Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Reusable Launch Vehicles for Different Propellants and Objectives

Identifying the optimal design of a new launch vehicle is most important since design decisions made in the early development phase limit the vehicles' later performance and determines the associated costs. Reusing the first stage via retro-propulsive landing increases the complexity even more. Therefore, we develop an optimization framework for partially reusable launch vehicles, which enables multidisciplinary design studies. The framework contains suitable mass estimates of all essential subsystems and a routine to calculate the needed propellant for the ascent and landing maneuvers. For design optimization, the framework can be coupled with a genetic algorithm. The overall goal is to reveal the implications of different propellant combinations and objective functions on the launcher's optimal design for various mission scenarios. The results show that the optimization objective influences the most suitable propellant choice and the overall launcher design, concerning staging, weight, size, and rocket engine parameters. In terms of gross lift-off weight, liquid hydrogen seems to be favorable. When optimizing for a minimum structural mass or an expandable structural mass, hydrocarbon-based solutions show better results. Finally, launch vehicles using a hydrocarbon fuel in the first stage and liquid hydrogen in the upper stage are an appealing alternative, combining both fuels' benefits.

[1]  D. E Koelle,et al.  The cost-optimal size of future reusable launch vehicles , 2000 .

[2]  M. Oschwald,et al.  Experimental Study of Methane Heat Transfer Deterioration in a Subscale Combustion Chamber , 2019, Journal of Propulsion and Power.

[3]  Steffen Christall.  Linking of Liquid Bipropellant Rocket Engine Design Methodology with Launch Vehicle Optimization , 2017 .

[4]  Martin Sippel,et al.  Assessment of a European Reusable VTVL Booster Stage , 2018 .

[5]  M. Oschwald,et al.  Laser ignition of a multi-injector LOX/methane combustor , 2018 .

[6]  David Coley,et al.  Introduction to Genetic Algorithms for Scientists and Engineers , 1999 .

[7]  Tapabrata Ray.  Evolutionary Algorithm use in Optimisation of a Launch Vehicle Stack Model , 2007 .

[8]  Marc Parizeau,et al.  DEAP: evolutionary algorithms made easy , 2012, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  Christof Büskens,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Models and Algorithms for Space Launch Vehicles , 2010 .

[10]  Francesco Castellini,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Global Techniques for Performance and Design Optimization of Launchers , 2012 .

[11]  John R. Olds,et al.  Recent experiences in multidisciplinary conceptual design optimization for launch vehicles , 1996 .

[12]  Sebastien Defoort,et al.  Advanced Space Vehicle Design Taking into Account Multidisciplinary Couplings and Mixed Epistemic/Aleatory Uncertainties , 2016 .

[13]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Use of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture for Launch Vehicle Design , 1996 .

[14]  B. PaulAcquatella,et al.  Multidisciplinary modeling and simulation framework for launch vehicle system dynamics and control , 2020 .

[15]  El-Ghazali Talbi,et al.  Bayesian optimization of variable-size design space problems , 2020, Optimization and Engineering.

[16]  Sangho Ko,et al.  Genetic algorithm to optimize the design of main combustor and gas generator in liquid rocket engines , 2014 .

[17]  Simon Jentzsch.  Optimization of a Reusable Launch Vehicle using Genetic Algorithms , 2020 .

[18]  Mathieu Balesdent,et al.  Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Launch Vehicles , 2011 .

[19]  Dietrich E. Koelle.  Handbook of cost engineering for space transportation systems with transcost 7.0 : statistical-analytical model for cost estimation and economical optimization of launch vehicles , 2000 .

[20]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Theory and Practice , 1996 .

[21]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice - evolution strategies, evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms , 1996 .

[22]  Christian Mundt,et al.  Cryogenic Launcher Stage Optimization Toolbox , 2018 .

[23]  Lâle Evrim Briese,et al.  European Next Reusable Ariane ( ENTRAIN ) : A Multidisciplinary Study on a VTVL and a VTHL Booster Stage , 2019 .

[24]  Marc Schoenauer,et al.  Multi-disciplinary Analysis and Optimisation Approach for the Design of Expendable Launchers , 2004 .

[25]  Robert S. Ryan,et al.  Launch Vehicle Design Process: Characterization, Technical Integration, and Lessons Learned , 2001 .

[26]  Roy J. Hartfield,et al.  Design Optimization of a Space Launch Vehicle Using a Genetic Algorithm , 2007 .

[27]  Günther Waxenegger-Wilfing,et al.  Heat Transfer Prediction for Methane in Regenerative Cooling Channels with Neural Networks , 2019, Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer.

[28]  James R. Wertz.  RESPONSIVE LAUNCH VEHICLE COST MODEL , 2004 .

[29]  Sanford Gordon,et al.  Computer program for calculation of complex chemical equilibrium compositions , 1972 .

[30]  K. Wittmann,et al.  Handbuch der Raumfahrttechnik , 2019 .

[31]  Matthew L. Marcus,et al.  Low Earth Orbit Debris Removal Technology Assessment Using Genetic Algorithms , 2017 .

[32]  Francesco Castellini.  Multidisciplinary design optimization for expendable launch vehicles , 2012 .

[33]  Loïc Brevault,et al.  Multi-Objective Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Approach for Partially Reusable Launch Vehicle Design , 2020 .