Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Analysis
of the Staging
,r and Booster
:
J
Glideback
Guidance
for a
Two-Stage,
Winged,
Fully
Reusable
Launch
Vehicle
t ,! "
T*
=_
J.
and
Christopher
Richard
Naftel
W. Powell
(NASA-TP-3335)
ANALYSIS
OF THE
STAGING
MANEUVER
AND BOOSTER
GLIDEBACK
GUIDANCE
FOR A TwO-STAGE,
WINGED,
FULLY
REUSABLE
LAUNCH
VEHICLE
M.S.
Thesis
- George
washington
Univ.
(NASA)
25 p
_%
L ,1
N93-27016
Uncl
H1/15
as
0164771
\:
m
m
i
m
I
m
i
m
m
i
m
m
i
l
I
m
l
E
_7
2_._1
.......
':_
..........
: :
LZZ;
-:7
;Z
Z.77
_7
ZZ
::7
NASA
Technical
Paper
3335
1993
Analysis
of the Staging
Maneuver
and Booster
Glideback
Guidance
for a
Two-Stage,
Winged,
Fully
Reusable
Launch
Vehicle
J.
and
Christopher
Richard
Langley
Hampton,
National Aeronautics
Space Administration
and
Office of Management
Scientific and Technical
Information Program
Naftel
W.
Research
Virginia
Powell
Center
Contents
Nomenclature
................................
Summary
of Launch
Vehicle
Characteristics
of Ascent
Characteristics
of Booster
Computational
Tools
Shuttle
Program
Reference
Analysis
of Staging
Analysis
3
3
Simulation
Simulated
Trajectory
Program
Trajectories
Model
.................
..................
.....................
...........................
Maneuver
Flight
Technique
Control
.........................
5
5
System
of Booster
.................
Angle
of Booster
Glideback
of Attack
6
.......................
Guidance
.....................
of Guidance
Algorithm
.....................
1--Initial
turn after staging
maneuver
................
2--Excess
performance
dissipation
.................
3--Acquisition
of heading
alignment
cylinder
4--Heading
alignment
cylinder
..................
5---Approach
..........................
6--Flare
and touchdown
....................
Glideback
.............................
of Staging
Development
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
Phase
Nominal
................................
Longitudinal
Range
....................
..........................
Atmosphere
Ascent
............................
To Optimize
Assumptions
.........................
Configuration
Separation
Nominal
Staging
.................................
Description
Global
..................................
Introduction
Space
Trajectory
Remarks
References
.................................
...........
.......................
Off-Nominal
Glideback
Trajectories
.....................
Atmospheric
dispersions
........................
Aerodynamic
dispersions
.......................
Staging
state dispersions
.......................
Summary
of off-nominal
glideback
trajectories
Concluding
8
8
9
10
10
10
11
11
12
12
14
14
16
..............
...........................
18
18
111"""
l|
PRE_ED!NG
P_IGE
BLAi_K
NOT
FILi_ED
Nomenclature
Aa
axial acceleration,
g units
An
normal
reference
CDjnom
nominal
drag coefficient,
CL,nom
nominal
lift coefficient,
reference
GRAM
Global
acceleration
I-IAC
heading
altitude,
acceleration,
g units
wingspan
(measured
at fuselage),
Drag/qooSre
Lift/qooSref
ft
Atmospheric
at fuselage),
ft
Model
alignment
cylinder
ft
altitude
derivative
vacuum
specific
with respect
impulse,
to time, ft/sec
sec
moments
of inertia
about
KSC
Kennedy
Space Center
Kq,
Kae
angle-of-attack
error gain
K_d5
angle-of-attack
displacement
gain of phase 5
g a6
angle-of-attack
displacement
gain of phase 6
Kar5
angle-of-attack
Kay6
angle-of-attack
Kcd5
roll-angle
displacement
K_5
roll-angle
L/D
lift-to-drag
Lref
reference
Mach number
NEP
nominal
qoc
dynamic
pressure,
Sref
reference
wing area, ft 2
SRB
solid rocket
SSSS
Space Shuttle
time, sec
ti
atmospheric
WEW
east-west
ratio
vehicle
entry
length,
ft
point
psf
booster
Separation
relative
Simulation
velocity,
wind component
ft/sec
ft/sec
PRE_E!)!NG
P/IIG _ ELANK
NOT
F_LL_ED
WNS
north-south
WP1
way point
WP2
way point
X, EZ
reference
body
center
Xr_, E_
wind
component
frames
of gravity
(wind
(origin
from
at vehicle
in X, Y, and
Z body
south,
positive),
nose),
frames,
ft/sec
ft
respectively,
ft
vehicle
and
Y positions
relative
to runway
threshold,
ft
vehicle
and Y velocities
relative
to runway
threshold,
ft/sec
angle
of attack,
deg
commanded
angle
initial
of attack,
angle
_S
angle
"7
atmospheric
%ef
reference
atmospheric
constant
term
linear
of attack
of attack,
"/2
quadratic
73
cubic
at staging
initiation,
angle,
relative
flight-path
in %ef polynomial,
term
commanded
_e,i
initial
pitch
gimbal
OR
angle
between
(positive
elevon
elevon
angle
with
deg
trailing
edge
down),
deg
and
(positive
booster
up),
at release
deg
of orbiter
deg
pitch
acceleration,
atmospheric
P76
1976
U.S.
standard
2
3
Atmospheric
density,
slugs/ft
deviation
dcg
geocentric
latitude,
slugs/ft
Standard
roll angle,
initial
deg/sec
density,
roll angle,
denotes
the
deg
deg
on engines
orbiter
deg/ft
deg/ft
deflection,
deflection,
angle,
deg
in %ef polynomial,
deflection
deg
deg/ft
in ")'ref polynomial,
_e,c
deg
flight-path
in %el polynomial,
term
elevon
deg
relative
term
deg
dcg
deg
derivative
with
vi
respect
to time.
from
rear
strut,
84j8 ft
10t .2 ft
_r
Payload
bay
/I
i\
=.__'
._
Sooster"_
:i
119.7 ft
11
133.5 ft
Figure
1. Two-stage,
at_s_htrute__t_
fully reusable
_ta_h_tedt/=
attad $tatas
Figure 2. Attachment
concept.
struts
=Eiiv in
controller
Table1.Characteristics
ofOrbiterandBooster
Characteristic
Gross
weight,
lb .............
Dryweight,
lb ..............
Number
ofengines............
Single
engine
vacuum
thrust,lb .......
Engine/._p,
sec ..............
Single
engine
exitarea,ft2 .........
Sref, ft 2
Orbiter
1 186 872
152 971
4
352 000
438
34.3
3722.6
133.5
50.2
101.2
.................
ft ..................
c (measured at fuselage), ft .........
b, ft ...................
Lref,
Characteristics
of Booster
Computational
The aerodynamic
data for the booster
are based
on a wind tunnel
analysis
of a similar vehicle that is
presented
in reference
6. The booster
control surfaces
include
elevons
and tip fin controllers
(fig. 2). The
elevons,
which have deflection
limits between
-30
and 20 , are used for both pitch
and roll control
by being
differentially
deflected
so that
they
can
function
as both
elevators
and ailerons.
The tip
fin controllers,
which have deflection
limits between
-60 and 60 , are used to control
sideslip angle and
can function
as a speed brake.
The booster
wings
are designed
to accommodate
a normal
force that is
2.5 times
the booster
landed
weight.
The landing
gear on the booster
is designed
for a sideslip
angle
limit between
-3 and 3 and a maximum
descent
rate
of 3 ft/sec
at touchdown.
Booster
' 960636
107362
6
352000
438
34.3
3291.2
119.7
43.5
84.8
Tools
Space
Shuttle
Program
Separation
Simulation
The separation
trajectories
in this study were generated with the Space Shuttle
Separation
Simulation
(SSSS)
program
(ref. 7). The SSSS program
computes the kinematics
of separation
in six rigid-body
degrees
of freedom
for a core vehicle
(orbiter)
and
three
rigid-body
degrees
of freedom
for up to five
auxiliary
components
(boosters).
The equations
of
motion
used in the SSSS program
are written
about
the body axes of the core and each auxiliary.
For the
core vehicle
(with or without
auxiliaries
attached),
the three translational
and three rotational
equations
of motion
are integrated.
For each auxiliary
(when
detached
from the core), the translational
equations
in the X and Z body frames and the rotational
equation about the Y-axis
are integrated.
The separation
distances
and rotations
for each auxiliary,
relative
to
the core vehicle, are calculated
during
the separation
trajectory.
Program
Trajectories
_______ie
Figure 3. Mission
concept.
hi_)lel_ Sngrnb 1y
scenario
for two-stage,
fully
reusable
To
Optimize
Simulated
The ascent
and glideback
trajectories
were generated
with the three-degrees-of-freedom
version
of
the Program
To Optimize
Simulated
Trajectories
(POST).
(See ref. 8.) The POST program
deals with
generalized
point mass, discrete
parameter
targeting,
and optimization
with the capability
of targeting
and
optimizing
trajectories
for a powered
or unpowered
vehicle
near a rotating
oblate
planet.
POST
is an
event-oriented
trajectory
program
that can be used
to analyze
ascent,
on-orbit,
entry,
and atmospheric
trajectories.
Any calculated
variable
in POST
can
be optimized
while being subjected
to a combination
of both equality
and inequality
constraints.
3
POSTwasusedin a targetingandoptimization
modefor the development
of the nominalascent
trajectory. After severalmodificationsweremade
to POSTfor this study,it wasusedin a simulation
modefor the boosterglidebacktrajectories.These
modificationsincludedthe additionof the closedloopguidancealgorithmthat wasdeveloped
for the
glidebackof the boosterto the launchsite runway,
the additionof the boosteraerodynamic
database,
andthe additionof the numerousatmospheres
and
windprofilesthat wereusedto evaluatetheguidance
algorithm.Fortheglideback
trajectories,thebooster
wastrimmed in pitch with the elevonsusing the
statictrim optionin POST.
Global
The
Reference
Global
(GRAM)
was
the evaluation
Atmosphere
Reference
used to model
of the booster
of 2896
ft/sec.
4r x 14 4_
105
/
Staging
/-
Atmosphere
v//
Model
the atmospheres
for
glideback
guidance
velocity
Model
algorithm
(ref. 9).
The GRAM
is an engineering model
atmosphere
that
includes
mean
values
for density,
temperature,
pressure,
and wind components,
in addition
to random
perturbation
profiles for density
variations
along a specified
trajec-
Nominal
20000
lb of payload
to a 220-n.mi.
circular
orbit,
also inclined
28.5 , by using its orbital
maneuvering
system engines.
Staging of the booster
occurs
103 sec
after launch at an altitude
of 83 175 ft and a relative
11
1 _
SS
s/S
!
100
200
300
400
500
Time, see
Figure
600-
ii
Ii
I
I
!
400-
200-
/!
|
I
t
Ii
_'_a
!
!
!
I
!
!
I
!
I
!
Trajectory
qo,,
A detailed
discussion
of the ascent
trajectory
guidance
and flight control issues for the launch configuration
in this study can be found in reference
11.
The launch
site is assumed
to be a modified
Space
Shuttle
launch
pad at the Kennedy
Space Center.
The launch vehicle has a maximum
dynamic
pressure
constraint
of 800 psf, a maximum
axial acceleration
constraint
of 39, and a wing normal-force
constraint
equal to 2.5 times the dry weight of each stage.
The
angle of attack
at staging
(-1.7 ) was determined
by the staging
maneuver
analysis,
which will be discussed in a later section
entitled
"Analysis
of Staging Maneuver."
strained
ascent
A description
of the
trajectory
follows.
optimum
con-
"
100
200
300
400
500
Time, sec
Figure
5. Dynamic
pressure
and axial
acceleration
during
ascent.
Figure
5 shows that
the axial acceleration
limit
of 39 is reached
at 320 see after
launch.
For the
remainder
of the ascent,
the orbiter
main
engines
are throttled
to maintain
a 3g axial acceleration.
In
order to meet the wing normal-force
constraint,
the
launch vehicle flies a lofted ascent
trajectory.
Thus,
the maximum
dynamic
pressure
for the optimum
constrained
ascent trajectory
is only 596 psf, which is
well below the 800-psf limit.
The dynamic
pressure
at staging
is 308.6 psf.
was
The staging
angle-of-attack
constraint
satisfied
as shown
in figure 6. During
of -1.7
staging,
2O
10 -
10
o_'_
o
I
-10 -
-10
-20 -
-20
t.z,, i
!
/
0
"
_,--Staging
I
100
200
300
400
I
500
Time, sec
Figure 6. Pitch gimbal of engines and angle-of-attack
during ascent.
Analysis
of
Assumptions
For this study,
only the pitch
plane
(the
plane)
of the staging
maneuver
was analyzed.
aerodynamic
data base consisted
of free-stream
for the individual
orbiter
and booster
elements.
the dynamic
pressure
at nominal
staging of the Space
Shuttle
solid rocket boosters
(SRB) from the external
tank.
Staging
profiles
Maneuver
One
of the
significant
design
issues
for any
multistage
vehicle is a safe separation
at staging.
The
two-stage,
fully reusable
launch
vehicle
is different
from any vehicle flown to date because
both the orbiter and booster
are winged.
An additional
complication
is that because
propellant
is supplied
to the
orbiter
from the booster
during
the boost phase, the
booster
(which is attached
to the underside
of the
orbiter
in a parallel
stage configuration)
has nearly
depleted
its propellants
but the orbiter is fully loaded
with propellant
at staging.
Also, the dynamic
pressure at staging is approximately
10 times higher than
terference
effects, which are caused by the close proximity of the two vehicles
during
the staging
maneuver, were not included
in the aerodynamic
data base.
In order to accurately
assess interference
aerodynamics at the nominal
staging
conditions,
rigorous
computational
fluid dynamics
techniques
validated
with
wind tunnel
tests would have to be employed,
which
is beyond
the scope of the present
study.
The staging procedure
developed
in this study should be valid
even though
interference
effects were not included
in
the aerodynamic
data base.
The mass properties
at staging for the booster
and
orbiter
are shown in table 2. The orbiter
is nearly
10
times heavier
than the booster
and has proportionately higher moments
of inertia than the booster.
For
optimal
payload
performance,
the launch
vehicle is
flown in a heads-up
attitude
during
the ascent
trajectory.
Therefore,
the booster
is situated
below the
orbiter
at staging.
Nominal
trajectory
conditions
at staging
initiation are shown
in table 3, along
with the nominal
Space Shuttle
SRB (STS-39)
staging
conditions
for
comparison.
At staging,
the launch
vehicle is moving away from the launch
site runway
with a range
of 10.5 n.mi. from the launch
pad. Nominally,
staging occurs
at an altitude
of 83 175 ft, a velocity
of
2896 ft/sec,
a dynamic
pressure
of 308.6 psf, and an
angle of attack
of - 1.7 .
Property
Weight, Ib .............
Total thrust, lb ...........
Xcg,
Ycg,
Zcg,
lzz,
ft ...............
ft ...............
ft ...............
slug-ft 2 ............
Ivy, slug-ft 2
Izz, slug-ft 2
............
............
XZ
The
data
In-
at Staging
Orbiter
1 186 872
1 395 200
98.78
0
0
3.955 x 10 6
18.690 106
20.092 x 106
Booster
120 826
0
87.36
0
-2.39
0.444 x 106
4.109 x 106
4.262 x 106
Table3.Nominal
Conditions
at Initiation
ft
..............
V, ft/sec
..............
_t, deg
..............
_, deg
..............
Range to launch pad, n.mi..
........
q_c, psf
..............
Mach number
..............
Time from lift-off, sec ...........
Longitudinal
Booster
Flight
A longitudinal
used to drive the
Control
flight
booster
control
elevons
System
of
biter released
and rearward
system
(fig. 7) was
to control the angle
of attack during
the staging
maneuver.
This control
system
uses an angle-of-attack
error signal coupled
with pitch rate feedback
to direct the booster.
When
the orbiter
has been released
from both booster
attachment
struts,
the booster
flight control
system is
given a commanded,
or desired,
angle of attack.
The
booster
elevons are used to drive the booster
to the
commanded
angle of attack
and then maintain
that
angle of attack throughout
the remainder
of the staging maneuver.
The commanded
angle of attack
chosen for this study was -10 . A more negative
commanded
anglc of attack
was not chosen because
the
booster
cannot be trimmed
at angles of attack below
-15 at a Mach number
of 3 with the present
elevon
control
authority,
and this choice
leaves an angleof-attack
margin
of 5 _. A less negative
commanded
during
the
staging
maneuver
with
simultaneously
attachment
100
_9
e-
-100
sufficient
-200
-200
t
-100
Horizontal
Figure 8. Separation
intervals.
q
Figure 7. Longitudinal
flight control system of booster
staging maneuver. 6e,i = 0; Kae -- 1; /'('qr = 2 see.
Staging
Technique
The
simulation
nominal
first
staging
angle
of staging
of attack
was
of -t.7
the forward
booster
im-
ment
struts
were released.
The longitudinal
flight
control
system was not able to overcome
the normal
force and moment
that
caused
the booster
to pitch
up and recontact
the orbiter.
The boundary
of the
orbiter
engine plumes in figure 8 was estimated
from
photographs
of the Space Shuttle
at a Mach numbcr
of 3.5.
(9
.,.d
_C_
from both
struts
on the
mediately
after the booster
engines
were shut down.
Figure
8 shows the movement
of the booster
relative to the orbiter
for this case, in which the angle
between
the booster
and orbiter
(OR) was 0 at the
instant
that both the forward
and rearward
attach-
Space Shuttle
(STS-39)
156 441
4094
32.6
1.2
25.4
22.7
3.73
125.3
Two-stage, fully
reusable concept
83 175
2896
34.9
-1.7
10.5
308.6
2.96
104.8
Condition
Altitude,
of Staging Maneuver
made
, with
at
for
the
the or-
t
100
separation
J
200
I
300
distance,
,
400
ft
shown at 0.5-sec
A new separation
technique
was developed
to ensure that
the booster
would
have the normal
separation
forces necessary
to avoid recontact
with the
orbiter
and to avoid the plumes
from the orbiter
engines.
In this technique,
the booster
engines
are
shut down, the forward
strut is immediately
released,
the booster
rotates
about
the rearward
struts,
and
the rearward
struts
are released
when the angle between the booster
and orbiter reaches
2 . Because
of
Table
4.
Nominal Conditions
at Completion
of Staging Maneuver
Condition
Booster
88 600
2732
30
-10
11.8
15.8
204
2.78
108.2
Altitude, ft .............
V, ft/sec ..............
% deg ...............
(_, deg ...............
Range to launch pad, n.mi .......
Range to runway, n.mi ........
qoo, psf
..............
Mach number
...........
Time from lift-off, sec ........
the booster
center-of-gravity
location
relative
to the
rearward
struts,
the aerodynamic
forces cause the
booster
to rotate
about
the rearward
struts.
After
the booster
completion
the rearward
struts
are released,
the booster
is commanded
to fly to an angle of attack of -10 . Figure 9
shows the elevon and angle-of-attack
history
for this
maneuver
starting
at the instant
that the orbiter
is
released
from the rearward
struts.
Note that the ini-
100
Orbiter
in figure 9 is -3.7
2 with respect
to
89014
2947
33.4
-4
11.8
15.8
241.9
3
108.2
and orbiter
trajectory
conditions
of the staging
maneuver.
at the
.=_-100
-200
3 sec
20-
-300
-200
0
g
_10oo
-100
Horizontal
$%
%
A+
100
200
separation
distance,
300
400
ft
_-5
0-
-10 -
_-I0
-15
O_
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Time, sec
Range
of Staging
Angle
of Attack
profiles with
ward strut.
The maximum
staging
angle of attack
occurs
at 2.6 , a position
where the rotational
acceleration
is 0 and the booster
will not rotate away from
the orbiter.
The minimum
staging
angle-of-attack
limit occurs
at the point where the booster
longitudinal control
system
cannot
keep the booster
angle
of attack
from excessively
overshooting
-10 during
the separation
maneuver,
beyond
which the booster
cannot
be controlled
with adequate
margin.
and angle-of-attack
Staging
Minimum
(a = -6 )
Development
Nominal
(_x = - 1.7 )
I
I
t
!
I
I
I
!
l
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
-10
.
I
-5
Algorithm
The guidance
algorithm
developed
for the booster
glideback
is divided
into six phases which begin
at
the completion
of the staging
maneuver
and end
Maximum
(a = 2.6 )
"_ 50
of Guidance
at touchdown
on the runway
(fig. 13). The overall
strategy
of the different
phases
includes
the following: (1) arresting
the booster
downrange
motion
by
turning
back toward
the launch
area, (2) depleting
the booster
excess energy,
(3) intersecting
a heading
alignment
cylinder
(HAC),
(4) gliding
on the HAC
until lined up with the KSC Shuttle
runway,
(5) approaching
the runway,
and (6) performing
a flare
maneuver.
_, deg
Figure 11. Rotational
acceleration
28.6
This minimum
constraint
occurs when the staging
angle of attack
is lower than
-6 . As an example,
figure 12 shows the elevon and angle-of-attack
profiles
for a staging
angle of attack
of -7 . The booster
angle of attack
is shown to overshoot
the lower limit
of -10 during
the staging
maneuver
and excessive
elevon
deflection
angles are required.
The staging
angle
of attack
for the nominal
ascent
trajectory
was chosen to be -1.7 , which is approximately
the
midpoint
of the allowable
8.6 range in the staging
angle of attack
of the launch vehicle (fig. 11).
_o 28.4
"O
KSC
_f_
Shuttle
Launch/-Separauon
.......
\_
site /
maneuver
runway -_6
_\
_
_/"
Heading
\5:_
_N_
alignment
\_
Guidance
cylinder
_:
(HAC)-"er//_
phase
J
"_ 28.2
nim rsj,
279.0
279.5
Longitude,
010 -
_.-10-
-20 -
@-10
_
%
%
I
.5
I
! .0
'u
1.5
2.0
Time, sec
Figure 12. Elevon deflection and angle-of-attack
OR=2 andc_ s=-7
.
Analysis
of
Booster
Glideback
profiles with
Guidance
glideback guidance.
site runway.
Before the turn begins,
the booster
has
a heading
angle of 90; when the turn is completed,
the booster
has a heading
angle of 210 . The heading
angle of the runway
is 330 .
- 15
-20
deg
Phase
1--Initial
turn
after
staging
maneuver.
Table 4 gives the trajectory
conditions
at the
completion
of the nominal
staging
maneuver.
The
first phase, which begins at the completion
of staging,
is the maneuver
that
arrests
the downrange
motion
of the booster
and turns
it back toward
the launch
-5
0f
_e
-30 -
280.0
The three-degrees-of-freedom
POST
program
was
used to find the optimum
(minimum
time)
turning
maneuver
of phase
1 with the appropriate
initial
and final heading
angles
and a maximum
normal
acceleration
of 2.3g.
Sincc the booster
is designed
for a maximum
normal
acceleration
limit of 2.5g, a
margin
of 0.2g was established
to allow for possible
increased
loads
from off-nominal
conditions.
An
open-loop
approximation
to the optimum
turning
maneuver
was modeled
in which angle of attack was
a function
of Mach number
and roll angle
was a
function
of heading
angle.
A description
of this
maneuver
follows.
(i = O, 1)
of attack
is the time
the initial
of ai and
the anglemaneuver,
the turn is
is a function
phase 2 begins
and the booster
is rolled to 0 at a
rate of 20 deg/sec.
The roll angle is then modulated
by feedback
to keep the booster
on a 210 heading
angle while the excess performance
is dissipated.
The
angle of attack
continues
to follow the Mach number
schedule
used in phase 1 (fig. 14) until an angle of
attack
of 6.5 is reached.
For the remaining
portion
of phase 2, the angle of attack
is kept at 6.5 .
of Mach
t, see
Table 5. Parameters in Guidance Angle-of-Attack
Expression for Phase 1
i, deg
0<t<5
....
5<t_<10
....
0
66.5
, deg/see
13.3
10.7
t _ sea
0<t<5
....
o /
5<t<_20
....
__j
5.0-15.5
,50[
t.3
40
-o-
50
_100
30
100
Azimuth
20
3
Figure
10
7
15. Booster
roll-angle
angle-of-attack
for phases
6.5
/YY
5
schedule
lO4
300
angle, deg
a, deg
I
200
10
3
For the first 10 sec of the turn,
the booster
angle is calculated
by using the expression
(t)
= i + i(t
- ti)
roll
(i = O, l)
2--Excess
performance
booster
reaches
a heading
dissipation.
angle of 210 ,
2
1
1
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Range, n.mi.
Figure
16. Potential
range of booster.
The purpose
of phase 2 is to deplete
the
excess performance.
The guidance
algorithm
uously calculates
the range from the booster
booster
contincurrent
Nominal
pathstefr
KSCShuttle
runway
Approach
wp2J I--
36 800 ft
Figure 17. Geometry
_11_
Phase
3--Acquisition
of heading
alignment
cylinder.
Phase
3 consists
of the turn and glide to
the heading
alignment
cylinder
(HAC).
Throughout
phase 3, the angle of attack is modulated
by feedback
about the nominal
angle of attack of 6.5 to keep the
booster
potential
range equal to the actual range to
the runway.
The booster
has approximately
equal
range margins
above and below its potential
range at
an angle of attack
of 6.5 . The upper performance
limit is defined
by the booster
maximum
L/D, which
occurs
at an angle of attack
of 10%
The lower
performance
limit was set at 5 . Figure
16 shows the
booster
altitude-dependent
potential
range for angles
of attack
between
5 and 10 .
booster
headed
(WP1),
which
is the
target
point
on the HAC
(fig. 17). This HAC concept,
which is similar
to the
one used by the Shuttle
orbiter,
consists
of an imaginary cylinder
that is tangent
to the extension
of the
runway
centerline.
The point
where the HAC and
the extension
of the runway
centerline
intersect
is
called the nominal
entry point (NEP).
For the guidance algorithm
is defined
with
to the runway
chosen so that
10
the HAC
a distance
threshold
of 36 800 ft. The radius was
the roll angle of the booster,
while on
WPI
NEP
of heading alignment
position
to the target point on the runway.
The guidance algorithm
also calculates
the booster
potential
range at its current
altitude
and angle of attack
using the plot found
in figure
16. Once the booster
potential
range
to the runway
converges
to the actual range to the runway,
the third guidance
phase is
initiated.
During
phase 3, the
lated to kecp the booster
. .
'en ay
centerline
cylinder.
from 10 to 20 . The
was dictated
by the
the approach
phase.
Phase
4--Heading
alignment
cylinder.
Phase
4 guidance
begins
when the booster
reaches
WP1.
The booster
roll angle is modulated
by feedback to maintain
a constant
radius
turn equal to the
radius of the HAC. For simplicity,
the angle of attack
throughout
phase 4 is maintained
at the final angle
of attack of phase 3. When the booster
has traveled
around
the cylinder
to the point where it is aligned
with the runway
centerline
(i.e., NEP),
phase
5 is
initiated
and the booster
rolls to 0 .
Phase
5--Approach.
Phase 5 begins when the
booster
is at the NEP and ends when the booster
reaches an altitude
of 1000 ft. For phase 5, a reference
aim point was defined
to be 40 ft down
which
is 2210 ft short
of the desired
the runway,
touchdown
position
used in phase 6. The instantaneous
flightpath
angle necessary
for the booster
to fly toward
the reference
aim point
was defined
as "/ref"
The
commanded
booster
angle of attack
during
phase 5
was calculated
using the expression
C_c = ai + K_d5 (%ef - 7) + Kar5
(dT/dt)
transformed
rule given
from d%ef/dh
to d%ef/dt
d%ef/dt
perpendicular
to the extension
of the centerline.
The
values of these gains were chosen based on previous
experience.
the chain
= (dTref/dh)(dh/dt)
where
dh/dt
is the altitude
commanded
angle of attack
tionship
used was
rate.
of the
using
as
To calculate
booster,
the
[(dTref/dr)
the
rela-
(dT/dt)]
1.25 _x 105
Phase
Yrt
FNminal
/
touchdown
_Xzt_ ........
fl]--
,/ .........
18.
15 ()(}Oft
(Joordimtic
system
of KSC
Shuttle
6--Flare
and
"_ .50'75i
touchdown.
At
t "/:lh
h. -}- ")'2 h2
:_
where 7,4
is l lw <l<+sired Ilight-l):dh
angle
tudc h. l)ilf<rrerfliating
this <+xpr<+ssion giw's
d%.,,f/dh,
wlmrc d%,,f/dh
at altitude
h,.
-- 7t +
272]t
"
at
all.i-
:_"f3]I'2
is t.h% d_sired
tlight-l)ath-angle
rate
The tligllt-pat]J-angh_
rate nmst
t)e
an al-
.25
runway.
%-el
-f
Phase
[300 ft
Figuro
-"I250
centerline
poinl (WP2)
:/,
1.00 _
F Runway
100
200
300
Time,
Figur('
19.
l_oosler
Nominal
Profiles
of Mach
glidetmck
nmnl)er
and
400
500
allitu(te
for
6OO
sec
nominM
tra,ie(:lory.
Glideback
Trajectory
touchdownpositionis on the
centerline,
at 2250 ft
down the 15000-ft
runway,
with a descent
rate of
1.4 ft/sec.
Figure
18 shows the nominal
touchdown
position
in the runway
coordinate
system.
100-
Figure
19 shows the Mach number
and altitude
profiles
for the nominal
glideback
trajectory.
The
rapid
deceleration
of the booster
after
staging
is
evident
in the Mach
number
profile.
During
the
first 100 sec, the booster
decelerates
from a Mach
number
of 2.8 to below 1.0. The booster
remains
at
50-
3Phase
subsonic
speeds
for the remainder
of the glideback.
The booster
reaches a maximum
altitude
of 110 000 ft
at 20 sec
glideback,
glide until
The
roll-angle
and
angle-of-attack
profiles
are
shown
in figure 20.
The angle of attack
reaches
a
maximum
of 35 , and the roll angle reaches
a maximum
of 120 during
the phase
1 turn.
The rollangle profile shows
when the phase 1 turn
is completed
(70 sec), when the booster
turns
toward
the
HAC (120 see), and when the booster
is on the HAC
(395-410
see). The angle-of-attack
profile shows that
throughout
phases
2-4 the booster
flies near the desired angle of attack
of 6.5 .
-50 -
I00
200
300
400
500
i
600
Time, sec
Figure 21. Profiles of flight-path angle and normal acceleration for nominal booster glideback trajectory.
The elevon
deflection
angle
and range
profiles
are shown in figure 22. The elevon deflection
angle
remains within the limits of -30 and 20 throughout
the glideback.
The booster
reaches
a maximum
range
of 28 n.mi. from the runway.
Phase
,-1
20-
Phase
200 -
40
150 -
30
30
"1
100 etD
l _____,
20
_l}
"O
-20
50 -
10
0-
_----I
"'_.9
"
lo'
- 10
100
'1"
......
-40 ,
0
-50 -
200
300
400
500
100
200
I
600
Time, sec
300
400
500
600
Time, sec
Figure 22. Profiles of clevon deflection angle and range for
nominal booster glideback trajectory.
Figure 20. Profiles of roll angle and angle of attack for nominal booster glideback trajectory.
Off-Nominal
Figure
21 shows the flight-path
angle and normal
acceleration
profiles.
The maximum
normal
acceleration
during
the nominal
glideback
is 2.3g, which
is below the 2.5g limit.
The flight-path-angle
profile
shows that during the glideback,
the flight-path
angle
varies from a maximum
of 30 , at staging
completion
to a minimum
of -45 just after the maximum
altitude is attained.
12
Glideback
Trajectories
Atmospheric
dispersions.
The initial
offnominal
conditions
used in the guidance
sensitivity
analysis
were constant
bias factors
applied
to the
1976 U.S. Standard
Atmospheric
density
which was
multiplied
by factors
of 0.9 and 1.1. Table 7 shows
the booster
touchdown
conditions
with the high- and
low-density
profiles
along with the nominal
booster
Table
7.Booster
Touchdown
Conditions
U.S. Standard
Nominal
Condition
Xrt , ft
......
2250
2256
2247
Condition
Nominal
......
Head
.......
Tail ........
Left cross
.....
Right cross .....
J6t, ft/sec
Conditions
Xrt, ft
305
226
379
299
303
ditions
for these four glideback
cases.
The constant
head and tail winds had a significant
effect on the
X-component
of the touchdown
velocity,
and the
constant
cross winds had a significant
effect on the
Y-component
of the touchdown
velocity.
However,
all four booster
simulations
ended with a successful
runway
landing.
The side velocity
at touchdown
for
the two cross wind cases (3.2 ft/sec and -3.4
ft/sec)
resulted
in a sideslip angle range from approximately
-1 to 1 , which was well below the sideslip
angle
range from -3 to 3 that the landing
gear was designed to handle.
To simulate
more
realistic
atmospheric
conditions, mean density
profiles and wind profiles for each
month of the year at the launch site were determined
by using the GRAM
model.
In addition,
l0 perturbed
and +3a perturbed
atmospheres
were determined for a single month of the year.
July was choatmospheres.
Figures
Constant
J(rt, ft/sec
2250
2140
2091
2239
2256
Glideback
trajectories
were modeled
with constant head, tail, and cross winds incorporated.
The
wind
speed
was assumed
to be 22 knots,
which
was consistent
with the maximum
magnitude
that
was used in the Shuttle
orbiter
guidance
evaluations.
Table
8 shows
the booster
touchdown
con-
perturbed
With
23-25
in 1976
Yrt, ft
l;'_t, ft/sec
h, ft/sec
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1.4
-1.3
-1.3
305
284
326
touchdown
conditions.
(See fig. 18 for runway
coordinate
system definition.)
In both cases the booster
landed
within
6 ft of the nominal
target
point and
had a lower touchdown
velocity
(284 ft/sec)
for the
high-density
atmosphere
and a higher touchdown
velocity (326 ft/sec)
for the low-density
atmosphere.
With Variations
Density Profiles
Atmospheric
Yrt, ft
]zrt, ft/sec
]_, ft/see
0
0
0
11.7
-11.4
0
0
0
3.2
-3.4
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
-1.5
show a composite
of all the atmospheres
that were
generated
with the GRAM
for use in this study.
In
figure 23, the GRAM
atmospheric
densities
are divided by the 1976 U.S. Standard
Atmospheric
density to simplify
the comparisons.
Over the altitude
range that the booster
covers during
the glideback,
the GRAM
densities
range from6
percent
lower to
over 18 percent
higher
than the 1976 U.S. Standard
Atmospheric
density.
The east-west
component
of
the winds (fig. 24) for the GRAM atmospheres
varies
from 100 ft/sec east to 125 ft/sec
west.
The maximum north-south
component
of the winds (fig. 25) is
much smaller
and is less than 20 ft/sec.
1.5
x 10 5
1.0
d
.5
0
.90
.95
1.00
1.05
I
1.I0
I
1.15
I
1.20
P/P76
Figure 23. Variation
densities.
of monthly
and perturbed
atmospheric
13
Table9.Booster
Touchdown
Conditions
WithGRAMAtmospheric
Density
Variations
forMonthly
Mean Density With No Wind
Condition
X,.t, ft
Nominal
Jfrt, ft/sec
2250
2247
2238
2236
2242
2228
2241
2230
2232
2263
2241
2272
2247
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Yrt, ft/sec
Jr, ft/sec
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
-I.3
-1.2
-1.4
I
-1.4
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.4
-1.2
-1.3
low-lift
case, the booster
lands
closer to the beginning of the runway
than any of the other off-nominal
cases. The descent
rate at touchdown
for these two
105
1.5
Yrt, ft
305
305
305
307
309
311
313
314
314
313
311
307
306
1.0
.5
1.5 i
0
-150
-100
-50
50
I00
,I
150
105
f
l.O[-
WEW, ft/sec
Figure
24. Variation
Tables
9 and
of monthly
10 show
east-west
the booster
wind components.
touchdown
con-
ditions
with the monthly
mean densities
without
and
with winds,
respectively.
Results
of the glideback
trajectories
for 10 perturbed
July atmospheres
as
well as =t=3a variations
of the July atmosphere
are
shown
in table
11.
The landing
conditions
for all
these trajectories
are close to the nominal
landing
conditions.
Also, none of the vehicle constraints
are
violated
throughout
any of these trajectories.
Aerodynamic
dispersions.
Errors
in the predicted booster
aerodynamics
were simulated
by multiplying
the lift and drag coefficients
of the booster
by
factors
of 0.9 and 1.1. The results
of these trajectories are shown in table 12. In the high-drag
case and
14
.5
0
-30
I
-20
,
-I0
10
I
20
I
30
WNS, ft/sec
Figure 25. Variation
components.
of monthly
north-south
wind
Staging
state
dispersions.
The errors
in the
staging conditions
were simulated
by adding and subtracting
10 percent
to the nominal
staging
altitudc.
velocity,
and flight-path
angle. Table 13 summarizes
the results
for these glideback
trajectories.
The guidance algorithm
was ablc to adjust to these errors
in
Table
10. Booster
Touchdown
Variations
Conditions
for Monthly
With
Mean
GRAM
Density
Atmospheric
With
Density
Wind
J(_, ft/sec
Yrt, ft
l:'_,, ft/sec
-Nominal
2250
305
-1.4
January
2134
273
--1.8
-.5
-1.4
February
2123
268
--1.2
-.3
-1.4
March
2108
273
--.3
-.1
-1.3
April
2156
288
May
June
2250
3O8
--.4
-.I
-1.4
2241
323
--.6
--.3
-1.4
July
2235
326
-1.5
August
2242
324
--.4
--.2
-1.4
September
October
2254
321
-2.4
--.8
-1.3
2234
3O9
-3.8
-I.I
-1.4
November
2197
291
-3.8
-I.0
-1.2
December
2149
278
-2.6
--.7
-1.3
Condition
Xrt,
Table
ft
11. Booster
Touchdown
Variations
.4
.1
.2
Conditions
With
for Perturbations
GRAM
for July
h, ft/sec
Atmospheric
With
-1.2
Density
Wind
Perturbation
1
2206
329
2243
330
2245
328
2224
330
2246
330
.3
-1.4
2232
329
.2
-1.3
2211
331
-1.2
2213
33O
-1.3
2235
329
10
2212
331
0.2
,.
Table
2223
12. Booster
Touchdown
Condition
Nominal
-1.5
-1.4
-1.3
-1.5
variation
331
Xrt,
.......
-1.2
j ,21 i 0,
Conditions
0 i
With
ft
-1.3
.3
Perturbation
-3a
Constant
J(rt,
ft/sec
2250
305
Variations
in Predicted
Yrt, ft
0
- 1.5
Aerodynamics
]zrt, ft/sec
0
)_, ft/sec
- 1.4
Drag:
1.1
C D ........
0.9
CD,no
1.1
eL,no
0.9
eL)nora
2036
259
-1.7
....
2186
364
-1.0
....
2219
335
-1.4
....
1931
263
-1.7
Lift:
m
15
Table13.Booster
Touchdown
Conditions
With
Condition
N'ominal
Xrt,
...........
Staging
Variations
ft
Jfrt,
high
10 percent
Staging
low
305
.......
2239
303
.......
2247
303
302
-1.4
2246
3O6
-1.4
.......
2233
305
-1.4
.......
2252
3O6
-1.4
flight-path
angle:
high
low
14. Range
glideback
of Touchdown
Conditions
and
the
vehicle
constraints,
the
staging
altitude
casc,
the
2.75g
during
normal
normal
The
of
from
the
centerline.
226
ft/scc
than
dcsccnt
3.5
rate
to
ft/sec.
at
velocity
379
ft/sec
touchdown
305
379
11.6
varied
at
The
to
below
1.7
(fig.
straint
and
figure
profiles:
28)
show
below
during
that
the
the
27 shows
The
normal
all
2.5g
early
but
one
normal
part
plotted
thc
16
wide
the
trajcctories
togcther
range
in
discussed
figures
of paths
that
26
in
31.
the
Figure
glideback.
procase
conThis
KSC
Shuttle
runway
time
Ascen[
scc.
to
"7
h site
varied
side
GI)deback
velocity
had
28
279
ft/sec.
booster
off-nominal
9,
o_
1931
cases
this
correspond-
acceleration
of the
)
280
281
Longitude,
All
the
acceleration
12 ft of the
touchdown
off-nominal
flies
HAC,
is
651
from
the
altitude
alti-
touchdown
within
with
the
ing
-1.7
trajec-
of
483
reach
3.2
-1.4
violated.
cases.
was
The
226
remained
of
altitude
glideback
and
651
2272
Further
is not
from
this
staging
range
position
the
For
staging
nominal
limit
the
which
a maximum
off-nominal
All
in
maneuvcr.
the
runway
case
reached
the
widely
touchdown
the
the
low.
lowest
shows
varied
ft down
runway
less
all
to
within
percent
off-nominal
14
for
booster
2272
if the
below
acceleration
Table
touchdown
10
close
remaining
for
1 turning
that
Summary
at
was
525
2250
-3.4
booster
while
Maximum
1931
-1.0
the
except
6 percent
conditions
land
Nominal
483
-11.4
.............
velocity
phase
showed
.......
..............
acceleration
the
sec
...............
]_, ft/sec
Simulations
Minimum
..............
?_, a/see
and
time,
for Glideback
...............
Y, ft
tories.
-1.4
2245
x, ftl_
the
-1.4
.......
X, ft
tude,
.......
Total
to
low
Condition
limited
-1.4
high
Table
analysis
10 percent
10 percent
position
h, ftlsec
velocity:
10 percent
conditions
?rt, ftlsec
ft/sec
2250
Parameters
10 percent
Staging
nominal
Staging
altitude:
10 percent
staging
in Predicted
section
26
deg
arc
shows
followed
to
Figure
26. Ground
track
trajectories
of booster.
profiles
of
off-nominal
glideback
particular
was dis-
4o
cussed
in the previous
subsection
entitled
"Staging
state
dispersions."
Two simulations
have flare maneuvers
with a normal
acceleration
above 2.5g. Further refinement
of the guidance
algorithm
would reduce the normal
acceleration
for these two cases be-
case,
the
low initial
altitude
case,
2O
10
0
-lC
t
100
I
200
105
1.25
t
300
Time,
L .... 1____ _
400
500
600
sec
profiles of off-nominal
j
700
glideback
,50[
1.00
100
.75
"? 50
.50
.25
100
200
300
Time,
400
sec
500
600
_500
700
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Time, sec
Figure
27.
ries of
Altitude
booster.
profiles
of off-nominal
glideback
trajectoFigure
30. Roll-angle
tories
of booster.
profiles
of off-nominal
glideback
trajec-
20
10
"r_-10
-20
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
-30
100
200
Time, sec
Figure
back
28.
Normal
trajectories
acceleration
of booster.
profiles
of
off-nominal
glide-
300
400
Time, see
500
500
700
profiles of off-nominal
glideback
17
Concluding
3. Talay,
Remarks
Theodore
presented
Many
concepts
have
been
studied
follow-on
to the
current
Shuttle
One
of these
winged,
concepts
class
booster.
of vehicle,
the
guidance,
yses
shown
have
trollable
and
equate
from
booster
maneuver,
trol
system
was
initiation
of attack.
(-1.7
) was
allowable
has
was
the
range
be
staging
in
in staging
the
angle
the
launch
algorithm
site
incorporated
was
tory
program
deflections
Glideback
simulations
were
off-nominal
atmospheric,
dynamic
conditions
descent
rate
less
booster
and
longitudinal
for
trim
this
R. W.:
With
Control,
with
of the
target
touchdown
NASA
Langley
Research
1.7
modeled
the
Delma
glideback
to
Delma
June
Today.
so that
elevon
be Calculated.
with
and
a variety
booster
aero-
landing
within
9. Justus,
of
with
a 320-ft
10.
1983,
2. Martin,
If Pushed.
pp. 46
18
pp. 36-37,
James
48.
A.:
Aerosp.
J.:
and
Fournier,
for a
Booster.
3, May
J.
June
1985,
H.:
Static
Roger
Program
P5255-
Simulation
for
Vehicles.
Six-Degree,
Hinged
Volume
and/or
.Equation/
General
G. L.;
Cornick,
D. E.;
New
Space
Transportation
Aeronaut.,
vol.
21,
no.
on Demand:
vol.
23,
In This
no.
The NASA/MSFC
Model
MOD
NASA
CR-3256,
Justus,
Pane]
6,
Century
2, Feb.
and
Dynam-
Stevenson,
G. R.; Gramling,
Global
R.:
Ca-
3 (With
Spherical
Reference
Atmospheric
Harmonic
Wind
Model).
M.;
Blocker,
1980.
C.
G.;
Atyea,
F.
N.;
Model.
Center,
Cunnold,
ESS44-11-9-88,
Nov.
Richard
D.
GRAM-88.-Improvements
of the Global Reference
NASA
Marshall
Nov.
W.;
Naftel,
I.: Flight
1985,
12.
on Space
13-16,
Space
Control
J.
Christopher;
Issues
and
of the
Next
Vehicle
Flight
Mechanics
Cruz,
Gener-
Paper preMechanics
(Luxembourg),
1989.
U.S.
Standard
and
Atmospheric
Adm.,
in
At-
1988.
48.
America,
Digital
Lifting-Entry
Christopher
Orbit
8, no.
Separation
C. G.; Fletcher,
11. Powell,
C., Jr.;
W.B.:
Flight
The
vol.
Center
C., Jr.:
Analysis
range
point.
Astronaut.
Second
pabilities
and Applications
of the Program
To Optimize
Simulated
Trajectories
(POST)
Program
Summary
Document.
NASA CR-2770,
1977.
References
Begins
Flight
a Glideback
Program Development.
GDC-ERR-1377,
ics, Convair Div., Dec. 1969.
was
Hampton,
VA 23681-0001
March 12, 1993
Freeman,
ESA
Characteristics
of a Winged Single-Stage-toat Mach Num_rs
From 0.3 to 4.63. NASA
M.
mospheric
i.
and
Advanced
at AAAF,
1978.
Linked
trajec-
booster
ft/sec
_4 Dyn.,
Multiple-Body
8.6
1987.
on Progress
in Space
Republic
of Germany),
Vehicle
7. Hurley,
of attack
algorithm
trim
could
staging,
than
Society,
Powell,
TP-1233,
the
21-24,
Paper
Proceed-
1989.
Aerodynamic
Orbit Vehicle
con-
a three-degrees-of-freedom
with
required
Apr.
Report.
Congress
of attack.
for the
developed,
into
Florida),
Launch
8. Brauer,
A guidance
Space
J. C.; and
6. Freeman,
The
in staging
of
II Progress
pp. 340-343.
at staging
angle
.middle
22 24,
Guid.,
while
trajectories
range
Royal
5. Naftel,
during
of attack
Beach,
Two-Stage
a reaction
allowable
nominal
ad-
interference
Separation
angles
May
con-
engines.
therefore
the
to
and
orbiter
Shuttle
European
Aerospace
Conference
Transportation
(Bonn,
Federal
ensured
orbiter
aerodynamically
required.
The
the
orbiter
of the
various
chosen
that
from
DGLR,
conditions.
developed
booster
to determine
angle
maneuver
(Cocoa
4. Talay, Theodore
Manned
Launch
anal-
glideback
to off-nominal
booster
These
is
and
not
with
the
analyzed.
ings
this
maneuver
controlled
staging
and
for
staging
plumes
be
modeled
maneuver
with
exhaust
the
were
issues
the
of the
could
design
adjust
recontact
the
major
been
technique
separation
avoiding
utilizes
booster
to
A staging
reusable,
that
have
the
margin
fully
vehicle
staging
that
represent
system.
launch
Two
glideback
safe
is a two-stage,
vertical-takeoff
glideback
that
launch
A.:
at the Twenty-Fourth
and United
Atmosphere,
Adm.,
States
1976.
National
Air Force,
National
Aeronautics
Oct.
1976.
Oceanic
and
Space
REPORT
DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
Fo_mApprov_
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reportingburdenfor this collectionof ;nformation;s estimatedto averaKe1 hour per response,includingthe time for reviewinginstructions,
searchingexistiogdata sources,
gathering
and
collection
Davis
of
maintaining
the
information,
Highway,
data
needed,
including
Suite
1204,
and
completing
suggestions
Arlington,
VA
for
and
reducing
22202-4302,
this
and
reviewing
the
burden,
to
the
to
Office
collection
Washington
of
Management
.m.
information.
and
Send
comments
Services,
Budget,
Paperwork
regarding
Directorate
for
Reduction
this
burden
Information
Project
estimate
or
Operations
(0704-0188),
any
and
other
Reports.
Washington,
aspect
1215
DC
of
this
Jefferson
20503.
1. AGENCY
USE ONLY(Leave
blank)
2. REPORT
April
4. TITLE
of
Headquarters
AND
DATE
| 3. REPORT
1993
Technical
SUBTITLE
TYPE
AND
DATES COVERED
Paper
5. FUNDING
NUMBERS
_rU 906-11-01-01
i6. AUTHOR(S)
Vehicle
J. Christopher
7. PERFORMING
Naftel
and Richard
ORGANIZATION
NAME(S)
W. Powell
AND
8.
ADDRESS(ES)
L- 17066
11. SUPPLEMENTARY
PERFORMING
ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
NASA TP-3335
NOTES
IZb.
STATEMENT
O|STRIBUTfON
of Master
of
CODE
Unclassified-Unlimited
Subject
Category
13. ABSTRACT
15
(Maximum
200 words)
One of the promising launch concepts that could replace the current Space Shuttle launch system is a two-stage,
winged, vertical-takeoff,
fully reusable launch vehicle. During the boost phase of ascent, the booster provides
propellant
for the orbiter engines through a cross-feed system. When the vehicle reaches a Mach number of 3,
the booster propellants
are depleted and the booster is staged and glides anpowered
to a horizontal landing
at a launch site runway. Two major design issues for this class of vehicle are the staging maneuver
and the
booster glideback. For the staging maneuver analysis, a technique was developed that provides for a successful
_paration
of the booster from the orbiter over a wide range of staging angles of attack. A longitudinal
flight
control system was developed for control of the booster during the staging maneuver.
For the booster glideback
analysis, a guidance algorithm was developed that successfully guides the booster from the completion
of the
staging maneuver to a launch site runway while encountering
many off-nominal atmospheric,
aerodynamic,
and
staging conditions.
ii
14. SUBJECT
Launch
TERMS
vehicles;
15. NUMBER
Staging
analysis;
Booster
glideback;
OF PAGES
23
Guidance
16. PRICE
CODE
4Q3
17. SECURITY
CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
Unclassified
18. SECURITY
OF THIS
CLASSIFICATIO_
PAGE
19. SECURITY
CLASSIFICA_F_ON
OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified
MSN 7540-01-280-5500
"_'U,S. GOVERNMENT
20. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
PRINTING
OFFICE
1993--728-064/66,018
2-89)