The Application of the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Launch Vehicle Team Design Process and Tools for Modeling Small Responsive Launch Vehicles

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) Launch Vehicle Team at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is recognized throughout NASA for launch vehicle conceptual definition and pre-phase A concept design evaluation. The Launch Vehicle Team has been instrumental in defining the vehicle trade space for many of NASA s high level launch system studies from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) through the Augustine Report, Constellation, and now Space Launch System (SLS). The Launch Vehicle Team s approach to rapid turn-around and comparative analysis of multiple launch vehicle architectures has played a large role in narrowing the design options for future vehicle development. Recently the Launch Vehicle Team has been developing versions of their vetted tools used on large launch vehicles and repackaged the process and capability to apply to smaller more responsive launch vehicles. Along this development path the LV Team has evaluated trajectory tools and assumptions against sounding rocket trajectories and air launch systems, begun altering subsystem mass estimating relationships to handle smaller vehicle components, and as an additional development driver, have begun an in-house small launch vehicle study. With the recent interest in small responsive launch systems and the known capability and response time of the ACO LV Team, ACO s launch vehicle assessment capability can be utilized to rapidly evaluate the vast and opportune trade space that small launch vehicles currently encompass. This would provide a great benefit to the customer in order to reduce that large trade space to a select few alternatives that should best fit the customer s payload needs

Air Launch: Examining Performance Potential of Various Configurations and Growth Options

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a high-level analysis of various air launch vehicle configurations, objectively determining maximum launch vehicle payload while considering carrier aircraft capabilities and given dimensional constraints. With the renewed interest in aerial launch of low-earth orbit payloads, referenced by programs such as Stratolaunch and Spaceship2, there exists a need to qualify the boundaries of the trade space, identify performance envelopes, and understand advantages and limiting factors of designing for maximum payload capability. Using the NASA/DARPA Horizontal Launch Study (HLS) Point Design 2 (PD-2) as a pointof- departure configuration, two independent design actions were undertaken. Both designs utilized a Boeing 747-400F as the carrier aircraft, LOX/RP-1 first stage and LOX/LH2 second stage. Each design was sized to meet dimensional and mass constraints while optimizing propellant loads and stage delta V splits. All concepts, when fully loaded, exceeded the allowable Gross Takeoff Weight (GTOW) of the aircraft platform. This excess mass was evaluated as propellant/fuel offload available for a potential in-flight propellant loading scenario. Results indicate many advantages such as payload delivery of approximately 47,000 lbm and significant mission flexibility including variable launch site inclination and launch window. However, in-flight cryogenic fluid transfer and carrier aircraft platform integration are substantial technical hurdles to the realization of such a system configuration

Small Launch Vehicle Trade Space Definition: Development of a Zero Level Mass Estimation Tool with Trajectory Validation

Recent high level interest in the capability of small launch vehicles has placed significant demand on determining the trade space these vehicles occupy. This has led to the development of a zero level analysis tool that can quickly determine the minimum expected vehicle gross liftoff weight (GLOW) in terms of vehicle stage specific impulse (Isp) and propellant mass fraction (pmf) for any given payload value. Utilizing an extensive background in Earth to orbit trajectory experience a total necessary delta v the vehicle must achieve can be estimated including relevant loss terms. This foresight into expected losses allows for more specific assumptions relating to the initial estimates of thrust to weight values for each stage. This tool was further validated against a trajectory model, in this case the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), to determine if the initial sizing delta v was adequate to meet payload expectations. Presented here is a description of how the tool is setup and the approach the analyst must take when using the tool. Also, expected outputs which are dependent on the type of small launch vehicle being sized will be displayed. The method of validation will be discussed as well as where the sizing tool fits into the vehicle design process

Unraveling a Paradox of Habitat Relationships: Scale-Dependent Drivers of Temporal Occupancy-Abundance Relationships in a Cooperatively Breeding Bird

Context Spatial occupancy and local abundance of species often positively covary, but the mechanisms driving this widespread relationship are poorly understood. Resource dynamics and habitat changes have been suggested as potential drivers, but long-term studies relating them to abundance and occupancy are rare. In this 34-year study of acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus), a cooperatively breeding species, we observed a paradoxical response to changes in habitat composition: despite a reduction in the availability of high-quality breeding habitat, the population increased considerably. Objectives We investigated the role of annual variation in food availability and long-term changes in habitat composition as predictors of population dynamics. Methods Using model selection, we contrasted competing hypotheses on the effects of changing resource availability on occupancy and social group size across three spatial scales: territory, neighborhood, and landscape. Results The increase in abundance was largely determined by the formation of new social groups, driven by a landscape-level expansion of canopy cover and its interaction with neighborhood-level acorn abundance, indicative of long-term increases in overall acorn productivity. Group size increased with neighborhood acorn crop two years earlier but groups were smaller in territories with more canopy cover. Conclusions Our results indicate that scale-dependent processes can result in paradoxical relationships in systems with spatial and temporal resource heterogeneity. Moreover, the findings support the role of resources in driving changes in abundance and occupancy at a landscape scale, suggesting that colonization of marginal habitat drives the positive occupancy-abundance relationship in this cooperatively breeding species

Small Launch Vehicle Concept Development for Affordable Multi-Stage Inline Configurations

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study of two configurations of a three-stage, inline, liquid propellant small launch vehicle concept developed on the premise of maximizing affordability by targeting a specific payload capability range based on current and future industry demand. The initial configuration, NESC-1, employed liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene as the fuel in all three stages. The second and more heavily studied configuration, NESC-4, employed liquid oxygen and rocket propellant grade kerosene on the first and second stages and liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel on the third stage. On both vehicles, sensitivity studies were first conducted on specific impulse and stage propellant mass fraction in order to baseline gear ratios and drive the focus of concept development. Subsequent sensitivity and trade studies on the NESC-4 concept investigated potential impacts to affordability due to changes in gross liftoff mass and/or vehicle complexity. Results are discussed at a high level to understand the impact severity of certain sensitivities and how those trade studies conducted can either affect cost, performance, or both

Modular Approach to Launch Vehicle Design Based on a Common Core Element

With a heavy lift launch vehicle as the centerpiece of our nation's next exploration architecture's infrastructure, the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center initiated a study to examine the utilization of elements derived from a heavy lift launch vehicle for other potential launch vehicle applications. The premise of this study is to take a vehicle concept, which has been optimized for Lunar Exploration, and utilize the core stage with other existing or near existing stages and boosters to determine lift capabilities for alternative missions. This approach not only yields a vehicle matrix with a wide array of capabilities, but also produces an evolutionary pathway to a vehicle family based on a minimum development and production cost approach to a launch vehicle system architecture, instead of a purely performance driven approach. The upper stages and solid rocket booster selected for this study were chosen to reflect a cross-section of: modified existing assets in the form of a modified Delta IV upper stage and Castor-type boosters; potential near term launch vehicle component designs including an Ares I upper stage and 5-segment boosters; and longer lead vehicle components such as a Shuttle External Tank diameter upper stage. The results of this approach to a modular launch system are given in this paper

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent "go-to" group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA's design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer's needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent go-to group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA s design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer s needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed