DOCSLIB.ORG

LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Entitlement Spending Is Encroaching on the • External Budget Pressures Crowding out Defense Defense Budget

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Entitlement Spending Is Encroaching on the • External Budget Pressures Crowding out Defense Defense Budget LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Entitlement Spending Is Encroaching on the • External budget pressures crowding out defense Defense Budget Spending as a Percentage of GDP spending 1o;; .-----.-----.----~ r----;~~~~ • Years of underinvestment • Two protracted wars • Continuing economic slowdown • Spending on entitlement programs • Interest on debt 1965 1970 1975 1900 1985 1990 1995 200:J 2005 2010 Shifting Balance in the Defense Budget (est) Source: U.S. Office of Manageinent and B'4let. HiitDOOJITobles, Budget of die Uniti!d Stales Defense Resources, in Billions of 20 IO Dollars GM:!mmert. Rsw/)001 20 I I {W.tlli1gton, D.C: US. Goverrvnent Printing Office, 2010). Tilies 8.4, 85, and l 0.1, at hrrp://v.\1w.wNrd1ruse.ga../anb/budgetify2009/pdflhistpdf $14 7 ······" Operations and (Ma.rd12, 20IO). Maintenance • Internal pressures and shifting priorities crowding out $178········ Personnel modernization and procurement • Escalating costs of personnel compensation, $ / /5·· ···· ·· Procurement retirement benefits, and health programs • Shrinking economies of scale and build rates $50 ----l $5 4 ···· ···· Research, • Secretary of Defense forced to make major Development,Test. 2010 2028 and Evaluation changes to new and existing programs Sou rce: Congressional Budget Office,"Long-Term Implications ofthe Rscal Year 20 IO Defense Budget;· January 20 10, at htr.p:lhvww.cbo.god ftpdoes/lOB>txldocl Ofi52101 -25-FYDP.pdf(Ma.-ch 17.2010). LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera - Spring 2012 2 • The Defense Industry could be considered an oligopoly • Few large, competing firms respond to each other's actions • Produce a homogeneous product; Cost/Price discriminating variable • Defense systems large and complex • Many inputs to the Cost/Price variable • Space example: Cost Savings Opportunities • Launch Segment Price fixed by Launch Providers No practical re-use options Lowest price LV selected • Ground Segment Use existing Ground assets Re-use existing SW • Space Segment Lower cost by re-using qualified S/C components Re-use lowers NRE costs Costs can be lowered by re-using existing assets and reducing development costs by building additional components to qualified requirements. LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera- Spring 2012 3 • Objective: To develop a set of requirements applicable to components across multiple programs and missions; and through re-use minimize NRE costs. • Rationale: - At time of topic selection, author involved in similar employer­ funded I R&D effort. - Approach was to envelope different types of requirements (i.e. Performance, Environmental, Mission Assurance, etc) to meet multiple programs and missions. - Requirements development assigned to functional expertise RE's. - Programs committing to "multi-platform" components pay NRE development costs. - Future programs would benefit from reduction in NRE costs. - Follow-on to a previous, highly successful effort 15 years prior LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera - Spring 2012 4 • Set of re-usable requirements for use across multiple-missions and platforms • Spacecraft-level designers • Locate components on the SIC with respect to LV interface to attenuate the environmental effect on a component to within capabilities • Design component mounting methods to attenuate environmental effects to within maximum capabilities • Component-level designers • Design implications on selection of internal compenents, layout, etc • Design standardization to maximum Launch Vehicle environmental effects • Designs limited by capability of internal components LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera- Spring 2012 5 • The project is about requirements development and re-use. • Considers design/requirements re-use as an input to cost reduction. • Environmental requirements are interface requirements between systems: - Spacecraft / Ground Processing - Spacecraft/ Launch Vehicle - Spacecraft / Space • Basic spacecraft design drivers and component layout considerations - Launch Vehicle • Mass properties • Static and dynamic envelopes - Spacecraft • Mass properties • Thermal balance • Functional location • Integration • Physical accommodation LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera- Spring 2012 6 • Re-use as a Lean principle • Lean design seeks opportunities to eliminate waste during the design phase • Many sources of process waste in product development • "Re-use" focuses on Re-invention waste • Same problem is solved repeatedly • Existing solutions/designs are not utilized • Advantages are lower costs, faster development and lower risks • Develop component and requirements/performance standard re-use to lower costs • Specific-use = development N RE costs each time ~ Cl :f • Re-use= development NRE costs once i • Subsequent builds incur production costs only ·~..c: 3----c: • Barriers to Re-use ~ (!) • Corporate culture, Program-centric mentality • Re-use successes Test Cases, Vectors, Results • Propulsion system components The Re-use Pyramid LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera- Spring 2012 7 • Approach for this project follows a portion of a similar effort done in the early 1990s for Propulsion System components • Multiple-step process over 5 years Evaluate Select Develop, ID needs Define and Develop EQ Maintain and vendor bids vendors and test and and bound specs and update and refine negotiate qualify components requirements standards specs requirements agreements products • Accomplishments: - 12 subcontracted components standardized, design and tested for multiple programs application > 2 dozen piece parts and assembly hardware standardized - 10 standardized propulsion modules assembled from standardized components and piece parts Streamlined test/ acceptance procedures and QA inspections for standardized components Established long term agreements with Suppliers Standardized piece parts in Standard Stock Standardized products have been good for 15 years LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera - Spring 2012 8 SIC Pre-launch Environments Thermal A/C & GN2 EMC (RFIESD) Contamination I Cleanliness SIC Launch Environments Design Load Factors Acoustics Sinusoidal Vibration Random Vibration 1-----_.. Component-level ~---1 .....1-- .. Specification Shock Thermal De pressurization Contamination EMI SIC Operational Environments CMEslSolar Flares Geomagnetic Storms High Energy Particles Electromagnetic Radiation Space Plasma Atomic Environment Micrometeorites LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera - Spring 2012 9 Evaluate Select Develop, ID needs Define and Develop EQ Maintain and vendor bids vendors and test and and bound specs and update and refine negotiate qualify components requirements standards specs requirements agreements products • Some of the most severe environments a SIC can experience occur during lift-off/launch • Developing a robust set of enveloping requirements begins with the selection of available Launch Vehicles (Appendix A) • Previous efforts compared program defined environments • A survey approach was taken to compare environments from Mission Planner's Guides source documents • Enveloped environments according to a "90°/o rule" • Data points above the 95o/o or below the 5% would be considered "outliers" and treated on an individual basis • Not all LVs compared may have environments as severe as the enveloping curves but they will be "blanketed" with the approach LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera - Spring 2012 10 • Mission Radiation requirements more severe than those used to envelope the Standardization/Re-use effort • Pressure Transducer particularly sensitive to the radiation environment • Options: - Develop a program/mission-specific component requiring entire development/qualification effort • Significant cost • Schedule penalty - Use an existing component with a work-around plan • Selected a standardized Pressure Transducer • Met increased radiation requirement by using a tantalum sleeve For "outlying" requirements (beyond the enveloping requirements of a re­ use/standardization component), minimally invasive engineering solutions should always be explored before deciding on new development programs. LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera- Spring 2012 11 • Thermal • Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) - Launch Vehicle Intentional/Unintentional RF Emmisions - Launch Range Electromagnetic Environment Limitation - Electrostatic Discharge - Lightning Mitigation • Contamination Control/Cleanliness • Conditioned Air /GN2 purge • Humidity LMUILA Loyola Marymount University Luis Aguilera - Spring 2012 12 Design Limit Load Envelopes • The combined spacecraft accelerations are a function of launch vehicle 12 - Atlas V - 40Z, 50Z characteristics as well as spacecraft 10 - Atlas V - 4YZ, 5YZ dynamic characteristics. 8 - Atlas V- < 7000 lbs -- - Delta IV- M/M+(4,2) • Design Load Factors are for use in 6 preliminary design of primary structure. 1;~ ~ I - Delta IV- 4 M+(5,2)/M+(5,4) C) - ~ ~ Delta IV - Heavy • Axial acceleration is determined by the -II) 2 C: - Falcon9 vehicle thrust history and drag. 0 :;:::. '"~ - ctl 0 • - zenit3SL s.. • Maximum lateral acceleration is ~ ~.!t !~ Q) -2 - Falcon 1 c., - - primarily determined by wind gust, ;i -4 - Envelope (Liquid engine gimbal maneuvers, first stage Rocket Motor) Minotaur I - max -ctl -6 engine shutdowns, and other short­ ~ - Minotaur IV- max duration events. -8 - Taurus • -10 Positive axial value indicates a - Envelope (Solid Rocket Motor compressive net-center of gravity -12 acceleration -10 -5 0 5 10 Lateral Accelerations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 29 January 2001
    United Nations A/AC.105/751/Add.1 General Assembly Distr.: General 29 January 2001 Original: English Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space National research on space debris, safety of space objects with nuclear power sources on board and problems of their collisions with space debris Note by the Secretariat* Addendum Contents Chapter Paragraphs Page I. Introduction........................................................... 1-2 2 Replies received from Member States and international organizations .................... 2 United States of America ......................................................... 2 European Space Agency.......................................................... 7 __________________ * The present document contains replies received from Member States and international organizations between 25 November 2000 and 25 January 2001. V.01-80520 (E) 020201 050201 A/AC.105/751/Add.1 I. Introduction 1. At its forty-third session, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space agreed that Member States should continue to be invited to report to the Secretary- General on a regular basis with regard to national and international research concerning the safety of space objects with nuclear power sources, that further studies should be conducted on the issue of collision of orbiting space objects with nuclear power sources on board with space debris and that the Committee’s Scientific and Technical Subcommittee should be kept informed of the results of such studies.1 The Committee also took note of the agreement of the Subcommittee that national research on space debris should continue and that Member States and international organizations should make available to all interested parties the results of that research, including information on practices adopted that had proved effective in minimizing the creation of space debris (A/AC.105/736, para.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite
    46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2008-1131 7 – 10 January 20006, Reno, Nevada Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Stephen A. Whitmore* and Tyson K. Smith† Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 A trade study investigating the economics, mass budget, and concept of operations for delivery of a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium-altitude earth orbit is presented. The mission requires payload deployment at a 19,000 km orbit altitude and an inclination of 55o. Because the payload is a technology demonstrator and not part of an operational mission, launch and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies; consequently a USA licensed launch system is mandated. A preliminary trade analysis is performed where all available options for FAA-licensed US launch systems are considered. The preliminary trade study selects the Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle, derived from the decommissioned Peacekeeper missile system, as the most favorable option for payload delivery. To meet mission objectives the Minotaur V configuration is modified, replacing the baseline 5th stage ATK-37FM motor with the significantly smaller ATK Star 27. The proposed design change enables payload delivery to the required orbit without using a 6th stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the expected accuracy of the final orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch
    The Space Congress® Proceedings 2019 (46th) Light the Fire Jun 4th, 3:30 PM Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Ste. Marie, Thomas, "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch" (2019). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 31. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-2019-46th/presentations/31 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]. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Colonel Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs; Blue text – in work; * – sub-orbital CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 39B: NASA SLS Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy NASA Space Launch System Launch Complex 39B February 4, 2013 Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs;
    [Show full text]
  • This Boeing Team's Skills at Producing Delta IV Rocket Fairings Helped
    t’s usually the tail end of the rocket that gets all the early atten- other work. But they’d jump at the chance to work together again. tion, providing an impressive fiery display as the spacecraft is Their story is one of challenges and solutions. And they attribute hurled into orbit. But mission success also depends on what’s their success to Lean+ practices and good old-fashioned teamwork. Ion top of the rocket: a piece of metal called the payload fairing “The team took it upon themselves to make an excellent that protects the rocket’s cargo during the sometimes brutal ride product,” said program manager Thomas Fung. “We had parts to orbital speed. issues and tool problems, but the guys really stepped up and took “There’s no room for error,” said Tracy Allen, Boeing’s manu- pride and worked through the issues.” facturing production manager for a Huntington Beach, Calif., team The aluminum fairing team went through a major transition that made fairings for the Delta IV. The fairing not only protects the when Boeing merged its Delta Program with Lockheed Martin’s payload from launch to orbit but also must jettison properly for Atlas Program to form United Launch Alliance in 2006. deployment of the satellite or spacecraft. “There were a lot of process changes in the transition phase Allen and his colleagues built the 65-foot-long (20-meter-long) because we were working with a new company,” Fung said. “We aluminum isogrid fairings for the Delta IV heavy-lift launch vehicle. had part shortages because of vendor issues, and that caused The design was based on 41 similar fairings Boeing made for the an impact to the schedule.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H
    Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H. Freeman, USAF, [email protected], (505)853-4750 Maj Jose Delarosa, USAF, [email protected], (505)846-4097 Launch Test Squadron, SMC/SDTW Small Space Launch: Origins The United States Space Situational Awareness capability continues to be a key element in obtaining and maintaining the high ground in space. Space Situational Awareness satellites are critical enablers for integrated air, ground and sea operations, and play an essential role in fighting and winning conflicts. The United States leads the world space community in spacecraft payload systems from the component level into spacecraft, and in the development of constellations of spacecraft. The United States’ position is founded upon continued government investment in research and development in space technology [1], which is clearly reflected in the Space Situational Awareness capabilities and the longevity of these missions. In the area of launch systems that support Space Situational Awareness, despite the recent development of small launch vehicles, the United States launch capability is dominated by an old, unresponsive and relatively expensive set of launchers [1] in the Expandable, Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) platforms; Delta IV and Atlas V. The EELV systems require an average of six to eight months from positioning on the launch table until liftoff [3]. Access to space requires maintaining a robust space transportation capability, founded on a rigorous industrial and technology base. The downturn of commercial space launch service use has undermined, for the time being, the ability of industry to recoup its significant investment in current launch systems.
    [Show full text]
  • The SKYLON Spaceplane
    The SKYLON Spaceplane Borg K.⇤ and Matula E.⇤ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA This report outlines the major technical aspects of the SKYLON spaceplane as a final project for the ASEN 5053 class. The SKYLON spaceplane is designed as a single stage to orbit vehicle capable of lifting 15 mT to LEO from a 5.5 km runway and returning to land at the same location. It is powered by a unique engine design that combines an air- breathing and rocket mode into a single engine. This is achieved through the use of a novel lightweight heat exchanger that has been demonstrated on a reduced scale. The program has received funding from the UK government and ESA to build a full scale prototype of the engine as it’s next step. The project is technically feasible but will need to overcome some manufacturing issues and high start-up costs. This report is not intended for publication or commercial use. Nomenclature SSTO Single Stage To Orbit REL Reaction Engines Ltd UK United Kingdom LEO Low Earth Orbit SABRE Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SOMA SKYLON Orbital Maneuvering Assembly HOTOL Horizontal Take-O↵and Landing NASP National Aerospace Program GT OW Gross Take-O↵Weight MECO Main Engine Cut-O↵ LACE Liquid Air Cooled Engine RCS Reaction Control System MLI Multi-Layer Insulation mT Tonne I. Introduction The SKYLON spaceplane is a single stage to orbit concept vehicle being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. It is designed to take o↵and land on a runway delivering 15 mT of payload into LEO, in the current D-1 configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Nasa's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services
    FEBRUARY 17, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-012 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-09-011-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms COTS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services CRS Commercial Resupply Services DOD Department of Defense EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate GAO Government Accountability Office GLAST Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope IBEX Interstellar Boundary Explorer ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICESat-II Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite IDIQ Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity ISS International Space Station LADEE Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer LCROSS Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LSP Launch Services Program NLS NASA Launch Services OCO Orbiting Carbon Observatory OIG Office of Inspector General PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive SMD Science Mission Directorate SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate ULA United Launch Alliance REPORT NO. IG-11-012 FEBRUARY 17, 2011 OVERVIEW REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES The Issue Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas Launch System Mission Planner's Guide, Atlas V Addendum
    ATLAS Atlas Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide, Atlas V Addendum FOREWORD This Atlas V Addendum supplements the current version of the Atlas Launch System Mission Plan- ner’s Guide (AMPG) and presents the initial vehicle capabilities for the newly available Atlas V launch system. Atlas V’s multiple vehicle configurations and performance levels can provide the optimum match for a range of customer requirements at the lowest cost. The performance data are presented in sufficient detail for preliminary assessment of the Atlas V vehicle family for your missions. This guide, in combination with the AMPG, includes essential technical and programmatic data for preliminary mission planning and spacecraft design. Interface data are in sufficient detail to assess a first-order compatibility. This guide contains current information on Lockheed Martin’s plans for Atlas V launch services. It is subject to change as Atlas V development progresses, and will be revised peri- odically. Potential users of Atlas V launch service are encouraged to contact the offices listed below to obtain the latest technical and program status information for the Atlas V development. For technical and business development inquiries, contact: COMMERCIAL BUSINESS U.S. GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES BUSINESS INQUIRIES Telephone: (691) 645-6400 Telephone: (303) 977-5250 Fax: (619) 645-6500 Fax: (303) 971-2472 Postal Address: Postal Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. P.O. Box 124670 P.O. Box 179 San Diego, CA 92112-4670 Denver, CO 80201 Street Address: Street Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. 101 West Broadway P.O. Box 179 Suite 2000 MS DC1400 San Diego, CA 92101 12999 Deer Creek Canyon Road Littleton, CO 80127-5146 A current version of this document can be found, in electronic form, on the Internet at: http://www.ilslaunch.com ii ATLAS LAUNCH SYSTEM MISSION PLANNER’S GUIDE ATLAS V ADDENDUM (AVMPG) REVISIONS Revision Date Rev No.
    [Show full text]
  • Atlas V Cutaway Poster
    ATLAS V Since 2002, Atlas V rockets have delivered vital national security, science and exploration, and commercial missions for customers across the globe including the U.S. Air Force, the National Reconnaissance Oice and NASA. 225 ft The spacecraft is encapsulated in either a 5-m (17.8-ft) or a 4-m (13.8-ft) diameter payload fairing (PLF). The 4-m-diameter PLF is a bisector (two-piece shell) fairing consisting of aluminum skin/stringer construction with vertical split-line longerons. The Atlas V 400 series oers three payload fairing options: the large (LPF, shown at left), the extended (EPF) and the extra extended (XPF). The 5-m PLF is a sandwich composite structure made with a vented aluminum-honeycomb core and graphite-epoxy face sheets. The bisector (two-piece shell) PLF encapsulates both the Centaur upper stage and the spacecraft, which separates using a debris-free pyrotechnic actuating 200 ft system. Payload clearance and vehicle structural stability are enhanced by the all-aluminum forward load reactor (FLR), which centers the PLF around the Centaur upper stage and shares payload shear loading. The Atlas V 500 series oers 1 three payload fairing options: the short (shown at left), medium 18 and long. 1 1 The Centaur upper stage is 3.1 m (10 ft) in diameter and 12.7 m (41.6 ft) long. Its propellant tanks are constructed of pressure-stabilized, corrosion-resistant stainless steel. Centaur is a liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen-fueled vehicle. It uses a single RL10 engine producing 99.2 kN (22,300 lbf) of thrust.
    [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]
  • Aas 14-281 Suborbital Intercept And
    AAS 14-281 SUBORBITAL INTERCEPT AND FRAGMENTATION OF ASTEROIDS WITH VERY SHORT WARNING TIMES Ryan Hupp,∗ Spencer Dewald,∗ and Bong Wiey The threat of an asteroid impact with very short warning times (e.g., 1 to 24 hrs) is a very probable, real danger to civilization, yet no viable countermeasures cur- rently exist. The utilization of an upgraded ICBM to deliver a hypervelocity as- teroid intercept vehicle (HAIV) carrying a nuclear explosive device (NED) on a suborbital interception trajectory is studied in this paper. Specifically, this paper focuses on determining the trajectory for maximizing the altitude of intercept. A hypothetical asteroid impact scenario is used as an example for determining sim- plified trajectory models. Other issues are also examined, including launch vehicle options, launch site placement, late intercept, and some undesirable side effects. It is shown that silo-based ICBMs with modest burnout velocities can be utilized for a suborbital asteroid intercept mission with an NED explosion at reasonably higher altitudes (> 2,500 km). However, further studies will be required in the following key areas: i) NED sizing for properly fragmenting small (50 to 150 m) asteroids, ii) the side effects caused by an NED explosion at an altitude of 2,500 km or higher, iii) the rapid launch readiness of existing or upgraded ICBMs for a suborbital asteroid intercept with short warning times (e.g., 1 to 24 hrs), and iv) precision ascent guidance and terminal intercept guidance. It is emphasized that if an earlier alert (e.g., > 1 week) can be assured, then an interplanetary inter- cept/fragmentation may become feasible, which requires an interplanetary launch vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Almanac 2007
    2007 Space Almanac The US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine 74 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 Space 0.05g 60,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 22,300 miles Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Medium Earth Orbit begins 300 miles 0.95g 100 miles Low Earth Orbit begins 60 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Stratosphere begins 10 miles Illustration not to scale Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 75 US Military Missions in Space Space Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Launch of satellites and other Provide satellite communica- Ensure freedom of action in space Provide capabilities for the ap- high-value payloads into space tions, navigation, weather infor- for the US and its allies and, plication of combat operations and operation of those satellites mation, missile warning, com- when directed, deny an adversary in, through, and from space to through a worldwide network of mand and control, and intel- freedom of action in space. influence the course and outcome ground stations. ligence to the warfighter. of conflict. US Space Funding Millions of constant Fiscal 2007 dollars 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Fiscal Year 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total 1959 1,841 3,457 240 5,538 1983 13,051 18,601 675 32,327 1960 3,205 3,892
    [Show full text]