Trade Studies Module

Space Systems Engineering, version 1.0

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module

 Module Purpose: Trade Studies

 Describe the typical trade study process and show

an example.

 Recognize that trade studies support decision

making throughout the project lifecycle.

 Provide some trade study heuristics to improve the

application and value of future trade studies.

 Describe and provide a trade tree - an option

management graphic.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 2

 What is a Trade Study?

 A trade study (or trade-off study) is a formal tool that supports

decision making.

 A trade study is an objective comparison with respect to

performance, cost, schedule, risk, and all other reasonable
criteria of all realistic alternative requirements; architectures;
baselines; or design, verification, manufacturing, deployment,
training, operations, support, or disposal approaches.

 A trade study documents the requirements, assumptions,

criteria and priorities used for a decision. This is useful since
new information frequently arises and decisions are re-
evaluated.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 3

 Trade Studies Support Decision Making
Throughout the Development Lifecycle

Trade studies support:

• Requirements development - e.g., to resolve conflicts; to
resolve TBDs and TBRs
• Functional allocations - e.g., system architecture
development
• System synthesis - e.g., assess the impact of alternative
performance or resource allocations
• Investigate alternate technologies for risk or cost reduction
• Assess proposed design changes
• Make/buy decisions (i.e., build the part from a new design or
buy from commercial, existing sources)

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 4

 The Trade Study Process (1/2)

1. Define the objectives of the trade study

2. Review inputs, including the constraints and assumptions

3. Choose the evaluation criteria and their relative importance

(these can be qualitative)

4. Identify and select the alternatives

5. Assess the performance of each option for each criteria

6. Compare the results and choose an option

7. Document the trade study process and its results

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 5

 The Trade Study Process (2/2)

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 6

 Evaluation Criteria — Measures (1/2)

 Trade studies depend upon having criteria for making

decisions based on measures of effectiveness (voice of the
customer) and measures of performance (voice of the
engineer).

 Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) - A measure of how well

mission objectives are achieved. MOEs are implementation
independent - they assess ‘how well’ not ‘how’.

 Example measures of effectiveness include

• Life cycle cost
• Schedule, e.g., development time, mission duration
• Technology readiness level (maturity of concept/hardware)
• Crew capacity
• Payload Mass

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 7

 Evaluation Criteria — Measures (2/2)

 Measure of Performance (MOP) - A quantitative measure that,

when met by the design solution, will help ensure that an MOE
for a product or system will be satisfied. There are generally two
or more measures of performance for each MOE.

 Example measures of performance

• Mass
• Power consumption
• Specific impulse
• Consumables required
• Propellant type

 Both MOEs and MOPs are system figures of merit; an MOE

refers to the effectiveness of a solution and an MOP is a
measure of a particular design.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 8

 Trade Study Heuristics
1. Rules of Thumb:
 Manage the number of options under consideration
 Revisit the original problem statement
 If a baseline solution is established, use it as a ‘yardstick’ to measure
the alternatives.
2. Decisions are frequently made with imperfect information.
1. Do not get stuck in ‘analysis paralysis’.
2. Decide how deep the analysis must go. {Deep enough to make a
decision with confidence, but no deeper.}
3. Does the decision feel right? If not, why?
4. Conduct further what-if scenarios by changing assumptions.
5. Reject alternatives that do not meet an essential requirement.
6. Ignore evaluation criteria that do not discriminate between
alternatives.
7. Trades are usually subjective; numeric results usually give a false
sense of accuracy.
8. If an apparent preferred option is not decisively superior, further
analysis is warranted.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 9

 Example Decision Matrix Trade Study

Preferred Solution
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 10
 Example Qualitative Decision Matrix
For a Lunar Thermal Control Trade Study
Characteristics Single Phase Fluid Two Phase Fluid Heat Pipe

Safety: (3) Low High Low-Medium

Operating
Pressure
Safety: Fluid Dependent Fluid Dependent Fluid Dependent
Toxicity
Safety: Fluid Dependent Fluid Dependent Fluid Dependent
Flammability
Reliability (1) High Fair Fair

Performance: (2) Low High Fair

Pumping Cost
Complexity: (4) Simple Nominal Complex
Controls
Complexity: (5) Simple Nominal Complex
Manufacturing
Difficulty
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 11
 Do A Reality Check On The Tentative Selection
Key questions to ask:
 Have the requirements and constraints truly been met?
 Is the tentative selection heavily dependent on a particular set of
input values and assumptions, or does it hold up under a range
of reasonable input values (i.e., is it ‘robust’)?
 Are there sufficient data to back up the tentative selection?
 Are the measurement methods sufficiently discriminating to be
sure that the tentative selection is really better than the
alternatives?
• If close results, is further analysis warranted?
 Have the subjective aspects of the problem been fully
addressed?
 Test the decision robustness.
• Is the tentative selection very sensitive to an estimated performance
or constraint? If so, explore the full reasonable range of each
performance variable to understand the domain where your tentative
selection is appropriate.
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 12
 Trade Trees

 A trade tree is a graphical method of capturing alternatives

with multiple variables.

 Each layer of the tree represents some aspect of the system

that will be treated in a trade study to determine the best
alternative.

 Some alternatives can be eliminated (or ‘pruned’) a priori

because of technical feasibility, launch vehicle constraints,
cost, risk or some other disqualifying factor.

 The total number of alternatives is given by the number of end

points of the tree.

 Even with just a few layers, the number of alternatives can

increase quickly, so manage their numbers.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 13

 1988
1988 “Mars
“Mars Expedition”
1989 “Mars
1989
Expedition”
“Mars Evolution”
Evolution”
Top-level Trade Tree-Example for Mars
ŽŽ1990
1990 “90-Day
“90-Day Study”
Study”
1991 “Synthesis
1991 “Synthesis Group”
Group”
1995 “DRM
1995 “DRM 1”1”
Human Exploration
1997
‘‘ 1997 “DRM
“DRM 3”3”
Of Mars
1998
’’ 1998 “DRM
“DRM 4”4”
1999
““ 1999 “Dual
“Dual Landers”
Landers”
1989
”” 1989 Zubrin,
Zubrin, et.al*
et.al* Decision Package 1
1994-99
•• 1994-99 Borowski,
Borowski, et.al
et.al Long vs Short
2000 SERT
2000 SERT (SSP)
(SSP)
Mission

2002
‚‚ 2002 NEP
NEP Art.
Art. Gravity
Gravity
Type

 2001
2001 DPT/NEXT
DPT/NEXT Conjunction Class Opposition Class Special Case
Long Surface Stay Short Surface Stay 1-year Round-trip
M1
M1 2005
2005 MSFC
MSFC MEPT
MEPT
M2
M2 2005
2005 MSFC
MSFC NTP
NTP MSAMSA
ƒ
Deployment
Cargo

Pre-Deploy All-up Pre-Deploy All-up

Mars Ascent Mars Capture
Method

Aerocapture Propulsive Aerocapture Propulsive Aerocapture Propulsive Aerocapture Propulsive

Propellant

No No No No No No No No
ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU
ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU ISRU
Interplanetary
Propulsion
in Phase 1)
(no hybrids

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric
NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical
Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric

Electric
NTR

Chemical

NTR

Chemical

Chemical
Electric

Electric
NTR

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

 ” “ • • M2  M2 Ž ‚ M2 Œ 
M2 M2
‘ ’ M1 M1 M1
NTR- Nuclear Thermal Rocket
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module Electric= Solar or Nuclear Electric Propulsion 14
 Earth-Moon Transit Trade Tree
Outbound Lunar Surface (LS) Inbound

Location LO High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority

L1 - LO
Destination LS
Dock
LO - LS
Un-Dock
K
Both Dock / Un-Dock LS - LO LO
Dock Optional
L Earth
T ransportation F unctions
LO - L1
L1 Su rface
EO - L1 L1 L
Elem ent T rades
L1 - LS
2,3 L1 - EO EO
K
K Water
L EO - ES
K Land

EO LO
LO - LS
1,4&C4,5-8,12 M M N
ES - EO EO - LO Water
L1 - ES
L N Land
K
EO
LO - EO N
EO - LS
9, 13 Water
7,8
L EO - ES
Land
L1 - LO LO LO - LS K
M M N
L1 - LS
11 LO - ES
Water

Land
K
LS - L1
L1
L N
L1
ES
ES - L1 L
EO
1,3-6,10,12
L1 - EO
Earth Su rface L Water
EO - ES
Land
K
M
H = Human Mission Segment M N
Water
L1 - ES 2,11
C = Cargo Mission Segment Land

LS - EO
EO

LO - LS
10 EO - ES
Water

ES - LO LO Land
L L
M M N
Water
ES - LS
C1-3,5-13 LS - ES
9,13
Hum an M ission Segm ent Land
H C
Cargo M ission Segm ent (Pre-Deployed Surface Cargo) L L N

Orbital Operations & Lunar Earth EDL Orbit Earth Entry Vehicle
Earth-Moon Transit; Descent/Ascent Capture Options L/D Options
Propulsion Options Lander Options

Aerocapture Low L/D 1-11,13

Integrated Crew 7
All Chemical M N Medium L/D 12
1-4, 7-13 L Transit/Lander
K Chemical + Electric Propulsive Capture 8 High L/D
5 Function
NTR 6 13 N/A
Other Hybrid Options N/A 1-6,9-13
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module Modular Elements 1-12 15
 Example: Earth-Moon Transit Trade
Option Analyses
Outbound Lunar Surface (LS) Inbound

LO
L1 - LO
Location LS
Destination
LO - LS
Dock Optional
K

Key measure of performance: mass

Transportation Functions LS - LO LO
L Earth
Element Trades LO - L1 L1 Surface
EO - L1 L1 L
L1 - LS
L1 - EO EO
K
K W ater
L EO - ES
K Land
LO - LS M M N
EO LO
ES - EO EO - LO Water
L1 - ES
L Land
K
EO
LO - EO N
EO - LS
Water
L EO - ES
LO Land
L1 - LO LO - LS K
M M N
L1 - LS Water
LO - ES
Land
K
LS - L1 L1
L N
L1
ES - L1 L
ES L1 - EO EO
Earth Surface L Water

280
EO - ES
Land
K
M M N
Water
L1 - ES
Land

LS - EO EO
N
LO - LS Water

17
EO - ES
ES - LO LO Land
L L

• TLI stages dominate mass composition.

M M N
ES - LS Water
LS - ES
Land

L L N

Orbital Operations Lunar Earth EDL Orbit Earth Entry Vehicle

& Earth-Moon Descent/Ascent Capture Options L/D Options

• Ascent/Descent stages for L1 approach are significantly

Transit; Propulsion Lander Options
Options Low L/D
Aerocapture
Integrated Crew M N Medium L/D
All Chemical Transit/Lander
K Chemical + Electric L Propulsive Capture High L/D

higher than for LO approach (combination of higher ΔV 36

Function

240
NTR N/A
Other Hybrid Options N/A
Modular Elements

and habitatm asses).

• N TR propulsion applied to TLIfunction results in 11
significantIM LEO benefitdue to influence ofTLI
200 m aneuver.
• Single crew m odule carried through entire m ission has
8 Ascent
large scaling effecton allpropulsive stages.
96 Descent
160 36 TEI
TLI #2
TLI #1
3 3
15 Crew
16 16
120 OM
6 6 SH
EV
Total Architecture
52 Mass (t)
47 47 3
80 16
96
19

52
40 47 47
34

10 9 9 9 20
0 3 3 3 3

1) DRM 2) Thru LO 3) LO/L1 Hybrid 5b) NTR Thru LO 10b) Single

Module Thru LO

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 16

 Further Considerations
for Trade Studies
and Class Discussion

Based on Observations from

The University of Texas at Austin
Senior Mission Design Class, 2007
(Department of Aerospace Engineering)

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module

 Trade Study Considerations (1/4)

Assumptions
 Trade studies are based on assumptions the team makes.
 Examples of driving assumptions:
• Crew size assumption drives the amount of consumables and the
viability of an open ECLSS versus partially closed ECLSS.
• Mission duration assumption drives the amount of power required
which in turn drives the choice of power subsystem.
• Landing location on the moon drives delta-v requirements which in
turn drives best orbit selection and propulsion subsystem.
 Changing assumptions within the trade study allows the team to
perform a ‘what-if’ analysis.
• Allows the team to understand the integrity of the design alternative
selected
• Shows the importance of that assumption

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 18

 Trade Study Considerations (2/4)

Mission environment
 The trade space for subsystem alternatives is often defined by
the space environment for the mission.
• Why use RTGs when the mission is at 1 AU or on the Moon. When
do we use RTGs? For deep space missions where solar intensity is
less.
• Types of thermal control - need to consider the operating
temperature extremes
• Types of rendezvous and ‘landing’ with a NEO - need to understand
the orbit, spin and known composition of asteroid
• Sometimes the worst of the space environment, such as a solar
particle event (SPE) for radiation, can be avoided by operational
solutions rather than design solutions, i.e., perform the mission
during the minimum of the solar cycle or using early warning
sentinel satellites.
• Lunar missions - is your system operating at one particular location
or region (like Apollo at equatorial latitudes), or at global sites
depending on the particular mission?

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 19

 Trade Study Considerations (3/4)

Importance of information for each alternative

 Trade study analysis should use information that is relevant.
Extraneous information can distract the decision maker.
 ‘Materials’ example:
• Do material characteristics such as tensile strength and Poisson’s
ratio really matter in the selection process.
• In considering so many material alternatives, was heritage
considered as a design factor, i.e, has this material flown on
previous space missions?
• If not, what is the cost to your project for bringing that technology up to
flight-ready status?
• Did you violate one of your original mission scope assumptions of using
current state-of-the-art technology?
• In considering material alternatives, were other correlated factors
included which would shorten the trade space to begin with, such
as material’s impact on radiation protection; use for a pressure
vessel vs. landing struts.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 20

 Trade Study Considerations (4/4)

Trade study vs. spacecraft design

 Is a trade study really necessary?
• Cargo capsule example:
• Structural design of capsule is not a trade. Evaluation criteria are the
design characteristics; heritage is reference information for actual design
work.
• Seismic vehicle example:
• Two existing concepts versus determining which characteristics are most
valuable for your team design to include
• Mars habitat example:
• What are the communications requirements for the mission (voice, video,
etc) => amount of bandwidth to specify for comm subsystem.
 What makes for a successful mission? Answer defines which
trades are of most importance & might drive additional trades.
• Maximum surface exploration time => robust power and ECLSS
• Precise NEO orbit tracking for X years => tracking method
• 1-week cargo delivery => launch vehicle availability and mission plan

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 21

 Module Summary: Trade Studies

 Trade studies are common decision-support tools that are

used throughout the project lifecycle to capture and help
assess alternatives.
 The steps in the trade study process are:
1. Define the objectives of the trade study
2. Review inputs, including the constraints and assumptions
3. Choose the evaluation criteria and their relative importance
4. Identify and select the alternatives
5. Assess the performance of each option for each criteria
6. Compare the results and choose an option
7. Document the trade study process and its results

 Trade trees are graphical tools that help manage multi-

variable options.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 22

 Back-up Slides
for Trade Studies Module

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module

 Trade Studies
 The systems engineering method relies on making design decisions
by the use of trade studies.
 Trade studies are necessary when the system is complex and there
is more than one design approach.
 Trade studies involve the comparison of alternatives
• Good to explore a number of different alternatives
• Alternatives should be compared at the same level of detail
• Key is for characteristics to be evaluated relative to one another
 Trade study approaches:
• Comparing advantages and disadvantages of several alternatives; can
be qualitative.
• Using a formal ranking system based on multiple criteria and a weighting
system; quantitative approach.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 24

 Example Trade Study Outline
Purpose of Study
• Resolve an Issue
• Perform Decision Analysis
• Perform Analysis of Alternatives (Comparative analysis)
Scope of Study
• State level of detail of study
• State Assumptions
• Identify Influencing requirements & constraints
Trade Study Description
• Describe Trade Studies To Be Performed
• The Studies Planned To Make Tradeoffs Among Concepts, User Requirements, System
Architectures, Design, Program Schedule, Functional, Performance Requirements, And
Life-cycle Costs
• Describe Trade Methodology To Be Selected
• Describe Technical Objectives
• Identify Requirements And Constraints
• Summarize Level of Detail of Analysis
Analytical Approach
• Identify Candidate solutions to be studied/compared
• Measure performance
o Develop models and measurements of merit
o Develop values for viable candidates
• Selection Criteria -- risk, performance, and cost are usually at lease three of the factors
• Scoring
o Measures of results to be compared to criteria
• Weighted reflecting their relative importance in the selection process
• Sensitivity Analysis
Trades Results
• Select User/Operational Concept
• Select System Architecture
• Derive Requirements
o Performing trade studies to determine alternative functional approaches to meet requirements
o Alternate Functional Views
o Requirements Allocations
• Derive Technical/Design Solutions
• Cost Analysis Results
• Risk Analysis Results
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module • Understand Trade Space 25
 Decisions to Make Before Beginning a Trade Study

 Has success been defined?

 Which trades need to be done and at what phase of the project?

 For each trade what criteria will be used and what are their
relative weights?

 How deep will the analysis go?

• Deep enough to make a decision with confidence, but no deeper.

 Criteria for doing a trade study?

• The easiest trade study to do is the one that does not have to be
done.
• Do not do a trade study just because you can.

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 26

 Trade Study Process

Define
Evaluation
Criteria/
Weighting
factors

Study Inputs:
 Constraints
 Ops Concept Determine
 Existing Scope of the Evaluate Perform TRADE
requirements Trade Study Alternatives Sensitivity STUDY
 Assumptions Against Analyses RESULTS
 Relevant plans Criteria
& documents
 Data - graphical
Generate  Recommended
Create
Viable approach
Trade
Alternative  Benefits
Tree
Solutions
 Resulting risk
posture
 Summary of
results
 Summary of
approach

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 27

 Focused Trade Study

Phase I Analysis
Requirements
Mass Estimation Benchmark Baseline
BaselineReference
Reference Design Environments
“Pseudo-Apollo” Mission
Mission Subsystem Technologies

Architectural
ArchitecturalVariations
Variations Parametric
ParametricVariations
Variations
• 2-launch solution • Alternate propellants.
• 2-launch solution • Alternate propellants.
• 3-launch solution • Alternate power sources.
• 3-launch solution • Alternate power sources.
• 25mt launch constraint • Variation in return payload
• 25mt launch constraint • Variation in return payload
• Initial CEV/lander mating in LEO •
• Initial CEV/lander mating in LEO Variation of delivered payload to the lunar surface
• Variation of delivered payload to the lunar surface
• Single pass aerocapture, deorbit phasing, and capability of •
• Single pass aerocapture, deorbit phasing, and capability of All versus partial crew to the lunar surface
land landing • All versus partial crew to the lunar surface
land landing • Reduce crew size to 2
• Reduce crew size to 2
• Increase crew size to 6
• Increase crew size to 6
• Change in time between launches (7 to 30 days)
• Change in time between launches (7 to 30 days)
• Reduce lunar surface stay time to 3 days
• Reduce lunar surface stay time to 3 days
• Increase lunar surface stay time to 14 days
Architectural • Increase lunar surface stay time to 14 days
ArchitecturalVariation
Variation •
•
Effects of elimination of CEV contingency EVA requirement
Effects of elimination of CEV contingency EVA requirement
• Lunar Orbit Rendezvous of CEV/lander
• Lunar Orbit Rendezvous of CEV/lander • Mass effect of supplemental radiation shielding
• Mass effect of supplemental radiation shielding

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 28

 Focused Trade Study Results

Mission
MissionDesign
Design Reference
ReferenceOperations
OperationsConcept
Concept
L1-Earth Co-Planar Inbound Delta V Requirement (m/s)
• Moon: Inclination near maximum, Distance near perigee
MOON
• L1 Departure Time in June 2006 MOON
23/06:00
Kick Stage
Expended
Low Lunar
23/00:00 Orbit
9
0 22/18:00
Expended
ht

0 L1 (~322,000
ig

22/12:00 km)
e Fl

4 weeks
m y
Ti Da

8 22/06:00
5-

0
ht
ig

0 22/00:00
e Fl
m y
Ti -Da

8
21/18:00
4

0 (dd/hh:mm) Earth
Departure
ht

0
9 21/12:00
Stage Earth
ig

Expended Departure
e Fl

0 Stage Service
m y

Expended
10
Ti Da

Module
0 21/06:00 Expended
3-

00
11 LEO 407
21/00:00 Earth Vacuum Perigee Arrival Date km
00
120
0
13 20/18:00
00

16/18:00
17/00:00
17/06:00
17/12:00
17/18:00
18/00:00
18/06:00
18/12:00
18/18:00
19/00:00
19/06:00 Continue
Water CEV Missions
L1 Departure Date (dd/hh:mm) Landing Reused?

700-800 800-900
Initial
InitialMass
900-1000

MassininLEO
LEO
1000-1100 1100-1200 1200-1300 1300-1400
EARTH
EARTH

320 Lander EDS #1

Lander EDS #2
Lander EDS #3
280 Lander EDS #4
Kick Stage
Descent Stg
241 240
240
230
216 220 Lander EDS #1 223
Ascent Stg
CEV EDS #1 Key
KeyFigures
Figuresof
ofMerit
Merit
25 CEV EDS #2
Lander EDS #2
CEV SM
200 CEV CM
Safety Effectiveness
25
Lander EDS #1 Lander EDS #1
64 94
Lander EDS #1
94 Lander EDS #3
Lander EDS #1

• •
Lander EDS #1 25

160
90 93
# of Critical Events Total Mass
Lander EDS #4
142
25 Kick Stage
33
• Mission Complexity • Dry Mass
Kick Stage

120
Kick Stage
Kick Stage
26
27
Lander EDS #1 • Abort Options • Surface Time
27 Kick Stage Kick Stage Descent Stg 42

Descent Stg
27 27
Descent Stg
23 Descent Stg
23
• Crew Time • Etc.
25

•
Ascent Stg Descent Stg

80
23

Ascent Stg
Descent Stg
23
Descent Stg
23
Ascent Stg
20 Ascent Stg
20
13
Ascent Stg, 10
Technology Risk
20

Total Architecture Mass (kg/1000)

20
Ascent Stg Ascent Stg
20
20

CEV EDS #1
• Probability of launch Extensibility
CEV EDS #1

success
21 CEV EDS #1 CEV EDS #1
42

40
CEV EDS #1
39 CEV EDS #1 CEV EDS #1
64 45
• Long-Stays
• Etc.
33 33 CEV EDS #2
21

CEV SM, 18 CEV SM, 15 CEV SM, 15 CEV SM, 18 CEV SM, 12
CEV SM, 20 CEV SM, 27 • Mars
0
CEV CM, 9 CEV CM, 9 CEV CM, 9 CEV CM, 9 CEV CM, 9 CEV CM, 11 CEV CM, 8 • Other destinations
BRM 2 Launch 3 Launch 25t Launch Limit Initial Mating in Aerocapture & "Pseudo-Apollo" • Etc.
Solution Solution LEO Land Landing

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 29

 Affordability Trades

Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 30

 Broad Trade Study Overview
 Multi-center team assessed potential mission Location
Destination
Dock Optional
Outbound

L1 - LO

K
LO

LO - LS
Lunar Surface (LS)

LS
Inbound

concept trade options around two broad Lunar

Transportation Functions LS - LO LO
L Earth
Element Trades LO - L1 L1 Surface
EO - L1 L1 L
L1 - LS
L1 - EO EO
K
K W ater
L EO - ES
K Land
LO - LS M M N
EO LO

Mission Scenarios
ES - EO EO - LO Water
L1 - ES
L Land
K
EO
LO - EO N
EO - LS Water
L EO - ES
LO Land
L1 - LO LO - LS K
M M N
L1 - LS Water
LO - ES
Land
K
LS - L1 L1
L

• LMS-1 - global access, 7-day surface stays

N
L1
ES - L1 L
ES L1 - EO EO
Earth Surface L Water
EO - ES
Land
K
M M N
Water
L1 - ES
Land

LS - EO EO
N
LO - LS Water

• LMS-2 - south pole access, 30-90 day surface stays

EO - ES
ES - LO LO Land
L L
M M N
ES - LS Water
LS - ES
Land

L L N

Orbital Operations Lunar Earth EDL Orbit Earth Entry Vehicle

& Earth-Moon Descent/Ascent Capture Options L/D Options

 Screening of breakthrough technologies

Transit; Propulsion Lander Options
Options Low L/D
Aerocapture
Integrated Crew M N Medium L/D
All Chemical Transit/Lander
K Chemical + Electric L Propulsive Capture High L/D
Function
NTR N/A
Other Hybrid Options N/A
Modular Elements

conducted for applicability to Spirals 1 and 2 LMS Trade Tree Definition

 Trade tree defined for each LMS served as the 0 50 100 150
Mass (t)
200 250 300 350 400 450

basis for trade option identification

1) DRM

4a) Chem + SEP L M S - 1 D R M

280 4c) Chem + NEP I M L E O = 1 8 1 t

5a) Nuclear Thermal 17

• TLI stages dominate mass composition.
L1 Options

 Initial down-selection of major trade tree branches

6a) Aerocapture
• Ascent/Descent stages for L1 approach are significantly
240 higher than forCapture
7a) Propulsive LO approach (combination of higher ΔV 36
and habitat m asses).
8a) Medium L/D L O V a r i a n t o f D R M

• N TR pr opulsion applied to TLIfunction results in

9a) ES Direct to L1
I M L 11
E O = 1 3 6 t

significant IM LE O benefit due to influence ofTLI

200 m10a)
aneuver
Single.Crew Module

was performed to:

IMLEO Dry
2)• Lunar
SinglOrbit Variant
e crew of DRM
m odul e carried through entire m ission has
8 Ascent IMLEO Gross
large scal
3)ing effHybrid
LO/L1 ecton allpropulsive stages.
96 Descent
160 36 4b) Chem + SEP
2 5 % I M L E O
TEI
d i f f e r e n c e
TLI #2
4d) Chem + NEP TLI #1

• Establish data/rationale for potentially infeasible

3 3
15 5b) Nuclear Thermal Crew
16 16 Lunar Orbit Options
120 OM
66b) Aerocapture 6 SH
Note: All options
EV assume 3 crew
Total Architecture
52 Mass (t)
7b) Propulsive Capture
modules

mission concepts
478b) Medium L/D 47 3 unless otherwise
80 16 indicated.
9b) ES Direct to LO
96
10b) Single Crew Module 19

52
40 47 47

• Provide focus on trade options to be analyzed in

34

10 9 9 9 20
0 3 3 3 3

more detail
1) DRM 2) Thru LO 3) LO/L1 Hybrid 5b) NTR Thru LO 10b) Single
Module Thru LO

Trade Option Analyses

 Analysis of numerous trades and options LMS-1, TO 2 - Propellant Trade

conducted
100
Storables
90
LOX/RP1
80 LOX/Methane
70

• LMS-1: 10 trade options + alternatives 250

230
60

50

40

• LMS-2: 13 trade options + alternatives

210
30
190
20
Percent Increase of IMLEO (%)
170 10% decrease in Lander PMF results in
10
IMLEO
150 (t) 12% increase in IMLEO
0
130 Ascent Only Ascent + Descent Ascent + Descent + All Stages
TEI
110 Note - Percent Increase of IMLEO compared to Baseline (All LOX/LH2)
90
-25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
% change

Sensitivity Analyses
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 31
 Example: Trade Option Analyses
Outbound Lunar Surface (LS) Inbound

LO
L1 - LO
Location LS
Destination
LO - LS
Dock Optional
K
T ransportation Functions LS - LO LO
L Earth
Element Trades LO - L1 L1 Surface
EO - L1 L1 L
L1 - LS
L1 - EO EO
K
K Water
L EO - ES
K Land
LO - LS M M N
EO LO
ES - EO EO - LO Water
L1 - ES
L Land
K
EO
LO - EO N
EO - LS
Water
L EO - ES
LO Land
L1 - LO LO - LS K
M M N
L1 - LS Water
LO - ES
Land
K
LS - L1 L1
L N
L1 L
ES - L1
ES L1 - EO EO
Earth Surface L Water
EO - ES
Land
K
M M N
Water
L1 - ES
Land

LS - EO EO
N
LO - LS Water
EO - ES
ES - LO LO Land
L L
M M N
ES - LS Water
LS - ES
Land

L L N

LMS-1, TO 2 - Propellant Trade

Orbital Operations Lunar Earth EDL Orbit Earth Entry Vehicle
& Earth-Moon Descent/Ascent Capture Options L/D Options
Transit; Propulsion Lander Options
Options Low L/D
Aerocapture
Integrated Crew M N Medium L/D
All Chemical Transit/Lander
K Chemical + Electric L Propulsive Capture High L/D
Function
NTR N/A
Other Hybrid Options N/A
Modular Elements

100
Storables
90
LOX/RP1
80 LOX/Methane
70

60

50

40

30

20
Percent Increase of IMLEO (%)
10

0
Ascent Only Ascent + Descent Ascent + Descent + All Stages
TEI
Note - Percent Increase of IMLEO compared to Baseline (All LOX/LH2)
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 32
 ECLSS Design Options for a Lunar Rover

Design Factor Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Recovery Open Partially Closed Totally Closed

Consumables Non-regenerate Base regenerate Vehicle regenerate

O2 Carry all Carry all Carry part; recover

part from CO2 &
H2O
CO2 Absorb, dump Absorb, carry Regenerate in
back to base vehicle
H2O Absorb, dump Condense and Electrolysis in
carry back or vehicle
sublimate
Cooling Sublimator Sublimator Radiator

Losses O 2 & H 2O Only lose water Nothing

for cooling by
sublimator; O2 is
recovered at base
Space Systems Engineering: Trade Studies Module 33