1. AAE 450- Propulsion LV Stephen Hanna Critical Design Review 02/27/01

2. Launch Vehicle (Stephen Hanna)  Energia  Total Payload to LEO ~179 Tonnes  $1.2 billion – $2.8 billion per launch (2000 dollars)  All facilities Exist  Available for licensed production overseas 30.48 m 15.24m Max 3.9 m 7.985 m D 54.864 m 24.00 m  NTR {~8 m}

3. LV Flight Sequence (Stephen Hanna)  Flight Time (Min:Sec)  1) Liftoff  00:00  2) Booster Staging  2:20  3) Core Separation  6:30  Disposal Area  Side Boosters Side Booster from launch site 400 Km At altitude of 80km  Core Core from Launch Site19200 Km At altitude of 110Km Effective Atmosphere 1 2 3   Earth

4. LV Reliability (Stephen Hanna)  Reliability is important as ~90% of all sever emergencies in space occurring during launch.  Reliability by component  Booster- similar to zenith first stage One booster failure is acceptable o87.5% reliability needed 96% success rate using Zenith first stage record  Main Core- 3 engines 2 engines needed for LEO insertion o66% reliability needed oNo success rate that is practical  Overall Reliability  87.5% Reliability needed for successful mission based on booster  96% Success rate based on booster  Therefore Zero Abort is needed to improve overall success rate

5. Considered Launch Failures  Destruction of launcher caused by (28.3%)*  Boost explosion  Structural failure  Any of the following causes  Ignition failure (25.7%)*  Loss of Thrust or Insufficient Thrust – depending where in mission profile demes if it is critical( 15.9%)*  Loss of Attitude (13.2%)*  Guidance failure  Loss of control  Stage separation failure and other (10.6%)* *Launch failures of unmanned launchers Launch Risk** Coverage of the Mission***  On- The- Pad escape systems  2.5%  Intact abort  12.5%  Open injection seats  64%  Escape Cabin  84% **89% of failures occur during launch ***85% of launch failures in first stage therefore 15% scaled for upper stages

6. Abort Scenario Earth (Stephen Hanna)  1) Zero altitude – Ejection seat abort  2) Booster separated at altitude of 80km speed is Ejection seat is viable  Theoretical not viable higher than 40km b/c of pressure suits but has been used at 90 km with survival  3) Main core separation at altitude of 110 km - abort to orbit using RCS thruster usable after main core separation with a 99%* success rate *3 failures out of 207 launches after 1970 improvements to system Effective Atmosphere 1 2 3   Earth

7. Abort Scenario Earth cont… (Stephen Hanna)  Pressure suits  Protect against loss of pressure up to an altitude of 40 km  Extreme temperatures and dynamic pressure in case of an abort  Suits self contained Autonomous oxygen Survival kits and Backup Parachutes 40kg  10 kg per person * 4  Ejection Seats  Self Contained Propulsive device Autonomous oxygen Parachutes (drone chute and main chute)  816 kg for all four seats (conservative estimates) 204kg each*4 crew = 816 kg total  Proven at varied speeds and altitudes

8. Abort Scenario Earth (Stephen Hanna)  Pyrotechnics **Not to scale

9. Abort Scenario Earth (Stephen Hanna)  Pyrotechnics **Not to scale Ohh! Spaghetti O’s!!

10. Abort Scenario Mars  CTV is jettisoned using RCS thrusters from MLV  Parachutes are deployed for landing in use with RCS thrusters

11. Ejection Pod  Mass of Ejection Pod 140 kg + Ejection seats 816 kg + Suits 40 kg  996kg  Costly  Effects total payload due to volume requirements of system therefore reducing payload capacity

12. Escape Tower  Mass Total = 93,680 Kg (can we do this?) Mass payload = 75,000 Kg Escape Tower = 18,680kg ‘Dry Mass’ Rocket= 6,125 Kg Mass prop = 12555 Kg {Mass of tower/ Mass of Cabin} Historically: Mercury = 0.29 Apollo = 0.71 Soyuz = 0.31 Hermes = 0.43 Ariane = 0.44 Comparison Our system=0.25  Assumptions:  Liquid engine  Safety height of 1 km  Using solid rocket motor  6 seconds burn time  Max acceleration of 12g’s  Structural mass of 10%  Reduces payload capacity by less than 20% of its own mass?  No drag or gravity considered