NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 20000076832: A NASA Spaceliner 100 Propulsion Oriented Technology Assessment

30 Pages·1.4 MB·English

by  NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

AIAA 2000-3603
A NASA SPACELINER 100 PROPULSION
ORIENTED TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
W. Dankhoff, K. Dayton, D. Levack, P. Odom, R. Rhodes
and J. Robinson
Space Propulsion Synergy Team
AIAA/ASME/SAFJASEE
36 th
Joint Propulsion Conference
July 17-19, 2000
Huntsville, Alabama
Fur permblaion Io copy or Io republish, ,-tmla_.l the Amerk:am lmlttule of Aeronlull¢', and ._L_truaautics.
1801 Alexamder Bell Drh, e, Suite .t_l}, Re_cl,on, %:-_2019143.14,

__L_,o
A NASA SPA CELINER 100 PROPULSION ORIENTED
TECHNOLOGY ASSESMENT
THE SPACE PROPULSION SYNERGY TEAM
Abstract
llode .f ()peratioo
In response to a NASA request, the
National Space Propulsion Synergy
Team (SPST) team agreed to provide
technical and programmatic support to
NASA in formulating a Spaceliner 100
Technology Program. The SPST
offered a broad cross-section of
expertise and experience. Its
membership consists of senior level,
volunteer representatives from across
FIGURE 1
government, industry, and academia.
The purpose of this paper is to provide In response to a customer's request
a summary of the SPST support of the SPST Steering Committee, with
SL100, which culminated in a consensus from the membership,
propulsion technologies assessment defines the task and organizes the
and prioritization workshop conducted voluntary manpower that will be
at MSFC. The results of this workshop required. Consistent with this mode of
and the follow-up analysis are part of operation, a diversified, experienced
this report. Also included, is a review task force was formed to carry out the
of some "lessons learned" that were support of the SL100 technology
solicited from the workshop program planning. Four subteams
participants. were formed to conduct this effort:
SPST Organization Team 1- Functional Requirements
And Operations
Team 2 - Space Transportation
Architectures
The mode of operation of the SPST in
Team 3 - Technologies Identification
responding to a request from a
and Characterization
customer is shown in Figure 1.
Team 4 - Technologies Prioritization
_ PULSION
_YNE.GY _EAM
The overall management and propellants, was highlighted in the
coordination of the support task force scope of support.
was assigned to Walt Dankhoff, the
Executive Secretary of the SPST. The basic task of the SPST was to
During the first half of the life of the identify, define, and prioritize the
SL100 Technologies Support Task propulsion systems technologies that
Force the Chemical Propulsion are critical to enabling the
Information Agency (CPIA) was development and operation of a space
responsible for providing transportation service capable of
administrative services for the SPST, meeting the challenging goals that are
including the technical and embedded in RLV/Gen 3. However, it
administrative service of the Executive was necessary for the SPST Task
Secretary. However, beginning Force to first broadly address this task
February 1, 2000 the administrative at a transportation system level as
services, including that of the explained in the following section.
Executive Secretary, were provided by
Science Applications International The work flow plan used in carrying
Corporation (SAIC) as one part of an out the task of SPST Support of SL100
existing contract with MSFC. Technologies Planning is depicted in
Figure 2.
The Task Force consisted of the four
teams named above. Each team had
INaSUtotlnteagll©SpaDcierectiPoonlicy _J _1GarryNASLAyles,IASDTiPrector
a balanced membership of
representatives from across
SPST Steering
Government (NASA and USAF), Committee
Industry and Academia. The
responsibilities and functions of each
of these teams are addressed in the Ar©hitecturos 41_ Roo/ulremente I [-
{Team #2 Kelth Dayton, Boeingl| Team #1 Russ Rhodes, KSC I I_
\ /i ,,ea.,...,c,...,'"lI
following section, which presents an
overview of the SPST support of SL _, /I 'r°9'am"_r"_""'l
100. ITechnologies Identification I I . . . II
PrlparaUorl of Whlte Plpersl _I Tecmlologies AeSeelment I J "'_"_" I
Team #3Dan Lavack _ & Prlorltlzatlon Workshop _ ..... io ._j
I .o.,.°,.o.,.,,,°.t r .°m,,°,,,.,°d°m,sA,cl I..... 1
Overview Of SPST Support Of
SL 100 Technologies FIGURE 2
The basic requirements, or major
Although the SPST team support was
focused on propulsion systems, the goals, of an RLV/Gen 3 transportation
service were provided by NASA/MSFC
approach was to consider propulsion
Advanced Space Transportation
systems in the broadest sense, i.e.
Program Office. They were (1) a
from propellant supply systems to
transportation service 10,000 times
exhaust nozzles and not just the
safer and (2) 100 times lower costs
engine. The ground infrastructure and
operations, which are largely driven by than the current space shuttle system.
the type of propulsion system and
2
_ IULSION
_YN,RGY _[AM
The Functional Requirements Team 1 However, in many cases, it was
expanded, and further defined, the necessary to seek a commitment from
basic functional requirements of an an engineer outside the team to
RLV/Gen 2 transportation Service. prepare the white paper.
Additionally, they defined other major
attributes, including responsiveness, The last step in the work flow process
dependability, and environmental was the actual assessment and
compatibility as functional prioritization. This was conducted in a
requirements. This team provided hands-on workshop on April 5th - 7th
another vital input to the Assessment at MSFC. Dr. Pat Odom of SAIC, the
and Prioritization Workshop. They team leader, was responsible for the
identified and weighted the planning and facilitation of this highly
measurable technical design criteria successful workshop. A major part of
and programmatic assessment factors. the preparation for a workshop was
Fortunately, the previous SPST the selection and organization of two
activities, using the same process, teams of evaluators, one technical, the
provided sound building blocks for the other programmatic.
development of the criteria to assess
the candidate SL100 technologies. It The process utilized in this workshop,
should be noted that in this phase of as well as in previous workshops, was
the SPST support the focus was on a successful marriage of two
propulsion systems for earth to LEO processes. The first being the QFD
transportation vehicles, sometimes based process evolved and utilized by
referred to as "space trucks". the SPST, which is addressed in
References 1, 2 and 3; the second
In parallel, Team 2 was identifying the process in this marriage is the AHP
transportation system "architectures" (Analytic Hierarchy Process), broadly
that were considered to have the used and improved by SAIC. The
potential of meeting these combination of these processes
requirements. The output of both produced a credible assessment and
teams were utilized in identifying and prioritization of the candidate
defining the candidate propulsion technologies. The results of the
system technologies. workshop have been provided to the
NASA ASTP. In addition, specific
The primary objective of the analyses of the data, such as
Technologies Team 3 was to identify sensitivity analysis, are being carried
and define propulsion and "propulsion out, as requested by the NASA.
related" technologies that could be
candidates for inclusion in the SL100 The reader should note that the results
technology budget for FY 2001 and and conclusions presented herein do
beyond. Once this team had identified not represent official NASA positions
and categorized the candidate on the priorities of particular space
technologies they were responsible for propulsion technologies. Rather, they
the development of a white paper on are the "output" of the collaborative
each. In some cases a team member process utilized by the SPST in the
was asked to prepare the white paper. SL IO0 Technologies Workshop. The
3
_ PIJLSION
results of the workshop are, therefore, desired attributes. These are
an input to NASA/MSFC for utilization discussed next. This team started with
in their FY 2001 budget planning NASA's strategic directions for a
process. RLV/Gen3 as outlined as follows.
It should be emphasized that an Assuring reliable and affordable
additional, extremely valuable product access to space through U.S.
of the subject task was the maturing of transportation capabilities is
the SPST/AHP process that took fundamental to achieving national
place. Each time this process is space goals.
exercised there are "lessons learned"
that, when applied, result in a more
Must improve reliability, operability
efficient and credible process,
and responsiveness to be in
including the workshops. For
concert with achieving the Safety
example, if this process is utilized to
and Cost goals for 3drd Generation
support the development of a cost
Space Transportation.
effective technology plan for the
RLV/Gen 2, it will require fewer man
hours and a somewhat shortened time Safety: Aircraft-Levels of Flight
Safety Paramount.
span.
Functional Cost: $100 per pound to Orbit
equivalent.
Requirements (Team 1)
Service: Capable of supporting all
The primary purpose of the Function
Earth Orbit transportation
Requirements Team was to define and
requirements, including all orbits
prioritize the functional requirements of
from LEO to GEO.
a space transportation system that has
the potential of meeting the
challenging goals NASA defined for an Customers: Must support Space
RLV/Gen 3 system. In other words, Transportation needs of
defining the needs of the Commercial, Civil, DOD, and
transportation service customer. This National Security.
team was also responsible for defining
and prioritizing the "hows" i.e. how can Further inputs from NASA/MSFC were
a transportation system provide "what" used in deriving the specific functional
the customer wants. The "hows" were requirements shown in Table 1. They
defined in terms of measurable criteria have been categorized by first the
(technical/design and programmatic) transportation service capability and
these criteria became inputs to the then the major attributes or
workshop and were utilized in the characteristics that are required of an
assessment and prioritization of the RLV/Gen 3. In expanding upon these
candidate technologies for an RLV basic functional requirements this
Gen 3 transportation system that team relied heavily on the outputs from
would support/correlate with the previous SPST tasks.
O IUL ON
TABLE 1
Summary of Functional Requirements Summary For
RLV/GEN 3 (SPACELINER 100)
TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CAPABILITY
Earth Orbit Capabilities: LEO 40,000 pounds @ 28.6
Degrees- 100 NM
Cross-Range See Reference #3
SAFETY
Paramount
Loss of vehicle: 1/10,000 or 0.9999 Rel.
Loss of crew or passengers: 1 in 1,000,000 flights
Cross-range: See Reference #3
Public Safety: 30 in 1,000,000 flights
AFFORDAB ILITY
Cost: $100 per pound to Orbit
Integration of systems with like functions: See Reference #3
# of interfaces, and independent sub-system: See Reference #3
RESPONSIVENESS
Ground turnaround time: 1day maximum
Operations/Environment Maintainability:
Automated health management
Ready accessibility
Min. use of pollutive or toxics
Range Control: Automated system
Fleet Service Capability: 1,000 flights per year
200 flights per vehicle per
year
DEPENDAB ILITY
Reliability/Safety: See Reference #3
Dynamic propulsive events/operating modes: See Reference #3
Critical failure modes and fault tolerant: See Reference #3
Use of closed compartments and active sating: See Reference #3
Vehicle Life: I0,000 flights per vehicle
Depot Maintenance: Every 1,000 flights
ENVIRONMENTAL
See Reference #3
5
_ PULSION
The previously identified customer Acting in the role of the customer, Uwe
desired attributes, that is, what the Hueter, provided the required
customer desires in a space assessment. The final score
transportation system (see Figure 3) (weighting), was determined by adding
were found to be directly applicable the customer's ranking of importance
with a few additions. It should be of the attribute plus the "need to
noted that there are two categories of improve" number (ratio).
Assessment Criteria.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to
Those in the upper part of Figure 3 are present the details of the development
the attributes that are desired in an and prioritization of the measurable
operating space transportation system, design criteria and the programmatic
and reflect recurring costs. The factors, which were employed in the
attributes in the lower portion of this Technology Prioritization Workshop.
chart are those desired in the R&D However, they may be found in
and acquisition phase of a space References 3 and 4. An example of
transportation system. This phase is the correlation (scoring) of the
characterized as non-recurring costs, measurable design criteria ("hows")
and is referred to in the SPST process with two of the desired system
as programmatic. attributes (affordable and dependable)
is shown in Table 2. These prioritized
Next this team, using a collaborative design criteria along with many others,
were utilized in the assessment
QFD type process, prioritized
(weighted) the space transportation workshop (see References 3 and 4).
attributes. First, this team evaluated
the current operating space Space Transportation
transportation systems (i.e., Space Architectures (Team 2)
Shuttle and expendable launch
vehicles) relative to these attributes. As previously noted the basic task of
This was accomplished using a the SPST was to identify, define and
scoring of 1 to 5. The higher number prioritize propulsion system
indicates a greater ability of the technologies that are critical to
transportation system to meet the enabling the development and
attribute requirements. operation of a space transportation
service capable of meeting the
A critical next step was for the team, challenging goals that are embedded
again in a collaborative process, to in NASA's Gen 3 safety and cost
determine the level of improvement goals. However, it was necessary to
required in each attribute. However, also broadly address this task at the
before proceeding it was necessary to transportation system level.
have the customer, in this case ASTP,
provide a weighting of the attributes.
6
'°
The Attributes of a
Space Transportation System
Affordable / Low Life Cycle Cost Responsive
Mm. Cost Impact of Payloads on Launch Sys. Flexible
Low Recurring Cost Capacity
[.ow Cost Sensitivity to Flight Growth Operable
Operation and Support Process Verification
Initial AcqutsH ton Auto. Sys_ Health Verification
Vehicle/System Replacement Auto, Sys, Corrective Action
Dependable Ease of Vehicle/System
Highly Reliable Integration
Intact Vehicle Recovery Maintainable
Mission Success Simple
Operate on Command I.aunch on Demand
Robustness Easily Supportable
Design Certainty Resiliency
Environmental Compatibility Safety
Minimum Impact on Space Environ. Vehicle Safety
Minimum Eftccl on Atmosphere Personnel Sali:ty
Minimum Impact all Sites Public Safi:ty
Public Support Equipment and Facility Safety
Benefit (;NP
Social Perception
I)urmg the Technok)gy R&D Phase: During the Program Acquisition Phase:
Affordable / Low Life Cycle Cost Affordable / Low Life Cycle C_t
Cost to l)evelop Cost to Acquu'e
Benefit Focused Schedule
Schedule Risk
Risk Technok_gy Options
Dual Use Potential Investor Incentive
FIGURE 3
_ PULSION
TABLE 2
Example of Correlation (Weighting) of Design Criteria with the Attributes
"Affordable and Dependable"
Affordable/Low Life Cycle Cost
Min. Cost Impact on Launch Sys.
Low Recurring Cost
Low Cost Sens. To Fit. Growth
Operation and Support
Initial Acquisition
Vehicle/System Replacement
Raw %
Score Weight
of unique stages (flight and ground) (-) 483 5.3%
of active on-board space sys. req'd for propulsion (-) 454 4.9%
On-board Propellant Storage &Management Difficulty in Space (-) 453 4.9%
Technology readiness levels (+) 425 4.6%
Mass Fraction required (-) 387 4.2%
Ave. ISP on refer. Trajectory (+) 310 3.4%
of umbs. Req'd to Launch Vehicle (-) 276 3.0%
of engines (-) 274 3.0%
Resistance to Space Environment (+) 268 2.9%
Integral structure with propulsion sys. (+) 239 2.6%
Transportation trip time (-) 211 2.3%
Dependable
Highly Reliable
Intact Vehicle Recovery
Mission Success
Operate on Command
Robustness
Design Certainty
Raw %
Score Weight
No. 10#of active components required to function including flight
Operations (-) 527 5.7%
Design Variability (-) 464 5.0%
of different fluids insystem (-) 404 4.4%
of active engine systems required to function (-) 247 2.7%
of modes of cycles (-) 227 2.5%
Margin, mass fraction (+) 215 2.3%
Margin, thrust level/engine chamber press (+) 211 2.3%
of engine restarts required (-) 201 2.2%