Transcript Space Lift SL-1 Leo - ae440a2009 / FrontPage

Space Lift SL-1 Leo
Conceptual Design by
Kevin Cerven
John Clarke
Jim March
Mike Olszewski
Brad Wheaton
Matt Williams
John Yu
Theme/Concept Operations
John Yu
Cost and Concept Ops Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Naming Methodology
• Space Lift
SL
• First Vehicle in Series
• Low Earth Orbit
LEO
– Leo the Lion
7/7/2015
Yu
3
Request for Proposal (RFP)
• Design economical air-breathing vehicle
• 48 hour turnaround
• Launch liquid propellant rocket
(Space X Falcon 1)
– Minimum Altitude: 50,000 ft
– Minimum Velocity Mach=2
7/7/2015
Yu
4
Theme: L-3
• Low Research and Development Cost
• Low Manufacturing Cost
• Low Operating Cost
7/7/2015
Yu
5
Mission Profile
Climb/Release
50,000 ft
Dash
Climb
55,000 ft
50,000 ft
Loiter
Loiter
Land
Takeoff
7/7/2015
15,000 ft
15,000 ft
Yu
6
Launch Methodology
• Point of Release
– Mach=2.0
– Altitude: 55,000 ft
o
–  =25
• Prior to Release
– Climb/Cruise to Altitude: 50,000 ft at
Mach=0.8
– Dash at Mach=2.5
– Climb to Altitude: 55,000 ft
7/7/2015
Yu
7
Concept Selection
Kevin Cerven
Configuration/Sizing Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Configuration
• Initial Sizing
• Concept Morphology
• Weights and Configurations of three
finalists
• Future Goals
7/7/2015
Cerven
9
Weight vs. L/D
7/7/2015
205000
200000
Aircraft Weight (lbs)
• Conducted several
trade studies
• L/D had the greatest
effect on gross takeoff weight
• Maximizing L/D
minimizes weight
• Low weight means
low cost
195000
190000
185000
180000
175000
170000
165000
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Lift to Drag Ratio (L/D)
Aircraft total weight versus L/D
Cerven
10
Concept Morphology
7/7/2015
Cerven
11
Analysis of top 3 concepts
Blended wing concept
182000 lbs
Red: Engine
7/7/2015
Delta wing with Canard
Concept
173000 lbs
Double delta wing concept
184000 lbs
Green: Cockpit
Black: Landing Gear
Yellow: Aircraft Fuel
Blue: Rocket Fuel
Cerven
12
Conclusion
• L/D major deciding factor for
aircraft weight
• Canard design lightest,
blended wing has most
internal volume
• Future work
– Analyze area distribution along
fuselage to minimize wave
drag (with aerodynamics)
– Improve accuracy of weight
and center of gravity estimates
7/7/2015
Cerven
13
Aerodynamics
Brad Wheaton
Aerodynamics Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Aerodynamics Issues
• Wing planform selection
• Shockwave interactions
– Placement of rocket and horizontal tails
• THEME: “Low Mission Cost”
– Optimize subsonic cruise L/D to improve
performance
– Supersonic drag reduction
7/7/2015
Wheaton
15
Wing Planform Selection
• “Cost Effectiveness”: Choose a proven
supersonic wing planform
• Study of previous supersonic aircraft
– Swept Wing (Modern Airliners and Fighters)
– Delta Wing (XB-70, Concorde, Tu-144)
– Variable Sweep Wing (B-1, F-14)
7/7/2015
Wheaton
16
Swept Wings
• Variable Sweep Wing
– Optimum wing for subsonic and supersonic
– High cost! Does not fit theme
• Swept Wing
– High sweep angle required at Mach 2.5
– Structural issues
7/7/2015
Wheaton
17
The Delta Wing
• Proven supersonic wing
design (XB-70, Concorde)
– Drag reduced from sweep
angle
– Stronger than swept wing
– Cheap and simple to
manufacture
– Performs well enough in
subsonic cruise
• Top three concepts were
delta wings
XB-70 [1]
7/7/2015
Wheaton
18
Top Three Concepts
• Aerodynamics analyzed…
Blended Wing
7/7/2015
Double Delta
Canard Delta
Wheaton
19
Blended Wing Concept
• Smooth surface =
drag reduction and
area ruling
• Good subsonic
performance
(L/Dmax=12 )
• Poor supersonic
performance
– High cross sectional
area (180 ft^2)
– Wave drag large
7/7/2015
Wheaton
20
Double Delta Concept
• Subsonic L/Dmax
(10.1) less than
Blended Wing
concept
• Supersonic CDo is
half as large (0.025)
– Due to lower cross
sectional area
7/7/2015
Wheaton
21
Canard-Delta Concept
• Best subsonic
L/Dmax (14.73) due
to higher AR
• Supersonic CDo is
0.032 (compared to
0.025 for Double
Delta)
• Canard = possibility
of lifting control
surface
7/7/2015
Wheaton
22
Aerodynamics Conclusions
• Optimum planform =
delta wing
• Canard concept
– Best subsonic cruise L/D:
fits cost theme
– Low supersonic drag
coefficient
• Much work still to be
done!
– Improve subsonic L/D
(sweep angle, AR, etc.)
– Find efficient cruise Mach #
– Reduce supersonic drag
(area rule)
7/7/2015
Wheaton
23
Performance
Mike Olszewski
Performance Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Performance Analysis:
• T/W and W/S Constraint Analysis
– Takeoff
– Cruise
– Service Ceiling
– Dash
– Landing
• Total Mission Fuel Consumption
7/7/2015
Olszewski
25
Blended Wing Concept:
• High supersonic drag
(Drag CDo = .0576)
• Low subsonic drag
(Cruise CDo = .009)
• Average Lift-to-Drag
(L/D max = 12)
• Average Aspect Ratio
(AR = 2.31)
7/7/2015
Constraints for Blended Wing Concept
(Optimized for Cruise)
Olszewski
26
Double Delta Concept:
• Low supersonic drag
(Drag CDo = .024)
• High subsonic drag
(Cruise CDo = .012)
• Low Lift-to-Drag
(L/D max = 10.1)
• Average Aspect Ratio
(AR = 2.31)
7/7/2015
Constraints for Double Delta Concept
(Optimized for Dash)
Olszewski
27
Delta w. Canard Concept:
• Average supersonic drag
(Drag CDo = .031)
• Average subsonic drag
(Cruise CDo = .011)
• High Lift-to-Drag
(L/D max = 14.73)
• High Aspect Ratio
(AR = 4)
7/7/2015
Constraints for Canard Concept
(Balanced Cruise & Dash Performance)
Olszewski
28
Fuel Consumption Analysis:
Blended Wing
Double Delta
Optimal Thrust / Weight Ratio:
0.75
0.55
0.6
Optimal Wing Loading (Lbs. / ft^2)
275
170
175
182150
183720
173750
30886
31767
27107
Gross Takeoff Weight (Lbs.):
Total Mission Fuel Consumption (Lbs.):
7/7/2015
Delta w. Canard
Olszewski
29
Concept Analysis:
• Blended Wing:
– High T/W requires 5+ F101 engines
– High W/S creates structural complications
– Efficient during cruise, but poor supersonic performance
• Double Delta:
– Low T/W requires fewer engines
– Low W/S and simple structure are ideal
– Efficient during dash, but poor subsonic performance
• Delta with Canard:
– Similar T/W and W/S to Double Delta
– High L/D max and High Aspect Ratio
– Good cruise and dash performance
7/7/2015
Olszewski
30
Performance Conclusions:
• Central theme is “LOW MISSION COST”
• Delta Wing with Canard provides:
– Highest Lift-to-Drag and Aspect Ratio
– Lowest fuel consumption per mission
– Lightest empty weight
• Future tasks:
– Detailed Trajectory Model & Drag Analysis
– Safety Investigation
– System Optimization & Trade Studies
7/7/2015
Olszewski
31
Propulsion
Matt Williams
Propulsion Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Propulsion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Engine choices
Requirements
Thrust
Specific Fuel Consumption(SFC)
Cost
Final Engine
Cutaway of an F101 turbofan [2]
7/7/2015
Williams
33
Engines
• Engine Choices
– F100-PW-229
– F101-GE-102
– F110-GE-100
– Olympus 593 Mk 610
Olympus 593 used on the Concorde [3]
7/7/2015
Williams
34
Requirements
Thrust
-108,000 lbs of thrust
-no more than 4 engines
SFC
-lowest SFC possible
-turbofan if possible
Cost
7/7/2015
Williams
35
Thrust
Engine
F100-PW-229
F101-GE-102
F110-GE-100
Olympus 593 Mk 610
7/7/2015
thrust(lb)
17800
17390
18330
31500
thrust(afterburn)(lb)
29000
30780
28620
38050
Williams
36
Specific Fuel Consumption
All engine data from [6] except Olympus from [5]
Engine
SFC(lb/hr/lbF) SFC(afterburn)(lb/hr/lbF)
F100-PW-229
0.74
2.05
F101-GE-102
0.562
2.46
F110-GE-100
1.47
2.08
Olympus 593 Mk 610
1.19
1.39
7/7/2015
Williams
37
Cost
All engine data from [6] except Olympus from [5]
Engine
Price
F100-PW-229
$2,500,000
F101-GE-102
$1,105,066
F110-GE-100
$2,947,368
Olympus 593 Mk 610
7/7/2015
Williams
38
F101-GE-102
•Produces sufficient thrust with 4
engines
•Has the lowest SFC
•Lowest price per engine
F101 on a test stand [4]
7/7/2015
Williams
39
Future Work
•
•
•
•
•
Thrust losses
Installed Thrust
SFC as a function of Mach number
Fuel tank design
Inlet and Nozzle design
7/7/2015
Williams
40
Stability and Control
Jim March
Stability and Control Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Stability and Controls
• Estimation of static margins and Cm for each
concept.
• Justification of chosen concept from an S&C
standpoint.
• Initial control surface sizing.
• Future work
7/7/2015
March
42
S&C –Static Margin and
Cm Plots
60
Static Margin (%)
Cm-alpha (x10)
50
40
Static Margin (%)
Cm-alpha (x10)
30
20
Region difficult
to estimate
accurately
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
0
0.5
1
1.5
Mach #
2.5
2
3
Our blended wing concept alongside its Static Margin and Cm plot.
7/7/2015
March
43
S&C –Static Margin and
Cm Plots
60
Static Margin (%)
Cm-alpha (x10)
50
40
Static Margin (%)
Cm-alpha (x10)
30
20
Region difficult
to estimate
accurately
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
0
0.5
1
1.5
Mach #
2
2.5
3
Our double delta concept alongside its Static Margin and Cm plot.
7/7/2015
March
44
S&C –Static Margin and
Cm Plots
60
Static Margin (%)
Cm-alpha (x10)
50
40
Region difficult
to estimate
accurately
Static Margin (%)
Cm-alpha (x10)
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
0
0.5
1
1.5
Mach #
2
2.5
3
Our final design alongside its Static Margin and Cm plot.
7/7/2015
45
S&C: Justification
• Blended Wing:
– Static margin is ideal for a fighter (not desirable)
– Expensive avionics required to trim design
– Resulting trim drag may be significant
• Double Delta:
– Static margin similar to canard concept
– Flaps necessary for pitch control
– Trim drag again a concern
7/7/2015
March
46
S&C: Justification
Canard Concept:
•
•
•
•
•
7/7/2015
Static margin within a desirable range
Canard easily satisfies stability requirements
Well proven design
Computer control unnecessary
Controls better suited for supersonic flight
March
47
S&C: Control Surfaces
Initial Control Surface Sizing for Canard Concept [7] :
CVT
CHT
SVT
SHT
.07
.40
182.7 ft2
306 ft2 [1]
Typical jet fighter
Typical jet fighter
2 vertical tails
150 ft2 (Estimated)
Canard
Ailerons (outboard)
150 ft2
6ft x 13.9ft = 83.4 ft2
(each)
7ft x 11.1ft =77.7 ft2
(each)
All moving
Low speed flight
Ailerons (inboard)
7/7/2015
High speed flight
March
48
S&C: Future Work
•
•
•
•
•
Rocket separation issues
Roll and lateral stability
Detailed trim analysis
Dynamic stability and characteristics
Detailed design of control surfaces
7/7/2015
March
49
Structures
John Clarke
Structures Specialist/Team Leader
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Structures
•
•
•
•
•
Loading and the V-n diagram
Rocket Placement
Rocket Support
Landing Gear
Conclusions and Future Work
7/7/2015
Clarke
51
V-n Diagrams
• Green lines show
max ± loads and
velocity
• Curves at left show
stall limits
• Curves across the
middle show gust
response
• Concepts’ wing
loadings (W/S) were
high enough
7/7/2015
V-n diagram comparing wing loading effects on gust
and stall response at 15,000 ft
Clarke
52
V-n Diagrams
• Altitude has small
effect on stall limits
• Turbulence is a risk
at lower altitudes
• Higher heights and
speeds reduce risk
• Max ± loads based
on payload
• Max velocity limited
to reduce material
costs
7/7/2015
V-n diagram for canard concept comparing altitude
effects on gust and stall response
Clarke
53
Rocket Placement
• Must not interrupt wing carry through
• Bottom carriage has support only at
existing hard points.
(most likely at ends of 1 & 2 stages)
• Bottom carriage requires excessive
landing gear length
• Top carriage allows for support just like
any cargo floor. (Many points of contact)
7/7/2015
Clarke
54
Support of Rocket
z
• Top vs. bottom
carriage
• Simplified model
• Deflection depends
greatly on internal
structure of rocket
• Max 4 g load based
satellite launch
environment
1,191 lb/ft
2.8 ft
x
2.75 ft
31.7 ft
Deflection of the center point of the rocket first
stage as a function of load factor
7/7/2015
Clarke
55
Landing Gear
• Longer landing gear needed
for ground clearance
• The critical load for a beam
supported as shown is,
Pcr 
 EI
2
Pcr 
[8]
l2
l2
• Must be heavier and braced
to prevent buckling
7/7/2015
 2 EI
Pcr 
Clarke
 2 EI
l
2
56
Conclusions and Future Work
• Any concept must accommodate payload
structural limitations
• Top carriage reduces technical risk and
structural weight for
– Rocket support
– Landing gear strength
• Next steps are:
– Estimate internal structure for component support
– Determine acceptable materials for construction
– Determine landing gear loads and structure
7/7/2015
Clarke
57
Cost
John Yu
Cost and Concept Ops Specialist
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Economic Analysis
• L-3
– Research & Development
– Manufacturing
– Operation
• Market Analysis
• Profitability
7/7/2015
Yu
59
R&D Cost Comparison
SL-1 Leo
Airframe Eng. & Design Costs
Double Delta Wing
Blended Delta Wing
$1,244,643,128
$1,284,758,400
$1,294,396,026
$14,472,595
$14,939,051
$15,051,117
$4,891,820
$5,066,117
$5,108,077
$1,985,162,524
$2,046,217,217
$2,060,872,666
Cost of Engine and Avionics
$3,590,066
$3,590,066
$3,590,066
Man Hours for Manufacturing Costs
$8,313,559
$8,563,975
$8,624,061
$631,830,506
$650,862,064
$655,428,611
$630,093
$647,746
$651,976
$1,270,563,960
$1,310,095,339
$1,319,586,359
Man Hours For Tooling
$14,438,227
$14,887,447
$14,995,300
Quality Control Costs
$82,137,966
$84,612,068
$85,205,719
R&D Profit
$71,882,166
$74,134,261
$74,675,039
$287,528,664
$296,537,043
$298,700,157
0.75
0.75
0.75
$1,439,238,906
$1,484,280,800
$1,495,096,371
Man Hours Rate in Dollars
Development Support & Testing Costs
Flight Test Airplanes Costs
Build Costs of Flight Test A/C
Cost of Materials
Cost of Tooling
Cost to Finance
Correction Divisor For R&D Costs
R&D COSTS TOTAL
7/7/2015
Yu
60
Unit Cost Comparison (1 of 2)
SL-1 Leo
Double Delta Wing
Blended Wing
$1,005,107,102
$1,035,466,244
$1,042,754,324
Unit Price Per Aircraft
$814,250,140
$839,383,820
$845,418,370
Costs Incurred in
Manufacturing
$913,733,729
$941,332,949
$947,958,477
Airframe Engineering &
Design Costs
$227,221,496
$234,544,922
$236,304,363
17,114,705
17,666,318
17,798,842
$686,488,233
$706,764,027
$711,630,114
$20,715,792
$20,715,792
$20,715,792
$389,393,829
$401,122,878
$403,937,218
13,437,162
13,841,907
13,939,024
Acquisition Costs
Man Hours in Airframe
Development
Airplane Program
Production Costs
Cost of Engine & Avionics
Cost to Manufacture
Man Hours to Manufacture
7/7/2015
Yu
61
Unit Cost Comparison (2 of 2)
Cost for Materials Manufacturing
Materials Costs for the Program
Tooling Costs
Tooling Man Hours
Quality Control Costs
Production Flight Test Costs
Finance Cost of Manufacturing
Profit
Correction Rate
PRICE PER AIRCRAFT
7/7/2015
SL-1 Leo
Double Delta Wing
Blended Wing
$671,793
$690,614
$695,125
$1,301,886
$1,338,360
$1,347,101
$225,085,622
$232,088,768
$233,770,141
16,996,018
17,524,819
17,651,778
$50,621,198
$52,145,974
$52,511,838
$24,000
$24,000
$24,000
$182,746,746
$188,266,590
$189,591,695
$91,373,373
$94,133,295
$94,795,848
0.8
0.8
0.8
$1,018,477,503
$1,049,894,602
$1,057,437,790
Yu
62
Operation Cost Comparison
Item
Crew Cost
Fuel
Operations
Maintenance
Total Cost Per Flight
7/7/2015
SL-1 Leo
Double Delta Wing
Blended Delta Wing
$337
$337
$337
$16,460
$19,669
$20,070
$3,537
$3,641
$3,666
$13,876
$15,733
$15,734
$34,209
$39,379
$39,806
Yu
63
Fuel Cost Comparison
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
SL-1 Leo,
$16,459
Blended Delta
Wing,
Double Delta
$20,070.18
Wing, $19,669
$10,000
$5,000
$0
7/7/2015
Yu
64
Market Size
0-100kg
100.1-500kg
500.1-1,000kg
1000.1-3000kg
3000.1-5000kg
5000-25000kg
Classified
1%
4%
10%
9%
4%
22%
50%
2006 Launch Payload Distribution (Total: 267)
7/7/2015
Yu
65
Market Share
Other
42%
Falcon 1
58%
Potential Market Share for Falcon 1
7/7/2015
Yu
66
Market Share
Others
16%
SL-1 Leo
84%
Potential Market Capture for
SL-1 Leo
7/7/2015
Yu
67
Profitability
Item
Falcon 1 Cost
Crew Cost
Fuel
Operations
Maintenance
$4,000,000.00
$337
$16,459
$3,537
$13,876
Total Cost Per Flight
$4,034,209
Profit Per Flight
$2,700,000
Total Price Per Flight
$6,734,209
Total Revenues for FY2007
Total Profits for FY2007
7/7/2015
Amount
$1,508,592,360
$604,800,000
Yu
68
Summary: Economic Analysis
• L-3
• Significant Market Size
• Future Profitability
7/7/2015
Yu
69
Conclusion
John Clarke
Structures Specialist/Team Leader
Space Lift SL-1 Leo Project
Conclusion
• Low Research and Development Cost
– Use existing technology and designs
• Low Manufacturing Cost
– Non-exotic materials
• Low Operation Cost
– Low fuel and maintenance
7/7/2015
L-3 Themed
Aircraft
Clarke
71
Conclusion
Higher aspect ratio
wing gives better
performance
Semi conformal
payload reduces drag
Top carriage
reduces risk
Wing and engine optimized
to reduce fuel weight
7/7/2015
Canard for lift
and stability
Low cost
Turbofan
Long fuse for balance
and internal volume
Clarke
72
References
• [1] “XB-70 3 View”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:XB-70_3view.jpg.
• [2] http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/F110.gif
• [3] http://www.designmuseum.org/media/item/5211/-1/147_4Lg.jpg
• [4] http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/pictures/F119A.JPG
• [5] http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/propulsion/largefan.html
• [6] http://www.aircraftenginedesign.com/TableB2.html
• [7] Raymer, Daniel P., “Initial Sizing,” Aircraft Design: A Conceptual
Approach, 4th ed., edited by Joseph A. Schetz, AIAA Education Series,
AIAA, Reston, 2006, pp. 121-126.
• [8] Bruhn, E. F., “Theory of the Instability of Columns and Thin Sheets,”
Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Tri-State Offset
Company, Cincinnati, OH, 1965, pp. A18.2.
7/7/2015
73