www.elsevier.

com/locate/actaastro

Acrn Astronaurica Vol. 47, Nos. 2-9, pp. 205-213. 2000 Astronautical Federation. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0094-5765/00 $ - see front matter PII:SOO94-5765(00)00060-6 0 2000 international

The Cost-Optimal Size of Future Reusable launch Vehicles

D.E.KOELLE
TCS-TransCostSystems Oitobrunn. Germany

ABSTRACT:
The paper answers the question, what is the optimum vehicle size - in terms of LEO payload capability - for a future reusable launch vehicle ? It is shown that there exists an optimum vehicle size that results in minimum soecific transoortation cost. The optimum vehicle size depends on the total annual cargo mass (LEO equivalent) enviseaged. which defines at the same time the optimum number of launches per year (LpA). Based on the TRANSCOST-Model algorithms a wide range of vehicle sizes - from 20 to 100 Mg payload in LEO, as well as launch rates - from 2 to 100 per year - have been investigated. It is shown in a design chart how much the vehicle size as well as the launch rate are influencing the specific transportation cost ( in MYr/Mg and US$/kg) . The comparison with actual ELVs (Expendable Launch Vehicles) and Semi-Reusable Vehicles (a combination of a reusable first stage with an expendable second stage) shows that there exists only one economic solution for an essential reduction of space transportation cost: the Fullv Reusable Vehicle ConceDt , with rocket propulsion and vertical take-off. The SingleStage Configuration (SSTO) has the best economic potential: its feasibility is not only a matter of technology level but also of the vehicle size as such. Increasing the vehicle size (launch mass ) reduces the technology requirements because the law of scale provides a better mass fraction and payload fraction - practically at no cost. The optimum vehicle design (after specification of the payload capability) requires a trade-off between lightweight (and more expensive) technology vs. more conventional (and cheaper) technology. It is shown that the the use of more conventional technology and accepting a somewhat larger vehicle is the more cost-effective and less risky approach. 0 2000 International Astronautical Federation. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. 1.

in $/lb, Euro/kg or MYr/Mg (ManYear per 1000 kg) - is strongly influenced by the launch vehicle size in terms of payload capability - and the launch frequency. As shown in FIG.1 the cost reduction by RLVs is increasing with the vehicles payload capability. RLVs with less than 500 kg payload do not make sense. A RLV with 20 Mg Payload capability, however, can be 5 times more cost-efficient than ELVs at a low launch rate, say 10 LpA. and provide a factor 10 cost reduction at higher launch rates ( 60 LpA or so). For a 100 Mg-RLV the cost reduction will be in the ran e of 10 to 20. These results cannot $ e doubted since they have been established in many independent studies by different institutions and companies using different methodologies. FIG. 1 shows some examples. The cost reduction potential of an RLV concept is strongly influenced and can be improved by application of costengineering analyses. Unfortunately this area is unknown to most engineers which have only been educated in performance optimization. Too little attention is given often to basics of economic launch the vehicle design: the optimum payload capability and the cost vs. weight trade-off. The payload requirement is often tied without consideration of the optimum value for minimum transportation cost. Smaller payload means higher launch rate, and higher payload larger vehicle size. It can be shown, however, by modem means of cost engineering that there exists an optimum vehicle payload capability which results in the lowest specific transportation cost for a given annual cargo mass. The second aspect of ,optimum vehicle sizin y is the trade-off regarding the vehic f e dry mass: Using more advanced technology for weight reduction
205

XNTRODUCTON

There is general agreement among experts that fully reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) can provide an essential cost reduction compared to present expendable vehicles. People expressing ,doubts have apparently not yet dealt w3th the large number of related cost analyses. ree of potential cost reduction c transportation cost to LEO

206

iOf/! /.-I/. (~o,ri,-l.!,

SPECIFIC TRAbJSlORTAT0N COST

My,

GTITAN IV

100

10

SANGER-HORUS-C BETA II (6.6 MY/MO). CHRYSLER NEPTUN,

Mlx.Q

(MEB

1990)

\
19M - 2.2 (3.50 Mg P/L) 1976 (LEO)
I

MBB 1996 (LEO) Mamh

ProJeel SERV.

TU Smrlin 1999. 0.9 MY/k&.

llupultlon PlW lu0rrt.g.

~_~EItyJ~_S$tO_ (20 p.A

Moo0

x UC k&p!, 0.67 MYIt&.

I(LEO)

mB -$B
1978 y

BOEING

WInged

Two-Stag.

HLV (u)o LPA x 420 Mgl

- 0.4 MY/MO

$4
I

0.1.
I i

i0

loo
PAYLOAD (Mg)

FIG. 1 : Specific Transportation Cost for Expendable and Reusable

to IEO vs.Vehicle Payload Capability Launch Vehicles

- - - the vehicle size (propellant normally results In higher developmass), ment and production cost, while the use of conventional technology - - - the mass margins assumed, reduces cost but increases vehicle --- the selected technology. mass. Again, there exfsts an optimum vehicle size with minimum space The mass fractions are basically transportation cost. depending on the vehicle propellant mass and decrease for larger masses, as visible in FIGS 2 and 3. This fact is 2. Dry Mass/Net Mass of RLVs often disregarded but it provides an A major criterion of RLV design is the easy and low-cost increase of payload, dry mass, respectively the net mass resp. payload margin: by example, a fraction (related to the usable ascent 10% increase of propellant mass propellant mass). increases the payloadtmargin) by 18 % at about 3 % higher development cost. The mass fraction depends on

50rh IAF Congress

207

MASS FRACTION

(%)

15
14 13 72 11 10 9 a 7 6 5 100 500

'EENT

PROPELLAN:i&S

c&y

FIG.2 : Dry Mass and Net Mass Ballistic Reusable Beside the size impact there is the dry mass margin philosophy ( i.e. 5, 10 or 15. 20 %) and the selected technolo (conventional, existing or advance !?). Modem materials like CFC tanks and AlLi structures decrease the dry mass but increase development and production cost (and the risk).

Fractions vs. Propellant Mass for Vehicles residuals and reserve propellants.

FIG.3 shows the data collection for WINGED ORBITAL VEHICLES. In this case the mass fraction sensitivity vs. size is even stronger than in the previous case. The difference between Net Mass and Dry Mass is only some 12 % because no landing propellants FIG.2 shows as example the collected are required. However, the wings and mass fraction data of major ballistic aerodynamic control surfaces (with reusable vehicle project studies. The actuators and power supply) lead to data spread is only 7 % (except the essentially higher dry and net mass OART and SERV projects from fractions for winged vehicles compared 1970/71). The difference between Dry to ballistic vehicles as evident by a Mass and Net Mass is some 27 % in comparison of FIGS. 2 and 3 : +53 % this case comprising the propellants for the dry mass, and + 30 % for the for orbital operations (injection, net mass. This explains the higher braking impulse, attitude control) and development and production cost of the landing maneuver, as well as for winged vehicles.

208

MASS

FRACTION

(%)

si sz f:,
19 la 17 16 15 14 13
17

10
FIG. 3:

loo

ASCENT

Pf?df%%uwMASS

(8l8?oo

Dry Mass and Net Mass Winged Vehicles (SSTOs (Rocket Propulsion)

Fractions vs. Propellant Mass for and TSTO Second Stages)

3. Mass/Cost Relationship The cost vs. dry mass relationship of launch vehicles (stages) can be derived statistically from past projects as it is presented in the TRANSCOST Model (ref. 1). FIG.4 illustrates the cost relations: development cost and fabrication cost are growing with dry mass, however, not proportionally: a 50 % growth of dry mass results in only 25 % increase of development cost and some 30 % for fabrication cost. In contrast, the payload is growing over-proportionally to plus 80 % for the 50% growth of vehicle dry mass( Ball.SSTO).Reason for this is the law of scale, resp. the decrease of the Net Mass Fraction with

with vehicle size as shown in FIGs.2 and 3. This is valid only for scaled vehicles with the same technology level. If, however, a drv mass reduction is achieved by application of advanced materials and technologies then no cost reduction is achieved but a substantial development cost increase must be expected. This is illustrated in FIG.5: a 20 % dry mass reduction may lead to a 50 % increase of development cost. This trend is illustrated by two examples: The DC-X test vehicle as built in two years with existing technology and equipment, resulting in a rather high dry mass of 98Z2 kg and a Net Mass Fraction (NMF)

50th IAF Congress

209

250 % 225 200 175 150

of 1.5 (150 % of propellant mass), but at very low cost: some 67 MS (1961 63). The subsequent development of advanced propellant tanks and a CFC intertank structure for the DC-XA Program reduced the dry mass by some 900 kg ( or 10%) but at a cost increase of ca.30 % compred to the original cost.

Another example Is the X-33 Liftingbody Demonstrator Vehicle, designed with respect to an operational SST0 Vehicle (Venture Star). The cost of 12.5 some 1200 MS are substantially higher (factor 10) compared to the DC-X and X-34 test vehicles. Taking into 100 account the higher vehicle mass and the higher speed (Mach 12 to 15) of the X-33 then still remains a cost 75 factor of about three. Reasons are the structural complexity of the X-33 50 lifting body configuration and its rop llant tanksAlso the aerodynamic 50 75 100 125 150 175 2OOp % flight control system, the aerospike VEHICLE DRY MASS (excl.engines) and other advanced en ines teea nologies contribute to the high FIG.4 : Cost and Mass Trends \I&Dry cost.
Mass (Vehicle Scaling)

MASS (%)

80

The trends in FIGs.4 and 5 clearlv indicate that there exists an optimum DEV. COST vehicle design noint where the transportation co& to orbit reach a minimum. This desing point can be found by a trade-off between the use of conventional (heavy) and advanced (lightweight) technology. This applies to a launch vehicle with a fixed (specified) payload capability.
4. Optimum Launch Vehicle Payload Capability

60

Conceiving new reusable launch vehicles raises the question what payload capability (LEO-Equivalent) the vehicle should be designed for ? This very important requirement in the past has often been selected more randomly than based on an economic or traffk demand analysis It is possible, however, to define the cost-optimum payload capability,

Shari

o1 Nig

60 70 80% a odv%~ 8 Technology

FIG.5:Cost Gruwth at Mass Reduction

depending on the anticipated annual transportation demand to LEO. This optimum payload capability together with the related number of launches per year (LpA) leads to the minimum specific transportation cost. The basic background for this optimum vehicle payload capability is the fact that the specific transportation cost decrease with vehicle size (payload capability) as shown in FIG.1. On the other hand a larger number of launches (using a smaller launch vehicle) also decreases the cost. A trade-off is required to find the optimum conditions of vehicle capability and launch frequency. The following optimization has been performed without development cost amortization_ For a commercial development the results may be somewhat different, dependin on the financial conditions of the $ evelopment program. Four programmatic analyzed: cases have been MASS to

COST
7 698 6,6 614 6,2 6 5,8 516 594

(Myr/Mg)

FIG. 6a: Program Cost

4.4

(a) Optimization

(MYr/Mg)

42

ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION LEO (LEO-Equivalent) :

/I

3.8

3.6

The results of this cost analysis, using the TRANSCOST Model algorithms are shown in FIGs.Ga, b, c and d. The cost are expressed in MYr (ManYears) as a constant value independent from inflation and exchange rate fluctuations. 1 MYr in 1999 is equal to 203 000 USS , to 186 000 Euro, and to 22,6 Mio.Yen. The most distinct optimum, resp. the highest sensitivity is shown at the lowest demand of 160 to 200 Mg per year. In this case a vehicle with 30 Mg payload capability will have the lowest transnortation cost of 5.5 MYr at 5
1

394 RLV

20

Payload

40

Capability

60

8o

Mgoo

FIG. 6b: Program (b) Optimization to 7 LpA (flights per year). This in 1999 values is 1127 $/kg or 510 $/lb. The optima become less pronounced for higher traffic demands but can be clearIy identified for the programmatic cases analyzed, as shown in the following TABLE I.

50th IAF Congress

211

Cost 3.4 3,~ 3 28 276 2,4 292 2

(MYr/Mg)

The results do not only show the cost reduction with growing transportation demand and larger vehicles, but also that reusable vehicles also can operate effectively at low launch rates (more than 5 LpA). From the four cases investigated a generalized result can be produced as shown in FIG.7: it shows the optimum vehicle size in terms of payload capability vs. the annual cargo to LEO. RLV Payload Capability (Mg)
1000

RL2voPa$ad

tapability 80

100

(Mg)

12 0

FIG.Gc : Program (c) Optimization

Cost 2,4 292 2 l,a 196 1,4 192 2#LV48ay8!d %p8?& 2(%~,o
10

(MYr/Mg) 100

FIG.Gd: Program (d) Optimization TABLE I: OFTIMIZATION RESULTS Case Opt. PI L Launch Rate CaPab.(Mg) &PA) a b : 25 - 35 50 - 70 80 - 100 120 - 160 5 to 8 6 to 9 7 to 10 10 to 17
Min.Cost

Total Annual Cargo Mass (Mg) FIG.7: Optimum Vehicle LEO P/L Capability vs.Total Annual Cargo

loo

1000

10000

1 oooc

apparently

Wrl Mg) 5.5 3.5 2.3 1.35

Increasing vehicle payload capability is than more efficient increasing the launch rate.

A complete design chart showing the relationship between vehicle size (P/L capability), launch rate and specific transportation cost is presented as FIG.8.

6 5

RLV- 100

10

50

100

LAUNCHES per ANNUM (LpA)

FIG.8 : Design Chart for the It becomes evident that a growing transportation market needs an RLV with more than the Space Shuttle capability. In addition to the much lower transportation cost of larger vehicles it must be taken into account for some program cases that higher payload capability reduces assembly cost in orbit. The final FIG.9 shows that the results of this analysis are in good agreement with other studies on space trans-

Economic Optimization

of RLVs

portation cost. The cost derived in this study are at the lower limit of the curve shown because they represent the optimum solution. In other studies like the CSTS Study a mix of different vehicles has been assumed. The reference points for NEPTUNE vehicle applications (with 300 Mg LEO payload) confirm that the optimum application range for this payload size may be in the 10 000 to 20 000 Mg annual cargo market.

50th IAF Congress

213

M Yr/Mg

%/kg

(98/99: 20 000

100

1000

100000 10000 TOTAL ANNUAL CARGO MASS to LEO (Mg)

Cost to LEO vs. Demand

FIG.9:

Specific Transportation

REFERENCES:
1 D..KOELLE:

TRANSCOST 6.2 - StatisticalAnalytical Model for Cost Estimation and Economical Optimization of Space Transportation Systems, Edition 6.2, Oct. 1998

5. The International Standardized Cost-perFlight-Definition for Launch Vehicles, Paper IAF-98-IAA.1.2.05, 49th IAFCongress, Melbourne/Australia, Sep.1 998

2. Why SST0 Rocket Launch Vehicles are now Feasible and Practical - A White Paper, I.BEKEY, NASA Hq., Jan.1 994 3. Cost Engeneering - The New Paradigm for Launch Vehicle Design, D.E.KOELLE, Paper IAF-97-IAA.l .1.04, IAF-Congress Torino 1997 4. Economics of Fully Reusable Launch Systems, D. E. KOELLE, Paper IAF96-IAA. 1.1.03, IAF-Congress 1996, Beijing, China

Authors Address: Dr. D.E.Koelle TCS - TransCostSystems Liebigweg 10 D-8552 1 Ottobrunn/ Germany Phone/ Fax: +4989-609 1677 e-mail: 101345.2644@compuserve.com