论文部分内容阅读
本文根据性能、寿命周期成本、技术要求和风险对优先考虑的几种小型载荷运载器候选方案作了比较。这些候选方案包括单级和两级运载器。后者第一级还考虑了采用火箭发动机和吸气式发动机这两种情况。研究结果表明,就给定的有效载荷重量而言,各种候选方案在起飞重量方面的差异不大。但在结构干重方面的差异却很大,最大可相差2倍。在寿命周期成本方面的差异较小,但在研究、设计、试验和评定成本方面的差异可达40%。然而,一般来说,研究、设计、试验和评定成本为最高的运载器,其返场修整费用较小。作者所考虑的各种候选方案都可以认为是高风险的研制计划。它们不受可以实现的期限(近期、中期或远期)的影响。本文还介绍了各种候选方案都需要的某些共同技术。这些技术包括结构、热防护系统、故障自动识别、维修和检测系统以及自主飞行操作所需要的飞行器电子设备。
This article compares several prioritized small payload carrier candidates based on performance, life cycle costs, technical requirements and risks. These candidates include single-stage and two-stage vehicles. The latter level also considered both the rocket engine and the aspirated engine. The results of the study show that for a given payload weight, there is little difference in takeoff weight among the various alternatives. However, the difference in the dry weight of the structure is very large, the maximum difference of 2 times. Differences in life-cycle costs are small, but up to 40% difference in research, design, test and evaluation costs. However, in general, the cost of researching, designing, testing and assessing a vehicle is the highest, and the cost of return dressing is relatively low. The various options considered by the author can be considered high-risk research and development programs. They are unaffected by the achievable deadlines (short, medium or long term). This article also describes some of the common techniques that are required for various candidates. These technologies include structures, thermal protection systems, automatic fault identification, maintenance and inspection systems, and aircraft electronics required for autonomous flight operations.