Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Prof. Claudio Bruno University of Rome Prof. Paul Czysz

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Prof. Claudio Bruno University of Rome Prof. Paul Czysz"— Presentation transcript:

1 The Future of Space Depends on Dependable Propulsion Hardware for Non-Expendable Systems
Prof. Claudio Bruno University of Rome Prof. Paul Czysz St. Louis University

2 Ad Astrium Possible? What opportunities have we rejected?
How far can we travel with our hardware capabilities? What do we need in terms of hardware performance to travel farther within human organizational interest?

3 Prof. Bruno Prof. Czysz Outer Planets Kuiper Belt Heliosphere
Focus on exploring Beyond LEO Outer Planets Kuiper Belt Heliosphere Prof. Czysz Focus on LEO, GSO, and Lunar support as Recommended by Augustine Committee Earth-Moon Inner Planets

4 A 1985 Estimate for the Beginning of the 21st Century
Circa 1985

5 Space and Atmospheric Vehicle Development Converge, So the Technology of High Performance Launchers Applies to Airbreathing Aircraft, Aeronautics and Astronautics 1971 Buck, Neumann & Draper were Correct in 1965

6 What If These 1960’s Opportunities Were Not Missed ?
Star Clipper M=12 Cruise FDL-7MC 176H Combined Cycle SERJ 8 flts/yr For 10 yr LACE 42 flts between Overhaul P&W XLR-129

7 VDK-Czysz Sizing System Identifies the Solution Space for the Identified Requirements
Where Design Parameters Converge Identifying the Solution Space

8 Necessary Volume and Size for SSTO Blended Body Convergence
Impractical Solution area Delineates the possible from the not possible

9 Little Difference in Empty Weight, A Significant Difference in Gross Weight
Practical Solution Space within Industrial Capability about 1/5 the Total Possible

10 The Solution Space for Four Configuration Concepts Identifies Configuration Limitations
ft2 Why was Delta Clipper A Circular Cone ?

11 Even an All Rocket TSTO Has More Versatility, Flexibility & Payload Volume Than a SSTO A TSTO is One-Half the Mass

12 Staging Above Mach 10 Minimizes TSTO System Weight
Individual components 1st Stage Staging Above Mach 10 Minimizes TSTO System Weight TSTO system Dwight Taylor McDonnell Douglas Circa 1983 Toss-Back is all metal toss-back booster staging at Mach 7 is low cost, fully recoverable and sustained use at acceptable mass

13 Mig/Lozinski 50-50 Aerospatiale Since The 1960’ s There Were And Are Many Good Designs Sänger Daussalt MAKS Canadian Arrow

14 Cargo ISS Crew As a First Step We Can Have a Versatile, Flexible, Recoverable and Reusable Rocket System From McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, Huntington Beach, circa 1983 It can be a rocket and does not have to be an ejector rocket/scramjet

15 Unless the WR is Less Than 5.5 HTO is an Unacceptable Penalty
HTO is not a Management Option !! 40% penalty

16 Airbreathing Option Pays At Speeds Less Than 14,500 ft/sec
Confirmed by A Blue Ribbon Panel Headed by Dr. B. Göthert in Circa 1964 After Reviewing Available Data

17 LACE Offers An Existing Rocket Benefit Almost Equal to a Combined Cycle
OWE Solution Spaces Overlap. Marginal Difference in OEW

18 Popular Choice not the Better Choice
1st Stage Propulsion Turbo-Ramjet Ejector-Ramjet Gross Weight (ton) 393 261 1st Stage Stage Weight (ton) 283 142 Propellant Wt. (ton) 83.2 45.5 Engine Weight (ton) 60.5 7.3 Dry Weight (ton) 200 96.1 2nd Stage 109 118 81.6 87.9 7.0 20.3 23.5 Mach 6.7 compared ≈ ≈ 0.25 to takeoff

19 10 year Operational Life, 30,000 lb payload, Up to 10 Flights/year per Aircraft for Four Propulsion Systems Expendable Sustained Use By H. D. Froning And Skye Lawrence Circa 1983 Sustained Use LLC Constant

20 Cost Data is Consistent, Fly More Often With Sustained Use Aircraft
By H. D. Froning And Skye Lawrence Circa 1983

21 It’s the FLIGHT RATE, not technology
Shuttle O’Keefe 5 B747’s Operated At Same Schedule And payload As The Space Shuttle Charles Lindley, Jay Penn

22 What’s Wrong with This Picture ???
No Change in the past 40 years !! Circa 1985

23 Augustine Committee Review of Human Spaceflight Plans Committee expressed an eagerness with a concept that with Werner von Braun originated in the 1950’s – orbital refueling. AEROSPACE AMERICA October 2009 Page 19

24 Can This Be Our Future Infrastructure ?

25 We Need a Nuclear Electric Shuttle
V. Gubonov NPO Energia Bonn 1972

26 The Moon Can Be A Development Site for Both Moon & Mars Hardware

27 This is only a transient visit
Moon or Mars Conditions are similar This is only a transient visit

28 Moon-Mars Human Infrastructure Needs to be Proven by Sustained Applications, First on the Moon Then Mars We need to lift Habitats, Food, Water, Green Houses and Soil Handling Equipment In Addition to People to confirm long term hardware viability RTV powered Automatic Greenhouse With 10 year operational life

29 Cape Verde on Victoria Crater This is Not Similar the Moon

30 Chemical Propulsion is a Poor Option to Mars

31 We Seem to be Trapped by Chemical Propulsion Will We Lead or Follow ?

32 Nuclear Propulsion - Present/future interplanetary missions
Professor Claudio Bruno Will Now Take Us Beyond Mars Toward the Heliopause

33 Nuclear Propulsion - Times and distances of present/future interplanetary missions
Manned: constrained by physical/psychological support air, victuals cosmic & solar radiation, flares bone/muscle mass loss enzymatic changes, …? Unmanned: public support, > 1-2 years: funding difficult To reduce constraints, risks, and ensure public (financial) support faster missions with less mass (cost ~ mass) 33

34 Nuclear Propulsion - Times and distances with Acceleration
34

35 Nuclear Propulsion - Times and Isp
35

36 Nuclear Propulsion - What Increases Isp ?
NP - What it really means ‘to increase Isp’ If J = specific energy (energy/unit mass) 1-D, ideal, propellants acceleration: J = (1/2) Ve Ve = exhaust velocity = Isp [m/s] thus: Isp = Ve = (2J)1/2  to increase Isp, J must be increased much more 36

37 Nuclear Propulsion - Mission Time & Power
NP - Mission Time and Power Faster missions, lower mass consumption feasible with / if non-zero acceleration  not boost-coast higher Isp Isp = Ve = (2J)1/2  thrust power ~ Isp3 = (2J)3/2  faster missions + high Isp = large power Large mass consumption: driven by low J of chemical propellants J of Chemical Propellants 4.0 to 10.0 MJ/kg too low  need to find higher energy density materials 37

38 Nuclear Propulsion - Energy Density in Chemical propellants
NP - Energy Density in Chemical Propulsion Max performance improvement with chemical propulsion: with metallic Hydrogen, theoretical Isp ~ s existence, stability, control of energy release  unsolved issues J increases by O(10) at most, but Isp ~  Must increase J by orders of magnitude  Nuclear energy 38

39 Nuclear Propulsion - Einstein’s Equation
NP Nuclear Energy mass energy m a mc2 a depends on fundamental forces 39

40 Nuclear Propulsion Potential Energy
Compare alphas and energies: a and energy density J ( J = [E/m] = ac2 ) No known a between x and 1 Even a = 1 produces not directly useable energy (e.g., g rays) 40

41 Nuclear Propulsion - Isp
41

42 Nuclear Propulsion - Isp
Isp/c as function of a : the limit Isp = speed of light ! 42

43 Nuclear Propulsion - Thrust (F)
43

44 Nuclear Propulsion Thrust Power P Let’s look at the power needed by F:
P = F · Isp = F · V P scales with V3: ‘high’ thrust (‘fast’) missions need ‘much larger’ P, affordable ONLY with nuclear power 44

45 Nuclear Propulsion - How to Utilize Nuclear Power
45

46 Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies
Schematics of NTR – Nuclear Thermal Rocket Figure 7-6: Conceptual scheme of a Nuclear Thermal Rocket (Bond, 2002) 46

47 Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies
Schematics of NER – Nuclear Electric Rocket Figure 7-7: Conceptual scheme of a Nuclear-Electric Rocket. Note the mandatory radiator (Bond, 2002) 47

48 Nuclear Propulsion - NTR Applications
NTR – US Developments ( ) [M.Turner, “Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion”, 2005] 48

49 Nuclear Propulsion - NTR Applications
NTR – US Developments ( ) The Phoebus IIA solid-core nuclear reactor on its Los Alamos test stand (Dewar, 2004 ) 49

50 Nuclear Propulsion - Application Strategies
Nuclear propulsion strategies Nuclear Electric Propulsion Two main NEP classes: charged species accelerated by: Coulomb Force (only electric field imposed) Lorentz’ forces (electric and magnetic field) 50

51 Nuclear Propulsion - Comparisons
Must set ground rules (otherwise, apples & pears) Here: based on Itot,s = (Isp toperation)/(MP + m) ~ Isp3 ηtot/PR Itot,s is a distance traveled/unit ‘fuel’ mass, as in cars Normalize Itot,s using Itot,s of LOX/LH2 : this ratio is the ‘performance Index, I’: 51

52 Travel Time is Still Greater Than One Year
NEP: Applied to ORBIT TRANSFER Travel Time is Still Greater Than One Year 52 52 52 52

53 NEP NEP: Applied to ORBIT TRANSFER Delta V versus Power
ΔV (km/s) Power (MWe) Total ΔV (km/s) 100 86.2 150 103.2 200 106.7 300 114.8 POWER (Mwe) MASS: 120 to160 ton Compared with CP total ΔV is % to 574.9% higher 53 53 53 53

54 Propellant Consumption Dominates
NEP: Applied to ORBIT TRANSFER Propellant Consumption Dominates Propellant and Crew Consumables Propellant 54 54 54 54

55 Power to Travel 73 AU Distance
Kuiper Belt La potenza elettrica necessaria e’ plottata qui per la missione a KBO e per tempi di missione 8 e 20 anni. Nota che e’ funzione dell’Isp e che non e’ cosi’ grande come uno potrebbe pensare. In pratica, e’ fattibile. Nota anche che e’ funzione del cubo dell’Isp = v, quindi cresce in fretta con l’Isp. Power as function of Isp; 8-year mission and initial mass M0 as parameter order of magnitude more power than 20 year mission 55 55

56 Power to Travel 73 AU Distance
Kuiper Belt La potenza elettrica necessaria e’ plottata qui per la missione a KBO e per tempi di missione 8 e 20 anni. Nota che e’ funzione dell’Isp e che non e’ cosi’ grande come uno potrebbe pensare. In pratica, e’ fattibile. Nota anche che e’ funzione del cubo dell’Isp = v, quindi cresce in fretta con l’Isp. Power as function of Isp; 20-year mission and initial mass M0 as parameter 56 56

57 Power to Travel to the Heliopause
100 AU Distance for Two Travel Times 100 AU 100 AU Tempi di missione per 100 AU e FOCAL. Con Isp = 150 km/s appaiono accettabili anche con alpha modesti, e consentono P/L ratio ragionevoli 8per missioni scientifiche!). 57 57

58 540 AU Distance to the Sun Focal Point for
Two Travel Times 540 AU 540 AU Tempi di missione per 100 AU e FOCAL. Con Isp = 150 km/s appaiono accettabili anche con alpha modesti, e consentono P/L ratio ragionevoli 8per missioni scientifiche!). 58 58

59 Nuclear Propulsion ~ Some Conclusions
The combination of Isp and power of the Gridded Ion System for a M3 result in predictions for both mass and mission times that are significantly better than with other CP and NTR propulsion systems. A NEP-powered M3 appears not only feasible, but also more convenient than CP- and likely also NTR-powered missions in terns of cost, besides being the only way to drastically reduce HUMEX travel time and thus GCR dose for the crew. To enable a future NEP M3, investing in this propulsion technology is necessary. That is an unlikely prospective in the current financial climate, but would spare much time and effort to our future generations. NTR systems may be the only propulsion enabling quick reaction missions, e.g., to counter unexpected asteroid threats 59 59

60


Download ppt "Prof. Claudio Bruno University of Rome Prof. Paul Czysz"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google