Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV)

Design Project
Victor
Ben Estacio, Hans Henken, Yutao Liu,
Jacob Shearman, Sean Young

12/07/17
Outline / Rocket-at-a-Glance - Jacob
Preliminary Research
Environmental Study
Existing Vehicle Design Proposals
Propulsion System Design
Liquid vs. Hybrid Decision
Liquid Propellant Selection
Existing Liquid Systems
Overall Liquid System Design
Component Designs
Trajectory and Launch
Trajectory Design Methodology
Aerodynamics
Trajectory Design Results
Final Vehicle Info
Detailed Vehicle Architecture
Summary
Future Work

2
Preliminary Research

3
Martian Environment - Landing Site
NASA - Mars Science Laboratory Model
Four candidate landing sites for their respective MAV Mission
The site nearest the 30 North requirement being pursued is Mawrth
Vallis
Temperature variation of -100 C to 5 C with an average temperature over a Martian year
of -67 C.

Our Model
Worst case scenario: Larger temperature variation/ Lower average
temperature
Our landing site choice: Holden Crater
Temperature variation of -111 C to 24 C, average temperature of -60 C
Data from the Mars Climate Modeling Center

4
Martian Environment - Atmosphere Model
The Martian atmosphere is an thin sheet of gas made up of: Carbon dioxide (95.97%), Argon (1.93%), Nitrogen
(1.89%), Oxygen (0.146%) and Carbon Monoxide (0.0557%)
Begins on the martian surface and extends to the edge of space
Less dense than Earths Atmosphere
Our atmosphere model is based on measurements made by a Mars Global Survey by the Glenn Research
Center
Consists of two zones with separate fit curves for the lower atmosphere (0 -7km) and the upper atmosphere
(> 7km)
Lower and Upper atmosphere
Temperature model decreases linearly
Pressure model decreases exponentially
In each zone, density is derived from the equation of state and decreases exponentially

5
Existing Proposed Vehicle Designs
JPL Solid 2 Stage
5 kg payload
300 kg GLOM
17kN thrust first stage
Northrup 2 Stage Liquid
5.3kN thrust first stage
2.7kN thrust upper stage
GLOM 227kg, 283kg
Mon25/MMH
3.66 m length
JPL/Marshall Hybrid
SSTO
346 kg GLOM
57 cm outer diameter
2.9 m long
SP7 & Mon30
Store as low as -72C

6
Propulsion System Design

7
Hybrid vs. Liquid - Properties
Preliminary considerations focused on density and storability
Cryogenics ruled out due to difficulty long term
Hydrazine derivatives have long history of long term storability
New hybrid fuels have potential for long term cold storage
Solids not considered due to low temperature at which bonding fails
Went forward with MMH, Aero50, and Paraffin as fuels

Fuel/Oxidiz Density kg/m^3 Freezing Point K Boiling Point

er K

MMH 875 221 361

Paraffin 900 200

Aero50 903 265 343

UDMH 786 216 336

Mon25 ~1400 218 264

Nytrox 50 1180.5 182

8
 Mass and Volume Comparison
Used ideal rocket equation
V of 6.5km/s
GLOM 300 kg
No losses
Pc=500 Psi
Ar=50
Propellants at 298K
Mon,A uses N2O4
Started with Aero50, used for
other body launches before
(Lunar Descent/Ascent engines
Mon10A, Mon25A, Ny60, A50 Ny80, A50 MON25A,
A50 A50 MMH

OF 1.8829 1.9498 1.7023 1.4682 2.17

Isp [s] 330.2646 333.2447 344.0378 350.9723 335.9142

Ivac [s] 343.5739 347.5340 359.9128 366.7799 350.4358

c* 1757.0 1772.4 1814.7 1844.5 1745.1

[m/s]

CF 1.8447 1.8451 1.8602 1.8669 1.8565

M [kg] 259.65 258.92 256.28 254.58 258.27

V 0.2189 0.2197 0.2427 0.2451 0.2196

[m^3] 9
Other Reasons for Mon25/MMH
Higher TRL of propellants
Flight proven, at least similar propellants
Mon25/MMH are often used for long term storage
MMH is stable enough for regenerative cooling usage
MMH toxic, but as far as we know there isnt anything to kill on Mars
NASA proposed this year a N2O4/MMH as one of their designs for a
manned ascent engine
Using similar combination on smaller vehicle will raise confidence for manned flight
Freezing temperature similar for both fuel and oxidizer so simpler heating
system
Can heat propellants together
Hypergolic reduces complexity over other liquids
Will need to restart, no ignition system needed with hypergolic

10
Mon25/MMH Performance
Ran CEA at 800 Psi with Mon25 at
233K, MMH at 298K
CEA did not define MMH lower
Averaged frozen and equilibrium
outputs
O/F ratio chosen to stick with the
equilibrium as it was between frozen and
the paper value
Averaged CEA output was multiplied Ivac Isp
by an efficiency factor from the
Equilibrium 359.9 348.17
homework
Gave similar results to paper which had a Frozen 341.46 332.71
better analysis
Equilibrium*.94 338.03 327.28

Frozen*.94 320.98 312.75

Average*.94 329.5 320.01

11
Off the Shelf Frankenstein Engine
Rutherford
Electric Pumps
Electric Actuators TVC
ISE-100
Engine materials
Carbon fiber combustion chamber and nozzle
Allows for radiative cooling
Coaxial swirl injectors
Swirl best for small combustion chambers
XLR132
Radiation cooled nozzle
Regeneratively cooled combustion chamber using MMH
Weight fraction included for this
Northrop Grumman (TR408) - based off of NG FMTI
Thrust class
~5kN 1st stage and ~2kN upper stage
Allowable chamber pressure
800 Psi for 1st stage - chosen by NG so used to maximize Pc
Valve types
12
Liquid System Considerations
Results for Stage 1
Stage 1 and 2 considered separately
Results and desire for simplicity converged to same systems
Heat Transfer Model
During first burn: Most heat loss due to conductive heat transfer
Subsequent burns: Radiative heat transfer dominates
External temperatures based on Mars atmospheric model

The Other Guy Mass Us Mass [kg]

[kg]

Pressurization + Tanks Helium 19.0 Electric Pumps 10.88

Chamber Cooling Ablative/Radiative - Regenerative +

Nozzle Cooling Ablative/Regenerative - Radiative +

Propellant Heating Regenerative 4.1 Resistive 1.1

TVC Small thrusters 11.5 Batteries + Actuators 5.21

13
Liquid System Design

S2 S1 14
Liquid System Details
Line Pressures
100
v = 10 m/s % Flow velocity
psi
dP_dyn = 7-11 psi % Dynamic Pressure Loss
dP_feed = 5 psi % Line drop
dP_cool = 0.15*Pc = 120 psi % Cooling drop MON only
dP_inj = 0.3*Pc = 240 psi % Injector Loss
dP_pump = Pc+dP_dyn+dP_feed+dP_cool+dP_inj-Pt;
Mass Flow Rates
mdot _MMH: S1: 0.55 kg/s, S2: 0.22 kg/s
mdot_MON: S1: 1.18 kg/s, S2: 0.47 kg/s
Electric Pump Viability
Scaled linearly based on thrust ratio to Rutherford engine
Turbopumps dont scale well, added correction factor
Verified against major design floors
Valid 1 stage pump w/o cavitation
Eff ~ 0.8 % Efficiency for both pumps
800
psi = 0.55 % Pump head coefficient
psi
L = 0.3 % Inlet hub to tip diameter ratio
phi = 0.1 % Inducer inlet flow coefficient
15
 Nozzle/ Chamber Design
Calculated the nozzle in multiple ways,
generally had good agreement
Britton Jeffrey Olson 2D nozzle optimize code
Roes equations
Area Ratio: 100
Combustion Chamber size determined
from L*=0.89
Mach number at end of combustion chamber
found to be .1 from CEA with finite area
Contraction Ratio: 5.9325

Stage Thrust Pc Length Throat Diameter Exit Diameter Combustion Length

[kN] [Psi] [m] [m] [m] [m]

1st 5 800 .39 .0120 .120 .19

2nd 2 500 .30 .0096 .096 .13 16

Nozzle/Combustion Chamber
Composition modeled after ISE- 100 engine by Aerojet Rocketdyne
and NASA

Materials:
- Constructed from a braided T-300 carbon cloth which is
impregnated with phenolic resin and oven cured

- Interface hardware such as Ti6Al4V injector and Ti3Al-2.5V inlet

manifold are bonded to the exterior of the combustion chamber with
an overwrap of T-300 and phenolic resin

T-300 Carbon:
- Has a service history in aerospace applications for 20 years and a production
history of 30 years

- Known for having balanced composite properties:

- High quality and consistent fabrication
- Reliable and great supply availability

Advantages:
- Reduces propulsion system volume by at least 50%
- Reduces propulsion system mass by at least 80%
- Enhanced affordability
- Utilize integrated design, composite materials, and advanced manufacturing to reduce propulsion
system costs by at least 50% when compared to typical material and manufacturing processes
17
Propellant Tanks
Materials:
- Heat treated Ti6Al4V Titanium and Aluminum alloy
- Used to avoid additional costs of development of new materials

Design:
- Propellants tanks are coaxial cylinders
- Design allows for maximize packaging efficiency, minimizing stage length, and further reducing
component mass by close coupling with stage engines
- In order to maintaining high structural integrity MON25 was placed within the outer tank, while
MMH was placed within the inner
- Wrapped in insulation and a resistor layer to control temperature requirements of propellants

Stage 1 Mass: 1.8 kg Length: 0.4145 m Stage 2 Mass: 0.52 kg Length: 0.4661 m 18
Pressurant Tanks
Materials:
- Ti6Al4V Titanium and T300 Carbon Composite
- Consists of a thin walled Ti6Al4V Titanium tank liner which is wrapped with T-300 Carbon Fiber
- The tank is soaked in an epoxy resin and subjected to a thermal curing process to achieve the required
tensile strength

Design:
- Helium tanks are spheres
- Uses the minimum volume of Titanium in order to contain the necessary Helium
- Reduces the minimum wall thickness to safely contain at given pressure.

Stage 1 Mass: 0.34 kg Length: 0.42 m Stage 2 Mass: 0.11 kg Length: 0.28 m 19
Trajectory and Launch

20
Transfer Orbit
Method:

Specify a range of burnout

velocities, flight path angles,
and set an altitude
Compute transfer V using
Plane change
maneuver
Circularization
maneuver
Estimate V of launch
Choose parameters that
minimize total V.
21
Launch Trajectory: Optimal Control
Find a trajectory to minimize a cost functional

In our case, we want to minimize drag and gravity losses

Implemented using a first-order steepest descent algorithm (gradient

search)

22
Single-Stage vs. 2-Stage Rocket
GLOM (kg) T (kN)

Single Stage 556 15% 10

2-Stage 334 15%, 25% 5, 2

Rough component mass estimates to determine structural mass fraction

Tradeoff between additional tank, engine, component masses for 2-stage, and
cost of carrying extra mass with single stage
Significant improvement by going to 2-stage
Increased structural mass bigger engine more propellant more
structure, and so on
Looked at electric propulsion for upper stage, but either too slow or too heavy

23
Trajectory Design Results
Trajectory exceeds altitude
requirement.
Coast phase
Not currently
implemented between
stages; further
improvements possible
Control variables
TVC angle oscillations,
constant vectoring
No throttling

24
Trajectory Design Results

Maximum acceleration: 3.5 g

Max q: 2.7 kPa
Drag Loss 83.1 m/s
Gravity Loss: 249 km/s

25
Final Vehicle Info

26
 0.4m
Vehicle dimensions 25m
= 1 .
L2

1.5m
L 1 =

Nose diameter
= 0.1m

D2 = 0.375m

D1 = 0.75m
Total Length = 3.4m 27
 Detailed Vehicle Architecture
CAD showing the internal structure
o Shape of the shell is a nose cone with cylindrical body
Assumed 10mm thickness - could be optimized
o Final Size => parameters file

S1 Engine

S1 Coaxial propellant tanks

S1 TVC actuators

S1 Nozzle: length = 0.4m 28

Stage separation
Explosive bolts ring

29
 Detailed Stage 2 Architecture Payload + avionics bay

S2 Helium tank

S2 Coaxial propellant tanks

S2 Engine

S2 TVC actuators

S2 Nozzle: length = 0.3m 30

Summary
Type
2 stage liquid bipropellant, pump fed rocket
Weight, size and performance
GLOM: 324.1 kg - Comprehensive
Stage 1: 229 kg (Wet), 36 kg (Dry), = 15.8%
Stage 2: 75 kg (Wet), 19 kg (Dry), = 24.7%
Payload: 20 kg (Including fairing, avionics)
Height: 3.4 m
Diameter: 75 cm
Isp: 330 s/ 330 s
Thrust: 5 kN / 2 kN
Time to Orbit: ~2.7 hrs (3 min launch, 2.6 hours transfer orbit)
TRL level + Reliability
Liquid bi-propellants generally have a strong legacy
No new / unflown concepts (TVC etc.)
Simplicity
Minimize plumbing
Safety factors added (especially sizing and scaling)

31
Road to Prototype
Propellant Heating
More work on resistive heater ranges
RCS
Determine total bound of Helium required
Stage Separation
Determine explosive bolts required
Feed system
Pipe diameters and more detailed pressure line model
Helium tank Configuration
Optimize for mass and reduced volume (could split up into multiple tanks)
Pump Design
A lot of engineering work required in pump design
Coast between stages
Further improvement in GLOM by optimizing the time between stages
Improve Aerodynamic model
Better represent the lift/drag/moment coefficients
Stress/Structural Analysis
Packaging / Location of batteries and avionics
Placement for stability and CG / CM

32
Questions

33
Sources
Textbooks
Space Propulsion Analysis and Design - Humble
Rocket Propulsion Elements - Sutton
Applied Optimal Control - Bryson

Websites
Wikipedia
Hollingsworth, Jeffery, et al. Mars Climate Group. NASA, NASA, spacescience.arc.nasa.gov/mars-climate-modeling-group/index.html.
Hall, Nancy . Mars Atmosphere Model: Glenn Research Center. NASA, NASA, www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/atmosmrm.html.
Patterson, Michael . NASA SOLAR ELECTRIC PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION READINESS (NSTAR). NASA, NASA,
www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ion/past/90s/nstar.htm.
Stansbury, Sarah . Low Thrust Transfer to GEO: Comparison of Electric and Chemical Propulsion. Low Thrust Orbital Maneuvers,
ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2009/stansbury/.
Halchak , John. Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems - NASA. Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems , NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville,
Alabama,
www.bing.com/cr?IG=9F1D76B369344FD49D68901723BBE513&CID=06BAEDF581D36CC10D12E6A480196D3F&rd=1&h=fKgECfHWpkzcFmra7bgErHVscDHzan
edbemdG4ng0GQ&v=1&r=https%3a%2f%2fntrs.nasa.gov%2farchive%2fnasa%2fcasi.ntrs.nasa.gov%2f20160008869.pdf&p=DevEx,5067.1.
Sheehy, Jeffrey . Space Technology Mission Directorate . NASA, Propulsion and Power Technology Development Strategy ,
www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/jsheehy_propulsion_july_2016tagged_0.pdf.
http://www.astronautix.com/
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19780005291
http://www.moog.com/content/dam/moog/literature/Space_Defense/Space_Access_Integrated_Systems/SAIS_Modular_EMA_Rev_0315.pdf
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/jsheehy_propulsion_july_2016tagged_0.pdf
http://mmrc.caltech.edu/Vacuum/Pfeiffer%20Turbo/Turbos.pdf
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pumps-t_34.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140011316.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110015972.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010047294.pdf
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/62455-in-situ-resource-utilization-useful-reactions/
http://www.rocket.com/files/aerojet/documents/Capabilities/PDFs/Bipropellant%20Data%20Sheets.pdf
https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
https://web.stanford.edu/~cantwell/Recent_publications/Cantwell_IJEMCP_9_(4)_305-326_2010.pdf
Journals
Chandler, Ashley, et al. A Two-Stage, Single Port Hybrid Propulsion System for a Mars Ascent Vehicle. 46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference
&Amp; Exhibit, 2010, doi:10.2514/6.2010-6635.
Project Argonaut: A Proposal for a Mars Sample Return Mission
Haberle, R.M., F. Montmessin, M.A. Kahre, J.L. Hollingsworth, J. Schaeffer, R.J. Wilson, W.M. Calvin, and T.N. Titus, The role of the north residual cap in the
global Martian water cycle. Mars Water Cycle Workshop, Paris, France, April 2008.
Trinidad, M. A., et al. Mars Ascent Vehicle System Studies and Baseline Conceptual Design. 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2012,
doi:10.1109/aero.2012.6187297. 34
Back-up slides

35
Problem Statement
GOALS + CONSTRAINTS
Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV)
Payload 5kg
High priority on reliability
Minimize mass brought from Earth
Launched from 30 degrees latitude (mean surface level)
Orbit: 600 km, circular, 0 degrees inclination
Vehicle stored for more than a Martian year
Maximum acceleration: 5 gs
Up to 50 C temperature on Earth launch pad
Maximum dynamic pressure based on dynamic loading specs of existing launch vehicle

36
37
Holden Crater - Surface Temperature
Holden Crater Surface Temperature over Martian year

The circle represents the average surface temperature during a particular time of day over the
course of a martian year which is about -90 C to -10 C
The vertical blue lines show the range of temperatures for that time of day over a martian year.
Data from the Mars Climate Modeling Center

38
Hybrid vs. Liquid Desicion

39
Earth Launch Propellant Performance
Not much vapor
pressure increase
between -50 and 50 C
Tank contingency should
be able to handle
increased pressure
during Earth launch

40
TVC/Attitude Control
Size and power requirement based upon what was used for the LE-5B
engine
296 kg
137 kN
So know we will need much smaller than that
Went with MOOG 4 lb, middle voltage for middle power
Traded doing TVC with 4 small bi-propellant thrusters
Smallest OTS engine of correct class was 3.4 kg each
2 actuators is lighter and we already have the batteries
Second stage RCS done with 8 ~1lbf thrusters
~2.5 kg total

41
Liquid Existing Systems

42
Mon25/MMH CEA Analysis

43
Electric Propulsion Study - Hans
Source: https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/ion_prop.html

44
Electrical Propulsion Study - Hans

45
Mass Budget
Stage Pump System 8.04 3.21
Component 1 2 Pumps + Batteries 8.04 3.21
Mass (kg) Mass (kg)
Engine Total 13.8094 8.1884
Resistive Heating Sys 0.7963 0.4881
Nozzle 0.623 0.2049
Resistors/Wiring 0.7963 0.4881
Injector 1.8415 0.89
TVC 5.004 2.4186
Misc 11.3254 23.6579
Combustion Chamber 0.1383 0.0258
Motor Case 7.1593 0.932
Feed System 1.3711 0.6627
Structural Support 1.8135 0.63
Thermocouples 0.08 0.08
Insulation 0.06 0.06
Valves 1.7115 2.1353
Batteries (Actuator) 2.2059 1.2353
Regulators 0.34 0.1981
Batteries (Heating) 0.0867 0.8006
Transducers 2.7 1.573
Payload/Avionics ~ 20
Tank Total 1.9979 0.5837
Helium Tank 0.3344 0.0998 Stage Specs.
MMH Tank 0.7123 0.207 Stage Dry 35.1727 35.64
MON25 Tank 0.9512 0.2769 Stage Wet 228.9595 92.5985

Propellant Total 192.7031 56.635

Total Assembly
MMH 60.7896 17.8659
Total Dry 70.8127
MON25 131.9135 38.7691 46
Total Wet 321.558
Pressurant 1.0837 0.3235
Helium 1.0837 0.3235
Trajectory Design Methodology
Working Backwards

Final Orbit Transfer Orbit Launch

Determine transfer orbit that minimizes V

Compute velocity, flight path angle at burnout altitude (50 km)
Optimize launch trajectory to match requirements

One overall optimization problem, split into two

Transfer orbit (parameter sweep)

Launch trajectory (optimal control methods)

47
Launch Trajectory: Optimal Control

48