dc.contributor.author | Hellman, Barry Mark | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-01-18T20:11:25Z | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-03-03T21:03:56Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-01-18T20:11:25Z | en_US |
dc.date.available | 2006-03-03T21:03:56Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2005-11-10 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1853/8026 | |
dc.description | This conference features the work of authors from: Georgia Tech’s Space Systems Design Lab, Aerospace Systems Design Lab, School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Tech Research Institute; NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Marshall Space Flight Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, Langley Research Center; and other aerospace industry and academic institutions | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | There is a major need in the U.S. Air Force to develop launch vehicles that can be
used for Operational Responsive Spacelift and possibly be used for rapid global
Strike. One strategy to achieve these mission goals is to develop a Reusable
Military Launch System (RMLS) or a hybrid system which uses a reusable booster
with expendable upper stages. In support of the development work of the
Aerospace Systems Design Branch (ASC/ENMD) of the USAF Aeronautical
Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, this study looked at comparing three
basic methods for Return to Launch Site (RTLS) for a reusable booster. These
methods are glideback to launch site, flyback using an airbreathing turbofan, and
boostback using the booster's main or secondary rocket engines. The booster
carries the upper stage(s) on its back to the staging point. Currently, most RTLS
vehicle studies either assume a glideback or flyback booster. Very little work
outside of the Kistler K-1 has been done to look at boostback methods. The
vehicle modeling was integrated into ModelCenter using the MDO method of
Optimizer Based Decomposition to handle the branching trajectory problem that
arises from the booster performing a RTLS maneuver. Each of the three vehicles
was optimized to minimize dry weight and gross weight separately in order to get
a better understanding if boostback can provide any advantages over the two more
traditional RTLS methods. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | AIAA Space Systems Technical Committee ; AIAA Space Transportation Systems Technical Committee ; Space Technology Advanced Research Center | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 4158177 bytes | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 8334054 bytes | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 477231 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 591060 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 1905 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | en_US |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Georgia Institute of Technology | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | SSEC05 Session B;GT-SSEC.B.3 | en_US |
dc.subject | Reusable Military Launch System | en_US |
dc.subject | Hybrid systems | en_US |
dc.subject | Reusable boosters | en_US |
dc.subject | Glideback to launch site boosters | en_US |
dc.subject | Flyback to launch site boosters | en_US |
dc.subject | Boostback to launch site boosters | en_US |
dc.subject | Vehicle modeling | en_US |
dc.subject | Multidisciplinary design optimization | en_US |
dc.title | Comparison of Return to Launch Site Options for a Reusable Booster Stage | en_US |
dc.type | Text | |
dc.contributor.corporatename | Georgia Institute of Technology. Space Systems Design Lab | en_US |
dc.type.genre | Presentation | |