DOCSLIB.ORG

National Space Transportation Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
National Space Transportation Policy National Space Transportation Policy Issues for the Future THOR HOGAN AND VIC VILLHARD WR-105-OSTP October 2003 PREFACE This report was undertaken to provide relevant background information and policy analysis to support revision of National Space Transportation Policy (NSTP). The report highlights: the features of past U.S. national space policies regarding assured access to space and analyzes the implications of several approaches to achieving assured access to space for critical U.S. national security, civil, and commercial missions; the evolution of existing U.S. future space launch initiatives, and; the status of current U.S. in- space transportation initiatives. The report includes recommended policy language to address assured access to space, future space launch, and in-space transportation in a revised NSTP. Originally created by Congress in 1991 as the Critical Technologies Institute and renamed in 1998, the Science and Technology Policy Institute is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the National Science Foundation and managed by RAND. This Institute’s mission is to help improve public policy by conducting objective, independent research and analysis on policy issues that involve science and technology. To this end, the Institute: • Supports the Office of Science and Technology Policy and other Executive Branch agencies, offices, and councils • Helps science and technology decisionmakers understand the likely consequences of their decisions and choose among alternative policies • Helps improve understanding in both the public and private sectors of the ways in which science and technology can better serve national objectives Science and Technology Policy Institute research focuses on problems of science and technology policy that involve multiple agencies. In carrying out its mission, the Institute consults broadly with representatives from private industry, institutions of higher learning, and other nonprofit institutions. Inquiries regarding the Science and Technology Policy Institute may be directed to the address below. Helga Rippen Director, Science and Technology Policy Institute RAND 1200 South Hayes Street Arlington, VA 22202-5050 Phone: (703) 413-1100 Web: www.rand.org/centers/stpi Email: [email protected] iii CONTENTS Preface........................................................................................................................................................... iii Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... vii Assured Access to Space................................................................................................................ vii Future Space Transportation ......................................................................................................... viii In-Space Transportation...................................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................xi Acronym List............................................................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 Study Purpose and Research Approach ............................................................................................3 Organization of the Report................................................................................................................4 CHAPTER TWO: ASSURED ACCESS TO SPACE.....................................................................................6 Development of the Assured Access Concept ..................................................................................6 Post-NSTP of 1994 Developments ...................................................................................................9 Policy Options and Implications .....................................................................................................12 Use of a “Mixed Fleet”..............................................................................................................12 Distribution of Payloads ............................................................................................................12 Balance Sustainment and Future Capabilities............................................................................14 Space Launch Capability and Technology Base Maintenance ..................................................15 Assured Access to ISS...............................................................................................................15 Foreign Vehicles as Backup to U.S. Systems............................................................................15 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................16 CHAPTER THREE: FUTURE SPACE LAUNCH ......................................................................................18 Past Launch Vehicle Initiatives.......................................................................................................18 Future Space Launch Initiatives......................................................................................................20 Space Launch Initiative .............................................................................................................21 National Aerospace Initiative ....................................................................................................25 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................27 CHAPTER FOUR: IN-SPACE TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................29 Historical Perspective......................................................................................................................30 Project Rover/NERVA ..............................................................................................................31 Project Orion .............................................................................................................................31 SDI and SEI...............................................................................................................................32 NASA Exploration Team................................................................................................................33 Advanced In-Space Propulsion .................................................................................................33 Project Prometheus ....................................................................................................................38 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................41 APPENDIX A: MACRO-LEVEL SPACE POLICY TRENDS ...................................................................43 Failed DoD-NASA Cooperative Efforts .........................................................................................43 Commercial Space Sector..........................................................................................................44 High Profile Failures .................................................................................................................45 Dependence on Space Systems..................................................................................................46 RLV Failure...............................................................................................................................47 Complex Commercial Launch Market.......................................................................................48 Summary of Recent Events........................................................................................................48 Elements of the Current Environment.............................................................................................49 DoD Acquisition Program Cost Growth....................................................................................49 v Commercial Launch Industry Financial Difficulties .................................................................50 DoD and RLV Technologies .....................................................................................................50 Shuttle Replacement ..................................................................................................................51 Space Launch Initiative .............................................................................................................52 Near-Term Plans and Projections....................................................................................................52 Global Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) Launch Market ....................................................52 DoD/NRO Modernization .........................................................................................................52 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................53 APPENDIX B: ADMINISTRATION THEMES..........................................................................................54
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NASA Lessons Learned on Reusable and Expendable Launch Vehicle Operations and Their Application Towards DARPA’S Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Program
    NASA Lessons Learned on Reusable and Expendable Launch Vehicle Operations and Their Application Towards DARPA’s Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Program C. H. Williams NASA GRC R. G. Johnson NASA KSC 15 Jan 15 Outline • Selected Historic Shuttle Operations Data • Shuttle Lessons Learned Recommendations for Lower Cost, Operationally Efficient Launch Vehicle Systems • Selected Expendable launch vehicle experiences • Past NASA Launch Vehicle Development Programs, Studies (1985 to present) • Discussion: Suggested applications of NASA Lessons Learned to already-baselined contractor XS-1 Phase I concepts Selected Historic Shuttle Operations Data 3 Original Shuttle Ops Concept vs. Actual Concept Phase (c. 1974) Operational Phase 4 Overall Results of Cost Analysis • “Direct” (Most Visible) Work Drives Massive (and Least Visible) Technical & Administrative Support Infrastructure STS Budget "Pyramid" (FY 1994 Access to Space Study) • Example: Direct Unplanned Repair Activity Drives Ops Support Infra, Logistics, Sustaining Engineering, Total SR&QA and Flight Certification Generic $M Total Operations Function FY94 (%) Elem. Receipt & Accept. 1.4 0.04% Landing/Recovery 19.6 0.58% Direct (Visible) Work “Tip of the Iceberg” Veh Assy & Integ 27.1 0.81% <10% Launch 56.8 1.69% Offline Payload/Crew 75.9 2.26% + Turnaround 107.3 3.19% Vehicle Depot Maint. 139.0 4.14% Indirect (Hidden) Traffic/Flight Control 199.4 5.93% ~20% Operations Support Infra 360.5 10.73% + Concept-Uniq Logistics 886.4 Support (Hidden) 26.38% ~70% Trans Sys Ops Plan'g & Mgmnt 1487.0 44.25%
    [Show full text]
  • Final EA for the Launch and Reentry of Spaceshiptwo Reusable Suborbital Rockets at the Mojave Air and Space Port
    Final Environmental Assessment for the Launch and Reentry of SpaceShipTwo Reusable Suborbital Rockets at the Mojave Air and Space Port May 2012 HQ-121575 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) SUMMARY: The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500 to 1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing experimental permits and/or launch licenses to operate SpaceShipTwo reusable suborbital rockets and WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft at the Mojave Air and Space Port in Mojave, California. After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and information on existing conditions and the potential impacts of the Proposed Action, the FAA has determined that issuing experimental permits and/or launch licenses to operate SpaceShipTwo and WhiteKnightTwo at the Mojave Air and Space Port would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the FAA is issuing this FONSI. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable environmental laws. The Final EA is incorporated by reference in this FONSI. FOR A COPY OF THE EA AND FONSI: Visit the following internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/review/permits/ or contact Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Program Lead, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email [email protected]; or phone (202) 267-5924.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Launch System (Sls) Motors
    Propulsion Products Catalog SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS) MOTORS For NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), Northrop Grumman manufactures the five-segment SLS heavy- lift boosters, the booster separation motors (BSM), and the Launch Abort System’s (LAS) launch abort motor and attitude control motor. The SLS five-segment booster is the largest solid rocket motor ever built for flight. The SLS booster shares some design heritage with flight-proven four-segment space shuttle reusable solid rocket motors (RSRM), but generates 20 percent greater average thrust and 24 percent greater total impulse. While space shuttle RSRM production has ended, sustained booster production for SLS helps provide cost savings and access to reliable material sources. Designed to push the spent RSRMs safely away from the space shuttle, Northrop Grumman BSMs were rigorously qualified for human space flight and successfully used on the last fifteen space shuttle missions. These same motors are a critical part of NASA’s SLS. Four BSMs are installed in the forward frustum of each five-segment booster and four are installed in the aft skirt, for a total of 16 BSMs per launch. The launch abort motor is an integral part of NASA’s LAS. The LAS is designed to safely pull the Orion crew module away from the SLS launch vehicle in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during ascent. Northrop Grumman is on contract to Lockheed Martin to build the abort motor and attitude control motor—Lockheed is the prime contractor for building the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle designed for use on NASA’s SLS.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa As an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy
    CHAPTER 11 Nasa as an Instrument of U.S. Foreign Policy John Krige as space exploration,and NASA’s role in it in particular,had an effect on society, Hand, if so, on what aspects of it? And how do we measure any such impact? These are challenging questions indeed. The stakeholders in the huge American space program are multiple and include scientists; engineers; research, development, and launch facilities; industry; administrators; and many government agencies, not to speak of Congress and the U.S. taxpayer.The impacts of spaceflight vary widely, from adding to the stockpile of knowledge and stimulating innovation and industry, to training, education, and creating jobs and—if we move beyond the civilian sphere— to enhancing national security and intelligence gathering. And then there are the intangible, difficult to quantify cultural effects that range from inspiring a young girl to become an astronaut to building national pride and prestige in what are, after all, spectacular scientific and technological, managerial, and industrial achievements. This paper briefly considers one small, but I think important and often overlooked, corner of this vast panorama: the place of spaceflight in American foreign policy. I do not simply want to insist that naSa’s international programs have had an important impact as instruments of foreign policy.I also want to suggest that today they have a particularly significant political and cultural role to play in projecting a positive image of American power and American democracy abroad. In a world increasingly torn apart by conflicts over values—conflicts which history teaches us can seldom be resolved by force—i believe we overlook the potential of NASA as an instrument for American foreign policy at our peril.
    [Show full text]
  • Sixty Years of Australia in Space
    Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 153, part 1, 2020, pp. 46–57. ISSN 0035-9173/20/010046-12 Sixty years of Australia in space Kerrie Dougherty Space Humanities Department, International Space University, Strasbourg, France Email: [email protected] Abstract Australia’s involvement in space activities commenced in 1957, at the beginning of the Space Age, with space tracking and sounding rocket launches at Woomera. By 1960, Australia was considered one of the leading space-active nations and in 1967 became one of the earliest countries to launch its own satellite. Yet by 1980, Australia’s space prominence had dwindled, with the country lacking both a national space agency and a coherent national space policy. Despite attempts in the latter part of the 1980s to develop an Australian space industry, the lack of a coherent and consistent national space policy and an effective co-ordinating body, left Australia constantly “punching below its weight” in global space activities until the Twenty First Century. This paper will briefly examine the often-contradictory history of Australian space activities from 1957 to the announcement of the Australian Space Agency in 2017, providing background and context for the later papers in this issue. Introduction Launchpad: the Woomera or 60,000 years the Indigenous people of Rocket Range FAustralia have looked to the sky, using “If the Woomera Range did not already exist, the stars to determine their location, find the proposal that Australia should engage in their way across the land and mark the a program of civil space research would be passage of the seasons and the best times unrealistic”.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions
    Post-Exit Atmospheric Flight Cruise Approach An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions February 13, 2016 National Aeronautics and Space Administration An Assessment of Aerocapture Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California and Applications to Future Missions Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology for Planetary Science Division Science Mission Directorate NASA Work Performed under the Planetary Science Program Support Task ©2016. All rights reserved. D-97058 February 13, 2016 Authors Thomas R. Spilker, Independent Consultant Mark Hofstadter Chester S. Borden, JPL/Caltech Jessie M. Kawata Mark Adler, JPL/Caltech Damon Landau Michelle M. Munk, LaRC Daniel T. Lyons Richard W. Powell, LaRC Kim R. Reh Robert D. Braun, GIT Randii R. Wessen Patricia M. Beauchamp, JPL/Caltech NASA Ames Research Center James A. Cutts, JPL/Caltech Parul Agrawal Paul F. Wercinski, ARC Helen H. Hwang and the A-Team Paul F. Wercinski NASA Langley Research Center F. McNeil Cheatwood A-Team Study Participants Jeffrey A. Herath Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Michelle M. Munk Mark Adler Richard W. Powell Nitin Arora Johnson Space Center Patricia M. Beauchamp Ronald R. Sostaric Chester S. Borden Independent Consultant James A. Cutts Thomas R. Spilker Gregory L. Davis Georgia Institute of Technology John O. Elliott Prof. Robert D. Braun – External Reviewer Jefferey L. Hall Engineering and Science Directorate JPL D-97058 Foreword Aerocapture has been proposed for several missions over the last couple of decades, and the technologies have matured over time. This study was initiated because the NASA Planetary Science Division (PSD) had not revisited Aerocapture technologies for about a decade and with the upcoming study to send a mission to Uranus/Neptune initiated by the PSD we needed to determine the status of the technologies and assess their readiness for such a mission.
    [Show full text]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Up, Up, and Away by James J
    www.astrosociety.org/uitc No. 34 - Spring 1996 © 1996, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 390 Ashton Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94112. Up, Up, and Away by James J. Secosky, Bloomfield Central School and George Musser, Astronomical Society of the Pacific Want to take a tour of space? Then just flip around the channels on cable TV. Weather Channel forecasts, CNN newscasts, ESPN sportscasts: They all depend on satellites in Earth orbit. Or call your friends on Mauritius, Madagascar, or Maui: A satellite will relay your voice. Worried about the ozone hole over Antarctica or mass graves in Bosnia? Orbital outposts are keeping watch. The challenge these days is finding something that doesn't involve satellites in one way or other. And satellites are just one perk of the Space Age. Farther afield, robotic space probes have examined all the planets except Pluto, leading to a revolution in the Earth sciences -- from studies of plate tectonics to models of global warming -- now that scientists can compare our world to its planetary siblings. Over 300 people from 26 countries have gone into space, including the 24 astronauts who went on or near the Moon. Who knows how many will go in the next hundred years? In short, space travel has become a part of our lives. But what goes on behind the scenes? It turns out that satellites and spaceships depend on some of the most basic concepts of physics. So space travel isn't just fun to think about; it is a firm grounding in many of the principles that govern our world and our universe.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Space Launch Vehicles
    Future Space Launch Vehicles S. Krishnan Professor of Aerospace Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennnai - 600 036, India (Written in 2001) Introduction Space technology plays a very substantial role in the economical growth and the national security needs of any country. Communications, remote sensing, weather forecasting, navigation, tracking and data relay, surveillance, reconnaissance, and early warning and missile defence are its dependent user-technologies. Undoubtedly, space technology has become the backbone of global information highway. In this technology, the two most important sub-technologies correspond to spacecraft and space launch vehicles. Spacecraft The term spacecraft is a general one. While the spacecraft that undertakes a deep space mission bears this general terminology, the one that orbits around a planet is also a spacecraft but called specifically a satellite more strictly an artificial satellite, moons around their planets being natural satellites. Cassini is an example for a spacecraft. This was developed under a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency. Cassini spacecraft, launched in 1997, is continuing its journey to Saturn (about 1274 million km away from Earth), where it is scheduled to begin in July 2004, a four- year exploration of Saturn, its rings, atmosphere, and moons (18 in number). Cassini executed two gravity-assist flybys (or swingbys) of Venus one in April 1998 and one in June 1999 then a flyby of Earth in August 1999, and a flyby of Jupiter (about 629 million km away) in December 2000, see Fig. 1. We may note here with interest that ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) is thinking of a flyby mission of a spacecraft around Moon (about 0.38 million km away) by using its launch vehicle PSLV.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility
    Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility Charles L. Kelly A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics & Astronautics University of Washington 2018 Committee: Uri Shumlak, Chair Justin Little Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Aeronautics & Astronautics c Copyright 2018 Charles L. Kelly University of Washington Abstract Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility Charles L. Kelly Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Uri Shumlak Aeronautics & Astronautics Magnetoshell Aerocapture (MAC) is a novel technology that proposes to use drag on a dipole plasma in planetary atmospheres as an orbit insertion technique. It aims to augment the benefits of traditional aerocapture by trapping particles over a much larger area than physical structures can reach. This enables aerocapture at higher altitudes, greatly reducing the heat load and dynamic pressure on spacecraft surfaces. The technology is in its early stages of development, and has yet to demonstrate feasibility in an orbit-representative envi- ronment. The lack of a proof-of-concept stems mainly from the unavailability of large-scale, high-velocity test facilities that can accurately simulate the aerocapture environment. In this thesis, several avenues are identified that can bring MAC closer to a successful demonstration of concept feasibility. A custom orbit code that dynamically couples magnetoshell physics with trajectory prop- agation is developed and benchmarked. The code is used to simulate MAC maneuvers for a 60 ton payload at Mars and a 1 ton payload at Neptune, both proposed NASA mis- sions that are not possible with modern flight-ready technology. In both simulations, MAC successfully completes the maneuver and is shown to produce low dynamic pressures and continuously-variable drag characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Studies Towards an Australian Indigenous Space Launch System
    TRADE STUDIES TOWARDS AN AUSTRALIAN INDIGENOUS SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Engineering by Gordon P. Briggs B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (Astron) School of Engineering and Information Technology, University College, University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy January 2010 Abstract During the project Apollo moon landings of the mid 1970s the United States of America was the pre-eminent space faring nation followed closely by only the USSR. Since that time many other nations have realised the potential of spaceflight not only for immediate financial gain in areas such as communications and earth observation but also in the strategic areas of scientific discovery, industrial development and national prestige. Australia on the other hand has resolutely refused to participate by instituting its own space program. Successive Australian governments have preferred to obtain any required space hardware or services by purchasing off-the-shelf from foreign suppliers. This policy or attitude is a matter of frustration to those sections of the Australian technical community who believe that the nation should be participating in space technology. In particular the provision of an indigenous launch vehicle that would guarantee the nation independent access to the space frontier. It would therefore appear that any launch vehicle development in Australia will be left to non- government organisations to at least define the requirements for such a vehicle and to initiate development of long-lead items for such a project. It is therefore the aim of this thesis to attempt to define some of the requirements for a nascent Australian indigenous launch vehicle system.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight NASA/SP-2014-617 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight On the cover: Background photo: The terminator—the line separating the sunlit side of Earth from the side in darkness—marks the changeover between day and night on the ground. By establishing government-industry partnerships, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program marked a change from the traditional way NASA had worked. Inset photos, right: The COTS program supported two U.S. companies in their efforts to design and build transportation systems to carry cargo to low-Earth orbit. (Top photo—Credit: SpaceX) SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket on May 22, 2012, from Cape Canaveral, Florida. (Second photo) Three days later, the company successfully completed the mission that sent its Dragon spacecraft to the Station. (Third photo—Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls) Orbital Sciences Corp. sent its Antares rocket on its test flight on April 21, 2013, from a new launchpad on Virginia’s eastern shore. Later that year, the second Antares lifted off with Orbital’s cargo capsule, (Fourth photo) the Cygnus, that berthed with the ISS on September 29, 2013. Both companies successfully proved the capability to deliver cargo to the International Space Station by U.S. commercial companies and began a new era of spaceflight. ISS photo, center left: Benefiting from the success of the partnerships is the International Space Station, pictured as seen by the last Space Shuttle crew that visited the orbiting laboratory (July 19, 2011). More photos of the ISS are featured on the first pages of each chapter.
    [Show full text]