During the early phases of engineering design, the costs committed are high, costs incurred are low, and the design freedom is high. It is well documented that decisions made in these early design phases drive the entire design's life cycle cost. In a traditional paradigm, key design decisions are made when little is known about the design. As the design matures, design changes become more difficult in both cost and schedule to enact. The current capability-based paradigm, which has emerged because of the constrained economic environment, calls for the infusion of knowledge usually acquired during later design phases into earlier design phases, i.e. bringing knowledge acquired during preliminary and detailed design into pre-conceptual and conceptual design. An area of critical importance to launch vehicle design is the optimization of its ascent trajectory, as the optimal trajectory will be able to take full advantage of the launch vehicle's capability to deliver a maximum amount of payload into orbit. Hence, the optimal ascent trajectory plays an important role in the vehicle's affordability posture yet little of the information required to successfully optimize a trajectory is known early in the design phase. Thus, the current paradigm of optimizing ascent trajectories involves generating point solutions for every change in a vehicle's design parameters. This is often a very tedious, manual, and time-consuming task for the analysts. Moreover, the trajectory design space is highly non-linear and multi-modal due to the interaction of various constraints. When these obstacles are coupled with the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST), an industry standard program to optimize ascent trajectories that is difficult to use, expert trajectory analysts are required to effectively optimize a vehicle's ascent trajectory. Over the course of this paper, the authors discuss a methodology developed at NASA Marshall's Advanced Concepts Office to address these issues. The methodology is two-fold: first, capture the heuristics developed by human analysts over their many years of experience; and secondly, leverage the power of modern computing to evaluate multiple trajectories simultaneously and therefore enable the exploration of the trajectory's design space early during the pre- conceptual and conceptual phases of design. This methodology is coupled with design of experiments in order to train surrogate models, which enables trajectory design space visualization and parametric optimal ascent trajectory information to be available when early design decisions are being made.
[1]
Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.
Capturing the Global Feasible Design Space for Launch Vehicle Ascent Trajectories
,
2015
.
[2]
Dana P. Hammond,et al.
Parallelization of Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST3D)
,
2001
.
[3]
Thomas P. Ryan,et al.
Modern Experimental Design: Ryan/Experimental Design
,
2007
.
[4]
Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.
Development of a Collaborative Capability-Based Tradeoff Environment for Complex System Architectures
,
2006
.
[5]
Leo Fabisinski,et al.
1.3.2 Tailoring Systems Engineering Processes in a Conceptual Design Environment: a case study at NASA Marshall Spaceflight Center's ACO
,
2012
.
[6]
Peng Zhou,et al.
An approach for space launch vehicle conceptual design and multi-attribute evaluation
,
2013
.
[7]
Michelle R. Kirby,et al.
A Methodology for Technology Identification, Evaluation, and Selection in Conceptual and Prelimina
,
2001
.
[8]
Michael J. Steffens.
A combined global and local methodology for launch vehicle trajectory design-space exploration and optimization
,
2014
.
[9]
Nancy G. Leveson,et al.
Incorporating Safety Risk in Early System Architecture Trade Studies
,
2009
.
[10]
James B. Holt,et al.
NASA Advanced Concepts Office, Earth-To-Orbit Team Design Process and Tools
,
2013
.
[11]
Ren-Jye Yang,et al.
Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and optimization: a panel discussion
,
2004
.
[12]
Robert G. Easterling,et al.
Modern Experimental Design
,
2007,
Technometrics.
[13]
Jennifer Harbaugh.
What Is The RS-25 Engine?
,
2015
.
[14]
Robert S. Ryan,et al.
Launch Vehicle Design Process: Characterization, Technical Integration, and Lessons Learned
,
2001
.
[15]
Mathew R. Zwack.
CONTRAST: A conceptual reliability growth approach for comparison of launch vehicle architectures
,
2014
.
[16]
Ilan Kroo,et al.
Use of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture for Launch Vehicle Design
,
1996
.
[17]
Robert S. Ryan,et al.
Fundamentals and Issues in Launch Vehicle Design
,
1997
.