Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch (RASCAL ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

When the entire launch system is combined the weight breakdown follows (Figure 38). As this figure shows even with the MMC the dry weight is still 54% of the vehicle weight. That is important to note because over 54% weight of the system is reusable even though only one of the four stages are reusable. Gross Takeoff Weight 1st Dry Dry 1st Fuel 1st Oxidizer 1st H20 2nd Dry 2nd 2nd Fuel 2nd Oxidizer 3rd Dry 3rd Fuel Payload 84,549 84,549 lb lb 45,661 45,661 lb 22,583 22,583 lb 525 lb 1,758 lb 2,178 lb 3,220 3,220 lb 6,118 6,118 lb 421 lb 2,086 lb 250 lb 2nd Fuel 4% 2nd Dry 3% 1st H20 2% 1st Oxidizer 1% 1st Fuel 27% 2nd Oxidizer 3rd Fuel 7% 3rd Dry 2% 0% Payload 0% Figure 38: Overall Weight Breakdown of GT RASCAL (Fourth Stage Omitted). A final mission profile for the GT RASCAL design is also included (Figure 39). As this figure shows the release of the second stage is at a higher altitude and a higher velocity than the baseline. This allows the upper stage rockets to be much smaller and in turn reduces the first stage weight further. This mission profile also shows that the GT RASCAL design releases the payload from the bottom of the first stage. This was decided since when the first stage drops the payload there is still over 1200 lbs of lift on the first stage. When they payload is released it will fall faster than the first stage and therefore will be farther away that the same payload dropped from the top of the first stage. 48 1st Dry 54%
Figure 39: GT RASCAL Mission Profile. The trajectory plots for the GT RASCAL vehicle follow as Figure 40 and Figure 41. As these plots show the trajectory of the GT RASCAL is very similar to that of the baseline. The major differences are, as already noted, that the first stage releases the upper stages with much more energy and that the third stage puts the fourth stage and payload in a lower transfer orbit, where fewer losses incur. These plots also show the tendency of the MIPCC engines to peak in thrust when the fuel flow rate of the LOX and water is at its highest (~94% of SLS thrust). When this occurs the Isp of the MIPCC engines plummets due to this same increased flow rate. 49
Page 1 and 2:
Responsive Access Small Cargo Affor
Page 3 and 4: List of Figures: Figure 1: Launch C
Page 5 and 6: Abstract: RASCAL is a Defense Depar
Page 7 and 8: Introduction: Due to the uncertaint
Page 9 and 10: This stage will then propel the veh
Page 11 and 12: stages which continue on to orbit.
Page 13 and 14: driving constraint) will then be fl
Page 15 and 16: Once the geometry is defined it mus
Page 17 and 18: Coefficient of Drag 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
Page 19 and 20: These characteristics were then ana
Page 21 and 22: To analyze the effect of MIPCC an A
Page 23 and 24: 14. The new Isp of the MIPCC engine
Page 25 and 26: combination selected the overall we
Page 27 and 28: Table 5: POST Trajectory Constraint
Page 29 and 30: Thrust (lbs) 120000 100000 80000 60
Page 31 and 32: Gross Gross Weight Dry Dry Weight W
Page 33 and 34: Temperature (F) 1400 1300 1200 1100
Page 35 and 36: Operations: Number 1st Stages 5 Num
Page 37 and 38: Cost Estimation: The cost estimatio
Page 39 and 40: As this figure depicts the DDT&E fo
Page 41 and 42: profile of the cost charts is due t
Page 43 and 44: Each of these alternatives will be
Page 45 and 46: 1+2+3 1+3 4th Stage MMC 1st Lox Hyb
Page 47 and 48: The design alternatives were costed
Page 49 and 50: GT RASCAL: From this alternative an
Page 51 and 52: As this figure shows the GT RASCAL
Page 53: used in the GT RASCAL design is in
Page 57 and 58: When the final cost numbers of the
Page 59 and 60: References: 1. Cyr, Kelley, “US L
show all

Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch (RASCAL ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?