AFRL Perspective Responsive & Reusable Boost System (RBS)

Transcription

1 AFRL Perspective Responsive & Reusable Boost System (RBS) ASEB-NRC Briefing 17 February 212 Integrity Service Excellence Bruce Thieman Jess Sponable Air Force Research Laboratory DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for Public Release. Approval # AFRL/XXXX-XXXX/ For more information on this document contact AFRL/RQ, 213 Eighth Street, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

2 AFRL Briefings to NRC on RBS AFRL Perspective on Reusable Booster Technology 1/2 hour RBS Program 1 hour (4 min brief and 2 min discussion) Hydrocarbon Boost Technology Program (Tomorrow) 1 hour (4 min brief and 2 min discussion) 2

3 Emerging Themes/Needs 3X cost reduction for RBS, 1X achieved via full reusability Payloads Pico, Nano, K (CPGS, Small Medium, etc.) EELV Replacement to 17-64K lbs Global ISR/Strike Sortie Payloads Disaggregated Payloads (AFSPC/CC) Hypersonic testing/testbed Commercial providers Point to Point Transport? Many potential users: AFSPC, GSC, ACC (ASC), STRATCOM, AMC, NCA, OSD, NRO, NASA, etc. AFSPC LONG TERM S&T CHALLENGES Provide a full spectrum launch capability at dramatically lower cost Provide real-time cross-domain, predictive, assured situational awareness 4

4 A Decade of Studies Recommend: Initial Steps Reusable Boost System Unclassified Contains Contractor Proprietary Data Spacelift Development Plan Strategy FY SYSTEM PRODUCTION Domestic Engine Atlas V IOC Medium/Heavy EELV (Mid 222) (Late 225) Next Gen Med/Heavy Lift Large RBS IOC (219) Small Minotaur Small Expendable Stages (SES) (Up to ~5 klb) FY12 POM Commitment Small RBS IOC (219) Next Gen Small Lift MS B SYSTEM DEMOs & DEVELOPMENT (216) Decision RBS Flt Demo Small RBS + SES Dev HC Engine Dev Engine MS B Future Reusable Upper Stage Decision (217) Large RBS + LES Dev RBCC TECHNOLOGY DEMOs & DEVELOPMENT Decision AFRL FAST* Ground Demo Accelerated HCB Demo Shown IOC Reusable Booster with Industry Risk Mitigation $62.2M from AFSPC in FY12/13 Funded AFRL HC Boost * Engine Tech Demo Scramjet Upper Stage Demo Partially Funded * Future Responsive Access to Space Technologies Unclassified Unfunded Contains Contractor Proprietary Data 5 Predicted launch savings at 5 to 67% Reduces expendable hardware by a factor of three (Key element is reusable engines) Avoid Shuttle-like manpower-intensive support Recent analysis: AFRL Responsive Space Advanced Technology Study (23) Operationally Responsive Spacelift AOA (24) USECAF Vector 1 Launch Study (25) Aerospace Future Launch Study (26) AF SAB Future Launch Vehicles Study (21) SMC Spacelift Development Plan (draft 21) EELV/RBS Total Cost of Ownership (211) AFRL S&T Goals Consistent Study Results 66% cost reduction 24 hr turn-around 2-8 hr call up Reusable technology can reduce launch costs ELV cost reductions not driven by technology but rather by lean acquisition processes, high production rate & launch range streamlining 5

5 S&T Focus to Achieve the Goal Objective: Reduce Cost 5 to 67% for Spacelift 6% of launch vehicle 4% of ground ops 1% of range ops 4% of mission assurance Launch Vehicle Reuse Booster Stage 2 reuse booster 5 reuse engine More Efficient Engine for Booster and Upper Stage Design for maintainability, clean pad ops, 15 person contact/shift, 24 hour turn time, 2-8 hr callup Autonomous Flight Operations and Automated Flight Safety System Eliminate IOT&E/DT&E for every booster thru reusability & aircraft like ops 6

6 Vehicle Options& Flight Rate Comparison Year Life Cycle Cost ($B) DoD Area of Interest Exemplar, from extensive parametric analyses Fully Expendable Recurring Cost ($M/Flight) Fully Expendable Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages DoD Area of Interest Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages Flight Rate (Launches/Year) Flight Rate (Launches/Year) LEO Capacity = 15 klbs; Reusable Fleet Size = 4 up to 2 flts/yr, then 1 more per each additional 1 flts/yr (Values assume all-new developments - Costs in FY24 Dollars) Reusable Booster: Lowest LCC and Recurring Cost at All Likely Flight Rates 7

7 Reusable vs. Expendable Comparison (This example based on 15 klb to LEO capability) RLV RBS ELV Expended H/W (klb) (Reusabl e Booster System) 12 Avoids 64% of ELV s expendable hardware 33 Reused H/W (klb) Avoids 69% of RLV s reusable hardware Fully-Reusable RLVs Are big because orbiter must go to/from orbit (8% of orbited mass is the orbiter) Drives higher development and production costs RBS Balance ELV-RLV Production and Development costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases Fully-Expendable ELVs Expend large amounts of hardware Drives higher recurring costs Note: Cost of expendable hardware is partly production, but also includes costs of documentation, testing, and reviews required to assure reliability. Reusable booster hardware can be designed with higher margins, and certified to permit reuse with minimal testing/review (similar to aircraft). RBS Has Solid Cost Savings Potential 8

8 RBS Affordability: Reduction in Expended Hardware Total Expended Dry Weight (klb) Fully Expendable Vehicle Weight Glideback 55% Reduction Mach 3.5 Jetback or Rocketback 67% Reduction Downrange Landing st Stage Separation Delta-V (kft/sec) Mach 7 (Example: 25 klb to LEO) Best region for RBS design Reusable Booster Staging Velocities Between Mach 3 and 7 Reduce Expended Dry Mass By Factor of 2-3 9

9 RBS vs. Shuttle Processing Manpower OPERATIONS Shuttle Reusable System Orbiter Booster Summary of Improvements Infrastructure Integration Reusable Booster Upper Stages Payloads Spaceport Post Ops Labor Hours Labor Hours Thermal 18, Mach 6 or less Vs. Mach 25 Shuttle reentry creates benign reentry environment Crew Support 15,893 No crew or on-orbit operations Mechanical 12, Modern self-contained actuation Benign environment Higher margins Vehicle Reconfig for Payload 1,434 ~ No payload bay, No reconfiguration. Payload carried in fairing on expendable upper stage. OMS/RCS 5,771 7 No OMS. Non-toxic RCS. Electrical 8,25 34 Batteries only. No Fuel Cells. No APUs. Propulsion 7, Modern hydrocarbon engines, High-margins, Reduced performance requirements Reusable Booster Avoids Maintenance Issues of Previous Reusables by Focusing on only Reusable Booster not Orbiter 1

10 Design Region Sensitivity 7 Vehicle Gross Weight (1 6 lb) May Lead to Compromise of Operability for Early Systems Stage Propellant Mass Fraction Mass fraction of expendable stages:.9 RBS = Reusable 1 st stage, Expendable upper stages (Propellant Mass / Gross Mass) RBS Configuration Facilitates Robust Margins 11

11 Rocket Vs. Hypersonic Propulsion Far Term 1st Stage Solution 25 Reusable Booster Dry Weight (lb) RP Rocket Booster (vertical takeoff) (Example: 25 klb to LEO) Mach 3.5 Mach 7. Hypersonic TBCC* Booster (horizontal takeoff) Booster Staging Delta-V (fps) Based on Rocket Equation: ΔV = I sp (g) ln(m i /m f ) gravity/drag losses Dominant Factor Reusable boosters need high thrust to accelerate quickly & reduce gravity/drag losses. Vertical takeoff rocket (RP) preferred in long term for reusable booster. * TBCC- Turbine Based Combined Cycle 12

12 What is Reusable Booster System? ~ 15K feet altitude ~ Mach Staging Heatrate, BTU/ft2-sec Low ascent heating Minimal reentry heating Time, sec Boost or Glide Back Distribution A: Cleared for Public Release, SMC/XR 19 Oct 21: JDA18564 Vertical lift, horizontal land, Reusable Booster System Demonstrate key features on subscale system(s) Return-to-base maneuver Turn time and cost savings Benefit to Warfighter: > 5-66% cost reduction for launch on schedule 2-8 hr call-up, hour turn around from call up to launch, and 9% weather availability for assured strike and launch on demand 13

13 FAST (AFRL) Airframe Structures Hybrid Reusable Booster Technology Maturation Adaptive Guidance & Control Responsive Ops Test Integrated Vehicle Health Mngment 215 Pathfinder Rocket Back Demo (SMC & AFRL) Flight Demo or X- Plane 227+ RBS (AFSPC funded) Physics-Based MS&A tools HC Boost Demo (AFRL) 22 Prototype & Flight Weight Engine (SMC) USET Vision Engine Risk Reduction Integrated Engine Cycle Testing (25Klbs Thrust - Subscale) A $385 million integrated suite of ground & flight technologies 15