBS + LES Dev
HC EngineDev
Unclassified
Accelerated HCB Demo Shown with Industry Risk Mitigation
$62.2M from AFSPC in FY12/13
Domestic Engine Atlas V IOC
Small Expendable Stages (SES)MinotaurNext Gen Small Lift
Scramjet Upper Stage Demo
MS BDecision
Large RBS IOC
Small RBS IOC
IOC
Engine MS BDecision
(Mid 2022)
(Late 2025)
(2016)
(2017)
(2019)
(2019)
5
Consistent Study Results Reusable technology can reduce launch costs – ELV cost reductions not driven by technology
but rather by lean acquisition processes, high production rate & launch range streamlining Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
6
S&T Focus to Achieve the Goal
• Objective: Reduce Cost 50 to 67% for Spacelift • 60% of launch vehicle • 40% of ground ops • 10% of range ops • 40% of mission assurance
• Launch Vehicle • Reuse Booster Stage
• 200 reuse booster • 50 reuse engine
• More Efficient Engine for Booster and Upper Stage
• Design for maintainability, clean pad ops, 15 person contact/shift, 24 hour turn time, 2-8 hr callup
• Autonomous Flight Operations and Automated Flight Safety System
• Eliminate IOT&E/DT&E for every booster thru reusability & aircraft like ops
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
7
Vehicle Options& Flight Rate Comparison
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 10 20 30 40 50 Flight Rate (Launches/Year)
20-Year Life Cycle Cost ($B)
LEO Capacity = 15 klbs; Reusable Fleet Size = 4 up to 20 flts/yr, then 1 more per each additional 10 flts/yr (Values assume all-new developments - Costs in FY2004 Dollars)
Reusable Booster: Lowest LCC and Recurring Cost at All Likely Flight Rates
Exemplar, from extensive parametric analyses
Fully Expendable
Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 Flight Rate (Launches/Year)
Recurring Cost ($M/Flight)
Fully Expendable
Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages
DoD Area of Interest
DoD Area of Interest
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
8
Reusable vs. Expendable Comparison
RBS Has Solid Cost Savings Potential
(This example based on 15 klb to LEO capability)
Expended H/W (klb)
Reused H/W (klb)
RLV
196 0
Fully-Reusable RLVs • Are big because orbiter must
go to/from orbit (80% of orbited mass is the orbiter)
• Drives higher development and production costs
ELV
33 0
Fully-Expendable ELVs • Expend large amounts of
hardware
• Drives higher recurring costs
RBS
12 61
RBS • Balance ELV-RLV Production and
Development costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases
(Reusable
Booster System) Avoids 64% of ELV’s
expendable hardware
Avoids 69% of RLV’s reusable hardware
Note: Cost of expendable hardware is partly production, but also includes costs of documentation, testing, and reviews required to assure reliability. Reusable booster hardware can be designed with higher margins, and certified to permit reuse with minimal testing/review (similar to aircraft).
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
9
RBS Affordability: Reduction in Expended Hardware
Reusable Booster Staging Velocities Between Mach 3 and 7 Reduce Expended Dry Mass By Factor of 2-3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 5 10 15 20 1st Stage Separation Delta-V (kft/sec)
Tota
l Exp
ende
d D
ry W
eigh
t (kl
b)
Glideback Rocketback
Downrange Landing
Mac
h 3.
5
Mac
h 7
Jetback or
55% Reduction
67% Reduction
(Example: 25 klb to LEO) Fully Expendable Vehicle Weight
Best region for RBS design
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
10
RBS vs. Shuttle Processing Manpower
Infrastructure
Integration
Payloads
Spaceport
Post Ops
Upper Stages
Reusable Booster
OPERATIONS Shuttle Reusable System Orbiter Booster Summary of Improvements
Thermal 18,914 12 Mach 6 or less Vs. Mach 25 Shuttle reentrycreates benign reentry environment
Crew Support 15,893 0 No crew or on-orbit operations
Mechanical 12,482 42 Modern self-contained actuationBenign environmentHigher margins
Vehicle Reconfigfor Payload 10,434 ~0 No payload bay, No reconfiguration. Payload
carried in fairing on expendable upper stage.
OMS/RCS 5,771 7 No OMS. Non-toxic RCS.
Electrical 8,205 34 Batteries only. No Fuel Cells. No APUs.
Propulsion 7,774 75 Modern hydrocarbon engines, High-margins, Reduced performance requirements
Labor Hours Labor Hours
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
Reusable Booster Avoids Maintenance Issues of Previous Reusables by Focusing on only Reusable Booster – not Orbiter
11
Design Region Sensitivity
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.76 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88 0.90 Stage Propellant Mass Fraction
(Propellant Mass / Gross Mass)
Vehi
cle
Gro
ss W
eigh
t (10
6 lb
)
RBS = Reusable 1st stage, Expendable upper stages
May Lead to Compromise of Operability
for Early Systems
RBS Configuration Facilitates Robust Margins Mass fraction of expendable stages: 0.9
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
12
Rocket Vs. Hypersonic Propulsion
Far Term 1st Stage Solution
Reusable boosters need high thrust to accelerate quickly & reduce gravity/drag losses. Vertical takeoff rocket (RP) preferred in long term for reusable booster.
Dominant Factor Based on Rocket Equation:
ΔV = Isp • (g) • ln(mi/mf) – gravity/drag losses
0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Booster Staging Delta-V (fps)
50
100
150
200
250
Reu
sabl
e B
oost
er D
ry W
eigh
t (lb
)
Mac
h 3.
5
Mac
h 7.
0
TBCC* Booster (horizontal takeoff)
(Example: 25 klb to LEO)
RP Rocket Booster (vertical takeoff)
Hypersonic
* TBCC- Turbine Based Combined Cycle Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.
13 13
What is Reusable Booster System?
• Vertical lift, horizontal land, Reusable Booster System
• Demonstrate key features on subscale system(s)
• Return-to-base maneuver
• Turn time and cost savings
• Benefit to Warfighter:
• > 50-66% cost reduction for launch on schedule
• 2-8 hr call-up, 24-48 hour turn around from call up to launch, and 90% weather availability for assured strike and launch on demand
Boost or Glide
Back ~ Mach 3.5 - 7 Staging
~ 150K feet altitude
Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release, SMC/XR 19 Oct 2010: JDA18564
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time, sec
Hea
trat
e, B
TU/ft
2-se
c
Minimal reentry heating
Low ascent heating
15 15
Hybrid Reusable Booster Technology Maturation
Vision Engine
Physics-Based MS&A tools
Risk Reduction Integrated Engine Cycle Testing
(250Klbs Thrust - Subscale)
Prototype & Flight Weight Engine (SMC)
HC Boost Demo
Airframe Structures
Adaptive Guidance & Control
Pathfinder Rocket Back Demo (SMC & AFRL)
Flight Demo or X-Plane
(AFSPC funded)
USET
FAST
RBS Responsive Ops Test
(AFRL)
(AFRL)
A $385 million integrated suite of ground & flight technologies
Integrated Vehicle Health Mngment
2015
2014-2020 2027+
2020
Distribution A – Approved for Public Release. Distribution Unlimited.