See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225005036

Aerothermal and Flight Mechanic Considerations by

Development of Small Launchers for Low Orbit Payloads
Started from Lorentz Rail Accelerator

Conference Paper · October 2011

DOI: 10.1051/eucass/201102765 · Source: DLR

CITATIONS READS
8 257

3 authors, including:

Ognjan Božić Stefan Wiggen

German Aerospace Center (DLR) German Aerospace Center (DLR)
69 PUBLICATIONS   145 CITATIONS    22 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

RAILGUN View project

Motion induced unsteady aerodynamic loads with development of vortical flow View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stefan Wiggen on 12 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Progress in Propulsion Physics 2 (2011) 765-784
© Owned by the authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2011

AEROTHERMAL AND FLIGHT MECHANIC

CONSIDERATIONS BY DEVELOPMENT
OF SMALL LAUNCHERS FOR LOW ORBIT
PAYLOADS STARTED FROM LORENTZ
RAIL ACCELERATOR
O. Bo
zi‚
c, T. Eggers, and S. Wiggen
DLR ¡ Institute for Aerodynamics and Flow Technology
Lilienthalplatz 7, Braunschweig 38108, Germany

The injection of small payloads in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) by means

of propelled launchers starting from a Lorentz Rail Accelerator (LRA)
is a concept that may enable the access to space at extremely low cost.
A propelled launcher is required since today a LRA is only able to launch
a total mass of a few kilograms with a velocity up to 4.4 km/s but LEO-
payloads require approximately 10 km/s at higher launch mass. Velocity
di¨erence must be assured with another propulsion system. Furthermore
and independent of the type of selected propulsion, such solution has se-
rious consequences on launcher design. Reasons are, e.g., the harsh me-
chanical loads like high acceleration on the LRA ramp, high deceleration
due to pressure drag, unsteady phenomena during the transition from
the LRA ramp into the free atmosphere and also due to extreme thermal
loads in the ¦rst 30 s of §ight. The study presents a conceptual design
of a nominal payload of 3 kg, including dimensions, mass- and velocity-
budget estimations. In the focus of the analysis are several concepts
for the thermal protection of critical system like the nose cap, the front
part of the fuselage which houses a hybrid kick-o¨ engine, §ares, and the
attitude control engines. Additionally, the potential of plug nozzles in
comparison to classical Laval nozzles as well as trajectory calculations
are discussed. They underline that an elliptical orbit between 300 and
400 km is possible.

NOMENCLATURE
DC diameter of the cylindrical body (m)
HL,SP stagnation point heat §ux (W/m2 )

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial
License 3.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any noncommercial medium, pro-
vided the original work is properly cited.

Article available at http://www.eucass-proceedings.eu or http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/eucass/201102765

PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

Isp speci¦c impulse (s)

Lnc nose cap length (m)
L inductance gradient (H/m)
Ma Mach number
mt launch package mass (kg)
R nose radius (m)
Rc radius of the cylindrical body (m)
TBW back wall temperature (K)
TW,SP stagnation point temperature (K)
V0 initial/start velocity (m/s)
wt weight (kg)
γ §ight path angle (◦ )

ABBREVIATIONS
ADCS Attitude Determination and Control System
CFRP Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic
DES Distributed Energy storage System
EML Electro-Magnetic Launcher
HRE Hybrid Rocket Engine
HTP High Test Peroxide (more than 90% H2 O2 )
LEO Low Earth Orbit
LRA Lorentz Rail Accelerator
MBA Monolitic Braided Ablative
O/F Oxidizer/Fuel ratio
RANS Reynolds-Averaged Navier Stokes
RCS Reaction Control System
SMES Superconductive Magnetic Energy Storage
SP Stagnation Point
TPS Thermal Protection System
UHTC Ultra High Temperature Ceramics

1 INTRODUCTION

In the last time, a number of the third world countries tried to develop aerospace
capacities and launch own small satellites. The trend to miniaturization of satel-
lites increases due to the progress in mechatronic and automatization. Mean-
while, a number of private companies, universities, and nongovernmental insti-
tutions show interest for small orbital platforms for di¨erent purposes. This is a
growing market with future potential which covers pico-, nano- and microsatel-
lite assortment. One important market segment is the nanosatellite (mass range

766
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

1 10 kg) production. Possible application areas of such satellites are: testing
and validation of components, technologies and concepts for space applications,
execution of complex scienti¦c experiments, local and regional communications,
inspections and service missions, remote sensing for miscellaneous applications.
In the near future, it is expected to see small satellites in formation §ight for ra-
dioastronomic research and communication grids. One study carried by DLR [1]
has shown that the demand on low cost and §exible orbital launch for small pay-
loads is growing and this market segment is the primary target for the proposed
electromagnetic launcher. The maturity of the electromagnetic LRA technology
has reached a level that makes it a potential candidate for such tasks. The high
performance expected concerning velocity, e©ciency, cost, and repetitions rate
make this system attractive for space applications with the aim of accelerating
lightweight payloads into LEO.
Mission requirement is to deliver the picosatellites up to 3 kg mass in an
equatorial LEO. Two possible scenarios are intended. The ¦rst mission scenario
foresees the insertion of picosatellite in a medium light elliptical orbit, estab-
lished within thermosphere (90 500 km). One reasonable initial orbit should be
between 300 and 400 km. Final orbit tuning can be realized with ADCS propul-
sion of the satellite itself. The second scenario foresees the injection of a payload
into a high elliptical transfer orbit within exosphere (500 2000 km). For both
scenarios, the main properties of the LRA launcher and rocket payload carrier
have to be determined. A promising solution is a combined application of LRA
and a chemically propelled carrier. This paper attempts to de¦ne limitations and
possible ¤show-stoppers¥ connected with rocket assisted LRA launch to LEO.

2 LORENTZ RAIL CATAPULT PERFORMANCES

In the past, two research institutions in the U.S. carried, primarily for mili-
tary purposes, the major part of investigations on electromagnetic rail accelera-
tors (LRA): ¤Green Farm¥ by San Diego in California (DARPA, 1992) and the
Institute of Advanced Technology at the University of Texas, Austin ¡ Center
of Electromagnetics (IAT-UT/CEMT). The power device on the ¤Green Farm¥
facility with a condenser bank was capable of delivering the input energy of
32 MJ. The 9-meter long LRA with plasma armature and a bore of 90 mm was
tested during 1988 and 1998, performing 254 shots. Highlights of these tests were
vehicle shots with a mass of m = 0.64 kg (the corresponding kinetic energy was
5.95 MJ and start velocity V0 = 4.3 km/s) and a mass of m = 1.13 kg (the corre-
sponding kinetic energy was 7.0 MJ and V0 = 3.5 km/s). The IAT-UT/CEMT
also installed a 90-millimeter LRA facility capable of launching a vehicle with
kinetic energy Pe = 9 MJ. As a power source, homopolar generators were used
instead of capacitors [2]. Since 2003, they develop a LRA launcher with a bore

767
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

Figure 1 Displaced position of rocket carrier and armature on the LRA ramp segment

of 155 mm and a length of 10 m [3]. The leading European Institution is the

French German Institute (ISL) in Saint-Louis; France which has developed the
LRA ¤Pegasus.¥ This 6-meter long accelerator with an input energy of 32 MJ is
capable of launching payloads of 0.5 kg up to 2.1 km/s [4]. The last achievement
in this ¦eld of science is a test with a LRA carried out at the Naval Surface
Warfare Center, Dahlgreen, Virginia, USA
(NSWCDD) in January 2008. A 3.2-
kilogram vehicle was launched with a start
velocity of 2.5 km/s. The kinetic energy
of this vehicle was 10.8 MJ which is a new
record for launched packages. The corre-
sponding input energy for the LRA was
32 MJ. The ¦nal goal planed for the year
of 2020 is to build a system with kinetic
energy of 64 MJ being capable of launch-
ing a guided vehicle of 15-kilogram
mass [3]. Figure 2 Display of Lorentz accel-
Within a former DLR feasibility study, erator catapult ramp
the di¨erent LRA concepts were analyzed.
The LRA concept selected here is a segmented and parallel augmented ramp
accelerator. More details concerning the operation principle, the present state
of development, power feeding, and technical limitations by application of solid,
plasma, and hybrid armatures are given in [4 7]. For launch packages with
a diameter larger than 200 mm, LRA should be of ramp type (Figs. 1 and 2).

768
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

Table 1 Properties of LRA ramp system

Lorentz rail accelerator (ramp type) Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Start velocity V0 , m/s 3550 4400
Maximum/medium initial acceleration aM , g 3300/2823 3300/2823
Gradient of inductance L , μH/m 0.5 0.5
Maximal armature current I, kA 6000 6000
Mach number at start (ramp end) Ma 10.45 12.96
Number of rail ramp segments N 38 56
Total rail length L, m 228 350
Kinetic energy at start Ek , GJ 4.1 6.3
Input energy ¡ facility Eo , GJ 13.65 20.97
Launch package mass mLP , kg 651 651
Residence time of payload carrier t
on the ramp during launch, ms 128 159

Here, the armature/sabot and the rocket holder are connected with a wedge
which transfers the momentum from the armature/holder and pushes the projec-
tile. If the tube (bore) diameter is between 50 and 200 mm, the LRA can achieve
its maximum electrical e©ciency. Concurrently, this solution does not limit the
projectile span due to the §are/¦ns necessary for aerodynamic stabilization. To
obtain the required launch velocity (see Table 1 for details), the total length of
the rails is between 228 and 350 m. A classical segmented LRA, for the same
armature current and inductivity gradient needs a double ramp length to achieve
the same velocity.
The length limitation imposed by the rail resistance and rail inductance can
be circumvented by subdividing the shorter LRA into 38 and longer LRA into
56 segments (Table 1). Each segment can be fed by an independent local energy
source. This modular design could enable building a section from the available
inexpensive materials and assembling it in place. For a segmented LRA with
numerous sections, the problem of switching a high number of power units must
be solved. In such LRA construction, the only moving element is the armature
with brushes.
The LRA ramp is installed inside a tube with semicircled intersection. The
air inside the tube is evacuated (air pressure from 100 to 200 Pa) to prevent
drag and heat loads on projectile surface during the strong acceleration phase
(see Fig. 1). The allowed low pressure must be accurately determined to control
the plasma phenomena on the armature and brushes.
The rocket projectile is embedded in a sabot casing. The sabot can be man-
ufactured as light-weight sandwich structure based on CFRP/Aramid structure.
During the acceleration process within the evacuated tube, this casing protects
partly the projectile from mechanical and thermal loads. Mechanical loads are

769
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

caused by the Lorentz force and the associated acceleration, friction with the
ramp, guiding rods, and vibrations up to 1000 Hz due to the discontinuity of
the current feeding di¨erent segments of the Distributed Energy storage Sys-
tem (DES). The friction provokes also the thermal loads on the sabot structure
which are, however, manageable due to the short residence time in the tube. The
nose part of the sabot container can additionally be reinforced and equipped with
a honeycomb structure to withstand impact with the thin plastic membrane at
the end of the ramp tube at high velocity. The function of plastic membrane is
to seal the evacuated tube against air during the launch phase. Once the rocket
launcher is released from the ramp, the sabot casing will be pyrotechnically sep-
arated. Due to the high initial velocity which is approximately 3.55 km/s and
the high aerodynamic drag of the sabot casing, its elements will separate and
burn up.
Once the rocket launcher has passed the ramp, it will be sharply decelerated
due to the atmospheric drag. Despite the enormous drag within the dense Earth
atmosphere, the deceleration will be not higher than 100g. This is more than a
factor of 30 lower than the acceleration on the launch ramp. The booster stage
of the rocket vehicle will be ignited at an altitude of approximately 180 km. At
this altitude, the atmosphere is already rare¦ed and the launcher deceleration
will be a¨ected only by gravitation forces.
The most critical part of the LRA concept is the construction of the armature
for the acceleration of the launch package. The armature can be of solid or
plasma type. Solid armatures have high e©ciency and are more reliable than
plasma armatures. Unfortunately, they present a ¤velocity skin e¨ect,¥ i. e.,
at velocities on the order of 2 km/s, for many materials, the contact between
armature and rails is damaged due to the evaporation of the armature material.
This phenomenon is caused by the high concentration of current density at the
rear side of the contact surface (plasma piston).
An alternative solution is to use a hybrid armature. It is basically a solid
metal armature which completes the electrical contact with rails via plasma
brushes. The application of plasma brushes, for the acceleration of masses in
ranges of kilograms and more, is limited to velocities below 4400 m/s. At high
sliding velocities the plasma brushes/bore erosion can be high and the loss of
propulsive force will appear due to viscous drag caused by plasma and neutral
gas ablation at tube walls. Gas ablation and ionization causes secondary arcs
between rails and hypervelocity gouging on the rails. That is the reason to limit
the initial velocity to 4400 m/s.
The power supply must be able to deliver very high current in a short period
of time. The power of the acceleration scales with the mass. For example,
the start of some launch packages with a mass of 650 kg and start velocity of
4.4 kg/s requires the input electric power of 125 GW. Such power is beyond the
current technical possibilities. This problem could be avoided due to temporal
accumulation of energy. If the energy is assured from the commercial power

770
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

network, ¦rst it has to be sucked at a low power, during intervals between two
starts and short-term stored. During the launch phase, the accumulated energy
must be released rapidly with the required high power. This approach reduces
the power demands of the LRA system from the power network [8].
In the past, the batteries, capacitor banks, compulsators (high-speed com-
pensated pulsed alternators), and homopolar generators were applied as power
storage. The present states of art in this area are the capacitor banks, but they
are expensive and have a short life circle (between 100 and 1000 discharging).
As possible future solutions, discussed in the literature, §y wheels, superconduc-
tive magnetic energy storages (SMES) or even magnetohydrodynamic (MHD)
generators could be envisaged. The maximum power to be applied for the LRA
is primarily limited due the costs of a short-term energy storage source and the
technical complexity of a power control/management system.

3 ROCKET LAUNCHER FOR SMALL PAYLOADS

Within preliminary design study, the prop-

erties of the entire rocket launcher, the
propulsion system elements, and the pro-
portions of the subsystems are considered.
The proposed con¦guration with a cylindri-
cal body and a conical §are is shown in
Fig. 3. The vehicle has a total length of
6.2 m and total mass of 498 kg. The aerody-
namic shape enables reducing the drag and
the heat loads. To obtain a low wave drag, Figure 3 Proposed design of LEO
the nose cone of the projectile has a spheri- payload carrier
cally rounded tip with a 16-millimeter radius
and a contour designed according to the ¤power law¥ with an exponent n = 0.75.
The §are which is required to stabilize the launcher in §ight has a length of 1.5 m
and basis diameter of 0.6 m. Due to its compact form (extremely important for
LRA accelerators), a plug nozzle solution is selected. It additionally allows re-
ducing the base drag in comparison to a Laval nozzle.

3.1 Propulsion System

As analyses show, the launch into LEO requires two stages (Fig. 4) which include
one booster stage and one ¤kick-o¨¥ stage (Fig. 5). Each stage should be also
equipped with a reaction control system (RCS) for trajectory corrections outside
the dense atmosphere. DLR studies show that hybrid propulsion systems are the

771
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

Figure 4 Sketch of the complete launcher with HRE of both stages

Figure 5 Payload container mounted on ¤kicko¨¥ stage (based on HRE)

most promising solution for the investigated mission in comparison to liquid or

solid propulsion. Their only drawback in comparison to liquid propulsion is the
lower speci¦c impulse.
As for the density impulse, the values for hybrid propellants are a bit lower
or comparable with the solid propellants. This can be explained by the fact that
the lower propellant density is compensated due the high speci¦c impulse of ad-
vanced hybrid propellants. Advantages of HRE are safety, reliability, operating
§exibility, simplicity, low development, and recurring costs, and low environmen-
tal impact.
However, there are some evident problems connected with HRE application,
namely, keeping the oxidizer-to-fuel (O/F) ratio close to the operation point,
a slightly lower grade of combustion (larger sliver fraction of solid grain), and
lower combustion e©ciency due to the change of the O/F ratio. Nevertheless, in
the last years due to the intense investigations in the U.S., Europe, and Russia,
a great number of experiments have been performed. The corresponding data

772
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

Figure 6 Performance comparison between aerospike (1) and bell-shaped (2) noz-
zles [10]; 3 ¡ ideal nozzle (no losses)

emphasize that these disadvantages for hybrid propellants will be minimized and
in short term the maturity of HRE could be established [9].
The presented analysis proposes the HRE concept which applies an advanced
propellant combination based on HTP as oxidator and HTPB/Alane mixture as
solid fuel. The proposed propellants for the HRE of a booster stage enable
Isp = 320 s under vacuum condition and one similar mixture in the kicko¨ stage
enables Isp = 343 s. The corresponding HRE total impulse of booster stage is
1100 kN·s and that of kicko¨ stages 44 kN·s.
The nozzle solution for a small launcher must be simple, compact, and e¨ec-
tive. Nonextendable or actively-cooled nozzle is not desired. Such solutions have
a high mass. Additionally, they are too complex and expensive. Another limit is
the nozzle outlet diameter of 600 mm which is the consequence of the LRA ac-
celerator ramp construction. The classic conical or bell-shaped nozzle has a very
limited expansion ratio which leads to speci¦c impulse losses. Also, the thrust
coe©cient loss could be 15% and more (Fig. 6) that is unacceptable [10].
An adequate solution can be a plug nozzle with truncated spike (aerospike).
The ideal plug nozzle shows a long and heavy spike and, therefore, only truncated
plug nozzles are of practical interest. Unlike a conical or bell-shaped nozzle, the
plug nozzle §ow is not ¦xed by the wall, but instead, the exhausted jet is bounded
by external §ow (Fig. 7). It is considered to have globally better performances
because the jet boundary adjusts its shape to the ambient pressure and it expands
optimal with varying altitude [11].
Disadvantages of plug nozzles are the more complex manufacturing and the
necessity of active cooling if the engine burning time is longer than 30 s. For short
burning times in the range of 10 to 30 s (dependent of applied hybrid propellant),
high thermal loads in area of critical nozzle throat are controllable without active

773
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

cooling. In this area, a reinforced thermal insulation based on passive cooling can
be successfully applied. The detailed analysis to ¦nd an optimal start point of the
booster engine on the projectile trajectory is under way, but early calculations
indicate that it should be outside the dense atmosphere (> 80 km). In this case,
the gain of nozzle performances due to altitude compensation is not a primary
criterion. More important are the compact shape and low nozzle mass. This
importance is even higher for the ¤kicko¨¥ engine which introduces the payload
into LEO.

3.2 Aerothermodynamics and Flight Mechanics

Thermal Loads to Projectile

The direct launch of a vehicle into LEO starting from a LRA requires a launch
velocity higher than 10 km/s. The direct launch means the possibility to reach
the LEO only with LRA launch velocity without rocket propulsion. This velocity
demand depends on the mission requirements, vehicle mass, and its aerodynamic
properties. The total launch velocity is divided in: Earth orbital velocity which
the payload should have to remain in desired orbit, gravitational losses during
§ight, and drag.
As shown in Fig. 8, due to turbulent e¨ects and viscous drag at high Reynolds
numbers, the nose of the projectile experiences very high heat loads and surface

774
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

Figure 8 Heat load (a) and surface temperature (b) in SP vs. R/Rc ratio for some
selected Mach numbers: 1 ¡ Ma = 30; 2 ¡ 18; 3 ¡ 13; and 4 ¡ Ma = 10.45.
Emissivity ε = 0.85; altitude Alt = 200 m; and Pr = 0.7

temperatures. The presented diagrams show heat loads (in MW/m2 ) and surface
temperatures TW (in K) in the stagnation point of the vehicle, assuming steady
§ow conditions and air as a perfect gas. Based on the Fay Riddell model, four
characteristic Mach numbers of start from LRA (Ma = 30, 18, 13, and 10.45)
are compared.
The Fay Riddell model predicts the heat transfer in the stagnation point of
a blunt body based on the solution of the boundary layer equations [12]. The
basic model formulation is derived for the equilibrium §ow. The equilibrium
§ow implies in¦nite chemical and vibrational rates of air molecules. The applied
model formulation is also valid for prefect gas, because the Lewis number for
the ground condition is Le = 1. In Fig. 8, the value marked Alt means that
the selected start point of the LRA ramp end is 200 m above the sea level.
For this point, the values of static pressure and density are insigni¦cantly lower
than at the sea level. So, the highest aerothermal loads are to be expected
here. The heat loads and surface temperatures depend on the ratio of the nose
tip radius R and cylindrical body radius Rc . Taking, for example, a ratio of
R/Rc = 0.1 for the case with Ma = 30 (corresponds to V0 = 10,209 m/s),
which enables a visible reduction of aerothermal loads and acceptable rise of air
drag [13], the aerothermal §ux is approximately HL,SP = 600 MW/m2 . This
extremely high heat load is approximately a factor of 200 higher than usual heat
loads during reentry from the Earth orbit. This case corresponds to a direct
ground launch to LEO [7, 14] which is not feasible with the current and also
near future technologies for thermal protection.
The case of starting from LRA with Mach number Ma = 18 (V0 = 6120 m/s)
corresponds to launching a small single-stage projectile with rocket assisted
propulsion (kicko¨ engine). At R/Rc = 0.1, the corresponding aerothermal
load with HL,SP = 102 MW/m2 and TW,SP = 6786 K are di©cult to manage.

775
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

The possible technology based on intense and e©cient ablation or active cooling
for this purpose must be ¦rst developed. Also, the amount of mass for such
thermal protection is relevant and as a ¦rst estimate shows that this TPS mass
is higher than the LEO payload. Even for achieving the initial velocity of about
6 km/s, some known technological limitations by LRA development must be ¦rst
solved [6, 15, 16].
The analyzed case for a starting Mach number of Ma = 13 (approximately
V0 = 4400 m/s ¡ equal to scenario 2) corresponds to aerothermal loads which
are still high but manageable using the present technology. Compared to typical
reentry conditions, the heat loads are a factor of 6 to 10 higher but the exposition
time is less than 30 s. For example, at the stagnation point of the nose cap
with R/Rc = 0.1, the corresponding steady conditions for the launch point give
HL,SP = 30 MW/m2 and TW,SP = 4996 K. The reduction of the initial velocity
below 4400 m/s makes the LRA projectile design feasible today.
The launch from LRA with Ma = 10.45 (V0 = 3550 m/s ¡ scenario 1)
corresponds to the lowest reasonable limit for LRA length and represents the
upper limit for the feasible projectile mass. At R/Rc = 0.1, the corresponding
aerothermal loads with HL,SP = 20.2 MW/m2 and TW,SP = 4600 K are relatively
low and more common as compared to scenario 2. Also, the projectile must be
fabricated from advanced low-mass materials. An increase in the initial LRA
velocity from 3550 to 4400 m/s allows increasing the payload or (at constant
payload mass) reaching higher the Earth orbits. Solutions for TPS in the last
two cases (Ma = 13 and 10.45) are available today.
Under real §ow conditions, due to the in§uence of real-gas e¨ects (treatment
of air as a real gas with inclusion of dissociation and catalysis), the aerothermal
loads can be reduced by at least 10% compared to the calculated case with the
Fay Riddell model for a perfect gas. These conditions are realized for §ight in
the upper stratosphere. For the ground conditions, as in the calculated case,
this gain is almost zero. The heat §ux distribution along the front part of
the rocket projectile, simulated for the initial trajectory point (Ma = 12.96 ¡
scenario 2) with DLR Navier Stokes code TAU, shows that it reduces rapidly
with the distance from the nose tip and at a distance Lnc /Dc > 2 it can be
handled with conventional TPS materials [6]. The TAU code simulation [17]
is carried out for the perfect gas §ow conditions and a radiation-adiabatic wall
conditions with emissivity ε = 0.85. For simulating turbulence, the Spalart 
Allmaras one-equation turbulence model is applied.
Three possible concepts are taken into account for cooling of the projectile
nose tip during the ascent phase to LEO: passive cooling, transpiration cooling,
and ablation cooling.

Passive Cooling
Figure 9 shows the temperature change with §ight time at stagnation point of
rocket projectile calculated for two di¨erent initial velocities (scenarios 1 and 2)

776
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

Figure 9 Temperature (solid curves) and altitude (dashed curves) change at SP of

projectile with §ight time for two di¨erent start velocities: 1 ¡ 3550 m/s; and 2 ¡
4400 m/s

with the Fay Riddell model. The temperature in stagnation point TW,SP for
angle of attack α = 0◦ (unconditionally stable §ight) corresponds to the temper-
ature on the top of the nose cap. The ¦gure shows that the maximum surface
temperature is reached within less than 1.5 s in both cases. Within this time,
the interior structure temperature is lower than TW,SP . With further increase of
§ight time, TW,SP decreases due to heat radiation from the surface to environ-
ment but still after 22 s, the temperature is TW,SP = 2500 K. In this point (for
scenario 1), the projectile reaches the end of the dense atmosphere at 42 km. For
scenario 2, the conditions are more critical ¡ after 18.5 s of §ight, the projectile
achieves 42 km and temperature TW,SP is still higher than 3150 K. The interior
structure temperature is certainly higher due to thermal resistance of structure
material itself. This temperature in the vicinity of the nose tip is higher than the
maximum application temperature for present TPS materials based on passive
cooling. Despite the progress in the past (hafnia formers, UHTC, ULTRA 2000),
passive cooling alone is not a satisfactory solution for LRA applications. Some
promising TPS materials exhibit also too low compression strength to be used
at high accelerations of about 3300g.

Transpiration Cooling
Second option is applying active cooling using a porous material for tran-
spiration e¨ect [18]. As materials for transpiration cooling, Zr2 O, C/SiC, or
Al2 O3 /SiO2 mixtures are suitable. The cooling §uid §ow through the porous
material absorbs heat by convection and cools the material down. Under hy-
personic §ow conditions, inert gas (e. g., helium), gasi¦ed fuel (e. g., kerosene),
or water is ejected at hot surface spots establishing a low-temperature sublayer
within the boundary layer which overtakes a great part of surface heating. Liq-
uid water shows the best cooling properties. If applied, water remains in liquid
state during transpiration through the porous structure and remains an e¨ective

777
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

Figure 10 Wall temperature (1) and dynamic pressure (2) change at a stagna-
tion point of the nose cap of projectile for characteristic Mach numbers at start point
(R/Rc = 0.1); laminar §ow; nose tip radius R = 16 mm; emissivity coe©cient ε = 0.8;
Pr = 0.7

cooling medium. Figure 10 shows the dependencies of the dynamic pressure and
radiation adiabatic wall temperature in the stagnation point on the §ight veloc-
ity for close-to-ground §ight conditions. For the selected LRA initial velocities,
the corresponding dynamic pressures in SP are 141 bar (V0 = 3550 m/s) and
214 bar (V0 = 4400 m/s). For such pressures, the saturation temperature of
water steam is not achieved and it stays liquid (up to temperature 333.5 and
361.1 ◦ C, respectively). For transpiration cooling feedthrough the interior, the
pressure of the cooling medium must be higher than the stagnation pressure.
A pressurized tank system for transpiration cooling based on water as a medium
is possible but is not a rational solution. Preliminary analyses show that such a
system is heavy. Its mass is higher than the mass of the payload.

Ablations Cooling
Today, ablative materials which satisfy the highest demands are available,
e. g., carbon carbon (C Cs) monolithic braided ablative (MBA) or carbon 
phenolic (C Ph) MBA. Carbon carbons are very thermal-shock resistant and
can be made in very stable geometries. The C Cs can operate above 2000 ◦ C.
During the ablation design, two parameters are of high importance: surface re-
cession rate and back wall temperature TBW of the heat shield. This temperature
must be low to avoid damage of payload. If the TBW is too large, further insula-
tion is required which reduces the payload mass. Figure 11 shows the recession
rate for C Cs as a function of stagnation pressure [19 21]. The recession rate
should be less than 5.5 mm/s for ground conditions with V0 = 4.4 km/s (sce-
nario 2) and less than 4.2 mm/s for ground conditions with V0 = 3.55 km/s
(scenario 1). With increasing altitude the recession rate quickly decreases due
to reduction of dynamic pressure and stagnation point temperature. In the con-
sidered case, the dense atmosphere is passed in 22 s and the ablation almost

778
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

Figure 11 Recession rate as a function of stagnation pressure: 1 ¡ 50-magawatt

are data; 2 ¡ ballistic range data; 3 ¡ data of [19]; and 4 ¡ C C ablation (data
of [19 21])

disappears. It seems, after ¦rst analyses that only ablation is an acceptable so-
lution for the aerothermal protection of the vehicle front part. If necessary, the
transpiration cooling can be additionally used for e¨ective cooling in the junction
point between the cylindrical body and §are. The introduction of an additional
cooling system in vehicle increases its mass and, therefore, the possible payload
is reduced. The thermal stress in structure which appears during the §ight of the
propelled payload carrier is spatiotemporally displaced from those which appear
in the ramp of the electromagnetic launcher. Until now, this problem is not
explored and has to be understood prior to §ight tests.

Flight Mechanic Assessment of the Launcher

The goal of the §ight mechanic assessment is to con¦rm that the proposed
Lorentz Rail accelerated launcher enables to reach approximately a 300× 400 km
orbit. The study is performed applying a direct §ight mechanic/aerodynamic
coupling which is discussed in detail in [22]. As the aerodynamic results are
based on the DLR surface inclination method SOSE, the aerodynamic results
are calibrated by a comparison with selected TAU (Euler) calculations.
Figure 12 summarizes the representative results for Ma = 5. In view of the
fact that the preliminary study is performed, the agreement between SOSE and
TAU can be treated as very good. The aerodynamic layout of the launch vehicle
takes into account that the complete con¦guration consisting of the both stages
shown in Fig. 12 and the second (orbital) stage have to be statically stable.
The ¦rst stage (booster) on its own has to be unstable to enable a save stage
separation and re- entry.
The initial assumptions for the §ight mechanic assessment are that the vehicle
is launched at the San Marco Range (Italy) which is located at the east coast

779
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

Figure 12 Calibration of the DLR surface inclination method SOSE (curves); sym-
bols ¡ TAU calculations; Ma = 5

of Kenya (latitude: 2.9◦ S, longitude: 40.3◦ E). It has to be pointed out that
this location is chosen just in order to consider a realistic launch site. The
initial §ight path angle is γ = 39◦ , the initial velocity is V0 = 3550 m/s, the
initial mass is m0 = 498 kg as introduced before. The vehicle is launched with
a heading (azimuth) of X = 90◦ to take full advantage of the Earth rotation.
The calculations do not take into account any wind but the time dependence of
mass, center of gravity (CoG), and inertial tensor are included.
The ¦rst 50 s of the §ight (6DOF) are illustrated in Fig. 13a. The dense part
of the atmosphere (Alt < 42 km) is passed after approximately 22 s. After 50 s,
the vehicle is already at an altitude of 80 km. The angle of attack oscillations
indicate that the vehicle is dynamically unstable. Due to the quickly decreasing
dynamic pressure, the pitch rate quickly decreases from 0.1 ◦ /s until it is neg-
ligible after approximately 40 s. During the ¦rst 50 s of the launch where the
curvature of the trajectory is very small, the angle of attack is never higher than
α = ±0.05◦. With increasing §ight time (Fig. 13b), it increases up to α ≈ 3.4◦
at t = 161 s. Until this point, the increase of angle of attack is smaller than
the change of the §ight path angle. Therefore, the angle of attack increases for
a con¦guration which §ies without spin as is expected and additionally it un-
derlines the su©cient static margin as the launcher stays almost aligned to the
§ight path. At t = 161 s, the ¦rst stage is ignited. The thrust acts through the
CoG along the body ¦xed longitudinal axis. This results in an increase of the
§ight path angle which, assuming that the attitude of the vehicle is constant, is
responsible for the reduction of the angle of attack to α = 0.8◦ at t = 182.4 s
(¦rst stage burnout). At this time, stage separation is assumed and therefore,
during the further §ight, the second stage is almost aligned with the §ight path
although during the discussed assessment no RCS is taken into account.
The further §ight (3DOF) and the injection into LEO is described in Fig. 14a.
Due to the fact that the coupling procedure assumes no forces and moments at
Alt > 122 km ¦rst both stages §y with an identical trajectory until the ignition

780
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

Figure 13 Launch phase of the trajectory, V0 = 3550 m/s: dashed curves refer to
Alt and solid curves to α

Figure 14 Illustration of the complete §ight trajectory

of the 2nd stage close before apogee (t = 450 s). Then, the ¦rst stage reenters
into the atmosphere whereas the second stage is boosted into the previously
mentioned LEO (here: 340 × 400 km). Figure 14b demonstrates an enlarged
view of the launch and reentry phase in polar coordinates. It indicates that the

781
PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

¦rst stage has a ground range of approximately 4000 km which has to be taken
into account during the de¦nition of a real launch mission.
In summary, the discussed §ight mechanic assessment underlines the feasibil-
ity of the proposed Lorentz Rail accelerated launch vehicle. Even for an initial
velocity of V0 = 3550 m/s, which represents the state of the art of Lorentz Rail
technology, a 340 × 400 km can be obtained almost without RCS which is not
considered in the present study. An initial velocity of V0 = 4400 km/s which
takes into account the latest technology development of Lorentz Rail acceleration
and material science enables much higher orbits.

4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

A preliminary design study of the LRA characteristics for the launch of nano-
satellites into LEO is presented. Applied engineering methods allow determin-
ing the current needed to accelerate a rocket launcher, the length of the LRA
ramp, and the input energy for launch package. The performance can be met
by a LRA with the following characteristics: maximal current of about 6 MA,
launcher length in the range 228 350 m, and maximal average acceleration on
the order of 3300g. The input of electrical energy required for reaching these
performances is in the range from 13.6 to 21 GJ. It has to be remarked that
the entire LRA concept is in transition from Technology Readiness Levels TRL
2 to TRL 3 (NASA classi¦cation). For some components, such as the power
supply, the upscaling of today£s state-of-the-art (TRL 4) is fairly reasonable;
other technological challenges require a step-wise approach. If the R&D activi-
ties continue, within the next 8 years, TRL 6 could be achieved and within next
15 years, TRL 8. This means that an actual system can be completed and ¤§ight
quali¦ed¥ through test and demonstration.
Assuming an initial launch velocity of the LRA in the range from 3.55
to 4.4 km/s, the present analysis shows that a small staged projectile (full mass
498 kg) propelled with a hybrid rocket engine, is capable of transporting 3 kg
payload into LEO despite the harsh acceleration inside the LRA start ramp and
the immense heat loads within the ¦rst 22 s of ascent §ight. The selection of high
technology materials with low density and high strength to withstand high accel-
erations up to 3300g is one of the most important issues for further development
of this advanced concept.

REFERENCES

1. H
a§iger, G. 2006. Recherche Perspektiven Railgun ¡ Kleinsatelliten und Wettbe-
werb. DLR internal Report. Nuglar, Schweiz.

782
 PROPULSION SYSTEM AND SUBSYSTEM DESIGN

2. Fair H. D. 2003. Electromagnetic launch, IAT-UT. Int. J. Impact Eng. 29:247 62.

3. McNab, I. R., and F. C. Beach. 2007. Naval railguns. IEEE Trans. Magnetics 43(1,
Part 2):463 68.
4. Lehmann, P., O. Bozi‚c, H. Grobusch, and J. Behrens. 2007. Electromagnetic rail-
gun technology for the deployment of small sub-/orbital payloads. 7th Symposium
(International) on Launcher Technologies. Barcelona, Spain.
5. Bozi‚c, O., J. M. A. Longo, P. Giese, and J. Behrens. 2006. High-end concept to
launch micro-satellites into low-Earth-orbit based on combination of a two-stage
rocket and railgun system. DGLR/STAB Symposium. Notes on Numerical Fluid
Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
6. Bozi‚c, O. 2008. Possibilities of Lorentz electromagnetic accelerators for launch of
payloads in low-Earth-orbit. 59th Astronautical Congress (International). Glasgow,
Scotland, GB. Paper No. IAC-08-C.4.6.6.
7. Loeªer, M. J., and M. Schneider. 2009. High-speed plasma railguns: State of art
and future. ISL Symposium on Pulsed Power Technology and Applications. Saint
Louis, France.
8. B‚erend, N., M. Calabro, O. Bozi‚c, C. Bonnal, G. L. Matlo¨, and D. Valentian. 2009.
Non-chemical, non-nuclear advanced propulsion for space applications: Panorama
and roadmap. 60th Astronautical Congress (International). Daejon, Korea. Paper
No. IAC-09-C4.6.
9. Chiaverini, M. J. and K. K. Kuo, eds. 2007. Fundamentals of hybrid rocket combus-
tion and propulsion. Progress in astronautics and aeronautics ser. Reston, Virginia:
AIAA. 218.
10. Hutzel, D. K., and D. H. Huang. 1992. Modern engineering for design of liquid-
propellant rocket engines. Progress in astronautics and aeronautics ser. AIAA,
Washington: AIAA. 147.
11. Bozi‚c, O., and D. Porrmann. 2009. Estimation of §ow ¦eld properties and thrust
performances of axisymmetric plug ¡ nozzles using CFD simulations. 6th Sympo-
sium (International) on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer. Rome, Italy.
12. Anderson, J. D. 1989. Hypersonic and high temperature gas dynamics. New York:
McGrow Hill Book Company.
13. Grozdzovskogo, G. L., ed. 1975. Aeromehanika sverhzvukovogo obtekanija tel
vraschenija stepenoj formi. Moscow: Maschinostroenie. [In Russian.]
14. Milyayev, K., B. Urykov, and G. Webb. 2002. Some physical aspects of a direct
launch of a payload into space. AAAF Symposium (International) Propulsion for
Space Transportation in the XXI Century. Versailles, France.
15. Litrell, D. M., and K. A. Jamison. 1993. An experimental investigation of plasma
armature railgun performance in the 3.2 to 4.2 km/s regime. IEEE Transaction on
Magnetics 29(1):859 64.
16. Avril, Ch., S. Hundertmark, and B. Reck. 2009. Composite material development
for braking the 2.5 km/s muzzle velocity barrier with the PEGASUS launcher. ISL
Symposium on Pulsed Power Technology and Applications. Saint Louis, France.
17. Bozi‚c, O., T. Eggers, and D. Lancelle. 2010. Technological limitations for the design
of Lorentz rail accelerated rockets. Symposium on Electrical Engineering. Saint
Louise, France: French German Institute.

783
 PROGRESS IN PROPULSION PHYSICS

18. Van Foreest, A., M. Sippel, J. Klevanski, A. Guelhan, and B. Essser. 2007. Tech-
nical background and challenges of the space liner concept. 7th Symposium (Inter-
national) on Launcher Technologies. Barcelona, Spain.
19. Keenan, J. A., and G. V. Candler. 1994. Simulation of graphite sublimation and
oxidation under re-entry conditions. AIAA and ASME. 6th Joint Thermophysics
and Heat Transfer Conference. Colorado Springs, CO: AIAA.
20. McNab, I. R., G. V. Candler, and C. S. Barbee. 2007. Projectile nose tip thermal
management for railgun launch to space. IEEE Trans. Mag. 43(1):491 95.
21. Gosse, R., and G. Candler. 2007. Ablation modeling of electro-magnetic launched
projectile for access to space. AIAA Paper No. 2007-1210.
22. Eggers, Th., and M. Gr a‡lin. 2008. Layout of hypersonic vehicles by coupling of
aerodynamics and §ight mechanics. 2nd International ARA Days on 10 YEARS
AFTER ARD. Arcachon, Fance.

784

View publication stats