XP67_Moonbat

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
16 January 2008
Messages
2,246
Reaction score
380
Another one from the lasses and lads at GA Tech:
https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/8382/1/aiaa_2004-3735_paper.pdf
 
"The C-1 is also designed to complete the mission with an engine failure on both the first and second stages. This inherent engine out capability allows the C-1 design to have a much higher reliability (0.986) than the reliability demonstrated by existing expendable launch vehicles (ELVs)."

I like it.
 
From the linked paper:
Centurion is an expendable heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV) family for launching lunar
exploration missions. Each vehicle in the family is built around a common two-stage core.
The first stage of the core uses kerosene (RP-1) fuel and utilizes four staged-combustion RD-
180 rocket engines. The upper stages consist of liquid oxygen (LOX)/liquid hydrogen (LH2)
propellant with three 220,000 lb thrust-class expander rocket engines. The larger variants
in the Centurion family will also use either one or two pairs of five-segment solid rocket
motors which are now being developed by ATK Thiokol.
The Centurion family consists of three vehicles denoted as C-1, C-2, and C-3. The first
vehicle (C-1) is a four RD-180 core with a LOX/LH2 upper stage. The C-1 is designed to
deliver a 35 metric ton (MT) CEV to a 300 km X 1000 km highly elliptical orbit (HEO). This
HEO allows the CEV to more easily transfer to a lunar trajectory, while still having the
ability to abort after one revolution. The C-1 also is designed to meet mission requirements
with a failure of both one RD-180 and one upper stage engine. The C-2 and C-3 Centurions
are both cargo carrying variants which carry 100 MT and 142 MT of cargo to a 407 km low
earth orbit (LEO) respectively. The C-2 utilizes two five-segment solid rocket boosters
(SRB), while the C-3 uses four SRBs.
Details of the conceptual design process used for Centurion are included in this paper.
The disciplines used in the design include configuration, aerodynamics, propulsion design
and selection, trajectory, mass properties, structural design, aeroheating and thermal
protection systems (TPS), cost, operations, and reliability and safety. Each of these
disciplines was computed using a conceptual design tool similar to that used in industry.
These disciplines were then combined into an integrated design team process and used to
minimize the gross weight of the C-1 variant. The C-2 and C-3 variants were simulated
using the C-1 optimized core with different configurations of SRBs. Each of the variants
recurring and non-recurring costs were computed. The total development cost including the
design, development, testing and evaluation (DDT&E) cost and a new launch pad at
Kennedy Space Center (KSC), was $7.98 B FY’04. The theoretical first unit (TFU) cost for
the C-2 variant was $532 M FY’04. A summary of design disciplines as well as the economic
results are included.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom