Engineering topics

Waters, Eric D.

Publications and source records attributed to Waters, Eric D..

14 records

NASA NTRS2014

Small Launch Vehicle Concept Development for Affordable Multi-Stage Inline Configurations

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study of two configurations of a three stage, inline, liquid propellant small launch vehicle concept developed on the premise of maximizing affordability by targeting a specific payload capability range based on current industry demand. The initial configuration, NESC-1, employed liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene as the fuel in all three stages. The second and more heavily studied configuration, NESC-4, employed liquid oxygen and rocket propellant grade kerosene on the first and second stages and liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel on the third stage. On both vehicles, sensitivity studies were first conducted on specific impulse and stage propellant mass fraction in order to baseline gear ratios and drive the focus of concept development. Subsequent sensitivity and trade studies on the NESC-4 configuration investigated potential impacts to affordability due to changes in gross liftoff weight and/or vehicle complexity. Results are discussed at a high level to understand the severity of certain sensitivities and how those trade studies conducted can either affect cost, performance or both.

Beers, Benjamin R.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Small Launch Vehicle Concept Development for Affordable Multi-Stage Inline Configurations

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study of two configurations of a three-stage, inline, liquid propellant small launch vehicle concept developed on the premise of maximizing affordability by targeting a specific payload capability range based on current and future industry demand. The initial configuration, NESC-1, employed liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene as the fuel in all three stages. The second and more heavily studied configuration, NESC-4, employed liquid oxygen and rocket propellant grade kerosene on the first and second stages and liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel on the third stage. On both vehicles, sensitivity studies were first conducted on specific impulse and stage propellant mass fraction in order to baseline gear ratios and drive the focus of concept development. Subsequent sensitivity and trade studies on the NESC-4 concept investigated potential impacts to affordability due to changes in gross liftoff mass and/or vehicle complexity. Results are discussed at a high level to understand the impact severity of certain sensitivities and how those trade studies conducted can either affect cost, performance, or both.

Beers, Benjamin R.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Air Launch: Examining Performance Potential of Various Configurations and Growth Options

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a high-level analysis of various air launch vehicle configurations, objectively determining maximum launch vehicle payload while considering carrier aircraft capabilities and given dimensional constraints. With the renewed interest in aerial launch of low-earth orbit payloads, referenced by programs such as Stratolaunch and Spaceship2, there existed a need to qualify the boundaries of the trade space, identify performance envelopes, and understand advantages and limiting factors of designing for maximum payload capability. Using the NASA/DARPA Horizontal Launch Study (HLS) Point Design 2 (PD-2) as a point-of-departure configuration, two independent design actions were undertaken. Both configurations utilized a Boeing 747-400F as the carrier aircraft, LOX/RP-1 first stage and LOX/LH2 second stage. Each design was sized to meet dimensional and mass constraints while optimizing propellant loads and stage delta V (ΔV) splits. All concepts, when fully loaded, exceeded the allowable Gross Takeoff Weight (GTOW) of the aircraft platform. This excess mass was evaluated as propellant/fuel offload available for a potential in-flight refueling scenario. Results indicate many advantages such as large, relative payload delivery of approximately 47,000 lbm and significant mission flexibility, such as variable launch site inclination and launch window; however, in-flight cryogenic fluid transfer and carrier aircraft platform integration are substantial technical hurdles to the realization of such a system configuration.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent "go-to" group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA's design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer's needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Small Launch Vehicle Design Approaches: Clustered Cores Compared with Multi-Stage Inline Concepts

In an effort to better define small launch vehicle design options two approaches were investigated from the small launch vehicle trade space. The primary focus was to evaluate a clustered common core design against a purpose built inline vehicle. Both designs focused on liquid oxygen (LOX) and rocket propellant grade kerosene (RP-1) stages with the terminal stage later evaluated as a LOX/methane (CH4) stage. A series of performance optimization runs were done in order to minimize gross liftoff weight (GLOW) including alternative thrust levels, delivery altitude for payload, vehicle length to diameter ratio, alternative engine feed systems, re-evaluation of mass growth allowances, passive versus active guidance systems, and rail and tower launch methods. Additionally manufacturability, cost, and operations also play a large role in the benefits and detriments for each design. Presented here is the Advanced Concepts Office's Earth to Orbit Launch Team methodology and high level discussion of the performance trades and trends of both small launch vehicle solutions along with design philosophies that shaped both concepts. Without putting forth a decree stating one approach is better than the other; this discussion is meant to educate the community at large and let the reader determine which architecture is truly the most economical; since each path has such a unique set of limitations and potential payoffs.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Small Launch Vehicle Trade Space Definition: Development of a Zero Level Mass Estimation Tool with Trajectory Validation

Recent high level interest in the capability of small launch vehicles has placed significant demand on determining the trade space these vehicles occupy. This has led to the development of a zero level analysis tool that can quickly determine the minimum expected vehicle gross liftoff weight (GLOW) in terms of vehicle stage specific impulse (Isp) and propellant mass fraction (pmf) for any given payload value. Utilizing an extensive background in Earth to orbit trajectory experience a total necessary delta v the vehicle must achieve can be estimated including relevant loss terms. This foresight into expected losses allows for more specific assumptions relating to the initial estimates of thrust to weight values for each stage. This tool was further validated against a trajectory model, in this case the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), to determine if the initial sizing delta v was adequate to meet payload expectations. Presented here is a description of how the tool is setup and the approach the analyst must take when using the tool. Also, expected outputs which are dependent on the type of small launch vehicle being sized will be displayed. The method of validation will be discussed as well as where the sizing tool fits into the vehicle design process.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Air Launch: Examining Performance Potential of Various Configurations and Growth Options

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a high-level analysis of various air launch vehicle configurations, objectively determining maximum launch vehicle payload while considering carrier aircraft capabilities and given dimensional constraints. With the renewed interest in aerial launch of low-earth orbit payloads, referenced by programs such as Stratolaunch and Spaceship2, there exists a need to qualify the boundaries of the trade space, identify performance envelopes, and understand advantages and limiting factors of designing for maximum payload capability. Using the NASA/DARPA Horizontal Launch Study (HLS) Point Design 2 (PD-2) as a pointof- departure configuration, two independent design actions were undertaken. Both designs utilized a Boeing 747-400F as the carrier aircraft, LOX/RP-1 first stage and LOX/LH2 second stage. Each design was sized to meet dimensional and mass constraints while optimizing propellant loads and stage delta V splits. All concepts, when fully loaded, exceeded the allowable Gross Takeoff Weight (GTOW) of the aircraft platform. This excess mass was evaluated as propellant/fuel offload available for a potential in-flight propellant loading scenario. Results indicate many advantages such as payload delivery of approximately 47,000 lbm and significant mission flexibility including variable launch site inclination and launch window. However, in-flight cryogenic fluid transfer and carrier aircraft platform integration are substantial technical hurdles to the realization of such a system configuration.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Small Launch Vehicle Concept Development for Affordable Multi-Stage Inline Configurations

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center conducted a study of two configurations of a three-stage, inline, liquid propellant small launch vehicle concept developed on the premise of maximizing affordability by targeting a specific payload capability range based on current industry demand. The initial configuration, NESC-1, employed liquid oxygen as the oxidizer and rocket propellant grade kerosene as the fuel in all three stages. The second and more heavily studied configuration, NESC-4, employed liquid oxygen and RP-1 on the first and second stages and liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel on the third stage. On both vehicles, sensitivity studies were first conducted on specific impulse and stage propellant mass fraction in order to baseline gear ratios and drive the focus of concept development. Subsequent sensitivity and trade studies on the NESC-4 concept investigated potential impacts to affordability due to changes in gross liftoff weight and/or vehicle complexity. Results are discussed at a high level to understand the impact severity of certain sensitivities and how those trade studies conducted can either affect cost, performance, or both.

Beers, Benjamin R.↗

NASA NTRS2013

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth to Orbit (ETO) Team of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshal Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the preeminent group to go to for prephase A and phase A concept definition. The ACO team has been at the forefront of a multitude of launch vehicle studies determining the future direction of the Agency as a whole due, in part, to their rapid turnaround time in analyzing concepts and their ability to cover broad trade spaces of vehicles in that limited timeframe. Each completed vehicle concept includes a full mass breakdown of each vehicle to tertiary subsystem components, along with a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. Additionally, a structural analysis of the vehicle based on material properties and geometries is performed as well as an analysis to determine the flight loads based on the trajectory outputs. As mentioned, the ACO Earth to Orbit Team prides themselves on their rapid turnaround time and often need to fulfill customer requests within limited schedule or little advanced notice. Due to working in this fast paced environment, the ETO team has developed some finely honed skills and methods to maximize the delivery capability to meet their customer needs. This paper will describe the interfaces between the 3 primary disciplines used in the design process; weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis, as well as the approach each discipline employs to streamline their particular piece of the design process.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2012

The Application of the NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Launch Vehicle Team Design Process and Tools for Modeling Small Responsive Launch Vehicles

The Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) Launch Vehicle Team at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is recognized throughout NASA for launch vehicle conceptual definition and pre-phase A concept design evaluation. The Launch Vehicle Team has been instrumental in defining the vehicle trade space for many of NASA s high level launch system studies from the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) through the Augustine Report, Constellation, and now Space Launch System (SLS). The Launch Vehicle Team s approach to rapid turn-around and comparative analysis of multiple launch vehicle architectures has played a large role in narrowing the design options for future vehicle development. Recently the Launch Vehicle Team has been developing versions of their vetted tools used on large launch vehicles and repackaged the process and capability to apply to smaller more responsive launch vehicles. Along this development path the LV Team has evaluated trajectory tools and assumptions against sounding rocket trajectories and air launch systems, begun altering subsystem mass estimating relationships to handle smaller vehicle components, and as an additional development driver, have begun an in-house small launch vehicle study. With the recent interest in small responsive launch systems and the known capability and response time of the ACO LV Team, ACO s launch vehicle assessment capability can be utilized to rapidly evaluate the vast and opportune trade space that small launch vehicles currently encompass. This would provide a great benefit to the customer in order to reduce that large trade space to a select few alternatives that should best fit the customer s payload needs.

Threet, Grady E.↗

NASA NTRS2012

NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools

The Earth-to-Orbit Team (ETO) of the Advanced Concepts Office (ACO) at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is considered the pre-eminent go-to group for pre-phase A and phase A concept definition. Over the past several years the ETO team has evaluated thousands of launch vehicle concept variations for a significant number of studies including agency-wide efforts such as the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), Constellation, Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), Augustine Report, Heavy Lift Propulsion Technology (HLPT), Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT), and Space Launch System (SLS). The ACO ETO Team is called upon to address many needs in NASA s design community; some of these are defining extremely large trade-spaces, evaluating advanced technology concepts which have not been addressed by a large majority of the aerospace community, and the rapid turn-around of highly time critical actions. It is the time critical actions, those often limited by schedule or little advanced warning, that have forced the five member ETO team to develop a design process robust enough to handle their current output level in order to meet their customer s needs. Based on the number of vehicle concepts evaluated over the past year this output level averages to four completed vehicle concepts per day. Each of these completed vehicle concepts includes a full mass breakdown of the vehicle to a tertiary level of subsystem components and a vehicle trajectory analysis to determine optimized payload delivery to specified orbital parameters, flight environments, and delta v capability. A structural analysis of the vehicle to determine flight loads based on the trajectory output, material properties, and geometry of the concept is also performed. Due to working in this fast-paced and sometimes rapidly changing environment, the ETO Team has developed a finely tuned process to maximize their delivery capabilities. The objective of this paper is to describe the interfaces between the three disciplines used in the design process: weights and sizing, trajectory, and structural analysis. The tools used to perform such analysis are INtegrated Rocket Sizing (INTROS), Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), and Launch Vehicle Analysis (LVA) respectively. The methods each discipline uses to streamline their particular part of the design process will also be discussed.

Waters, Eric D.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Launch Vehicle Demonstrator Using Shuttle Assets

Study Objective is to characterize the performance capabilities of an inline, shuttle-derived launch vehicle using two design strategies: the first as an early program demonstrator utilizing high structural margins, maximum shuttle assets, and minimal pad impact, the later having undergone structural optimization, flying operational mission GR&A and serving as a baseline for evolutionary upgrades.

Creech, Dennis M.↗

NASA NTRS2011

Launch Vehicle Demonstrator Using Shuttle Assets

The Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center undertook a study to define candidate early heavy lift demonstration launch vehicle concepts derived from existing space shuttle assets. The objective was to determine the performance capabilities of these vehicles and characterize potential early demonstration test flights. Given the anticipated budgetary constraints that may affect America's civil space program, and a lapse in U.S. heavy launch capability with the retirement of the space shuttle, an early heavy lift launch vehicle demonstration flight would not only demonstrate capabilities that could be utilized for future space exploration missions, but also serve as a building block for the development of our nation s next heavy lift launch system. An early heavy lift demonstration could be utilized as a test platform, demonstrating capabilities of future space exploration systems such as the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle. By using existing shuttle assets, including the RS-25D engine inventory, the shuttle equipment manufacturing and tooling base, and the segmented solid rocket booster industry, a demonstrator concept could expedite the design-to-flight schedule while retaining critical human skills and capital. In this study two types of vehicle designs are examined. The first utilizes a high margin/safety factor battleship structural design in order to minimize development time as well as monetary investment. Structural design optimization is performed on the second, as if an operational vehicle. Results indicate low earth orbit payload capability is more than sufficient to support various vehicle and vehicle systems test programs including Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle articles. Furthermore, a shuttle-derived, hydrogen core vehicle configuration offers performance benefits when trading evolutionary paths to maximum capability.

Creech, Dennis M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Modular Approach to Launch Vehicle Design Based on a Common Core Element

With a heavy lift launch vehicle as the centerpiece of our nation's next exploration architecture's infrastructure, the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center initiated a study to examine the utilization of elements derived from a heavy lift launch vehicle for other potential launch vehicle applications. The premise of this study is to take a vehicle concept, which has been optimized for Lunar Exploration, and utilize the core stage with other existing or near existing stages and boosters to determine lift capabilities for alternative missions. This approach not only yields a vehicle matrix with a wide array of capabilities, but also produces an evolutionary pathway to a vehicle family based on a minimum development and production cost approach to a launch vehicle system architecture, instead of a purely performance driven approach. The upper stages and solid rocket booster selected for this study were chosen to reflect a cross-section of: modified existing assets in the form of a modified Delta IV upper stage and Castor-type boosters; potential near term launch vehicle component designs including an Ares I upper stage and 5-segment boosters; and longer lead vehicle components such as a Shuttle External Tank diameter upper stage. The results of this approach to a modular launch system are given in this paper.

Creech, Dennis M.↗