The Space Congress® Proceedings 1988 (25th) Heritage - Dedication - Vision

Apr 1st, 8:00 AM

Conestoga Launch Vehicles

Mark H. Daniels Special Projects Manager, SSI

James E. Davidson Project Manager, SSI

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings

Scholarly Commons Citation Daniels, Mark H. and Davidson, James E., "Conestoga Launch Vehicles" (1988). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 7. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1988-25th/session-11/7

This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONESTOGA LAUNCH VEHICLES by Mark H. Daniels Special Projects Manager, SSI and James E. Davidson Project Manager, SSI

launch into space. As such, it represents an Abstract important precedent for all other space launch companies. Several major applications for commercial and government markets have developed recently which In order to conduct the launch, the company will make use of small satellites. A launch solicited and received approvals from 18 different vehicle designed specifically for small satellites Federal agencies. Among these were the Air Force, brings many attendant benefits. Space Services the State Department, the Navy, and the Commerce Incorporated has developed the Conestoga family of Department. Commerce required SSI to obtain an launch vehicles to meet the needs of five major export license, due to the extra-territoriality of markets: low orbiting communication satellites, the vehicle's splashdown point. positioning satellites, earth sensing satellites, space manufacturing prototypes, and scientific Since that time, the company has organized a team experiments. The Conestoga provides low cost, of subcontractors to develop the Conestoga family rapid schedules, one-stop shopping, flexible of vehicles and conduct upcoming launches. The launch sites, multiple satellite deployments, team includes Eagle Engineering, a Houston-based insurability, reliability, and modularity. engineering and design firm, and Morton Thiokol, a nationally recognized aerospace contractor. I. Background Recently, the company signed an agreement with Space Services Incorporated (SSI) was established NASA for the use of Wallops Flight Facility in in 1980. The founder, David Hannah, Jr., intended Virginia as a long term launch site. Also, SSI to develop a small launch vehicle to serve a has obtained financial backing from Houston developing sector of space commercialization, the Industries, the parent company of Houston Lighting small satellite market. At the time, Mr. Hannah and Power, and has agreed to provide five launches envisioned this market developing out of a trend to Starfind, Incorporated. toward miniaturized components, a need for lower cost space systems, and a mass-production concept II. Markets for small satellites which would allow for economies of scale. In any business, it is logical to analyze the market before designing a product. Therefore, After an initial difficulty with a liquid-fueled before discussing the launch vehicles which SSI rocket system, the company switched to a more has developed, let's look at the markets it is dependable, solid-fueled design. In September, intended to serve. 1982, the company successfully launched the Conestoga I. Subsequently, a series of Conestoga vehicles have been developed to service the 300 to Broadly, the market is divided into two segments. 4000 pound payload range for launch to low earth The commercial segment is concerned with orbit. profitable satellite operations, short-term development, and high return on investment. The government segment is concerned with budgetary The Conestoga I mission was a suborbital launch constraints, long-term development, high from Matagorda Island, Texas. The trajectory took reliability, and political advantage. Clearly, to the vehicle 192 nautical miles up and 350 nautical design a single vehicle to meet the needs of both miles down range. The vehicle was powered by a market segments is challenging. Minuteman M56 motor. Although the technology demonstration was important for the company, Within each of these segments, five major proving its ability to organize and conduct applications have been identified. These are low launches, it was not a significant technical orbiting networks of communications satellites, advance for aerospace engineering. For the launch positioning or navigation systems, earth sensing industry, however, it was unprecedented. It was systems, space manufacturing prototypes, and the first privately funded, privately operated scientific experimentation. Each of these

11-8 765"

LEO MISSION 1

Figure 1

11-9 from the use of smaller 3. A commercial approach is needed. A applications benefits commercial approach is characterized satellites. by reduced manpower and paperwork advantages. requirements, good quality control, Small satellites have several fixed price contracts, and turnkey commercial 1. They can be as capable as their larger launch services. The counterparts. Miniaturization of operator pays for the development components has allowed increasingly cost, rather than having the customer circuitry to occupy less (government) pay for it. Commercial sophisticated customers find such an approach volume and weight. attractive because it is familiar and can cost less, both dependable. Commercial clients of the 2. Smaller satellites government, for instance shuttle to develop and to launch. Small the components weigh less, are often users, often fail to evaluate and frequently risks associated with a supplier whose easier to mass produce, policies are not determined by the come "off-the-shelf." market. Government launch vehicle users find a commercial approach 3. Smaller satellites are easier to at present insure, simply because they cost less. politically advantageous companies due to the attitude of the current With less at risk, insurance Administration. Certain laws require can afford lower premiums. the use of commercial launch services 4. Smaller satellites offer increased where possible. survivability and decreased capacity risk. Individually, a small satellite 4. The launch system should have limited is less of a target. As a network risk factors. Use of flight-proven with many interconnected elements, a components and experienced contractors group of small satellites in different could provide a significantly less orbits can continue to provide risky vehicle. Such an approach capacity despite the loss of one or offers advantages in insurance, two elements. reliability, and cost. Advanced designs can be both more costly to 5. Smaller satellites are more easily develop and more costly to operate. replaced. With lower production and launch costs, it is easier to have III. Options spare satellites in inventory, ready to replace defective or destroyed Currently, small satellite operators are faced satellites. This replaceability with many options for launching their payloads. removes the burden of high cost, Unfortunately, most of these are unappealing. highly reliable components which make many long-lived spacecraft so A. Space Shuttle. expensive. In August, 1986, President Reagan signed an Together these benefits provide sufficient Executive Order requiring the removal of incentive to satellite operators to reconsider the commercial payloads from the shuttle. Even use of traditional, large, long-lived, expensive without this policy (which, after all, is subject systems. A growing trend toward small satellites to change without notice), the shuttle has has been seen, with certain government users inherent disadvantages for the small satellite leading the way. user. These include: The analysis of the market suggests the 1, Long lead time to launch. Even prior characteristics that a launch vehicle should to the Challenger tragedy, lead times possess. for payload operators could be lengthy. Integration time, especially 1. Its total purchase price should be for space available payloads which low. The price is particularly must be ready for integration on any important in view of the Government's of several flights, could be long. need to meet budgetary constraints, This waiting period is particularly and the commercial sector's need to unfortunate for experimenters with provide a high return on investment. biological or other perishable Dollars saved at launch return materials. directly to the "bottom line" of the satellite operator. Tight Manifest. With the down-time associated with the loss of 51L, an 2. It should have a broad range of increasing backlog has accumulated. capabilities. Modular components, Today, a new payload for the shuttle such as strap-on motors and a variety faces a wait of years, even assuming a of upper stages could provide such a full fleet flies as often as expected. range. Therefore, a single vehicle is not sufficient; a family of vehicles is needed.

11-10 765

LE

itlHA CTYP. 4PQ

Figure 2

11-11 Figure 3

11-12 current cost estimates for such systems are low, 3 Inflexibility. The shuttle has such cost estimates are historically lower than limited capabilities. It cannot reach the actual cost of procurement and operation. altitudes higher than a few hundred nautical miles, and it cannot reach IV. The Conestoga all inclinations. Small satellites with special orbital needs must expect Faced with a clear market need which was not being a shuttle launch to take them only satisfactorily met by any existing launch system, part of the way; the final orbital SSI developed the Conestoga family of launchers. insertion must be accomplished with an additional propulsion unit. A. The Team. 4 Man-rating. One cost associated with The Conestoga team is composed of SSI, Eagle a manned system is the valid Engineering and Norton Thiokol. SSI provides requirement that no payload pose a project management, in-house engineering, quality threat to the astronauts. control, marketing and financing. SSI's technical Demonstrating this harmlessness can be team is headed by Deke Slayton, who led the impose a significant cost on a low- Conestoga I team to a successful launch. Eagle cost satellite's budget. Engineering provides mission analysis, vehicle design, and additional engineering expertise as B. Titan, Delta, Atlas, Ariane, CZ-3. needed, much as they did on the Conestoga I flight. Morton Thiokol provides Star motors for These launch systems are expensive and poorly upper stages through its Elkton, Maryland suited to smaller spacecraft. The Titan III, division, and Castor motors for lower stages Delta, and Atlas were designed for much larger through its Huntsville, Alabama division. Also, payloads and have correspondingly high prices. Thiokol 's Wasatch, Utah, division, is developing The European Ariane and Chinese CZ-3 have unique the company's thrust vector control (TVC) system problems associated with all foreign launchers. for use on the Castor motors. National security issues virtually rule out their use for U.S. Government launches. Foreign B. The Components. launchers impose added costs to commercial users due to export licensing. As well, technology The main elements of the Conestoga family of transfer questions may limit their use. boosters are its motors. Other important elements Technology transfer questions seem to have are the payload fairing, interstages, TVC system, prevented the use of Soviet launch vehicles. guidance/navigation and control system, and aerodynamic elements such as nose cones and C. The Scout. skirts. Figure 1 shows a Conestoga IA with an orbital capability of over 500 pounds. The motor The Scout is an expensive launch system for the stack uses a Castor V as the first stage, a half- capability it provides. Those currently in length Castor V as the second stage, and a Star 37 inventory are probably not available for use FM as the third and final stage. outside the Navy, which has possession and intends to use them for its Transit program. The Castor V is a 50 inch diameter, solid fueled motor similar to those used as strap-ons for the As currently configured, the Scout has limited Delta rocket. The Castor has a thirty year capabilities, providing less than 500 pounds to development history. Over that period, over 1700 low earth orbits. The Scout also lacks a modern Castor motors have been fired with only two guidance system, giving it limited accuracy. failures. Each of the Castor V motors used in the Since the Algol III motor used by Scout is out of Conestoga will be equipped with a TVC actuator production, it is likely that the configuration system using flex-seal nozzles. This system will will change. Use of the available Castor motor provide for control of the vehicle during powered and other solid upper stages would yield a vehicle flight. The first stage motor uses a nozzle with surprisingly like the SSI Conestoga. an 8:1 expansion ratio, with a higher ratio for upper stages operating above most of the Even with a new configuration, the Scout suffers atmosphere. from lack of a commercial approach. The manufacturer is unlikely to make the Scout The Star 37 FM is one of a family of upper stage available on a commercial basis without a motors. Star motors are defined by their reasonable base of production guaranteed by a diameters, with the Star 37 having a 37 inch government procurement. Experience has shown that diameter. The range goes as low as the Star 17, procured systems tend to be high in cost and late with a 17 inch diameter. One potential upgrade in schedule. for the Conestoga design is to include TVC on the Star upper stages, providing greater accuracy for D. Refurbished Missile Boosters. final insertion. The government has retired several of its missile Figure 2 shows a Conestoga II/3-2. This vehicle systems, notably the Minuteman and Polaris. is similar to the Conestoga IA, with two Motors from these and other missiles may be additional Castor V motors as strap-ons. These available for certain government launches. motors increase the payload capacity of the However, the limited inventory that does exist vehicle to over 1000 pounds to a 150 nautical mile seems to have already been fully committed. Such orbit. boosters are probably not available for commercial systems. As well, they have very limited Figure 3 shows a Conestoga IV. This vehicle is capabilities. Due to their age, many are designed for the launch of geosynchronous unreliable, and a certain proportion of those that satellites. It adds four more strap-ons to the Pass inspection are likely to fail. Although Conestoga II design, with an additional upper stage. The first stage consists of these four

11-13 MULTIPLE SATELLITE DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM

r-^^xjv ocrruue (41 P.

Figure 4

11-14 Conestoga Vehicles Performance From Wallops, 38'Inclination

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Circular Orbit Altitude, nm

Conestoga IH H— Conestoga II ->K~ Conestoga IV

Figure 5

11-15 strap-ons which are dropped at an altitude of some Multiple satellite deployment. Figure 400,000 feet. The second stage is the two 4 shows SSI's multiple satellite remaining strap-on motors. The third stage is the deployment system, capable of remaining full Castor, with the fourth stage being deploying up to six Get Away Special a half-length Castor. These four stages can lift sized satellites at once. This system about 4000 pounds to 150 nautical miles. In a can bring down the per spacecraft geosynchronous mission, the Star 37FM acts as a launch cost to very low levels. perigee kick motor, and the Star 27 is used as an apogee kick motor. The payload deployed at Insurability. SSI's insurance broker, geosynchronous can weigh as much as 595 pounds. Corroon and Black has assured the company of the availability of C. Capabilities. insurance for Conestoga launches, for payloads deployed by Conestoga, and The Conestoga family of vehicles provides launch for third party liability coverage. capacity for payloads weighing 300 to 4000 pounds. Due to the expected reliability of the It is available for the full range of orbital system, insurance premiums are inclinations. Conestogas can deploy 2500 pounds expected to be low. In addition, the to a 450 nautical mile, sun synchronous orbit, 595 company offers reflight insurance for pounds to geosynchronous, and 4000 pounds to a 150 a fee. nautical mile, 38 degree inclination orbit.

Conestoga vehicles can be launched from a number 7. Reliability. Use of flight-proven of launch sites. Customers with particular components and established designs preferences can be accommodated at any existing helps increase the reliability of the site. In addition, the campaign style of system. New approaches are being operation used by SSI allows for the development considered for advanced Conestoga and use of new launch sites. designs, but the current designs The company has an agreement with NASA for the use benefit from using well-proven of the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. technology. Wallops has been used in the past as a site for launching Scouts and sounding rockets. The 8. Modular Design. Using strap-on motors company is awaiting the "Air Force Model ELV to increase lift capacity limits the Commercialization Agreement" before pursuing the design risk associated with the larger use of Vandenberg Air Force Base for polar vehicles. This approach has been used launches. Other existing sites under successfully in many other rocket consideration include White Sands Missile Range, programs, notably the Titan series and and the San Marco platform in Kenya. the Delta series. Undeveloped sites which have been considered by V. Conclusion SSI include Matagorda Island, the site of the Small satellites have unique needs which make the company's first two launch campaigns, Cat Island use of most available launch systems inappropriate in Mississippi, and South Point, Hawaii. Such at best. These difficulties can be surmounted sites offer some advantages of location, either through the use of a commercially available improved logistics or better launch vehicle, the Conestoga. Various Conestogas are characteristics. available to provide launch services to any orbit for a wide range of payloads. The use of such as D. Advantages. system can provide low cost access to space for many applications. The Conestoga family of vehicles provides many advantages to the small satellite operator. 1. Low cost. Conestogas range in price from $10 to $25 million. The total price of a Conestoga launch is lower for any given payload weight than other launch systems now available. 2. Accelerated schedule. With certain vehicle elements now available, the schedule from contract signing to launch can be as short as 15 months. Normal schedules for Conestoga are as short as 18 months. 3. Turnkey launch services. Conestoga launch services provide delivery to orbit. Procured vehicles systems generally provide vehicle hardware delivered to a warehouse. Turnkey launch services provide one-stop shopping, with more accurate pricing. 4. Campaign Approach. As mentioned, SSI's campaign approach allows the use of diverse launch sites.

11-16