Allen Guzik Trajectory AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory

Allen Guzik Trajectory AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 1/25

Delta V at Each Latitude § Initial Assessment – Only looks at Velocity gained from the rotation of the Earth – Assume Launched Vertically and directly East AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 2/25

Location and Wind § Average Wind Velocities – 4 m/s – 5 m/s – 7 m/s § Launch Locations – Federal – Commercial (Already Approved) – Proposed Map Provided From www. googgle. com, Edited by Allen Guzik AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 3/25

Backup Slides § Wind Data Source: Brian Budzinski found the data. (http: //www. windstuffnow. com/main/wind_charts. htm) AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 4/25

Backup Slides § FAA Launch Locations Source: Kyle Donohue gathered the data (www. faa. gov) Commercially Approved Locations Proposed Locations Name of Facility Loacation Kodiak Launch Complex Kodiak Island, Alaska Spaceport Washington Moses Lake, Washington California Spaceport Lompoc, California Virgina Space Flight Center Wallops Island, Virgina Nevada Test Site Nye County, Nevada Florida Space Authority Cape Canaveral, Florida Utah Spaceport Wah Valley, Utah Sea Launch Platform Equatorial Pacific Ocean Great Falls Spaceport Montana Mojave Civilian Test Flight Center Mojave, California South Dakota Spaceport South Dakota Southwest Regional Spaceport Upham, New Mexico Oklahoma Spaceport Burns Flat, Oklahoma Gulf Coast Regional Brezoria County, Texas Federal Locations Name of Facility Loacation Wisconsin Spaceport Sheboygan, Wisconsin Vandenburg AFB Southern California Spaceport Alabama Baldwin county, Alabama Edwards AFB Southern California South Texas Spaceport Willacay County, Texas White Sands Missile Range New Mexico West Texas Spaceport Pecos County, Texas Wallops Flight Facility Wallops Island, Virgina Cape Canaveral Spaceport Cape Canaveral, Florida AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 5/25

Backup Slides § Earth Help Basic Calculation AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 6/25

Sample Airplane Launch Trajectory Code Can Now Predict Orbits From an Aircraft Launch Ascent Trajectory Launch Site Initial Height of 12, 200 m AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 7/25

ΔV Drag Comparison § § Purpose Assumptions – Attempt to validate how the trajectory code estimates drag – Compare vehicle mass to Δv drag – Compare drag from different launching configurations – Same initial steering law conditions – Orbit obtained is not considered – Same dimensions Airplane, Balloon, Ground, Drag ΔV Comparison § Conclusions With Atmosphere Model No Atmosphere Model Launch Type GLOW [kg] ΔV Drag Airplane 29, 023 75 9, 918 0. 76% 0 9, 876 Airplane 5, 593 215 11, 295 1. 90% 0 10, 447 Balloon 5, 593 14 2, 911 0. 48% 0 2, 895 Ground 29, 023 359 9, 271 3. 87% 0 10, 677 Ground 5, 593 932 10, 154 9. 18% 0 9, 982 ΔV Total % ΔV Drag of Total ΔV Drag ΔV Total – Lighter Vehicle Increases Δv drag – Airplane and Balloon Launches decrease Δv drag – Trajectory Code handles drag appropriately, however the magnitude of the results need to be verified. AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 8/25

Backup Slides § Sample Affect of Atmosphere on Ascent – Both Cases are for a GROUND LAUNCH With Atmosphere No Atmosphere AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 9/25

Backup Slides § Sample Balloon Ascent 30, 500 m AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 10/25

Ψ 3 Effect on Trajectory § § Purpose – Attempt to understand how changing steering angles affects the resulting trajectory. – Feasibility of spin stabilization of third stage – Will be used to know how to get into orbit for different vehicles. – Help write code for a better trajectory model prediction. – Aid in understanding other launch systems (i. e. plane and balloon) Assumptions – – – Only Change Ψ 3 Hold Ψ 1 and Ψ 2 constant (-15˚, -30˚). 3 Stage Vehicle (Juno I Inputs) Ground launch Payload (5 kg) AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 11/25

Other Plots § Conclusions – – Best Results occur at the previous steering angle Spin stabilized third stage is feasible. AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 12/25

Backup Slides AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 13/25

Backup Slides AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 14/25

Backup Slides AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 15/25

Airplane Trajectory Results Bradley Ferris Junichi Kanehara Comparable Balloon Cost Delta V [m/s] Perigee [km] Apogee [km] Model Name Cost Eccentricity SA-SA-DT-DT $2, 107, 448 $2, 157, 403 8, 988 400. 7 1, 030. 5 0. 0444 MA-SA-DA-DA $2, 247, 287 $2, 524, 942 8, 765 398. 1 2, 448. 6 0. 1315 LA-SA-DA-DT $2, 487, 533 $2, 752, 318 8, 987 406. 8 1, 742. 8 0. 0897 Example Orbit Too Aggressive for D&C Conclusions - Good airplane launch trajectories are possible - Airplane launches can be cheaper than balloon launches - Unfortunately D&C cannot control trajectory’s prescribed path AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 16/25

§ Purpose Ψ 3 Error Sensitivity § – Find how sensitive the orbit is from an error in Ψ 3 – D&C needs this for their controller § Model Used for Analysis – LB-SA-DA-DA Conclusions - Perigee is greatly effected by Ψ 3 error (1˚ ~= 10% error) - If there is error, best case is for the error to be more negative AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 17/25

Backup Slides AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 18/25

Backup Slides AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 19/25

Presentation Slides: Orbit § § Ψ 3 Effect on Trajectory and Resulting Purpose – Attempt to understand how changing steering angles affects the resulting trajectory. – Feasibility of spin stabilization of third stage – Will be used to know how to get into orbit for different vehicles. – Help write code for a better trajectory model prediction. – Aid in understanding other launch systems (i. e. plane and balloon) Assumptions – – – Only Change Ψ 3 Hold Ψ 1 and Ψ 2 constant (-15˚, -30˚). 3 Stage Vehicle (Juno I Inputs) Ground launch Payload (5 kg) § Conclusions – – Best Results occur at the previous steering angle Spin stabilized third stage is feasible. Angle of Ψ 2 AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 20/25

Presentation Slides: § Ψ 3 Error Sensitivity Purpose § – Find how sensitive the orbit is from an error in Ψ 3 – D&C needs this for their controller § Model Used for Analysis – LB-SA-DA-DA Conclusions - Perigee is greatly effected by Ψ 3 error (1˚ ~= 10% error) - If there is error, best case is for the error to be more negative AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 21/25

Backup Slides (If needed) AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 22/25

Backup Slides (If Needed) AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 23/25

Backup Slides (If Needed) AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 24/25

Backup Slides (If Needed) AAE 450 Spring 2008 Trajectory Optimization 25/25