1997AIP conference proceedingsRequires access

Upper stage options for reusable launch vehicle {open_quotes}pop-up{close_quotes} missions

James B. Eckmann, Roy B. Cotta, Leo W. Matuszak, David R. Perkins

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Suborbital separation of an expendable upper stage from a small, single-stage Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) to transfer spacecraft into Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO) was investigated and found to significantly increase spacecraft mass into GEO (over 400{percent}) although operational issues exist. An assessment of propulsion system options for this {open_quotes}Pop-Up{close_quotes} Mission was performed to determine the propellant combinations, stage configurations, and propulsion technologies that maximize spacecraft mass and minimize size. Propellants included earth and space storable combinations, cryogenic LH{sub 2}/LO{sub 2}, and Class 1.3 solids. Stage configurations employing cylindrical metal and overwrapped tanks, isogrid tanks, and toroidal tanks were considered. Non-toxic earth storable propellants provided comparable performance (5{endash}10{percent}) to existing storables while the use of pressure-fed engines gave about 15{percent} lower performance than pump-fed. Solid stage performance was within 5{percent} of existing storable propellants. Stages employing toroidal tanks packaged more efficiently in length constrained RLV payload bays than 4-cylindrical tank configurations, giving up to 30{percent} greater mass into GEO. The use of Extendable Exit Cones (EEC) for length constrained cases resulted in about 5{endash}10{percent} higher stage performance. {copyright} {ital 1997 American Institute of Physics.}

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Suborbital separation of an expendable upper stage from a small, single-stage Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) to transfer spacecraft into Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO) was investigated and found to significantly increase spacecraft mass into GEO (over 400{percent}) although operational issues exist. An assessment of propulsion system options for this {open_quotes}Pop-Up{close_quotes} Mission was performed to determine the propellant combinations, stage configurations, and propulsion technologies that maximize spacecraft mass and minimize size. Propellants included earth and space storable combinations, cryogenic LH{sub 2}/LO{sub 2}, and Class 1.3 solids. Stage configurations employing cylindrical metal and overwrapped tanks, isogrid tanks, and toroidal tanks were considered. Non-toxic earth storable propellants provided comparable performance (5{endash}10{percent}) to existing storables while the use of pressure-fed engines gave about 15{percent} lower performance than pump-fed. Solid stage performance was within 5{percent} of existing storable propellants. Stages employing toroidal tanks packaged more efficiently in length constrained RLV payload bays than 4-cylindrical tank configurations, giving up to 30{percent} greater mass into GEO. The use of Extendable Exit Cones (EEC) for length constrained cases resulted in about 5{endash}10{percent} higher stage performance. {copyright} {ital 1997 American Institute of Physics.}

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

Suborbital separation of an expendable upper stage from a small, single-stage Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) to transfer spacecraft into Geosynchronous Equatorial Orbit (GEO) was investigated and found to significantly increase spacecraft mass into GEO (over 400{percent}) although operational issues exist. An assessment of propulsion system options for this {open_quotes}Pop-Up{close_quotes} Mission was performed to determine the propellant combinations, stage configurations, and propulsion technologies that maximize spacecraft mass and minimize size. Propellants included earth and space storable combinations, cryogenic LH{sub 2}/LO{sub 2}, and Class 1.3 solids. Stage configurations employing cylindrical metal and overwrapped tanks, isogrid tanks, and toroidal tanks were considered. Non-toxic earth storable propellants provided comparable performance (5{endash}10{percent}) to existing storables while the use of pressure-fed engines gave about 15{percent} lower performance than pump-fed. Solid stage performance was within 5{percent} of existing storable propellants. Stages employing toroidal tanks packaged more efficiently in length constrained RLV payload bays than 4-cylindrical tank configurations, giving up to 30{percent} greater mass into GEO. The use of Extendable Exit Cones (EEC) for length constrained cases resulted in about 5{endash}10{percent} higher stage performance. {copyright} {ital 1997 American Institute of Physics.}

Key concepts: Propellant, Payload (computing), Aerospace engineering, Propulsion, Spacecraft, Launch vehicle, Stage (stratigraphy), Geosynchronous orbit

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Upper stage options for reusable launch vehicle {open_quotes}pop-up{close_quotes} missions — Research Paper | ScholarLens