Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-22T17:35:14.454Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual stage separation from widebody subsonic carrier aircraft for space access

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

U. Mehta ,
J. Bowles ,
S. Pandya ,
J. Melton ,
L. Huynh ,
J. Kless  and
V. Hawke
J. Bowles
Affiliation:
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA
S. Pandya
Affiliation:
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA
J. Melton
Affiliation:
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, USA
L. Huynh
Affiliation:
Science and Technology Corporation, Moffett Field, California, USA
J. Kless
Affiliation:
Science and Technology Corporation, Moffett Field, California, USA
V. Hawke
Affiliation:
Science and Technology Corporation, Moffett Field, California, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stage separation is a critical technical issue for developing two-stage-to-orbit (TSTO) launch systems with widebody carrier aircraft that use air-breathing propulsion and launch vehicle stages that use rocket propulsion. During conceptual design phases, this issue can be addressed with a combination of engineering methods, computational fluid dynamics simulations, and trajectory analysis of the mated system and the launch vehicle after staging. The outcome of such analyses helps to establish the credibility of the proposed TSTO system and formulate a ground-based test programme for the preliminary design phase. This approach is demonstrated with an assessment of stage separation from the shuttle carrier aircraft. Flight conditions are determined for safe mated flight, safe stage separation, and for the launch vehicle as it commences ascending flight. Accurate assessment of aerodynamic forces and moments is critical during staging to account for interference effects from the proximities of the two large vehicles. Interference aerodynamics have a modest impact on the separation conditions and separated flight trajectories, but have a significant impact on the interaction forces.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1209 , November 2014 , pp. 1279 - 1309
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Augenstein, B.W., Harris, E.D. with Aroesty, J., Blumenthal, L., Brooks, N., Frelinger, D., Garber, T., Gottenmoeller, R., Hiland, J., Liu, S.K., Pace, S., Rosen, J., Rowell, L. and Stucker, J. The National Aerospace Plane (NASP): Development issues for the follow-on vehicle, Executive Summary, 1993, RAND, R3878/1-AF, Santa Monica, CA, USA.Google Scholar
2. Hallion, R.P. and Young, J.O. Space Shuttle: Fulfllment of a Dream, The Hypersonic Revolution, Vol 2, 1987 Hallion, R.P. (ed), Special Staff Offce, Aeronautical Systems Div, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA.Google Scholar
3. Hallion, R.P. Hypersonic power projection, 2010, Mitchell Paper 6, Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies.Google Scholar
4. Ashford, D.M. New commercial opportunities in space, Aeronaut J, February 2007, pp 61–75.Google Scholar
5. Loss of M-21 and D-21 On 30 July 1966, http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/M21_Crash.htm.Google Scholar
6. Shuttle Enterprise free fight, http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000218.html.Google Scholar
7. http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya.htm.Google Scholar
8. Hannigan, R.J. Spacefight in the Era of Aero-Space Planes, 1994, Krieger Publishing Co, p 112.Google Scholar
9. National Aero-Space Plane, Restructuring Future Research and Development Efforts, 1993, Rept NSIAD-93-71, US Government Accounting Offce.Google Scholar
10. Rich, B.R. and Janos, L. SkunkWorks: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed, 1994, Little Brown and Co, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
11. http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/sabre.html Google Scholar
12. Access to space, Advance Technology Team fnal report, Volume 1, Executive Summary, July 1993, NASA.Google Scholar
13. http://www.scaled.com/ Google Scholar
14. Allen, P.G. Announces revolution in space transportation, Stratolaunch Press Release, Stratolaunch Systems, 13 December 2011, http://www.stratolaunch.com.Google Scholar
15. Horizontal launch: A versatile concept for assured space access, Report of the NASA-DARPA Horizontal Launch Study, NASA SP 2011-215994.Google Scholar
16. Shuttle carrier aircraft, Fact Sheets 8 December 2009, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-013-DFRC.html.Google Scholar
17. Williams, J. and Vukelich, S. The USAF stability and control digital DATCOM, AFRL-TR-79-3032 USAF DATCOM User’s Manual, 1978.Google Scholar
18. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_Stability_and_Control_Digital_DATCOM.Google Scholar
19. Melton, J.E., Berger, M.J. and Aftosmis, M.J. 3D Applications of a cartesian grid Euler method, July 1993, AIAA Paper 95-0853-CP.Google Scholar
20. Aftosmis, M.J., Berger, M.J., and Adomovicius, G. A parallel multilevelmethod for adaptively refned cartesian grids with embedded boundaries, January 2000, AIAA Paper 2000-0808.Google Scholar
21. van Leer, B., Tai, C-H., and Powell, K.G. Design of optimally smoothing multi-stage schemes for the Euler equations, AIAA Paper 89-1933.Google Scholar
22. Aftosmis, M J., Berger, M.J. and Melton, J.E. Robust and effcient cartesian mesh generation for component-based geometry, January 1997, AIAA Paper 97-0196.Google Scholar
23. Nemec, M., Aftosmis, M.J. and Wintzer, M. Adjoint-based adaptive mesh refnement for complex geometries, AIAA 2008-0725.Google Scholar
24. Chaderjan, N.M., Rogers, S.E., AfTosmis, M.J., Pandya, S.A., Ahmad, J.U. and Tejnil, E. Automated Euler and Navier-Stokes database generation for a glide-back booster, July 2004, Third International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Toronto, Canada, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
25. Wintzer, M., Nemec, M. and Aftosmis, M. Adjoint-based adaptive mesh refnement for sonic boom prediction, AIAA 2008-6593.Google Scholar
26. Aftosmis, M.J., Nemec, M. and Cliff, S.E. Adjoint-based low-boom design with Cart3D, AIAA 2011-3500.Google Scholar
27. Elmiligui, A., Cliff, S., Wilcox, F. and Thomas, S. Numerical predictions of sonic boom signatures for a straight line segmented leading edge model, 2012, ICCFD7-2004.Google Scholar
28. Star-CCM+, CFD Software Package, CD-adapco, Melville, New York, USA.Google Scholar
29. http://www.cd-adapco.com/products/star-ccm-plus.Google Scholar
30. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence modeling for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
31. Durbin, P.A. On the k -e stagnation point anomaly, Int J Heat and Fluid Flow, 1996, 17, pp 89–90.Google Scholar
32. Shankara, P. and Snyder, D. Numerical simulation of high lift trap wing using STAR-CCM+, AIAA 2012-2920.Google Scholar
33. Hanke, C.R. and Nordwall, D.R. The simulation of a jumbo-jet transport aircraft, Vol 2, Modeling Data, 1970, NASA CR-114494.Google Scholar
34. Mair, W.A. and Birdsall, D.L. Aircraft Performance, 1992, Cambridge University Press, pp 253–257.Google Scholar
35. Striepe, S.A., Powell, R.W., Desai, P.N., Queen, E.M., Brauer, G.L., Cornick, D.E., Olson, D.W., Petersen, F.M., Stevenson, R., Engel, M.C., Marsh, S.M. and Gromoko, A.M. Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST II), Vol II Utilization Manual Version 1.1.6.G, January 2004, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA.Google Scholar