DOCSLIB.ORG

Results of the Fifth Saturn Ib Launch Vehicle Test Flight

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Results of the Fifth Saturn Ib Launch Vehicle Test Flight MPR-SAT-FE-68-4 JANUARY 25, 1969 8EOASE C. U N Un (.. | .,S RESULTS OF THE FIFTH SATURN IB LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT (APOLLO 7 MISSION) PRIPARID BY SATURN III FLIGHT IVALUATION WORKING GROUP . MSFC -Form 774 (Rev October 1067) MPR-SAT-FE-68- 4 RESULTS OF THE FIFTH SATURN I]3LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT AS-205 By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group George C. Marshall Space Flight Center ABSTRACT Saturn IB AS-205 was launched at 1102:45 EDT on October 11, 1968 from KSC Launch Complex 34, under favorable weather conditions. The vehicle lifted off on a launch azimuth of 100 deg east of north and rolled to a flight azimuth of 72 deg east of north. The actual trajectory was near nominal. All major systems performed within design limits and close to predicted values throughout flight. No malfunctions or deviations occurred. However, a few refinements based on flighttest results are being incorporated. These are discussed in detail in the body of the report. The AS-205 test flight demonstrated successfully the performance of the orbital sating experiment which included propellant venting, LOX dump, cold helium dump, and stage/engine pneumatic supply dump. This flight also demonstrated the adequacy of the attitude control in both the manual and automatic modes and of vehicle systems to perform for extended duration in orbit. Any questions or comments pertaining to the information contained in this report are invited, and should be directed to: Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama 35812 Attention: Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group R-AERO-F (Phone 876-4575) GEORGECo MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER MPR-SAT-FE-68-4 RESULTS OF THE FIFTH SATURNIB LAUNCH VEHICLE TEST FLIGHT AS-205 (APOLLO 7 MISSION) SATURN IB FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKINGGROUP TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1,0 Flight Test Summary 2.0 Intr oducti on 4 3.0 Mission Description and Test Objectives Mission Description Primary Objectives LaunchVehicle Mandatory Detailed Objectives Launch Vehicle Principal Detailed Objectives LaunchVehicle SecondaryDetailed Test Objectives Spacecraft Objectives 4.0 Times of Events 4. l Summary 4.2 Sequenceof Events 5.0 LaunchOperations 17 5.1 Summary 17 5.2 Countdown 17 5.3 Propellant and Cold Helium Loading 18 5.3.1 RP-1 Loading 19 5.3.2 LOX Loading 20 5.3.3 LIt 2 Loading 20 5.3.4 Cold Helium Loading 20 5.3.5 Auxiliary Propulsion System Propellant Loading 20 5.3.6 S-IB Stage Propellant Load 21 5.3.7 S-IVB Stage Propellant Load 24 5.4 Holddown 24 6.0 Mass Characteristics 26 6.1 Summary 26 6.2 Mass Analysis 26 6.3 Center of Gravity and Moment of Inertia 27 7.0 Trajectory 39 7.1 Summary 39 7.2 Tracking Data Utilization 39 7.3 Trajectory Analysis 41 Iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) Page 7.4 Orbital Tracking Data Utilization 48 7.5 Parking Orbit Trajectory 49 7.6 S-IVB Orbital Safing Experiment Trajectory 49 8.0 S-IB Propulsion 56 8.1 Summary 56 8.2 S-IB Propulsion Performance 56 8.2.1 Stage Performance 56 8.2.2 Individual Engine Characteristics 65 8.2.3 LOX Seal Drain Line Temperatures 68 8.3 S-IB Propellant Usage 68 8.4 S-IB Pressurization Systems 70 8.4.1 Fuel Pressurization System 70 8.4.2 LOX Pressurization System 71 8.4.3 Control Pressure System 74 9.0 S-IVB Propulsion and Associated Systems 75 9.1 Summary 75 9.2 S-IV-B Propulsion Performance 75 9.2.1 Engine Chilldown 75 9.2.2 Start Characteristics 77 9.2.3 Mainstage Engine Analysis 78 9.2.4 Cutoff Impulse 81 9.3 S-IVB Stage Propellant Utilization 81 9.3.1 Propellant Mass Analysis 81 9.3.2 PU Valve Response and Thrust Fluctuations 84 9.4 S-IVB Propellant Pressurization Systems 84 9.4.1 Fuel Pressurization System 84 9.4.2 LOX Pressurization System 91 9.5 S -IVB Pneumatic Systems 94 9.6 S -IVB Orbital Sating 98 9.6.1 Sating Purpose and Events 98 9.6.2 LH 2 and LOX Tank Venting 98 9.6.3 LOX Dump 102 9.6.4 Cold Helium Dump 103 9.6.5 Pneumatic Sphere 106 i0.0 Auxiliary Propulsion System 109 10.1 Summary 109 10.2 APS Performance 109 iv ,TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) Page 10.2.1 Propellant and Pressurization Systems 109 10.2.2 APS Motor Performance 109 11.0 Hydraulic System 113 11.1 Summary 113 1 1.2 S-IB Hydraulic System 113 11.3 S-IVB Hydraulic System 114 12.0 Guidance and Control 115 12.1 Summary 115 12.2 System Changes and Modifications 115 12.3 Launch Vehicle Control 117 12.3.1 S-IB Stage Control Analysis 117 12.3.2 S-IVB Stage Control Analysis 119 12.3.3 Control During Orbital Coast 127 12.3.4 Control Component Analysis 133 12.4 Launch Vehicle Navigation and Guidance 133 12.4.1 Navigation and Guidance Scheme Performance Analysis 135 12.4.2 Navigation and Guidance Comparison 139 12.4.2.1 Powered Flight Comparison 139 12.4.2.2 Platform Measured Velocity Changes During Orbit 142 12.4.3 Guidance System Component Analysis 145 12.4.3.1 LVDC/LVDA Analysis 145 12.4.3.2 ST-124M Stabilized Platform Analysis 145 13.0 Separation 146 13.1 Summary 146 13.2 S-IB/S-IVB Separation 146 13.2.1 Separation Dynamics 146 13.3 LV/CSM Separation 146 14.0 Vehicle Electrical Systems 151 14.1 Summary 151 14.2 S-IB Stage Electrical System 151 14.3 S-IVB Stage Electrical System 153 14.4 Instrument Unit Electrical System 157 V TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) Page 15.0 Range Safety and Command Systems Performance 161 15.1 Summary 161 15.2 Command Destruct Systems Performance 161 15.3 Instrument Unit Command System Performance 161 16.0 Emergency Detection System (EDS) 164 16.1 Summary 164 16 2 EDS Bus Voltage 164 16 3 EDS Event Times 164 16 4 Thrust OK Pressure Switches 164 16 5 EDS Rate Gyros 164 16 6 Q-Ball Differential Pressures 166 16 7 Launch Vehicle Attitude Reference Monitoring 166 17.0 Structures 167 17.1 Summary 167 17.2 Total Vehicle Loads and Moments 167 17.2.1 Longitudinal Loads 167 17.2.2 Bending Moments 169 17.2.3 Body Bending Oscillations 169 17.3 S-IVB Stage Analysis 169 17.3. I J-2 Engine Vibrations 169 18.0 Pressure and Thermal Environment 176 18.1 Summary 176 18.2 Vehicle Pressure Environment 176 18.2.1 S-IB Stage Base Pressures 176 18.2.2 S-IVB Stage Internal Pressures 178 18.3 Vehicle Thermal Environment 178 18.3.1 S-IB Stage Base Thermal Environment 178 18.3.2 S-IVBStage Thermal Environment 182 18.3.3 Instrument Unit Temperatures 182 18.4 Instrument Unit Environmental Control System 182 18.4.1 Thermal Conditioning Subsystem 187 18.4.2 (;as Bearing Supply Subsystem 190 19.0 Aerodynamics 193 19.1 Summary 193 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT) Page 20.0 Instrumentation 194 20.1 Summary 194 20.2 Vehicle Measuring Analysis 194 20.2.1 S-IB Stage Measuring Analysis 194 20.2.2 S-IVB Stage Measuring Analysis 196 20.2.3 IU Measuring Analysis 196 20.3 Airborne Telemetry Systems 196 20.3.1 S-EB Stage 198 20.3.2 S-IVB Stage 198 20.3.3 Instrument Unit 198 20.4 RF Systems Analysis 198 20.4.1 Telemetry 200 20.4.2 Tracking 200 20.5 Optical Tracking 203 21.0 Spacecraft 204 Appendix A Configxlration Differences 2O5 A.I Summary 2O5 A.2 S-IB-5 Config_aration Differences 2O5 A.3 S-IVB-205 Configmration Differences 2O7 A.4 S-IU-205 Configuration Differences 210 A.5 Payload 212 Appendix B Atmospheric Summary 215 B.I Introduction 215 B.2 General Atmospheric Conditions at Launch Time 215 B.3 Surface Observations 215 B.4 Upper Air Measurements 215 B.5 Thermodynamic Data 219 References Approval Distribution vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 5-1 Fuel Temperature/Density Relationship 22 6-1 Vehicle Mass, Center of Gravity, and Mass Moment of Inertia During S-IB Powered Flight :35 6-2 Vehicle Mass, Center of GraviW, and Mass Moment of Inertia During S-IVB Powered Flight 38 7-1 S-IB and S-IVB Trajectory 42 7-2 Earth-Fixed Velocity 43 7-3 Total Inertial Acceleration 45 7-4 Maeh Number and Dynamic Pressure 47 7-5 AS-205 Ground Track 54 8-1 S-IB Individual Engine and Stage Thrust Buildup 59 8-2 S-IB Stage Longitudinal Thrust and Specific Impulse 60 8-3 S-IB Stage Propellant Mixture Ratio and Flowrate 62 8-4 S-IB Stage LOX and Fuel Flowrates 63 8-5 Deviation in Engine Performance Parameters 66 8-6 Fuel Tank Ullage and Helium Sphere Pressure 72 8-7 LOX Pressurization System Characteristics 73 9-1 J-2 Engine Temperature 76 9-2 S-IVB Steady State Operation 79 9-3 S-IVB Cutoff Transient 82 9-4 Second Flight Stage Best Estimate Masses 85 9-5 S-IVB-205 PU Valve Position History 87 9-6 LH 2 and LOX Sensor Nonlinearity (Volumetric Method) 88 9-7 LH2 Tank Pressurization System Performance 89 9-8 LH 2 and LOX Inlet Start Requirements 92 9-9 LOX Tank Pressurization System Performance 93 9-10 Stage Pneumatic Control and Purge System Performance 96 9-11 Engine Start Sphere Performance 97 9-12 LH 2 and LOX Tank Ullage Performance in Orbit 101 9-13 LOX Dump Performance 104 9-14 Cold Helium Dump Performance 105 9-15 S-IV-B Stage and Engine Pneumatic Supply Pressures 107 10-1 APS Propellant Remaining and Temperature 110 12-1 S-IB Stage Command Angles 120 12-2 Wind Velocity and Free Stream Angle-of-Attack 121 12 -3 Pitch Control Parameters During S-IB Powered Flight 122 12-4 Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Powered Flight 123 12 -5 Sloshing During Powered Flight 126 12-6 Pitch Attitude Control During S-IVB Aligmment With Local Horizontal 128 °,.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Information Summaries
    TIROS 8 12/21/63 Delta-22 TIROS-H (A-53) 17B S National Aeronautics and TIROS 9 1/22/65 Delta-28 TIROS-I (A-54) 17A S Space Administration TIROS Operational 2TIROS 10 7/1/65 Delta-32 OT-1 17B S John F. Kennedy Space Center 2ESSA 1 2/3/66 Delta-36 OT-3 (TOS) 17A S Information Summaries 2 2 ESSA 2 2/28/66 Delta-37 OT-2 (TOS) 17B S 2ESSA 3 10/2/66 2Delta-41 TOS-A 1SLC-2E S PMS 031 (KSC) OSO (Orbiting Solar Observatories) Lunar and Planetary 2ESSA 4 1/26/67 2Delta-45 TOS-B 1SLC-2E S June 1999 OSO 1 3/7/62 Delta-8 OSO-A (S-16) 17A S 2ESSA 5 4/20/67 2Delta-48 TOS-C 1SLC-2E S OSO 2 2/3/65 Delta-29 OSO-B2 (S-17) 17B S Mission Launch Launch Payload Launch 2ESSA 6 11/10/67 2Delta-54 TOS-D 1SLC-2E S OSO 8/25/65 Delta-33 OSO-C 17B U Name Date Vehicle Code Pad Results 2ESSA 7 8/16/68 2Delta-58 TOS-E 1SLC-2E S OSO 3 3/8/67 Delta-46 OSO-E1 17A S 2ESSA 8 12/15/68 2Delta-62 TOS-F 1SLC-2E S OSO 4 10/18/67 Delta-53 OSO-D 17B S PIONEER (Lunar) 2ESSA 9 2/26/69 2Delta-67 TOS-G 17B S OSO 5 1/22/69 Delta-64 OSO-F 17B S Pioneer 1 10/11/58 Thor-Able-1 –– 17A U Major NASA 2 1 OSO 6/PAC 8/9/69 Delta-72 OSO-G/PAC 17A S Pioneer 2 11/8/58 Thor-Able-2 –– 17A U IMPROVED TIROS OPERATIONAL 2 1 OSO 7/TETR 3 9/29/71 Delta-85 OSO-H/TETR-D 17A S Pioneer 3 12/6/58 Juno II AM-11 –– 5 U 3ITOS 1/OSCAR 5 1/23/70 2Delta-76 1TIROS-M/OSCAR 1SLC-2W S 2 OSO 8 6/21/75 Delta-112 OSO-1 17B S Pioneer 4 3/3/59 Juno II AM-14 –– 5 S 3NOAA 1 12/11/70 2Delta-81 ITOS-A 1SLC-2W S Launches Pioneer 11/26/59 Atlas-Able-1 –– 14 U 3ITOS 10/21/71 2Delta-86 ITOS-B 1SLC-2E U OGO (Orbiting Geophysical
    [Show full text]
  • Enceladus, Moon of Saturn
    National Aeronautics and and Space Space Administration Administration Enceladus, Moon of Saturn www.nasa.gov Enceladus (pronounced en-SELL-ah-dus) is an icy moon of Saturn with remarkable activity near its south pole. Covered in water ice that reflects sunlight like freshly fallen snow, Enceladus reflects almost 100 percent of the sunlight that strikes it. Because the moon reflects so much sunlight, the surface temperature is extremely cold, about –330 degrees F (–201 degrees C). The surface of Enceladus displays fissures, plains, corrugated terrain and a variety of other features. Enceladus may be heated by a tidal mechanism similar to that which provides the heat for volca- An artist’s concept of Saturn’s rings and some of the icy moons. The ring particles are composed primarily of water ice and range in size from microns to tens of meters. In 2004, the Cassini spacecraft passed through the gap between the F and G rings to begin orbiting Saturn. noes on Jupiter’s moon Io. A dramatic plume of jets sprays water ice and gas out from the interior at ring material, coating itself continually in a mantle Space Agency. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a many locations along the famed “tiger stripes” at of fresh, white ice. division of the California Institute of Technology, the south pole. Cassini mission data have provided manages the mission for NASA. evidence for at least 100 distinct geysers erupting Saturn’s Rings For images and information about the Cassini on Enceladus. All of this activity, plus clues hidden Saturn’s rings form an enormous, complex struc- mission, visit — http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/ in the moon’s gravity, indicates that the moon’s ture.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report of the Opgt/Mjs Plasma Wave Science Team
    1 September 1972 FINAL REPORT OF THE OPGT/MJS PLASMA WAVE SCIENCE TEAM Prepared by F. L. Scarf, Team Leader for National Aeronautical and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 205*t6 Contract NASW 2228 Space Sciences Department TRW Systems Group One Space Park Redondo Beach, California 902?8 4 Page 1 1. TEAM ORGANIZATION AND MEMBERSHIP The Plasma Wave Team Leader is Dr. F. L. Scarf of TRW Systems, and the official team members are Dr. D. A. Gurnett (University of Iowa), Dr. R. A. Helliwell (Stanford University), Dr. R. E. Holzer (UCLA), Dr. P. J. Kellogg (University of Minnesota), Dr. E. J. Smith (JPL), and Dr. E. Ungstrup (Danish Space Research Institute). Mr. A. M. A. Frandsen of JPL serves as Team Member and Experiment Representative. In addition, the Plasma Wave Team solicited the continuing support and assistance of several other outstanding scientists, and we have designated these participants as Team Associates; the Associates are Dr. N. M. Brice (Cornell University), Dr. D. Cartwright (University of Minnesota), Dr. R. W. Fredricks (TRW), Dr. H. B. Liemohn (Boeing), Dr. C. F. Kennel (UCLA), and Dr. R. Thome (UCLA) . 2. GENERAL TEAM ACTIVITIES FEBRUARY 1972-AUGUST 31, 1972 (See the mid-year report for a summary of the earlier work) During this period Dr. Scarf attended all SSG Meetings except the last one, where Dr. E. J. Smith represented the Plasma Wave Team. There were a number of Team Meetings and several additional .conferences at JPL concerning EMI and other potential spacecraft problems. The major development during this interval involved the decision not to go ahead with the Grand Tour.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacques Tiziou Space Collection
    Jacques Tiziou Space Collection Isaac Middleton and Melissa A. N. Keiser 2019 National Air and Space Museum Archives 14390 Air & Space Museum Parkway Chantilly, VA 20151 [email protected] https://airandspace.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 2 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 2 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 2 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 4 Series : Files, (bulk 1960-2011)............................................................................... 4 Series : Photography, (bulk 1960-2011)................................................................. 25 Jacques Tiziou Space Collection NASM.2018.0078 Collection Overview Repository: National Air and Space Museum Archives Title: Jacques Tiziou Space Collection Identifier: NASM.2018.0078 Date: (bulk 1960s through
    [Show full text]
  • A Pictorial History of Rockets
    he mighty space rockets of today are the result A Pictorial Tof more than 2,000 years of invention, experi- mentation, and discovery. First by observation and inspiration and then by methodical research, the History of foundations for modern rocketry were laid. Rockets Building upon the experience of two millennia, new rockets will expand human presence in space back to the Moon and Mars. These new rockets will be versatile. They will support Earth orbital missions, such as the International Space Station, and off- world missions millions of kilometers from home. Already, travel to the stars is possible. Robotic spacecraft are on their way into interstellar space as you read this. Someday, they will be followed by human explorers. Often lost in the shadows of time, early rocket pioneers “pushed the envelope” by creating rocket- propelled devices for land, sea, air, and space. When the scientific principles governing motion were discovered, rockets graduated from toys and novelties to serious devices for commerce, war, travel, and research. This work led to many of the most amazing discoveries of our time. The vignettes that follow provide a small sampling of stories from the history of rockets. They form a rocket time line that includes critical developments and interesting sidelines. In some cases, one story leads to another, and in others, the stories are inter- esting diversions from the path. They portray the inspirations that ultimately led to us taking our first steps into outer space. NASA’s new Space Launch System (SLS), commercial launch systems, and the rockets that follow owe much of their success to the accomplishments presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • John F. Kennedy Space Center
    1 . :- /G .. .. '-1 ,.. 1- & 5 .\"T!-! LJ~,.", - -,-,c JOHN F. KENNEDY ', , .,,. ,- r-/ ;7 7,-,- ;\-, - [J'.?:? ,t:!, ;+$, , , , 1-1-,> .irI,,,,r I ! - ? /;i?(. ,7! ; ., -, -?-I ,:-. ... 8 -, , .. '',:I> !r,5, SPACE CENTER , , .>. r-, - -- Tp:c:,r, ,!- ' :u kc - - &te -- - 12rr!2L,D //I, ,Jp - - -- - - _ Lb:, N(, A St~mmaryof MAJOR NASA LAUNCHINGS Eastern Test Range Western Test Range (ETR) (WTR) October 1, 1958 - Septeniber 30, 1968 Historical and Library Services Branch John F. Kennedy Space Center "ational Aeronautics and Space Administration l<ennecly Space Center, Florida October 1968 GP 381 September 30, 1968 (Rev. January 27, 1969) SATCIEN S.I!STC)RY DCCCIivlENT University uf A!;b:,rno Rr=-?rrh Zn~tituta Histcry of Sciecce & Technc;oGy Group ERR4TA SHEET GP 381, "A Strmmary of Major MSA Zaunchings, Eastern Test Range and Western Test Range,'" dated September 30, 1968, was considered to be accurate ag of the date of publication. Hmever, additianal research has brought to light new informetion on the official mission designations for Project Apollo. Therefore, in the interest of accuracy it was believed necessary ta issue revfsed pages, rather than wait until the next complete revision of the publiatlion to correct the errors. Holders of copies of thia brochure ate requested to remove and destroy the existing pages 81, 82, 83, and 84, and insert the attached revised pages 81, 82, 83, 84, 8U, and 84B in theh place. William A. Lackyer, 3r. PROJECT MOLL0 (FLIGHTS AND TESTS) (continued) Launch NASA Name -Date Vehicle -Code Sitelpad Remarks/Results ORBITAL (lnaMANNED) 5 Jul 66 Uprated SA-203 ETR Unmanned flight to test launch vehicle Saturn 1 3 7B second (S-IVB) stage and instrment (IU) , which reflected Saturn V con- figuration.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII
    America's Greatest Projects and Their Engineers - VII Course No: B05-005 Credit: 5 PDH Dominic Perrotta, P.E. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 076 77 P: (877) 322-5800 [email protected] America’s Greatest Projects & Their Engineers-Vol. VII The Apollo Project-Part 1 Preparing for Space Travel to the Moon Table of Contents I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight A. The Three Lives that Were Lost B. Investigation, Findings & Recommendations II. Beginning of the Man on the Moon Concept A. Plans to Land on the Moon B. Design Considerations and Decisions 1. Rockets – Launch Vehicles 2. Command/Service Module 3. Lunar Module III. NASA’s Objectives A. Unmanned Missions B. Manned Missions IV. Early Missions V. Apollo 7 Ready – First Manned Apollo Mission VI. Apollo 8 - Orbiting the Moon 1 I. Tragedy and Death Before the First Apollo Flight Everything seemed to be going well for the Apollo Project, the third in a series of space projects by the United States intended to place an American astronaut on the Moon before the end of the 1960’s decade. Apollo 1, known at that time as AS (Apollo Saturn)-204 would be the first manned spaceflight of the Apollo program, and would launch a few months after the flight of Gemini 12, which had occurred on 11 November 1966. Although Gemini 12 was a short duration flight, Pilot Buzz Aldrin had performed three extensive EVA’s (Extra Vehicular Activities), proving that Astronauts could work for long periods of time outside the spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • N AS a Facts
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Launch Services Program he Launch Services Program (LSP) manufacturing, launch operations and rockets for launching Earth-orbit and Twas established at Kennedy Space countdown management, and providing interplanetary missions. Center for NASA’s acquisition and added quality and mission assurance in In September 2010, NASA’s Launch program management of expendable lieu of the requirement for the launch Services (NLS) contract was extended launch vehicle (ELV) missions. A skillful service provider to obtain a commercial by the agency for 10 years, through NASA/contractor team is in place to launch license. 2020, with the award of four indefinite meet the mission of the Launch Ser- Primary launch sites are Cape Canav- delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. The vices Program, which exists to provide eral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Florida, expendable launch vehicles that NASA leadership, expertise and cost-effective and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) has available for its science, Earth-orbit services in the commercial arena to in California. and interplanetary missions are United satisfy agencywide space transporta- Other launch locations are NASA’s Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V and tion requirements and maximize the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the Delta II, Space X’s Falcon 1 and 9, opportunity for mission success. Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific’s Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Pegasus and facts The principal objectives of the LSP Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Taurus XL, and Lockheed Martin Space are to provide safe, reliable, cost-effec- Kodiak Island in Alaska. Systems Co.’s Athena I and II.
    [Show full text]
  • IAC-13-E6.2.6 Page 1 of 16 IAC-13
    64th International Astronautical Congress, Beijing, China. Copyright ©2013 by the International Astronautical Federation. All rights reserved. IAC-13-E6.2.6 x19035 INDUSTRIAL INNOVATION CYCLE ANALYSIS OF THE ORBITAL LAUNCH VEHICLE INDUSTRY Julio Aprea European Space Agency, France, [email protected] Ulfert Block European Space Agency, France, [email protected] Emmanuelle David Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e.V., Germany, [email protected] The analysis in this paper provides an initial look at the Orbital Launch Vehicle Industry within the Model for Industrial Innovation, proposed by James M. Utterback and William J. Abernathy in their article “Patterns of Industrial Innovation” (1978). The paper starts with a summary of the Abernathy-Utterback Model, its phases (fluid, transitional and specific) and its characteristics, the concept of dominant design and the focus on product and process innovation. This work then analyses the Orbital Launch Vehicle industry from a historical perspective of its major innovations and compares the development of this industry with the Abernathy-Utterback Model. It as well highlights some interesting current developments and analyses certain technology innovations that will likely shape the industry in the future, namely serial production and incremental degrees of reusability. Based on this analysis this paper finally draws some preliminary conclusions and proposes future work on the subject. INTRODUCTION at defining the elements of the dominant design and This paper is part of a series of papers aiming at determining which phase of the Innovation Model we analysing the different sectors of the space industry are currently experiencing. from the point of view of different innovation models and industry structure theories.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Options
    Spaceflight A British Interplanetary Society Publication Mars UK boosts options space spending NASA’s Radiation Atlantis threats display Shuttle: icon of an age Vol 60 No 8 September 2017 www.bis-space.com CONTENTS Editor: Published by the British Interplanetary Society David Baker, PhD, BSc, FBIS, FRHS Sub-editor: Volume 60 No. 9 September 2017 Ann Page Production Assistant: 331-334 Living with the Legend Ben Jones Author of the seminal work on NASA’s Space Shuttle, Dennis Jenkins describes how he came to follow the programme through work and, as Spaceflight Promotion: a genuine enthusiast, create the massive three-volume history of its Gillian Norman design evolution and engineering. Spaceflight Arthur C. Clarke House, 334 An icon immortalised 27/29 South Lambeth Road, Laurence Withers recounts a visit to the Kennedy Space Center where he London, SW8 1SZ, England. missed a launch and came across the Space Shuttle Atlantis, more by Tel: +44 (0)20 7735 3160 Fax: +44 (0)20 7582 7167 mistake than by pre-planning, to impress and astound with its display of Email: [email protected] space artefacts. www.bis-space.com 336-342 Evaluating Mars Programme Designs ADVERTISING Stephen Ashworth has a particular view on Mars missions and judges a Tel: +44 (0)1424 883401 range of potential expeditionary modes to comment on the architecture Email: [email protected] being discussed by government agencies DISTRIBUTION and commercial providers alike. Spaceflight may be received worldwide by mail through membership of the British Interplanetary Society. Details including Library subscriptions are available from the above address.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger Angel University of Arizona
    NIAC Fellows meeting Atlanta March 7 2007 Phase I report Practicality of a solar shield in space to counter global warming Roger Angel University of Arizona Pete Worden and Kevin Parkin NASA Ames Research Center Dave Miller MIT Planet Earth driver’s test 1) You are zipping along happily, when you see warning lights ahead in the distance but visibility is not so great. What should you do? a) Just floor it b) take you foot off the accelerator c) apply the brakes 2) You find you have no brakes. What should you do now? The warning CO2 in atmosphere works just like water vapor • Lets in warming sunlight in the day • when humidity is high heat is trapped and nights stay warm • when humidity is low heat escapes and nights are cold • But unlike water vapor, CO2 hangs around – added CO2 in the atmosphere takes a century or two to dissipate Geoengineering solutions could be really useful • Needed if current CO2 level already beyond “tipping point” • Even extreme conservation may not be able to stop abrupt and disastrous changes e.g. – changes in ocean circulation – Greenland melts (20’ permanent sea level rise) • Many leading scientists seriously worried • Probability of disaster 10% - 20%? – Geoengineering like taking out insurance against unlikely but catastrophic event) Geoengineering has been taboo • People worry it will take off the pressure for permanent solution of not burning fossil fuel – Administration pointed to possibility of geoengineering and space mirrors just before recent IPCC report • If used for an extended period, would lead to seriously unstable planet Earth, ever more hooked on carbon • But if we don’t look at it, we have no insurance Heating reversible by reducing solar flux • Govindasamy, B.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities Pub
    CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE A CBO STUDY OCTOBER 2006 Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities Pub. No. 2568 A CBO STUDY Alternatives for Future U.S. Space-Launch Capabilities October 2006 The Congress of the United States O Congressional Budget Office Note Unless otherwise indicated, all years referred to in this study are federal fiscal years, and all dollar amounts are expressed in 2006 dollars of budget authority. Preface Currently available launch vehicles have the capacity to lift payloads into low earth orbit that weigh up to about 25 metric tons, which is the requirement for almost all of the commercial and governmental payloads expected to be launched into orbit over the next 10 to 15 years. However, the launch vehicles needed to support the return of humans to the moon, which has been called for under the Bush Administration’s Vision for Space Exploration, may be required to lift payloads into orbit that weigh in excess of 100 metric tons and, as a result, may constitute a unique demand for launch services. What alternatives might be pursued to develop and procure the type of launch vehicles neces- sary for conducting manned lunar missions, and how much would those alternatives cost? This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study—prepared at the request of the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee—examines those questions. The analysis presents six alternative programs for developing launchers and estimates their costs under the assump- tion that manned lunar missions will commence in either 2018 or 2020. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide impartial analysis, the study makes no recommendations.
    [Show full text]