1994•NASA STI/Recon Technical Report NRequires access

Liquid Flyback Booster Pre-Phase A Study Assessment

Wayne L. Peterson, W. Ankney, Jarrett Bell, Matthias Berning, Lynwood Bryant, Ann L. Bufkin, Louis P. Cain, Jose Caram, Byron L. Cockrell, David S. Curry

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

Mw concept of a flyback booster has been around since early in the Shuttle program. The original two-stage Shuttle concepts used a manned flyback booster. These boosters were eliminated from the program for funding and size reasons. The current Shuttle uses two Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors (RSRMs), which are recovered and refurbished after each flight; this is one of the major cost factors of the program. Replacement options have been studied over the past ten years. The conclusion reached by the most recent study is that the liquid flyback booster (LFBB) is the only competitive option from a life-cycle cost perspective. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and practicality of LFBBs. The study provides an expansion of the recommendations made during the during the aforementioned study. The primary benefits are the potential for enhanced reusability and a reuction of recurring costs. The potential savings in vehicle turnaround could offset the up-front costs. Development of LFBBs requires a commitment to the Shuttle program for 20 to 30 years. LFBBs also offer enhanced safety and abort capabilities. Currently, any failure of an RSRM can be considered catastrophic since them we no intact abort capabilities during the burn of the RSRMS. The performance goal of the LFBBs was to lift a fully loaded Orbiter under optimal conditions, so as not to be the limiting factor of the performance capability of the Shuttle. In addition, a final benefit is the availability of growth paths for applications other than the Shuttle.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Mw concept of a flyback booster has been around since early in the Shuttle program. The original two-stage Shuttle concepts used a manned flyback booster. These boosters were eliminated from the program for funding and size reasons. The current Shuttle uses two Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors (RSRMs), which are recovered and refurbished after each flight; this is one of the major cost factors of the program. Replacement options have been studied over the past ten years. The conclusion reached by the most recent study is that the liquid flyback booster (LFBB) is the only competitive option from a life-cycle cost perspective. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and practicality of LFBBs. The study provides an expansion of the recommendations made during the during the aforementioned study. The primary benefits are the potential for enhanced reusability and a reuction of recurring costs. The potential savings in vehicle turnaround could offset the up-front costs. Development of LFBBs requires a commitment to the Shuttle program for 20 to 30 years. LFBBs also offer enhanced safety and abort capabilities. Currently, any failure of an RSRM can be considered catastrophic since them we no intact abort capabilities during the burn of the RSRMS. The performance goal of the LFBBs was to lift a fully loaded Orbiter under optimal conditions, so as not to be the limiting factor of the performance capability of the Shuttle. In addition, a final benefit is the availability of growth paths for applications other than the Shuttle.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Mw concept of a flyback booster has been around since early in the Shuttle program. The original two-stage Shuttle concepts used a manned flyback booster. These boosters were eliminated from the program for funding and size reasons. The current Shuttle uses two Redesigned Solid Rocket Motors (RSRMs), which are recovered and refurbished after each flight; this is one of the major cost factors of the program. Replacement options have been studied over the past ten years. The conclusion reached by the most recent study is that the liquid flyback booster (LFBB) is the only competitive option from a life-cycle cost perspective. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and practicality of LFBBs. The study provides an expansion of the recommendations made during the during the aforementioned study. The primary benefits are the potential for enhanced reusability and a reuction of recurring costs. The potential savings in vehicle turnaround could offset the up-front costs. Development of LFBBs requires a commitment to the Shuttle program for 20 to 30 years. LFBBs also offer enhanced safety and abort capabilities. Currently, any failure of an RSRM can be considered catastrophic since them we no intact abort capabilities during the burn of the RSRMS. The performance goal of the LFBBs was to lift a fully loaded Orbiter under optimal conditions, so as not to be the limiting factor of the performance capability of the Shuttle. In addition, a final benefit is the availability of growth paths for applications other than the Shuttle.

Key concepts: Booster (rocketry), Solid-fuel rocket, Flyback transformer, Limiting, Aeronautics, Engineering, Computer science, Reliability engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Liquid Flyback Booster Pre-Phase A Study Assessment — Research Paper | ScholarLens