1. Field of the Invention
This invention is in the field of spacecraft launch escape systems.
2. Description of Related Art
Crew escape systems are used to propel the crew to safety in the event of a launch vehicle failure such as an explosion or an engine failure. The escape system is also used to propel the crew to a sufficient altitude and distance for a recovery system (such as parachutes) to function correctly.
In the past, such dangers have been dealt with using either ejection seats or launch escape towers. Launch escape towers are by far more common and have been used on US, Russian, and now Chinese manned launches. Launch escape towers have successfully been employed to escape an on-pad or in-flight emergency by the Russians on at least two separate occasions.
Most launch escape towers are very similar in design. Basically, they consist of a solid rocket motor with several downward-facing nozzles located at the nose of the rocket. The nozzles are designed intentionally to have their thrust vectors slightly off-center. This allows them to not just lift the capsule off the rocket, but to move it laterally away from it to a sufficient distance to avoid collisions, explosions, and to give the recovery system enough room to function. An additional “pitch” motor is used for low-altitude aborts to provide additional sideward momentum to carry the capsule away from the vehicle. These systems usually provide very high thrusts for short durations and are designed to be used while the vehicle is still inside the atmosphere where the required accelerations for safe separation are high.
These systems tend to be very heavy and are considered to be “parasitic mass”. All current launch escape tower systems are designed to be jettisoned soon after leaving the atmosphere to reduce the impact of the system's mass on the payload capability to orbit. At that point, the abort modes are different and are handled by other means.
There are several problems, however, with these systems. First, as mentioned, they add considerable mass to the system. This mass is completely wasted if the abort system is not used. Second, it adds cost and complexity to the system because the crew escape system is not used for any other purpose in the flight. Third, it can actually increase the danger to the mission due to the chance of a system misfire. Fourth, these systems are inherently non-reusable, since they are jettisoned on the way up and not recovered if not used. This also makes them more expensive because they must offer very high reliability but can not be reused.
This cost and weight penalty has also deterred their use for unmanned payloads. Spacecraft often cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars and require several years to design, assemble, and test. Yet, as many as 6% of them are lost annually in launch-related accidents. During some years, this has cost insurers over a billion dollars. In spite of the risk no one to date has used a launch escape system for an unmanned launch due to the high cost, extra mass, and complexity of adding such a system. A cheaper, lighter, and simpler system would allow for even unmanned payloads to be saved in case of accidents.
What is needed is a system that can reliably save crews and expensive payloads from launch vehicle failures while being less complex, massive, and expensive than current launch escape towers and yet be fully reusable.
The present invention consists of an upper stage with the crew or cargo capsule mounted. The upper stage engine is used for the launch escape system propulsion.
Typically, upper stage engines have too little thrust to provide acceleration that would be needed to lift a capsule away from the first stage of a vehicle under high-dynamic pressures (and especially if the first stage is still firing). Upper stages usually don't need as high of thrust as lower stages since they usually fire tangentially to the gravitational acceleration vector and because they are above the atmosphere, and therefore do not have to compensate for drag. Most are not capable of providing 1 G at the start of their burn. launch escape systems usually need to generate much higher thrusts—at least 2-3 Gs of acceleration, so a normal upper stage is not able to provide enough thrust for a launch abort system.
The current invention solves this problem by having the upper stage oxidizer tanks mostly empty at launch. The oxidizer is stored temporarily inside the next lower stage or in the interstage region. It is only transferred to the upper stage after the region where high-escape accelerations are needed. This means that during the time-frame where the high-acceleration launch escape will be needed, the upper stage is a fraction of its normal mass. For example, when hydrogen peroxide is used as the oxidizer, over 75% of the fully-loaded wet mass of the upper stage and payload is the hydrogen peroxide. Thus, with the oxidizer tank mostly empty, even though the upper stage main engine is producing the same amount of thrust, it is being used to accelerate a much lower mass thus greatly increasing the accelerations it can provide. Accelerations as high as 4 Gs may be possible using this system which is adequate for launch escape needs.
This system for launch escape has many advantages over the prior art solid propellant launch escape tower concept.
First, it has almost no parasitic mass compared to a launch escape tower. The only mass it adds to the upper stage is in the quick-disconnect fittings and the flow-separation or altitude-compensation system. Neither of these systems is excessively heavy especially compared to a launch escape tower. All of the additional mass is carried on the first stage, where the penalty for extra mass is much smaller, and even that is fairly minimal, as the upper stage oxidizer is already part of the mass budget for an upper stage even without this system. The only real gains in mass are for the oxidizer tank, possibly an extra pressurant tank, and pressurant mass. Put together these constitute very minor mass increases and are all relatively low-cost subsystems.
Second, the concept is actually less complex than a solid propellant launch escape tower. A launch escape tower adds 3-6 extra engines, explosive bolts, pyrotechnic igniters, a structure, and a system for firing the igniters. This current invention, however, only adds a propellant transfer tube and expulsion bladder with no potentially fallible extra engines or igniters. There is nothing that must be safely ejected during every launch and no explosive bolts or pyrotechnic igniters.
Third, the system can be reusable unlike a normal launch escape tower. Almost all of the hardware for this proposed system is located on the lower stage which can be recovered for reuse.
This system is significantly less expensive because the only added equipment over the standard launch vehicle is a valve, quick-disconnect plumbing, and an extra propellant storage tank, all of which are low budget subsystems. Thus, this system is significantly more economical, less complex, lighter, and easier to reuse than all current launch escape methods.
a A cutaway schematic of a side injec˜ion flow separation system
a A pictorial sequence of a launch abort using a parachute recovery
b A pictorial sequence of a launch abort using a powered vertical landing and inflatable legs
c A pictorial sequence of a launch abort using parachutes, inflatable legs, and powered vertical recovery
d: A pictorial sequence of a launch abort using a winged vehicle equipped with landing gear
The system used to effect the propellant transfer shown in
a is a cutaway schematic of a side injection flow separation system. As depicted, the system includes the upper stage main engine (225), the throat (405), several side injection ports (410), the fuel inlet (425), the fuel valve (430), the oxidizer inlet (435), the oxidizer valve (440), and the injector (445). Since upper stage engines (225) are designed to operate in a vacuum and usually at relatively low-pressure, they will experience flow separation at lower altitudes. Here, the side injection ports (410) inject a propellant into the main flow at a point near the normal at sea level separation point forcing the main flow to separate from the nozzle (415) at this point thus performing like a smaller area ratio nozzle. The flow then follows path (420). This way, if the escape system is activated at lower altitudes, it helps keep the thrust vector stable, and it also increases the thrust available from the engines at that altitude. In one embodiment, the propellant injected through he side injection ports is catalytically decomposed hydrogen peroxide.
b is a cross-sectional schematic of another embodiment of the altitude compensation system using a dual bell nozzle. This nozzle includes: the propellant injector (445), an inflection point (450), and the flow path of a gas (455) when the ambient pressure is near sea-level. The inflection point (450) causes the flow to detach at the inflection point and follow path (455), if the engine is operating at low-altitudes. At higher altitudes, the flow would fill the nozzle like a normal high-expansion nozzle.
c is a cross-sectional schematic of another embodiment of the altitude compensation system using a drop-away lower nozzle. This nozzle includes a jettisonable lower section (460), a disconnect flange (465), and a disconnect mechanism (470). This section (460), is attached to the disconnect flange (465) by a disconnect mechanism (470), and is jettisoned prior to reentry to prevent flow separation at lower atmospheric levels. In one embodiment, the disconnect mechanism (470) consists of quick disconnect bolts.
a is a pictorial sequence of a launch abort using a parachute recovery. As depicted, the upper stage main engine (260) is shown propelling the upper stage (110) away from the lower stage (115). The lower stage main engine (260) is shut down, if possible, prior to initiation of the escape system. After sufficient separation from the lower stage (115), the capsule (105) separates from upper stage (110), and the parachutes (505) deploy. The capsule (105) then slowly drifts to earth.
Upon occurrence of an unrecoverable launch failure, the lower stage main engine (260) is shut down if possible to decrease the amount of acceleration needed to clear the vehicle. Then, the clamping system between the upper stage B and the lower stage (205) is released, and the upper stage main engine (225) is ignited, propelling the upper stage (110) and capsule (105) away from the failed launch vehicle. After the upper stage (110) is sufficiently far from the launch vehicle and at a sufficient altitude for the recovery system of capsule (105) to operate, the clamping system (325) between the capsule (105) and the upper stage (110) is released, and the capsule's parachutes are opened. The capsule then drifts to a landing point.
An emergency abort can be activated at any time within the launch sequence prior to the normal first stage separation. At that point, a crew escape system is no longer needed to propel the upper stage away from the lower stage. An upper stage failure at this point can be handled by simply separating the capsule from the upper stage, a short burn by the capsule's de-orbit thrusters, and a normal capsule reentry and landing procedure.
b is a pictorial sequence of a launch abort using a powered vertical landing and inflatable legs. As depicted, this is an alternate embodiment of 5a using the upper stage main engine (225), and inflatable legs (510) for a powered vertical landing instead of employing a parachute. The capsule (105) is not separated from the upper stage (110) at landing in this instance.
c is a pictorial sequence of a launch abort using using parachutes, inflatable legs, and powered vertical recovery. As depicted, this system uses the parachutes to decelerate before landing, with the engines providing an extra deceleration for a gentle landing on the inflatable landing legs.
d is a pictorial sequence of a launch abort using a winged vehicle equipped with landing gear. As depicted, the winged upper stage is equipped with the crew escape system of the present invention allowing it to detach from the lower stage and accelerate away from it, then fly in airplane mode to a landing site for a horizontal landing.
While the invention has been described in the specification and illustrated in the drawings with reference to a main embodiment and certain variations, it will be understood that these embodiments are merely illustrative. Thus those skilled in the art may make various substitutions for elements of these embodiments, and various other changes, without departing from the scope of the invention as defined in the claims. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiment illustrated by the drawings and described in the specification as the best mode presently contemplated for carrying out this invention, but that the invention will include any embodiments falling within the spirit and scope of the appended claims.
This application claims the benefit of provisional application 60/600,570 filed Aug. 11, 2004 entitled “Launch Vehicle Crew Escape System”. It also references USPTO disclosure document number 548114 filed Mar. 2, 2004, entitled “Launch Vehicle Crew Escape System”.
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60600570 | Aug 2004 | US |