Affordable Low Fidelity Target Design Competition Final Report

A Proposal in Response to
AIAA Missile Systems Technical Committee (MSTC)

20072008 Graduate Missile Design Competition
Affordable Low Fidelity Target Systems (ALFT)

AEROSPACE SYSTEMS DESIGN LABORATORY
SCHOOL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
ATLANTA, GA 30332-0150

1 JUNE 2008
2007/2008 AIAA MSTC ALFT Missile Design Competition
ii
Executive Summary
Target vehicle systems are an essential element of the maturation and testing of the U.S.
Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. Physical tests utilizing such vehicles allow for
the evaluation of the BMD systems performance at a level that is beyond the capabilities
of advanced computer modeling and more representative of an actual engagement.
Drawbacks for testing with target missiles include the high costs incurred and the
difficulty of using targets to simulate a large variety of systems. Therefore, a new target
system that is both affordable and flexible is desired. The proposed Affordable Low
Fidelity Target (ALFT) system family is a low cost target that meets these needs.

A team of Georgia Institute of Technology students has conceptually designed a family
of ALFT systems in the AIAA/Missile Systems Technical Committee (MSTC) Graduate
Team Missile Design Competition during the 2007-2008 academic year that addresses
these perceived target drawbacks. In order to conceptually design this target family an
appropriate process was developed. First, in-depth research into the problem, including
motor and payload front section characteristics, was compiled from the open literature. A
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) was also used to map the requirements to the
significant engineering characteristics. This information allowed the team to generate a
large design space of vehicle alternatives. These options were mapped and a
morphological analysis was conducted to identify the compatible options. The feasible
designs were then evaluated using an extensive modeling and simulation environment
that appropriately addressed the physics of all relevant disciplines for the target familys
performance. After this analysis, a family of vehicles was downselected from the feasible
designs using multi-attribute decision making techniques. A higher fidelity design was
then carried out on the most promising families of targets. Special attention was paid to
the design of the reentry object, including its thermal protection and propulsion systems.
Safety, logistics, and support considerations were also addressed in the design.

The target family was designed with a preference of government furnished sounding
rocket equipment to meet the needs of an assortment of missions because of their low
cost and asset availability. To further reduce the target family cost, the targets were
designed to be unguided. This deviation from most targets currently in use eliminates the
need for a complex and costly active guidance system. This study focused on two
delivery orders (DOs): the first (DO1) requiring a minimum range of 1000 km, and the
second (DO2) requiring a minimum range of 2500 km. Both DOs featured payloads
greater than 400 kg. These payloads included a reentry object (RO) and an avionics
section (AS) which was designed to carry and deploy several associated objects (AOs).
Two different ROs were designed: a non-separating conic (DO1) and a maneuverable bi-
conic with propulsive range extension capabilities (DO2).

Final downselection and design yielded a family solution to both DOs, with a common
first and final stage for each. The solution to DO1 consists of a Talos first stage and an
M57 second stage, with a maximum range of 1488 km. The solution to DO2 consists of a
Talos first stage, SR19 second stage, and M57 third stage, with a maximum range of
4166.

iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................ ii
Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii
List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. viii
Conceptual Design Team.................................................................................................... 1
Faculty Advisor............................................................................................................... 1
ALFT Design Team Members and Responsibilities....................................................... 1
Special Thanks................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2
ALFT Overview.............................................................................................................. 2
The Need for Missile Defense ........................................................................................ 2
Request for Proposal ....................................................................................................... 5
Design Methodology........................................................................................................... 7
Problem Definition.......................................................................................................... 7
Concept Selection ........................................................................................................... 9
Detailed Analysis............................................................................................................ 9
Requirements Summary.................................................................................................... 10
Identification of Concepts................................................................................................. 12
Modeling and Simulation Architecture............................................................................. 14
Propulsion ..................................................................................................................... 15
Motor Database......................................................................................................... 15
Nozzle Diameter Determination ............................................................................... 15
Motor Characteristics Summary ............................................................................... 16
Geometry....................................................................................................................... 16
Payload Details ......................................................................................................... 17
Launch Vehicle and Interstage Assumptions............................................................ 19
Aerodynamics ............................................................................................................... 19
Missile DATCOM.................................................................................................... 19
Missile Shape............................................................................................................ 20
Trajectory...................................................................................................................... 21
Boost Phase............................................................................................................... 22
Midcourse and Reentry Phases ................................................................................. 23
Range Extension Phase............................................................................................. 23
Code Evaluation........................................................................................................ 24
Thermal Analysis.......................................................................................................... 25
Thermal Protection System Database ....................................................................... 26
Zero-Order Conceptual Analysis .............................................................................. 27
Higher Fidelity Analysis........................................................................................... 27
CAD.............................................................................................................................. 28
Concept Selection ............................................................................................................. 30
Interactive Trade-off Tool............................................................................................. 30
Technique for Ordered Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution.......................... 30
Weighting Scenarios ................................................................................................. 31
Delivery Order Commonality ................................................................................... 32
iv
Architecture of the Tool............................................................................................ 32
Missile Downselection.................................................................................................. 32
Missile Conceptual Design ............................................................................................... 39
Final System Design Overview .................................................................................... 39
Interstage Design .......................................................................................................... 39
Trajectory Performance ................................................................................................ 42
Thermal Protection System Design .............................................................................. 46
Front Section Design..................................................................................................... 49
Launch Options................................................................................................................. 53
Shipping Logistics ........................................................................................................ 53
Air Launch .................................................................................................................... 54
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 55
Appendix A....................................................................................................................... 56
References......................................................................................................................... 68

v
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Worldwide ballistic missile capabilities as of 1972........................................... 3
Figure 2 - Worldwide ballistic missile capabilities as of 2005........................................... 4
Figure 3 - BMD computational simulation and a physical target BMD test ...................... 4
Figure 4 - Minuteman II missile system in flight ............................................................... 5
Figure 5 - Quality Function Deployment............................................................................ 8
Figure 6 - IRMA tool ........................................................................................................ 13
Figure 7 - IRMA with compatibility constraints............................................................... 13
Figure 8 - Modeling and simulation architecture.............................................................. 14
Figure 9 - Determining ATACMS exit area ..................................................................... 15
Figure 10 - Geometry code operation............................................................................... 17
Figure 11 - NASA bi-conic reentry object........................................................................ 17
Figure 12 - ALFT bi-conic reentry object......................................................................... 18
Figure 13 - ALFT conic reentry object ............................................................................. 18
Figure 14 - Drag coefficient throughout the flight regime ............................................... 20
Figure 15 - Missile DATCOM shape definition............................................................... 20
Figure 16 - Trajectories for a notional missile.................................................................. 21
Figure 17 Range Extension Trajectories for a notional missile..................................... 24
Figure 18 - Code results vs. known data for Black Brant VC MK1................................. 25
Figure 19 - TPS database created for sizing and analysis................................................. 27
Figure 20 - Thermal M&S flow........................................................................................ 28
Figure 21 - Visualization of design space......................................................................... 29
Figure 22 - Parametric trade tool dashboard..................................................................... 30
Figure 23 - Pareto frontier................................................................................................. 31
Figure 24 - Weighting scenarios....................................................................................... 31
Figure 25 - Concept selection flowchart........................................................................... 32
Figure 26 - Proof of functionality..................................................................................... 34
Figure 27 - Best cost options ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 28 - Talos solid rocket motor................................................................................. 35
Figure 29 - SR19 and M57 solid rocket motors................................................................ 35
Figure 30 - Talos/M57, DO1 concept ............................................................................... 37
Figure 31 - Talos/SR19/M57, DO2 concept ..................................................................... 38
Figure 32 - Starbird, illustrating Talos as first stage......................................................... 38
Figure 33 - Talos/M57 (DO1)........................................................................................... 41
Figure 34 - Talos/SR19/M57 (DO2)................................................................................. 41
Figure 35 - AS / M57 interstage drawing ......................................................................... 40
Figure 36 - DO1 trajectory - 1000km targeted (high trajectory) ...................................... 44
Figure 37 - DO2 trajectory - maximum range .................................................................. 44
Figure 38 - DO1 mass change........................................................................................... 45
Figure 39 - DO2 mass change........................................................................................... 45
Figure 40 - Maximum surface temperatures during reentry for 2500 km........................ 47
Figure 41 - TPS thickness required for reentry for 2500 km............................................ 47
Figure 42 - Maximum surface temperatures during for 4166 km..................................... 48
Figure 43 - TPS thickness required for reentry for 4166 km............................................ 48
Figure 44 - LEROS- 1B.................................................................................................... 50
vi
Figure 45 - Bi-conic RO/AS breakout .............................................................................. 50
Figure 46 - Bi-conic RO/AS alternative view partially exploded..................................... 51
Figure 47 - Conic RO/AS ................................................................................................. 51
Figure 48 - Reentry object and avionics section breakdown............................................ 52
Figure 49 - Gravity air launch........................................................................................... 54
Figure 50 - Trapeze-lanyard air drop with parachute stabilization................................... 54

vii
List of Tables
Table 1 - General delivery order specifications................................................................ 10
Table 2 - Reentry object specifications............................................................................. 10
Table 3 - Avionics section specifications ......................................................................... 10
Table 4 - Motors evaluated ............................................................................................... 11
Table 5 - Motor characteristics ......................................................................................... 16
Table 6 - Geometry mass estimation ................................................................................ 19
Table 7 - Cost data ............................................................................................................ 33
Table 8 - TOPSIS ideal solution preferences.................................................................... 33
Table 9 - Launch angle sensitivity (DO1)......................................................................... 36
Table 10 - Transportability comparison (DO1) ................................................................ 36
Table 11 - Launch angle sensitivity (DO2)....................................................................... 37
Table 12 - Transportability comparison (DO2) ................................................................ 37
Table 13 - RO Characteristics comparison....................................................................... 37
Table 14 - Talos/M57 (DO1) basic characteristics........................................................... 42
Table 15 - Talos/SR19/M57 (DO2) basic characteristics................................................. 42
Table 16 - Final geometry for interstages (DO1).............................................................. 39
Table 17 - Final geometry for interstages (DO2).............................................................. 39
Table 18 - Interstage mass estimates (DO1) ..................................................................... 40
Table 19 - Interstage mass estimates (DO2) ..................................................................... 40
Table 20 - Talos/M57 (DO1) trajectory performance....................................................... 42
Table 21 - Talos/SR19/M57 (DO2) trajectory performance............................................. 43
Table 22 - Talos/SR19/M57 (DO2) TPS results............................................................... 46
Table 23 - Component requirements list from the TRD and SOW for DO1.................... 49
Table 24 - Component requirements list from the TRD and SOW for DO2.................... 49
Table 25 - Additional derived component requirements consist for DO2........................ 50
Table 26 - Front section component key........................................................................... 52

viii
List of Acronyms
ALFT Affordable Low Fidelity Target
ASDL Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory
AO Associated Object
AS Avionics Section
BMD Ballistic Missile Defense
CAD Computer Aided Design
CATIA Computer Aided Three Dimensional Interactive Application
CFP Contractor Furnished Property
CONOPS Concept of Operations
COTS Commercial Off-The-Shelf
DO Delivery Order
DoD Department of Defense
EAFB Eglin AFB
EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility
EMI Electromagnetic Interface
ES Experimental Subsystems
EWR Eastern and Western Range
FS Front Section
GFE Government Furnished Equipment
GFP Government Furnished Property
HILM Hit Impact Location Measurement
IRMA Integrated Reconfigurable Matrix of Alternatives
M&S Modeling and Simulation
MADM Multi-Attribute Decision Making
MDA Missile Defense Agency
MDATCOM Missile Data Compendium
MMH Monomethyl Hydrazine
MON Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen
MSTC Missile Systems Technical Committee
OTS Off-The-Shelf
PAC-3 Patriot Advanced Capability-3
PMRF Pacific Missile Range Facility
QFD Quality Function Deployment
RCS Reaction Control System
RO Reentry Object
RTS Reagan Test Site
SE Support Equipment
SOW Statement of Work
TMSS Thermal Management System Sizer
TOPSIS Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
TPS Thermal Protection System
TRD Technical Requirements Document
V&V Verification and Validation
VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base
ix
VLDE Very Low Density Elastomeric
VSP Visual Sketch Pad
WFF NASA/Wallops Flight Facility
WMD Weapon of Mass Destruction
WSMR White Sands Missile Range

2007/2008 AIAA MSTC ALFT Graduate Missile Design Competition
1
Conceptual Design Team
The following proposal summarizes the work performed for the 2007-2008 AIAA MSTC
Missile Graduate Design Competition. The conceptual design team for this competition
consisted of graduate students and undergraduate students from the School of Aerospace
Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Combined, these students contributed
more than 6,000 hours of analysis to the conceptual design during the period of technical
performance from September 1, 2007 through June 1, 2008.

Faculty Advisor
Dr. Dimitri Mavris
Professor and Boeing Professor of Advanced Aerospace Systems
Director, Aerospace Systems Design Laboratory (ASDL)
Georgia Institute of Technology

ALFT Design Team Members and Responsibilities
Mr. Adam Maser Program Manager
Mr. Billy Gallagher Chief Engineer
Mr. Frank Coleman Propulsion
Mr. Lee Demory Structures
Mr. Andrew Hensley Propulsion
Mr. Andrew Herron Thermal Analysis
Mr. Kamal Kayat Aerodynamics
Mr. Brad Robertson Trajectory
Ms. Elizabeth Saltmarsh
*
Preliminary Design
Mr. Doug Stranghoener
*
Visualization
Mr. Rob Willett
*
CAD

Special Thanks
Mr. Robert Leginus Design Competition Subcommittee Chair
Ms. Rebecca Douglas Project Advisor
Mr. Ian Stults Project Advisor
Mr. Irian Ordaz Engineering Advisor

*Denotes Undergraduate Team Member
2
Introduction
The following proposal includes engineering analysis and hardware design associated
with the buildup and launch of flight vehicles in support of ALFT missions. The design
solutions were created in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW), Technical
Requirements Document (TRD), December Kickoff Meeting discussions, and March
Systems Requirements Review discussions. Concepts were explored with the knowledge
that the ALFT missions will be conducted from and staged out of test ranges including,
but not limited to, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), the Reagan Test Site (RTS),
Wake Island, Western Range, Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), NASA/Wallops
Flight Facility (WFF), Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), and Eglin Air Force Base
(EAFB). A focus has been given to ground launch, but air and sea launch capabilities
were also explored. Also, because flight termination and active guidance sub-systems are
driving requirements for cost, alternative solutions were explored to eliminate the need
for these sub-systems.

ALFT Overview
The ALFT system consists of a family of affordable non-separating and separating target
vehicles designed to complete two representative missions from 1000 to 2500 km in
range always using ground launch techniques, but also possessing air and sea launch
capabilities if possible. The payload of the ALFT system includes a maneuverable and
range extension capability RO and AS, with the ability to deploy AOs. The objective of
the ALFT system is to provide a low cost, quick turn-around missile system that can be
used for assessing and calibrating sensor system developments and modifications,
payload developments, sounding rocket experiments, and limited intercept experiments.

The Need for Missile Defense
The current ballistic missile concern is different from the concern prevalent during the
Cold War. Wartime enmity causes state leadership to be more risk prone, and unstable
governments can result in potential change in control of the military forces. Weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) are now a weapon of choice instead of a weapon of last resort,
which is how they were viewed under the Cold War mindset. Antagonistic states want
ballistic missile technology to deter the United States or international intervention, and so
WMDs are used to compensate for conventional strength. WMDs can also be used as a
means to coerce the United States and its allies. Missile defense serves as an enabler of
United States force projection.

The end of the Cold War has made [mutual assured destruction] largely irrelevant.
Barely plausible when there was only one strategic opponent, the theory makes no sense
in a multipolar world of proliferating nuclear powers. Mutual destruction is not likely to
work against religious fanatics; desperate leaders may blackmail with nuclear weapons;
blackmail or accidents could run out of control. And when these dangers materialize, the
refusal to have made timely provisions will shake confidence in all institutions of
3
government. At a minimum, the rudiments of a defense system capable of rapid
expansion should be put into place.
- Henry Kissinger, March 9, 1995.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the worldwide ballistic missile capabilities as of 1972 and as
of 2005. These maps show in startling detail the degree of which ballistic missile
capability has spread throughout the world, from just a few nations to a major percentage
of world nations. These figures illustrate further the need for a BMD system.
FIGURE 1 - WORLDWIDE BALLISTIC MISSILE CAPABILITIES AS OF 1972, WHERE NATIONS
IN ORANGE HAVE BALLISTIC MISSILE RANGES >2000 KM, AND NATIONS IN GREEN HAVE
BALLISTIC MISSILE RANGES >1000KM [1]

The greatest strategic threat to the United States is an attack by one or more ballistic
missiles armed with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Today, the United
States remains vulnerable to this form of attack. Thus there is an urgent need for robust
and layered missile defenses. Systems based on land, sea, air, and in space which are
capable of intercepting a missile during any phase of its flight are necessary to establish a
reliable defense.

As the United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA) advances with development and
deployment of its ballistic missile defense systems, a need is created to test and evaluate
these fast emerging systems. With interceptor missile capabilities proceeding at a rapid
pace, an ALFT system is needed for real threat simulation. There are two prominent
forms of testing a missile defense system: simulations and computational analysis, and
using physical targets.

4

FIGURE 2 - WORLDWIDE BALLISTIC MISSILE CAPABILITIES AS OF 2005, WHERE NATIONS
IN ORANGE HAVE BALLISTIC MISSILE RANGES >2000 KM, AND NATIONS IN BLUE HAVE
BALLISTIC MISSILE RANGES >1000KM [1] [2]

The main benefits of using simulations and computational analysis is that they are cheap,
repeatable, and efficient. Their major downfall is that they must by their nature make
many assumptions and use theoretical models, both of which introduce uncertainty.
Physical targets are beneficial because they truly evaluate a systems performance in
reality. However, they are hurt by a slow turnaround between tests and also high cost,
which lower the number of available tests. Figure 3 below shows notional examples of a
computational simulation and a physical target test. Essentially, simulations are ideal for
sizing and selection of preliminary designs, but a physical target will always be needed to
validate a BMD system.

FIGURE 3 - LEFT: BMD COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION USED BY THE ASDL; RIGHT: IMAGE
OF A PHYSICAL TARGET BMD TEST [3]

5
The most used existing target system is currently the Minuteman II motor. These are used
because vendors have experience with the motors and there are large stockpiles of the
motors. The system is however very expensive.

FIGURE 4 - MINUTEMAN II MISSILE SYSTEM IN FLIGHT [4]

Missile systems to be used as physical targets must be capable of providing target
missiles with a range of 50 to 4000 km and be capable of flying various trajectories and
payloads. These systems have short lead times with relatively simple payloads. The most
common uses are as targets, experiment delivery vehicles and sensor systems test cuing
objects. The objective of the ALFT program is to provide low cost, quick turn-around
missile systems that can be used for assessing and calibrating sensor system
developments and modifications, payload developments, sounding rocket experiments,
and limited intercept experiments. Hence a new target system will play a critical role in
safeguarding the United States and its allies in the twenty-first century.

Request for Proposal
The Affordable Low Fidelity Target Systems must be able to simulate a wide range of
potential threat vehicles over a large number of different ranges and boost regimes. Due
to the rapidly advancing progress and needs of the United States missile defense
operations, the ALFT shall be a flexible, cost efficient and quick turn-around missile
systems. The capability of launch from non-terrestrial platforms, which may be executed
via either air or sea launch methods further defines the requirement for maximum
6
flexibility. Thus, it shall also meet the specifications of existing ground facilities and
government furnished properties, such as WSMR and VAFB, for more traditional launch
operations. Regardless of launch mode, the ALFT shall be ready for launch within 20
days of call-up up from the long-term storage condition. The system shall have a
calculated launch target presentation availability of greater than 95% including the
reliability of the ALFT and support equipment in a variety of weather conditions.
7
Design Methodology
An appropriate process was developed to design the ALFT systems. This process was
divided into three distinct phases, each of which concluded with an industry review.
Phase 0 was the problem definition phase, which involved the background research into
BMD and targets of interest and the definition of the two requirements documents: the
SOW and the TRD. Phase I was the concept selection phase. During this phase, modeling
and simulation tools were created and used to select the family of ALFT target vehicles.
Phase II was used to do the detailed analysis, including the design of the target missile
front section.

Problem Definition
At the beginning of the design process, the team began by conducting in-depth research
into BMD systems and current target vehicles. This allowed the team to identify the
shortfalls of current systems and the challenged faced in the design of the ALFT systems.
After the background research was completed, the requirements documents, the SOW
and TRD, were examined in detail and clarifications from the customer were obtained.
The project plan and timeline as well as the modeling and simulation approach were also
developed during this time.

Due to the high importance that the requirements place on the design of the reentry object
and the classified nature of reentry object data, a significant amount of research was then
carried out in order to further define the reentry object requirements. Also, the
recommended government furnished motors and other motors of the same class were
researched in an effort to determine their engineering characteristics.

At the Kickoff Meeting, which occurred at the conclusion to Phase 0, an interactive QFD
was presented, which allowed the team to gain valuable insight into the customer
requirements and target values. The QFD is a systems engineering tool that allows one to
map all of the customer requirements to the engineering characteristics. This helps to
identify the critical engineering characteristics in the design and the important trade
studies that must be conducted. The QFD developed for this project is shown in Figure 5.
As seen in the QFD, the cross range and down range distances were determined to be the
most important engineering characteristics to consider, followed by launch vehicle lift-to-
weight ratio and reentry object heat shielding.

8

FIGURE 5 - QUALITY FUNCTION DEPLOYMENT
9
Concept Selection
Phase I, the concept selection phase, began after the kickoff meeting. The goal of this
phase was to determine which combination of rocket motors was the best solution to
the ALFT design problem. First order modeling and simulation tools were developed
during this phase to address this. All of the relevant disciplines, including trajectory,
geometry, aerodynamics, propulsion, and thermal, were addressed in this analysis. Next,
these physics based tools were used to evaluate performance and identify feasibility of
each concept for the two representative missions. The results of these modeling efforts
were then used to select a family of ALFT missiles from the feasible options. This was
done using an interactive Multi-Attribute Decision Making (MADM) tool with industry
input at a System Requirements Review that took place at the conclusion of Phase I.

Detailed Analysis
The final phase of the design process, Phase II, focuses on the higher-fidelity analysis of
the chosen concepts. Additionally, a key component of this phase was the design of the
front section of the missile. The composition and design of the reentry object and
avionics section was laid out in detail. Logistics, support, and safety requirements, which
place constraints on such things as assembly, test, and launch, were also addressed in this
phase. Details concerning the launch method, ship and shoot capability and missile
construction were all examined. At the conclusion of the design, verification and
validation will also be conducted on the ALFT concept to conform that it meets all of the
requirements and specifications and performs as intended.

10
Requirements Summary
The problem is defined and the requirements are stated through the provided SOW and
TRD documents, as well as from kickoff meeting and SRR discussions.

As noted in the overview section above, the primary goal of the ALFT system is to create
low-cost target systems. These systems will be capable of completing missions of various
trajectories and payloads. These systems must allow for short lead times using an all up
round concept of operations, where the complete missile stack can be delivered fully
assembled from the manufacturer. This ship and shoot method minimizes the assembly
and preparation time at the launch site.

Two specific DOs are defined for this project, a short-range mission (DO1) and a long-
range mission (DO2). A comparison of the delivery orders is shown in Table 1-Table 3.

TABLE 1 - GENERAL DELIVERY ORDER SPECIFICATIONS
Parameter Delivery Order 1 Delivery Order 2
Range 1000 km 2500+ km
Number of Stages 1-2 2-3
Launch Options Ground and Sea Ground Only

TABLE 2 - REENTRY OBJECT SPECIFICATIONS
Type Non-Separating Separating
Shape Conic Bi-conic
Post Apogee
Survival Altitude
100 km 40 km
Range Extension N/A
150 km down range &
50 km cross range
Mass 400 kg
400 kg plus the mass of all
reentry and range extension
components

TABLE 3 - AVIONICS SECTION SPECIFICATIONS
Associated Objects No Yes
Size N/A
Four 8 cm diameter or
two 12 cm diameter
Total Mass N/A 40 kg
11
Flight termination and active guidance subsystems are driving requirements for cost. The
ALFT system should use alternatives where possible that eliminate the need for these
subsystems.

Each propulsion stage of a given ALFT target will consist of a solid rocket motor. This
proposal will evaluate a variety of existing solid motors as potential solutions to meet
each delivery order. Some of these motors are from current United States government
stockpiles. These motors are available at zero acquisition cost to the ALFT project and
will be referred to as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) motors in this proposal.
Several other motors evaluated are available for a cost as Commercial Off-The-Shelf
(COTS) motors. Table 4 lists the motors evaluated.

TABLE 4 - MOTORS EVALUATED
GFE Motors COTS Motors
Terrier Mk12 Oriole
Trident C4 3
rd
Stage Castor 1
Improved Orion Castor 4, 4a, 4b
ATACMS Orion 38
Patriot (PAC-3) Orion 50
SR19 Orion 50xl
M57 Orion 50sg
Mk11 Mod5 Talos
ASAT Stage 2 (Altair 3)

To best accomplish the requirements outlined, the ALFT shall consist of a family of
vehicles with each missile satisfying specific missions or launch methods. This shall
serve to ensure maximum system capability by not confining a single vehicle with the
duty of fulfilling the broad array of missions outlined. Numerous constraints exist to limit
and guide the ALFT design. Any solution to the requirements must be in accordance with
the guidelines outlined by applicable documents such as customer supplied SOW and
TRD. Also to be considered are applicable range safety documents, environment
regulations, and international treaties.

A detailed breakdown of all of the requirements as well as the teams response to them is
provided in Appendix A.
12
Identification of Concepts
Before attempting to simulate the launch of such a large number of possible missiles, it
was necessary to eliminate combinations that were physically incompatible or that
violated the requirements of the project. To do this, restrictions were placed on various
aspects of the missile to ensure each option was viable. Then, an interactive tool called
an Interactive Reconfigurable Matrix of Alternatives (IRMA) was created to help
visualize these constraints and analyze how they affect the size of the design space.
Based on this tool, the compatibility constraints could be adjusted until the number of
possibilities was reasonable.

The compatibility constraints placed on the missile were divided into two categories. The
first related to the launch vehicle. These restrictions ensured that the rocket would be
able to physically launch the required payload and that each stage would be compatible
with the others. First, any candidate missile needed a thrust to weight ratio of at least 1.2
for the first stage. This ensured that the motor provided sufficient thrust to propel the
rocket. The second major restriction limited the ratio of the diameter of two consecutive
stages to no less than 0.7 and no greater than 1.4. This constraint ensured that successive
stages would fit together without creating excessive drag or necessitating a bulky
interstage section.

The second category of constraints related to the avionics section and reentry vehicle. It
accounted for the requirements of each mission as stated in the provided documents. The
avionics section can be separating or non-separating and contain 2 AOs or 4 AOs. The
reentry object can be non-separating or separating, conic or bi-conic. The post-apogee
survival altitude can either be 150 km, 40 km, or 0 km; this post-apogee survival altitude
can be attained by having an ablative, ceramic, blanket, tile or no TPS system. The range
extension can be possibly be attained by a propulsion system, aerodynamics, or a
combination of the two. This propulsion system can be powered by hypergolic
propellants or a compressed gas Reaction Control System (RCS) system. Finally, the
target range can be 1,000 km, 2,500 km, or maximum range on either a low or high
trajectory.

The filtering on this section of possibilities is directly linked to the requirements. The
avionics section and reentry object do not need to separate for a 1,000 km mission; this
missions avionics section does not carry any associated objects or a maneuvering
system. The 1,000 km mission specifies a conic reentry object. The 2,500 and maximum
range mission require a separating avionics section with associated objects and a
separating reentry object. This reentry object must have a maneuvering system; the
committees requirements specified a propulsive reentry system. This reentry object
must be capable of a post-apogee survival altitude of 40 km, and must have a bi-conic
shape.

From these constraints, the IRMA tool was created, as shown in Figure 6. This tool
allowed the user to select one or more possible characteristics of the missile, and then
13
display what options are incompatible with this choice and how the design space is
affected.

Figure 7 shows the IRMA with some options chosen, and others eliminated by the
compatibility constraints. The number of design options is reduced significantly. Using
the IRMA, it was possible to adjust the constraints until the size of the list of possible
options was reasonable. Then, these options could be run through the simulation
environment to determine their performance.

FIGURE 6 - IRMA TOOL

FIGURE 7 - IRMA WITH COMPATIBILITY CONSTRAINTS
14
Modeling and Simulation Architecture
The thrust-to-weight and geometry filtering criteria previously mentioned filters the large
design space down to 1187 options. The feasibility and performance of these missiles
must then be quantitatively evaluated. This evaluation is conducted using an extensive
physics-based modeling and simulation suite of tools, comprised of seven different
disciplinary tools linked together in the MATLAB environment. The seven disciplines
featured are propulsion, geometry, aerodynamics, trajectory, range extension, thermal,
and computer aided design (CAD). The flow of data through this modeling and
simulation (M&S) environment is illustrated in Figure 8. Each of the seven missile
disciplinary tools will be described in more detail in the following sections.

The most important result of the M&S environment is the maximum range of the given
missile, which is calculated from the launch trajectory analysis and passed to the trade-off
tool. The maximum range determines if the missile is able to meet the delivery order
requirements and also serves as a discriminator between all of the feasible missiles. In
addition, the reentry trajectory code determines if a given missile can meet the range
extension requirements. If the range extension can in fact be met for a given missile, the
weight of the necessary propellant and thermal protection system (TPS) are computed
and also used as discriminators. The reentry trajectory code computes the burn time and
in turn the amount propellant used, while the thermal analysis code determines the type
and weight of the TPS. These metrics of range, propellant mass used, and TPS weight
along with other launch vehicle and cost properties are then used to populate an
interactive trade-off tool used in the downselection process.

FIGURE 8 - MODELING AND SIMULATION ARCHITECTURE

15
Propulsion
The first element in the modeling and simulation environment is the propulsion code.
This software is a database of technical information relating to the nine GFE and ten
commercial boosters. This data was obtained from extensive research into public domain
sources.

Even after this research, a few details relating to some of the motors that are currently
active in the military could not be found. This information was then interpolated from
available data on similar systems in order to appropriately characterize these motors.
Motor Database
A database of solid rocket motors has also been compiled from previous Georgia Tech
missile design teams. The database contained the following pertinent data: gross mass,
empty mass, vacuum thrust, specific impulse, burn time, diameter, length, and production
status. Although none of the recommended motors were available in this database, some
of the motors in the database were chosen to supplement the initial list of motors.
Additionally, this information was used to create equations relating different parameters
in various motors classes. These fits were then used to fill in the missing parameters for
the recommended motors.
Nozzle Diameter Determination
Nozzle exit areas are important in the calculating motor performance. However, they are
also extremely difficult to obtain from public domain sources. As a result, it was
necessary to calculate these areas from available pictures of the missiles. An example of
this calculation is illustrated in Figure 9, which shows the motor and nozzle areas for the
ATACMS missile. From this picture, the ratio of the nozzle diameter to the motor
diameter was approximated. Since the missile diameter was already known to be 0.61 m,
the nozzle exit diameter and area could then be calculated.

FIGURE 9 - DETERMINING ATACMS EXIT AREA

16
Motor Characteristics Summary
Using the methods mentioned above, the necessary characteristics were compiled for all
of the motors of interest [5] [6] [7] [8]. Dan Pickering of Teledyne Corporation also
provided more accurate data for the Terrier, Oriole, and Improved Orion. A summary of
the motor characteristics is found in Table 5.

TABLE 5 - MOTOR CHARACTERISTICS
Motor
Name
Length
[m]
Diameter
[m]
Gross
Mass
[kg]
Propellant
Mass
[kg]
Thrust
[kN]
Isp
[s]
Burn
Time
[s]
Exit
Area
Ratio
Terrier 3.93 0.46 966 680 279.3 247 6 0.85
Oriole 3.93 0.56 1174 976 92.5 289 30 0.81
Trident
C4 3
rd

Stage
3.00 0.71 1863 1557 58.1 269 41 0.56
Improved
Orion
2.78 0.36 395 293 25.3 228 22 0.49
ATACMS 2.00 0.61 1110 928 50.8 264 45 0.51
PAC-3 3.30 0.25 320 267 16.9 246 10 0.47
Talos 3.35 0.79 1990 1663 870.0 N/A 6 0.97
SR19 4.12 1.33 7032 6237 267.8 288 66 0.81
M57 2.70 1.00 1974 1657 84.0 273 64 0.49
Orion
50SG
7.60 1.27 13242 12154 485.1 285 73 1.21
Orion 50 2.65 1.27 3370 3025 118.2 292 73 0.42
Orion 38 2.08 0.97 985 782 34.6 293 65 0.72
Orion
50XL
3.58 1.27 4331 3915 153.6 290 73 0.72
Castor 1 5.92 0.79 3852 3317 286.1 247 27 1.00
Castor 4 9.07 1.02 10534 9265 407.4 261 54 0.61
Castor 4a 9.12 1.02 11743 10214 478.5 266 56 0.61
Castor 4b 9.20 1.02 11400 10000 430.8 281 64 0.61
Orbus 6 1.98 1.60 2749 2513 81.0 289 103 0.31
Altair 3 2.53 0.64 301 276 27.5 280 27 0.25

Geometry
The geometry code determines total length and mass for a given configuration of payload
and motors. It also generates the geometry and mass for the interstages and then creates a
plot of points (distance from tip and radius) that the aerodynamic code Missile Data
Compendium (MDATCOM) can then use.

This code directly calls the motor database, which includes both the geometry and
performance information for each motor listed in Table 5. In this way, the geometry code
acts as the information center that other codes call to retrieve thrust and burn time
information. At the beginning of the mission, the trajectory code calls the geometry
17
module and initializes the missile with the correct reentry object and motors. At each of
the subsequent stage separations, the trajectory code recalls the geometry module and
creates a new missile. This is illustrated in Figure 10.

FIGURE 10 - GEOMETRY CODE OPERATION

Payload Details

The shape of the payloads for both delivery orders is the result of bi-conic reentry object
research conducted by the missile design team. A summary of this research was provided
to the MSTC shortly after the SOW and TRD documents were received. Included in this
summary was Figure 11 showing a bi-conic reentry object.

FIGURE 11 - NASA BI-CONIC REENTRY OBJECT [9]

The MSTC then specified the shape of the bi-conic reentry object to be a scaled version
of the drawing in Figure 11 with a base diameter of 30 (0.762 meters). The two frustum
angles and the tip radius would remain the same. An avionics section of 0.3 meters in
length was appended to the bottom of the reentry object, completing the front section
geometry. The bi-conic front section drawing is shown in Figure 12. This geometry is
used for DO2 simulations.
18

FIGURE 12 - ALFT BI-CONIC REENTRY OBJECT (DIMENSIONS IN METERS)

For the conic payload, the base diameter (0.762 meters), tip radius (0.057 meters), and
top frustum angle (12.84) were retained from the bi-conic design. The 0.3 meter
avionics section was also added. The conic front section drawing is shown in Figure 13.
This geometry is used for DO1 simulations.

FIGURE 13 - ALFT CONIC REENTRY OBJECT (DIMENSIONS IN METERS)

The front section (FS) mass is different for DO1 (conic reentry object) and DO2 (bi-conic
reentry object). As noted in Table 1, the FS mass for DO1 is 400 kg, but the FS mass for
DO2 is 400 kg plus the mass of all range extension and reentry survival (heat shield)
components. To execute the trajectory simulation, a mass estimate for these components
was created and is summarized in Table 6. More detail concerning the composition and
component layout of the payloads will be discussed later.

19
TABLE 6 - GEOMETRY MASS ESTIMATION
Component Mass [kg]
RO / AS Structure 400
Associated Objects 40
Propulsion Subsystems 15
Propellant 30
Thermal Protection System 10
RO Attitude Control 15
Miscellaneous Electronics 40
Total 550

Launch Vehicle and Interstage Assumptions
All motors and payloads are assumed to have a constant density. Each of the interstages
is assumed to have a constant length of 0.2 m and a constant density of 1500 kg/m
3
[10].
The relatively short length of the interstages is used assuming that the nozzle is
incorporated into the researched or provided motor lengths. Therefore, the interstage
only needs to be long enough to provide room for the separating mechanism. Also, this
interstage length worked consistently with the MDATCOM aerodynamic code while
other interstage lengths generated persistent errors.

Aerodynamics
The aerodynamics analysis consisted of determining the coefficient of drag (C
D
) of the
missile as the configuration changed from the full missile at launch, through each of the
stage separations, and finally to the configuration with just the reentry object. For each
of the missile configurations, a table of C
D
values corresponding to a range of Mach
numbers and altitudes was created. A plot of a notional C
D
table is shown in Figure 14.
The red line indicates the missiles corresponding trajectory through this flight regime.
Because the missile is symmetric about its central axis, and the flight path angle is
assumed to be aligned with the axis of the missile, there was no need to calculate a
coefficient of lift or aerodynamic moments.
Missile DATCOM
MDATCOM is a flexible aerodynamic code that enables quick evaluation of simple
geometries. The shape of an axisymmetric body can be defined by a list of points (as
described in the next section), which allows the missile geometry to be varied to match
all the combinations of boosters being evaluated. It is a legacy compiled code, though,
which can lead to difficulties when certain missile shapes cause it to fail for unknown
reasons. If the failures were isolated, the points were interpolated from the surrounding
values in the drag table. But when a given missile shape failed for all Mach and altitude
combinations, the drag table was replaced by that of a similarly-sized missiles table.
20

FIGURE 14 - DRAG COEFFICIENT THROUGHOUT THE FLIGHT REGIME

Missile Shape
Within the programming confines of MDATCOM, there are several ways to define the
shape of a missile. The most reliable method found for the purposes of this study was to
supply a set of points defining the longitudinal (X) and radial (R) coordinates. The shape
of the RO was constant, but the shape of the missile changed for each combination and
for each stage of the flight. The X and R data for the missile shape was produced by the
geometry code as previously explained. This data was then passed into the MATLAB
wrapper for MDATCOM, which then attached the RO shape to the missile body shape.
Figure 15 shows how these original points were expanded to best define the entire missile
shape. The original data points are the green circles (only points of inflection were
given). Then intermediate points were interpolated, starting at the center of the longest
span. The interpolated points are shown as red Xs (MDATCOM input is limited to 50
points). Internally, MDATCOM would draw the shape in more detail from the points
given. Those points are connected by the blue line.

FIGURE 15 - MISSILE DATCOM SHAPE DEFINITION
21
Trajectory
The trajectory module of the simulation integrated the equations of motion of the missile
to produce a complete trajectory. It accepted the stages comprising the missile as inputs,
as well as the payload the missile must lift. From this data, it called the geometry and
propulsion modules, which provided the necessary weight and thrust data for each stage,
and then called the aerodynamics module, which provided a drag model for each stage.
In addition, the longitude and latitude of the launch site and the launch angles, azimuth
and elevation, were provided as additional inputs. The propagation of the trajectory was
then divided into three phases. The first phase, or the boost phase, simulated the launch
of the rocket and integrated the trajectory until either the rocket reached 100 km altitude
or the burnout of the final stage, whichever came later. The second phase, or midcourse
and reentry phase then propagated the missiles motion until it reached zero altitude. The
final phase, or the range extension phase, simulated a burn performed beginning at
apogee to attempt to reach the cross range and down range extensions required for the
ALFT system. Each of the three phases is described in further detail below.

The trajectories for DO1, DO2, and maximum range for a notional missile are shown
using Google Earth in Figure 16.

FIGURE 16 - 1000 KM (RED), 2500 KM (YELLOW), AND MAX RANGE (GREEN) TRAJECTORIES
FOR A NOTIONAL MISSILE

This module of the simulation was written in MATLAB like many of the other modeling
tools. Various components were common to all three phases. The integrator used a
fourth order, variable step, Runge-Kutta method, which provided for both excellent
22
numerical accuracy and reasonable speed. Also, all phases made use of an oblate
spheroid model of the Earth, which assumed an equatorial radius of 6,378.145 km and a
polar radius of 6,356.785 km.
Boost Phase
The first phase of the simulation models the boost segment. Since the ALFT system is
intended to be unguided, it was assumed that the rockets angle of attack would always be
zero; therefore lift could be neglected. Also, jettisoning each stage after it burns out
causes air turbulence which affects the rocket. However, this effect is relatively
negligible and very difficult to model, and so was neglected. In this way, the only effect
of jettisoning a spent stage is an instantaneous change in the vehicles mass. Since the
rocket is initially rotating with the Earth, and the atmospheric forces are calculated
relative to the planets surface, this phase was integrated in a topocentric frame centered
at the launch site, with the equations of motion given by 305HEquation 1. The missile was to
be launched from a rigid rail, so the rate of change of the flight path angle was fixed at
zero for a short period of time after ignition. At each point in the trajectory, the thrust
and drag were calculated based on the data provided by the propulsion and aerodynamics
modules respectively. These equations were propagated until the missile reached the
edge of the atmosphere, defined as 100 km above mean sea level. However, if the rocket
was still burning at this altitude, the equations were propagated until burnout and
separation (if applicable) of the final stage. All position and velocity information was
then converted into a non-rotating geocentric coordinate frame.

EQUATION 1 - BOOST PHASE EQUATIONS OF MOTION
( )
sin cos
2
r m
D
m
T
v
T
+ = &
sin v r & =
( )

+ + + =
sin cos
1
cos
2
r m
L
m
T
v r
v
T
&
cos
r
v
=
&

sp
I g
T
m
0
= &

State Variables
v: velocity magnitude
r: radius
: flight path angle (angle between velocity and
horizontal)
: range angle (angle between line from center of planet
to rocket and similar line to launch site)
m: mass
Other Variables
T: thrust
D: drag
L: lift (assumed zero)
: Earth gravitational parameter (3.986x10
5
km
3
/s
2
)
: angle of attack (assume zero)
T
: thrust vector angle (assumed zero)
g
0
: acceleration of gravity at Earths surface (9.81 m/s
2
)
I
sp
: Impulse of motor
23
Midcourse and Reentry Phases
The midcourse and reentry segments of the missiles flight were both modeled by the
second phase of the trajectory module. These segments were combined into a single
phase because the reentry vehicle possessed no aerodynamic maneuvering systems of its
own 306H[11]. Due to this and the high velocity of reentry, the effect of the atmosphere on
the trajectory and range of the missile was small. To further simplify the integration,
therefore, aerodynamic forces were neglected once the rocket ended the boost phase.
While this also implied ignoring the effects of heating upon reentry, these forces are
actually negligible. The equations of motion for this phase, given in 307HEquation 2, are
therefore based on Keplers laws of orbital mechanics. These equations were propagated
until the missile reached zero altitude.

EQUATION 2 - MIDCOURSE EQUATIONS OF MOTION
r
r
r
v
& &
v
3
=
Range Extension Phase
The requirements of the ALFT dictated that the missile must be able to obtain both a
down range and cross range extension, so the third and final phase of the simulation
modeled a deviation from the trajectory integrated in the first two phases using a
maneuvering thruster on the reentry vehicle. The data for the thruster was provided by
the propulsion module. By beginning the burn at apogee of the previously calculated
trajectory, this phase of the simulation calculated the required burn time and mass of fuel
to achieve the down range or cross range extension. In addition, it also calculated the
requirements for achieving both simultaneously. The assumptions and equations of
motion for this phase were similar to those for the second phase, with the exception that
thrust was added to the equations of motion, provided in 308HEquation 3.

EQUATION 3 - RANGE EXTENSION EQUATIONS OF MOTION
r
r m
T
r
v
v
& &
v
3
=

An illustration of the range extension capabilities for a notional missile is shown in
309HFigure 17.

24

FIGURE 17 - DOWNRANGE (RED), CROSSRANGE (BLUE), BOTH (PURPLE), AND ORIGINAL
(GREEN) TRAJECTORIES FOR A NOTIONAL MISSILE
Upon completion of all three phases of the simulation, the range and apogee of the
missile as well as the requirements for each of the three range extensions were returned.
In addition, other intermediate calculations, such as the position and velocity, the forces
of the missile, and the mass of the missile as function of time throughout the trajectory,
were provided. Since the project requirements specified meeting a certain range, an
optimizer was used with the trajectory module to find the appropriate launch elevations
that would result in both the target range and the maximum range.

Code Evaluation
To determine if the trajectory code performed as expected, it was evaluated using known
trajectory data. This data came from the NASA Sounding Rocket Handbook that
includes performance graphs for several sounding rockets [11]. The single stage Black
Brant VC MK1 data included all of the physical characteristics of the motor: length,
diameter, gross weight, propellant weight, average thrust, and burn time. The
performance graph included impact range, apogee altitude, and time above 100km for an
array of points varying the payload weight and launch angle.

The physical characteristics of the Black Brant VC MK1 were added to the motor
database, and then the trajectory code was iterated through all of the payload
weight/launch angle points. The calculated trajectory data (impact range and apogee
altitude) were compared to the data in the Sounding Rocket Handbook and are also
plotted in Figure 18 [11].

25

FIGURE 18 - CODE RESULTS VS. KNOWN DATA FOR BLACK BRANT VC MK1

Overall, the trajectory code does very well at reproducing results consistent with known
data. The worst case data point is at maximum payload mass (589.7kg) and lowest
launch angle (76). The results for this point deviate 5.4% for range and 10.1% for
apogee.

Thermal Analysis
One of the most difficult phases of ballistic flight is atmospheric reentry. An object
reentering Earths atmosphere begins to experience drag and aerothermal effects below
approximately 100 km, where the atmosphere begins to thicken to a substantial density at
for an object traveling at high velocities. The temperature in the boundary layer around
the reentering object can reach very high values, up to tens of thousands of degrees
Fahrenheit, and because there is high surface shear, there is significant heat transfer to the
RO surface [13]. In order for the reentering object to survive to a desired altitude with its
payload in tact, this heat transfer must be controlled to keep the RO structural
temperature lower then its failure point, and to keep the internal temperature lower then
the payloads failure point.

There are many forms of protection that can be employed, collectively referred to as TPS.
For a ballistic reentry, such as is employed for the ALFT, the two most applicable forms
of TPS are passive and active systems.

Active systems in general consist of some sort of insulating material that is integrated
with a system that keeps that insulating material below a certain temperature. Such
cooling systems include refrigeration, cryogenic fluids, and flash evaporation. Active
systems have the benefit that they can be used in extreme reentry cases where insulating
26
material alone is not sufficient to withstand the heat load and maximum heat flux. The
downfall of active systems is that they are complex and heavy because of the need for
storage of refrigerant fluids, as well as the movement of fluids through the insulating
material. This adds cost, weight, and uncertainty of success.

Passive systems consist of some sort of insulating or ablative material. Passive systems
absorb and remove heat from the RO structure without the benefit of moving parts or
additional systems, and so are desirable when possible because of weight and complexity
savings. For this reason, passive systems, using either thermal soak or ablative
technologies, were chosen for the TPS of the ALFT.

Assuming the RO structure is strong enough to survive the thermal environment during
launch, for the non-separating conic RO DO, aerothermal heating is not an important
issue because it is only required to achieve a survival altitude of 150 km, and so no
thermal analysis was done for the conic RO. For the separating bi-conic RO delivery
order however, aerothermal heating must be taken into account in order for the RO to
reach the desired survival altitude of 40 km.

Thermal analysis of the RO is one of the last steps in the ALFT M&S environment,
taking in the results from the reentry trajectory and geometry codes in order to analyze
the reentry thermal environment and the type and amount of TPS required to allow the
RO to survive to the desired survival altitude. The design tool selected for TPS design
and sizing is NASAs MINIVER, an aerothermal analysis and conceptual design tool. In
addition, a zero-order conceptual analysis was written to supplement this analysis. Both
analyses used a common TPS database from which to size and select.

Thermal Protection System Database
The TPS database used for the TPS sizing was developed using NASAs TPSX Material
Properties Database, Web Edition Version 4, which was developed by the Thermal
Protection Materials & Systems Branch at NASA Ames Research Center, along with
NASA Langley Research Center, and the NASA Office of the Chief Engineer. It consists
of an extensive list of TPS types and properties, drawing from the NASA Ames Thermal
Protection Materials database and the NASA Johnson Space Center PathFinder Materials
database. In order to be of use in the analysis, the density, specific heat, thermal
conductivity, emissivity, and single use maximum temperature limit of each material
needed to be available. From the TPSX database, 49 materials had the necessary
information.

Figure 19 shows a screenshot of the assembled database. It should be noted that this
database also includes ablative materials. The single use maximum temperature given for
these materials is actually the temperature at which the material begins to ablate. For the
degree of fidelity required for the conceptual design of the ALFT, this use of the ablation
temperature actually treats ablative materials as pure insulators. If the analysis selects an
ablative material, it will then oversize the ablative material, but not grossly so. The result
should be on the order of magnitude of a more detailed design analysis.
27

FIGURE 19 - TPS DATABASE CREATED FOR SIZING AND ANALYSIS BASED UPON THE NASA
TPSX MATERIAL PROPERTIES DATABASE

Zero-Order Conceptual Analysis
The zero-order thermal analysis tool was written in MATLAB and was based heavily on
the theory and assumptions represented in references [13][14][15]. It is a one-
dimensional analysis that sizes TPS based on material type, surface temperature of the
TPS material, the maximum temperature allowable at the RO structure surface, radius of
the RO nose, velocity, and density at the corresponding altitude.
Key Assumptions
Several key assumptions are used to simplify the analysis. The aerothermal effects
experienced by the RO during launch are taken to be negligible compared to the heating
that the RO is subjected to during reentry. Also, the nose is assumed to experience the
highest temperature. To simplify the calculation of the weight of the TPS, it assumed that
the TPS thickness is constant over the reentry surface of the RO, which is equal to the
thickness of the TPS required to withstand the heat input at the RO nose. The TPS mass
is assumed to absorb heat uniformly. The atmospheric density was calculated using the
standard atmosphere model.
Solution Procedure
The maximum temperature experienced by the RO is calculated using the recovery
temperature relation described in reference [16]. Using this temperature, the maximum
temperature allowable for the RO structure, and the conductivity of each TPS type, the
maximum thickness necessary for each TPS type is calculated. Using that thickness, the
exposed area, and the density of each TPS type, mass is found. The TPS type
corresponding to the lowest mass is then selected.
Higher Fidelity Analysis
MINIVER was used in conjunction with the ASDLs Thermal Management System Sizer
(TMSS) for the higher fidelity analysis. It has been used in the past for both government
and industry projects, and has given results that agree with more detailed solutions for
projects such as Space shuttle, HL-20, X33, X34, X37, and X43 [17]. TMSS is a
MATLAB code written and developed by Irian Ordaz of ASDL that generates the
MINIVER input geometry and uses the MINIVER outputs to size and select TPS type
using the 1D transient heat equation.

28
First the RO geometry was constructed using Visual Sketch Pad (VSP) and the mission
profile was created using the reentry optimization code by making a table of time,
altitude, and velocity, ending where altitude is equal to 40 km. TMSS then generates
streamline information from the VSP geometry. MINIVER uses this streamline
information along with the reentry profile to provide aerothermal information for the
entire mission profile. TMSS then uses the MINIVER output to size and select the best
TPS type from the TPS database. This process is illustrated pictorially in Figure 20.

FIGURE 20 - THERMAL M&S FLOW FROM VSP GEOMETRY (A) TO TMSS STREAMLINE
GEOMETRY (B) TO MINIVER THERMAL ANALYSIS (C) AND TMSS TPS SIZING (D)

CAD
For this study, Dassault Systemess Computer Aided Three Dimensional Interactive
Application (CATIA) was used to construct the CAD models of each candidate missiles.
CATIA has a built-in tool that allows it to read data from Microsoft Excel spreadsheets
and assign variables to any parameter within the model. This feature enabled rapid
updating of the model to fit the specifications laid out by the most recent run. As a result,
CATIA could then parametrically update the model automatically in a matter of seconds.
Screenshots of each model were taken for use in the MADM tool and used to help select
the ALFT systems.

These CAD models allowed the team to visualize the design space of candidate missiles.
This visualization served as an aid in the selection process. A snapshot of a small section
A B
C D
29
of the design space is shown in Figure 21. Since there are assumptions in the first six
M&S tools, it is possible that missiles with structural or aeroelastic problems could
appear to perform well. By visualizing the options, these problems could quickly be
eliminated. Additionally, CATIA served as a debugging tool for the M&S environment.
If a large number of cases failed in one of the other tools, visual examination could
usually help identify the problem. For example, extreme differences in motor radii from
one stage to the next sometimes caused problems for the aerodynamic analysis.

FIGURE 21 - VISUALIZATION OF DESIGN SPACE

In the detailed design phase, CATIA was also used to model the internal layout of the
missile FS. The purpose of this coarse model was to determine how to best organize the
required subsystems inside of the RO and AS. Such items included the associated objects
detailed in the TRD, a propulsive motor, a separating avionics section, sensory and
telemetry gear, and a gyroscope for stability.

30
Concept Selection
After obtaining all of the results from the modeling and simulation environment, a
significant amount of data was compiled. This data was then analyzed and put through a
MADM tool. This is a tool that allows for the judgment of all the possible concepts
(note: possible here means that the concepts meet the requirements for the delivery
orders- those cases that cannot meet the range requirements are discarded in a first pass
filter). The judgment is parametric because of the influence of user-inputted weighting
scenarios. The tool and its architecture are described below, followed by the final
concepts chosen for further analysis.

Interactive Trade-off Tool
In order to judge all of the concepts on their merits, an environment needs to be created in
which all of the important characteristics of the booster combinations are considered.
Such an environment has been created in Microsoft Excel using a combination of
worksheet functions and VBA. The dashboard is shown below in Figure 22.

FIGURE 22 - PARAMETRIC TRADE TOOL DASHBOARD

Technique for Ordered Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
In order to perform the multi-attribute calculations needed for this kind of evaluation, a
process called Technique for Ordered Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
(TOPSIS) was used. TOPSIS is a MADM technique that takes the data from its initial
form and normalizes and weights the data. Then, it picks out the positive and negative
ideals and calculates the distances from these ideals for each alternative. Finally, the rank
is based on which alternative is closest to the positive ideal and farthest from the negative
ideal. The concept behind TOPSIS (shown only in 2-D here, but is actually multi-
31
dimensional) is shown here in Figure 23. The figure shows the concept of taking the
concept with the farthest distance from the negative ideal and the closest to the positive
ideal.

FIGURE 23 - PARETO FRONTIER

Thus, using TOPSIS, a ranked order of solutions can be presented for the individual
delivery order missions. However, an additional calculation regarding commonality of
the boosters can be used, as is discussed later.
Weighting Scenarios
One of the ways in which this tool will help is that the weighting scenarios will be able to
be changed on the fly and results instantly used. Using integrated macros and code, the
tool will run anytime anything is changed on the sheet, thus creating an environment in
which trade-offs can be discussed in real time.

Essential to the form and function of TOPSIS are the weighting scenarios that are to be
implemented to each criterion at hand. The weighting scenario part of the tool is shown
below in Figure 24.

FIGURE 24 - WEIGHTING SCENARIOS

32
Using the weightings shown on the right, TOPSIS runs on the fly and calculates a new
and different set of rankings for each delivery order.
Delivery Order Commonality
After TOPSIS is performed, ranked lists of importance are given for each of the delivery
order specifications. However, as the title of this project contains the important
characteristic of being affordable, it is necessary to consider the common boosters that
are ranked highly in the TOPSIS results, to see if it is possible to stack boosters or use
the same boosters to perform all of the delivery order missions. This is done by
calculating all of the possible common boosters in a given data-set using MATLAB, and
then taking the rankings of each from their TOPSIS result, and adding them together, thus
giving the best family of rocket boosters overall. This is a useful but not necessary step
in picking out the final down-selection result.
Architecture of the Tool
Figure 25 shows how the actual tool works to output the results shown on the dashboard.
In essence, the data from the first and second delivery order missions are taken into the
spreadsheet and run through TOPSIS. Then, the results for the pre-determined families
of rockets are assigned and re-sorted. This will yield a final concept list from which one
can pick a family of rockets that both fits the delivery order criteria and is affordable.

FIGURE 25 - CONCEPT SELECTION FLOWCHART

Missile Downselection
In the downselection process, several factors had to be weighted. Low cost requirements
as well as transportability requirements were able to be weighed against the performance
requirements.

First the team only looked at the transportability and reliability by only looking at
minimum stage vehicles. The Orion50sg and the Castor 4 series of motors can fulfill
DO1 requirements as a single stage. Similarly, these motors will be a first stage for a
33
two-stage DO2 missile. However, these motors are commercial, and do not fulfill the
need for a low cost target system. As a reference, Table 7 is shown below, showing the
differing costs for each booster. The zero-cost boosters are Government Furnished
Equipment (GFE) and the others are available commercially (COTS).

Before actually performing any downselection, an ideal solution needs to be
determined to compare each concept against. DO1 and DO2 will have the same ideal
solution characteristics, but with some additional characteristics required to judge DO2
due to its atmospheric reentry requirements. These characteristics are shown in Table 8.

TABLE 7 - COST DATA
Motor Name Cost to ALFT Program ($K)
Terrier Mk12 0
Trident C4 3rd Stage 0
Improved Orion 0
ATACMS 0
Patriot (PAC-3) 0
SR19 0
M57 0
Mk11 Mod5 Talos 0
ASAT Stage 2 (Altair 3) 0
Oriole 600
Castor1 1,000
Orion 38 1,600
Orbus 6 2,000
Orion 50 2,400
Castor 4, 4a, 4b 3,500
Orion 50xl 4,000
Orion 50sg 6,000

TABLE 8 - TOPSIS IDEAL SOLUTION PREFERENCES
Factor Direction to Ideal Solution DO1 DO2
Number Of Stages Lower X X
Length Of Launch Vehicle Lower X X
Weight Of Launch Vehicle Lower X X
Cost Lower X X
Max Range Higher X X
RO Propellant Quantity Required Lower X
RO TPS Thickness Required Lower X

Looking at only GFE motors by setting the cost dial to ten and everything else to zero (as
shown in Figure 26), many GFE combinations emerged for both delivery orders. A Talos
34
first stage and either an SR19 or M57 second stage as well as an SR19 first stage and an
M57 second stage can fulfill DO1 requirements. Other three-stage combinations of GFE
work for DO1, but these were decided against because the TRD requires a two-stage
missile for DO1. Similarly, SR19 and M57 based missiles are capable of meeting DO2
mission requirements.

FIGURE 26 - PROOF OF FUNCTIONALITY

Also, because a driving requirement is cost, it is imperative to look at the solutions with
the best cost-factor, so in a similar fashion it is possible to look at the solutions with the
least amount of cost associated with them, shown in Figure 27.

FIGURE 27 - BEST COST OPTIONS

After playing with several different weighting scenarios, two concepts for DO1 are
consistently at the top of the rankings: a Talos first stage, M57 second stage and a SR19
first stage and an M57 second stage. Figure 28 and Figure 29 show these three motors.

35

FIGURE 28 - TALOS SOLID ROCKET MOTOR [18]

FIGURE 29 - SR19 AND M57 SOLID ROCKET MOTORS [18] [19]

Since both concepts are two stage missiles made out of GFE, the decision came down to
discriminators in the operations and transportability of these two concepts. The
SR19/M57 missile is a much more powerful concept with a predicted maximum range of
over 2,400 km. This concept flies a maximum range trajectory at an initial launch
36
elevation of 85.9, and the targeted 1,000 km mission flies at an initial launch elevation
of 88.8. A variation in range of 1,400 km in less than 3 of initial elevation means that
the trajectory is extremely sensitive to an initial launch elevation.

In contrast, the Talos/M57 concept has a maximum range of 1,294 km at a launch
elevation of 64.0 and a targeted launch elevation of 74.6. The Talos/M57 concept has a
much lower sensitivity to deviations of initial launch elevation which makes it a superior
choice given the requirement that this will need to be launched from the deck of a rolling
ship. The data for this is shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9 - LAUNCH ANGLE SENSITIVITY (DO1)
Motor Configuration
[First Stage /
Second Stage]
Maximum Range
[km]
Launch Angle for
Maximum Range
[degrees]
Launch Angle
Targeted to
1000km [degrees]
Talos / M57 1294 64.0 74.6
SR19 / M57 2475 85.9 88.8

In addition to the favorable launch operations, the Talos/M57 is 5,174 kg less massive
and 0.77 m shorter than the SR19/M57 making the Talos/M57 easier to transport, as
shown in Table 10. The Talos/M57 concepts superior non-performance characteristics
make it the best concept for DO1. The CAD for this concept is shown in Figure 30.

TABLE 10 - TRANSPORTABILITY COMPARISON (DO1)
Motor Configuration
[First Stage / Second Stage]
Total Launch Length
[m]
Gross Liftoff Weight
[kg]
Talos / M57 8.23 4738
SR19 / M57 9.00 9912

When considering DO2, two GFE based concepts are consistently at the top of the
TOPSIS results: Talos/SR19/M57 and Talos/SR19/SR19. Both missiles have
approximately the same range so the main discriminators came down to operations and
transportability. The Talos/SR19/M57 has a maximum range trajectory launch elevation
of 75.2 and a 2,500 km targeted trajectory launch elevation of 83.3. The
Talos/SR19/M57 has a maximum range trajectory launch elevation of 84.9 and a
targeted trajectory launch elevation of 87.7. The Talos/SR19/M57 option is less
sensitive to launch elevation angle deviations than the Talos/SR19/SR19, as shown in
Table 11.
37

FIGURE 30 - TALOS/M57, DO1 CONCEPT

TABLE 11 - LAUNCH ANGLE SENSITIVITY (DO2)
Motor Configuration
[First Stage / Second Stage /
Third Stage]
Maximum
Range [kg]
Launch Angle
for Maximum
Range
[degrees]
Launch Angle
Targeted to 2500km
(High Trajectory)
[degrees]
Talos / SR19 / M57 3632 75.2 83.3
Talos / SR19 / SR19 3617 84.9 87.7

The Talos/SR19/M57 is also 5,000 kg less massive and 1.42 meters shorter than the
Talos/SR19/SR19 concept, as shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12 - TRANSPORTABILITY COMPARISON (DO2)
Motor Configuration
[First Stage / Second Stage /
Third Stage]
Total Launch Length
[m]
Gross Liftoff Weight
[kg]
Talos / SR19 / M57 12.90 12322
Talos / SR19 / SR19 14.32 17555

The resulting RO characteristics were also looked at while making a decision, as shown
in
Table 13. However, these characteristics ended up being a non-discriminator because the
difference in required fuel is less than a kilogram and the difference in required TPS is
less than a tenth of a kilogram.

TABLE 13 - RO CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON
Motor Configuration
First Stage / Second Stage /
Third Stage]
Range Extension
Motor Propellant Weight [kg]
TPS Weight [kg]
Talos / SR19 / M57 39.7 11.0
Talos / SR19 / SR19 40.5 11.1
38
The Talos/SR19/M57 concepts strengths in targeting and transportability as well as the
M57 to avionics section interstage commonality make it the best concept for DO2. It is
shown in CAD in Figure 31.

FIGURE 31 - TALOS/SR19/M57, DO2 CONCEPT

As a final sense check, it was necessary to make sure that using the relatively small Talos
booster with larger stages above it would actually work. In order to see if this was
possible, research was done to see if other configurations in use today or in the past have
used the Talos as a primary booster. Several examples were found to show that the Talos
booster was used to propel multiple large stages and payloads above it. One example is
the Starbird, a four stage configuration of: Talos / Sargent / Orbus1 / Orbus1 / Payload.
A picture of it is shown in Figure 32.

FIGURE 32 - STARBIRD, ILLUSTRATING TALOS AS FIRST STAGE

39
Missile Conceptual Design
Interstage Design
Now that a motor configuration for each delivery order has been selected, some design
details for the missile can be determined. A more accurate estimate of the interstage
weights is calculated based upon improved geometry and preliminary structural analysis.

The maximum half-angle for each interstage is 16.7. This value is chosen based upon
historical research of Titan and Minuteman missiles performed by the 2006-2007 Georgia
Tech missile design team. For configurations where the interstage is connecting two
components of similar diameter, this value is too large which results in a very short
interstage. For these cases the half-angle is reduced until the minimum interstage length
is 0.5 meters. Table 14 and Table 15 show the final geometry for each interstage for
DO1 and DO2 respectively.

TABLE 14 - FINAL GEOMETRY FOR INTERSTAGES (DO1)
Interstage Location Half-angle [degrees] Length [m]
Payload M57 13.3 0.5
M57-Talos 11.8 0.5

TABLE 15 - FINAL GEOMETRY FOR INTERSTAGES (DO2)
Interstage Location Half-angle [degrees] Length [m]
Payload M57 13.3 0.5
M57 SR19 16.7 0.55
SR-19 - Talos 16.7 0.9

Two stress calculations are performed to determine the acceptable wall thickness of the
interstage frustums. The first calculation determines the compressive stress at maximum
dynamic pressure (max Q) for each interstage. This calculation is based upon the drag
force and acceleration which are determined from the modeling and simulation results.
Because the selected configuration for DO1 and DO2 both use the Talos first stage, max
Q occurs at the same point for each flight profile. This point is six seconds into the flight
at the end of the Talos burn.

The second calculation takes into account the maximum allowable buckling stress due to
axial compression. This calculation is based upon the diameter to thickness ratio and the
mechanical properties of the material selected. For each calculation, 4130 steel was the
selected material which is commonly used for solid rocket motor casings and interstages.

For each interstage design the maximum allowable buckling stress is the driver in
determining the minimum interstage thickness. Once this minimum thickness is
determined, the frustum shell thickness is determined using the previously determined
geometry and the density of 4130 steel. This value is then multiplied by 1.3 to account
for the structure of the mating surfaces and the separation mechanisms. The new
40
interstage mass estimates are found in Table 16 and Table 17 for DO1 and DO2
respectively.

TABLE 16 - INTERSTAGE MASS ESTIMATES (DO1)
Interstage Location
Original Mass
Estimate [kg]
Frustum Wall
Thickness [mm]
Revised Mass
Estimate [kg]
AS M57 184 7 100
M57-Talos 190 7 102

TABLE 17 - INTERSTAGE MASS ESTIMATES (DO2)
Interstage Location
Original Mass
Estimate [kg]
Frustum Wall
Thickness [mm]
Revised Mass
Estimate [kg]
AS M57 184 7 100
M57 SR19 322 9 191
SR-19 - Talos 270 9 284

Figure 33 shows the drawing of the interstage linking the avionics section and the M57
(same for both DO1 and DO2).

FIGURE 33 - AS / M57 INTERSTAGE DRAWING

41
Final System Design Overview
With the final interstage dimensions determined, CAD models can be created for the
DO1 and DO2 selections. These models are shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35,
respectively.

FIGURE 34 - TALOS/M57 (DO1)

FIGURE 35 - TALOS/SR19/M57 (DO2)

The physical characteristics for each delivery order selection are shown in Table 18 and
Table 19, respectively. The common Talos first stage, chosen for its excellent
performance, yields very high thrust/weight ratios.

42
TABLE 18 - TALOS/M57 (DO1) BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter Value
Total Length 8.83 m
Gross Liftoff Weight 4566 kg
Maximum Diameter 1.0 m
1
st
Stage Thrust/Weight (sl) 18.3
2
nd

TABLE 19 - TALOS/SR19/M57 (DO2) BASIC CHARACTERISTICS
Parameter Value
Total Length 14.47 m
Gross Liftoff Weight 12121 kg
Maximum Diameter 1.33 m
1
st
2
nd
3
rd

Trajectory Performance
The trajectory simulation can now be re-run with the revised interstage weights. The
performance characteristics for each delivery order are shown in Table 20 and Table 21,
respectively.

TABLE 20 - TALOS/M57 (DO1) TRAJECTORY PERFORMANCE
Parameter High Trajectory Low Trajectory
Maximum Range
(1488 km)
Launch Angle 76.5 51.6 63.3
Maximum Apogee 701 km 127 km 413 km
Maximum
Dynamic Pressure
600 kPa 653 kPa 622 kPa
Total Flight Time 888 sec 403 sec 698 sec
Time to Burnout
(2
nd
Stage)
71 sec 71 sec 71 sec
Free Flight Time 817 sec 332 sec 627 sec
Burnout Altitude 104 km 45 km 78 km
Burnout Velocity 1470 m/s 3040 m/s 3367 m/s
Downrange Distance
at Burnout
41 km 82 km 72 km

43
TABLE 21 - TALOS/SR19/M57 (DO2) TRAJECTORY PERFORMANCE
Parameter High Trajectory Low Trajectory
Maximum Range
(4166 km)
Launch Angle 83.7 67.2 74.4
Maximum Apogee 204 km 167 km 828 km
Maximum
Dynamic Pressure
84 kPa 88 kPa 84 kPa
Total Flight Time 1803 sec 666 sec 1212 sec
Time to Burnout
(2
nd
Stage)
138 sec 138 sec 138 sec
Free Flight Time 1665 sec 528 sec 1074 sec
Burnout Altitude 259 km 64 km 161 km
Burnout Velocity 5241 m/s 5288 m/s 5084 m/s
Downrange Distance
at Burnout
110 km 254 km 223 km

Tables 13 and 14 show the different performance capabilities for each delivery order
solution. The high trajectory would probably be the preferred method of launching each
target, as the low trajectory launch angle is very shallow. The updated maximum range
trajectory demonstrates the performance buffer that each solution offers. If a larger
payload or longer range is required, each delivery order solution may still be capable of
performing the mission.

Figure 36 through Figure 39 graph the trajectory and mass change for each of the
delivery orders.

44
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Distance (km)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
k
m
)

FIGURE 36 - DO1 TRAJECTORY - 1000KM TARGETED (HIGH TRAJECTORY)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Distance (km)
A
l
t
i
t
u
d
e

(
k
m
)

FIGURE 37 - DO2 TRAJECTORY MAXIMUM RANGE
45
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Flight Time (s)
V
e
h
i
c
l
e

M
a
s
s

(
k
g
)

FIGURE 38 - DO1 MASS CHANGE (FIRST 300 SECONDS OF FLIGHT)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Flight Time (s)
V
e
h
c
i
l
e

M
a
s
s

(
k
g
)

FIGURE 39 - DO2 MASS CHANGE (FIRST 300 SECONDS OF FLIGHT)
46
Thermal Protection System Design
After completion of the trajectory performance modeling and simulation, conceptual
design of the TPS could be conducted, using the MINIVER and TMSS modeling and
simulation environment described previously. Because only the separating bi-conic is
designed to enter the atmosphere, TPS analysis was only conducted on DO2 trajectories
to determine TPS type and weight for each. The initial detailed analysis using MINIVER
and TMSS was run on 806 reentry trajectories, using a sufficient fidelity of 300 grid
points over the RO surface to achieve accurate TPS weights within ~0.5 kg. These TPS
results were used as part of the down-selection to the final DO2 design. Once the final
design and reentry trajectory were known, a high fidelity MINVER and TMSS analysis
was run with 5600 grid points over the RO surface, yielding the results shown in Table
22.

The thermal analysis showed the best TPS type to use as the Very Low Density
Elastomeric (VLDE) Ablator, which is a silica-phenolic ablator found in NASA JSCs
PathFinder Materials database. Although the TPS analysis has given a specific TPS
name, the fidelity of the overall M&S at this point in conceptual design indicates that the
VLDE is probably only one of several silica-phenolic ablators that may be further
explored in detailed design and testing in order to select the best TPS solution that takes
into account not only mission success and weight, but also cost, availability, and
experimental performance and reliability. The end result of this conceptual TPS design is
to narrow the field of useable TPS forms substantially to the category of silica-phenolic
ablator.

TABLE 22 - TALOS/SR19/M57 (DO2) TPS RESULTS
Parameter
Minimum Range
(2500 km)
Maximum Range
(4166 km)
TPS Type Silica-phenolic ablator Silica-phenolic ablator
Total Weight 8.5 kg 11.3 kg
Maximum Thickness 2.8 cm 3.6 kg
Temperature
at Nose
~3590 K ~3590 K
Temperature Forward of Bend ~1922 2755 K ~2200 2755 K
Temperature Aft of Bend ~1366 1922 K ~1644 K

Shown are graphical representations of the RO thermal environment determined by
MINIVER for the minimum range of 2500 km (Figure 40) and for the maximum range
(Figure 41) of 4166 km. Also shown are graphical representations of the TPS thickness
distribution of the VLDE TPS as determined by TMSS for the minimum range of 2500
km (Figure 42) and for the maximum range (Figure 43) of 4166 km.

47

FIGURE 40 - MAXIMUM SURFACE TEMPERATURES (
O
F) FELT AT EACH GRID POINT OF THE
RO DURING REENTRY FOR MINIMUM DO2 RANGE OF 2500 KM

FIGURE 41 - TPS (VLDE SILICA-PHENOLIC ABLATOR) THICKNESS REQUIRED FOR REENTRY
FOR MINIMUM DO2 RANGE OF 2500 KM
48

FIGURE 42 - MAXIMUM SURFACE TEMPERATURES (
O
F) FELT AT EACH GRID POINT OF THE
RO DURING REENTRY FOR MAXIMUM DO2 RANGE ACHIEVABLE OF 4166 KM

FIGURE 43 - TPS (VLDE SILICA-PHENOLIC ABLATOR) THICKNESS REQUIRED FOR REENTRY
FOR MAXIMUM DO2 RANGE ACHIEVABLE OF 4166 KM
49
Front Section Design
The first order design of the reentry objects and avionics sections incorporates all
component requirements from the TRD and SOW as well as any additional
components necessary to perform propulsive range extensions in the case of the bi-
conic reentry object. Table 23 shows all of the specifically listed requirements for
components of the avionics section and reentry object for the conic RO. Duplicated
requirements for the conic reentry object and avionics section (which function as one
unit) are consolidated as avionics section requirements.

TABLE 23 - COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS LIST FROM THE TRD AND SOW FOR DO1
Reentry Object Avionics Section
Hit Impact Location
Measurement (HILM) System
Thermocouples
Strain Gauges
Comms. Equipment
-C,S,X,Ku bands
COMSEC Encoder
Sensor Package
-forward, rear, and aft
-infrared and visible
Navigation
-GPS and IMU
Command and Control System
-fiber optic, RF, and hardwired
Experiment/Instrumentation
Packages
HILM System
Thermocouples
Strain Gauges

The bi-conic case requires all components listed under the conic case. It also requires
additional components, which are shown in Table 24.

TABLE 24 - COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS LIST FROM THE TRD AND SOW FOR DO2

In addition to these components, several other component requirements were identified
based on the bi-conic propulsive range extension requirement or other needs of the
reentry object and avionics sections. These derived requirements are shown in Table 25
for the bi-conic RO. The only derived requirement for the conic RO was a battery in the
avionics section.

Comms. Equipment
-S, X, Ku bands
COMSEC Encoder
Navigation
-GPS and IMU
Associated Objects
Separation Control System
50
TABLE 25 - ADDITIONAL DERIVED COMPONENT REQUIREMENTS CONSIST FOR DO2
Battery
Propulsion subsystem
-rocket engine
-propellant
-pressurant
-tanks, lines, valves
Control moment gyro
Battery
Pyrotechnic Separation Bolts

The bi-conic reentry object also requires components to enable propulsive cross range
and downrange extension. A Leros 1B (as shown in Figure 44) bipropellant rocket
engine provides 145 lbs of thrust at an Isp of 318 seconds. The Leros 1B is fully space
qualified, having been used on spacecraft such as the Mars Global Surveyor, Mars
Odyssey, and Mercury MESSENGER. The mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON) /
monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) bipropellant used in the bi-conic reentry object is housed
inside two equal volume titanium alloy tanks. The fuel system is pressure-fed by inert
helium gas stored in a separate tank. A control moment gyro provides the attitude control
necessary for exoatmospheric reorientation of the reentry object during cross range
extensions.

FIGURE 44 - LEROS- 1B

Notional designs for the bi-conic reentry object and avionics section are shown in Figure
45 and Figure 46. The design for the conic front section is shown in Figure 47.

FIGURE 45 - BI-CONIC RO/AS BREAKOUT

51

FIGURE 46 - BI-CONIC RO/AS ALTERNATIVE VIEW PARTIALLY EXPLODED

FIGURE 47 - CONIC RO/AS

All components were placed according to three basic principles. First, components must
be placed in usable positions (e.g. the dispersing associated objects must not be blocked
from being dispersed by other components). Secondly, geometric constraints must be
met (i.e. the components must be arranged such that they fit within the designed reentry
object and avionics section dimensions and volumes). Finally, weight should be centered
axially for stability concerns.

The bi-conic case is designed as much as possible to be an extension of the simpler conic
case. The avionics section for the bi-conic case requires a somewhat different layout than
that for the conic case due to the inclusion of the associated objects. However, the bi-
conic reentry object is designed as an extension of the conic reentry object. Since the
geometric design of the bi-conic reentry object is based on adding a frustum to the cone
of the conic reentry object, the additional components required for the bi-conic reentry
object are designed to be incorporated within this frustum. A first order mass breakdown
52
for the reentry object and avionics sections was previously shown in Table 6. A detailed
diagram of the bi-conic front section components is shown in Figure 48. Table 26
provides a color coded key to aid in component identification.

FIGURE 48 - REENTRY OBJECT AND AVIONICS SECTION BREAKDOWN

TABLE 26 - FRONT SECTION COMPONENT KEY
Color Component
Light Blue IR and Visible Sensor Package
Pink Experiment Section
Red HILM Unit
Brown Battery
Bright Green IMU
Light Purple GPS Unit
Dark Gray Antenna Set
Light Gray Command and Control System
Yellow Associated Objects
Blue Engine
Black Pyros
Olive Green Propellant Tanks
Dark Purple Pressurant Tanks
Burnt Orange Control Moment Gyro

53
Launch Options
The ALFT launch system complies with the launch specifications of nearly any ground
launch base. The target vehicles missions will be conducted from or staged out of test
ranges including, but not limited to, WSMR, RTS, Wake Island, Western Range, PMRF,
WFF, VAFB, and EAFB.

The ALFT will be capable of being transported and launched within 20 days of call-up
from short or long-term storage condition. After delivery to the launch site, the system
can remain on station for a minimum of 30 days in a standby condition. Once prepared at
the launch site, the rocket will be ready for launch within 20 hours. ALFT was designed
to withstand a variety of weather conditions maintaining at least 95% calculated launch
target presentation availability. The systems are configured to withstand rainfall rates up
to 10.2 cm/hr (4.0 in/hr) at wind speeds up to 64.4 km/hr (40 mph) when target is in its
pre-launch configuration and a maximum snow load of 48.8 kg/m
2
(10 lb/ft
2
) which is
approximately 61 cm (24 in) of snow. The vehicle incorporates all environmental
protection required for the system. In the event that a launch would be aborted the rocket
is designed to return to ready for launch status within 6 hours of the abort. This includes
replacement of expended items and recharging of batteries if necessary.

Shipping Logistics
Three options for transport are feasible given the size and weight of both vehicles. The
preferred method is shipment by flatbed trailer, given the cost efficiency and flexibility in
reaching secluded launch sites. Also feasible is rail car shipping, though this method
requires the existence or creation of infrastructure in the form of railroad tracks. Finally,
air shipping via cargo aircraft is an option, although it is the most costly of the three
methods and requires an airfield suitably close to the launch site.

The missile can be shipped either in stages or assembled in the production facility and
then shipped fully assembled. A missile shipped in pieces would be assembled and
technically inspected at the launch site. However, this method is not preferred as it would
require costly support equipment and trained personnel. Therefore the production
method will be full assembly at the production facility unless otherwise specified.

Special precautions will be taken in the shipment of the hazardous Hydrazine liquid
propellant. As this substance is highly toxic, the system is designed to be fueled with the
liquid propellant on-site. Another precaution for shipment is protection of the system
against large shocks and vibrations through the use of specifically fitted packing
materials and sufficient tie-downs. Sensors will be installed during shipment to ensure
that the system is sufficiently protected. Packing materials and sensors will also monitor
and protect the system against potentially harmful environmental conditions.

54
Air Launch
In the event that a ground launch is not a desirable option, air launch is also a possibility.
Air launching has several benefits as compared to ground launching. It allows a vehicle
to be launched from almost anywhere in the world and to achieve any desired inclination;
it reduces the effects of drag by launching the vehicle from a thinner atmosphere; and it
provides an initial velocity and altitude. The air launch methods that would potentially
used are gravity air launch, depicted in Figure 49, and trapeze-lanyard air drop, as
pictured in Figure 50 [21] [22] [23].

FIGURE 49 - GRAVITY AIR LAUNCH

FIGURE 50 - TRAPEZE-LANYARD AIR DROP WITH PARACHUTE STABILIZATION

55
Conclusions
An affordable and flexible family of target vehicles is needed to physically test the US
BMD system. An SOW and a TRD requesting an ALFT system family were created in
response to these needs. It was desired that the ALFT family use government furnished
sounding rocket motors to fly both short and medium range missions. The 1000 km short
range mission featured a conic reentry object, while the 2500 km medium range mission
featured a maneuverable bi-conic.

The ALFT family designed by the 2007-2008 Georgia Tech ASDL team used Talos,
SR19, and M57 government furnished rocket motors. The short range concept was a
two-stage missile using a Talos as the first stage and an M57 as the second stage. The
medium range concept was a three-stage missile using a Talos as the first stage, an SR19
as the second stage, and an M57 as the third stage. The selection of these motors
dramatically decreased the cost and schedule of the ALFT program. In addition to the
design of the two launch vehicles, the Georgia Tech ASDL team also placed a large
emphasis on the conceptual design of the two reentry objects and common avionics
section.

One large drawback to this study was that the team was limited to only public domain
information. Much of the motor information was not publicly available and the
information found was sometimes inconsistent or questionable. Information regarding
reentry objects (especially bi-conic) was even more difficult to come by. Nevertheless, a
large amount of research and engineering intuition was put into the study to ensure that
the final results were reasonable. Although the chosen family is a logical selection, it is
possible that a more optimal solution could have been found had the fidelity of available
data been greater.

The next step in the design of the ALFT system would be to obtain better data for the
motors and more information regarding the reentry object attributes. Then, the same
procedure that was detailed in this study could be equally applied to the new data. The
team would be able to construct higher fidelity codes for the new data and rerun the
physics-based analysis. The results of this new analysis could be examined with the
ALFT downselection tool and compared to the initial results.

56
Appendix A
Requirements Verification
Section Requirements Description / Response
2.0 Support
Contractor shall identify the manpower, materials, services,
equipment, hardware, software, and necessary support equipment
and other resources necessary.
Response: Qualitative
Future detailed design would employ existing support and servicing
equipment where possible. For example, packing materials and tie-
downs will be designed to integrate with current transportation
methods, including flatbed trucks, cargo aircraft, and transport
ships. The missile systems would be designed with current launch
rail system interfaces in mind.

2.1.4 EMI / EMC
The contractor shall develop and implement an EMI/EMC program
to ensure compatibility of booster system and payload systems from
both intersystem and intrasystem design aspects. The contractor
shall use MIL-STD-464A as guidance in implementing the
program. The contractor shall use this program to ensure
compliance of all EMI/EMC requirements during missile system
integration, test range integration and mission activities.
Specification of equipment Electromagnetic Interface (EMI) and
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) details is outside the scope
of the preliminary conceptual design phase and will be determined
during detailed design phase. Design of electronic systems and
interfaces will meet interference control requirements as specified
in MIL-STD-461 so that the overall system complies with all
applicable requirements of MIL-STD-464A. This compliance will
be verified by tests that are consistent with MIL-STD-461.

2.1.5 Range Integration
External interfaces require coordination for utilization of range
integration and launch facilities.
Missile external interfaces will be designed to utilize current launch
facility rail and support systems, with a specific focus on the launch
facilities at VAFB, WFF, WSMR, RTS, PMRF, and EAFB.

57
2.1.6 Mission Assurance
The contractor shall develop a verification and validation (V&V)
Plan for the target missile system.
Mission assurance will be provided by spiral verification and
validation (V&V) plan development. An initial V & V plan will
maximize the use of computer simulations to minimize cost. A final
V & V plan will be employed during the detailed design phase and
initial production, with an attempt to minimize the need for both
subscale and full scale testing. A launch preparation V & V plan
will be developed in concert with the detailed design phase of the
ALFT system to for customer use that will provide mission
assurance for each individual launch.

2.2.1 Remote Launch Capability
The contractor will also be required to provide a remote launch
capability.
Detailed design of launch mechanisms is beyond the scope of
preliminary conceptual design but will be explored in detail during
detailed design. The launch system will be designed to provide
remote launch capability.

2.2.2 Missile System Tests
The contractor shall define a test plan to ensure compliance with the
TRD. These tests may include engineering development tests,
integration tests, qualification tests and acceptance tests.
As the missile systems are being developed, a continual test plan
will be employed in concert with the V&V plans to ensure
compliance with the TRD. These tests will include but are not
limited to engineering development tests, integration tests,
qualification tests, and acceptance tests. Missile system testing will
maximize the use of computational simulations to minimize test, but
the use of physical subscale and full-scale system components will
be required as design proceeds towards production and project
completion. Testing will occur both on a component, subsystem,
and full system scale to provide quality assurance.

2.2.2 Missile System Tests (cont.)
The contractor shall provide any required test assets and personnel
to operate the test assets.
The contractor will provide any systems, measurement devices,
computer programs, and materials required for missile systems
testing, where feasible. Contractor personnel will also be provided
58
to operate the test assets, as well as to train customer personal in
system use. Training materials will also be provided.

The contractor shall recommend which of the Centers or other
contractor provided facilities provides the best value for ALFT.
The preliminary conceptual design has been conducted with center
and facility flexibility in mind, especially with those indicated as
important, including VAFB, WFF, WSMR, RTS, PMRF, and
EAFB. During the detailed design phase, facilities necessary for
production, transportation, and launch will be more thoroughly
explored and final recommendations will be made at that time.

The contractor shall include in the Master Program Test Plan the
planning for integration, installation, checkout and test of the target
missile components and system to be conducted at the selected
Center/facilities.
After completion of the detailed design, the contractor will provide
and include in the Master Program Test Plan the planning for
integration, installation, checkout, and test of the target missile
components and system to be conducted at the recommended
facilities.

2.2.3 Instrumentation and Telemetry
The contractor shall design, install, and test instrumentation systems
for target missiles necessary to comply with the requirements of the
TRD and DO.
The contractor will provide fully qualified special purpose airborne
and/or ground based control, instrumentation, and telemetry
systems.
To the maximum extent possible, these systems shall consist of
readily available, COTS components, which will meet the
environmental specifications for the rockets on which they will be
installed and shall be compatible with range systems and GFE
telemetry stations.
During the detailed design phase of the ALFT, instrumentation
systems necessary to comply with the requirements of the TRD and
DO, including the HILM Device, necessary antennae, GPS, and
RCS control systems, will be designed, installed, and tested before
delivery to the customer. The contractor will also provide fully
qualified special purpose airborne and/or ground based control,
instrumentation, and telemetry systems to be determined in detail
59
during detailed design, testing, and production that will interact with
the ALFT instrumentation systems. Where possible, these systems
will consist of readily available COTS components, which will meet
the environmental specifications for the rockets on which they will
be installed and shall be compatible with range systems and GFE
telemetry stations, in order to minimize system development and
deployment costs.

2.2.4 Experiment Support
The contractor shall design and integrate Experiment Subsystems
(ES) onto ALFT motors necessary to comply with the requirements
of the TRD and DO.
To the maximum extent possible, these systems shall consist of
readily available, Off-The-Shelf (OTS) components, which will
meet the environmental specifications for the rockets on which they
will be installed.
Detailed design and integration of Experimental Subsystems (ES)
will utilizes past designs of sub-systems, using Off-The-Shelf
(OTS) components that are currently used for similar or the same
launch systems. The ES will meet the environmental specifications
for the ALFT.

2.3.1 Pre-Mission Integration and Test Support
The contractor shall identify test procedures and test support at the
test ranges to include vehicle buildup/integration and range
integration.
The contractor shall identify instrumentation and telemetry
recording at the launch facility for subsystem and system level
integration testing to include initial checkouts, simulated
countdowns, and troubleshooting.
During the detailed design phase, test procedures and test support at
the test ranges, including vehicle buildup and range integration will
be developed, and instrumentation and telemetry recording
necessary at the launch facility for subsystems and system level
integration testing will be identified. This testing will include initial
checkouts, simulated countdowns, and troubleshooting.

2.3.2 Range Support / Launch Services
The contractor shall develop a plan to provide missile range support
services.
A plan will be developed to provide missile range support services,
especially through detailed design, testing, and production.
60

2.3.3 Range Test Support
The contractor shall provide test equipment required in support of
equipment maintenance and specific missile range requirements
dictated by the mission.
Test equipment that is required to support equipment maintenance
and specific missile range requirements dictated by the mission will
be determined and designed during detailed design, testing, and
production, and will be provided.

2.4.1 General Logistics Support
The contractor shall develop an approach for storage, packing,
maintaining, transporting and tracking Contractor Furnished
Property (CFP).
The contractor shall program and plan resources to deploy to the
government furnished range integration facilities and range launch
facilities. The contractor shall provide the personnel required for
the deployment, operation, maintenance and retrograde of ALFT
equipment and ordnance.
Details concerning storage, packing, maintaining, transporting, and
tracking Contractor Furnished Property (CFP) will be developed
through detailed design, testing, and production. A program and
plan will be developed concerning resources necessary to deploy to
the government furnished range integration facilities and range
launch facilities. Personnel will be required for deployment,
operation, maintenance and retrograde of ALFT equipment and
ordnance.

2.4.2 Transportation
The contractor shall provide packaging and shipping of the target
missile system equipment and ordnance to the government
designated range or staging area; and provide all necessary
documentation to effect timely delivery of all equipment to include
all necessary hazard classification data.
To reduce cost and time at the range the contractor shall consider
shipping the ALFT as a unitary all-up-round.
Response: Addressed in design qualitative note below
During detailed design and testing, requirements necessary for
packaging and shipping of the target missile system equipment and
ordinance to the government designated range or staging areas will
be determined and will be provided upon delivery. All necessary
documentation to effect timely delivery of all equipment will
include all necessary hazard classification data. Preliminary design
of the ALFT system was conducted with a unitary all-up-round
61
method of shipping in mind, greatly reducing transportation cost
and time at the range.

2.4.3 Missile Systems Maintenance
The contractor shall develop a maintenance plan for the target
missile system component, missile related items, and ground
support equipment.
A maintenance plan for the ALFT system components, missile
related items, and ground support equipment will be determined in
detail during detailed design and testing of the ALFT.

2.4.4 Ground Support Equipment
The contractor shall ensure that all GSE (GFP or contractor
provided) required for integration and ground processing, test
checkout, integration and launch of the target missile system are
available at all locations including the launch site, to include any
GFP provided telemetry systems.
All Government Furnished Property (GFP) or contractor provided
equipment required for integration and ground processing, test
checkout, integration, and launch of the target missile system will
be made available at all necessary locations including the launch
site, including any GFP provided telemetry systems.

2.5.1 System Safety Program
The contractor shall implement an effective system safety program
for the design, development, assembly, integration and flight test of
the target missile system. The contractor will use DoD 4145.26-M
as a guide. The contractor shall comply with local explosive
regulation for all operations and facilities involving explosive items.
Details concerning a system safety program will be determine
during detailed design and will provide a useable system for the
design, development, assembly, integration, and flight test of the
ALFT. DoD 4145.26-M will be used as a guide, complying with
local explosive regulation for all operations and facilities involving
explosive items. As per DoD 4145.26-M, potential for any mishap
that could disrupt the ALFT program, delay production, damage or
destroy GFP and contractor material and facilities, cause injury to
any personnel, or endanger the general public will be minimized to
the greatest extent possible. This will be taken into account in every
phase of testing, production, transportation, and system use.

2.5.3 Range Safety
The contractor shall perform a thorough safety assessment of the
62
system design and its impact on safe conduct of tests. The
assessment shall address ground and flight safety requirements.
A thorough safety assessment of the system design and its impact
on safe conduct of tests and missions will performed, addressing
both ground and flight safety requirements. This assessment will
begin during detailed design and will continue through testing,
production, and deployment.

2.7.1 Environmental Compliance
The contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local
environmental laws, regulations, and policies for all activities
defined in this Statement of Work (SOW), whether conducted at
government or contractor facilities.
All federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, and
policies for all required ALFT activities will be complied with,
whether conducted at government or contractor facilities. An
analysis will be conducted during detailed design to identify the
environmental impact of production, testing, and deployment.

2.7.2 Operating / Non-Operating Environments
The ALFT motors and its subsystems and components during
shipment, handling and pre-launch operations may encounter a
variety of environmental conditions. The handling and pre-launch
conditions are applicable to the ALFT booster, subsystem, or
component without shipping container(s). ALFT design must allow
for protection when exposed to the environmental conditions in the
TRD. A summary of these environments is listed below:
1. Humidity: During shipping and handling, relative humidity from 0
to 100 percent with conditions such that condensation may take
place in the form of water or frost. The contractor shall provide the
capability to measure and record humidity while the ALFT is in
transportation.
2. Temperature: Surrounding air temperature ranging from a
minimum of -51C (-60F) during air transport or during ground
handling to a maximum of +49C (+120F) during sheltered ground
conditions and +71C (+160F) under unsheltered ground
conditions. Areas protected from direct sunlight are defined as
sheltered conditions. The contractor shall provide the capability to
measure and record temperature while the ALFT is in
transportation.
3. Vibration: When packaged or otherwise prepared for shipment,
ALFT equipment shall withstand or be protected against
transportation environments determined by analyses of handling and
shipping conditions.
63
4. Transportation Shock: Packaged equipment designs shall meet the
requirements dictated by the contractors analysis of expected
handling and shipping operations. The contractor shall provide a
system to measure and record shocks encountered during
transportation for each shipment of the ALFT.
5. Sand and Dust: During shipping, the ALFT shall withstand
exposure to windblown sand and dust particles. During handling,
the ALFT shall withstand dust concentrations of 6 x 10-9
grams/cm3 and particle sizes of 0.0001 to 0.01 mm diameter.
6. Rain: The ALFT shall be able to withstand exposure to rainfall
rates up to 10.2 cm/hr (4.0 inches/hr) at wind speeds up to 64.4
km/hr (40 mph) during shipping and when target is in its pre-launch
configuration.
7. Salt Fog: The liquid booster shall withstand exposure to a salt fog
environment during shipping and handling.
8. Snow: The ground handling and transportation environments
consist of a single storm snow load of 48.8 kg/m2 (10 lb/ft2)
maximum (approximately 61 cm (24 inches).

Off the shelf equipment will be used whenever possible to monitor
the environmental conditions as the ALFT is being transported.
Packing will be designed sufficient to protect the target from
harmful effects of condensation, temperature, vibration, jarring,
particulate materials, and precipitation. The specifics of these
materials will be developed during detail design and manufacturing.

2.8.1 Product Assurance (PA) Program
The contractor shall implement a PA Program consistent with the
objectives of ANSI/ASQC Q 90 quality series. The PA Program
shall include planning that defines the contractor's PA objectives
and milestones, identifies management and technical resources
required to achieve the PA objectives, and describes in detail the
methodology and schedule to be applied to PA tasks.
The Product Assurance program will be developed in accordance
with ANSI/ASQC Q 90. This plan will include system and
component level testing to guarantee the capability of the system
upon delivery. This testing will include inspection of existing GFE
motors to determine that their function has not been compromised
due to shipping or long term storage.

2.8.2 Quality Assurance Provisions In Documentation
The contractor shall prepare, implement, and maintain quality
assurance documentation which provides procedures for
examination and testing of all characteristics of the product being
64
developed, fabricated, and used to conduct flight missions which
affect safety, function, reliability, and life of the product.
The development of quality assurance documentation is not
appropriate for a preliminary level of design and will be addressed
at length during the detail design phase. At the current stage of
design, however, certain aspects of a quality assurance plan can be
outlined. Because the motors used in developing the target are
existing motors with proven designs that are already fabricated,
existing procedures can be adopted during the manufacturing
process. The areas in which a plan would need to be drafted are the
connecting interstages between the motors, and the reentry object.
For these aspects a detailed plan for examining and testing the
characteristics will be drafted.

2.8.2 Automatic Self-Test Capability
The system design shall include provisions for automatic self-test
capability. Control of the system during final count down shall be
such that maximum flexibility exists in stopping, starting, holding,
or recycling the count at any time prior to lift-off. The system shall
always be capable of a controlled or safe shutdown in the event of
any emergency or loss of external or internal power.
During detail design an automatic self-test feature will be adopted.
Because existing motors comprise the design, the systems already in
use at launch facilities for self-testing, countdown, and countdown
recycle will be employed as much as possible to ensure reliability
and cost effectiveness.

2.8.2 Storage Requirements
The ALFT shall be capable of being stored without liquid
propellants (if so designed) for a minimum of 10 years. The ALFT
shall be capable of launching within 20 days (plus transport time
(TBD) if mobile launched) of call-up from the long-term storage
condition. After delivery to the launch site, the system shall be
capable of remaining on station for a minimum of 30 days in a
standby condition. Once prepared at the launch site, the ALFT shall
be capable of launch within 20 hours.
Response: Analysis
All components of the ALFT will meet the above storage
requirements. Hydrazine liquid propellant will need to be loaded at
the launch site.

2.8.2 Booster Preparations
Final booster preparations for launch shall not exceed 8 hours. The
system shall have a calculated launch target presentation availability
65
of greater than 95% including the reliability of the ALFT and
support equipment in a variety of weather conditions. The system
shall support launch a minimum of 20 hours in any given 24-hour
period. During preparations and launch, any environmental
protection required by any element of the system shall be provided
by the ALFT.
The procedures for launching the ALFT will be addressed at a more
detailed phase of design. As an overview, the procedures will
include systems testing and environmental verification. The timing
of these procedures will be designed to ensure a final booster
preparation time of not more than 8 hours. The system will be
designed to be robust enough to survive appropriate levels of
environmental conditions leading up to launch.

2.8.2 Aborted Launch
The system shall be capable of recycling from an aborted launch
countdown. In the event that the abort occurs the system design
shall be such that it can be returned to a state where another final
countdown can begin within 6 hours of the abort. This includes
replacement of expended items and recharging of batteries if
necessary.
Procedures for recycling from an aborted countdown will be
modeled from the current procedures for recycling a countdown in
use at launch facilities. During detail design a means of recharging
batteries and replacing expended components will be developed.

Safety
The contractor shall comply with the requirements of EWR 127-1,
the EWR Manual.
Eastern and Western Range (EWR) Requirements will be complied
with during all testing and launching procedures.

Hardware
The contractor shall employ best commercial practices in the
design, manufacture and testing of all safety related hardware. The
ALFT shall be designed to provide for maximum safety, consistent
with operational requirements, during every phase of the life cycle
(especially loading, storage, transportation, range operations,
launch, and demilitarization).
Best commercial practices (GAI/T-NSIAD-99-116, Commercial
Best Practices and the DOD Acquisition Process) have been
employed during preliminary design through use of advanced
66
design methods, especially the use of physical equations to model
target behavior rather than historical-based data.

Hardware (cont.)
The design shall stress the use of low toxicity propellants,
insensitive components, low hazard pressurization systems,
generous safety factors, failsafe controls, and other robust but low
complexity safeguards.
Most propellants in use are low toxicity; the exception is two
hypergolic fuels used in the RO which are highly toxic. The
ameliorating factor is that these fuels are used widely throughout
the industry, including on manned vehicles. For this reason, the
highly toxic fuel is deemed safe enough for use.

The insensitivity of components, details about pressurization
systems, and control failsafes are outside the scope of preliminary
design and will be addressed during a detail design process.

Hardware (cont.)
The design shall consider the safety requirements of each
anticipated transportation mode and incorporate materials and
features to allow routine approval by the appropriate authorities.
The safety requirements of various transportation modes are outside
the scope of preliminary design and will be addressed during detail
design.

Hardware (cont.)
Design and operation of missile-pressurized systems shall be in
accordance with the requirements of MIL-STD-1522A, Standard
General Requirements for Safe Design and Operation of Pressurized
Missile and Space Systems. The respective range safety office must
approve all safety-related hardware.
*Helium, fuel and oxidizer tanks in the RO

Detail design of specific pressurized systems is outside the scope of
preliminary design and will be addressed at a later date. At that
time, MIL-STD-1522A will be referenced as part of the design
process to ensure compliance.

Support Equipment Requirements
Support Equipment (SE) encompasses all hardware necessary to
transport, to launch and to support all activities and operations for
processing the ALFT at the factory and field sites. Field sites
67
include the integration, assembly, and test site(s), as well as the
launch pad, air craft and sea craft.
SE performs both mechanical and electrical functions. The
contractor shall maximize commonality between the SE used in the
factory and that used in the field as well as on the launch pad.
Every effort should be made to minimize support activities at the
launch site thru the institution of an all-up-round CONOPS.
The specific support equipment to be used falls outside the scope of
a preliminary design and will be addressed during the detail phase
of design. Throughout this process, every effort will be made to
enable use of existing support equipment in both the factory and
launch site. Design of SE for the factory will be addressed during
manufacturing planning.

68
References
[1] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 01 Jun 2008.
<http://www.dfat.gov.au/>.
[2] Google Maps. 01 Jun 2008. <http://maps.google.com>.
[3] Missile Defense Agency. 01 Jun 2008. <www.mda.mil>.
[4] Kill vehicle obliterates mock warhead. 20 Mar 2002.
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7806.>
[5] Designation-Systems.Net. 14 Nov 2007. < http://www.designation-
systems.net>.
[6] Jonathans Space Report. 14 Nov 2007. <http://www.planet4589.org>.
[7] Harvey, John R. & Michalowski, Stefan, Nuclear Weapons Safety: The Case
of Trident, Science & Global Security, Volume 4, Gordon & Breach Science
Publishers, 1994, pp.261-337.
[8] Brown, Peter, Edwards, W.N., Sukara, O., The Potential of the International
Monitoring System Infrasound Network for the Detection of Rocket Launches,
International Security Research and Outreach Programme, March 2007.
[9] Miller, Charles G., P. Gnoffo, and S. Wilder, Measured and Predicted Heating
Distributions for Biconics at Mach 10, AIAA Paper 25803-303, June 1986.
[10] Fleeman, Eugene L., Tactical Missile Design, AIAA Education Series, 2001.
[11] Regan, Frank J., and Satya M. Anandakrishnan, Dynamics of Atmospheric Re-
Entry, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1993.
[12] NASA Sounding Rockets Program Office, NASA Sounding Rocket Program
Handbook, NASA, June 2005.
[13] Rocket & Space Technology. 31 Mar 2008. < http://www.braeunig.us>.
[14] Allen, H. Julian & A. J. Eggers, Jr., A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic
Heating of Ballistic Missiles Entering the Earths Atmosphere at High
Supersonic Speeds, NACA Report 1381, 1961.
[15] Anderson Jr, John D., Introduction to Flight, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2005.
[16] Anderson, John D., Modern Compressible Flow: With Historical Perspective,
Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
[17] Bhungalia, Amarshi A. et. al., Thermal Protection System (TPS)
Optimization, AIAA Paper 2004-5826, September 2004.
[18] Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO). 01 Jun 2008.
<http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/attachments/20070612raaf8156021_0070.JPG
>.
[19] Designation-Systems.Net. 01 Jun 2008. <http://www.designation-
systems.net/dusrm/app4/sr19-sr19.jpg>.
[20] Designation-Systems.Net. 01 Jun 2008. <http://www.designation-
systems.net/dusrm/app4/plv.html>.
[21] Katabeyoglu,A., T. Falconer, B. Cantwell, and J. Stevens, Design of an Orbital
Hybrid Rocket Vehicle Launched from Canberra Air Platform, AIAA Paper
2005-4096, July 2005.
[22] Sarigul-Klijn, M.and N. Sarigul-Klijn, A Study of Air Launch Methods for
RLVs, AIAA Paper 2001-4619, August 2001.
69
[23] Sarigul-Klijn, M.and N. Sarigul-Klijn, Trade Studies for Air Launching a
Small Launch Vehicle from a Cargo Aircraft, AIAA Paper 2005-0621, January
2005.

Affordable Low Fidelity Target Design Competition Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Affordable Low Fidelity Target Design Competition Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Proposal in Response to

AIAA Missile Systems Technical Committee (MSTC)

You might also like