Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHellman, Barry Marken_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-01-18T20:11:25Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-03-03T21:03:56Z
dc.date.available2006-01-18T20:11:25Zen_US
dc.date.available2006-03-03T21:03:56Z
dc.date.issued2005-11-10en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1853/8026
dc.descriptionThis 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 institutionsen_US
dc.description.abstractThere 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.sponsorshipAIAA Space Systems Technical Committee ; AIAA Space Transportation Systems Technical Committee ; Space Technology Advanced Research Centeren_US
dc.format.extent4158177 bytesen_US
dc.format.extent8334054 bytesen_US
dc.format.extent477231 bytes
dc.format.extent591060 bytes
dc.format.extent1905 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherGeorgia Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSSEC05 Session B;GT-SSEC.B.3en_US
dc.subjectReusable Military Launch Systemen_US
dc.subjectHybrid systemsen_US
dc.subjectReusable boostersen_US
dc.subjectGlideback to launch site boostersen_US
dc.subjectFlyback to launch site boostersen_US
dc.subjectBoostback to launch site boostersen_US
dc.subjectVehicle modelingen_US
dc.subjectMultidisciplinary design optimizationen_US
dc.titleComparison of Return to Launch Site Options for a Reusable Booster Stageen_US
dc.typePresentationen_US
dc.contributor.corporatenameGeorgia Institute of Technology. Space Systems Design Laben_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record