Scorpius

1
Scorpius Low-Cost NanoLaunch Services Summary
Dr. Thomas Bauer Dr. Robert Conger Microcosm,
Inc.4940 West 147th StreetHawthorne, CA
90250 Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
E-mail rconger_at_smad.comNovember 2008
2
Microcosm NanoLancher Options
Sprite Core Option Single Sprite pod 1st stage
(shown), 20K lbf engine operated at lower
pressure for 2nd stage, StageCraft 3rd stage
payload up to 135 lbs
Mini-Sprite Option Scaled down version (1/4th the
mass) of Sprite, with fully developed 5K lbf
engine for 1st/2nd stages, new 600 lbf 3rd stage
engine required payload up to 225 lbs
3
System Objectives

• Mini-Scorpius launch vehicle will demonstrate,
  at very low non-recurring and recurring cost all
  of the technologies needed to drive down
  nanosatellite / microsatellite launch costs
• The resulting mini-Scorpius launch vehicle will
  be able to launch 100 to 200 lbs into LEO for
  between 1.5 and 2.5 million total launch cost,
  depending in part on range requirements
• In addition, it will demonstrate both processes
  and technologies applicable to reducing launch
  costs and schedules for larger payloads by a
  factor of 5 to 10.
• The vehicle will also demonstrate both the
  feasibility and utility of launch-on-demand,
  which will have applicability to Commercial, DoD,
  NASA and University missions for science,
  technology, and educational missions.
• Demonstrate low cost operational range and
  facilities cost
• Ranges cost with tracking and flight termination
  will be a requirement
• Cost are a significant cost of the entire launch
  operation

4
Mini-Scorpius Systems Engineering Outline

• Mini-Scorpius configuration vehicle schematic
  with features
• Configuration approach and features low cost, 3
  stages, pressure-fed, utilize new tech (e.g.,
  composites, GPS) simplicity, modularity,
  scalability, robustness, 3 critical technologies
• Trades System level flowed to subsystems
• Effects of staging
• Design for reliability and responsiveness
• Scalability
• Payload performance plot
• Margins
• Payload sensitivity to parameter variations
• Propellant budget
• Mass properties background, summary, and fidelity
• Configuration management Configuration Control
  Board, Specification, Engineering Budgets, Key
  Parameters
• Analyses CFD, wind tunnel, thermal, and
  subsystem specific
• Acceleration plot
• Range and Launch Operations
• Facilities

5
Sprite Core Option Configuration
Composite Fuel Tank 550 PSI Operating Pressure
Tridyne Tanks
20k lbf Engine Stage 1
Composite LOX Tank 550 PSI Operating Pressure
First stage built off the SR-M (pictured) with
20k lbf low cost ablative engine, all-composite
tanks, and high performance pressurization
system Second stage Sprite SLV Stage 3 with
larger engine Third stage (StageCraft within
fairing) conceptually designed
6
Sprite Core Option Configuration Detail(Engines
Unmodified)
PARAMETER UNITS STAGE 1 STAGE 2 Gross
weight lbs 10,930 3005 Dry weight lbs 1262 489 Bur
nout weight lbs 1507 517 Burnout
fraction 13.8 17.2
7
Sprite Core Option Configuration
DetailStageCraft (Stage 3 and Payload)
8
Mini-Sprite Option Configuration

9
Mini-Sprite Low-Cost SLV Configuration Derived
from Extensive System Trades in the Scorpius
Program

• Mini-Scorpius low-cost Small Launch Vehicle (SLV)
  configuration evolved from the Scorpius design
  and development heritage of design for low total
  cost per pound of payload
• Extensive system level trades in the Scorpius
  program since 1993 led to the definition of the
  Scorpius family of low-cost launch vehicles
• Identified optimum design features of vehicle and
  subsystem level configurations
• Pressure-fed propulsion simple, low-cost, and
  robust
• LOX/Kerosene selected over LOX/LH2 or hypergolic
  simpler logistics, low cost
• 3-stage configuration practical gross weight,
  lowest cost
• 61 pod / stage geometry
• Scalable technologies cover full range of
  payloads
• Modular configuration economies of scale,
  smaller components to develop
• Low-cost design that maximizes COTS components
  without compromising reliability
• Simpler CONOPS that allows launch from austere
  launch sites
• Identified requirements for enabling technologies
  (3 critical, 1 newly available)
• All-composite (lightweight and low-cost)
  propellant tanks
• Low-cost ablative engines
• High Performance Pressurization Systems (HPPS)
• Low-cost GPS/INS based digital avionics
• Sprite vehicle with a 42-inch diameter pod taken
  to PDR. Mini-Sprite was scaled down with a
  25-inch diameter pod
• SR-M fabricated represents pod of Sprite
• Mini-Sprite pods are subscale versions of SR-M

10
Trades System Level RequirementsFlowed Down To
Subsystems

• Pod length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) driven by
  optimal tank L/D
• Number and size of engines in each stage one
  per pod / stage
• Number of pods in each stage and the staging
  sequence 611
• Performance trades based on operating pressures
  in each stage
• Throttling of engines/Thrust Magnitude
  Control/Liquid Injection TVC no
• Blowdown (Stage 3) versus steady state (Stages 1
  and 2) pressurization scheme
• TVC and ACS conventional
• Stage 1 / 2 separation rail flyout (similar to
  old Atlas) from ring of pods
• Crossfeed easily enabled
• Controllable
• Mass efficient
• Single reentry on range
• Heated helium method Stage 3 nozzle heat
  exchanger
• Stage 3 tank arrangement for restart series
  auxiliary
• Stage 3 ACS type nitrogen gas
• Propellant management active with crossfeed to
  increase performance

11
3-Stage Design Selected to Minimize Cost to LEO

• Increasing the number of stages increases the
  overall parts count i.e., more engines, more
  tanks, etc.
• Also increases the number of mid-air engine
  starts and separation events
• Increasing the number of stages reduces the delta
  V required of each stage
• 2 stage requires 16,450 fps/stage avg.
• 3 stage requires 10,970 fps/stage avg.
• Increasing the number of stages decreases the
  sensitivity to mass, drag, and Isp in the lower
  stages

GLOW for 1,000-lb payload vs. number of stages
and burn-out mass fraction from 8 (purple) to
14 (light green)

• For a 3-stage vehicle, a 100 lb increase in the
  first stage decreases mass to orbit by 3 lbs
• For a 2-stage vehicle, a 100 lb increase in the
  first stage decreases mass to orbit by 15 lbs
• For a given burn-out fraction, increasing the
  number of stages decreases the gross lift-off
  weight (GLOW) of the entire vehicle primarily
  because it means carrying less vehicle mass to a
  high velocity after its no longer useful
• Also decreases the required size of the first
  stage engine because of the lower GLOW
• Most of the multi-stage advantage comes from
  going from 2 stages to 3 stages

The 3-stage vehicle allows increased margin,
which drives down cost, and decreases GLOWand
Stage 1 engine size, which further reduces cost.
Also allows Isp more tailored to altitude.
12
Design for Reliability Inherent Responsiveness
of Design

• Reliability
• Unmanned, expendable approach provides optimal
  reliability
• High margins
• No turbopumps, staged-combustion, high chamber
  pressures, hydrogen
• No regeneratively-cooled chambers (coking,
  complexity, delicacy)
• Pressure-fed system inherently robust in flight
  and on ground
• Simple technologies, systems, operations
• Fewer parts and types of parts
• Use of off-the-shelf components and algorithms
• Larger vehicles use same, proven technologies
• Low cost enables extensive component and system
  testing
• Redundant Flight Termination System with multiple
  shutdown mechanisms
• Pod-out capability
• Responsiveness
• Low cost enables build-to-inventory approach
• Simple system easy to prepare for launch
• Simple and robust system less likely to hold,
  delay, or abort launch
• Physically robust design easy to handle on
  ground during launch process
• Propellant combination safest and easiest to
  handle on ground, in vehicular storage facility
  (empty vehicle), and during launch

13
Scalability

• Scaling
• Proportional (photographically)
• Geometry
• Thrust levels
• Payload
• Propellant weights
• Structural weights, especially tanks
• Constant weights (largely) Avionics
• Less favorable Drag losses increase with scale
  due to areal dependence
• Favorable Propulsive weights scale
  disproportionately due to dependence of thrust on
  throat area
• Maintains rough analysis bases among Scorpius
  vehicles
• Range operations and cost are a major factor in
  the overall cost of the NanoLaunchers not
  linearly downward scalable with larger vehicle
  range cost

14
Mini-Sprite Design Goals Performance Payload
Ref. Orbit
15
Margins

• Payload margin to reference orbit
• Dry mass margin
• Stage 1 pod
• Stage 2
• Stage 3
• Propellant retained (includes residuals and
  Flight Performance Reserves)
• Stage 1 pod
• Stage 2
• Stage 3
• Drag coefficient margin
• All stages
• Structural margins
• Composite tanks 50 100
• Metals 25 elastic, 40 ultimate
• Feedlines valves 100 50300

16
Example Sensitivity to Isp and Dry Mass
Margin(Proportionate for Nanosat Launcher)
Increasing Technology ?
17
Configuration Management Specifications
Configuration Management

• Configuration Control Board
• Mini Sprite Specification system description
  and parameters
• Part list part identification, mass, power,
  cost
• Intralink (ProE) drawings
• PERFORCE software

Engineering Budgets

• Mass Properties
• Cost
• Power
• Energy
• Mission Timeline
• Pre-Launch Timeline
• Pressure Drop
• Propellant
• Attitude Error

• Computer Memory
• CPU Throughput
• Bus Traffic
• Software Function
• Insertion Accuracy
• RF Links
• Telemetry Frame
• Ground Consumables

18
Configuration Management Specifications(Mini-Sp
rite Example Key Performance Parameters)

• Propulsion
• Propellants LOX / Kerosene (Jet-A)
• Structures Mechanisms
• Factor of Safety
• Metallic, Yield Ultimate 1.25 1.4
• Composite, Ultimate 1.5
• Buckling 1.7
• Stage 1 2 Tank Volume, LOX Fuel 24.4 cu
  ft 15.3 cu ft
• LOX and Fuel Tank MEOP 550 psi
• Tridyne Tank MEOP 5600 psi
• Payload Fairing
• Diameter 30 in
• Length 71 in
• Aero Reference Length 25 in

19
Mass Properties Background

• NanoLauncher vehicle mass properties data are
  required to support a number of critical analyses
  on the program
• Trajectory and performance
• Vehicle design loads
• Control system design and analysis
• Program cost analysis
• Mass properties data are generated using a
  detailed, multi-tiered spreadsheet listing
  hardware components
• Table of weight estimates
• For 200 lb payload, GLOW of20,000 lbs
• Fairing included in Stage 2

20
Analyses

• Systems level
• CFD
• Wind tunnel NASA MSFC data still relevant
• Thermal
• Mass properties, pressure drop, and other
  engineering budgets
• Wind modeling GRAM95
• Subsystems level
• Structures
• Static loads
• Dynamics
• Engine
• Thermal
• Mechanical loads
• Performance and GNC
• 3-D trajectory simulation for performance and
  mission design
• Linear control analysis root locus, etc.
• 6-D simulation for nonlinear control verification
  and statistics
• Pressurization
• Thermal / fluid behavior

21
Sensed Acceleration
22
Conclusions

• The simple, pressure-fed approach of Scorpius,
  coupled with the demonstration of the critical
  technologies of engines, tanks, and
  pressurization systems, provides a feasible
  launch vehicle system that is low-cost and
  responsive
• Our two versions of a NanoLancher design are
  low-cost and scalable 100200 lbs to LEO for
  1.5 to 2.5 million
• PDR for Sprite provides good basis for Core or
  Mini-Sprite effort
• SR-M as built represents first stage of the Core
  or a pod of Sprite and basis for the Sprite
  Core option, and a large version of a pod of the
  Mini-Sprite NanoLauncher
• Recent tests of the 25-in composite LOX tank
  provide strong evidence for achievable tank
  weights for Mini-Sprite to LEO
• Due to the 3-stage configuration, payload is
  relatively insensitive to variations in
  parameters such as specific impulse and dry mass
• Configuration control and engineering budgets
  provided good stability of the performance
• A large cost driver for NanoLaunchers is the
  range and licensing cost
• Ranges cost are not scalable downward with size.
  Termination and tracking cost are still a
  requirement
• Ranges still need to be licensed for orbital
  launches