Spears, L. T.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

REVIEW OF
LAUNCH VEHICLE RECOVERY
STUDIES
.-,x
July, 1962
L. T Spears
Future Projects Office
i
GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER
HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730061699 2020-03-17T13:48:03+00:00Z
iSUMMARY
As a part of a NASA-wlde review of past and current work in the
field of payload and launch vehicle recovery, this paper presents a
summary of launch vehicle recovery studies conducted under sponsorship
of the MSFC Future Projects Office. Previous study programs are reviewed,
a current assessment of misslun prospects and vehicle concepts is pre-
sented, and current MSFC studies in this area are outlined. Areas are
suggested in which research and experimental work can hlep establish a
foundation for future vehicle developments.
__'_i¸ ¸¸'_
_
i
ii_,
_i_ij_
A REVIEW OF LAUNC_ V_._T_.TE _m_T_v STUDIES
By L. T. Spears
MSFC Future Projects Office
INTRODUCTION
With our greatly expanded space program objectives, space launch
vehicles will soon become a major new form of transportation. Launch
vehicles to date, patterned after their ballistlc missile predecessors,
are characterized by "one-shot" operation in which the vehicles of highly
refined design are discarded after a flight operating lifetime of only a
few minutes. Recovery of expensive flight equipment, and the strong need
for first hand flight test information, have prompted work for some time
toward launch vehicle recovery; however, the difficulty of the task in
some cases, but more often the over-riding priority of primary program
objectives, have resulted in little concrete progress to date.
Interest and work toward booster recovery at MSFC date back to
RED__PITER projects (as part of the Army Ballis_ic Missile
Agency) in 1958/1959. Considerable work has continued since that time,
as described in the MSFC papers given at this meeting. The three pre-
ceding papers have reviewed individual Marshall projects relating to
launch vehicle recovery. This paper will present a sunmmry of _ast and
current MSFC work In t_Is are% including a number of system studies,
conducted under direction of the MSFC Future Projects Office. This
material will be presented in the following arrangement:
(i) Summary of previous launch vehlcle s_udies, and recovery
methods considered.
:_i_' i
ScuTz cuu./.
POTENTIALBENEFITS_ RECOVERY
• ,O_T FtldWT £X,4A,/IIVh7"ION$
• _'_ d/r FU_t(T-PPOV£H/MnO0_
• _05T A_'#UCTION
• A_O,'D_XP_NO£O _9S7"_ /=',_.dUT
• ABOPT CA_BIUTY
_:zi', J
2
i_!y<_<_
i_!il_ L •
(2) A brief discussion of recovery implications, and comparisons
of recovery methods.
(3) A current assessment of mission prospects and vehicle concepts.
(4) An outline of current reusable vehicle studies at HSFC, and
suggestions for compleraentary research and experimentalwork.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF RECOVERY
It might be helpful _o begin with a review of the potential benefits
of launch vehicle recovery, some of which are llsted in _able 1." Most
booster recovery studies have been begun with the Ince_tlve of reducing
costs. As these studies progressed_ however, _he_e has been an increasing
recognition that the operational benefits of vehicle reuse will llkely be
more important than costs, partlcularily for the high traffic ra_e transpor-
_a?_0h of passengers and cargo between earth and orbit.
The reuse of vehicles which have operated successfully on previous
flights is believed _o be of advantage, compared to the use of completely
new equipment on each flight. Post-fllght examinations of actual flight
hardware should allow quicker dlagnosls and correction of early design de-
ficiencies than with limited telemetry data, and a faster growth to design
maturity in the development phase. Growth to higher reliability levels
can also be expected through repeated flight checkouts and design re-
finements.
The extent of range safety problems will depend on actual launch
ra_es encountered, and upon future desires or necessity to relax restrlc-
tlons in launch site location and launch azimuth. In any of these cir-
cumstances, the problem of expended booster fallout will be alleviated
PREVIOUS I?ECOVEPY STUDIES
•,e_'o.cmqE/Jup,,rEP
• _'OI{C_PA_6 800$ZER STUDIES _AIB FOP(_E)
 o/Jo
_ii__ _!
I?ECOVEI?Y METHODS CONSIDEPED
DPA6
&ALLI_T/¢80_Y
_eal& 8,el,e'_r$
P_/P,I¢ItLITE
_tLLOON
• _-dE/.EPA TION
LIFT/l/6
FI, I'6"D WIA/G._
FL_I"IOLE WIN6$
POTAPt" WIN6$
• M,4NL./EVEP(/.AMAIN&
VEPTI_N£DE.dENT
_ALLOOllFdO_TATIOII
PERPO-POCJ(£_$
TVPSO_JdT_
POFdPY WI#6$
AIOPIZOIVTAL._,¢A!DIN&
FLE,I'IB_£WIN6$
4
/_il•
by their recovery.
Abort capability will be important to launch vehicle llfe as well as
range safety. In fact, some data from aircraft expe_len_e indicate that
abort capability, perhaps more than reductions In malfun_tlon rates, is
the key to extended vehicle llfe.
PREVIOUS RECOVERY STUDIES
The possibility for recovery of REDS_ONE and /d_i1_R missiles prompted
conceptual studies of recovery methods in 1958/19_9, leadln8 to design and
fabrication of parachute recovery systems as described in the preceding
papers. Other studies have followed, as indicated in table 2. The first
two _T these involved the addition of recovery systems _o vehicles of
existing design, where_s the latter three Investigated vehicles of new
design, Incorporatln8 a verlety of recovery concepts. The latter study
produced comparative designs of recoveEable and expendable vehicles in the
SATURN C-3 class, concentratln8 on fixed wln_ or paragllder recovery of
one or both sta@es.
The various recovery methods considered durln8 _hese st_dles are
tabulated in _able 5. In all cases, aerodynamic dra_ and/or llft is the
means for primary deceleration for the expended _&Se. A number of
methods have been suggested for the maneuver to a selected landing si_e,
cancellation of residual velocity, and for final touch-down. The simpler
methods a11ow little or no deviation from the ballistic impact point for
the expended stage. The glide capability inherent in ftxed or flexible
wings allows greater freedom in this respect; however, studies have shown
RECOVEI_r' OPE_T!ONS CONSlDEI?ATIONS
• _VAT£P/NPAdT
• .4_r£p/£VA/.
• PO$$tSLf IM/_OCTiWAT£P _4MA_
i¸ '_i_!i
LAUNCH VE'/-/ICLE I_ECOVERY
0 ' I00 _ 300
, that favorably staged vehicles will require auxiliary propulsion (such as
_J_. L .... • • , . _% ._
a_r-oreacnlng engznes) to allow one desired return of expended booster
_.
i
stages to the launch site.
Circumstances have not allowed inves=igat%Qn of all concepts in equal
depth, Choices for particular applications have resulted in greatest depth
of MSFC study in parachute systems, psraglider, and fixed wln 8 vehicles.
SOME IMPLICATIONS OF RECOVERY
In studies investigating reusable vs expendable mode of operation and
the relative merit of the different recovery Cohcapts, many consider-
ations of course come into play. Comparisons on the basis of three signifi-
cant considerations are summarized in tables 4 and 5 and figures i and 2.
Table 4 compares recovery operations required for t_ simpler forms
of recovery, involving down-range water landings, with the more extensive
forms of recovery, which allow glide or cruise to a prepared landing site.
Although probabl_ acceptable for low launch rateS, sea recovery operations
(similar to Project Mercury experience) would become unwieldy for higher
launch rates. Immediate return of boosters into the refurbish and check-
out cycle at the launch site - avoiding water impact, down-range recovery
operations, and transport back to the launch site - is _onsidered an
important factor in selection of recovery methods.
::2
• , j
; i
!i'
All known forms of recovery increase vehicle inert weight through
addition of equipment and/or increased structural strength, resulting
in_ pa_load penalty of some degree. Figure I shows penalties _yplcal of
_arlous booster recovery methods; second stage recovery penalties, as
discussed in the preceding paper, are shown for reference• In comparative
COST COIgBID PATIONS
_i •¸!:_
• DIA:_TOP&PAT"I_ ¢057".¢
° _TEP ,oVXaCW,4.,¢toX_f
. E_V6E/,y/I_r.fd4_81,_NENT
• AA_#TII£O¢o_;r,,¢
• _qtEl_IA/T
• ,r_Idl/,/7*/6_
• :_._
•__,_ _
T .
_rc_
i"!:_
;?:!4
_IIIPAI_TIF_ _$T E_TIMATE_
2-,.3 MILLION POUND TNI_ST BOOSTEI_ STUDY
!ml _ _ '
I
_..... L .... I ,l ...... J ,
0 20 _0 4o 50 60 "/0
£41_Eg_'IIL RI¥/J4O-M//_ON_J Or _N_3
....... 1
I
i
........ t
#I_O WtI_ _L/O_ -J
k
ianalyses, this performance decrement is reflected _n •costs through addi-
tional launches required to deliver equal (cumulative) pa loads, or in-
creased booster size to _rOvide performance equal to that of an expendable
s tage.
Primary factors determining the degree of cost benefit from booster
reuse are shown _n table 5. For the simpler recovery methods, booster
reuse rate vs recovery/refurblsh costs dominate, whereas increased booster
purchase price and development costs become more prominent for reusable
vehicles of advanced designs.
Analyses continue to show cost benefit for booster reuse, with the
degree of benefit dependent upon variable estimates for some of the
individual elements in which our experience is limited or lacking.
Typical results of comparative costs estimates, based on mtudles Of
vehicles in the 2-3 million pound thrust class, are shown in figure 2.
•_L_
r
%
on"
CURRENT ASSESSMENT - MISSION PROSPECTS/VEHICLE CONCEPTS
Our immediate future space program objectives place primary emphasis
(i) Increased launch vehicle performance; i.e., capability to
perform missions not previously possible.
(2) The need for this capability as early as possible.
Since recoverability would reduce payload capability and might require
additional time for design and development, early introduction of recovery
into major veh_le programs is not likely.
As _er technological evolutions, however, establishment of a new
9
MISSION PI2OSPECTS
• FO_ INNID/.4TIFUT"U,9_"_3415
• NI_'T ,o_4,.¢IOF _ ACTIVITY
• _ _N_/X_UnN_ TXeD_
• .m_$_ ,rd_,T_X:__W/N'ANT IN'.,¢O_E"..¢IZE.,¢
PRESENTSTATUS-VEIIICLECONCEPTS
• iI16_/TRAFFICRATEJ ,gIeJSEN6E#-_I//_ (d45_._-
FIXED WIN'_5 WIT//,DOWEREDdAnISE
• LOWERL.AUN_IIRATE_A._','_5-
,_,I,Q_UEWATERIMPACT_PAEACHUTE.OTII_
iO
'!_ ,I
ii'•
capability c_n be followed by _ .... +_-_
. . _n ........... on improvemen_ in operations
and efficiency. The operating environment for the expected next phase
of space activity _,_hasizes e_ ._^-_-_ ^-• _ ......... _ ....... _ f_L such impzovements through
the use of reusable launch vehicles. In contrast with the first phase,
frequent and repetitive launchings will be required to suppor_ sustained
operations in earth orbit and on the moon. Orbital space stations, both
manned and unmanned, will require frequent visits for crew rotation,
inspection o[ equipment, maintenance, and repairs. Particularly in
some vehicle classes, the passenger-carrying function will place greater
emphasis on reliability, safety, and abort capability. In general,
this environment suggests a need and an approach similar to that of
current air transportation.
At this point, fixed wing boosters seem the most promising choice
for high trafflc-rate, passenger-carrylng classes. Equipped for
powered cruise, this concept offers the best probability for recovery
and reusability, with a minimum of recovery operations. Also signifi-
cant with respect to the expected early establishment of orbital space
stations, the concept requires only modest advances in technology,
allowing timely availability. The simpler forms of recovery are
probably more adaptable in the lower launch-rate classes. With no
clear cut choice of recovery method apparent at this time, £nvestlgatlon
of several methods - including water impact, parachute, and paragllder -
should be pursued.
ii
PRESENTMSFCSTUDYEFFORTS ""
.... !;. _[_,
. ,:_
ATLAS/TITAN
SATURN C-I
SATURN C,3/C.5
C'5/NOVA
B-70 O_ SST TYPEL,CUIF¢#E#
KU_BLE I0 TON O_ITAL CJIRRIE#
50-/00 TON#E6tMBLEVF.I/ICLE._TUDY
,IVST-#OVA ._RIES
._A-IJIUNC, H d RECOYERY
• =!_:_:_
,r,
61FI'. OFF
//7 ?T,Pio,_, gTb'Dg'
/ / CO#FI&U,P',ITION TEN-
  _'ON _/C_"
_/ 0,¢'t_/'/',4(,C,,4_,_'/E_'
12
ii¸ _
i!_
 ii i!¸
Ct_RENT MSFC STUDIES
Based upon this background and conclusions to date, Marshall-
sponsored studies as shown in table 8 are now in progress* to help de-
fine the next generation launch vehicles.
Paraglider recovery of rocket vehicles in the 5-ton orbital payload
class is to be studied, along with possible use of airplane-type boosters,
adapted from RS-70 or supersonic transport design for air launching of
rocket-powered upper stages.
The lO-Ton Orbital Carrier Study will concentrate on the Job of
passenger transportation between earth and orbit and, as auch, is con-
sidered a probable first application for the fixed wing, "rocket airplane"
concept. The 50-100 Ton Vehicle Study, on the ocher hand, is aimed
toward a "space truck" cargo carrier concept as a successor =o the
current SATURN C-5, with a probable primary mission of sustained lunar
operations support. The first phase of this study is investigating
prospects for conversion of the C-5 into reusable configurations.
There are several study programs now active to determine vehicle
configurations for payload capability greater than SATURN C-5; _wo are
listed in which recovery/reuse are being considered. The first of these
is conceived as a sea-launched, pressure-fed vehicle which can be
recovered by water impact without requiring auxiliary recovery devices.
Recovery con¢epts within the Post-NOVA studies include inflatable drag
and flotation devices, integral lifting (glide) capability, etc.
* With exception of the 5-ton payload class study, which is planned as
part of FY 63 program.
13
RESEARCl4 AREAS
• .._TUOY//,_._.II3YL/W/TEDBY:
. PRlO.qEXPE.qlENeE
. GKPE,qlMEI,CI',4TIO/V
• I_41_#//EXI_RINENTATI_ N_E_#:
• #E¢OVEPY METHOD._
" T_ ESTABM51/_E6,PEE #F ,9EU£ABIMTY
• DE_lfsN t' FABRICATION F_R REU£ABIL/TY
_:_(! i _
?:
14
_i:¸ii!_
!
RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL WORK
As in most advanced concept investigations, past experience in
several aspects of vehicle recovery and reuse is very limited or lacking.
However, with the date for initiation of second generation launch vehicle
developments still a few years away, there is an opportunity to provide
a preparatory foundation of research and experimental work in the areas
indicated.
Recovery Methods
With the choice of recovery methods for the different vehicle classes
not clearly defined at present, research work for a number of methods
should continue. Considerable experience is being gained with parachute
and paragllder. Fixed-wing data are being gained from X-15, X-20, and
a limited amount of research work now in progress at the Langley Center.
Although we have no specific recor_nendations for research in other
methods at this time, studies now in progress may point out additional
needs.
Degree of Reusability
The actual benefit of recovery,: examinations, and reuse will remain
somewhat intangible until we have gained actual recovery experience.
The REDSTONE and SATURN S-I recovery programs would have provided this
start had they reached fruition. A program of this nature is needed
in the near future, possibly in _e form of subscale test vehicles, but
preferably through recovery of operational veh%¢les most closely
approaching expected future vehicles.
r_
;!i?i,
'_i:
,J;?i,:!
7,Ti
i
!
_':TF :
:5
Design For Reusability
Although the design of flight vehicles for reus_billty and long life
has a strong background, rocket engines and related systems have been
designed almost exclusively for one-time or short-ti_e usage. A project
has been proposed by MS,C, as a part of the FY 63 Launch Vehicle
Technology Program, to explore the basic question: In what ways should
the design and construction of rocket systems differ from present practice
when reuse and extended operating life are intended?
With the combined contributions of studies, experimental work, and,
hopefully_ some operational recovery experience, the following c_n be
accomplished:
(I) Reduce uncertainties in estimates as to recovery mnd reusability.
(2) Allow selections from alternative designs and procedures.
(3) Equip ourselves for rapid implementation of a reusable vehicle
development at the time a decision is made to do so.


A review of launch vehicle recovery studies

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server