２０１５年度　大学院講座　 航空宇宙機システム工学

資料配布： 序論／歴史的背景／TRL技術評価 極超音速推進 Introduction to High Speed Propulsion System 耐熱構造材料 　 Structures and Materials for Reusable Airbreathing Hypersonic Vehicles

システム設計(I) Basic Design Methodology システム設計(II) Comparative & Parametric Assessment システム設計纏め

For further questions：　舞田正孝 maita.jaxa@icloud.com

R&D New Technology, Off-the-shelf Test & Evaluation Ground & Flight Testing Verification

Operation On-Demand Infrastructure

Maintenance/Inspection/Repair Turn-Around Time

After TRANSCOST by D.Koelle

Cost

After TRANSCOST by D.Koelle

Space Transportation Systems Cost Factors

Development Cost (Non-Recurring Cost) 開発コスト Vehicle Recurring Cost 　部品製造・組み立て、検査コスト等 Flight Operations Cost　 直接、間接費

Optimum Vehicle Size (Performance) in terms of Payload Capability with Annual Launch Rate （年間打ち上げ率） Life-Cycle Cost for a Program Period

Vehicle Development Cost with or without a number of Test Flights Vehicle and Sub-systems Recurring Cost depending on the total number of Vehicles built. Learning Factor Total Cost per Launch including and/or excluding Vehicle Amortization （機体償却費） Required Fleet Size & Number of Launches per year

DOC　 Pre-Launch Ground Operations Cost Ground Transportation, Vehicle, Paylod Integration, Chechout, Fueling & Launch Preparationss

主要影響因子 Launch Mode (Vertical Assembly, Horizontal Checkout and Launch) Number of Launches per Year Specific Turn-Around Time Size and Complexity of the Vehicle

Ground & Flight Operations Cost

DOC :Direct Operations Cost Prelaunch Operations 地上輸送、組み立てと結合、ペイロード搭載，チェックアウト、燃料注入、発射準備 Launch & Mission Costs 直接的な打上げ準備作業、軌道上ミッション作業 Propellant Cost 推進薬コスト Transport and Recovery Cost　 組み立て工場と回収機体、射場との距離 Insurance (Abort and Losses) 機体の信頼性、ミッション成功率、機体損失率等に依存。保険掛金 VAC :Vehicle Amortization Cost Vehicle & Engines, etc （再使用機）償却費、再使用可能回数、耐用年数、飛行回数

Prelaunch Operations

Vertical Launch

Horizontalal Launch

Development Factors

First Generation System with Advanced Technologies

For a New Design, but with Existing Components and/or Subsystems similar to Existing Systems

Variation of Existing Design with Minor Modifications or only Different in Size

Team Experience Factor

New Team, no relevant direct company experience

Company/Industry with some related experience

Extensive experience with similar design/products

Maintenance and Refurbish Cost 維持と再整備費（再使用機） Inspection & Maintenance Operation, Spare Exchanges Operations, Space Parts Cost

IOC :Indirect Operations Cost Program Admin./Management, Marketing Customer Relations, Technical System Improvement, Pilots Training & Support, Spare Storage Administration, Profit, Fees Reserve Fund 計画の運営、管理、市場活動、パイロット訓練、支援、 予備部品の保管、管理

LSC :Launch Site & Range Cost Launch Site Admin., Supplies Safety Securiy, Facilities Maintenance Range General Cost, etc 射場運営、施設維持、地上局作業コスト、安全

Different Systems with Similar Characteristics 構成レベル

Liquid Rocket engines Airbreathing Engines Solid Rocket Motors/Boosters Expendable Ballistic Rocket Stages Reusable Ballistic Launch Vehicles Manned Ballistic Capsules Winged Orbital Reusable Vehicles High-Speed Aircraft / Winged First Stage Vehicles Single-Stage Winged Aerospaceplane Single-Stage Ballistic Vehicles

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI

Payloads

Wing/Gear Weight(2nd)

Orbitor Structure Weight

Engine Weight(2nd Stage)

Propellant(2nd Stage)

Wing/Gear Weight(1st)

Booster Structure Weight

Engine Weight(1st Stage)

Propellant(1st Stage)

TSTO Concepts I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XIEngine cycle

PrecooledATR(rich)

PrecooledATR(lean)

PrecooledTJ(rich)with Ram

PrecooledTJ(lean)with Ram

Turbojet/Ram

EjectorRocket withRam

Rocket withRam

All Rocket TJ (CH4)with Ram

Rocket(Ch4) withRam

All Rocket(Ch4)

Payloads 18 25 25 24 28 20 16 7 23 13 3

LRE LACES Ejector/Scram

PayloadStructureEngineRE PropellantScram propellantInitial Propellant

LRE LRE/Scram LACES PATRES Ejector/ScramInitial Propellant 55.9 61.1 49.8 47.7 22.9Scram propellant 0.0 4.7 6.0 6.3 9.3RE Propellant 32.6 20.2 26.0 27.2 40.0Engine 1.8 2.4 7.4 5.6 3.5Structure 9.0 9.4 10.0 11.1 11.3Payload 0.6 2.3 0.7 2.2 13.0

開発費　CDEV＝ C・f1・f2・f3 ＝a・Mx・f1・f2・f3 製造費　CPRO＝ C・f4＝ a・Mx・f4

コスト係数とその係数範囲およびその評価基準

開発技術水準係数f1

0.4 － 0.6 既存技術の軽微な変更 0.7 － 0.9 既存システムの設計改良 0.9 － 1.1 標準的な計画，最先端（同様なシステムがすでに運用されている） 1.1 － 1.2 いくつかの新しい技術的および/ または運用上の特徴を備えた新設計 1.3 － 1.4 新しい技巧や技術要素を含む，第一世代システムの新概念提案

技術品質係数f2 対象による個々のシステムや要素の技術基準によって特徴付けられる

チーム経験係数（構成チームに依存）f3 0.7 － 0.8 同種の開発計画に関する優れた経験を有するチーム 0.8 － 0.9 同様の開発計画を実行したチーム 1.0 いくつか関連する経験ありのチーム 1.1 － 1.2 部分的に新計画を実行するチーム 1.3 － 1.4 直接的に関連性のある経験がない，新規チーム

製造ラーニング係数（重量と年間製造基数の関数）p 0.8 － 1.0 ユニットが大きく，製造台数が少ない効果は小さい（p → 1 に近づく）．

コスト削減効果係数f4 n（lnP/ln2） n 番目製造コストに対する削減効果 1/n＊Σ n（lnP/ln2） n 個の一括製造によるコスト削減効果 After TRANSCOST by D.Koelle

After TRANSCOST by D.Koelle

Cost

After TRANSCOST by D.Koelle

If a future launch vehicle is to achieve a low specific launch cost (low cost per kilogram placed into orbit) and be genuinely easy to operate, then it must meet some general criteria:

• The vehicle should consist of only a single stage in order to reduce the development and operational cost 　 compared to multi-stage vehicles. • The vehicle should be as reusable as possible. • The vehicle should be computer controlled, as qualifying a vehicle for piloted flight increases the development 　costs. • The vehicle must use a launch trajectory which is benign to the airframe in terms of aerodynamic heating and 　loading. • The vehicle should have simple launch and recovery procedures to minimize the turnaround time and cost. • The vehicle must be capable of an aborted landing at any time during the ascent in the event of a propulsion 　system problem, preferably returning back to its launch site. • The engine must be capable of open test bed operation to minimize development costs. • The engine should employ well explored aerothermodynamics and existing materials technology. • The vehicle systems must be designed for minimal maintenance between flights. • The vehicle needs to interface with other elements if, as a new transport element, it is to become part of an 　efficient transport system.

• The vehicle should use environmentally friendly propellants in order to avoid atmospheric pollution.

• 200 Operational flights per vehicle • 2 day mission (+2 day contingency) • 2 day turn round (mature operation)

• 2300 Km cross-range

•Independent design control over the empty centre of gravity is achieved by installing the propulsion system in nacelles on the wing tips; to avoid disrupting the trim during re-entry, the payload bay is coincident with the centre of gravity, over the wing; the liquid oxygen tank is split and placed either side of the payload bay; the hydrogen tank is also split in two and placed at the ends of the fuselage; in combination these measures almost eliminate any mismatch between centre of pressure and centre of gravity during ascent and re-entry.

•The wing area can be optimized for maximum ascent performance, because the trim problem is solved, which results in a lighter wing structure and greatly reduced flap power demands

•As a result of design the takeoff trolley has been eliminated and replaced by an integral undercarriage capable of a rolling takeoff.

•Existing or near term materials can be used in the engines and vehicle, thus minimising development risk, placing emphasis instead on advanced manufacturing techniques and novel structural concepts to achieve lightweight designs.

In terms of space launch, Russia leads the world, followed by the U.S, with China a fast-growing third—passing Europe/ESA and Ukraine—and both India and Brazil serious contenders. Working together, which would be a first for such a group, they theoretically could leave both the U.S. and Europe far behind in future space launch and exploration capabilities. But thus far, little more than paperwork and rhetoric have emerged from BRIC.

While the number of spaceports—operational, planned, or just claimed—varies with every source, the ‘short list’ shows 20 nations operating some 30 launch sites, not including a host of new private ones. The longer list, however, includes one planned in Africa, 18 in Asia (mostly China and Russia), four operated by (but not necessarily in) Europe, 14 in or operated by the U.S. and Canada, two in South America, three in Australia, one in the Marshall Islands, and two at sea—a total of 45.

There probably are 50 or so companies working on launch vehicles, but most won’t actually have the capital to do anything more than paper, China, the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India— maybe South Korea and Israel—but that’s about it.

The future is likely to see a widening divide between government and private launchers, satellites and human spaceflight, Earth orbital and interplanetary missions.

Current Launch Vehicles

Ref. Aerospace America Sept. 2011

USA The withdrawal of the U.S. government from indigenous human spaceflight capability, the increasing capability of China, and the rise of India and others to fill the resulting void will change the future and the nature of human space exploration. SpaceX, established in 2002, already has seven successful launches of its Falcon launch vehicle and Dragon reusable spacecraft, and a future 30-launch manifest through 2017 for 10 customers. In December 2008, NASA awarded SpaceX a $1.6-billion contract for at least 12 Falcon/Dragon missions to resupply the ISS through 2015, with a roughly equivalent options package, as part of its commercial orbital transportation services program. The first cargo flight is scheduled for late this year. The Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic effort, probably the first private manned transport to go into operation, is intended to provide tourists, at $200,000 a ticket, with a brief trip to the edge of space. Another industry possibility is the Liberty launcher, a joint venture of Alliant Techsystems (ATK), the Utah-based builder of the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters, and Astrium, a subsidiary of EADS and a primary contractor on the Ariane commercial rocket. It would build on ATK’s efforts on NASA’s Ares rocket, part of the Constellation program planned to replace the shuttle and canceled by President Obama shortly after he took office. Offered in response to NASA’s Commercial Crew Development- 2 procurement initiative, the two-stage Liberty would be able to carry 44,500 lb of cargo—or any crew vehicle currently in development— to the ISS. ATK Aerospace Systems Group President Blake Larson says because it is a combination of two proven human- rated launch systems, the Liberty rocket could make its initial test flight by the end of 2013 and reach operational capability in 2015. Liberty will Launch it from Kennedy Space Center, using existing facilities.

RUSSIA Russia reportedly has at least seven new launch vehicles at varying stages, from ‘concept evaluation’ (the MMB nuclearelectric tug, with first launch planned for 2018) to preliminary development (Rus-M for 2015) to development (Angara, 2012).Rus-M and Angara are seen as replacements for the existing Soyuz and Proton rockets. The aging Soyuz manned capsule’s replacement—currently called the New Generation Piloted Transport Spacecraft— was displayed in mockup form at the Paris Air Show in July, but when it may be ready for flight is unknown.

UKRAINE When the USSR broke apart, Ukraine— which had produced about 60% of Soviet launch vehicles and more than 400 satellites— became an independent player in space. An estimated 20% of all satellite launches in the world today use Ukrainian rockets, primarily the Zenit, Tsyklon (Cyclone), and Dnepr. Although Ukraine still does not have a domestic launch facility, it officially became the 10th global ‘space power’—a nation able to launch its own satellite using its own vehicle—with the August 1995 liftoff of the Sich-1 Earth observation satellite aboard a Cyclone rocket from Russia’s Plesetsk launch facility.

CHINA The Chinese space program is evolving far faster than many had anticipated, but currently is about where Russia’s was in the 1960s. It has some satellites in orbit—with the annual number of launches beginning to close in on current U.S. and Russian numbers—and some manned orbital flights.It also has set a goal of putting its own space station in orbit by 2020 and landing Chinese taikonauts on the Moon by 2020- 2025 and on Mars in the 2030s.

EUROPE In 1965, France became the third nation to launch its own satellite; the U.K. followed suit in 1971. But no individual European nation had the money or other resources to mount expansive space programs like those of the U.S. and the Soviet Union/Russia. In 1975, France and the U. K. joined eight other western European nations to create the European Space Agency, merging two organizations set up in 1964—the European Launch Development Organization, a six-nation effort to develop a European launcher, and the European Space Research Organization, established by 10 nations to pursue scientific research in space, primarily through European satellites launched by the U.S. Today ESA has 18 full members and one associate, Canada. Further expansion is likely if efforts to make ESA an official agency of the European Union by 2014 succeed.ESA continues to work with the U.S. and Russia —projects with the latter include developing a new medium-lift launch vehicle, the Soyuz-2 —but relies primarily on its own rockets, the Ariane 5 ECA for heavy lift to GTO, Ariane 5 ES for launch to LEO, and the newly developed Vega for small pay-Loads. Arianes have launched more than half the commercial satellites in use worldwide.

Ref.USEF09L-R-001

Launch Site

1. Vertical Take-off, Vertical Landing (VTVL) Supercharged Ejector Scramjet (SESJ) Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) . Developer: Kaiser Marquardt code:KM

2. Horizontal Take-off, Horizontal Landing (HTHL) Supercharged Ejector Ramjet (SERJ) Non-waverider Type Single-Stage with Launch Assist.

Georgia Tech Aerospace Engineering, “Argus”

Code:Argus

3. Horizontal Take-off, Horizontal Landing (HTHL) Rocket Based Combined Cycle (RBCC) Waverider Type Single-Stage with Launch Assist. Boeing North American (BNA) code:Waverider

4. Rocket, Baseline Comparative System Update, Using Advanced Chemical Rocket Engine (T/W engine = 92). Boeing North American (BNA) – Rocketdyne Code:ACRE92

5. Rocket, Baseline Comparative System using Advanced Chemical Rocket Engine & New Materials (T/W engine = 183). Boeing North American – Rocketdyne Code:ACRE183

6. Horizontal Take-off, Horizontal Landing (HTHL) Ejector Scramjet (ESJ) Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO). Code:Hyperion

Georgia Tech Aerospace Engineering, “Hyperion”

7. Two-Stage to Orbit (TSTO), Vertical Take-off, Horizontal Landing (VTHL) All Rocket (Reusable Booster & Orbiter). Langley Research Center TSTO, Vehicle Analysis Branch code:TSTO

8. Horizontal Take-off, Horizontal Landing (HTHL) Single Stage-to-Orbit Liquid Air Collection and Enrichment “LACE” Ejector Ramjet/Scramjet Langley Research Center SSTO, Vehicle Analysis Branch code:LACE

9. Horizontal Take-off, Horizontal Landing (HTHL) Single Stage-to-Orbit All Rocket with Launch Assist Space America, Inc.  code:SSTO(R)LA

Single Vehicle Utilization Assessment