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

net/publication/318296144

A Mass Model for Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines

Conference Paper · July 2017

DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5010

CITATIONS READS

0 1,786

2 authors, including:

Juan Manuel Tizon

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
12 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Juan Manuel Tizon on 14 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Mass Model for Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines

Juan M. Tizón1 and Alberto Román2

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain

The mass estimation of an engine in the early design phases can lead to significant time
and cost savings. For this reason, valuable efforts have been made in this direction through
two strategies: the direct estimation of the engine mass as a whole and the estimation of the
mass of each of its elements. This paper presents a new formulation that combines both
strategies obtaining some advantages. From a scientific point of view, it clearly shows the
parametric dependencies and, from an industrial point of view, allows for very precise
results when a suitable database is available. The formulation presented evaluates the total
mass of the engine by considering the mass of each element globally and uses individual
correlations of the mass of each subsystem in a universal form through a dimensionless
formulation. It makes possible to generalize the evaluation of the mass of the individual
elements by two procedures: the use of historical data with exponents obtained by
mathematical adjustment and the use of design techniques in which the exponents of the
expressions are fixed by the design rules. The formulation of the mass model has allowed
writing a computer program, RemA (Rocket Engine Mass Analysis). Finally, two
straightforward applications have been added to the software: the first to optimize the
engine mass through its main design parameters and another one to calculate development
and fabrication costs from the estimated engine mass.

Nomenclature
= Area
= Boil-off losses
= Cost
= Velocity
∗
= Characteristic velocity
= Thrust coefficient
= Diameter
= Thrust
= Expander cycle
= Engine fabrication cost
= Safety factor
= Inert mass fraction
GG = Gas generator cycle
= Effort for rocket engines
= Specific impulse
= Total impulse,
= Correction coefficient
= Length
∗
= Characteristic length
= Mass
= Mass flow

1
Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering, orcid.org/0000-0002-8687-6657, Department of Aerospace
Propulsion and Fluid Mechanics, Plz. Cardenal Cisneros 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
2
Graduate Research Assistant, orcid.org/0000-0002-4417-7102, Department of Aerospace Propulsion and Fluid
Mechanics, Plz. Cardenal Cisneros 3, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 = Specific speed
/ = Mixture ratio
= Pressure
= Vapor pressure
= Power
= Reliability
= Radius
= Surface
SC = Staged-combustion cycle
= Wall thickness
= Burning time
= Volume
= Velocity increment
= Number of pump stages

Greek symbols
= Adiabatic index
= Area ratio
= Efficiency
= Density
= Torque
= Nozzle angle
= Yield stress
= Allowable stress
= Rotational speed

Subindex
0 = Reference engine
= Auxiliary components
= Chamber
= Combustion chamber
l = Cylindrical
D = Development
E = Engine
= Exit
= Gas generator
= Inlet
= Jacket
= Manifold
= Material
= Nozzle
= Oxidizer
= Payload
= Pressurization gas
= Propellants
= Tubes
= Refurbishment
= Spherical
= Throat
= Turbopump
= Valve
= Vacuum

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 I. Introduction

T HE use of space has undergone important changes in recent years, in which private initiative has burst into the
space market with extraordinary vigor and success. Scientific and commercial space missions have maintained
their level of activity despite events of any nature to which the world is constantly going through. A new generation
of engines and launchers is operating in parallel with the revised technologies of traditional vehicles in a scenario
that is becoming increasingly competitive. In this sense, the efforts made in the direction of obtaining better results
contribute to the growth of the activity of the space sector from an economical and efficiency point of view. This
highlights the importance of reducing space vehicles mass for space missions, allowing financial savings or
increases in the payload mass. Estimating the engine mass at an early design step enables optimization of the rocket
performance at an early stage.
The first step in reducing weight is to have good analysis tools to study current systems mass and good models to
estimate future vehicles mass. Most of the existing mass models deal with the engine as a non-divisible system,
using general engine parameters; although rocket engines are very complex systems built of several elements. On
the other hand, there are mass models which divide the engine into different elements and estimate the mass of each
element separately. However, these models need a large amount of data for each element, therefore, they can only be
applied in advanced design steps.
Two principal methods can be carried out to reduce weight; the long-term method consists of researching new
technologies, such as new materials, propellants, or propulsion systems. Secondly, the short/mid-term method
consists of studying actual systems to search for ways to improve them by using existing technology. This second
method will be the objective of this, paper focusing on liquid pumped rocket engines.
As was said before, most mass models deal with the engine as an indivisible system, trying to estimate its mass
through general parameters. Mass models for the engine as a whole system1 and for the combustion chamber and
nozzle are provided by Zandbergen2. In addition, a mass model based on historical mass for turbopump is also
exposed. A large amount of data about existing engines is provided, which may help in developing methods based
on historical data. This engine mass model has been applied in the program LiRa3, a software tool developed for
rocket cycle analysis.
Often the mass models are associated with a rocket cycle analysis methodology because detailed parameter
definitions about individual elements are available. Manski and Martin developed a mass model4 to evaluate
different engine cycles5. In this model, the engine is divided into different elements to study each one separately. A
mass model is developed for each component. Some of them are based on design, while other elements mass models
are based on historical data. This strategy has been followed recently by ESPSS6 that performs a similar mass
analysis, estimating the mass of the engine’s elements. Although this mass model can be quite accurate, it needs a
large amount of data about the engine and its configuration. For this reason, applying this model into very different
engines could be time consuming.
Another rocket analysis tool, RPA7, a mass model is being implemented. This mass model considers the different
elements at a point, and uses general data of the engine cycle. Other authors have implemented similar models for
their analysis tools8. Other rocket analysis tools include a mass model for the engine based on a single parameter of
the engine, such as the engine thrust, this is the case of SCORES-II9. Besides, engine mass models are also included
in the development of mass relationship for launch vehicles10.
A similar mass model to that exposed in this paper has been studied11. In this mass model, the influence of the
different parameters is expressed through certain exponents. Nevertheless, the disadvantage of this model is the lack
of generality, as some coefficients have difficult dimensions to manage due to the lack of dimensionless parameters.
These kinds of models are also implemented for the optimization of gas generator cycles12 but with the same
drawbacks.
In this work, a mass model to estimate the liquid propelled rocket engines has been developed. This model gives
information about the mass of each element of the engine as function of different engine parameters (such as
chamber pressure of engine thrust). Besides, the mass model is properly referenced to an engine in order to work
with dimensionless parameters and to have into account typical design considerations. In addition, a computer
program has been developed to apply this mass model faster and in an easier way.
Depending on the application, the mass model will allow choosing between three different methods, one based
on design considerations, another based on historical data and the last one in which is the user who can define the
influence of the engine parameters. Thus, this model is very flexible and can be adapted to a wide range of
applications.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 On the other hand, the equation derived to break down the engine mass is arranged in a novel form which allows
obtaining more general results. Therefore, the mass model can be applied in different engine configurations with
minimum effort.

II. Mass Model

The mass model developed in this paper evaluates the mass of each element separately. Therefore, the mass of
an engine can be expressed as:

(1)

where represents the mass of each element of an engine formed by elements. For each element, the mass is
calculated from the general parameters of the engine. The mass of the component can be estimated with
parameters as:

(2)

where, is a proportional coefficient and are the exponents which define the influence of each parameter on
each element mass. This is a common form to express mass correlation obtained from mathematical fit from
historical data. However, the dimension of depends on the value of the exponents and one must be very careful
with the consistency of the units used. A non-dimensional approach would ease the formulation, therefore, a
reference engine, , is considered. This engine verifies the same previous expressions to assure good results with
the model:

(3)

(4)

The total engine mass can be divided by the reference engine mass.

(5)

As a result, new non-dimensional coefficients α can be defined. These coefficients distribute

the total mass between the different elements thus the general expression of the engine mass is:

α (6)

The mass of each element is now expressed as:

(7)

The whole model, without proportional coefficients , follows Eq. (8).

α (8)

The value of will depend on the reference engine considered since they distribute the components mass within
the engine. The influence of new technologies can be considered changing the value of coefficients , as they can
be calculated using the following data as a function of coefficient:

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 (9)

In this sense, only a dimensionless expression has been obtained. The coefficients are simply a way of
rewriting the coefficients . Additionally, the sum of all coefficients for the reference engine must be equal to 1.
However, the formulation thus expressed has advantages. On the one hand, the confusion that a system of units
can introduce is avoided. On the other hand, it relativizes the value of the coefficient that only had a
proportionality function. However, the most important use of the formulation expressed is that the mass of the
engine is referred to an initial distribution among its components. Indeed, thinking in a solid propellant rocket motor
in which the type and number of different elements is invariant. The mass ratio, that each element represents of the
total, is also very stable and this data can replace the individual knowledge of all the 's. At this point it is not
necessary to know the exact value of each coefficient , it suffices to have a good approximation of the relative
weight of each component for the whole motor. It is the experience of the authors that this procedure gives excellent
results with solid propellant rocket engines, and, this work tries to demonstrate its utility in more complex systems,
such as pumped liquid propellant rocket engines. If the ’s coefficients of Eq. (2) are not so important, the important
information in that equation are the exponent because they give the trend of the mass variation with the main engine
parameters. Mass correlations are function of main engine parameters in which a mathematical fit to a potential
function leads to empirical values for the exponents. However, the mass of each component is the result of a design
process in which the influence of the parameters can be obtained in a physical way and the value of the exponents,
in this case, has a concrete meaning and corresponds generally to natural numbers or simple fractions. In this work,
the two possibilities are used. Nevertheless, the user has the option to use their own set of exponents.
Therefore, to define the mass model three kinds of constants must be determined:
1) The exponents which depends on each element (i) and parameter (j).
2) The non-dimensional coefficient which distribute the total mass.
3) The data of the reference engine which include the reference parameters and the mass of the reference
engine .
The definition of the previous constants is extremely important to obtain a mass model accurate enough. For this
reason, a large amount of previous engine data and the proper design considerations are needed. As many facts must
be considered in this step, it is relatively easy to make mistakes in the definition of any coefficient with the
consequent loss of accuracy.
Pumped liquid rocket engines are considered and they will be split into the following elements based on previous
engine breakdown4:
A. Nozzle.
B. Combustion chamber.
C. Gas generator.
D. Turbopump.
E. Valves.
F. Structure.
G. Auxiliary.
The propellant mass and the tanks mass will also be included using standard techniques13.
The parameters which define each element mass come from the engine, the propellant and the material used,
as follows:
From the engine:
i. Chamber pressure:
ii. Throat radius:
iii. Area ratio: ε
iv. Total mass flow:
From the propellant:
i. Mixture ratio: ⁄
ii. density:
From the material of the element:
5

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 iii. Density:
iv. Yield stress: σ
v. Safety factor:
The allowable stress is defined for design purposes as:
(10)

In order to calculate the value of the exponent three different categories will be considered:
Design method: the value of the exponents will come from design considerations of each element.
Historical data method: the value of the exponents will be calculated from previous data of other
rocket engines by means of appropriate mathematical fits.
User defined values: to generalize the method, a user defined option is allowed.
These coefficients introduce different approaches for the same mass model. Thus, the method can be chosen for
the proper application to improve the results of the model. In fact, the third method allows the user to introduce its
own considerations on the influence of the engine parameters, usually, if a good engine database is available.
Finally, three different engine cycles types will be considered to choose a different reference engine and element
coefficients . The three cycles considered are:
1) Gas generator cycle (GG).
2) Staged-combustion cycle (SC).
3) Expander cycle (EX).
It is necessary take into account different types of cycle because each of them presents different elements.
Certainly the gas generator and staged combustion cycles have a similar element count but the differences in the
design scenarios make it advisable to distinguish them.

III. Element mass models

The different element mass models will be described in this chapter. Two different approaches have been
considered in the calculation of the exponents , design approach and historical data approach. In the design
method, a set of design equations are used, and the corresponding exponents are inferred directly from them. In the
historical data method, the exponents are deduced using data from previous engines or correlations found in the
literature.

A. Nozzle
Only one design method has been considered for the nozzle due to the lack of data available about the previous
engines nozzles mass. Regenerative nozzles are divided in three parts4: tubes (R), manifold (mani) and jacket (M).
The total mass of the nozzle is
(11)
Each part has its own coefficients. If the engine has a radiative nozzle, only the jacket must be considered.
However, the coefficient applied will be different to the regenerative nozzle.

1. Design method
In order to calculate the nozzle mass, its geometry must be defined throat radius ⁄ or:
∗⁄ (12)
With the expansion ratio and the throat radius, the exit radius can be calculated:
√ (13)
For conical nozzles, the nozzle length is determined by the nozzle angle ( ). Typical nozzle angles vary from
12° to 18°. The nozzle length of a conical nozzle can be calculated as follows13:
(14)
tan
With the nozzle length, the surface of a conical nozzle can be determined.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 (15)
With this geometric relation, the mass of each element can be estimated.

Tubes
In order to determine the tube mass, Eq. (16) must be applied.
(16)
To determine the thickness of the tubes, gas generator pressure ( ), tubes diameter ( ) and material data is
required to reach the allowable stress:

(17)
2
Due to technology limitations, a minimum thickness must be considered (0.25 mm in this case). In order to have
a reference for tube diameter, SSME has a tube diameter of 6.5 mm. If the engine is an expander cycle, the pressure
that must be considered is the pressure after the pump; this applies also in the calculation of the manifold wall
thickness.
From tubes mass equations, the resultant relation for it mass is:

~ √ (18)

Moreover, assuming ~ , equal and ~ √ (same divergent angle) and dimensionless tube
mass can be written as follows:

(19)

Manifold
The manifold mass can be determined with the next equation.
(20)
To determine the manifold length ( ) and diameter ( ) the following equations must be used. The
typical velocity in a manifold is usually ~17 m/s.
2 (21)

4 (22)

Finally, to calculate the manifold thickness the following equilibrium equation must be applied.

(23)
2
The manifold proportionalities are:

~ (24)

Assuming ~ , equal and equal to the reference engine, the dimensionless manifold mass is.

(25)

Jacket
The Eq. (26) allows determining the jacket mass.
(26)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 And for wall thickness:
(27)
As it can be appreciated, jacket wall thickness depends on the chamber pressure and not on gas generator
pressure as in tubes or manifold (a minimum wall thickness of 0.1 mm has been considered).Finally, for the jacket,
the following equation applies.
√
~ √ (28)

Assuming ~ √ , and ~ , the dimensionless jacket mass is:

.
(29)

B. Combustion chamber
The combustion chamber design description is based on its geometry. Regarding the historical data method, an
own historical regression analysis has been developed.

1. Design method
In order to determine the combustion chamber mass, geometrical data must be defined and to calculate the
combustion chamber section area, following design equation can be used13:
0.6
8.0 1.25 (30)

Using the throat radius:

.
12.126 1.25 . (31)
In order to estimate the combustion chamber length, the characteristic length may be considered14:
∗ ∗
(32)

Finally, the combustion chamber angle ( ) must be defined to determine the combustion chamber geometry.
With the geometry data, the combustion chamber mass can be calculated using following equation:

2 (33)
tan
Besides, to estimate the wall thickness (a minimum wall thickness of 0.1 mm is considered), chamber pressure
and material properties are used:
(34)
The combustion chamber mass can be described as follows.

~ (35)
tan
If both sections of the geometry are proportional and combustion chambers have a similar , Eq. (35) can be
simplified.

~ (36)

and including the reference engine:

(37)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 In order to avoid using specific data of the combustion chamber, the characteristic velocity can be introduced as
follows.
∗

∗ (38)

Remember that characteristic length ( ∗ ) only depends on the propellant combination. Finally, considering that
the reference engine has the same propellant combination, the following design expression is deduced:

(39)

2. Historical data method

In order to carry out a regression analysis for combustion chamber mass, it must be written as function of engine
parameters. The chosen parameter is the throat radius since it represents the size of the element. However, the
chamber pressure must be taken into account due to the direct impact on wall thickness with the exponent of the
design method. Table 1 shows the combustion chamber mass of several engines:

Table 1. Combustion chamber mass data2.

Combustion Chamber pressure
Engine Throat radius (m)
chamber mass (kg) (MPa)
LE 7 0.1206 145.5 12.7
HM7B 0.0540 69.00 3.60
LE-5 0.0680 40.80 3.65
S-4(MA-3) 0.1176 166.0 4.60
H-1 0.2051 331.0 4.10
J-2 0.1867 446.8 5.40
RS-27 0.2043 415.0 4.80
Therefore, the dimensionless equation for a combustion chamber deduced from a potential analysis based on
historical data is:
.
(40)

C. Gas generator
The gas generator design method is based on the combustion chamber one. No regression analysis could be
developed due to the different configuration in each engine.

1. Design method
Same equations as for combustion chamber are used. However, different throat radius ( ) and pressure must be
taken into account. In this case, the throat radius corresponds with the manifold radius that can be estimated as
following equation.
c∗
(41)

As it can be appreciated, instead of chamber pressure, the gas generator pressure and temperature should be
used. To calculate the gas generator mass flow, a gas generator mass flow ratio ( ) can be defined.
(42)
Usually, the gas generator mass flow ratio can take two values, 1 ⁄ for staged-combustion cycles
and 0.02, for gas generator cycles (expander cycles engines does not have any gas generator).
Finally, the following equation applies:

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 (43)

Respecting the mass flow ratio, the kind of cycle (element coefficient) is considered. For all staged-combustion
engines is similar (all the fuel goes through the gas generator) and for gas generator engines the mass flow ratio is
very small.

D. Turbopump
It is difficult to evaluate the mass of the turbopumps because they are complex system defined by a large number
of parameter. For this reason, the design method includes empirical data.

1. Design method
The turbopump mass is described:
(44)
Typical values for and coefficients are 13
~1.5 and ~0.6. In order to determine the turbopump torque and
power next equations must be applied.
⁄ (45)
∆
(46)

To determine the rotational speed of the turbopump, which will determine the general size of the element, the
propellant vapor pressure must be considered as follows:
.
. ∆
min , (47)

where, u is the suction specific speed (appropriate values are, 130 for LH2, 90 for cryogenic liquids or 70 for
others), N is the stage specific speed (2.0 for LH2, 3.0 for all others) and Z is the number of pump stages.
The correlation can be indistinctly applied to fuel and oxidizer turbopumps. In addition, vapor pressure is not
considered in rotational speed. The turbopump design mass is described as follows.
. . . .
∆ ∆ ∆
~ ~ ~ ⁄ (48)

where the definition of specific speed is
⁄
∆
⁄ (49)

Simplifying Eq. (48):

. . . .
∆
~ .
(50)

Considering the manufacturing material.

. . .
∆
~ . . .
(51)

and assuming ∆ ~ :
. . .
~ . . .
(52)

Some variables depend on the pump. These variables are the number of pump stages ( ) and the turbopump
efficiency ( ) and are not considered, because they are similar for turbopumps of the same engine cycle. Besides,
and depends on the turbopump propellant. Finally, relative mass based on design consideration is:

10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 . . .
.
(53)

where, equal efficiency has been adopted with the reference engine.

2. Historical data method

A regression analysis is formulated to calculate turbopump mass based on historical data15. The mass is
expressed as function of the turbopump power as follows.
.
48 10 ; 20 10 W
. (54)
95 10 ; 20 10 W
In order to estimate the turbopump power, the next expression can be used.
∆
(55)

Assuming most of the turbo are in the region of low powers the dimensionless turbopump mass based on
historical data mass is:
. . .
(56)

E. Valves
An own parametric model for valves has been formulated and an existing regression analysis has been used for
the historical data method.

1. Design method
The mass valve is estimated by a parametric model. First, its mass is proportional to a typical length cubed.
Besides, the mass flow, the propellant density and the propellant velocity can be introduced in the formulation.

~ ~ (57)

On the other hand, the wall thickness can be introduced. This wall thickness depends on the chamber pressure
for main valves and on the material as in the previous elements.

~ (58)

Based on Eq. (58), the relative mass based on design depends on the following parameters:

(59)

It is assumed that the propellant velocity in every valve is similar.

2. Historical data method

A regression analysis is used4.
0.625
3
200 10 1 (60)
1.5 107
This mass includes tubes, lines and other plumbing equipment for oxidizer or fuel valve. If the velocity of the
propellant through the valve is considered similar for every engine, the dimensionless valve mass results in:
. 0.625 0.625
1
(61)
0 0 0
0 0 0
with a relative error less than 10% in the range of chamber pressures of interest.
11

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 F. Structure
No design considerations have been found respecting the structure mass, therefore, an historical data analysis
will be developed.
1. Historical data method
Because the structure approximately carries 10% of the total mass13, the total mass must be estimated first. To
estimate the engine mass the following regression analysis is considered2.
0.00514 10 . (62)
Therefore:
.
~ ~ (63)
Finally, Eq. (64) involves both structure masses.
. 1 .
(64)

G. Auxiliary
This mass corresponds with harnesses, electric system and electronic components. Due to the high variability of
this component, only the historical data approach has been applied.
1. Historical data method
This mass is proportional to the engine size; therefore, throat radius has been chosen because this parameter has
a direct relation with the engine size. For this reason, the equation for the auxiliary is:
1
(65)

IV. Exponents of the engine elements

As a result, the exponents have the following values for the design method and those for the historical data
method are shown in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.

Table 2: Design exponents file.

Element
Tubes 1 1 -1 1 1 2 0 0
Manifold 1 1 -1 1 0 1 1 -1
Jacket 1 1 -1 1 1.5 3 0 0
Combustion chamber 1 1 -1 1 0 2 0 0
Gas generator 1 1 -1 1 0 2 0 0
Turbo-pump 0.15 1 -1 1 0 0 0.9 -0.45
Valve 1 1 -1 1 0 0 1 -1

Table 3: Historical data exponents file.

Element
Combustion chamber 1 1 -1 1 0 1.4 0 0
Turbo-pump 0.53 1 -1 1 0 0 0.53 -0.53
Valve 0.3 1 -1 1 0 0 0.625 -0.625
Structure 0.92 1 -1 1 0 1.84 0 0
Auxiliary 0 1 -1 1 0 1 0 0

12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 V. Coefficients of the engine elements
As it was seen in Eq. (9) the element coefficients, , can be calculated from mass distribution data about
existing engines. The precision of the model will be very sensible to the reference engine selected. In order to obtain
accurate result a fictitious engine may be defined but in this work no attempt has been done to obtain very accurate

Table 4: Data available from engines.

Cycle Engine   / /   Ox Fuel
SSME 2.05 107 2278 77.5 0.138 512.61 6 LOx LH2
SC
LE-7 1.27 107 1078 52 0.121 246.38 5.9 LOx LH2
LE-5 3.65 106 103 140 0.068 23.33 5.5 LOx LH2
Vulcain 1.00 107 1140 45 0.12 269.62 6.2 LOx LH2
HM7B 3.60 106 70 82.9 0.054 15.96 4.565 LOx LH2
GG S-4(MA-3) 4.60 106 364 25 0.118 120.2 2.27 LOx RP-1
H-1 4.12 106 947 8 0.205 334 2.26 LOx RP-1
J-2 5.40 106 1023 27.5 0.186 246 5.5 LOx LH2
RS-27 4.87 106 1054 12 0.204 353.5 2.245 LOx RP-1
RL10A 3.20 103 73.4 61.1 0.076 16.85 5.8 LOx LH2
EX
Vinci 6.10 103 180 240 0.07 39.45 5 LOx LH2

result. The coefficients are the result of an average between the coefficients obtained from every known engine. The
selected engines used to calculate the coefficients are shown in Table 1.
The results are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. The coefficients have been calculated for the design method
and for the historical data method, but both with the available data.

Table 5: Design coefficients file.

Ox Fuel
Radiative Combustion Gas Ox Fuel
Cycle Tubes Manifold Jacket Turbo- Turbo-
nozzle chamber generator valve valve
pump pump
SC 0.0640 0.1717 0.0470 0.1566 0.1137 0.0551 0.1089 0.1407 0.0698 0.0690
GG 0.0987 0.0146 0.0589 0.1969 0.1934 0.0438 0.1254 0.1354 0.0352 0.0352
EX 0.0629 0.2301 0.0210 0 0.2007 0.0000 0.1411 0.1411 0.0202 0.0185

Table 6: Historical data coefficients file.

Combustion Fuel Ox Fuel
Cycle Ox Turbo-pump Structure Auxiliary
chamber Turbo-pump valve valve
SC 0.0670 0.1044 0.1346 0.0513 0.0510 0.1220 0.0380
GG 0.3545 0.1445 0.1793 0.0579 0.0579 0.0871 0.1722
EX 0.2318 0.1411 0.1411 0.0520 0.0472 0.0766 0.0879

13

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 VI. Reference engines
Representative engines have been chosen as the reference engines.
 Stage-combustion cycle: RS-25 (SSME)
 Gas generator cycle: LE-5
 Expander cycle: RL10A-3-A
The RS-25 were the only high-pressure staged-combustion cycle reusable rocket engine ever flown. Three of
these engines were mounted in the base of the American space shuttle. It made it first flight in 1981 and after
NASA's decision to retire the Shuttle fleet in 2010, there was an attempt to keep the SSME in production as the
second stage engine of the Ares I launch vehicle and the booster stage engine of the Ares V. Finally, economic
issues rejected this project.
The LE-5 is a gas generator engine which was the first Japanese liquid oxidant/hydrogen engine. It was
developed for upper stages of launchers H-I and H-II. The engine is capable of numerous restarts and is considered
expendable. It made its first flight in 1986 and later versions of this engine have been developed since then.
The RL10 rocket engine is an expander cryogenic engine used on the upper staged of the Atlas, Saturn I and
Delta launchers. It was developed by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and it made its first flight in 1962. It is currently
in production.
Regarding safety factors, LE-5 and RL10A are engines for non-crewed missions; therefore, its safety factor is
1.1. However, SSME was design for a crewed mission; its safety factor will be considered as 1.2.
The engines data are shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Reference engine data.

Total
Cycle Name   / / Ox Fuel FS
mass (kg)
SC SSME 2.04 107 2.28 106 77.5 0.138 512.6 6 LOx LH2 1.2 3177
GG LE-5 3.65 106 1.03 105 140 0.068 23.33 5.5 LOx LH2 1.1 255
RL10
EX 3.20 106 7.34 104 61.1 0.076 16.85 5 LOx LH2 1.1 138
A-3-A

The reference materials considered for each component are shown in the following tables. They depend on the
material of the corresponding reference engine and they permit estimating the effects of using new constructive
materials for some element.

Table 8: Reference engine elements material file.

Combustion
Cycle Nozzle Gas generator Turbo-pumps Valves
chamber
SC Inconel 718 Inconel 718 Inconel 718 D6AC_steel D6AC_steel
GG Inconel 718 Inconel 718 Inconel 718 Al_7075_T6 Al_7075_T6
EX Inconel 718 Inconel 718 - D6AC_steel D6AC_steel

VII. Mission data

The propellant mass cannot be estimated using the model described in this paper due to the great variety of
possible missions. The mission data will be used to estimate the propellant mass needed. It may include one of the
next set of parameters:
1) Velocity increment: , payload mass: and inert mass fraction:
1) Total impulse:
2) Burning time:
In order to estimate the propellant mass, information about the mission and the propellants must be available.
From the rocket equation:
14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 ∆ ln ln 1 (66)

∆ ⁄
1 (67)
(68)
The inert mass fraction ( ) is introduced in the formulae:

(69)

Finally:
∆ ⁄
1 1
∆ ⁄
(70)
1
The inert mass fraction typically ranges from 0.08 to 0.716,17. More specifically, the possible values are, 0.05 to
0.11 for launch vehicles, 0.675 for RCS (reaction control systems) and 0.17 for other space vehicles.
Other methods to calculate the propellant mass are from the total impulse ( ) of the mission or the burning time
( ) which is the time that the engine will be working.

(71)

(72)
Once the propellant mass is determined, to determine the oxidizer and the fuel mass, the mixture ratio must be
used:
⁄ 1 / (73)
/ ⁄ 1 / (74)

VIII. Tanks
Since the tanks mass is highly dependent on the propellant mass, it cannot be estimated with the parametric mass
model either. A conventional design method is used to calculate the mass of this element. The mass of the tanks is
estimated through the wall thickness and the tank volume which is calculated by standard13 techniques as follow:
(75)
where, is the usable volume occupied by the propellant, is the ullage volume, the volume of the tank left
unfilled to allow the expansion of the propellant or contraction of the tank (usually is 1 – 3% of the tank volume),
is the boil-off volume is the volume of the tank left unfilled to allow that cryogenic propellants boil off during
filling or draining and is the volume of the unusable propellant.
Propellant tanks can have different shapes: spherical, cylindrical, or cylindrical with common bulkhead. The
mass of the tank will depend on the shape.
The tank pressure is the maximum expected operating pressure inside the tank. It must be defined to calculate the
tank mass. An estimation of tank pressure from historical data for pumped systems18 is:
0.1068 0.2588
10 106 (76)
Finally, the mass of all types of tanks is calculated as:
(77)
The mass calculated by following methods is 2.0 – 2.5 times lighter than the real mass. The reason is that
structural lugs, fittings, stress concentrations and loads are not considered in this model. For this reason, a correction
coefficient ( ) must be applied.
(78)

15

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Typical values for this coefficient range from 2.0 to 2.5.
For spherical parts of the tanks, Eq. (79) and Eq. (80) shows the geometric relationships:

3 3
(79)
4
2
4 (80)
Once, the tank radius has been determined, the tank thickness can be calculated.

(81)
2
For the cylindrical section, Eq. (82) and Eq. (83) are applied for its geometry.
4
(82)
3
2 (83)
With the length of the cylindrical part, the cylindrical tank thickness can be calculated using Eq. (84):

(84)

IX. Software development and validation

A standalone computer application, whose name
is RemA (Rocket Engine Mass Analysis), has been
developed in order to ease the application of the mass
model. The program maintains the model coefficients
separately and stored in data files which can be easily
modified, therefore, the performance of the model
can be adapted and tuned for specific applications.
Inside the program, the mass model methodology can
be selected in the user interface. It will allow defining
an engine with the desired elements and the program
will be able to estimate de engine mass breakdown
following the developed mass model. Figure 1 shows
the aspect of the main program window, which shows
general parameters about the engine and a summary
of the results obtained which can also be exported
into a text file. The programming has been developed
under C++ language, following the object-oriented
programming. This kind of programming ease the
process of generating a library using the classes
created for the program. The last version of the Figure 1. RemA main window. The program main
program has been compiled for Windows OS. window shows the engine data and the results obtained
Finally, two useful straightforward tools have after the mass analysis.
been added to the software: an optimization tool and
a cost estimation model.

A. Optimization tool
The engine mass model developed can be used to choose the value of certain engine parameters with the aim of
minimizing weight in an early design step. For this reason, the program provides a tool to carry out a preliminary
optimization analysis.

16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 The tool included in the program allows
modifying general engine parameters from the
values specified by the user. These parameters
include:
1) Chamber pressure:
2) Thrust:
3) Area ratio: ε
4) Mixture ratio: ⁄
5) Mass flow: or Specific impulse
As a result, the program estimates the engine
mass, including the mass of all the components, for
all the design points specified in advanced. With
this data, the optimum point, which minimizes the
engine mass, can be deduced. As the mass of each
element is estimated in every iteration, the results of
the optimization can be used to determine which
elements have a major influence in the engine mass
in order to focus the design efforts on them. This Figure 2. NK-33 RemA optimization plot. An example
method allows carrying out mono-parametric of the optimisation application results.
optimizations, since only one parameter is varied
each time. In order to take into account cycle relationships, the analysis tool CEA program19,20 has been used. An
example of the results of an optimization analysis applied to NK-33 engine is shown in Figure 2. The program also
generates a text file to work with the obtained mass data.

B. Cost model
Dietrich E. Koelle21 exposed a cost model for launch vehicles based on the vehicle mass. In his model, the
different parts of space launchers are considered to estimate the cost. As the engine was studied in the report, the
engine part of the cost model will be taken to develop an engine cost model based on the engine mass.
The measurement of the costs is expressed in Man-Years (MY). The reasons are that this unit does not depend
on hour rates and currency exchange rates. The MY value is an industrial average of total cost divided by productive
hours per man and year. The engine costs are divided in three major categories: a development cost, a fabrication
cost and a flight operation cost.
1. Development costs
The scope of the development cost model includes the main vehicle elements, system engineering, integration
and testing. It is considered that the engineering and testing increment the cost by 10%, therefore, the development
cost (CD) is:
1.1 (85)
where, is the effort for rocket engines. To estimate for pumped engines, available data about SSME, RL-10
and F-1 engines have been used. With this data, the resulting cost estimation is:
.
162 (86)
where, is expressed in MY as it was said before. The costs depend on the engine mass (tanks or propellants are
not considered). For this reason, this cost estimation is very suitable for RemA program. , and are factors that
represent the major impacts of the cost.
The correction factor for the overall technical development status is 1.25 for first generation system,
~0.8 1.0 for technology already proven by similar systems elsewhere and ~0.4 0.8 for same system as
already build (modifications in size, for example). The second factor is 0.25 1.1096 . for simple
.
systems, 0.27 1.075 for standard system and 0.33 1.0769 . for complex systems, where
is the desired reliability; its value usually ranges from 0.9 to 0.999. Finally, the third factor is 1.1 1.3 for
industries without experience, 0.9 1.1 for some related experience and 0.6 0.9 for previous relevant
experience.

17

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 2. Fabrication costs
The total industrial fabrication, assembly and test cost of a rocket engine ( ) take into account the management,
integration and checkout through 1.02 , where is the engine fabrication cost expressed in MY. For liquid
propellant engines, the following engine cost relationships have been found
.
(87)
where 2.5 for relatively simple, single-use engines with storable propellants, 4.0 for standard-type
single-use cryogenic engines and 5.0 for complex reusable cryogenic engines. The learning factor
0.0553 ln 1.0011
3. Flight operation costs
With the data provided from the mass model, the flight operation costs, which can be estimated, are the
propellant cost, if the propellant is LOX and LH2, and the refurbishment cost, if the engine is reusable.
The propellant cost model has been defined only for LOX and LH2 propellants. A mixture ratio of 6 is assumed
which can introduce additional uncertainty. Finally, the propellant cost per launch is:
.
0.016 (88)
where is the boil-off rate which corresponds with the LH2 boil-off losses. It ranges from 15% to 35%
depending on the mission. In addition, is the number of launches per year.
The engine refurbishment cost is divided into inspection, control and refurbishment of each engine and the cost
of the parts to be replaced, which will increase with the number of flights. The equation to estimate the
refurbishment cost is:
5 ∙ 10 (89)
where is the rocket engine refurbishment effort and usually takes a value of 0.2 MY. The is the number of
flights per engine. Finally, is the fabrication engine cost previously estimated.
This model has been included in the software. The user must specify some of the factors exposed below.

X. Results
The mass model has been applied to several
existing engines with the aim to assess the
performance of the model. Two analyses have been
applied for every engine, one with the design
method and another with the historical data method.
Therefore, the differences between both methods
can be evaluated.
As it can be appreciated in Figure 3 the model
currently fits quite well for engines around 1000 kg
such as RD-120, Vulcain 2 or Viking 5C engines.
The error achieved up to now is less than 20%. In
general terms, the historical data method estimates a
minor mass than the real method and the design
method gives higher masses than the real mass. The
better results provided by the design method infers
the importance of taking into account the design
considerations for each element, in contrast to
basing the whole model on historical data.
Figure 3. Engine mass results. A comparison between
the results obtained and the real mass of the engine.

18

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 XI. Conclusions
A new formulation for the evaluation of the mass of liquid pumped rocket engines has been developed. The
formulation presented estimates the total mass of the engine by considering the mass of each element globally, and
uses individual mass correlations of each subsystem in a universal form through dimensionless formulation. The
mass of all elements is estimated as a function of the main propulsive parameters of the engine made dimensionless
with the data of a reference engine. Each engine main parameter is used raised to an exponent whose value may be
calculated from a design procedure or taken from historical data. This methodology shows the influence of each
parameter on the mass of each element. Besides, the weighting coefficients used between them reflect the possible
particularities of each engine. Therefore, the new formulation is completely defined with a reduced set of reference
values, coefficients and exponents. Consequently, the model is simple, compact and easy to adapt to other situations.
The proposed formulation is very general and flexible. The use of dimensionless coefficients and reference
values allow their adaptation to any environment. In particular, if there is a good database of engines the results may
be excellent. From a purely conceptual point of view, the model reveals the influence of the main parameters and
their importance. It can be used to inspect general trends, for educational or training purposes.
Throughout the work, a complete analysis of the mass of each element has been made. To do this, general design
rules have been applied and the open literature has been searched for historical data correlations. With all the data
obtained a standalone computer application, RemA (Rocket Engine Mass Analysis), has been written. It allows the
estimation of the mass of an engine according to its cycle type and global propulsive parameters.
Precision tests performed with existing engine data provide precision within 20%. No attempt has been made to
improve these approaches so that these results can be improved by using better reference data. The quality of the
historical data collected to develop the model has a great influence on the model results. Additional systems such as
the propellant mass or the storage tanks mass have been estimated using standard techniques.
Two straightforward applications have been added to the software RemA. The first tool is the optimization of the
system from the point of view of its mass. It is possible to set a variation of the engine parameters in the way the
user wants and obtain the mass of the engine in each point. This enables looking for the optimum point of minimum
mass or the selection of suitable design points due to other considerations.
Finally, the program evaluates the engine costs as a function of the estimated mass. This is an easy but very
useful task. In fact, almost all systems of evaluation of costs in engineering are based on the mass of the systems and
once this data is accessible it is easy to calculate it.
At present, RemA is a finished application but is expected to be modified in several ways. On the one hand, a
new interface, based on a data structure in the form of a tree, will make it a more powerful and versatile. The mass
models used are in constant revision by the authors and it is planned to incorporate the mass estimation of solid
propellant motors. In fact, evaluating the mass of a solid rocket engine is a simpler task than the one addressed in
this work but less challenging. Finally, a portable library is under development which may be used by almost any
computer program, incorporating the calculation of the mass of any engine in a faster and simpler way.

References
1
Zandbergen, B. T. C., “Simple mass and size estimation relationships of pump fed rocket engines for launch vehicle
conceptual design”, 6th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences (EUCASS), Poland, 2015.
2
Zandbergen, B. T. C., “Thermal Rocket Propulsion,” Delft University of Technology, 2010.
3
Ernst, R.L.L., “Liquid Rocket Analysis (LiRA) Development of a Liquid Bi-Propellant Rocket Engine Design, Analysis and
Optimization Tool”, Master Thesis, Delft University of Technology, 2014.
4
Manski, D., Martin, J.A., “Optimization of the Propulsion Cycles for Advanced Shuttles. Part 1: Propulsion Mass Model
Methodology”, AIAA-89-2279, 25th AIAA / ASME / SAE / ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Monterey, USA, 1989.
5
Manski, D., Martin, J.A., “Optimization of the Propulsion Cycles for Advanced Shuttles. Part 2: Performance Model
Methodology”, AIAA-90-2436, 26th AIAA / ASME / SAE / ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Monterey, USA, 1990.
6
Amer, J., Moral, J. y Salvá, J. J., “Adaptation of the ESPSS/EcosimPro platform for the design and analysis of liquid
propellant rocket engines”, Space Propulsion Conference. Bordeaux (France), 2012.
7
Ponomarenko, A., “RPA: Tool for Rocket Propulsion Analysis” Space Propulsion Conference, Germany, 2014.
8
Marques, G., “A Tool for Preliminary Design of Rockets”, Master Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisba, 2014.
9
Bradford, J., “SCORES-II Design Tool for Liquid Rocket Engine Analysis”, AIAA Paper 2002-3990,
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Atlanta, 2002.
10
Reuben R.R., “Development of a Mass Estimating Relationship Database for Launch Vehicle Conceptual Design”, Georgia
Institute of Technology, 2002.
11
Shelton, J. D., “Launch Vehicle Propulsion Parameter Design Multiple Selection Criteria”, PhD Dissertation, Department
of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Alabama in Huntsville, 2004.
19

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Cai, G., Fang, J., Zheng, Y., Tong, X. Chen, j. and Wang, j., “Optimization of System Parameters for Liquid Rocket
12

Engines with Gas‐Generator Cycles”, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2010.
13
Humble, R.W., Gary, H.N., Larson, W.J., Space propulsion analysis and design, McGrawn Hill, NY, 1995.
14
Huzel, D.K., Huang, D.H., “Modern Engineering for Design of Liquid-Propellant Rocket Engines,” AIAA, 1992.
15
Sobin, A. J. and Bissell, W. R., Turbopump Systems for Liquid Rocket Engines, NASA SP-8107, Rocketdyne Division,
Rockwell International Corp., August 1974.
16
Isakowitz, S., Hopkins, J. and Hopkins, J. Jr., “International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems”, AIAA, 2004.
17
Larson, W. J. and Wertz, J. R., (eds), Space Mission Analysis and Design, Third edition, Microcosm Pres, CA and K1uwer
Academic PubUsbers, Boston, 1999.
18
NASA SP-8112, “Pressurization systems for liquid rockets”, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1974.
19
Gordon, S. and McBride, B. J., “Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and
Applications I. Analysis”, NASA RP 1311, Oct 1994.
20
McBride, B. J. and Gordon, S, “Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and
Applications II. User’s Manual and Program Description”, NASA RP 1311., June 1996.
21
Koelle, D. E., “The transcost-model for launch vehicle cost estimation and its application to future system analysis,” Acta
Astronautica, vol. 11, no. 12, 1984, pp. 803–817.

20

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats