cost comparison of higher parking orbit scale up for arbitrary payload
DESCRIPTION
February 26, 2009. Cost Comparison of Higher Parking Orbit Scale up for Arbitrary Payload. 1. Raising Departure Orbit. 1. Depart from higher circular parking orbit Decrease lunar transfer/Increase launch 2. Determine total cost effects Limitations in launch vehicle capability - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
AAE450 Spring 2009
Cost Comparison of Higher Parking Orbit
Scale up for Arbitrary Payload
[Levi Brown] [Mission Ops]
February 26, 2009
1
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops]
Raising Departure Orbit
2
1. Depart from higher circular parking orbit
• Decrease lunar transfer/Increase launch
2. Determine total cost effects
• Limitations in launch vehicle capability
3. Investigate eccentric orbits
• Create curve of launch vehicle performance with
orbit energy
4. Determine mass and power for varying altitudes
• Use sizing code from propulsion
5. Best fit curve relationships
6. Cost with varying orbit energy
Result:
• Launch from lowest altitude (400 km)
• Use longest time of flight (1 year)
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120004
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Dnepr Cost Comparisons for351
Days
Apoapsis Altitude (400 x ra) km
Tot
al c
ost
(Mill
ion
$)
mdot=5.6 and Cheap Power
mdot=5.6 and Expensive Powermdot=7.1 and Cheap Power
mdot=7.1 and Expensive Power
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 3
Scale Up for Arbitrary Payload
Launch Vehicle Relative Cost to LLO (Thousand $/kg)
Relative Cost to LEO (Thousand $/kg)
Falcon 9 (Loaded) 16.1 3.7
Dnepr 16.8 4.4
Falcon 9 (Partial) 20.2 6.1
Rockot 22.0 74
Soyuz 22.3 7.5
Delta IV 27.2 10.7
Delta II 40.6 17.9
Assume OTV is deliverable mass to 400 km for that launch vehicle
Sized OTV using same code as previously
Determined Power required, payload mass to lunar orbit (LLO) and relative cost to LLO
• Note: Assumed used same
thruster as for the small
payload
• Looking into higher thrust and
more efficient engines
Result: Minimize relative cost by minimizing relative cost to LEO
AAE450 Spring 2009
Back-up Slides
[Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 4
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 5
Initial Analysis ResultsUsing a circular departure orbit
Departure Altitude
(km)
Initial Mass (kg)
ThrustRequired
(mN)
Power(kW)
Solar ArrayMass (kg)
Power Cost (Million $)
200 650 123 2.2 14.6 2.2
2000 630 102 1.7 11.3 1.7
15000 600 55 0.7 4.7 0.4
36000 580 31 0.4 2.7 0.4
Note: Analysis performed for a mass flow rate of 7.1 mg/s and 150 day time of flight
This analysis was performed prior to the change of using a minimum Parking orbit of 400 km
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops]
Dnepr Launch Vehicle Capability
6
Dnepr ($ 15 million)
Circular Altitude
(km)
Deliverable Mass (kg)
200 4400
300 3700
400 3400
500 2750
600 1900
700 1200
800 650
900 300
Apoapsis Altitude
(km)
Semi-Major Axis (km)
Energy (km^2/s^2)
400 6778.14 -29.4034500 6828.14 -29.1881750 6953.14 -28.6633
1000 7078.14 -28.15712000 7578.14 -26.29945000 9078.14 -21.9539
10000 11578.14 -17.2135
Eccentric OrbitEnergy Levels
Note:Periapsis is at an altitude of 400 km
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 7
Launch Vehicle Capability Curve
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 8
TOF (days) mdot (mg/s) Apoapsis Altitude a (km) Energy Mo (kg) Power (Kw)
351 5.6
400 6778.14 -29.4033792 679.8 2.5846500 6828.14 -29.1880689 679.6 2.5646750 6953.14 -28.6633407 679.3 2.5209
1000 7078.14 -28.1571459 678.9 2.46962000 7578.14 -26.2993585 677.7 2.31095000 9078.14 -21.9538607 675.1 1.9507
10000 11578.14 -17.2134921 672 1.5236
196 5.6
400 6778.14 -29.4033792 621.5 6.5534500 6828.14 -29.1880689 621.1 6.5007750 6953.14 -28.6633407 620.2 6.3709
1000 7078.14 -28.1571459 619.2 6.23732000 7578.14 -26.2993585 615.9 5.78015000 9078.14 -21.9538607 608.1 4.727
10000 11578.14 -17.2134921 600.3 3.6605
Sizing Results
Note: This analysis was performed using previous payload mass of 320 kg
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 9
Initial OTV Mass with Varied Orbit Energymdot=5.6 mg/s
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 10
Power Required with Varied Orbit Energymdot=5.6 mg/s
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 11
Cost Model
ms/c = spacecraft mass required to reach LLO
CLaunch Vehicle = Total cost of launch vehicle (LV)
mLV Capability = mass LV can put into orbit
Ps/c = power required to reach LLO
Prate = $1000/Watt
Mprop= propellant mass required to reach LLO
Xerate = Cost of Xe ($1200/kg)
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120004
5
6
7
8
9
10
Falcon 9 Cost Comparisons for196
Days
Apoapsis Altitude (400 x ra) km
Tot
al c
ost
(Mill
ion
$)
mdot=5.6 and Cheap Power
mdot=5.6 and Expensive Power
mdot=7.1 and Cheap Power
mdot=7.1 and Expensive Power
Falcon 9 Total Cost for Varying Apoapsis 196 and 351 Day TOF
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 120003
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Falcon 9 Cost Comparisons for351
Days
Apoapsis Altitude (400 x ra) km
Tot
al c
ost
(Mill
ion
$)
mdot=5.6 and Cheap Power
mdot=5.6 and Expensive Powermdot=7.1 and Cheap Power
mdot=7.1 and Expensive Power
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 13
Confirmation of ResultsLowest cost at 400 km Orbit and 351 days
350 350.2 350.4 350.6 350.8 351 351.2 351.4 351.6 351.8 3525
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14Launch Cost with TOF
Time of Flight (days)
Tot
al c
ost
(Mill
ion
$)
Delta 4
Falcon 9
DneprRockot
Taurus
399 399.5 400 400.5 401 401.55
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14Launch Vehicle Minimum Cost Comparisons
Apoapsis Altitude (400 x ra) (km)
Tot
al c
ost
(Mill
ion
$)
Delta 4
Falcon 9
DneprRockot
Taurus
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 14
Scale up for Arbitrary Payload Results
Launch Vehicle
Mass to 400 km (kg)
Thrust (mN)
Number of Thrusters
Mpay (kg)
Power Required (kW)
Mprop (kg)
Dnepr 3400 680 3 2130.5 20.3 509.4
Falcon 9 9953 2001 9 6060.6 59 1528.4
Falcon 9 6000 1205 5 3717.9 37.6 849.1
Rockot 1825 357 2 1038.9 9.03 339.7
Delta II 3065 606 3 1780.4 16.7 509.5
Soyuz 5025 1000 4 3143 32.05 679.3
Delta IV 23757 4760 20 14853.5 147.3 3397
AAE450 Spring 2009 [Levi Brown] [Mission Ops] 15
More Notes1. Increasing to 15000 km circular orbit saved 50 kg and 1.5 kW
2. It was hoped that using a larger launch vehicle with higher capability would decrease overall cost. The cost/kg would only increase slightly, but it would allow a significant decrease in power costs.
3. 1 Year TOF: 10000 km depart vs 400 km saved approximately 1 kW 196 days TOF: 10000 km depart vs 400 km saved approximately 3 kW
For this reason, the minimum total cost for shorter TOF occurred at a median altitude ofAround 4000 km vs the minimum total for longer TOF occurred at low altitudes
However the increase in power to have the shorter TOF still outweighs the savingsSo the minimum cost still occurs at long TOF with at low altitudes