2013Unpublished venueRequires access

Small Launch Vehicle Design Approaches: Clustered Cores Compared with Multi-Stage Inline Concepts

Eric Waters, Benjamin R. Beers, Esther Elizabeth, Alan Philips, Grady E. Threet

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

In an effort to better define small launch vehicle design options two approaches were investigated from the small launch vehicle trade space. The primary focus was to evaluate a clustered common core design against a purpose built inline vehicle. Both designs focused on liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP-1) stages with the terminal stage later evaluated as a LOX/methane (CH4) stage. A series of performance optimization runs were done in order to minimize gross liftoff weight (GLOW) including alternative thrust levels, delivery altitude for payload, vehicle length to diameter ratio, alternative engine feed systems, re-evaluation of mass growth allowances, passive versus active guidance systems, and rail and tower launch methods. Additionally manufacturability, cost, and operations also play a large role in the benefits and detriments for each design. Presented here is the Advanced Concepts Office's Earth to Orbit Launch Team methodology and high level discussion of the performance trades and trends of both small launch vehicle solutions along with design philosophies that shaped both concepts. Without putting forth a decree stating one approach is better than the other; this discussion is meant to educate the community at large and let the reader determine which architecture is truly the most economical; since each path has such a unique set of limitations and potential payoffs.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In an effort to better define small launch vehicle design options two approaches were investigated from the small launch vehicle trade space. The primary focus was to evaluate a clustered common core design against a purpose built inline vehicle. Both designs focused on liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP-1) stages with the terminal stage later evaluated as a LOX/methane (CH4) stage. A series of performance optimization runs were done in order to minimize gross liftoff weight (GLOW) including alternative thrust levels, delivery altitude for payload, vehicle length to diameter ratio, alternative engine feed systems, re-evaluation of mass growth allowances, passive versus active guidance systems, and rail and tower launch methods. Additionally manufacturability, cost, and operations also play a large role in the benefits and detriments for each design. Presented here is the Advanced Concepts Office's Earth to Orbit Launch Team methodology and high level discussion of the performance trades and trends of both small launch vehicle solutions along with design philosophies that shaped both concepts. Without putting forth a decree stating one approach is better than the other; this discussion is meant to educate the community at large and let the reader determine which architecture is truly the most economical; since each path has such a unique set of limitations and potential payoffs.

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

In an effort to better define small launch vehicle design options two approaches were investigated from the small launch vehicle trade space. The primary focus was to evaluate a clustered common core design against a purpose built inline vehicle. Both designs focused on liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP-1) stages with the terminal stage later evaluated as a LOX/methane (CH4) stage. A series of performance optimization runs were done in order to minimize gross liftoff weight (GLOW) including alternative thrust levels, delivery altitude for payload, vehicle length to diameter ratio, alternative engine feed systems, re-evaluation of mass growth allowances, passive versus active guidance systems, and rail and tower launch methods. Additionally manufacturability, cost, and operations also play a large role in the benefits and detriments for each design. Presented here is the Advanced Concepts Office's Earth to Orbit Launch Team methodology and high level discussion of the performance trades and trends of both small launch vehicle solutions along with design philosophies that shaped both concepts. Without putting forth a decree stating one approach is better than the other; this discussion is meant to educate the community at large and let the reader determine which architecture is truly the most economical; since each path has such a unique set of limitations and potential payoffs.

Key concepts: Payload (computing), Design for manufacturability, Systems engineering, Propellant, Engineering, Launch vehicle, Propulsion, Aerospace engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Small Launch Vehicle Design Approaches: Clustered Cores Compared with Multi-Stage Inline Concepts — Research Paper | ScholarLens