Development of a Mass Estimating

Relationship Database for Launch Vehicle

Conceptual Design

Reuben R. Rohrschneider
Georgia Institute of Technology
Under the Academic Supervision of Dr. John R. Olds
AE 8900

April 26, 2002

 Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................ 4
Acronyms & Notation.................................................................................................. 5
I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6
II Background ............................................................................................................. 6
III Approach................................................................................................................ 7
IV Description of Sources........................................................................................... 9
V Future Work .......................................................................................................... 13
VI Acknowledgements.............................................................................................. 13
References.................................................................................................................. 14
1.0 Wing................................................................................................................. 1.0-1
2.0 Tail ................................................................................................................... 2.0-1
3.0 Body................................................................................................................. 3.0-1
4.0 TPS .................................................................................................................. 4.0-1
5.0 Landing Gear ................................................................................................... 5.0-1
6.0 Main Propulsion............................................................................................... 6.0-1
7.0 RCS.................................................................................................................. 7.0-1
8.0 OMS................................................................................................................. 8.0-1
9.0 Primary Power ................................................................................................. 9.0-1
10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution .......................................................... 10.0-1
11.0 Hydraulics.................................................................................................... 11.0-1
12.0 Surface Control & Actuators ....................................................................... 12.0-1
13.0 Avionics ....................................................................................................... 13.0-1
14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support Systems......................................... 14.0-1
15.0 Personnel Equipment ................................................................................... 15.0-1
16.0 Dry Weight Margin...................................................................................... 16.0-1
17.0 Crew & Gear................................................................................................ 17.0-1
18.0 Payload Provisions....................................................................................... 18.0-1
19.0 Cargo (up and down) ................................................................................... 19.0-1

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-2

20.0 Residual Propellants .................................................................................... 20.0-1
21.0 OMS/RCS Reserve Propellants ................................................................... 21.0-1
22.0 RCS Entry Propellants ................................................................................. 22.0-1
23.0 OMS/RCS On-Orbit Propellants ................................................................. 23.0-1
24.0 Cargo Discharged ........................................................................................ 24.0-1
25.0 Ascent Reserve Propellants ......................................................................... 25.0-1
26.0 Inflight Losses & Vents ............................................................................... 26.0-1
27.0 Ascent Propellants ....................................................................................... 27.0-1
28.0 Startup Losses .............................................................................................. 28.0-1
Technology Reduction Factors ..........................TRF-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-3

 Abstract

This report attempts to bring mass estimating relations (MERs) for the conceptual design
of launch vehicles into the open, and establish a baseline for their comparison. Data was
taken from multiple design organizations from around the country and compiled into a
database that is freely available for use. To validate the equations, Space Shuttle
component masses were predicted. A percentage error was reported, with the sign
indicating the direction of the error. No single set of MERs is uniformly more accurate
than another. To improve the utility of the equations, modifications can be made to the
equations to model improved technologies, such as those used in advanced launch
vehicles. Technology reduction factors are also compiled from multiple sources. No
proof of their accuracy is available at this time. The greatest accuracy in predicting the
mass of a future launch vehicle would be attained by using the most accurate equation for
each component, and an appropriate technology reduction factor.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-4

 Acronyms & Notation

AMLS Advanced Manned Launch System

AVID Aerospace Vehicle Interactive Design system
EMA Electro-Mechanical Actuator
ET External Tank from Space Shuttle System
IHOT Integrated Hydrogen Oxygen Technology
LaRC Langley Research Center
LOX Liquid Oxygen
LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
MBS Mass Breakdown Structure
MER Mass Estimating Relation
MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASP National Aero Space Plane
OMS Orbital Maneuvering System
RBCC Rocket Based Combined Cycle
RCC Reinforced Carbon-Carbon TPS
RCS Reaction Control System
SRB Solid Rocket Booster from Space Shuttle System
SSTO Single Stage To Orbit
TRF Technology Reduction Factor
TSTO Two Stage To Orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-5

I Introduction
Estimating the mass of future launch vehicles is typically done using parametric
equations for each component of the vehicle. While effective, and fast, this method is not
perfect. Many design organizations have their own equations, and do not trust equations
from other sources. This paper attempts to solve this problem by making mass estimating
relations freely available to the design community. Further, the Space Shuttle system is
used as a reference point to validate the equations. It turns out there is no single set of
mass estimating relations (MER) that is most accurate. The highest accuracy would be
gained by taking the best MER for each component, from multiple sources. Additionally,
technology reduction factors are supplied to enable designers to model future vehicles
using equations derived from current and past technology.

II Background
Mass estimation of future air and space vehicles is typically done using parameterized
equations for each component of a vehicle. These equations are then summed to find the
total mass of the vehicle. For example, the mass of the anti-vortex baffles in a propellant
tank, according to Brothers, is given by:
m& F prop
M antivortex = (0.64 + 0.0184ρ )
ρ
Here the mass of the baffles is a function of propellant density, and mass flow rate from
the tank. There is not a unique set of parameters to base the mass of the anti-vortex
baffles on, and different equations use different parameters. Often a minor component,
such as the anti-vortex baffles, may be included in another equation for a larger
component, such as the tank mass. Due to the many ways to parameterize a vehicle
component, and the available levels of detail that the vehicle can be broken into, different
design organizations often have different equations to model launch vehicles. This
process works, but contains flaws.

The largest problem with the currently used system is the lack of data available on space
vehicles. In particular, there is only one data point for reusable launch vehicles, and none

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-6

for air-breathing launch vehicles. This problem is often remedied by fitting curves to
aircraft components and then shifting the intercept such that data from the Space Shuttle
lies on the curve, as is done by Brothers, and MacConochie. Brothers also fits curves to a
combination of expendable launch vehicles and the Space Shuttle. This ensures that all
data is for space hardware, but the durability, and hence weight of components is lower
for expendable vehicles. The lack of data is exacerbated by the fact that all data is not
available to all design organizations. Hence each organization’s in-house MERs are
based on different data points. All of these methods work, but for different vehicle
configurations, and over different parameter ranges. More often that not, the valid range
of the parameters is unpublished and often unknown since no data points exist for
comparison beyond values of current space vehicles or aircraft.

A further flaw with this approach is the consistency between the mass predictions of
different organization’s MERs. If one design organization uses their in-house equations
for a new vehicle, and a second organization uses their in-house equations for the same
vehicle, will they get the same answer? This flaw is inspired by the difficulty in
comparing ideas generated at different design organizations. If two different ideas for a
launch vehicle are posed and one is lighter, it is typically labeled as the better design.
This could actually be the case, or one of the design organizations may be using mass
estimating relationships that are heavier (or lighter) than the other organization,
producing an invalid comparison of the vehicle concepts.

III Approach
This paper attempts to solve the problem of comparing vehicles through a two pronged
approach. First a database of MERs was created to make a large number of equations
available, and second a baseline was used to compare the predicted mass of the equations
to a flight vehicle.

By providing a database of equations to the conceptual design community a common set

of equations will be available to all design organizations. If the same equations are used
for vehicle design at different organizations, then the results should be easy to compare.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-7

Even if different equations are used from the database, they can be referenced, and the
difference between the equations used can be found.

By comparing the compiled mass estimating equations to a baseline vehicle the validity
of the equation is verified against an actual flight vehicle. The chosen reference is the
Space Shuttle, specifically orbital vehicle 103 circa 1983, and external tank 7 on a due
East mission [i]. Many equations in the database are not intended to model Space Shuttle
technology, and are not compared.

Several organizations have provided equations for this database, and in the future users
should be encouraged to submit their equations with applicable parameter ranges for
inclusion in the database. The database is presented in subsequent sections of this paper.
The equations were compiled from multiple sources of data, many of which are
unpublished. A description of each primary source (and a sub source if cited) is provided
below. On a macro level the data is organized in the order of a typical mass breakdown
structure. Within each group in the MBS there are two columns, and a page for each
source. The first page of each component group contains the variables used to predict the
mass of components in that group, and any supporting illustrations. On each subsequent
page, the reference is listed along with a brief description of the data source. The first
column under each reference contains the equations and applicable parameters and
known limitations. The second column is a percentage error from the Space Shuttle. In
the following equation E is the percent error from the Space Shuttle, Mi is the mass
predicted by the MER, and Mshuttle is the corresponding Space Shuttle component mass.
M i − M shuttle
E=
M shuttle
A positive error percentage indicates that the equation produces a mass higher than that
of the Space Shuttle, and a negative error shows an equation that predicts lighter than the
Space Shuttle. All equations in the database are set up for use in the English unit system.
Standard measures for this database are feet, pounds, and seconds, with pressure in psi,
and power in kilowatts, unless otherwise noted.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-8

Equations that predict this vehicle accurately are likely only good for near term
technology without adjustment. This adjustment is provided in the form of a technology
reduction factor. Provided the trend of the equation is correct, the mass can be reduced
by a percentage to represent an improvement in material technology. The mass of a
component using improved technology can be found by the following equation:
Mimproved = Moriginal (1-TRF)
Here Mimproved is the mass of the component being modeled using improved technology,
Moriginal is the mass of that component predicted by an MER for current technology, and
TRF is the appropriate technology reduction factor from the last section of this paper
(starting on page TRF-1). This technique allows the use of MERs created using current
technology to approximate what can be done in the future. In essence, this extends the
useful life of an MER.

IV Description of Sources
Each source of MERs is intended to model a different type of vehicle, or has been
derived from a particular configuration. This helps decipher the applicable range of the
equations, and the vehicle configuration that they will model best. This description
attempts to make available to the database user some of this knowledge so that the
equations provided can be used in their proper context, and with confidence.

1. I.O. MacConochie and P.J. Klich [ii]

MacConochie worked in the Vehicle Analysis Branch at the Langley Research
Center in Hampton Virginia. These equations are from NASA Technical
Memorandum 78661, published in 1978. This predates the Space Shuttle first
flight, but makes use of known shuttle subsystem masses. Equations are based on
commercial and fighter aircraft data.

2. Dr. John R. Olds [iii]

Dr. Olds published these equations in his PhD dissertation in 1993. They are
primarily a collection of equations from sources at NASA Langley Research
Center, with a few that he created himself. The equations were used for design of

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-9

 a vertical take off horizontal landing RBCC SSTO vehicle, shown in Figure 1.
Projects and authors of the original source are listed in the database where
available.

Figure 1: RBCC SSTO vehicle. [ref. 2]

3. Dr. Ted Talay

Dr. Talay worked in the Vehicle Analysis Branch at NASA Langley Research
Center. These equations were handed out as class notes for ME250, Launch
Vehicle Design, at George Washington University in 1992, which he taught.
Their emphasis is on rocket powered vehicles. Many of the equations provided
are based on the Space Shuttle.

4. Marquardt report NAS7-377 [iv]

a. These equations are from a report by The Marquardt Corporation in 1966.
They are published in NAS7-377, a study of composite propulsion systems on
launch vehicle mass. The study vehicle is TSTO, and takes off horizontally.
The first stage uses the composite propulsion system on multiple body
configurations. The lifting body version of the first stage can be seen in Figure
2 with the second stage attached. Conical and cylindrical body versions were
also modeled with these equations.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-10

 b. The second stage is a rocket powered lifting body, based on a previously
designed second stage by General Dynamics and Convair. These equations
originate from report GD/C-DCB-65-018 [v].

Figure 2: TSTO composite propulsion first stage with rocket powered lifting body
second stage nestled on top. [ref. 4]

5. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, Daniel P. Raymer [vi]

As the title implies, equations from Raymer are intended for use on aircraft. Only
his equations for fighter/attack aircraft are provided in this database since they are
subject to high speeds and similar redundancy requirements as space vehicles.

6. Bobby Brothers
Brothers’ equations are derived primarily from expendable vehicles and the Space
Shuttle. He provides the most extensive set of equations, including multiple
equations for many components, and careful delineation of parts based on their
function and load in a vehicle. Some equations are taken from AVID, a sizing

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-11

 code developed by A. W. Wilhite at NASA Langley Research Center. When
applicable, he also uses aircraft derived equations.

7. Airplane Design, Dr. Jan Roskam [vii]

Roskam’s focus is on aircraft, including everything from single propeller planes
to fighter jets. For this database, only jet vehicles were considered, and almost
exclusively fighter aircraft.

8. Forbis and Kotker, The Boeing Company [viii]

This paper is aimed at the design of hypersonic aerospace vehicles. The only
portion of this paper used is for landing gear weight.

9. Forbis and Woodhead, The Boeing Company [ix]

This paper is also aimed at hypersonic aerospace vehicle analysis, and it appears
to be an extension of the work done in the other listed paper by Forbis. Only the
landing gear weight is used from this source.

10. AC-Sizer, NASA MSFC

This data was taken from a spreadsheet sizing program written by D. R. Komar
and company at NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center. Both rocket and air-
breathing vehicles are provided. The primary use is for modeling future
technology vehicles with wings, both air-breathing and rocket powered.
a. Many of the equations provided are from Alpha Technologies’ MER database.
Alpha Technologies is run by Bobby Brothers, so many equations are derived
from those in source 6, above.
b. Wing MERs are from Boeing report AFWAL-TR-87-3056 on hypersonic
aerospace vehicles.
c. Landing gear is from report GDA-DCB-64-073.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-12

11. Hawkins [x]
This source is focused purely on weight growth through the design cycle. The
data presented is taken from a paper presented at a Society of Allied Weight
Engineers Conference in Detroit Michigan, 23-25 May, 1988.

12. Dr. Ted Talay, NASA LaRC

This is from a presentation from the Space Systems Division at NASA Langley
Research Center to Dave Pine, Code B at NASA Headquarters on June 10, 1993.
It is titled “Effect of Concept Maturity on Weight Growth and Cost Estimation.”
Of primary interest is a chart showing dry weight growth on NASA space vehicle
projects through the development cycle.

V Future Work
This database is only a start towards improving mass estimation for launch vehicles. In
the future more equations need to be added as they become available. A second baseline
point would also be very useful, especially a vehicle that uses current technologies, and
has a different configuration than the Space Shuttle. This would allow verification of
nearly all the equations provided in the database, and would lend some merit to the
design of future vehicles. Further if an equation could predict the mass of both vehicles
well, there would be improved confidence in the accuracy of the trend.

VI Acknowledgements
Due to the nature of the work, much of the data collected would not be available without
the help of others. Mr. Bobby Brothers has been very helpful in providing data and
information on the topic, and answering questions. D.R. Komar also has been generous
in his contributions of equations to the database. Finally, Dr. John Olds has been
instrumental in helping find data sources.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-13

 References
i MacConochie, I.O., “Shuttle Design Data and Mass Properties,” prepared under
contract NAS1-19000, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company, April
1992.
ii MacConochie, I.O., Klich, P.J., “Techniques for the Determination of Mass
Properties of Earth – To – Orbit Transportation Systems,” NASA Technical
Memorandum 78661, June 1978.
iii Olds, J. R., "Multidisciplinary Design Techniques Applied to Conceptual
Aerospace Vehicle Design," Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, June 1993.
iv Escher, W.J.D., Flornes, B.J., “A Study of Composite Propulsion Systems for
Advanced Launch Vehicle Applications,” final report under NASA Contract
NAS7-377, the Marquardt Corporation Report No. 25,294, September 1966 (7
volumes). [NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility no. X67-
19028/19034]
v Brady, J.F., Lynch, R.A., “Reusable Orbital Transport Second Summary
Technical Report,” GD/C-DCB-65-018, Volume I, Contract NAS8-11463, April
1965. [NASA Scientific and Technical Information Facility no. 65X-17521]
vi Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach. Washington D.C.,
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1999.
vii Roskam, Dr. Jan. Airplane Design, Part V: Component Weight Estimation.
Ottawa, Kansas, 1989.
viii Forbis, J.C., Kotker, D.J., “Conceptual Design and Analysis of Hypervelocity
Aerospace Vehicles, Volume 1 – Mass Properties,” final report for period June
1986 – March 1987, prepared under contract AFWAL-TR-87-3056 by the Boeing
Aerospace Company of Seattle Washington, February 1988.
ix Forbis, J.C., Woodhead, G.E., “Conceptual Design and Analysis of Hypervelocity
Aerospace Vehicles, Volume 1 – Mass Properties, Section 2 – Aerospace –
Vehicle Mass Properties System,” final report for the period July 1988 – October
1990, prepared by Boeing Military Airplanes, Seattle Washington, October 1990.
x Hawkins, K., “Space vehicle and Associated Subsystem Weight Growth,” SAWE
paper 1816, May, 1988.

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-14

 1.0 Wing

1.0 Wing
AR – Aspect ratio (b2/Sref) Sref (Shaded) Sexp (Shaded)
ARexp – Exposed aspect ratio (bexp2/Sexp)
b – Wing span
bbody – Maximum width of the body
bexp – Span of exposed wing (b-bbody at wing root)
bcthru – Width of wing carry through
bstr – Wing structural span along the half chord line (picture)
cxx – Wing chord at xx location
Fsafety – Safety factor
Mwing – Mass of all components in wing group
Mwing_exp – Mass of exposed wing
Mcthru – Mass of wing carry thru structure
Melevons – Mass of elevons and attach structure
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle Ctip
Scsw
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Pexp – Exposed wing planform loading (lb/ft2) Cexp_root
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure (lb/ft2) b
bcthru Croot
Rt – Taper ratio ( ctip/croot )
Sbody – Planform area of the body
Scsw – Planform of wing mounted control surfaces
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Sfairing – Surface area of wing fairing
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area
Sstrakes – Planform area of wing strakes

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-1

 1.0 Wing

STEextensions – Planform area of trailing edge extensions

txx – Wing max thickness at xx location
TRF – Technology reduction factor
Λ – Wing sweep at 25% MAC
θle – Sweep angle of leading edge

Sbody bstr

bbody

θle
L

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-2

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Materials, and wing tanks.
2%
0.386
⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
[K ]
0.572
⎢ 1 ⎥ ⎛ S exp ⎞
M wing = ⎢ N z M land ⎥ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ bstr
0.572
+ K ct bbody
0.572

⎛ S body ⎞⎥
wing
⎢ ⎝ t root ⎠
1 + η⎜ ⎟
⎢ ⎜S ⎟⎥
⎣ ⎝ exp ⎠⎦

Exposed wing material/configuration constants

Kwing = 0.286 – Aluminum skin/stringer, dry wing, no TPS
= 0.343 – same as above but wet wing for storable propellants
= 0.229 – metallic composite (Boron Aluminum) honeycomb dry wing, no TPS
= 0.263 – same as above but wet wing for storable propellant such as RP
= 0.214 – Organic composite honeycomb, no TPS
= 0.453 – Honeycomb dry wing super alloy hot structure, no TPS required

Wing carry-thru constants

Kct = 0.0267 – dry carry-thru (integral)
= 0.0347 – wet carry-thru (integral)
= 0.100 – dry carry-thru (conventional)
= 0.120 – wet carry-thru (conventional)

Wing/body efficiency factor

η = 0.20 – for conventional vehicle to
= 0.15 – for control configured vehicle.

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-3

 1.0 Wing

bbody – Maximum width of the body

bstr – Wing structural span along the half chord line
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Sbody – Planform area of the body
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
troot – Wing thickness at root

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-4

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: Wing material technology.
-13%
0.4
⎡1 + Rt ⎤
0.48
⎡ N z M land ⎤
M wing −exp = 0.82954⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1000 ⎥
0.67
S exp 0.67
ARexp (1 − TRF )
⎣ tc ⎦ ⎣ ⎦

⎡ M land N z ⎤ ⎡ bstr bbody ⎤

[
M cthru = 0.00636 (1 − Rt )ARexp ]
0.5
⎢ 1000 ⎥ ⎢ t ⎥ (1 − TRF )
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ root ⎦

TRF = 1.0 – for aluminum skin stringer construction

= 0.4 – for Ti3Al Beta 21S w/SiC

ARexp – Exposed aspect ratio (bexp2/Sexp)

bbody – Maximum width of the body
bstr – Wing structural span along the half chord line
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Rt – Taper ratio ( ctip/croot )
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
troot – Wing thickness at root
(t/c) – Thickness to chord ratio on the wing

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-5

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC. Comparison
Options: None.
43%
0.584
⎡ M entry N z bstr S ref ⎤
M wing = 2375⎢ ⎥
⎣ t root × 10
9
⎦

bstr – Wing structural span along the half chord line

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area
troot – Wing thickness at root

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-6

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: Maximum airbreathing Mach number.
N/A
M wing _ exp = K wing S exp Includes exposed wing and carry through

Kwing = 9.847 – for max airbreathing Mach number of 8?

Sexp – Exposed wing planform area

M elevons = K elevons S csw Mass of elevons using columbium, including hardware

Kelevons = 11.51 – max airbreathing Mach number of 8

= 13.70 – max airbreathing Mach number of 12
Scsw – Planform of wing mounted control surfaces

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-7

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M elevons = 9.4(0.14 S body ) + 0.07 S body
Elevons and attachment for lifting body second stage.
Sbody – Planform area of the body

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-8

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Varying wing shapes.
-54%
M wing = 0.0103K dw K vs (M gross N z ) S ( ) (1 + Rt ) (cos Λ )
0.5 0.622 0.785 t − 0.4 0.05 −1 0.04
ref AR c root S csw

Wing configuration factors

Kdw = 0.768 – for delta wing
= 1.0 – otherwise
Kvs = 1.19 – for variable sweep
= 1.0 – otherwise
Nz here is the ultimate load factor = 1.5*limit load factor
1.5 is the typical factor of safety and the limit load factor is typically 2.5

AR – Aspect ratio (b2/Sref)

Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Rt – Taper ratio ( ctip/croot )
Scsw – Planform of wing mounted control surfaces
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area
(t/c)root – Thickness to chord ratio at the wing root
Λ – Wing sweep at 25% MAC

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-9

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: AVID equations from LaRC adjusted to Space Shuttle, includes aircraft for curve fit. Comparison
Options: Two equations with different parameters.
1%
0.67
⎡ M land 3.75bS exp ⎤
M wing −exp = 1575⎢ 9 ⎥
Primary wing equation
⎣ c root ( c ) × 10 ⎦
t

⎡1.06c root (bcthru ) ⎤

0.67
⎡ M land 3.75bS exp ⎤
M wing −carrythru =⎢ ⎥1575⎢ 9 ⎥
⎢⎣ S ref ⎥⎦ ⎣ c root ( c ) × 10 ⎦
t

[
M wing − fairing = S fairing .0002499 q max + 1.7008 + (.00003695 q max − .003252 )bbody ]
b – Wing span
bbody – maximum width of the body
croot – Wing chord at exposed root
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
qmax – maximum dynamic pressure (psf)
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Sfairing – Surface area of wing fairing
Sref – theoretical wing planform area
(t/c) – Thickness to chord ratio on the wing

2%
M wing −exp = 1.498S 1.176
ref Includes carry through, and is considered a secondary equation.

Sref – theoretical wing planform area

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-10

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 7 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft Comparison
Options: fixed or variable sweep wings.
-35%
⎡⎧ (K N M )⎫⎧⎪⎛
0.593
1 − Rt ⎞
2
⎫⎪ ⎤
M wing ⎢
= 3.08 ⎨
w z glow
⎬ ⎨⎜⎜ tan(θ le ) − 2 ⎟⎟ + 1.0⎬10 −6 ⎥ {AR(1 + Rt )}0.89 S ref0.741
⎢⎩ ( t c )max ⎭⎪⎩⎝ AR (1 + Rt ) ⎠ ⎪⎭ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Kw = 1.0 – for fixed wing airplanes

= 1.175 – for variable sweep wing airplanes

AR – aspect ratio (b2/Sref)

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle
Nz – ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Rt – taper ratio ( ctip/croot )
Sref – theoretical wing planform area
(t/c)max – Maximum thickness to chord ratio on the wing
θle – sweep angle of leading edge

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-11

 1.0 Wing

Reference: 10b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Hypervelocity Aircraft Comparison
Options: Continuous our discontinuous carry thru, landing gear location, strakes, trailing edge extension, and more.
-34%
M wing _ box = K wing K lcf K trc K arc K tac K swc K bwc K gear K dwr K tm K ps K dc + K dw

Elastic Axis Sweep =30deg ?

bexp=baero ?

1.334
Kwing = 0.7072S ref - for continuous wing/carry-thru structures
1.334
= 0.7072S exp - for discontinuous wing/carry-thru structures (mid mount wings)
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Sref – theoretical wing planform area

Klfc – loading correction factor = 0.00286N z0.581 Pexp + 0.1624 N z0.5585

Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Pexp – Exposed wing planform loading (lb/ft2)

−1.385
⎛t⎞
Ktrc – taper ratio correction factor = 0.0141⎜ ⎟ + 0.758
⎝ c ⎠ struct
(t/c)struct – Thickness to chord ratio of the wing structure

Karc – aspect ratio correction factor = 0.0588 ARexp

1.148
+ 0.28
ARexp – Aspect ratio of the exposed wing (b2exp/Sexp)

Ktac – taper ratio correction factor = 0.47 Rt + 0.833

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-12

 1.0 Wing

Rt – Wing taper ratio = tip chord over centerline root chord

Kswc – sweepback correction factor = 0.9031cos(θ elastic _ axis ) −1.282

θelastic_axis – unknown number??
2
bbody ⎛ bbody ⎞
Kbwc – body width correction factor = 1.011 − 0.07 − 0.5⎜ ⎟
bexp ⎜b ⎟
⎝ exp ⎠
bbody – maximum width of vehicle body
bexp – Exposed wing span = wing span less bbody

Kgear – landing gear support penalty = 1.1 – for wing mounted gear, 1.0 – otherwise

Kdwr – dead weight relief factor

= 1.0 – for wing without fuel or vertical tail
⎛ M f _ wing D f _ wing + M vert _ wing Dvert ⎞
= −1.2⎜ ⎟ − for wings with fuel and vertical tails attached.
⎜ 0 . 5 M D ⎟
⎝ wing cp ⎠

Dvert – distance from vehicle centerline to CG of wing mounted vertical tail

Df_wing – distance from vehicle centerline to CG of wing stored fuel
Dcp – distance from vehicle centerline to wing center of pressure
Mf_wing – mass of fuel in the wing
Mvert_wing – mass of vertical control surfaces attached to the wing
Mwing – mass of the wing

Ktm – temperature and materials factor

= 1.0 – for aluminum
= 1.15 – for titanium
= 2.8 – for nickel based superalloy

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-13

 1.0 Wing

= 0.88 – for cold composite

= 0.92 – for titanium composite

Kps – panel stiffness factor = 1.92 – for ceramic TPS, 1.0 – otherwise

Kdc – design concept factor = 0.97 – for thick truss structure design, 1.0 – otherwise

Kdw – discontinuous wing structural penalty = 0.0 – for continuous wing/carry-thru structures
1
( )
= M wing _ boxcontinuous − M wing _ boxdiscontinuous − for discontinuous wing/carry-thru structures
3

−0.2098
⎛ bbody ⎞
M wing _ misc = 0.1716 S 0.564⎜
1.275 ⎟
⎜b ⎟
exp
⎝ exp ⎠
bbody – maximum width of vehicle body
bexp – Exposed wing span = wing span less bbody

M wing _ extensions = 6(S strakes + S TEextensions )

Sstrakes – planform area of wing strakes

STEextensions – planform area of trailing edge extensions

Georgia Institute of Technology 1-14

 2.0 Tail

Ctip
2.0 Tail Svert
ARvert – Aspect ratio of vertical tail or tip fins
bbody – Maximum width of the body bvert
bvert – Span of tail or tip fins
ctip – Tip chord of vertical tail or wingtip fins
M – Maximum flight Mach number
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load) Croot
Rvert – Taper ratio of vertical tail or tip fins ( ctip/croot )
Srud – Planform area of rudder
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
(t/c)vert – Thickness to chord ratio of the vertical tail or wingtip fins Srud
TRF – Technology reduction factor
Λvert – Sweep angle at 25% MAC

Sbody

bbody

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-1

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Materials.
23%
M tail = K t (S vert )
1.24

Kt =1.872 – aluminum skin/stringer, no TPS

=1.108 – metallic composite structure, no TPS
=1.000 − graphite epoxy composite structure, no TPS

Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-2

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: Wing material technology.
36%
M tail = 5.0 S 1.09
vert (1 − TRF )

TRF =1.0 – aluminum skin/stringer structure

=0.2 – Ti3Al Beta 21s

Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-3

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC. Comparison
Options: None.
13%
M tail = 1.678 S 1.24
vert

Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-4

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: Maximum airbreathing Mach number.
22%
M tail = K vert S vert using
Kvert=7.68
Kvert = 7.68 – for max airbreathing Mach number of 8
= 9.20 – for max airbreathing Mach number of 12

Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-5

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
89%
M tail = 6.8(0.2 S body ) + 0.15 S body Vertical tail mass for a lifting body upper stage.

Sbody – Planform area of the body

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-6

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Varying tail shapes.
28%
M tail = 0.452(M glow N z ) −1 ⎛ ⎞
0.348 Nz = 3.75
ARvert (1 + Rvert ) (cos(Λ vert ) )−0.323
S
⎜1 + rud S ⎟
0.488 0.718 0.25
S vert M 0.341bvert
⎝ vert ⎠
0%
Nz = 2.25
Assumes no T-tail and no rolling tail.

ARvert – Aspect ratio of vertical tail or tip fins

bvert – Span of tail or tip fins
M – Maximum flight Mach number
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Rvert – Taper ratio of vertical tail or tip fins
Srud – Planform area of rudder
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
Λvert – Sweep angle at 25% MAC

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-7

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Boeing aircraft tail equations adjusted for Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Component inclusion.
The following three equations must be summed to find the total tail mass. -8%

(
M tail = 26.06 S vert ( t c )vert bvert
0.244
0.0364
)
0.8674

ctip bvert
M vert _ spar = M tail
2S vert

M fairing = S fairing (0.02499 q max + 1.7008 + (0.003695 q max − 0.3252 )bbody )

bbody – Maximum width of the body

bvert – Span of tail or tip fins
ctip – Tip chord of vertical tail or wingtip fins
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight
Sfairing – Surface area of tail fairing
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
(t/c)vert – Thickness to chord ratio of the vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-8

 2.0 Tail

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
9%
[
M tail = 28.1 (S vert )
0.901
R vertb vert ]
0.244 0.0364 0.8674

bvert – Span of tail or tip fins

Rvert – Taper ratio of vertical tail or tip fins
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 2-9

 3.0 Body

3.0 Body
Aas – surface area of aft structure
Abody – surface area of vehicle body Sbody
Abody-tank – exposed area of body minus exposed area of integral tanks
Aexit – Total exit area of main engines
Ainlet – cross sectional area of inlet bbody
Atank – Surface area of tank
bbody – Maximum width of the body
Deng – Diameter of a main engine
Dnose – Diameter of the nosecone base
Fullage – Ullage fraction (typically ~4 to 5%) L
Fprop – Propellant fraction of either oxidizer or fuel
Hbody – height of body
Hinlet – Height of engine inlet
Isp – Specific impulse of engines
L – Length of vehicle
Linlet – Length of engine inlet
Ls – Length of single duct (for Y inlet ducts)
m& − Total propellant mass flow rate (lbm/s)
Mbody – Total mass of body group
Meng – Mass of a single main engine
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Mpl – Mass of payload
Mstrapon – Mass of strap on boosters
Mtot_fuel – Mass of all fuel on stage
Mtot_ox – Mass of all oxidizer on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-1

 3.0 Body

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Ninlet – Number of inlets
Nstruts – Number of struts in engine inlet
Nt – Number of fuel tanks
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
P2 – Pressure in inlet
Pf – Pressure of fuel tank
Pox – Pressure of oxidizer tank
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sas – Surface area of aft skirt
Sbase – Surface area of base closeout
Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sec – Surface area of engine compartment
Sf – Surface area of fuel tanks
Sfwds – Surface area of forward skirt
Sinlet – Surface area of inlet and cowl ring
Sis – Surface area of interstage structure
Sit – Surface area of intertank structure
Snose – Surface area of nosecone
Sns_cowl – Non-inlet surface area of cowl
Sox – Surface area of oxidizer tanks
Spl – Surface area of payload bay, not including doors
Spldoors – Surface area of payload bay doors
Stc – Surface area of tail cone
SFC – Specific fuel consumption
Tsls – Total stage thrust at sea level static conditions
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vcrew – Volume of crew cabin

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-2

 3.0 Body

Vf – Total fuel volume

Vi – Fuel volume in integral tanks
Vox – Total oxidizer volume
ρf – Density of fuel
ρox – Density of oxidizer
θnose – Nose cone angle

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-3

 3.0 Body

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Materials, windshield, and tanks..
-7%
M body = K c N 0.5
crew + K b Abody N 1/ 3
z + K f V f + K oxV1.1
ox + K t (N eng Tvac ) + K bf S 1.15
bf
Assumes no
ascent
propellant in
Crew cabin constants
orbiter.
Kc = 2043 – full windshield aluminum construction
= 1293 – aluminum construction with no windshield
= 1740 – full windshield composite construction
= 1140 – composite construction with no windshield

Body construction constants

Kb = 2.72 – composite structure, no TPS
= 3.20 – aluminum structure, no composites, no TPS
= 3.40 – hot metallic Ti/Rene HC, no TPS required
= 4.43 – moldline tankage; tank, body structure, cryogenic insulation integrated

Tank geometry/propellant constants

Kf, and Kox – see table below.

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-4

 3.0 Body

Table showing tank constants from [ref. 1].

* EN designates in-house LARC study vehicles.

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-5

 3.0 Body

Kt = 0.0030 – aluminum thrust structure

= 0.0024 – composite thrust structure

Body flap construction constants

Kbf = 1.59 – hot structure
= 1.38 – aluminum skin/stringer, no TPS

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

Mbody – Total mass of body group
Ncrew – Number of crew
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-6

 3.0 Body

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: Material technology.
-42%
M no sec one = K nc S nose

M crew _ cabin = 1455N crew

0.5

M pl _ bay = K pl S pl + K pldoors S pldoors + 0.15 M pl

M fuel _ tan k = K f V f + K f _ ins S f includes insulation

M ox _ tan k = K oxVox + K ox _ ins S ox includes insulation

M aft _ body = K tc S tc + K base S base

M cowl = K ns _ cowl S ns _ cowl + 2 K inlet S inlet + K struts Linlet H inlet N struts airbreather only

Knc = 2.21 – Ti3Al Beta 21S

Kpl = 2.21 – Ti3Al Beta 21S
Kpldoors = 3.5 – 20% less than STS honeycomb doors (incl. fittings & mechanisms)
Kf = 0.255 – Hydrogen, wound integral Gr/PEEK
Kf_ins = 0.26 – Based on rohacell insulation
Kox = 0.33 – LOX, aluminum lithium, non-integral
Kox_ins = 0.20 – Based on rohacell insulation
Ktc = 2.21 – Ti3Al Beta 21S
Kbase = 1.99 – Secondary structure (10% lower than baseline?)

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-7

 3.0 Body

Kns_cowl =2.21 – Ti3Al Beta21S

Kinlet = 2.75 – Advanced materials, 150psi, top & bottom required
Kstruts = 2.21 – Baseline structural unit weight

Snose – Surface area of nosecone

Spl – Surface area of payload bay, not including doors
Spldoors – Surface area of payload bay doors
Mpl – Mass of payload
Sf – Surface area of fuel tanks
Sox – Surface area of oxidizer tanks
Stc – Surface area of tail cone
Sbase – Surface area of base closeout
Sns_cowl – Non-inlet surface area of cowl
Sinlet – Surface area of inlet and cowl ring
Linlet – Length of engine inlet
Hinlet – Height of engine inlet
Ncrew – Number of crew
Nstruts – Number of struts in engine inlet
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-8

 3.0 Body

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-3%
M fuse = 3.4 Abody − tan ks Includes fore, aft, mid fuselage, and payload bay doors

M sec ondary = 2.0(S base + S pl ) Add any other secondary structures’ areas specific to vehicle

M crew _ cabin = 2347 N crew

0.5

M bf = 3.135 S bf

M thrust _ struct = 0.0023Tvac N eng

K fVf
M fuel _ tan k =
(1 − Fullage )

K oxVox
M ox _ tan k =
(1 − Fullage )

Kf = 0.5595 – Shuttle technology

Kox = 0.8086 – Shuttle technology

Abody-tank – Exposed area of body minus exposed area of integral tanks

Fullage – Ullage fraction (typically ~4 to 5%)
Ncrew – Number of crew
Neng – Number of main engines on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-9

 3.0 Body

Sbase – Surface area of base closeout

Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Spl – Surface area of payload bay, not including doors
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-10

 3.0 Body

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: Maximum airbreathing Mach number, engine type, and body type.
N/A
M aft _ struct = K as Aas Inconel 718 aft structure mass Air-breathing
vehicles only
Kas = 2.86 – Max airbreathing Mach number of 8
= 3.10 – Max airbreathing Mach number of 12
Aas – surface area of aft structure

M thrust = K thrust Tsls Thrust structure mass for aibreathing booster vehicle

Kthrust = 0.01025 – Thrust acting below body (ie. Ramjet)

= 0.0070 – Thrust acting on aft expansion surface (ie. Scramjet)
Tsls – Total stage thrust at sea level static conditions

M fuel _ tan ks = K fuel M tot _ fuel

Mass of liquid hydrogen tanks for an airbreathing booster vehicle. This tank is integral with the forebody of
the vehicle and includes structure.

Kfuel = 0.259 – Augmented rocket

= 0.409 – Ejector ramjet, or supercharged ejector ramjet
= 0.416 – Ejector scramjet, or supercharged ejector scramjet
= 0.341 – RL, or RRL, or SRL, or RSRL
= 0.339 – SL, or RSL, or SSL, or RSSL

Mtot_fuel – Mass of all fuel on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-11

 3.0 Body

M ox _ tan ks = 0.0255 M tot _ ox Mass of liquid oxygen tanks for an airbreathing booster vehicle

Mtot_oxl – Mass of all oxidizer on stage

M cowl = K cowl Ainlet Mass of inlets

Kcowl = 175 – Cylindrical body with wing configuration, 120 psia inlet pressure
= 154 – Lifting body configuration, subsonic combustion, 120 psia inlet pressure
= 125 – Lifting body configuration, supersonic combustion, 120 psia inlet pressure
= See chart for different inlet pressures.

Ainlet – cross sectional area of inlet

M crew _ cabin = 1400 + 860 Fixed mass for crew cabin structure, and personnel compartment.

M separation = 0.0133M insert

Separation system on booster stage, piggy-back configuration. Includes separation rockets, mounting system,
and controls.

Minsert – Orbital insertion mass of vehicle, sometimes called burnout mass.

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-12

 3.0 Body

Chart showing inlet weight per square foot of inlet area as a function of inlet pressure for three different vehicle
configurations. Source [ref. 4].

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-13

 3.0 Body

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M body = 3.0724 Abody + 0.0008Tvac N eng Lifting body
Body mass including fuselage, thrust structure, and miscellaneous, for a lifting body upper stage. design

M crew _ cabin = 1801 + 1.15Vcrew + 180

Mass of crew cabin and windscreen/canopy. This reference recommends that the volume for the crew be
calculated as: Vcrew = 60Ncrew+255

M aft _ skirt = 0.224 S body

Mass of aft skirt, aerodynamic fairing over engines.
Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body

M ox _ tan k = 0.0181M tot _ ox

Mass of liquid oxygen tank for lifting body second stage
Mtot_ox – Mass of all oxidizer on stage

M f _ tan k = 0.1188 M tot _ fuel

Mass of liquid hydrogen tank for lifting body second stage, including mounting.
Mtot_fuel – Mass of all fuel on stage

M f _ ins = 1.555V f0.666

Mass of insulation for liquid hydrogen tank on lifting body second stage.
Vf – Total fuel volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-14

 3.0 Body

M plbay = 1.4V plbay

Mass of payload bay, including doors.
Recommended cargo volume is: Vplbay = 0.111Mpl
Vplbay – Volume of payload bay

M sep _ syst = 220

Mass of separation system on second stage lifting body, piggy-back config.

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-15

 3.0 Body

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Different inlet geometry including variable shape, and wing shape.
-26%
M fuse = 0.499K dwf M 0.35
gross N 0.25
z
0.5
L H 0.849 0.685
b
body body

M thrust _ struct = 0.013N eng Tvac N z + 0.01M eng

0.795 0.579 0.717
N eng N z

−.0373
⎛ Ls ⎞
M cowl = 13.29 K vg L 0.643
inlet K 0.182
duct N 1.498
eng
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Deng based on fighter aircraft inlet ducts
⎝ Linlet ⎠

−0.095
⎛ V ⎞ 0.052 ⎛ Tvac SFC ⎞
0.249

M fuel _ tan ks = 7.45V ⎜1 + i ⎟

0.47
N t0.066 N eng ⎜ ⎟ JP fuel tanks only
f ⎜ V ⎟ ⎝ 1000 ⎠
⎝ f ⎠
Kdwf = 0.774 – for delta wing
= 1.0 – otherwise
Kvg = 1.62 – for variable geometry inlet
= 1.0 – fixed geometry inlet
Kduct = 1.0 – circular inlet
= 1.31 – half circle inlet
= 2.2 – square and circle combination inlet (stretched D)
= 2.75 – square inlet
= 1.68 – ellipsoid, height to width ratio of 1.5:1
= 2.6 – ellipsoid, height to width ratio of 2:1
= 3.43 – smile shape (ie. F-16), height to width ratio of 1:3.2

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-16

 3.0 Body

Inlet duct geometry coefficients [ref. 5].

bbody – Maximum width of the body
Deng – Diameter of a main engine
Hbody – height of body
L – Vehicle length
Ls – Length of single duct (for Y inlet ducts)
Meng – Mass of a single main engine
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Nt – Number of fuel tanks
Nz – Ultimate load factor = 1.5*2.5 (factor of safety * limit load)
SFC – Specific fuel consumption
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vi – Fuel volume in integral tanks

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-17

 3.0 Body

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Fuselage from aircraft & Space Shuttle, others from Space Shuttle and expendable vehicles. Comparison
Options: Stage number, attachment configuration.
Shuttle comparison includes fuselage, nosecap, thrust structure, payload bay and doors, crew cabin, and stage to stage 2%
attachment structure.

M fuse = 2.167 Abody

1.075
Mass of vehicle body, including base

(
⎡ 14.31 − 0.003462 q max θ nose
= S nose ⎢
)
(0.0001034 qmax − 0.5878 )
+ ⎤
⎥ right cone
{( ) ( ) }
M nose
⎣⎢ 0.0006864 − 6.1e q max θ nose + 4.385e q max − 3.252e Dnose ⎥⎦
−9 −5 −3

[ (
M nose = S nose 2.499e −4 q max + 1.7008 + 3.695e −5 q max − 3.252e −3 Dnose ) ] ellipsoid

M ox _ tan k = (2.44 − 0.007702ρ ox )Vox(0.8548+ 0.0003189ρox ) P<55psi

M ox _ tan k = (1.3012 + 0.0099 Pox )Vox(0.8647 Pox )

0.01645
150<P<1200psi, steel tank

M f _ tan k = (2.44 − 0.007702 ρ f )V f

(0.8548+ 0.0003189 ρ f )
P<55psi

(0.8647 P )
M f _ tan k = (1.3012 + 0.0099Pf )V f
0.01645
f
150<P<1200psi, steel tank

m& F prop
M antivortex = (0.64 + 0.0184ρ ) adapt for propellant type
ρ

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-18

 3.0 Body

ρ2
M slosh _ baffles = 6.77e −7 bbodyV adapt for propellant type
1.01
For Mantivortex and Mslosh_baffles the volume, density and Fprop need to have the correct subscript for the fluid in the
tank. For example for a LOX tank Fprop would be the oxidizer fraction, V would be the oxidizer tank volume,
and ρ would be the density of LOX.

M int er tan k = S it K it bbody

kit 2
Structure between tanks for inline configuration
Kit = 26.36 – stage 1 of 1
= 27.04 – stage 1 of 2
= 21.47 – stage 2 of 2
Kit2 = 0.5169 – stage 1 of 1 or stage 1 of 2
= 0.6025 – stage 2 of 2

M int erstage = S is K is bbody

K is 2
Structure connecting two stages of an inline vehicle
Kis = 17.92 – stage 1 of 1
= 18.57 – stage 1 of 2
= 22.94 – stage 2 of 2
Kis2 = 0.4856 – stage 1 of 1 or stage 1 of 2
= 0.6751 – stage 2 of 2

M fwd _ skirt = S fwds K fwds bbodyfwds 2

K
Mass of structure between forward tank and payload or next stage
Kfwds = 37.35 – stage 1 of 1
= 38.70 – stage 1 of 2
= 15.46 – stage 2 of 2
Kfwds2 = 0.6722 – stage 1 of 1 or stage 1 of 2
= 0.5210 – stage 2 of 2

M thrust = K thrust Tvac

1.0687
Thrust structure mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-19

 3.0 Body

Kthrust = 1.949e-3 – inline launch vehicle

= 7.995e-4 – side mount propulsion module (orbiter type)

M eng _ comp = S ec K ec bbody

K ec 2
structure from aft tank to interstage or pad tie-down
Kec = 31.66 – stage 1 of 1
= 32.48 – stage 1 of 2
= 15.97 – stage 2 of 2
Kec2 = 0.5498 – stage 1 of 1 or stage 1 of 2
= 0.4676 – stage 2 of 2

[ ( )
M aft _ skirt = S as 2.499e −4 q max + 1.7008 + 3.695e −5 q max − 3.252e −3 bbody ] aerodynamic fairing

M stg _ attach = 0.0148(M gross + M pl )

Orbiter type vehicle to ET or booster stage where attach structure stays with ET or booster stage.

M stg _ attach = 0.00148 M strapon

SRB to ET or core stage where attach structure stays with ET or booster stage

M stg _ attach = 0.000314 M strapon SRB attach structure stays with SRB

[
M crew _ cabin = 28.31 39.66(N crew N days ) ]
1.002 0.6916

Abody
M pldoors = 0.257 Payload bay doors including hardware
2

Abody
M plbay = 0.4808 Abody + 0.2336 Internal cargo bay mass, including support structure (ie.STS)
2

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-20

 3.0 Body

Abody – Surface area of the vehicle body

bbody – Maximum width of the body
Dnose – Diameter of the nosecone base
Fprop – Propellant fraction of either oxidizer or fuel
m& − Total propellant mass flow rate (lbm/s)
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Mpl – Mass of payload
Mstrapon – Mass of strap on boosters
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit
Pf – Pressure of fuel tank
Pox – Pressure of oxidizer tank
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sas – Surface area of aft skirt
Sec – Surface area of engine compartment
Sfwds – Surface area of forward skirt
Sis – Surface area of interstage structure
Sit – Surface area of intertank structure
Snose – Surface area of the nosecone
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume
ρf – Density of fuel
ρox – Density of oxidizer
θnose – Nose cone angle

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-21

 3.0 Body

Reference: 7 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Inlet geometry and pressure.
3%
0.71
⎛ M glow ⎞ ⎛ L ⎞
0.283 0.95
1.42 ⎛ q max ⎞
M fuse = 20.86 K inl ⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ ⎟
100 ⎝ 1000 ⎠ ⎝ body ⎠
H
Fuselage mass based on fighter planes using the General Dynamics method.

(
M cowl = K inlet N inlet S inlet
0 .5
)
0.731
Linlet P2
Cowl mass based on aircraft inlets
Kinlet = 3.0 – turbojet
= 7.435 – turbofan
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
L – Length of vehicle
Hbody – height of body
Ninlet – Number of inlets
Linlet – Length of engine inlet
P2 – Pressure in inlet
Sinlet – Surface area of inlet and cowl ring

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-22

 3.0 Body

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: Integral or non-integral tanks.
Shuttle comparison includes the rocket fuselage, body flap, payload bay and doors, crew cabin, stage to stage -9%
attachment, and separation system.

(
M fuse = 2.8279 0.682 + 0.272 ρ veh / 9.55 + 0.046(ρ veh / 9.55) Abody
2
) Airbreather smeared fuse

⎡0.000011689(Tsls N eng bbody )0.9846 ⎤

M fuse (
= 2.0833 A +⎢
1.075
) ⎥ Rocket smeared fuse
⎢⎣+ 5.02(S base − Aexit )
body
⎥⎦
Integral tanks are included in the body area for these equations.

⎧ ⎫
[ ]
⎪ (2.44 − 0.007702 ρ )V (0.8548+ 0.0003189 ρ ) + ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎡ Tsls (1 − R ) ⎤ ⎪
M non −int egral − tan ks = 1.68⎨⎢ (0.64 + 0.0184ρ )⎥ + ⎬ (source 10a)
⎪ ⎣ Isp ρ ⎦ ⎪
⎪ V ⎪
⎪0.000000677bbody ρ2 ⎪
⎩ 1.01 ⎭
Valid for all propellant types, includes slosh baffles, anti-vortex baffles, and are intended for use with pump fed
engines in the horizontal mounting position.

M insulation _ non int egral _ tan k = 0.2 Atan k For non-integral tanks only

M bf = 3.421S bf Body flap mass

M plbay = 0.5108 S pl Payload bay mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-23

 3.0 Body

M pldoors = 0.5623S pldoors Payload bay doors mass

M crew _ cabin = 28.31Vcrew

0.6916
Crew cabin mass

M attach = 0.00155M land State to stage attachment structure, for either booster or orbiter

M sep = 0.0404M insert

0.7728
Booster side of separation system

M sep = 0.00989M gross

0.9182
Orbiter side of separation system

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

Aexit – Total exit area of main engines
Atank – Surface area of tank
bbody – Maximum width of the body
Isp – Specific impulse of engines
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
R – fraction of total ascent propellant that is the propellant used in this tank
Sbase – Surface area of base closeout
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Spl – Surface area of payload bay, not including doors
Spldoors – Surface area of payload bay doors
Tsls – Total stage thrust at sea level static conditions
V – volume of propellant stored in tank
Vcrew – Volume of crew cabin
ρ – density of propellant stored in tank

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-24

 3.0 Body

ρveh – Vehicle bulk density

Georgia Institute of Technology 3-25

 4.0 TPS

4.0 TPS
Aacc – Area of advanced carbon-carbon TPS
Abody – surface area of vehicle body
Abody_tps – Wetted area of TPS on vehicle body Sbody
Aexit – Exit area of main engines
Ains – Wetted area of vehicle covered by insulation
Aref – reference aerodynamic area (front projected shadow area) bbody
Asa_standoff – Area of superalloy standoff TPS
Asb – exposed surface area of speed brakes
Ati_standoff – Area of titanium standoff TPS
Atps – Wetted area of vehicle covered by TPS
CL – Average coefficient of lift from orbit to Mach 10 L
Dnose – Diameter of base of nosecone
Hle – Height of leading edge
Lcowl_le – Length of cowl leading edge
Sexp (Shaded)
Lle – Length of leading edges (wing and nose if applicable)
Lwing_le – Length of wing leading edge
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Ncrew – Number of crew
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body
Sexp – Planform area of exposed wing
Sf – Surface area of fuel tanks
Smono_tank – Surface area of monopropellant tank
Sox – Surface area of oxidizer tanks
Stps – Planform area covered by TPS
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-1

 4.0 TPS

Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine Ctip

Vcrew – Volume of crew cabin
ψle – Leading edge angle (? Sweep or angle of airfoil nose)
Svert
bvert

Croot

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-2

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Materials.
Shuttle comparison uses Cl = 0.65 and Kflow = 0.556. 0%

K flow
⎛ ⎞
0.302
⎛ 1 ⎞
= K r ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜
⎜ (S
M entry
⎟ (A + 2 S exp ) Rocket vehicle, lifting re-entry.
⎝ body + S exp )C L
M tps
⎟ body
⎝ Kt ⎠ ⎠

Kr = 0.140 – RSI (shuttle technology) – material/config. constant

= 0.110 – RSI Advanced
= 0.145 – metallic
Kt = 0.100 – aluminum skin/stringer – equivalent thermal thickness of backup structure (in.)
= 0.085 – titanium
= 0.115 – graphite epoxy
Kflow – Flow constant in the range below.
= 0.5 – Pure laminar flow
= 0.8 – Pure turbulent flow

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

CL – Average coefficient of lift from orbit to Mach 10
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body
Sexp – Planform area of exposed wing

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-3

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: Material technology.
N/A
M active _ cooling = 150 + 2.70 Lcowl _ le + 2.70 Lwing _ le + 3.50 Aexit Different
Based on 5deg. Cone for heat rates (Wilhite) technology
Includes nosecap (150 lbs.), wing leading edges, cowl leading edges, and cooled engine exit are. Primarily
intended for airbreather.

M acc = 2.0 Aacc

Advanced carbon/carbon, based on advanced NASP TPS, Shideler. For T>1800F
Typically used on wing, body, and cowl windward sides.

M sa _ s tan doff = 1.06 Asa _ s tan doff

Superalloy standoff, based on advanced metallic NASP, Shideler. For T>1200F

M ti _ s tan doff = 0.508 Ati _ s tan doff

Titanium standoff, based on advanced metallic NASP, Shideler. For T<1200F

Aacc – Area of advanced carbon-carbon TPS

Aexit – Exit area of main engines
Asa_standoff – Area of superalloy standoff TPS
Ati_standoff – Area of titanium standoff TPS
Lcowl_le – Length of cowl leading edge
Lwing_le – Length of wing leading edge

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-4

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
39%
0 .5
⎛ M entry ⎞
M tps = 0.35⎜ ⎟ Atps Shuttle technology.
⎜ S ⎟
⎝ tps ⎠

Atps – Wetted area of vehicle covered by TPS

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Stps – Planform area covered by TPS

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-5

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: Maximum airbreathing Mach number.
N/A Different
M tps = K tps Atps technology
TPS mass for an airbreathing booster stage using reusable metallic (inconel and columbium shingles) TPS,
including 2% contingency.

Ktps = 1.42 – for maximum airbreathing Mach number of 8

= 1.54 – for maximum airbreathing Mach number of 12

M ins = K ins Ains

Insulation mass for an airbreathing booster stage, including 2% contingency.
Ains – surface area requiring insulation.
Kins = 1.07 – for max airbreathing Mach number of 8
= 1.23 – for max airbreathing mach number of 12

Ains – Wetted area of vehicle covered by insulation

Atps – Wetted area of vehicle covered by TPS

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-6

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
-57%
M ins = 1.51Abody compared to
Mass of external insulation on a lifting body second stage. No cover panels are used. all TPS

249%
M crew _ ins = 5.2Vcrew
0.6666
compared to
Insulation protecting the crew cabin. This reference recommends that the volume for the crew be calculated as: insulation
Vcrew = 60Ncrew+255 only

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

Ncrew – Number of crew
Vcrew – Volume of crew cabin

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-7

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle, ET, and Saturn launch vehicles. Comparison
Options: None.
Shuttle uses the first 7 equations listed. 2%

M tps _ fuse = 1.366 Abody Fuselage TPS

M tps _ wing = 2.845(2 S exp ) Wing TPS

M tps _ vert = 1.572(2 S vert ) Vertical control surface TPS

(
M tps _ bf = 3.468 2S bf ) Body flap TPS

M tps _ base = 0.82 Aref Tvac N eng / 1e 6 Base TPS

For boosters TvacNeng should be replaced with Tsls.

M tps _ sb = 1.366 Asb Speed brake TPS

M insulation = 0.508 Abody Body insulation

M ox _ tan k _ ins = 0.2574 S ox

Oxidizer tank insulation. For boosters only cryogenic oxidizer is insulated.

M f _ tan k _ ins = 0.2361S f

Fuel tank insulation. All cryogenic fuels are insulated. Non cryogenic fuels are not.

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-8

 4.0 TPS

M mono _ tan k _ ins = 0.2574 S mono _ tan k

Mono-propellant tank insulation. All cryogenic mono-propellants are insulated except on booster stages.

Aref – reference aerodynamic area (front projected shadow area)

Asb – exposed surface area of speed brakes
Abody – surface area of vehicle body
Sexp – Planform area of exposed wing
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Sox – Surface area of oxidizer tanks
Sf – Surface area of fuel tanks
Smono_tank – Surface area of monopropellant tank

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-9

 4.0 TPS

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: TPS technology.
Shuttle comparison uses tiles, and blankets, not including wing leading edge, or nose cap RCC. -16%

M tps = K tps Abody _ tps Rtype + K wtps Rtype (2 S exp + 2 S vert + 2 S bf ) + 0.2 Abody _ tps Including insulation.
Rtype – Percentage of TPS area covered by the type of TPS used for Ktps
Ktps – Mass per area of chosen TPS type
= 0.63 – body metallic TPS
= 1.67 – body blanket TPS
= 1.50 – body tile TPS
= 2.25 – body HEX panel TPS (active cooling)
Kwtps – wing, body flap, tail, and control surface TPS mass per area
= 1.59 – wing metallic TPS
= 0.49 – wing blanket TPS
= 1.50 – wing tile TPS

2
⎛D ⎞
M nose = π ⎜ nose ⎟ (0.0002499q max + 1.7008 + (0.00003695q max − 0.003252)Dnose ) (source 10a) Body or TPS
⎝ 2 ⎠
For semispherical nose cap with passive TPS.

M sharp = 280 H le2 tan(ψ le ) Lle

For thin leading edges using the sharp TPS (density = 280 lb/ft3)

M active = Lle 5.75

For thin nose leading edge and wing and tail leading edges with active cooling.

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-10

 4.0 TPS

Abody_tps – Wetted area of TPS on vehicle body

Dnose – Diameter of base of nosecone
Hle – Height of leading edge
Lle – Length of leading edges (wing and nose if applicable)
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sexp – Planform area of exposed wing
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
ψle – Leading edge angle (? Sweep or angle of airfoil nose)

Georgia Institute of Technology 4-11

 5.0 Landing Gear

5.0 Landing Gear

Lmg – Length of main landing gear
Lng – Length of nose landing gear
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Nland = (number of gear)*1.5 – ultimate landing load factor
Nmgw – Total number of wheels on main gear
Nngw – Total number of wheels on nose gear

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-1

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Materials, and skids or wheels.
15%
M lg = K lg M land
Klg = 0.033 – shuttle gear
= 0.030 – advanced composite gear
= 0.0255 – composite skid system with no brakes

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-2

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-9%
Same equation as above, but additionally the ratio of nose gear/main gear is 15%/85%
Klg = 0.026 – advanced landing gear

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-3

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
15%
Same equation as above.
Klg = 0.033 – shuttle technology

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-4

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M lg = 0.0357 M gross Horizontal
Gear weight for horizontal takeoff airbreathing booster vehicle takeoff only

Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-5

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
56%
M lg = (0.036 + 0.0061 + 0.002 + 0.0008 )M land
Landing gear for a second stage vehicle. Includes nose and main gear, gear bays, and attachment.

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-6

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Different gear styles.
-44%
M maingear = K cb K tpg (M land N land )
0.25 0.973
L mg

M nosegear = (M land N land )

0.29
L0ng.5 N ngw
0.525

Kcb = 2.25 – for cross beam (F-111)

= 1.0 – all other gear
Ktpg = 0.826 – for tripod gear (A-7)
= 1.0 – all other gear

Nland = (number of gear)*1.5 – ultimate landing load factor

Lng – Length of nose landing gear
Lmg – Length of main landing gear
Nngw – Total number of wheels on nose gear

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-7

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle and aircraft. Comparison
Options: None.
8%
M maingear = 0.00927M 1.0861
land

M nosegear = 0.001514M land

1.0861

For shuttle technology.

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-8

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 7 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Wing location.
Used Mland instead of Mglow for comparison to Shuttle. 37%

[
M lg = K lg K a + K b M glow
3/ 4
+ K c M glow + K d M glow
3/ 2
]
Torenbeek method
For USAF airplanes, coefficients for other civil planes with retractable gear.

Klg = 1.0 – low wing planes

= 1.08 – high wing planes
Ka = 40.0 – main, 20.0 – nose
Kb = 0.16 – main, 0.10 – nose
Kc = 0.019 – main, 0.00 – nose
Kd = 1.5e-5 – nose, 2.0e-6 – nose

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Used Mglow for comparison to Shuttle. Use of Mland produced very low gear weight. 10%
0.84
⎛ M glow ⎞
M lg = 62.61⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ General Dynamics method
⎝ 1000 ⎠

For USAF airplanes, fighter/attack aircraft.

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-9

 5.0 Landing Gear

Used Mglow for comparison to Shuttle. Use of Mland produced very low gear weight. -17%
0.66
⎛ M glow ⎞
M lg = 129.1⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Torenbeek method
⎝ 1000 ⎠
For USN airplanes, fighter/attack aircraft.

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-10

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 8 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Skid or wheel gear.
Method A -2%

M lg = 0.096M land
0.9
K1
K1 = 0.6 – for skid gear
= 1.0 – for wheeled gear ?

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Method B -41%

[ (
M maingear = 0.001M land
0.75 0.14
173N mgw )]
K1 + 35.2 L0mg.44 K 2 (1 + 0.06 K 3 )
Skid gear – K1 = 0.21, K2 = 0.52, K3 = 0.27 ; wheeled gear – K1 = K2 = K3 = 1.0

[ (
M nosegear = 0.001M land
0.75
)]
18.9 K1 + 9.48L0ng.44 K 2 (1 + 0.08K 3 )
Skid gear – K1 = 1.59, K2 = 1.77, K3 = 0.063 ; wheeled gear – K1 = K2 = K3 = 1.0

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-11

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 9 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Development risk, number of wheels.
For this reference use Mglow even for vertical take-off vehicles. This was used for Shuttle comparison since using Mland 5%
produces very low weight gear.
For comparison to Shuttle, TRF=1.0 for both main and nose gear.

M main _ running _ gear = 9.61M glow 0.001N mgw

0.14

Nmgw – rule of thumb = Mglow/50,000

(
M main _ gear _ struct = 3.1M land 0.001L0mg.44 TRF )
⎛ M main _ gear _ struct ⎞
M main _ gear _ control = 0.18⎜⎜ M main _ running _ gear + ⎟⎟
⎝ TRF ⎠
TRF = 0.85 – low development risk
= 0.80 – moderate to high development risk
= 0.70 – very high development risk

M nose _ running _ gear = 1.25 M glow 0.001

(
M nose _ gear _ struct= 0.5M land 0.001L0ng.44 TRF )
⎛ M nose _ gear _ struct ⎞
M nose _ gear _ control = 0.3⎜⎜ M nose _ running _ gear + ⎟⎟
⎝ TRF ⎠
TRF = 0.80 – advanced materials, all risk levels

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-12

 5.0 Landing Gear

Lmg – Length of main landing gear

Lng – Length of nose landing gear
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Nmgw – Total number of wheels on main gear

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-13

 5.0 Landing Gear

Reference: 10c Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft from General Dynamics Study. Comparison
Options: TPS technology.
19%
M nose _ gear = 0.0033995 M + 402

M main _ gear = 0.02366 M + 1161

The mass, M, in these equations can be either the landing mass or the GLOW depending on whether the vehicle
is vertical or horizontal take-off.

Georgia Institute of Technology 5-14

 6.0 Main Propulsion

6.0 Main Propulsion

Amixer – is the cross sectional area of the mixer.
Fullage – Ullage fraction (typically ~4 to 5%)
Isp – Specific impulse of engines Sbody
Ispsl – Specific impulse of engine at sea level
m& − Total propellant mass flow rate (lbm/s)
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass bbody
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Pc – Pressure of main engine combustion chamber
Ptank – Pressure of propellant tanks
Raox – ascent oxidizer fraction
Reng – engine thrust to weight at vacuum conditions, installed L
Rv_lo – Vehicle thrust to weight at liftoff
Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body
Tsls – Total stage thrust at sea level static conditions
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume
Vprop_tot – total volume of propellant carried.
εi – Expansion ratio of nozzle of engine number i

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-1

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Propellant type, and chamber pressure.
-15%
⎡ (ε 2 − ε 1 ) (
ε −10.5
) ⎤
M main _ = ⎢ K + K (ε − 1) + K + K
2
+ K pf + K ga I sp ⎥ N eng m&
(m& Pc ) 0.5
prop ph n 1 ne na
⎢⎣ Pc ⎥⎦
Rocket engine prediction only.

Power head constants

Kph = 5.34 – LOX/LH2, Pc = 3000psi
= 5.18 – dual fuel engine, Pc = 3000psi
= 2.48 – LOX/hydrocarbon staged combustion, Pc = 4000psi
= 2.10 – LOX/hydrocarbon LH2 generator, Pc = 4000psi

Nozzle constants
Kn = 0.01194 – LOX/LH2
= 0.00727 – LOX/hydrocarbon
= 0.015 – EN 155 (dual fuel)

Nozzle extension constants

Kne = 9.943 – LOX/LH2
= 6.054 – LOX/hydrocarbon

Nozzle extension actuator

Kna = 60.54 – LOX/LH2
= 36.86 – LOX/hydrocarbon

Pressurization and feed system constants

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-2

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Kpf = 1.64 – current technology (1978)

= 1.40 – composite/metallic feedlines

Gimbal actuators
Kga = 0.00129 – hydraulic system (assumed due to publish date)

m& − Total propellant mass flow rate (lbm/s)

Isp – Specific impulse of engines
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Pc – Pressure of main engine combustion chamber
εi – Expansion ratio of nozzle of engine number i

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-3

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: Supercharging or not, supersonic combustion or not.
N/A
Rocket based combined cycle engine mass. RBCC only
Rv _ lo
M engines = M glow
Reng _ ui
Reng_ui = Engine uninstalled thrust to weight
= 3.99m& + 114 Amixer no inlet, no supercharging fan
= 4.04m& + 200.5 Amixer no inlet, with supercharging fan

Rv _ lo
M press _ feed = 1.616M glow
Isp sl

M purge _ syst = (0.05V f + 0.075Vox )(1 − TRF ) for purging lines and tanks with He

Amixer – is the cross sectional area of the mixer.

Ispsl – Specific impulse of engine at sea level
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
Rv_lo – Vehicle thrust to weight at liftoff
TRF = 0.6 – AMLS (from Lepsch)
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-4

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-7%
M main _ prop = (0.0205Tvac )N eng
Equation for rocket engines

Neng – Number of main engines on stage

Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-5

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: Airbreathing engine type.
N/A
Rv _ lo RBCC only
M engines = M glow For airbreathing booster vehicle using composite propulsion
Reng _ ui

Reng_ui – uninstalled engine thrust to weight

= 160 – Air augmented rocket
= 31.40 – Ejector ramjet, max internal pressure of 150 psia
= 29.00 – Ejector scramjet, max internal pressure of 100 psia
= 26.45 – Supercharged ejector ramjet, max internal pressure of 150 psia
= 24.07 – Supercharged ejector scramjet, max internal pressure of 100 psia
= 19.36 – RL, max internal pressure of 150 psia
= 16.80 – SL, max internal pressure of 100 psia
= 16.21 – RRL, max internal pressure of 150 psia
= 13.95 – RSL, max internal pressure of 100 psia
= 17.92 – SRL, max internal pressure of 150 psia
= 14.80 – SSL, max internal pressure of 100 psia
= 15.29 – RSRL, max internal pressure of 150 psia
= 12.53 – RSSL, max internal pressure of 100 psia

M eng _ controls = 0.0012Tsls Mass of engine control system

M fuel _ dist = 0.004Tsls Mass of liquid hydrogen distribution, purge, and vent system

M ox _ dist = 0.003Tsls Mass of liquid oxygen distribution, purge, and vent system

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-6

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Rv_lo – Vehicle thrust to weight at liftoff
Tsls – Total stage thrust at sea level static conditions

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-7

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-4%
M engines = 0.0146Tvac N eng + 300 Mass of LOX/LH2 engines for a second stage vehicle. Uses ET
volume
M eng _ attach = 0.00138Tvac N eng Mass of engine attachment hardware.

M prop _ dist = 0.445 S body Mass of propellant distribution system for LOX/LH2

M press _ vent = 0.0672V prop _ tot Mass of pressurization and vent system for LOX/LH2

Neng – Number of main engines on stage

Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vprop_tot – total volume of propellant carried.

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-8

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle, ET, and Saturn launch vehicles. Comparison
Options: Feed system type.
-5%
Shuttle comparison uses the LOX/LH2 engines and includes engine install, subsystems, TVC, feed (Kfeed=2.197), purge
(using volume of ET), and pressurization for pump fed engines.

Tvac N eng
M engines =
min (75 : (5.11 ln(Tvac N eng ) + 4.2 ))
For rocket powered vehicles, LOX/LH2

Tvac N eng
M engines =
min (104.4 : max (20.3 : 26.04 ln(Tvac N eng ) − 207 ))
For rocket powered vehicles using LOX/RP or N2O4/MMH propellants

M eng _ install = 5.6e −4Tvac N eng Engine installation (bolts, connectors, etc…)

M eng _ subsystem = 5.6e −4Tvac N eng Engine subsystems.

M tvc = 0.001185Tvac N eng Thrust vector control

M feed = K feed m& (1 + 0.04 * if (crossfeed ,1,0) ) Propellant feed system

Kfeed – Propellant feed system constant
= 2.197 – Orbiter & ET configuration
= 1.482 – Orbiter without propellant tanks
= 0.715 – ET type tank only

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-9

 6.0 Main Propulsion

= 2.133 – Upper stage/orbiter with internal tanks

= 1.022 – Booster or monopropellant feed system (upper or lower stage)

M purge = 0.053Vbody Purge system

M press = 0.192 m& Booster or US type configuration, cryo propellants, autogenous system, pump-fed engines

Fullage
M press = 50 + 0.192m& + 0.18V prop _ tot Storable stage, ambient stored He with heat exchange system.
26

(0.8647 Ptan0.01645
M press = K press (1.3012 + 0.99 Ptan k )V prop ks )
_ tot

Kpress – pressure fed engine system constant

= 0.55 – pressure fed engine, cold N2/GH2
= 0.25 – pressure fed engine, hot N2/GH2
= 0.19 – pressure fed engine, gas generator system

Fullage – Ullage fraction (typically ~4 to 5%)

m& − Total propellant mass flow rate (lbm/s)
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Ptank – Pressure of propellant tanks
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Vbody – Volume of vehicle body
Vprop_tot – total volume of propellant carried.

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-10

 6.0 Main Propulsion

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
-34%
Tvac N eng
M engines =
Reng

⎛ T ⎞
M f _ dist = 6.625⎜⎜ sls ⎟⎟(1 − Raox )(1 + 0.04 * if (crossfeed ,1,0) ) fuel distribution
⎝ Isp sl ⎠

⎛ T ⎞
M ox _ dist = 6.625⎜⎜ sls ⎟⎟(Raox )(1 + 0.04 * if (crossfeed ,1,0) ) oxidizer distribution
⎝ Isp sl ⎠

⎛ T ⎞
M vppd = 0.001366Tsls + 0.192⎜⎜ sls ⎟⎟ Vehicle purge, pressurization, and dump system (source 10a)
⎝ Isp sl ⎠

Ispsl – Specific impulse of engine at sea level

Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Raox – ascent oxidizer fraction
Reng – engine thrust to weight at vacuum conditions, installed
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Tsls – Total stage thrust at sea level static conditions

Georgia Institute of Technology 6-11

 7.0 RCS

7.0 RCS
L – Length of vehicle Sbody
Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass bbody
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Mpl – Mass of payload
Mrcs_propellants – Total mass of all RCS propellants
Mresid – Mass of residual propellants
Nvt – Number of vernier thrusters L
Prcs_press – Pressure of rcs pressurization system tanks
Prcs_tank − Pressure of RCS tank
Rvt– Vernier thruster thrust to weight
Treq – Required thrust from vernier thrusters for RCS system
Treq_p – Required thrust for primary thrusters
Vrcs_f – Volume of RCS fuel
Vrcs_ox – Volume of RCS oxidizer
Vrcs_press – Volume of He required as pressurant
Vrcs_tanks – Volume of all RCS tanks

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-1

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Storable or cryogenic propellants.
10%
M rcs = K rcs M entry L

Krcs = 1.36e-4 – based on shuttle storable system

= 1.51e-4 – based on advanced cryogenic system

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-2

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
For shuttle comparison the larger thrusters (both front and rear) were considered primary, and the smaller were vernier. -68%
The actual thrust was used instead of the estimating equation provided.

Forward RCS
Treq
M rcs _ vt = N vt
Rvt
Pressure fed LOX/LH2 from Rockwell IHOT study and AMLS
⎡ M entry L50 ⎤
Treq – Required thrust from vernier thrusters = ⎢ ⎥
⎣147141(143) ⎦
Nvt = 15 – (3 in each direction plus forward) for forward RCS

M rcs _ tan k = 0.01295 Prcs _ tan k Vrcs _ tan k Al 2219, yield at 140% Prcs_tank, 1.75 NOF, 5% ullage

M rcs _ press = 0.0143 Prcs _ pressVrcs _ press (1 − TRF ) + 0.671(Vrcs _ ox + Vrcs _ f ) Pressurization system
Ti 6/4 tank, 3000psia, He, yield at 400% Prcs_press, 1.25 NOF, 400 R storage temp.

M rcs _ install = 0.74 M rcs _ vt Installation hardware, lines, manifolds, etc…

Aft RCS
Treq Treq _ p
M rcs _ vt = N vt + N primary
Rvt R primary

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-3

 7.0 RCS

LOX/LH2 from Rockwell IHOT study and AMLS

⎡ M entry L50 ⎤
Treq – Required thrust for vernier thrusters = ⎢ ⎥
⎣147141(143) ⎦

⎡ M entry L870 ⎤
Treq_p – Required thrust for primary thrusters = ⎢ ⎥
⎣147141(143) ⎦
Nvt = 12 for aft RCS

Propellant tanks, pressurization system, and lines & manifolds use the same equations as for the forward RCS
list above.

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Nprimary – number of primary thrusters, recommended = 10
Nvt – number of verier thrusters
Prcs_press – Pressure of rcs pressurization system tanks, typically = 3000 psia for He
Prcs_tank − Pressure of RCS tank = 195 – for both LOX and LH2 tanks
Rprimary – thrust to weight of primary thrusters = 39.5
Rvt – thrust to weight of vernier thrusters = 9.4
Treq_p – required thrust for primary thrusters
Treq – Required thrust for RCS system
TRF – Techology reduction factor = 0.0 for baseline, = 0.25 – for composite wound tanks
Vrcs_ox – Volume of RCS oxidizer
Vrcs_f – Volume of RCS fuel
Vrcs_press – Volume of He required as pressurant= 0.24(Vrcs_ox + Vrcs_f)
Vrcs_tanks – Volume of all RCS tanks

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-4

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
6%
M rcs = 0.014 M entry Assumes shuttle technology

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-5

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
20%
M rcs = 0.0171M land Mass of attitude control system (includes OMS and RCS) for second stage.

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-6

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
8%
M rcs = 0.0126M insert Assumes shuttle technology

Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-7

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
⎡ 0.434
⎤
M rcs = 1184⎢((M dry + M pl + M resid ) / 234948) ⎜
0.217 ⎛ L ⎞
⎟ ⎥ RCS system for airbreathing vehicle
⎣⎢ ⎝ 205 ⎠ ⎦⎥

L – Length of vehicle
Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle
Mpl – Mass of payload
Mresid – Mass of residual propellants (group 20.0)

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-8

 7.0 RCS

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: TPS technology.
13%
⎛ ∑ M rcs _ propellants ⎞
M rcs = 0.008M insert + 0.0046 M insert ⎜ ⎟ RCS system for a rocket vehicle
⎜ 6600 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass

Mrcs_propellants – Total mass of all RCS propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 7-9

 8.0 OMS

8.0 OMS
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass
Moms_prop – Mass of all OMS propellants
Noms – Number of OMS engines
Poms_press – Design pressure of OMS pressurization system tanks
Poms_tank – Design pressure of OMS propellant tank
Roms – OMS engine thrust to weight
Toms_vac – Vacuum thrust of each OMS engine
Treq_oms – Required thrust from OMS engines
Voms_f – Volume of OMS fuel
Voms_ox – Volume of OMS oxidizer
Voms_press – Volume of pressurant required
Voms_tank – Volume of OMS tank

Georgia Institute of Technology 8-1

 8.0 OMS

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Storable or cryogenic propellants.
-15%
M oms = K oms N oms Toms _ vac + K pps M oms _ prop

Koms – Orbital maneuver system thruster constant

= 0.0863 – based on shuttle storable propellants
= 0.035 – based on advanced cryogenic propellants/engine
Kpps – OMS propellant supply system
= 0.119 – for storable propellants including pressurization
= 0.152 – for cryogenic propellants including pressurization and feed

Moms_prop – Mass of all OMS propellants

Noms – Number of OMS engines
Toms_vac – Vacuum thrust of each OMS engine

Georgia Institute of Technology 8-2

 8.0 OMS

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
106%
Treq _ oms Not intended
M oms _ eng = for 7 ksi tank
Roms
pressure used
in shuttle
M oms _ tan k = 0.01295 Poms _ tan k Voms _ tan k Al 2219, yield at 140% Prcs_tank, 1.75 NOF, 5% ullage

M oms _ press = 0.0143 Poms _ pressVoms _ press (1 − TRF ) + 0.167 (Voms _ ox + Voms _ f ) Pressurization system
Ti 6/4 tank, 3000psia, He, yield at 400% Prcs_press, 1.25 NOF, 400 R storage temp.

M oms _ install = 0.74 M oms _ eng Installation hardware, lines, manifolds, etc…

Roms – OMS engine thrust to weight = 22 (includes mounts, supports, igniters, etc.)
Poms_press – Design pressure of OMS pressurization system tanks, typically = 3000 psia for He
Poms_tank – Design pressure of OMS propellant tank
TRF – Techology factor = 0.0 for baseline, = .25 – for composite wound tanks
Voms_f – Volume of OMS fuel
Voms_ox – Volume of OMS oxidizer
Voms_press – Volume of pressurant required (He) = 0.24(Voms_ox + Voms_f)
Voms_tank – Volume of OMS tank
Treq_oms – Required thrust from OMS engines = Mentry/16 (1/16th g accel/decal)

Georgia Institute of Technology 8-3

 8.0 OMS

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
14%
M oms = 0.0146 M entry

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 8-4

 8.0 OMS

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
7%
M oms = 0.0121M insert

Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 8-5

 8.0 OMS

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-5%
⎛ ∑ M oms _ prop ⎞
M oms = 0.0045M insert + 0.0076 M insert ⎜ ⎟ OMS for a rocket vehicle
⎜ 24175 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Minsert – Insertion mass, sometimes called burnout mass

Moms_prop – Mass of all OMS propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 8-6

 9.0 Primary Power

9.0 Primary Power

L – Length of vehicle Sbody
Mapu_prop – mass of all APU propellants on board
Mav – Mass of avionics (group 13.0)
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass bbody
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Msca – Mass of surface control & actuators (group 12.0)
Napu – Number of APUs
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days on orbit L
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Nfc – number of fuel cells
Sexp (Shaded)
Papu – Power required per APU
Pfc – power required per fuel cell
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Tvac_gimb – Total vacuum thrust of gimbaled engines

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-1

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Standard or accumulators.
-18%
M pp = K pc S tot _ cont + K pe Tvac _ gimb + K pb M av

Kpc = 0.712 – Standard hydraulic system

= 0.610 – Hydraulic with accumulators for peak load
Kpe = 0.97e-4 – Engine gimbal power demand
Kpb = 0.405 – Battery power demand constant

Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces

Tvac_gimb – Total vacuum thrust of gimbaled engines
Mav – Mass of avionics (group 13.0)

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-2

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-36%
M pp = 396 + 176.9( N days + 1) + 0.05166 M sca
Based on NASP technology (Stanley). Assumes fuel cells are 396 lb.

Msca – Mass of surface control & actuators (group 12.0)

Ndays – Number of days on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-3

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
32%
M pp = 977 + 139.6 N days + 39.9 N days N crew
Includes fuel cells, batteries, and associated systems.

Ndays – Number of days on orbit

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-4

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
-52%
M pp = 1400 + 0.0017 M glow Primary power for airbreathing booster vehicle.
Entire power system, including conversion and distribution?

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-5

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-57%
M apu = 10 N crew + 831 Mass of auxiliary power unit for manned second stage.

M elec _ power = 800 Mass of other components, 12 people.

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-6

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
-17%
N days
M batt = 216 + 952 * if ( N crew > 0,1,0) Battery mass, unmanned missions only
7
Batteries in unmanned or manned?

M batt = 216 Battery mass for manned missions

N crew
M fuel _ cell = 3030 Fuel cell mass for manned missions only
7

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-7

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
L N apu ⎛ L ⎞ N apu
M pp = 227 + 18.97 Papu
0.5
+ ⎜ 613.8 + 0.66 Papu ⎟ Power system for airbreather
205 4 ⎝ 205 ⎠ 4

L – Length of vehicle
Napu – Number of APUs
Papu – Power required per APU

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-8

 9.0 Primary Power

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alhpa Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
The following equations should be summed to get Mpp for a rocket powered vehicle. 93%

⎛ N days ⎞
M batt = ⎜⎜ 216 + 952 ⎟⎟ * if ( N crew > 0,1,0)
⎝ 7 ⎠

M fuel _ cell = 51.8 N fc Pfc + 0.76(52.143 N crew N days )

(
M apu = 0.118 0.00124Tvac N eng + 0.55S exp + 3.4S vert + 2.6S bf + 0.000485M land
1.0861
)
+ 0.318M apu
1.15
_ prop

Mapu_prop – mass of all APU propellants on board

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days on orbit
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Nfc – number of fuel cells
Pfc – power required per fuel cell
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine

Georgia Institute of Technology 9-9

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

b – Wing span
bbody – Maximum width of the body Sbody
Hbody – Height of body
L – Length of vehicle
Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle bbody
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Msca – Mass of surface control & actuators (group 12.0)
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit L
Ngen – Number of power sources onboard
Rkva – System electrical rating = Kvolts * Amps Scsw

bcthru b

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-1

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Advanced technology or Shuttle technology.
-20%
M ecd = K ecd M land

Kecd = 0.02 – advanced ECD system

= 0.038 – shuttle technology ECD system

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-2

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-65%
M ecd = 1875 + 0.324 M sca + K ecd 8.56( L + H body + bbody ) + 0.00043( L + b) M sca
Assumes use of electro mechanical actuators for control surface actuation.

Kecd = 0.6 – shape factor for RBCC SSTO (low due to proximity of payload bay and crew cabin)

b – Wing span
bbody – Maximum width of the body
Hbody – height of body
L – Length of vehicle
Msca – Mass of surface control & actuators (group 12.0)

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-3

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-1%
M ecd = 0.062 M dry

Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-4

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
See notes under 11.0 (hydraulics) for this.

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-5

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Mission redundancy.
-91%
M ecd = 172.2 K ecd R 0.152
kva N 0.1
crew
0.1
L N 0.091
gen

Kecd = 1.45 – If mission completion required after failure

= 1.0 – Otherwise

L – Length of vehicle
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ngen – Number of power sources onboard
Rkva – System electrical rating = Kvolts * Amps

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-6

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
2%
M ⎛ N days ⎞ ⎛N ⎞
+ 2226⎜ ⎟ + 7633⎜ crew ⎟
pascent
M ecd = 793 + 506
⎜ 7 ⎟ ⎜ 7 ⎟
1.6e − 6 ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-7

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
⎛ L ⎞
M ecd = 1201⎜ 0.90674 + 0.09326 ⎟ For an airbreathing vehicle
⎝ 205 ⎠

L – Length of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-8

 10.0 Electrical Conversion & Distribution

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
6%
M ecd = 793 + 3.31L + 318 N days + 1096.4 N crew For a rocket powered vehicle

L – Length of vehicle
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 10-9

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Sref (Shaded) Scsw
bbody – Maximum width of the body
bexp – Span of exposed wing (b-bbody at wing root)
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle bcthru b
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Nhyd – Number of hydraulic functions on the vehicle
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area
Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine
Tvac_gimb – Total vacuum thrust of gimbaled engines
θle – Sweep angle of leading edge

Ctip Sbody
Svert
bvert bbody

Croot L

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-1

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: System pressure.
-2%
M hyd = K hyd S tot _ cont + K eTvac _ gimb

Khyd = 2.10 – Shuttle technology base for hydraulic system

= 1.23 – For a 5000 psi system
Ke = 3.00e-4 – Shuttle gimbal technology
= 1.68e-4 – For a 5000 psi gimbal system

Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces

Tvac_gimb – Total vacuum thrust of gimbaled engines

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-2

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M land
M hyd = 15.8 For a lifting body rocket powered second stage.
S body
This was originally listed as support systems, and likely includes electrical conversion and distribution since the
MBS it was included in did not have that as a separate item.

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Sbody – Planform area of vehicle body

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-3

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Variable or fixed sweep wings.
-87%
M hyd = 37.23K vsh N 0.664
hyd

Kvsh = 1.425 – for variable sweep wings

= 1.0 – for fixed wings

Nhyd – Number of hydraulic functions on the vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-4

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Power curve from Sigma (JSC study) adjusted to Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
714%
1.1143
⎡ q ⎤
M hyd = 0.426⎢(S ref + S vert + S bf ) max ⎥ + 0.001785Tvac N eng
⎣ 1000 ⎦

Neng – Number of main engines on stage

qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
Tvac – Vacuum thrust per main engine

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-5

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Reference: 7 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Hydraulic constant.
For the Space Shuttle comparison Khyd = 0.0068 0%

M hyd = K hyd M glow

Khyd = 0.005-0.0180

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-6

 11.0 Hydraulic Systems

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
455%
(bexp + bbody ) ⎞⎟
0.849
⎡ ⎛
1.6125
⎤
M hyd = 0.326⎢(q max S ref / 1000) + ⎜⎜ L + ⎥
1.3125
For rocket powered vehicles
⎢⎣ ⎝ cos(θ le ) ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦

bbody – Maximum width of the body

bexp – Span of exposed wing (b-bbody at wing root)
qmax – Maximum dynamic pressure during flight (lb/ft2)
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area
θle – Sweep angle of leading edge

Georgia Institute of Technology 11-7

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

12.0 Surface Control & Actuators Ctip Sref (Shaded)

Svert
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle bvert
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ncs – Number of flight control systems (redundancy)
Relevon – Percent of wing that is elevon area Croot
Rvert – Percent of vertical surfaces that are control surface
Sbf – Planform area of body flap
Sbody – Planform area of the body
Scanard – canard planform area Sbody
Scsw
Scsw – Planform of wing mounted control surfaces
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Shtail – horizontal tail planform area bbody
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area bcthru b

Ssb – speed brake planform area

Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins
L

Sexp (Shaded)

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-1

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: System pressure.
-8%
M sca = K sca S tot _ cont + K ms based on hydraulic system from the Space Shuttle

Ksca = 3.75 – for shuttle surface control and actuation technology

= 3.80 – for 5000 psi system
= 3.32 – for 5000 psi system using advanced materials
Kms = 200 – additional miscellaneous systems

Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-2

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-58%
M sca = 0.0163 Relevon M entry + 0.00428 Rvert M entry Assumes EMA technology different
technology
than shuttle
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
S csw
Relevon – Percent of wing that is elevon area =
S exp
S rud
Rvert – Percent of vertical surfaces that are control surface =
S vert
Scsw – Planform of wing mounted control surfaces
Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-3

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-59%
M sca = 0.0048 M entry Assumes EMA technology different
technology
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle than shuttle

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-4

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
51%
M sca = 640 + 0.013M glow
Control and actuation mass for airbreathing booster vehicle. May include hydraulics, though source is not clear
on this.

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-5

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-32%
M
M sca = 28 land Control system and actuation mass for a lifting body upper stage.
S body

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Sbody – Planform area of the body

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-6

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: None.
-44%
M sca = 36.28M 0.003
S 0.489
tot _ cont N 0.484
cs N 0.127
crew

Ncs – Number of flight control systems (redundancy)

Stot_cont – Total planform area of all control surfaces
Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-7

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Boeing equation adjusted to Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
29%
M sca = 0.55(S ref + S htail + S canard ) + 3.4 S vert + 2.6(S bf + S sb ) + 70

Sbf – Planform area of body flap

Scanard – canard planform area
Shtail – horizontal tail planform area
Sref – Theoretical wing planform area
Ssb – speed brake planform area
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-8

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 7 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: Control surface configuration.
-1%
0.581
⎛ M glow ⎞
M sca = K fcf ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎝ 1000 ⎠

Kfcf = 106 – for airplanes with elevon control, and no horizontal tail
= 138 – for airplanes with a horizontal tail
= 168 – for airplanes with a variable sweep wing

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-9

 12.0 Surface Control & Actuators

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
4%
M sca = (0.55S exp + 30 ) + (3.4 S vert + 30 ) + (2.6 S bf + 10 ) For rocket powered vehicles
wing vert. tail body flap

Sbf – Planform area of body flap

Sexp – Exposed wing planform area
Svert – Total planform area of vertical tail or wingtip fins

Georgia Institute of Technology 12-10

 13.0 Avionics

13.0 Avionics
Abody – surface area of vehicle body
Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit
Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Npil – number of pilots

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-1

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: 1978 or 1990 technology.
-7%
M av = K av M 0.125
dry

Kav = 1350 – for current technology (~1978)

= 710 – for 1990 technology

Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-2

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-50%
M av = 3300 not shuttle
Constant based on NASP technology AMLS SSTO technology

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-3

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
0%
M av = 6564
Constant based on Space Shuttle avionics mass

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-4

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
-79%
M av = 670 + 440 + 240
Includes 670 lbs for instruments, 440 lbs for guidance and navigation, and 240 lbs for communication. For an
airbreathing booster vehicle.

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-5

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
Compared to Space Shuttle avionics mass less instruments and displays. -85%

M av = 261 + 302
Includes 261 lbs. for guidance and navigation, and 302 lbs. for communications. No instruments.

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-6

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Data from EHLLV, Shuttle C studies, and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
-2%
N days N crew
M av = 544 + 1067 + 3027 + 0.27 Abody
7 7
Includes range safety weight.

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-7

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 7 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: None.
Compared to only the instruments and displays for the space shuttle. 23%
only
⎡ ⎛ M glow ⎞⎤ ⎡ ⎛M ⎞⎤ ⎛M ⎞ instruments
M inst = N pil ⎢15 + 0.032⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ + N eng ⎢5 + 0.006⎜⎜ glow ⎟⎟⎥ + 0.15⎜⎜ glow ⎟⎟ + 0.012 M glow and displays
⎣⎢ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦⎥ ⎣⎢ ⎝ 1000 ⎠⎦⎥ ⎝ 1000 ⎠
Mass for instruments and displays only.

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

Neng – Number of main engines on stage
Npil – number of pilots

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-8

 13.0 Avionics

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-2%
M av = 544 + 1067 * if ( N days > 0.1,1,0) + 3012 * if ( N crew > 0,1,0) + 0.27 Abody For rocket vehicle

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 13-9

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Sbody
bbody – Maximum width of the body
Hbody – Height of body
L – Length of vehicle
bbody
Mav – Mass of avionics (group 13.0)
Mecd – Mass of electronic conversion & distribution (group 10.0)
Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit
Vcrew – Volume of crew cabin
L

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-1

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
5%
M eclss = K pvV0.75
crew + K os N crew N days + K ah M av

Kpv = 5.85 – pressurized volume constant

Kos = 10.9 – oxygen supply tank constant
Kah = 0.44 – avionics heat load constant

Mav – Mass of avionics (group 13.0)

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit
Vcrew – Volume of crew cabin

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-2

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-60%
M eclss = 141 + 729 + K htl 6.79(L + bbody + H body ) + 512 + 163

Khtl = 0.6 – Shape factor for RBCC SSTO (Payload bay close to crew cabin with radiators in payload bay doors).
This equation is composed of:
141 lb – personnel systems
729 lb – equipment cooling system
512 lb – radiators
163 lb – flash evaporators
All masses are based on AMLS SSTO study by Stanley

bbody – Maximum width of the body

Hbody – Height of body
L – Length of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-3

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
0%
M eclss = 2652 + 54.1N crew N days

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-4

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M eclss = 550 Short duration
Constant mass for environmental control. System is designed for a booster, so is for short duration and small only
crew to pilot the vehicle only.

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-5

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-89%
M eclss = 464 + 20 N crew
Mass of environmental control system.

Maybe add long term facilities

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-6

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
Shuttle comparison to the cooling system mass only. 1%

M cooling = 32.24(N crew N days )

1.18

Cooling system mass only

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-7

 14.0 Environmental Control & Life Support System

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
53%
For rocket powered vehicles.
[
M eclss = (0.3M av + 0.15M ecd ) + (1410 * if ( N crew > 0,1,0) ) + (870 * if ( N crew > 0,1,0) ) + 15.4 N crew (N days + 3) ]
1.18

Equipment cooling Crew controls Crew displays Crew Env. Cooling

For airbreathing vehicles.

⎧⎪ ⎛ L ⎞ ⎡⎛ L ⎞ 3 ⎤ ⎫⎪
M eclss = 1235⎨1 + 0.27⎜ − 1⎟ + 0.069⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ ⎬
⎪⎩ ⎝ 205 ⎠ ⎢⎣⎝ 205 ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭

Mav – Mass of avionics (group 13.0)

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit
Mecd – Mass of electronic conversion & distribution (group 10.0)

Georgia Institute of Technology 14-8

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

15.0 Personnel Equipment

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-1

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Mission duration.
-17%
M pe = K fww + K furn N crew

Kfww – food, waste, and water management system: for 1 to 4 crew

= 0 – for missions less than 24 hours
= 353 – for missions greater than 24 hours
Kfurn – seats and other pilot/crew related items = 167

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-2

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
-15%
M pe = 502 + 150 N crew
Based on NASP technology AMLS (Stanley)

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-3

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-7%
M pe = 555 + 164 N crew

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-4

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-80%
M pe = 52 N crew Mass of cabin furnishings.

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-5

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

Reference: 5 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft. Comparison
Options: None.
Compared only to space shuttle personnel accommodations and furnishings and equipment. 34%

M furn = 217.6 N crew

Furnishings and seats only, no galley or water or waste management

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-6

 15.0 Personnel Equipment

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
For space shuttle comparison the mass of the personnel group was added to the mass of the personnel equipment. 38%

N crew
M pe = 2444 + 645 N crew + 86.4 N days
7
Includes personnel in addition to personnel equipment.

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 15-7

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle
Meng – Mass of a single main engine
Mi – Total mass of group i in MBS
Neng – Number of main engines on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-1

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M m arg in = K m arg in (M dry − N eng M eng )
Kmargin = 0.10

Mdry – Dry mass of vehicle

Meng – Mass of a single main engine
Neng – Number of main engines on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-2

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
15.0
M m arg in = K m arg in ∑ M i
i =1.0

Kmargin – Margin percentage

Mi – Total mass of group i

Recommends Kmargin = 10% margin

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-3

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
15.0
M m arg in = K m arg in ∑ M i
i =1.0

Kmargin – Margin percentage

Mi – Total mass of group i

Recommends Kmargin = 15% margin

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-4

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
15.0
M m arg in = K m arg in ∑ M i
i =1.0

Kmargin – Margin percentage

Mi – Total mass of group i

Recommends Kmargin = 3% margin

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-5

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Data developed by Program Development PD24 (80-22). Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
15.0
M m arg in = K m arg in ∑ M i
i =1.0

Kmargin – Margin percentage

Mi – Total mass of group i

Recommended margin based on development status: Kmargin=

0% - masses based on existing structures, hardware, engines, which require no modification
5% - masses based on existing structures, hardware, engines, which require some modification
10% - masses based on new designs which use existing type materials and subsystems
15% - masses based on new designs which use existing type materials and subsystems which require limited
development in materials technology
20%-25% - weights based on new designs which require extensive development in materials technology

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-6

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
15.0
M m arg in = K m arg in ∑ M i
i =1.0

Kmargin – Margin percentage

Mi – Total mass of group i

Recommends Kmargin = 15% margin

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-7

 16.0 Dry Weight Margin

Reference: 11 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Program data from space hardware. Comparison
N/A
15.0
M m arg in = K m arg in ∑ M i
i =1.0

Kmargin – Margin percentage

Mi – Total mass of group i

Hawkins shows that historically dry weight growth from proposal to first flight is 25.5%.

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-8

 16.0 Dry
ry Weight Margin

Reference: 12 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA space programs. Comparison
Talay shows a 30% historical increase in vehicle weight from first concept documentation to time of proposal. The N/A
following chart also shows dry weight growth for NASA programs only.

Chart showing dry weight growth of NASA space vehicle programs from [ref. 12].

Georgia Institute of Technology 16-9

 17.0 Crew & Gear

17.0 Crew & Gear

Ncrew – Number of crew
Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-1

 17.0 Crew & Gear

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
18%
M cg = 400 + 560 N crew
Ncrew is limited to between 1 and 4 people.

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-2

 17.0 Crew & Gear

Reference: 2 and 3 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle, and from a rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
23%
M cg = 1176 + (311 + 23 N days )N crew
Includes crew consumables (food), personal items, crew, and suits (Talay)

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-3

 17.0 Crew & Gear

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M cg = 650
Constant mass, for a small crew to pilot a booster stage.

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-4

 17.0 Crew & Gear

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-51%
M cg = (220 + 35.5)N crew

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-5

 17.0 Crew & Gear

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
Equations under group 15.0 includes crew.

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-6

 17.0 Crew & Gear

Reference: 10a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Alpha Technologies. Comparison
Options: None.
109%
M cg = 2550 * if ( N crew > 0,1,0) + 645 N crew + 77.6 N days

Ncrew – Number of crew

Ndays – Number of days spent on orbit

Georgia Institute of Technology 17-7

 18.0 Payload Provisions

18.0 Payload Provisions

Mpl – Mass of payload

Georgia Institute of Technology 18-1

 18.0 Payload Provisions

Reference: 2 and 3 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle, and from a rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
N/A
M payp = 0.0
Mass of provisions included in payload mass.

Georgia Institute of Technology 18-2

 18.0 Payload Provisions

Reference: 6 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
431%
M payp = 0.025 M pl

Mpl – Mass of payload

Georgia Institute of Technology 18-3

 19.0 Cargo (up and down)

19.0 Cargo (up and down)

Reference: All Space Shuttle

Comparison
N/A
Fixed value based on mission.
For worst case the payload must be assumed to be returned for sizing re-entry and landing loads.

Georgia Institute of Technology 19-1

 20.0 Residual Propellants

20.0 Residual Propellants

Mmain_usable_prop – Usable main propellant, typically Mpascent
Moms/rcs_usable_prop – Usable OMS and RCS system propellants
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants (group 27.0)
Mtot_fuel – Mass of all fuel on stage
Mtot_ox – Mass of all oxidizer on stage
Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 20-1

 20.0 Residual Propellants

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
-98%
M resid = 0.05M0.79
pascent
Orbiter
Includes main propellant tank pressurization gas.
-15%
ET
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 20-2

 20.0 Residual Propellants

Reference: 2 and 3 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle, and from a rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
Shuttle comparison only uses equation for OMS/RCS residuals. -37%
Orbiter
M oms / rcs _ resid = 0.05M oms / rcs _ usable _ prop OMS/RCS

M mainprop _ resid = 0.005 M main _ usable _ prop 70%

ET
Mmain_usable_prop – Usable main propellant, typically Mpascent
Moms/rcs_usable_prop – Usable OMS and RCS system propellants
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 20-3

 20.0 Residual Propellants

Reference: 4a Space Shuttle

Derived from: Airbreathing booster. Comparison
Options: None.
816%
M ox _ resid = 0.027 M tot _ ox Residual liquid oxygen for an airbreathing booster vehicle ET

M f _ resid = 0.027 M tot _ fuel Residual liquid hydrogen for an airbreathing booster vehicle

Mtot_fuel – Mass of all fuel on stage

Mtot_ox – Mass of all oxidizer on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 20-4

 20.0 Residual Propellants

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
195%
M ox _ resid = 0.005 M tot _ ox Residual liquid oxygen for a rocket second stage ET

M f _ resid = 0.03M tot _ fuel Residual liquid hydrogen for a rocket second stage

Mtot_fuel – Mass of all fuel on stage

Mtot_ox – Mass of all oxidizer on stage

Georgia Institute of Technology 20-5

 20.0 Residual Propellants

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
Shuttle comparison only uses equation for OMS/RCS residuals. -37%
Orbiter
M oms / rcs _ resid = 0.05M oms / rcs _ usable _ prop
18%
(0.00529V ) ET
M resid _ ascent _ fuel = 4
f

K f _ package

(0.11Vox )
M resid _ ascent _ ox = 2
K ox _ package

Kf_package – Fuel tank internal packaging efficiency, takes into account baffles, spars, etc..
Kox_package – Oxidizer tank internal packaging efficiency, takes into account baffles, spars, etc..

Moms/rcs_usable_prop – Usable OMS and RCS system propellants

Vf – Total fuel volume
Vox – Total oxidizer volume

Georgia Institute of Technology 20-6

 21.0 OMS/RCS Reserve Propellants

21.0 OMS/RCS Reserve Propellants

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth
Ispoms – Specific impulse of OMS engines
Isprcs – Specific impulse of RCS engines
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Moms/rcs_usable_prop – Usable OMS and RCS system propellants
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants
∆Voms – Total velocity change possible using OMS engines (fps)
∆Vrcs – Total velocity change possible using RCS engines (fps)

Georgia Institute of Technology 21-1

 21.0 OMS/RCS Reserve Propellants

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
For shuttle comparison maximum ∆V was calculated from the maximum usable propellants available. For OMS ∆V = -94%
700 fps, RCS ∆V = 200 fps. OMS/RCS
residual only
⎡ ⎛⎜⎜ 0.005 ∆Voms ⎞⎟⎟ ⎛ 0.005 ∆Vrcs ⎞
⎜
⎜ Isp g ⎟
⎟ ⎤
M oms / rcs _ res ⎢
= M land e ⎝ Isp oms g ⎠
+e ⎝ rcs ⎠
− 2⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth

Ispoms – Specific impulse of OMS engines
Isprcs – Specific impulse of RCS engines
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
∆Voms – Total velocity change possible using OMS engines (fps)
∆Vrcs – Total velocity change possible using RCS engines (fps)

Georgia Institute of Technology 21-2

 21.0 OMS/RCS Reserve Propellants

Reference: 2 and 3 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle, and from a rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
43%
M oms / rcs _ res = 0.1M oms / rcs _ usable _ prop

Moms/rcs_usable_prop – Usable OMS and RCS system propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 21-3

 21.0 OMS/RCS Reserve Propellants

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
-98%
M oms / rcs _ res = 0.0075 M pascent Using ascent
propellant in
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants shuttle only

595%
Using ascent
propellant in
ET

Georgia Institute of Technology 21-4

 22.0 RCS Entry Propellants

22.0 RCS Entry Propellants

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth
Isprcs – Specific impulse of RCS engines
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
∆Vrcs_entry – entry velocity change required

Georgia Institute of Technology 22-1

 22.0 RCS Entry Propellants

Reference: 1, 2, and 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Physics based. Comparison
Options: None.
8%
⎡ ⎛ ∆Vrcs _ entry
⎜
⎜ Isp g
⎞
⎟
⎟
⎤
M rcs _ entry = M entry ⎢e ⎝ rcs ⎠
− 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth

Isprcs – Specific impulse of RCS engines
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
∆Vrcs_entry – entry velocity change required (Shuttle = 40 fps)

Georgia Institute of Technology 22-2

 22.0 RCS Entry Propellants

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
-16%
M rcs _ entry = 0.00336 M entry
Assumes approximately 40 fps of ∆V.

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 22-3

 23.0 OMS/RCS On-Orbit Propellants

23.0 OMS/RCS On-Orbit Propellants

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth
Ispoms – Specific impulse of OMS engines
Isprcs – Specific impulse of RCS engines
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
Mland – Landed mass of vehicle
Ncrew – Number of crew
∆Voms – Total velocity change possible using OMS engines (fps)
∆Vrcs – Total velocity change possible using RCS engines (fps)

Georgia Institute of Technology 23-1

 23.0 OMS/RCS On-Orbit Propellants

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Physics based. Comparison
Options: None.
For shuttle comparison maximum ∆V was calculated from the maximum usable propellants available. For OMS ∆V = -4%
700 fps, RCS ∆V = 200 fps. Using actual
shuttle Isp and
⎡ ⎛⎜⎜ ∆Voms ⎞⎟⎟ ⎛ ∆Vrcs ⎞
⎜ ⎟ ⎤ ∆V
⎜ Isp g ⎟
M oms / rcs _ orbit ⎢
= M entry e ⎝ Isp oms g ⎠
+e ⎝ rcs ⎠
− 2⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

Ispoms – OMS propulsion specific impulse

= 313s – storable
= 440s – cryogenic
Isprcs – RCS propulsion specific impulse
= 289s – storable pulsing system
= 398s – cryogenic pulsing system

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
∆Voms – Total velocity change possible using OMS engines (fps)
∆Vrcs – Total velocity change possible using RCS engines (fps)

Georgia Institute of Technology 23-2

 23.0 OMS/RCS On-Orbit Propellants

Reference: 2, 3, and 10 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Physics based. Comparison
Options: None.
For shuttle comparison maximum ∆V was calculated from the maximum usable propellants available. -4%
For OMS ∆V = 700 fps, RCS ∆V = 200 fps. Using actual
shuttle Isp and
⎡ ⎛⎜⎜ ∆Voms ⎞⎟⎟ ⎤ ∆V
= M entry ⎢e ⎝ oms ⎠ − 1⎥
Isp g
M oms _ orbit
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

⎡ ⎛⎜⎜ ∆Vrcs ⎞⎟⎟ ⎤

= M entry ⎢e⎝ rcs ⎠ − 1⎥
Isp g
M rcs _ orbit
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

∆Vrcs – Typically 15 fps for front RCS, and 35 fps for aft RCS
∆Voms – Typically 500-800 fps for ascent, 50 fps for on orbit maneuvers, and 200 fps de-orbit
Isprcs = 420s – LOX/LH2 pressure fed thrusters based on Rockwell IHOT work, O/F=4.0.
Ispoms = 462s – LOX/LH2 pump fed engines based on Rockwell IHOT work, O/F=6.0.

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth

Ispoms – Specific impulse of OMS engines
Isprcs – Specific impulse of RCS engines
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle
∆Voms – Total velocity change possible using OMS engines (fps)
∆Vrcs – Total velocity change possible using RCS engines (fps)

Georgia Institute of Technology 23-3

 23.0 OMS/RCS On-Orbit Propellants

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-76%
M rcs _ prop = 0.0215 M land
All RCS propellant, including entry, for a rocket powered lifting body second stage.

M apu _ prop = 543 + 30 N crew

Propellant required for APU while on orbit.

Mland – Landed mass of vehicle

Ncrew – Number of crew

Georgia Institute of Technology 23-4

 24.0 Cargo Discharged

24.0 Cargo Discharged

Reference: All Space Shuttle

Comparison
N/A
Constant value dependent on the mission.
Mass of payload carried to orbit, and not back to Earth.

Georgia Institute of Technology 24-1

 25.0 Ascent Reserve Propellants

25.0 Ascent Reserve Propellants

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth
Ispvac – Vacuum specific impulse of main engines
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants
∆Videal – Ideal ∆V for ascent

Georgia Institute of Technology 25-1

 25.0 Ascent Reserve Propellants

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
Space Shuttle comparison uses ascent propellant in the ET. ∆V is based on Orbiter and ET together (no SRBs). 64%

⎡ ⎛⎜⎜ ∆Videal 0.005 ⎞⎟⎟ ⎤

M pascent _ res = M insert ⎢e ⎝ vac ⎠ − 1⎥ + 0.004M pascent
Isp g

⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦
∆Videal – Ideal ∆V for ascent = 24,994 fps calculated from maximum usable propellant load on Space Shuttle and
ET combination.

g – Gravitational acceleration at the surface of the Earth

Ispvac – Vacuum specific impulse of main engines
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants
∆Videal – Ideal ∆V for ascent

Georgia Institute of Technology 25-2

 25.0 Ascent Reserve Propellants

Reference: 2, 3, and 4b Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle, and from a rocket, and lifting body upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
Space Shuttle comparison uses ascent propellant in the ET. 50%

M pascent _ res = 0.005 M pascent

Main propellant reserves are vented to orbit or transferred off-board before entry.

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 25-3

 25.0 Ascent Reserve Propellants

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
Space Shuttle comparison uses ascent propellant in the ET. 125%

M pascent _ res = 0.0075 M pascent

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 25-4

 26.0 Inflight Losses & Vents

26.0 Inflight Losses & Vents

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants
Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 26-1

 26.0 Inflight Losses & Vents

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: None.
Shuttle comparison uses ascent propellant in the ET, and compares to losses in the Orbiter. 83%

M plosses = 0.0043M pascent

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 26-2

 26.0 Inflight Losses & Vents

Reference: 2, 3, and 10 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle, and from a rocket. Comparison
Options: None.
-35%
M plosses = 0.01M entry
Includes waste, purge gasses, excess fuel cell reactants, vented and lost propellants.

Note: Reference 10 includes this mass after the insertion weight, meaning that it is treated as propellant lost
during ascent.

Mentry – Entry mass of vehicle

Georgia Institute of Technology 26-3

 27.0 Ascent Propellants

27.0 Ascent Propellants

Mf_ascent – Total ascent fuel
Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
MR – Mass ratio for ascent
Rf – Fuel ascent propellant fraction: Mf_ascent over Mp_ascent

Georgia Institute of Technology 27-1

 27.0 Ascent Propellants

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Physics based. Comparison
Options: None.
2
⎛ 1 ⎞
M f _ ascent = R f M glow ⎜1 − ⎟ Ascent fuel mass
⎝ MR ⎠

⎛ 1 ⎞
M ox _ ascent = M f _ ascent ⎜ − 1⎟ Ascent oxidizer mass
⎜R ⎟
⎝ f ⎠

Mf_ascent – Total ascent fuel

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass
MR – Mass ratio for ascent
Rf – Fuel ascent propellant fraction: Mf_ascent over Mp_ascent

Georgia Institute of Technology 27-2

 27.0 Ascent Propellants

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
4b
Use the same equations as reference 2, but add 60 lbs. of total propellant lost during thrust decay.

Georgia Institute of Technology 27-3

 27.0 Ascent Propellants

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
10
MR − 1
M pascent = M glow
MR

Mglow – Gross liftoff mass

MR – Mass ratio for ascent

Georgia Institute of Technology 27-4

 28.0 Startup Losses

28.0 Startup Losses

Abody – surface area of vehicle body
Ispsl – Specific impulse of engine at sea level
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants
Mprop_tot – Total propellant onboard
Rv_lo – Vehicle thrust to weight at liftoff
Tstart – Main engine startup time

Georgia Institute of Technology 28-1

 28.0 Startup Losses

Reference: 1 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Aircraft and Space Shuttle. Comparison
Options: Startup loss factor.
-22% using
M start _ loss = M prop _ tot K su Ksu=0.002
Ksu – startup losses = 0.001 to 0.002

Mprop_tot – Total propellant onboard

Georgia Institute of Technology 28-2

 28.0 Startup Losses

Reference: 2 Space Shuttle

Derived for: Airbreathing horizontal takeoff vehicle. Comparison
Options: None.
44%
Rv _ lo
M start _ loss = 2M gross
Isp sl
Assumes a 4 second ramp up of engines before hold down is released.

Ispsl – Specific impulse of engine at sea level

Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Rv_lo – Vehicle thrust to weight at liftoff

Georgia Institute of Technology 28-3

 28.0 Startup Losses

Reference: 3 Space Shuttle

Derived from: Dr. Talay, LaRC, rocket based. Comparison
Options: None.
291%
M start _ loss = 0.01M pascent

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 28-4

 28.0 Startup Losses

Reference: 4b Space Shuttle

Derived from: Lifting body rocket upper stage. Comparison
Options: None.
-44% Using
M start _ loss = 0.00128 M pascent Startup losses. ET ascent
propellant
M buildup _ loss = 210 + 30 Propellant lost during thrust buildup (210 lbs. LOX and 30 lbs. LH2)

Mpascent – Mass of ascent propellants

Georgia Institute of Technology 28-5

 28.0 Startup Losses

Reference: 10 Space Shuttle

Derived from: NASA MSFC 3rd generation launch vehicle office (mostly airbreathing). Comparison
Options: None.
351% Based
Rv _ lo on 6s from
M start _ loss = Tstart M gross Losses while starting the engines ignition to
Isp sl
release
Abody 1% at 1.4s
M boiloff = K boil Boiloff while waiting on the pad or runway
21357

Kboil = 4359 – for LH2

= 104 – for LOX

Abody – surface area of vehicle body

Ispsl – Specific impulse of engine at sea level
Mgross – Gross vehicle mass on the pad or runway prior to liftoff
Rv_lo – Vehicle thrust to weight at liftoff
Tstart – Main engine startup time

Georgia Institute of Technology 28-6

Technology Reduction Factors
Reference: 3
These TRFs represent near term improvements. For example AMLS or NASP.

Near term mass reduction by system. The technology reduction factor (TRF) is listed on the right. The new mass (improved technology)
is found using the following equation:
Mnew = Moriginal(1-TRF)

1.0 Wing 44%

2.0 Tail 44%
3.0 Body & secondary struct. 38%
Crew cabin 38%
Body flap 44%
Thrust structure 38%
LOX & LH2 tank 0%
4.0 TPS 35%
5.0 Landing gear 9%
6.0 Main Propulsion 15%
7.0 RCS 0%
8.0 OMS 0%
9.0 Primary Power 0%
10.0 ECD 18%
11.0 Hydraulics 0%
12.0 Surface Control (EMA) 0%
13.0 Avionics 50%
14.0 ECLSS 10%
15.0 Personnel Equipment 0%

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-1

Reference: 6
Derived from data provided by Airframe Team, September 1999.

Technology mass reduction factors by material. The TRF is listed on the left. The new mass (improved technology) is found using the
following equation:
Mnew = Moriginal(1-TRF)

0% - Structural designs based on current aluminum alloy, ie. Saturn V, original ET

10% - Structural designs based on aluminum lithium alloy, ie new lightweight ET
20% - Wing structural designs based on advanced composites and materials
25% - Propellant tanks structural designs based on advanced composites and materials
30% - Interstages and body structural designs based on advanced composites and materials

Georgia Institute of Technology TRF-2