Aae 251 Final Design Project Team pm13

AAE 251 Final Design Project Team PM13
Alex R. Corbin
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906
Skyler M. Doss
Jacob D. Hazi
Min Kyum (David) Kim
and
Michael D. Rosenberg
Nomenclature
Vexit, t
V
Vdrag
Venter, t
Vgravity
Vplane
Vsteering
t
E
finert
g0
if
ii
Isp
m
mpay
mpropellant
mtotal
r
ri
rf
T
Va,t
Vf
Vf,t
Vi
Vi,t
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
change in velocity of exiting transfer orbit

change in velocity
change in velocity due to drag
change in velocity of entering transfer orbit
change in velocity due to gravity
change in velocity of plane change
change in velocity due to steering
specific energy of transfer orbits
standard gravitational parameter of Earth
inert mass ratio
gravity at sea level
final inclination
initial inclination
specific impulse
mass
payload mass
propellant mass
total mass
radius
initial radius
final radius
thrust
velocity of the transfer orbit at apoapsis
final velocity
final velocity at transfer orbit
initial velocity
initial velocity at transfer orbit
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
I. Introduction
A. Goal
The goal of this project is to build an emergency crew rescue vehicle (ECRV) that is capable of launching to 200
km low Earth orbit (LEO) on short notice from an air force base (AFB). Then it should recover at most 4
crewmembers that can be as high as up to 1000 km orbit, and safely deorbit to 9.144km altitude for mid-air
deployment, and lastly return to the launch site with a powered flight vehicle.
B. Solution
In order to achieve the goal, the team decided to use the Delta IV Medium rocket based out of Patrick Air Force
Base with an aircraft in the capsule. The aircraft will deploy over the Gulf of Mexico and return the rescued crew
members using powered flight to Patrick Air Force Base. Visual CAD models of ECRV are attached in Appendix A.
II. Launch/Orbital Maneuvers

A. Launch Site
For the launch site, the team concluded that Patrick Air Force Base will be the best suited for launch of the
ECRV for many different reasons.
First, this base controls and operates the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, so it already has ties with NASA as
they have launched many important rockets from this site. The 45th Space Wing is based out of this base, so there
are many officers that are already trained to launch unmanned rockets. The base also houses the 920th rescue wing,
which currently rescues NASA manned spaceflight missions, so they would also be trained in operating the ECRV,
as the ECRV is a rescue vehicle. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station has many different launch sites for the ECRV,
including a silo in which the ECRV could be stored until it is needed.
Second, Patrick Air Force Base is located in Brevard County, Florida, which would be an optimal place to launch
the ECRV. When deciding on a base, the team considered the location of the base as the most important factor.
Brevard County is located on the east coast of Florida, about 75 km from Orlando, Florida, which is the closest
major city. Because the Earth rotates west to east, launching east results in a lower V needed to reach the parking
orbit. If an Air Force Base was chosen from the west coast, the V required would be greater as the ECRV would
have to be launched against the rotation of the Earth as otherwise it would have to be launched over a major city.
The ECRV would be launched off the coast, which would make sure that the ECRV would not fly over or even near
any major city. The latitude of this base is 28.35 degrees north and because the ECRV is launching over the ocean, it
can reach any inclination above this latitude, without nearing a major city, by changing the azimuth of launch [1]. A
plane change maneuver may then take place to reach any orbit inclination needed to complete the rescue.
Lastly, Patrick Air Force Base is located only 705 km from the mid-air deployment point of the aircraft
component of the ECRV. Because the deployment point should be at least 500 km away from any of the major cities
and population, the team chose Gulf of Mexico as the best suited deployment point, and Patrick Air Force Base is
located only 705 km away from the deployment point such that the powered flight would not be incredibly far [2].
B. Change in Velocity
To calculate total V needed by our ECRV to launch to LEO, get to an altitude of 1000 km, and return to Earth,
the team created a MATLAB code, attached in Appendix B. In total, the code is ran three times, and the results of
each pass are added together to come up with the total V.
The user interacts with the program through a series of questions to gather input. The program first asks if the
user is on Earth or not. If on Earth, the user is prompted to enter his current latitude in degrees. The initial
inclination is then set to this latitude, and azimuth is assumed to be 90 degrees for an easterly launch. V gained
from Earths rotation is calculated, and initial altitude is set to be zero. If not on Earth, the user is prompted to enter
the altitude of the initial circular orbit in kilometers and the inclination of the initial circular orbit in degrees. Initial
V is then calculated.
The program then prompts for more input from the user, gathering the final altitude of the final circular orbit in
kilometers and the final inclination of the final circular orbit in degrees. The initial radius and final radius of the
orbits are then calculated, using user inputs. To transfer between orbits, the team used a Hohmann transfer. Specific
energy, initial velocity, and the V to enter the transfer orbit were calculated for the transfer orbit using the
equations (1), (2), and (3).
2
t =
E
r i +r f
(1)
v = 2
E
+ t
r
(2)
V enter ,t =|vi , tv i|
(3)
Next, V to perform the plane change is calculated. An if-else statement is used, to decide if the final radius is
smaller or greater than the initial radius of the orbit. Velocity at apoapsis is then calculated, using equation (2). The
V for the plane change is then calculated by using the equation (4).
V plane change =2v a , tsin
|i f ii|
2
(4)
The program then calculates the V of the exit transfer orbit. Final velocity is calculated using equation (5).
vf=
E
rf
(5)
Again, an if-else statement is then used to decide if the final radius is smaller or greater than the initial radius of
the orbit. The final velocity of the transfer orbit is calculated using equation (2). V of the exit transfer orbit is then
calculated using equation (6).
V exit ,t =|v f v f ,t|

(6)
Next, the program calculates for steering, gravity, and drag loss. Steering loss is assumed to be 0.2 km/s. Drag
and gravity loss are calculated based on altitude. If the orbital launch system is flying above 20 km, then both drag
and gravity losses are assumed to be zero. If the rocket is flying at or above 0 km up to 20 km, the drag and gravity
losses are calculated using equations (7) and (8) [3].
V drag =1500.0075h
(7)
V gravity =15000.075h
(8)
Finally, to calculate total V equation (9) is used.
V total =V enter ,t + V planechange + V exit ,t + V steering + V drag + V gravity

(9)
We first ran this program to calculate the V from Earth to the checkout orbit at 200 km, which was
9.467 km/s. We then ran the program to calculate V from the checkout orbit to the worst case scenario rescue orbit
(1000 km away from Earth), which was 7.960 km/s. Lastly, we ran the program to calculate the V from the worst
3
case scenario rescue orbit to 30,000 ft above the Earth, which was 7.293 km/s. We then added these three values
together, to get a total V from start to finish of 24.72 km/s.
C. Optimal Staging of V and Rocket Sizing
In order to choose an orbital launch system, the team gathered data on various orbital launch systems that were
currently operational. In addition to the criteria of being operational, the orbital launch system (colloquially known
as a rocket) needed to be capable of achieving the V previously calculated. This criterion was measured by using
the measurements describing the rockets [4]. The rockets and their respective data can be seen in Figure 1. The inert
mass ratios were calculated using Equation (10) and the specific impulse for stages including both liquid and solid
propellants were calculated using Equation (11). The ratio of liquid propellant thrust to solid propellant specific
thrust was used in finding an appropriate specific impulse that could be used to represent Stage 1.
f inert =
m inert
minert +m propellant
(10)
T I
+ T I
I sp = solid sp ,solid liquid sp , liquid
T solid T liquid
(11)
Using the data gathered on multiple rockets, the team created a MATLAB program that would take these data
values as input and output both the optimal V splits and the minimum initial mass needed in order to acquire the
V needed for the mission. The program (see Appendix B) for the two-stage rockets without solid rocket boosters
was created by first creating an array of multiple V splits for the first stage. Then, for each V split the minimum
initial mass was calculated using Equation (12). The minimum initial mass (must be positive) and its associated V
split were found and outputted to the user. The results from the program can be seen in Figure 1.
m 0=
m paye
V
g0I sp
(1f inert )
1f inerte
V
g0I sp
(12)
The program (see Appendix B) for the two-stage rockets with solid rocket boosters had to take into account that
solid rocket boosters cannot stop exerting thrust until all of the solid propellant is consumed. Therefore, the solid
rocket boosters can be used only up until the checkout orbit at 200 km. The previous two-stage V split optimization
program made the maximum V split for Stage 1 (core engine with solid rocket boosters) the V required to
checkout orbit (previously calculated as 9.467 km/s). Note that Stage 2 is just the core engine. The rest of the
program is identical to the two-stage rocket program.
The program (see Appendix B) for the three-stage rockets (Stage 1 is core engine with solid rocket boosters,
Stage 2 is core engine, Stage 3 is second stage engine) also takes into account the fact that solid rocket boosters
cannot stop exerting thrust until all of the solid propellant is consumed. The minimum initial masses needed for the
multiple V-split scenarios were then found. The positive minimum of these minimum initial masses and the
associated V split are then outputted to the user.
Upon analyzing the values given by the program and comparing them to real values found by research, many
rockets were found not feasible because the minimum initial masses needed in order to reach the V required for the
mission was greater than the maximum initial masses of the orbital launch systems. The Soyuz-U was found to not
have restart capabilities and was quickly discarded, despite its ability to achieve the V needed. The Ariane 5 ECA
was found to be able to accomplish the mission but was too large and costly to be feasibly considered. However, the
Delta IV M+ was found to be able to accomplish the mission extremely well. Also, the 3-stage optimization program
informed the team that the third stage (the Stage 2 engine) was not necessary for the mission. Because of the
construction of the Delta IV, the Stage 2 engine could be easily removed from the orbital launch system. The twostage Delta IV orbital launch system was able to accomplish the mission with an appropriate minimal mass.
4
In order to calculate the V splits given by each stage of the rocket, the team created a program that could output
these values given the specific impulse, total mass, inert mass ratio, and the payload mass. This is calculated via
Equation (13). In order to create the proper amount of V for each stage, 45,000 kg of solid propellant had to be
removed from the solid rocket propellants. After doing this, the first stage was calculated to give a V of 9.647 km/s
and the second stage was calculated to give a V of 15.3188. These V splits allow the rocket to reach checkout
orbit, deposit the solid rocket boosters and turn off the core engine. Then the core engine will restart and reach the
worst-case scenario rescue orbit. The core engine will then turn off while the rescued crew transits to the ECRV. The
core engine will then restart and reach the entry orbit (using a heat shield) so that the aircraft can deploy and safely
rescue the crew.
V =I s pg 0ln (
m total
)
mpay f inertm pay + f inertm total
(13)
Launch
System
Specific
Impulse 1
(s)
Inert Mass
Ratio 1
Specific
Impulse 2
(s)
Inert Mass
Ratio 2
Specific
Impulse 3
(s)
Inert Mass
Ratio 3
V
Needed
with
Boosters
being cut
off at
highest
200 km
(km/s)
Minimum
Initial
Mass
Needed
(kg)
Actual
Maximum
Mass (kg)
Delta II
-3
GEM
40
Booster
s
Delta II
-4
GEM
40
Booster
s
Delta II
-9
GEM
40
Booster
s
Delta II 9 GEM 46
Boosters
Antar
es
Soyuz-U
285.6
283.8
279.4
281.9
320
293.8
0.0681
0.0709
0.0796
0.0935
0.0717
301.7
301.7
301.7
301.7
0.0483
0.0483
0.0483
0.0501
319.2
319.2
319.2
319.2
0.1367
0.1367
0.1367
0.1367
24.72
24.72
24.72
24.72
391966
353083
272042
152000
165000
230000
Delta
IV
M+
(3stage)
Delta
IV
M+
(2stage)
293.137
365.6
365.6
0.0798
0.1048
0.116
0.116
301
311
431.2
410
410
0.0869
0.1083
0.0953
0.171
0.171
n/a
326
446
465.5
n/a
n/a
0.0935
0.2335
0.1179
n/a
24.72
24.72
24.72
24.72
24.72
210393
42339
8
259070
1346
20855
5
23077
0
511180
24000
0
313000
777000
29267
0
27232
6
5
Ariane 5
ECA
Special
Notes
Due to
needed
Delta V
Splits (loss
of SRB's
at
Rockets
checkout
do not
orbit) this
have
rocket
restart
would not
capabilit Overpower
work
y
ed
Figure 1. Table comparing Orbital Launch System measurements and capabilities.
D. Cost
The orbital launch system has an inert mass of 9,928 kilograms, and costs $500 per kilogram. Therefore, the
orbital launch system costs $4,964,000. It carries 14,898 kilograms of solid propellant and 200,000 kilograms of
liquid propellant, each costing $20 per kilogram. Therefore, the cost of propellant is $4,297,960. The total cost of
orbital launch system is $9,261,960.
III. Mid-Air Deployment / Return to Launch Site

A Flight Path
Based off the location of Patrick Air Force Base and the ground track of the orbit, the ECRV will be deployed
from the capsule in the Gulf of Mexico. To ensure that the aircraft was released far enough away, 500km, from
major population areas; FreeMapTools.coms map radius generator was used to create Figure 2 [5].
Figure 2: Map of potential landing location.
6
After creating a 500 km circle around every major population center in range of the Gulf of Mexico (Tampa Bay
Area, FL; New Orleans, LA; Houston, TX; Mexico City, Mexico; Merida, Mexico; Havana, Cuba) we were able to
designate a 47 km landing radius centered at 25.60 N, 87.60 W, noted by the red circle in Figure 2. The closest
point to Patrick Air Force Base in this circle is 25.20N, 86.85 W, which is 705 km from runway 20 at the air force
base.
A. Airplane Profile
The complexity of the aircraft that has to transport the rescued crew of four back to Patrick air force base lies in
the physical design of the aircraft. The aircraft itself somehow has to fit into the reentry capsule of the spacecraft.
This capsule was modeled based off of similar capsules, such as the Apollo capsule. The team therefore chose the
capsule to be conic, with a base diameter of 4.5 meters and a height of 3.5 meters. After accounting for the fuselage
length of 1.9 meters across the front, that left only 2.6 meters available on the bottom for the wing. However, to
solve this wingspan issue, the team decided it would be best to fold the wings upwards into the capsule, making a
triangle with the wings. So the 1.3 meters on each side plus the 4.06 meters along the side gave us wings of 5.36
meters, contributing to a total wingspan of 12.21 meters. Since that was the maximum wingspan that the ECRV
could afford spatially, the rest of the wings specifications relied on that value. The aircraft is not only very light, but
also does not have to travel very high in the air or very far.
Therefore we focused on finding a wing planform that would optimize the lift to drag ratio of the wing, while
also minimizing the lift coefficient in order to minimize induced drag on the wing. A wide range of airfoils were
studied in order to find one that would best suit these requirements, and after eliminating many similar airfoils, we
chose to take a closer look at the NACA 0006, NACA 2412 (similar to airfoil used on Lockheed U-2 [5]), Eppler
E836, and the NASA/Langley LS(1) 0013. All four airfoils had relatively high maximum lift to drag ratios while
also boasting lower maximum lift coefficient values, making for lower thrust required by the propulsion system as
well as a lower induced drag effect. While all airfoils would be feasible, the most efficient airfoil to use was the
NACA 0006 airfoil. This is because the lift to drag ratio is still high, 38.9 at its ideal angle of attack, but also has a
very low lift coefficient at that angle of attack, .3058 [6]. This airfoil has appeared on many different aircraft,
including the McDonnell Douglas Fighting Phantom F-4 and the F-111 Aardvark [5].
Therefore we chose this wing, with our maximum wingspan of 12.21 meters and a wing reference area of 18.58
m2, this gives us an aspect ratio of 8.02. The wing planform is mostly elliptical; the Oswald efficiency factor for the
various performance equations was equal to 0.8, as the team on past projects had used this.
B. Turboprop Engine / Justification
Once the capsule reenters the Earths atmosphere, rather than crashing into the ocean as is common for re entry
procedures, the teams rescue vehicle is equipped with a small aircraft that folds out of the capsule. This aircraft is
designed to fly to Patrick Air Force Base, which is located about 705 km from the reentry point. The aircraft is
released from an altitude of 30,000 ft and velocity of 400 miles per hour. This fairly common cruise velocity and
altitude gave us a multitude of choices for a propulsion system for the vehicle. After brainstorming, the group
narrowed the possible propulsion systems to turbofans, turbojets, propellers, turboprops, and rotary blades and did
research on each of potential system. Rotary blades were dismissed early on due to the starting altitude of the
vehicle, as well as the length of the powered flight to get back to Patrick air force base. As the FAA states: The
highest helicopter hovering capability, under the most unusual circumstances, has been at altitudes of approximately
15,000 to 18,000 feet. Translational flight, or normal forward flight without hovering, is limited to about 30,000 feet,
but rarely do helicopters operate at such altitudes [7]. Propeller driven aircraft were also soon dismissed due to their
lower fuel economy at higher altitudes. David Rodgers showed in his paper Propeller Efficiency: Rule of Thumb
there is a clear cut off for altitude at which propellers lose efficiency.
7
Figure 3: Cruise airspeeds.

As Dr. Rodgers explains, there is a clear knee in the graph in Figure 3. Above this altitude, the propeller no
longer can produce the necessary thrust to remain in steady level flight [8]. This altitude appears in the graph to be
around 10,000 ft, as well as moving much slower than our initial velocity of 400 mph, therefore the team decided to
discard standard propellers as our main propulsion system. The team then focused on the 3 turbojet cored engines, a
plain turbojet engine, a turbofan engine, and a turboprop engine. Research lead to an MIT study on the relative
propulsive efficiencies of the different types of jet engines.
Figure 4: Relative propulsive efficiency as a function of airspeed.

In figure 4, propulsive efficiency refers to the rate of propulsive power divided by the rate of production of
propulsive kinetic energy [9]. This data shows a significant advantage for the turboprop (close to 10% greater
efficiency) at the airspeed at which our aircraft will be cruising at. However, it was also important to look at the
advantages and disadvantages of the various propulsion systems relative to the starting altitude as well. According to
the Pilots Encyclopedia of Aeronautical Knowledge, Turboprop engines are most efficient at altitudes between
18,000 and 30,000 feet. [10] Whereas due to the nature of its thrust equation, turbofans produce more efficiently
where there is lower air pressure and density. This is because the thrust contribution due to the duct of the engine
produces a lower exit pressure than the cores exit pressure; therefore the efficiency of the turbofan goes up with
altitude where the air pressure is lower. However, 30,000ft is the high end of the turboprops efficiency as well as the
low end of the turbofans efficiency, so the team decided to slightly divert from the initial plan. The aircraft will
deploy from the reentry capsule at the designated 30,000ft (9144 km) and 400 mph (0.1788 km/s) airspeed 500 km
slightly south of due west from Tampa Bay and perform an unpowered glide at an angle of attack of 2.5 degrees. At
8
this point, the max lift to drag ratio of 38.9 occurs on the NACA 0006 airfoil that the aircraft uses, for 118.56 km at
an angle of 1.47 degrees until reaches an altitude of 20,000 ft.
The team chose to execute this glide maneuver because not only would it bring our turboprop engine down to a
more efficient altitude for flight, but would also allow us to save on the cost of jet fuel as well reduce the total
weight of the aircraft and spacecraft by reducing the powered flight segment of the flight by 118.56 km, which will
save 5.6 kg of jet fuel. Once the team had decided on using a turbo prop, the team needed to conclude on which
model of turboprop engine the team would use. Since our aircraft is very light, the team noted that the aircraft
should only consider using small to mid sized engines (which the team defined as between 300 and 1000 shaft
horsepower) and that our most important factors were the excess thrust available at our given altitude and airspeed,
weight of the engine, and fuel efficiency. After limiting our engine choices to these smaller engines, the only
remaining propulsion systems that would be effective on our aircraft were the General Electric H series (GE H),
Pratt and Whitney PT6a (PW PT6a), Rolls Royce M250 (RR M250), and the Honeywell TPE331 (H TPE331).
Figure 5 shows a table of all the information the team could find on these engines.
Engine
HP Output
(hp)
Weight (lb)
GE H75 [11]
PW PT6A-27 [12]
[13]
RR M250 [14]
Max 751
TO 680
390
337
Specific Fuel
Consumption
(lb/shp * hr)
~.575
~.6
Excess Thrust
(400 mph, 20,000 ft) (lb)
260.00
175.63
TO 450
212
TO .613
-9.99
Cruise 380
Cruise .635
H TPE331 [15]
TO 940
385
.534
238.91
Cruise ~675
Figure 5: Chart of researched information for listed engines (Estimations marked with a ~, estimated based
off unreliable sources and similar engines).
Its also important to note that all these engines are reverse flow, meaning that all of the thrust is created by the
propeller. This is because the intake and exhaust are both on the front of the engine, so the thrust only depends on
the propeller efficiency, which the team assumed was equal to .9, the horsepower output of the engine, and the
airspeed. A MATLAB code was created that was capable of calculating excess thrust for each engine. This was done
by creating a function (findThrustDiff in Appendix B) that inputted the total dry weight of the aircraft, and the
shaft horsepower of each engine. Then, the code calculates the thrust required for level unaccelerated flight at 400
miles per hour and 20,000 feet, which is then compared to the thrust available from the engine due to its shaft
horsepower, the results are listed in Figure 5. From these results, the PW PT6A was selected as the best engine to
use for the aircraft based on its relative horsepower and weight. The team spoke to Pratt and Whitney Canada in
order to find out more about the engine, however they confessed that more specific information about the engine,
such as specific fuel consumption is based on a Client to client need to know basis. However, the team was able to
estimate specific fuel consumption off of unreliable websites and our knowledge of similar engines. The Pratt and
Whitney PT6A family is one of the most common turboprops on the market, having delivered over 36,000 engines
since its inception. This engine has proven to be consistent and efficient, and it produces the right amount of
horsepower to drive our aircraft the necessary distance at the planned speed and altitude while not overpowering or
weighing down the entire system.
C. Flight Performance
The team estimated the dry weight of the aircraft portion of the rescue vehicle to be about 2500 lb. This was
based on the listed weights of similar sized aircraft and gliders. On top of this dry weight we have the payload
weight of 4 slightly below average weight humans, which we estimated to be about 170 lb, and one PW PT6A
turboprop engine, weighing in at 337 lb. This brings us to a total final weight (empty fuel tank) of 3517 lb. This
weight is important for our range and endurance values of the aircraft. Using the estimated specific fuel
consumption of the PT6A engine at 20,000 feet (3.157E-7 lb/(ft * lb/s)(s)), the propeller efficiency of .9, the ideal
9
lift to drag ratio of 38.9 at 2.5 degrees angle of attack, the range we have to fly after the glide maneuver brings the
aircraft to 20,000 feet.
C L
w
c
R=
ln 0
CD
w1
(14)
The Breguet range formula for propellers showed that we would only need 27.92 kg of fuel in order to
travel the necessary 568.43 km specified in our ideal flight plan. However, the team decided that it would be
beneficial for the aircraft to have some extra fuel in case of unforeseen but necessary diversions in our flight path
such as weather. Therefore we used the Breguet range formula for a range of 705 km, and determined that if we put
33.62 kg of fuel on our aircraft, that the crew would be able to handle any situation that could arise mid flight and
still have enough fuel to land the aircraft safely at Patrick Air Force Base. From this new initial weight of 1623.2 kg
including the 33.62 kg of fuel, the endurance of the aircraft was calculated using the Breguet endurance formula.
3
C L2
1
1
1
c
E=
2 S ) 2 (W 12 W 02 )
(
CD
(15)
The endurance was found to be 6406.14 seconds, or about 1 hour and 45 minutes of flight time at 20,000 feet.
The total endurance of the aircraft would be slightly higher than this, due to its period of descent when the
is higher and the total endurance at that altitude is higher.
The desired runway at Patrick Air Force Base is runway 20 due to its bearing and length. The 2743 m runway is
situated on 200 from true north, and is right on the aircraft's flight path from its deployment in the Gulf of Mexico.
This runway is also paved, so it can be assumed that the r between the runway and the landing gear is about .4.
The stall velocity equation showed that the stall velocity of the aircraft is 44.06 m/s, which means its takeoff
velocity is 57.3 m/s.
V stall=
2W
S C L, max
(16)
V T =1.3V stall
(17)
Using this takeoff velocity, and the corresponding coefficients of lift and drag at .07 of the takeoff velocity, and
the ground roll equation, it is shown that the aircraft needs 1342 m of runway in order to land, which is significantly
lower than the long runway 20 at Patrick Air Force Base. Therefore, it is feasible to land the aircraft without the use
of flaps, so they were not used on this aircraft.
SL=
1.69W 2
g S C L ,max [ D+ r ( W L ) ] avg
(18)
The max rate of climb can be calculated by equation (19) where the difference between the power available
and power required is at a maximum:
10
p pr
R
= a
C max
W
(19)
The power available is linear, because there is no data available on the change of power in relation to speed, the
maximum rate of climb is where power required is at its lowest point. The weight is also thought of as constant.
When these values are put back into the equation, the maximum rate of climb is found to be 0.0234 km/s.
D. Cost
The airplane that was created by the team had a total mass of 1595.28 kg without fuel and can hold 27.67 kg of
fuel. The cost of the inert mass of the aircraft is $500/kg and the $4/kg of Jet A fuel. This results in a cost of $111
for the fuel and $797,640.00 for the inert mass, which sums to a total cost for the aircraft of $797,751.
IV. Conclusion
A. Total Cost
The total cost of orbital launch system is $9,261,960, and the total cost for the aircraft is $797,751. This results
in a total cost for the ECRV of $10,059,711. The majority of the cost came from the rocket, as this accounted for
92% of the total cost of the complete ECRV. While the majority of the cost for the aircraft came from the inert mass,
the rocket had about the same cost for the propellant and the inert mass.
B. Reasoning
After going through many possible solutions, the team determined that the given solution for the ECRV is the
most cost effective solution possible. Each component was chosen after careful deliberation and many calculations
comparing different possibilities. Therefore, each component is the most cost effective therefore making the given
ECRV the most efficient and cost effective possibility.
Appendix A CAD Models
11
CAD model of rocket.
12
CAD model of aircraft with capsule.
CAD model of aircraft folded inside capsule.

Appendix B MATLAB Code
13
%
%
%
%
%
Team: PM13
Class: AAE 25100
Professor: Grant
Date: 7 December 2014
Assignment: Design Project, Calculate Delta_V required
% Does not work for parabolic or hyperbolic orbits

% Begin either on earth or in circular orbit
% End in a circular orbit
rotation_E = .465; % km/s

grav_param_E = 398600; % km^3 / s^2
radius_E = 6378; % km
Earth_Start = input('Are you beginning on Earth? (Y/N)\n', 's');
if lower(Earth_Start) == 'y'
Latitude = input('\nWhat is your current latitude in degrees?\n');
Inclin_init = Latitude; % degrees
Azimuth = 90; % Assume Azimuth = 90 degrees (Easterly direction)
% Calculate Delta_V gained by Earth's Rotation
Veloc_init = rotation_E * cosd(Latitude) * sind(Azimuth); % km/s
Alt_init = 0; % km
else
Alt_init = input('\nWhat is the altitude of the initial circular orbit in
km?\n');
Inclin_init = input('\nWhat is the inclination of the initial circular
orbit in degrees?\n');
Veloc_init = sqrt(grav_param_E / (radius_E + Alt_init));
end
Alt_fin = input('\nWhat is the desired final altitude of the final circular
orbit in km?\n');
Inclin_fin = input('\nWhat is the inclination of the final circular orbit in
degrees?\n');
radius_init = Alt_init + radius_E; % km
radius_fin = Alt_fin + radius_E; % km
% Enter Transfer Orbit
Spec_Energ_Trans = -1 * grav_param_E / (radius_init + radius_fin); % MJ/kg
Veloc_init_trans
=
sqrt(2)
*
sqrt((grav_param_E
/
radius_init)
Spec_Energ_Trans); % km/s
Delta_V_EnTr = abs(Veloc_init_trans - Veloc_init); % km/s
% Plane Change
if radius_init < radius_fin
Veloc_apo_trans = sqrt(2) * sqrt((grav_param_E / radius_fin)
else
Veloc_apo_trans = sqrt(2) * sqrt((grav_param_E / radius_init)
end
14
+
+
Delta_V_PC = 2 * Veloc_apo_trans * sind(abs(Inclin_fin - Inclin_init) / 2); %

km/s
% Exit Transfer Orbit
Veloc_fin = sqrt(grav_param_E / radius_fin); % km/s
if radius_init < radius_fin
Veloc_trans_fin = sqrt(2) * sqrt((grav_param_E / radius_fin)
else
Veloc_trans_fin = sqrt(2) * sqrt((grav_param_E / radius_init)
end
Delta_V_ExTr = abs(Veloc_fin - Veloc_trans_fin);
+
+
% Steernig Loss
Delta_V_Steer = .200; % km/s
% Gravity Loss
if Alt_init < Alt_fin
if Alt_init < 20
if Alt_fin < 20
Delta_V_Grav = (1.5 - Alt_init * .075) - (1.5 - Alt_fin * .075);
else
Delta_V_Grav = (1.5 - Alt_init * .075);
end
else
Delta_V_Grav = 0;
end
else
if Alt_fin < 20
if Alt_init < 20
Delta_V_Grav = -1* ((1.5 - Alt_fin * .075) - (1.5 - Alt_init * .
075));
else
Delta_V_Grav = -1* (1.5 - Alt_fin * .075);
end
else
Delta_V_Grav = 0;
end
end
% Drag Loss
if Alt_init < Alt_fin
if Alt_init < 20
if Alt_fin < 20
Delta_V_Drag = (.15 - Alt_init * .0075) - (.15 - Alt_fin * .0075);
else
Delta_V_Drag = (.15 - Alt_init * .0075);
end
else
Delta_V_Drag = 0;
end
else
if Alt_fin < 20
if Alt_init < 20
15
Delta_V_Drag = (.15 - Alt_fin * .0075) - (.15 - Alt_init * .0075);
else
end
Delta_V_Drag = (.15 - Alt_fin * .0075);
else
Delta_V_Drag = 0;
end
end
Total_Delta_V = Delta_V_EnTr + Delta_V_PC + Delta_V_ExTr; % km/s

Total_Delta_V = Total_Delta_V + Delta_V_Steer+ Delta_V_Drag + Delta_V_Grav; %
km/s
fprintf('\nThe Total Delta_V needed is: %0.3f km/s\n', Total_Delta_V);
fprintf('\nThe Total Delta_V without entering the final circular orbit, ');
fprintf('is: %0.3f km/s\n\n', (Total_Delta_V - Delta_V_ExTr));
16
%
%
%
%
%
%
Team: PM13
Class: AAE 25100
Professor: Grant
Date: 6 November 2014
Assignment: Design Project, Delta_V Optimization and Rocket Sizing
for two-stage without solid rocket boosters
I_sp_1 = input('\nPlease input Specific Impulse of Stage 1:\n'); % s

f_inert_1 = input('\nPlease input Inert Mass Fraction of Stage 1:\n');
Mass_Pay = input('\nPlease input Payload Mass of Stage:\n'); % kg
Delta_V_Tot = input('\nPlease input Total Delta V needed in km/s:\n'); % m/s
x = linspace(0.2, 0.8, 1000);
Delta_V_1_mat = x * Delta_V_Tot;
Delta_V_2_mat = (1 - x) * Delta_V_Tot;
Mass_Initial = [];
counter = 1;
while counter <= 1000,
Delta_V_1 = Delta_V_1_mat(counter);
Mass_Initial_New = Find_Initial_Mass(Mass_Pay,
f_inert_1, Delta_V_2, I_sp_2, f_inert_2);
if Mass_Initial_New <= 0
Mass_Initial_New = 10^10;
end
Mass_Initial = [Mass_Initial Mass_Initial_New];
counter = counter + 1;
end
%
%
%
%
%
%
Delta_V_1,
hold on;
plot(x, Mass_Initial);
title('Initial Mass vs. x');
xlabel('x');
ylabel('Initial Mass (kg)');
hold off;
[Min_Mass_Initial, index] = min(Mass_Initial);

fprintf('\nThe optimal Delta_V split is %0.4f.\n', x(index));
fprintf('The minimum initial mass is %0.0f.\n\n', Min_Mass_Initial);
17
I_sp_1,
%
%
%
%
%
%
Team: PM13
Class: AAE 25100
Professor: Grant
Assignment: Design Project, Delta_V Optimization and Rocket Sizing for
two-stage with solid rocket boosters

x = linspace(0.2, 9.467/Delta_V_Tot, 1000);
Mass_Initial = [];
counter = 1;
end
end
%
%
%
%
%
%
Delta_V_1,
hold on;
xlabel('x');
hold off;

18
I_sp_1,
%
%
%
%
%
%
Team: PM13
Class: AAE 25100
Professor: Grant
Assignment: Design Project, Delta_V Optimization and Rocket Sizing for
three-stage with solid rocket boosters

x = linspace(0.2, 9.467/Delta_V_Tot, 1000);
Mass_Initial = [];
counter = 1;
end
end
%
%
%
%
%
%
Delta_V_1,
hold on;
xlabel('x');
hold off;

% Signature: Alexander R. Corbin
19
I_sp_1,
I_sp_1 = input('\nPlease input Specific Impulse of Stage

f_inert_1 = input('\nPlease input Inert Mass Fraction of
Mass_Pay = input('\nPlease input Payload Mass:\n'); % kg
Delta_V_Tot = input('\nPlease input Total Delta V needed
1:\n'); % s
Stage 1:\n');
2:\n'); % s
Stage 2:\n');
3:\n'); % s
Stage3:\n');
in km/s:\n'); % m/s
x = linspace(0.01, 9.467/Delta_V_Tot, 10^2);

Mass_Initial = [];
counter = 1;
for x0 = x
remainder = 1-x0;
y = linspace(0.01, remainder, 101 - counter);
for y0 = y
z0 = remainder - y0;
Delta_V_1 = Delta_V_Tot * x0;
Delta_V_2 = Delta_V_Tot * y0;
Delta_V_3 = Delta_V_Tot * z0;
Mass_Initial_New = Find_Initial_Mass_3_Stage(Mass_Pay, Delta_V_1,
I_sp_1,
f_inert_1,
Delta_V_2,
I_sp_2,
f_inert_2,
Delta_V_3,
I_sp_3,
f_inert_3);
Mass_Initial = [Mass_Initial; Mass_Initial_New x0 y0 z0];
end
end
not_negative = true;
while not_negative
[Min_Mass_Initial, index] = min(Mass_Initial(:,1));
if Min_Mass_Initial <= 0
Mass_Initial(index) = 10^10;
else
not_negative = false;
end
end
fprintf('\nThe optimal Delta_V split is %0.4f for first stage.\n',
Mass_Initial(index(1), 2));
fprintf('\nThe optimal Delta_V split is %0.4f for second stage.\n',
fprintf('\nThe optimal Delta_V split is %0.4f for third stage.\n',
20
%
%
%
%
%
Team: PM13
Class: AAE 25100
Professor: Grant
Assignment: Design Project, Calculate Delta_V for each stage
function Delta_V = Delta_V_per_Stage(I_sp, M_total, f_inert, M_pay)

g0 = 9.81*10^-3; % km/s
Delta_V = I_sp * g0 * log(M_total / (M_pay + f_inert * M_total - f_inert *
M_pay));
end
21
function [ powertdiff, maxpowerdif ] = findThrustDiff( weight, power )

speed = linspace (50, 730, 680) %ft/s
hpToEnglish = 550
weight = 3392 %lb
rho = 1.2673E-3
s = 200 %ft^2
b = 40.06 %ft
ar = b^2 / s
e = .8
zeroldrag = .00728
cl = weight ./ ((1/2) * rho * speed .^2 * s)
cdo =(cl.^2 ./ (pi * e * ar))
cd = cdo + zeroldrag
drag = (1/2) * cd * rho .* speed.^2 * s
loverd = cl ./ cd
powerRequired = drag .* speed
minpowerrec = min (powerRequired) %Index 23
%1B
eta = .9
powerEng = power * hpToEnglish %ft lb / s
poweravail = eta * powerEng
maxpowerdiff = max(poweravail - powerRequired)
%Range index 25 to 314
%%plot (speed, thrustavail, 'g')
%%legend ('Thrust Required', 'Thrust Available')
figure
plot (speed, powerRequired)
hold on
title ('Required and Available Power as a Function of Speed at 20,000 ft')
xlabel ('Speed (ft/s)')
ylabel ('Power (ft lb/s)')
plot (speed, poweravail, 'g')
legend ('Power Required', 'Power Available')
speed = 586.667
cl = weight ./ ((1/2) * rho * speed .^2 * s)
cdo =(cl.^2 ./ (pi * e * ar))
cd = cdo + zeroldrag
drag = (1/2) * cd * rho .* speed.^2 * s
powerRequired = drag .* speed
poweravail = (eta * powerEng)
powerdiff = thrustavail - thrustrec
end
22
References
[1] Google Maps. (2014). [Patrick AFB] Retrieved from https://www.google.com/maps/place/Patrick+AFB,
+FL/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x88de1b45e963072d:0xd36eab71d392551d?sa=X&ei=BnKKVLG8BZL4yQSjoGAAQ&ved=0CB0Q8gEwAA
[2] Patrick Air Force Base. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.patrick.af.mil/.
[3] Anderson, J.D. (2012). Introduction to flight. New York City: McGraw-Hill.
[4] Launch Vehicle Library. (2014). In Spaceflight101. Retrieved from http://www.spaceflight101.com/launchvehicle-library.html
[5] Lednicer, D., Airfoils of US and Canadian Aircraft, Aerofiles.net, Retrieved from:
http://www.aerofiles.com/airfoils.html
[6] Airfoil Tools, NACA 0006 (naca0006-il) Xfoil prediction polar at RE=200,000 Ncrit=9, Retrieved from:
http://airfoiltools.com/polar/details?polar=xf-naca0006-il-200000
[7] Federal Aviation Administration, Section II.4.2, Helicopter Operations, Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/dx6m6O
(opens document)
[8] Rodgers, D, Propeller Efficiency: Cruise Rule of Thumb, Retrieved from: http://www.narassociates.com/technical-flying/propeller/cruise_propeller_efficiency_screen.pdf
[9] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 11.2 Thermal and Propulsive Efficiency /11.3 Implications of Propulsive
Efficiency for Engine Design, Retrieved from:
http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node81.html
[10] Federal Aviation Administration, Pilots Encyclopedia of Aeronautical Knowledge (2007) Skyhorse Publishing
[11] General Electric Aviation, GE H75 Turboprop Engine, Retrieved from:
http://www.geaviation.com/engines/docs/bga/datasheet-h75.pdf
[12] Pratt and Whitney Canada, The PT6a Turboprop, Retrieved from:
http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/Press_Kits/pdf/pwc_pt6a_trboProp_pCard.pdf
[13] Federal Aviation Administration, PT6A Type Certificate Data Sheet, Retrieved from:
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/90c641493420043b8625752f006482e
8/$FILE/E4EA_rev24.pdf
[14] Rolls Royce, M250 Turboprop, Retrieved from: http://www.rollsroyce.com/Images/brochure_M250Turboprop_tcm92-12978.pdf
[15] Honeywell, TPE331-10 Turboprop Engine, Retrieved from:
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/BA_brochuresdocuments/TPE331.10.pdf
23

Aae 251 Final Design Project Team pm13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aae 251 Final Design Project Team pm13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AAE 251 Final Design Project Team PM13

change in velocity of exiting transfer orbit

II. Launch/Orbital Maneuvers

V plane change =2v a , tsin

V exit ,t =|v f v f ,t|

V total =V enter ,t + V planechange + V exit ,t + V steering + V drag + V gravity

III. Mid-Air Deployment / Return to Launch Site

Figure 2: Map of potential landing location.

Figure 3: Cruise airspeeds.

Figure 4: Relative propulsive efficiency as a function of airspeed.

Appendix A CAD Models

CAD model of rocket.

CAD model of aircraft with capsule.

CAD model of aircraft folded inside capsule.

% Does not work for parabolic or hyperbolic orbits

rotation_E = .465; % km/s

Delta_V_PC = 2 * Veloc_apo_trans * sind(abs(Inclin_fin - Inclin_init) / 2); %

Delta_V_Drag = (.15 - Alt_fin * .0075) - (.15 - Alt_init * .0075);

Delta_V_Drag = (.15 - Alt_fin * .0075);

Total_Delta_V = Delta_V_EnTr + Delta_V_PC + Delta_V_ExTr; % km/s

I_sp_1 = input('\nPlease input Specific Impulse of Stage 1:\n'); % s

[Min_Mass_Initial, index] = min(Mass_Initial);

I_sp_1 = input('\nPlease input Specific Impulse of Stage 1:\n'); % s

[Min_Mass_Initial, index] = min(Mass_Initial);

I_sp_1 = input('\nPlease input Specific Impulse of Stage 1:\n'); % s

[Min_Mass_Initial, index] = min(Mass_Initial);

I_sp_1 = input('\nPlease input Specific Impulse of Stage

x = linspace(0.01, 9.467/Delta_V_Tot, 10^2);

function Delta_V = Delta_V_per_Stage(I_sp, M_total, f_inert, M_pay)

function [ powertdiff, maxpowerdif ] = findThrustDiff( weight, power )

You might also like