Parameters optimization technique for the carrier rocket with modular booster block modification

DOI: 10.34759/vst-2020-4-71-80

Аuthors

Kryuchkov M. D.

Corporation Moscow Institute for Heat Technology, 10, Beryozovaya alleya St., Moscow, 127273, Russia

e-mail: max_finger@mail.ru

Abstract

Most of the existing launch vehicles are being equipped with booster blocks, performing sequential spacecraft deployment into a specified orbit. However, a scheme with individual spacecraft leading-out by the last, modular, launch vehicle stage is possible as well.

As experience shows, when creating a launch vehicle with solid propellant rocket engines, borrowing of a number of elements is the case.

The problem statement can be formulated as follows: find such a vector of the basic design parameters so that the launch vehicle launch mass will be minimal, and a number of restrictions herewith, namely by the payload mass, size, the borrowed elements parameters will be met.

The task of a launch vehicle with modular stage III booster block (BB III) designing is:

– multi-criteria;

– multi-parametric.

The method of constraints is used to solve a multi-criteria problem.

The problem feature consists in the fact that while searching for the rational design solution, concurrently changes the vector of the determining parameters (mass and geometric ratios coefficients, which values depend on the design solutions for the BB III modules). Various approaches to the problem solution are possible.

The article presents a two-level coordinated optimization method.

When implementing the two-level coordinated optimization method, the upper-level model is being refined according to the lower-level data, which allows increasing the calculations accuracy without resorting to the excessive expansion of design models. The control parameters (design parameters) at the (i + 1)- th level are being selected so as to ensure a more detailed description of the object compared with the i-th level of detailing, the vectors of the parameters, being selected at different levels, at that should not contain the same elements. The great attention herewith is paid to the agreement assessing of the design solutions at both i-th and (i + 1)-th levels of the development management.

A study on the model example was performed for the launch vehicle with a solid propellant engine of bout 50 tons launch mass, with every module weight of 250 kg.

The presented graphs demonstrate the process of design solutions coordination at the i-th and (i + 1)- th levels of development management.

The two-level matched optimization method allows finding a rational solution without significant expansion of the design models.

Keywords:

modular-type launch vehicle, modular-type booster block, spacecraft parallel leading-out, two-level coordinated optimization method

References

1. Matveev Yu.A. Metody issledovaniya modifikatsii pri razrabotke letatel’nykh apparatov (Methods for modifications studying in the spacecraft development), Moscow, MAI, 1992, 61 p.

2. Matveev Yu.A. Optimization of the process of developing aircraft with two-level system management of project implementation. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2014, vol. 21, no 3, pp. 92-100.

3. Shcheverov D.N., Matveev Yu.A. Proektirovanie I upravlenie razrabotkoi letatel’nykh apparatov (Flying vehicles design and management of development), Moscow, MAI, 1993, 80 p.

4. Nikolaev Yu.N., Panin S.D., Solomonov Yu.S., Sychev M.P. Osnovy proektirovaniya tverdotoplivnykh upravlyaemykh ballisticheskikh raket. V 2-kh chastyakh (Fundamentals of solid-propellant guided ballistic missiles design. In 2 parts), Moscow, MGTU im. N.E. Baumana, 1998. Part I, 104 p.

5. Nikolaev Yu.N., Panin S.D., Solomonov Yu.S., Sychev M.P. Osnovy proektirovaniya tverdotoplivnykh upravlyaemykh ballisticheskikh raket. V 2-kh chastyakh (Fundamentals of solid-propellant guided ballistic missiles design. In 2 parts), Moscow, MGTU im. N.E. Baumana, 2000. Part II, 140 p.

6. Lamzin V.V., Matveev Yu.A. Polet, 2012, no. 1, pp. 40-45.

7. Sidelnikova O.V., Matveev Yu.A. Complex analysis constructional and technical decisions of perspective flying machine subsystem. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2011, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 27-32.

8. Tarasov E.V., Yupha D.I. Decision making techniques under multiple-factor uncertainty for design analysis of flying vehicle. Aerospace MAI Journal, 2007, vol. 14, no 1, pp. 3-12.

9. Gimadiev R.R., Evseev I.V., Kopylov O.A. Patent RU 2428358 C1, 10.09.2011.

10. Solomonov Yu.S., Smaznov A.N., Pervov A.Yu. et al. Patent RU 2698838 C1, 30.08.2019.

11. Villanueva F.M., Linshu H., Dajun X. Small Solid Propellant Launch Vehicle Mixed Design Optimization Approach. Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, 2014, vol.6, no. 3, pp. 291-300. DOI: 10.5028/jatm.v6i3.333

12. Donahue B., Sigmon S., Cooper D. The NASA SLS Development and Mission Opportunities. 2018 AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition (17-19 September 2018, Orlando, FL). Paper 10.2514/6.2018-5236.

13. Delta IV Payload Planners Guide United Launch Alliance, 2007.

14. Atlas V Launch Services User’s Guide. United Launch Alliance, 2010.

15. Ariane 5 User’s Manual. Arianespace, 2011

16. START-1 Space Launch System, Volume I: User’s Handbook. Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, 2002.

17. Sippel M., Lang A., Dumont E. Advanced Technology Upper Stages for Future Launchers. 61st International Astronautical Congress (Prague, 2010). IAC-10-D2.3.1, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/11144967.pdf

18. Behruzi P., Dodd C., Netter G. Future Propellant Management Device Concepts for Restartable Cryogenic Upper Stages. 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit (08-11 July 2007; Cincinnati, OH). AIAA 2007-5498. DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-5498

19. Van Foreest A., Sippel M., Atanassov U. Launcher Pre-Design VENUS (VEga New Upper Stage). Complete Analysis Configurations A–F, Issue 1, DLR internal report, SART TN-002/2008.

20. Wisse M., Obermaier G., Dumont E., Ruwwe T. Venus – conceptual design for Vega new upper stage. 62^nd International Astronautical Congress (Cape Town, SA. 2011). IAC-11-D2.3.4.