55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

IAC-04-V.8.04

A FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE DEFINITION OF A SEMI-REUSABLE

LAUNCH SYSTEM

Franck DELATTRE - Laurent BOUAZIZ - François DENEU - David IRANZO-GREUS

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

EADS SPACE Transportation, Les Mureaux, France

(franck.delattre@space.eads.net)
(laurent.bouaziz@space.eads.net)
(francois.deneu@space.eads.net)
(david.iranzo-greus@space.eads.net)

ABSTRACT

As an intermediate step towards Reusable Launch Vehicles, the concept of a semi-reusable launch
system, dubbed Y Launch System (YLS), composed of a Reusable First Stage (RFS), an expendable
upper stage and an upper module, able of both commercial mission and flight reusability demonstration,
is one solution in order to demonstrate technical mastering of reusability and validate economical models
at an affordable cost.
After the previous presentation in Bremen (IAC-03-V.4.03) aiming at bringing the benefits of a semi-
expendable vehicle as RLV precursor to light, this paper presents the first trade-offs achieved in order to
outline the YLS configurations in the frame of a EADS ST self-funded study. The trade-offs deal with the
performance and the reusability demonstration aspects.

INTRODUCTION REFERENCE MISSIONS

Credibility of YLS from the economical
standpoint (development, acquisition and
operating costs) makes mandatory use of
existing operational elements for its expendable
parts. That is the reason why the upper stage
trade-off considers existing (or soon existing)
stages developed for ROCKOT or VEGA
launchers.
The first RFS main characteristics assessed are
the staging Mach number, decisive for the need
of a Thermal Protection System (TPS), and the
type of propellant: cryogenic (LOX/LH2) or
hydrocarbon (LOX/RP1). The RFS propellant
mass is determined in order to meet a required
reference mission.
___________________________________________________
The Y system encompasses two vehicle
configurations designed to perform the two
assigned missions defined hereafter:
• a YLS, composed of a RFS, an expendable
upper stage and an upper module to
perform “commercial” missions (spacecraft
injection),
• an experimental system, dubbed RFS-X,
defined as an adapted version of the YLS
RFS, to perform RFS demonstration flights.
The launch pad is supposed to be in Kourou
(French Guiana) in both cases.
YLS Design Reference Mission
The Design Reference Mission (DRM1) for the
YLS is defined as injecting 400 kg into a Sun
Synchronous Orbit: 700 km x 700 km x 98°.
400 kg is a performance objective compatible of
the launch of scientific and technology payloads,
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada
e.g. between one and three Pleiade satellites.
Nevertheless, if the re-use of existing (not
modified) expendable upper stages leads to a
performance higher than 400 kg (up to 700 kg),
it will still be considered as acceptable because
complementary of the European launchers
family (VEGA, ARIANE).
RFS-X Mission
The Reusability Experimentation Mission
(REM1) consists in reproducing nominal flight
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04
conditions of the launch system during the RFS
flight, such as:
• Nominal staging conditions (relative velocity,
vehicle attitude, altitude),
• Nominal mechanical and thermal loads
during hypersonic re-entry,
• Nominal powered cruise phase (distance,
cruise Mach and altitude profiles).
Y LAUNCH SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
Architecture
The YLS is composed of:
• a Reusable First Stage,
• one Expendable Upper Stage,
• an upper module including a small
propulsion module, the Vehicle Equipment
Bay (VEB) the fairing and the interfacing
structure(s).
Whatever the selected staging, the YLS is
supposed to exhibit a linear architecture as
illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Linear architecture illustration
YLS Launch Sequence
The YLS launch sequence is preliminary defined
as follows:
___________________________________________________
• Vertical take-off,
• Launch pad avoidance manoeuvre,
• Tilting manoeuvre,
• Boost phase at maximal thrust,
• RFS Main Engine Cut-Off (MECO) @
commanded ∆V achievement,
• RFS / second stage separation,
• Second stage ignition,
• Fairing jettisoning (thermal flux criterion),
• Second stage MECO,
• Second stage / upper module separation,
• Upper module flight (ballistic phase +
circularization boost and Payload injection
into final orbit,
• Payload (PL) release manoeuvres,
• Upper module / PL separation,
• Upper module deorbitation.
The RFS return sequence is the following:
• RFS tank depletion during coast phase
(ballistic arc),
• RFS Atmospheric Entry Point acquisition,
• RFS pull up manoeuvre,
• RFS U-turn manoeuvre,
• RFS cruise phase,
• RFS final approach and landing on a
conventional runway close to the launch
pad.
YLS Aerodynamic Assumptions
The YLS aerodynamic drag coefficient law is
based on previous studies results. It takes into
account margins for the uncertainties on the
launcher shape.
Reusable First Stage
Four configurations of the Reusable First Stage
are considered according to the type of loaded
propellant and the staging Mach number:
• LOX/LH2 configuration staging at Mach 6,
dubbed RFS-H6,
• LOX/LH2 configuration staging at Mach 11,
dubbed RFS-H11,
• LOX/RP1 configuration staging at Mach 6,
dubbed RFS-K6,
• LOX/RP1 configuration staging at Mach 11,
dubbed RFS-K11.
Mach 6 is considered as the limit for the need of
a TPS on the RFS, which will impact the mass
budget and the cost of the launcher.
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

• Stage architecture as described previously,

Stage Architecture
The RFS stage architecture envisaged
corresponds to a winged configuration
composed of:
• Fuselage with circular section incorporating:
• Propulsion bay integrating up to two
engines,
• Tail zone interfacing with the tailplane,
• Fuel and oxidiser tanks,
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04
• Conventional Al-Li structures,
• Two cruise engines,
• 400 km cruise phase for Mach 6 staging and
1100 km cruise phase for Mach 11 staging,
• 6 g's maximal transverse loads,
• T/W @ lift-off: 1,4
• TPS mass budget adapted to staging Mach,
• Validity domain:
• Mach 6 RFS : 40 T < Mp < 100 T

• Inter-tank structure interfacing with the main • Mach 11 RFS : 70 T < Mp < 220 T
wing,
The inert mass corresponds to RFS mass @
• Nose section integrating return engines,
MECO, i.e. includes:
• Straight wing interfacing with the inter-tank,
• the dry mass,
• Tailplane interfacing with the tail zone,
• the residuals and fluids,
• Boat tail.
• the return propellant,
Stage Mass Budget • the RCS propellant,
• and 15 % margins.
The ratio Ic of propellant mass (Mp) to the inert
stage mass is given by a simplified formulation Stage Propulsion Systems
using Mp as unique parameter:
The stage propulsion systems are based on
k2
Ic = k1.Mp Vulcain II or RD-191 engines, as defined in
The formulation is based on computations with Table 1 (Tv: Vacuum thrust; GLOW: Gross Lift-
in-house advanced studies tool with the Off Weight).
following assumptions taken into account:
Table 1 - Main engine characteristics

Parameter LOX/LH2 engine LOX/RP1 engine

Thrust Adapted to GLOW Adapted to GLOW
Section Ratio 30 37
Vacuum Isp (s) 415 337
Mixture Ratio 6 2.6
-3 -4
Nozzle exit area (m²) 1.38 10 x Tv (kN) 8.15 10 x Tv (kN)

• and then is refurbished for other DRM1 and

The thrust is defined for each YLS so that the
REM1 missions.
thrust to weight ratio at lift-off is around 1,4.
Expendable Upper Stage
One may note that assuming a Vulcain II-like
engine capable of throttleability for a cryogenic In accordance with the targeted performance
RFS means that a specific derivative of the and economical efficiency, only one expendable
Vulcain II engine would be developed. upper stage is considered.
RFS-X The upper stage is expected to be an existing
stage previously developed either for ROCKOT
The RFS-X is:
or VEGA launchers.
• a RFS nominally used for payload launch
missions, The Table 2 summarises the main
• especially prepared and adapted for characteristics considered for the ROCKOT and
performing reusability experimentation VEGA stages as potential YLS upper stage.
mission,
___________________________________________________
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

Table 2 - Main characteristics of ROCKOT & VEGA upper stages

Stage Zefiro 23 Zefiro 9 SS-19-2 Breeze

Launcher VEGA VEGA ROCKOT ROCKOT
Main Diameter (m) 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.5
Propellant type Solid Solid Storable Storable
3
Propellant Mass (10 kg) 23.8 9.0 22.65 4.9
3
Inert Mass (10 kg ) 2.52 1.0 2.85 1.6
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

Vacuum Specific Impulse (s) 287 294 320 325.5

Vacuum Thrust (kN) 1200 (max) 280 (max) 240 20

Figure 2 - Zefiro 23 vacuum thrust profile Figure 3 - Zefiro 9 vacuum thrust profile

Figure 4 – VEGA AVUM propulsion module

___________________________________________________
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

leads to 32 possibilities to be evaluated from the

Upper Module
performance point of view on DRM1.
The upper module is composed of:
However, whatever RFS engine type, separation
• a propulsion module, UPM (Upper
Mach number and propellant mass, there is no
Propulsion Module),
YLS using Breeze upper stage able to achieve
• a Vehicle Equipment Bay (VEB),
DRM1.
• the Payload interface structures and fairing.
For the remaining configurations, a strategy has
Upper Propulsion Module (UPM)
been adopted to minimise the number of
The upper propulsion module is required or not configurations to be analysed in the frame of this
trade-off. This strategy consists in determining if
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

depending upon the upper stage capability to

provide functions such as final orbit injection. YLS using a RFS-H (supposed to be the more
efficient) with the maximal propellant mass can
The UPM is based on the VEGA AVUM
achieve DRM1 and the corresponding
propulsion module as defined in 2001 (see
performance (between 400 kg and 700 kg). In
Figure 4). Its main characteristics are the
the opposite case, 400 kg of payload are
following:
considered and the maximal final altitude of the
SSO is determined.
Propellant UDMH-NTO For each final trajectory, the reached Mach
Usable propellant up to 352 kg number at separation is compared to the
Mass (kg) expected Mach number used for the RFS inert
Vacuum specific 315 mass calculation. The DRM1 cannot be
Impulse (s) considered as achieved if the reached Mach
number at separation is greater than the initial
Thrust (kN) 2.45 assumption.
Dry Mass (kg) 188
Results for RFS-H are provided in Table 3 and 4
Fluids Mass (kg) 17 hereafter. We can see that there is no YLS with
a RFS-H6 and a VEGA upper stage achieving
successfully DRM1: RFS-H6 with 100 T of
Vehicle Equipment Bay propellant combined with a Zefiro 9 (respectively
a Zefiro 23) can put 533 kg (respectively 572 kg)
The Vehicle Equipment Bay is based on the
on the required SSO but the separation Mach
VEGA AVUM avionics module.
number is far greater than 6. There is a local
Interfacing Structures and Fairing solution with a RFS-H6 (with approximately 72 T
of propellant) combined with a SS-19-2 upper
The Upper Structure Module (USM) is based on
stage that achieves DRM1. This solution might
the VEGA upper composite and is composed of:
suffer from a lack of robustness if we consider a
• Payload adapter,
staging Mach number equal to 6 as a limit for
• Fairing I/F ring,
the Thermal Protection System need.
• Fairing. Nevertheless, the performance objective could
be slightly reduced to deal with such an issue.
Y LAUNCH SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ON Both performance and reached Mach number at
DRM1 separation are raising with the propellant mass.

Initially, the combination of: RFS-H11 combined with a Zefiro 9 (respectively

• The type of RFS engines (cryogenic or
hydrocarbon),
• The assumption on the Mach number at
RFS separation (6 or 11),
• The RFS propellant mass (between Mpmin
and Mpmax),
• The expendable upper stage (4 candidates),
___________________________________________________
a Zefiro 23) upper stage can achieve
successfully DRM1 with at least 116 T
(respectively 111 T) of propellant. RFS-H11
combined with a SS-19-2 achieves fully DRM1
but with too much margin with respect to the
staging Mach number assumption. Such a YLS
(RFS-H11 + SS-19-2 upper stage) seems to be
better fitted to higher performances, for example
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

over 1000 kg on a SSO 700 km x 700 km x 98°, Results for RFS-K are provided in Table 5 and
with a staging Mach number around 9. 6. Tendencies are very similar to those of RFS-
H. As expected, we can see that RFS-K is a bit
less efficient than RFS-H.
Table 3 - Performance with LOX/LH2 engine(s) on the RFS-H6

Configuration Upper RFS 12

number stage propellant
10
mass
8
RFS-H6-#1 Zefiro 9 40 T
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

6
RFS-H6-#2 Zefiro 9 100 T 4
RFS-H6-#3 Zefiro 23 80 T 2
RFS-H6-#4 Zefiro 23 100 T 0

FS -# 1
RFS-H6-#5 SS-19-2 70 T

#2

#3

#4
6

6-

#5
-H

6-

#6
-H

6-

#7
-H

6-
FS

RFS-H6-#6 SS-19-2 72 T

-H

6-
-H

6-
FS

-H
FS
R

-H
FS
R

FS
R

FS
RFS-H6-#7 SS-19-2 100 T

R
Payload (x 100 kg)
Reached Mach number @ separation

Table 4 - Performance with LOX/LH2 engine(s) on the RFS-H11

Configuration Upper RFS 22

number stage propellant 20
mass 18
16
RFS-H11-#1 Zefiro 9 116 T 14
RFS-H11-#2 Zefiro 9 220 T 12
10
RFS-H11-#3 Zefiro 23 70 T 8
6
RFS-H11-#4 Zefiro 23 111 T 4
RFS-H11-#5 Zefiro 23 220 T 2
0
RFS-H11-#6 SS-19-2 70 T
R H11 1
2
#

3
-#

-H #4
FS 1-

-H #5
FS 1-

RFS-H11-#7 SS-19-2 90 T
6
R H1

FS 1-

7
FS 1-#
FS 1-
1

8
FS 1-#
1

11 9
-H

-#
-

1
-

-H
FS

10
1

11

1-
FS

RFS-H11-#8 SS-19-2 140 T

-#
-H
R

1
-H

-H
R

FS

-H
R

RFS-H11-#9 SS-19-2 170 T

R

FS
R
R

RFS-H11-#10 SS-19-2 220 T Payload (x 100 kg)

Reached Mach number @ separation

___________________________________________________
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

Table 5 - Performance with LOX/RP1 engine(s) on the RFS-K6

Configuration Upper RFS 12

number stage propellant
10
mass
8
RFS-K6-#1 Zefiro 9 100 T
6
RFS-K6-#2 Zefiro 23 90 T
4
RFS-K6-#3 Zefiro 23 100 T 2
RFS-K6-#4 SS-19-2 80 T 0
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

RFS-K6-#5 SS-19-2 100 T

#1

#2
6-

#3
6-

#4
-K

6-

#5
-K

6-
FS

-K
FS

6-
-K
FS
R

-K
FS
R

FS
R

R
Payload (x 100 kg)
Reached Mach number @ separation

Table 6 - Performance with LOX/RP1 engine(s) on the RFS-K11

Configuration Upper RFS 18

number stage propellant 16
mass 14
12
RFS-K11-#1 Zefiro 9 70 T 10
RFS-K11-#2 Zefiro 9 116 T 8
6
RFS-K11-#3 Zefiro 9 220 T 4
2
RFS-K11-#4 Zefiro 23 111 T 0
RFS-K11-#5 Zefiro 23 220 T
1

2
-#

3
-#

4
-#
R K11

5
FS 1-#
R K11

6
FS 1-#
R K11

RFS-K11-#6 SS-19-2 100 T

-#

8
-#
1

9
-

FS 1-#
11
FS

1
-

-K

11

-#
FS

-K
FS

-K

11
FS
R

1
-K

RFS-K11-#7 SS-19-2 140 T

-K

-K
FS

FS
R

RFS-K11-#8 SS-19-2 190 T

R

Payload (x 100 kg)

RFS-K11-#9 SS-19-2 220 T
Reached Mach number @ separation

Another strategy used consists in considering a

RFS-X FLIGHT REPRODUCTION
lower added mass and in reducing the propellant
mass and the mass flow rate in such a way that
A first strategy in order to reproduce nominal
Thrust to Weight ratio at lift-off will be near 1,4.
RFS flight of YLS consists in putting ballast with
This may be attained using a single reduction
a mass equal to the YLS upper composite’s. It
coefficient on the loaded propellant mass and
conducts obviously to heavy ballast, which
the mass flow rate. Consequently, acceleration
should be jettisoned between the end of the
profile during the atmospheric flight will be close
propelled flight and the RFS-X re-entry in order
to YLS’s (the reduction coefficient is not time
to insure the reproduction of the re-entry
dependent). This strategy does not change the
trajectory by keeping the ballistic coefficient
RFS flight duration. Aerodynamics of RFS-X is
unchanged.
assumed similar to YLS’s.

___________________________________________________
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

This flight reproduction capability has been The evolution of the YLS and RFS-X trajectories
quantified on a configuration with a RFS-H11 main parameters is plotted on Figures 5 and 6.
(propellant mass: 116 T) combined with a
We can see the good accordance of the two
Zefiro 9 upper stage. Three reduction
ascent trajectories (position, velocity, drag,
coefficients have been tested: 0,9 ; 0,85 & 0,84.
thermal flux). We can obtain required position
RFS-X trajectories are optimized in order to
and velocity at the end of the RFS-X flight with
obtain the same position and velocity at the end
an acceptable accuracy, assuring a good
of the RFS flight phase (constraint). The
reproduction of the operational RFS return flight.
optimized criterion is the ballast mass to be put
on the RFS-X. This added mass can be The necessary added mass can be adjusted
considered like ballast or dedicated to special with the reduction coefficient between 0 kg and
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

adaptations of RFS-X (fairing, etc…). YLS upper composite mass (see Table 7).

Table 7 – RFS-X setting parameters and T/W @ lift-off

RFS-X inputs

Propellant Mass: Mass flow Added T/W @ lift-off

Mp rate: q mass: Mb
(kg) (kg/s) (kg)
Reference Mpref = 116 000 qref 11 600 1,40

Case n° 1 Mpref x 0.90 qref x 0.90 4 400 1,38

Case n° 2 Mpref x 0.85 qref x 0.85 750 1,37

Case n° 3 Mpref x 0.84 qref x 0.84 50 1,37

Y-VEHICLE : RFS-H11 (116 T) + Zephiro 9

Comparison between YLS and RFS-X trajectories
(Reduction coefficient on propellant mass & flow rate = 0,84)

Altitude vs curvilinear abscissa Relative velocity

100
2500
80
Relative velocity (m/s)

2000
Altitude (km)

60
1500

40
1000

20 500

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Curvilinear abscissa (km) Time (s)

Flight path angle Relative velocity azimuth

90 -5.0

80 -6.0
Flight path angle (deg)

70 -7.0
Azimuth (deg)

60 -8.0

50 -9.0

40 -10.

30 -11.

20 -12.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
FENETRA

Time (s) Time (s)

Y Launch System RFS-X

Figure 5: Comparison between YLS and RFS-X trajectories (1)

___________________________________________________
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

Y-VEHICLE : RFS-H11 (116 T) + Zephiro 9

Comparison between YLS and RFS-X trajectories
(Reduction coefficient on propellant mass & flow rate = 0,84)

Mach number Dynamic pressure

10 25

8 20

Pdyn (kPa)
6
Mach

15

4 10
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

2 5

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Time (s) Time (s)

Drag Reference flux

600
10000
500
8000
400
Flux (kW/m2)
Drag (kN)

6000
300

200 4000

100 2000

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
FENETRA

Time (s) Time (s)

Y Launch System RFS-X

Figure 6: Comparison between YLS and RFS-X trajectories (2)

capitalizing on the European know-how in

CONCLUSIONS
Once the interest of a semi-expendable Launch
Vehicle as RLV precursor drafted in 2003 (IAC-
03—V.4.03), the first work aiming at outlining
possible configurations of a European YLS
shows that YLS configurations able to achieve
DRM1 (a SSO: 700 km x 700 km x 98°) could
have the following characteristics:
72 t LOX/LH2 RFS
• + SS-19-2 / Mach
80 t LOX/RP1 RFS
116 t LOX/LH2 RFS
• + Zefiro 9 / Mach
116 t LOX/RP1 RFS number at RFS
separation close to
10.
LOX/LH2 technology while a LOX/RP1 RFS
could be developed for instance in the frame of
a co-operation with Russia.
It is worth noting that the choice of the staging
Mach number remains open. Whatever the way
chosen for a future RLV from this standpoint and
the implementation of a TPS on the booster
which will follow, the YLS remains a solution for
the access path for RLV.
One may note that to perform RFS-X missions,
number at RFS the RFS must be able to lift-off with a propellant
separation close to 6, mass reduced by 10 to 20 % and the main
engines thrust reduced in a similar order of
magnitude (10 to 20%).
The results of this preliminary work improve the
confidence in a Y Launch System as a RLV
precursor.

Both cryogenic or Hydrocarbon RFS propellant ON-GOING AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES

can be retained. Cryogenic is a bit more
efficient, but performance should not be the only The work presented above must of course be
selection criterion. Indeed, a cryogenic RFS deepened. Some aspects must be assessed
could be a “natural” follow-up program before concluding on the feasibility: e.g. the
___________________________________________________
 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 - Vancouver, Canada

controllability of the RFS-X in ascent flight with

reduced thrust, a lower Centre of Gravity, lower
inertia and modified aerodynamics (although
ballast CoG, inertia and aerodynamic
characteristics could be optimized regarding
these controllability aspects).
The definition of the RFS and YLS architectures
will then have to be consolidated through a
complete system loop including technical,
economical and programmatic aspects.
Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.IAC-04-V.8.04

REFERENCES

1. P. Eymar, M. Obersteiner, “A semi-

expendable vehicle as RLV precursor”,
IAC-03-V.4.03, Oct. 2003
2. ESA Launch Vehicle Catalog 2002
3. A. Neri, F. Betti, R. Mastronardi, M. Cutroni,
“An overview of VEGA small launch vehicle
solid propulsion”, AAAF Symposium
Propulsion for Space Transportation of the
st
XXI Century, May 2002

___________________________________________________