ESA Document - Emits - ESA
ESA Document - Emits - ESA ESA Document - Emits - ESA
s 4.4.8 Propulsion HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 362 of 422 4.4.8.1 Requirements and design drivers According to mission analysis the total DV required for the deorbiting manoeuvre is estimated to be 98 m/s. Thrust required for this manoeuvre is assumed of 20 kN. This value has been selected by similarity on the basis of the thrust to mass ratio of the Soyuz module. 4.4.8.2 Assumptions and trade-offs Module dry mass is estimated 45 tonnes Only Storable bi-propellant are considered. 4.4.8.3 Baseline design Four YUZHNOYE RD 869 pump-fed thruster have been chosen as propulsion system for this module. The thruster is under development for 4 th stage of the European VEGA Launcher. The propulsion system presents the following characteristics. 4.4.8.4 Budgets Characteristic Value Number of thruster 4 Thrust 5 kN (pump- fed) Isp 325 sec exit diameter 325 mm length 600 mm thruster mass 34 kg propellant UDMH/NTO O/F ratio 2.1 number of tanks 2+2 Tanks material Ti max MEOP 7 bar Mass of UDMH tank 3 kg (each) Mass of NTO tank 2.5 kg (each) Table 4-46: De-orbit propulsion system summary Propellant mass 1463 kg Propulsion Dry mass (including margins) 253 kg This mass includes an estimation of thrusters mass, the tanks, and a roughly estimation of feedlines, valves and regulators, propulsion thermal control, avionics, actuators and does not consider the structure of the propulsion system, power and communication.
s 4.5 Mars Ascent Vehicle 4.5.1 Trajectories HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-20(A) February 2004 page 363 of 422 4.5.1.1 Requirements and design drivers The objective is to obtain an ascent trajectory which minimises the lift off mass, by means of selecting the proper propellant masses in each stage, firing time in each stage, pitch and yaw profile. 4.5.1.2 Baseline trajectory 4.5.1.2.1 Input data Initial conditions The optimal trajectory depends on both the altitude and latitude of the launch pad. The landing site drives the latitude of the launch site, and it was agreed to be 20 degrees North as reference. The reference altitude was assumed to be 0 Km, to be conservative. The longitude was assumed to be equal to 0, since it has no influence in the trajectory computation. Final conditions The final conditions are those corresponding to a circular orbit of 500 km altitude and 32 degrees of inclination. Mass budget Table 4-47 shows the mass budget used for the baseline trajectory. During the optimisation process the mass of the tanks was considered as a variable, being equal to 3% of the propellant mass. Dry Mass (except Tanks) 1st Stage 2nd Stage Tanks Total Dry Mass Prop Dry Mass (except Tanks) Tanks Total Dry Mass Prop Lift Off Mass 700 388 1088 12922 5100 81 5181 2705 21896 Table 4-47: Mass budget in Kg Propulsion system Table 4-48 shows the performance data of the propulsion system and the final propulsion configuration. Type of engine Number of engines Thrust (N) Isp(s) Nozzle Diameter (mm) 1st Stage Aestus (advance) 4 33000 330 1070 2nd Stage RD 869 4 5000 325 375 Drag coefficients and reference area Table 4-48: Propulsion system
- Page 311 and 312: s 4.3.6.1 Budgets HMM Assessment St
- Page 313 and 314: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 315 and 316: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 317 and 318: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 319 and 320: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 321 and 322: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 323 and 324: s Surface Surface Container MAV Con
- Page 325 and 326: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 327 and 328: s 4.3.9.3 Baseline design 4.3.9.3.1
- Page 329 and 330: s Bio-Lock Masses: Core Samples No.
- Page 331 and 332: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 333 and 334: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 335 and 336: s Figure 4-72: Entry Velocity (L) a
- Page 337 and 338: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 339 and 340: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 341 and 342: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 343 and 344: s 2 3.9 233 923.1 347 923 12.3 352
- Page 345 and 346: s Figure 4-85: Communications MEV/M
- Page 347 and 348: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 349 and 350: s 4.4.5.3.2 GNC equipment HMM Asses
- Page 351 and 352: s 4.4.5.4 Control laws generation H
- Page 353 and 354: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 355 and 356: s Finally, the Figure 4-97 shown th
- Page 357 and 358: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 359 and 360: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 361: s velocity (m/sec) altitude (km) 50
- Page 365 and 366: s Term Value Unit Radius of equator
- Page 367 and 368: s 4.5.2.1 Requirements and design d
- Page 369 and 370: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 371 and 372: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 373 and 374: s Inclination (deg) 47.5 47 46.5 46
- Page 375 and 376: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 377 and 378: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 379 and 380: s 4.5.3 Structures HMM Assessment S
- Page 381 and 382: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 383 and 384: s 4.5.5 Thermal HMM Assessment Stud
- Page 385 and 386: s 4.5.5.3 Baseline thermal design H
- Page 387 and 388: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 389 and 390: s Crew Ingress/Egress Hatch: HMM As
- Page 391 and 392: s Element 3: Mars Ascent Vehicle HM
- Page 393 and 394: s 4.5.7.5 Budgets Characteristic Va
- Page 395 and 396: s PER DAY PER MISSION DRINKING WATE
- Page 397 and 398: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 399 and 400: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 401 and 402: s 5 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS HMM Assessm
- Page 403 and 404: s 6 APPENDIX A - MARTIAN SURFACE NU
- Page 405 and 406: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 407 and 408: s Figure 6-1: Example of buried rea
- Page 409 and 410: s HMM Assessment Study Report: CDF-
- Page 411 and 412: s 7 APPENDIX B - REFERENCES [RD1] C
s<br />
4.5 Mars Ascent Vehicle<br />
4.5.1 Trajectories<br />
HMM<br />
Assessment Study<br />
Report: CDF-20(A)<br />
February 2004<br />
page 363 of 422<br />
4.5.1.1 Requirements and design drivers<br />
The objective is to obtain an ascent trajectory which minimises the lift off mass, by means of<br />
selecting the proper propellant masses in each stage, firing time in each stage, pitch and yaw<br />
profile.<br />
4.5.1.2 Baseline trajectory<br />
4.5.1.2.1 Input data<br />
Initial conditions<br />
The optimal trajectory depends on both the altitude and latitude of the launch pad. The landing<br />
site drives the latitude of the launch site, and it was agreed to be 20 degrees North as reference.<br />
The reference altitude was assumed to be 0 Km, to be conservative. The longitude was assumed<br />
to be equal to 0, since it has no influence in the trajectory computation.<br />
Final conditions<br />
The final conditions are those corresponding to a circular orbit of 500 km altitude and 32 degrees<br />
of inclination.<br />
Mass budget<br />
Table 4-47 shows the mass budget used for the baseline trajectory. During the optimisation<br />
process the mass of the tanks was considered as a variable, being equal to 3% of the propellant<br />
mass.<br />
Dry Mass<br />
(except Tanks)<br />
1st Stage 2nd Stage<br />
Tanks Total Dry Mass Prop<br />
Dry Mass<br />
(except Tanks)<br />
Tanks Total Dry Mass Prop Lift Off Mass<br />
700 388 1088 12922 5100 81 5181 2705 21896<br />
Table 4-47: Mass budget in Kg<br />
Propulsion system<br />
Table 4-48 shows the performance data of the propulsion system and the final propulsion<br />
configuration.<br />
Type of engine Number of engines Thrust (N) Isp(s) Nozzle Diameter (mm)<br />
1st Stage Aestus (advance) 4 33000 330 1070<br />
2nd Stage RD 869 4 5000 325 375<br />
Drag coefficients and reference area<br />
Table 4-48: Propulsion system