DOCSLIB.ORG

(NASA) Industrial Base – Post-Space Shuttle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(NASA) Industrial Base – Post-Space Shuttle National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Human Space Flight Industrial Base in the Post-Space Shuttle/Constellation Environment June 2012 PREPARED BY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUREAU OF INDUSTRY AND SECURITY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS REPORT, CONTACT: Jason Bolton, Trade & Industry Analyst (202) 482-5936 Anna Bruse, Trade & Industry Analyst (202) 482-7418 Erika Maynard, Trade & Industry Analyst (202) 482-5572 Christopher Nelson, Trade & Industry Analyst (202) 482-4727 Teresa Telesco, Trade & Industry Analyst (202) 482-4959 Brad Botwin, (202) 482-4060 Director, Industrial Base Studies [email protected] Fax: (202) 482-5361 Interns – Meaghan Archer, Lacey Frost, Meryl Nolan, Ryan Olivett, Jamie Tkach For more information about the Bureau of Industry and Security, please visit: http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 4 Study Authority ........................................................................................................................... 4 Study Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Respondents .................................................................................................................... 5 Study Findings ............................................................................................................................ 6 Select Study Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 16 II. Company Profile of Survey Respondents ........................................................................... 18 A. Survey Respondents and NASA Programs Supported ....................................................... 18 B. Business Lines ..................................................................................................................... 20 C. Company Locations............................................................................................................. 21 D. Company Certifications and Supply Chain Management Practices ................................... 23 E. Method of Sale to NASA .................................................................................................... 25 F. NASA Customers ................................................................................................................ 26 G. Dependency on NASA-Related Business ........................................................................... 27 III. Products and Services ......................................................................................................... 28 A. Participation in NASA HSF Program Elements ................................................................. 28 B. Product and Service List Breakdown .................................................................................. 28 IV. NASA Supplier Sales ........................................................................................................... 33 A. Total Company Sales Including NASA Sales ..................................................................... 33 B. Government/Non-Government Sales .................................................................................. 36 C. NASA Sales......................................................................................................................... 39 D. HSF Sales - Shuttle, ISS, and CxP ...................................................................................... 40 E. Non-U.S. Sales .................................................................................................................... 46 F. Impacts of Export Controls .................................................................................................. 49 G. Capacity Utilization Rates .................................................................................................. 52 H. Machinery, Tooling, and Facilities ..................................................................................... 54 I. Top Space-Related Customers.............................................................................................. 55 V. Employment ........................................................................................................................... 58 A. Total Aggregate Employment ............................................................................................. 58 B. Personnel Categories Difficult to Hire and Retain .............................................................. 62 C. Critical Personnel Skills and Competencies........................................................................ 65 D. Production and/or Inspection Personnel with NASA-Required Formal Qualifications/Certifications ..................................................................................................... 66 VI. Research and Development ................................................................................................ 68 A. Overall Research and Development Expenditures .............................................................. 68 B. NASA-Related R&D Expenditures ..................................................................................... 72 C. Overall R&D Funding Sources ........................................................................................... 76 D. NASA-Related R&D Funding Sources............................................................................... 79 E. R&D Employment ............................................................................................................... 81 VII. Capital Expenditures ......................................................................................................... 85 A. Total Capital Expenditure Breakdowns .............................................................................. 85 B. Total Capital Expenditure Trends between 2007-2010 ....................................................... 88 C. NASA-Related Capital Expenditure Trends ....................................................................... 92 D. Capital Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Sales .......................................................... 94 VIII. Supply Chain Relationships ............................................................................................ 97 A. Mergers and Acquisitions ................................................................................................... 97 B. Joint Venture Relationships ................................................................................................ 99 C. U.S. and Non-U.S. Competitors ........................................................................................ 100 D. U.S. and Non-U.S. Suppliers ............................................................................................ 104 IX. Future Outlook for NASA Suppliers ............................................................................... 110 A. Impact of Space Shuttle Retirement and Constellation Program Transition .................... 110 B. Preservation of Current Capabilities and Workforce ........................................................ 111 C. Existing Business Plan and Product Line Modifications .................................................. 115 D. Scheduled Business Plan and Product Line Modifications ............................................... 118 E. Current and Future Participation in Commercial HSF Programs ...................................... 120 F. Impact on Other USG Agencies ........................................................................................ 124 G. NASA-Related Product Compatibility with Non-NASA Customers ............................... 127 H. Post-Shuttle/Constellation Guidance from Prime Contractors ......................................... 129 I. Post Shuttle/Constellation Guidance from NASA.............................................................. 132 J. Interaction with Economic Development Agencies/Organizations ................................... 134 K. Willingness to Work with NASA on Future Programs ..................................................... 135 L. Market Segments Served in Last 5 Years/Next 5 Years ................................................... 137 M. Actions Taken to Improve Competitiveness in Last 5 Years/Next 5 Years ..................... 138 N. Main Issues Affecting Long-Term Industry Viability ...................................................... 140 O. Recommended Policy/Regulatory Changes for the U.S. Government ............................. 142 X. Supply Chain Dependency on NASA ................................................................................ 144 A. Profile of NASA-Dependent HSF Suppliers .................................................................... 145 B. NASA Dependency and Sales ........................................................................................... 149 C. Production Capacity Utilization Rates for NASA-Dependent Suppliers .........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 by REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MO
    HLS 17RS-1433 ORIGINAL 2017 Regular Session HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 41 BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY CARTER SPECIAL DAY/WEEK/MONTH: Commends several Tulane University students upon winning NASA's BIG Idea Challenge competition 1 A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2 To commend Tulane University students John Robertson, Otto Lyon, Benjamin Lewson, 3 Matthew Gorban, Ethan Gasta, Maxwell Woody, and Afsheen Sajjadi upon their 4 selection as winners of NASA's 2017 BIG Idea Challenge competition. 5 WHEREAS, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is widely 6 regarded as the finest space exploration organization in the world and has an exceptional 7 reputation; and 8 WHEREAS, NASA hosts the BIG Idea Challenge, which is intended to produce 9 designs of crucial importance to manned spaceflight; and 10 WHEREAS, twenty-nine teams from top national universities submitted designs to 11 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and 12 WHEREAS, the group of students representing Tulane designed a revolutionary solar 13 electric propulsion cargo transport spacecraft, called "The Sunflower", and submitted their 14 design to the BIG Idea Challenge competition in November of 2016; and 15 WHEREAS, in December of 2016, the students were selected to be among five 16 finalist teams and were invited to present their design before a panel of distinguished judges 17 at NASA's Langley research facility in Hampton, Virginia; and 18 WHEREAS, the judges selected the Tulane team and their design as the winner of 19 the BIG Idea Challenge competition; and Page 1 of
    [Show full text]
  • Mission to Jupiter
    This book attempts to convey the creativity, Project A History of the Galileo Jupiter: To Mission The Galileo mission to Jupiter explored leadership, and vision that were necessary for the an exciting new frontier, had a major impact mission’s success. It is a book about dedicated people on planetary science, and provided invaluable and their scientific and engineering achievements. lessons for the design of spacecraft. This The Galileo mission faced many significant problems. mission amassed so many scientific firsts and Some of the most brilliant accomplishments and key discoveries that it can truly be called one of “work-arounds” of the Galileo staff occurred the most impressive feats of exploration of the precisely when these challenges arose. Throughout 20th century. In the words of John Casani, the the mission, engineers and scientists found ways to original project manager of the mission, “Galileo keep the spacecraft operational from a distance of was a way of demonstrating . just what U.S. nearly half a billion miles, enabling one of the most technology was capable of doing.” An engineer impressive voyages of scientific discovery. on the Galileo team expressed more personal * * * * * sentiments when she said, “I had never been a Michael Meltzer is an environmental part of something with such great scope . To scientist who has been writing about science know that the whole world was watching and and technology for nearly 30 years. His books hoping with us that this would work. We were and articles have investigated topics that include doing something for all mankind.” designing solar houses, preventing pollution in When Galileo lifted off from Kennedy electroplating shops, catching salmon with sonar and Space Center on 18 October 1989, it began an radar, and developing a sensor for examining Space interplanetary voyage that took it to Venus, to Michael Meltzer Michael Shuttle engines.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Operations Directorate - Success Legacy of the Space Shuttle Program
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20100030556 2019-08-30T11:10:21+00:00Z View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NASA Technical Reports Server Mission Operations Directorate - Success Legacy of the Space Shuttle Program Jim Azbell Deputy Division Chief, Space Transportation Vehicle Division, Mission Operations Directorate NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058 In support of the Space Shuttle Program, as well as NASA’s other human space flight programs, the Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) at the Johnson Space Center has become the world leader in human spaceflight operations. From the earliest programs - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo - through Skylab, Shuttle, ISS, and our Exploration initiatives, MOD and its predecessors have pioneered ops concepts and emphasized a history of mission leadership which has added value, maximized mission success, and built on continual improvement of the capabilities to become more efficient and effective. MOD’s focus on building and contributing value with diverse teams has been key to their successes both with the US space industry and the broader international community. Since their beginning, MOD has consistently demonstrated their ability to evolve and respond to an ever changing environment, effectively prepare for the expected and successfully respond to the unexpected, and develop leaders, expertise, and a culture that has led to mission and Program success. MOD Background To better understand the evolution and successes of MOD during the Shuttle program, one must first understand the MOD’s current roles and responsibilities. MOD’s responsibilities traditionally fall into four categories: flight design and planning, crew and flight controller training, real-time flight execution, and facility operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property Assets (IG-11-024
    AUGUST 4, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-024 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-001-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms FERP Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division GAO Government Accountability Office GSA General Services Administration NPR NASA Procedural Requirements NTC NASA Technical Capabilities OIG Office of Inspector General O&M Operations and Maintenance RPMS Real Property Management System SPF Space Power Facility REPORT NO. IG-11-024 AUGUST 4, 2011 OVERVIEW NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS The Issue NASA’s real property holdings include approximately 5,000 buildings and structures such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands. In total, the assets occupy 44 million square feet and represent more than $26.4 billion in current replacement value.1 However, 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 40 or more years old and many are in degraded condition. Moreover, NASA is dealing with the challenge of its aging infrastructure at a time of large and growing budget deficits that are straining the resources of all Federal agencies. As discretionary funding continues to decline, NASA will be required to make more prudent decisions regarding its infrastructure. In addition, the issue of the Agency’s aging infrastructure has been identified by NASA, the
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Express Orbiter Radio Science
    MaRS: Mars Express Orbiter Radio Science M. Pätzold1, F.M. Neubauer1, L. Carone1, A. Hagermann1, C. Stanzel1, B. Häusler2, S. Remus2, J. Selle2, D. Hagl2, D.P. Hinson3, R.A. Simpson3, G.L. Tyler3, S.W. Asmar4, W.I. Axford5, T. Hagfors5, J.-P. Barriot6, J.-C. Cerisier7, T. Imamura8, K.-I. Oyama8, P. Janle9, G. Kirchengast10 & V. Dehant11 1Institut für Geophysik und Meteorologie, Universität zu Köln, D-50923 Köln, Germany Email: [email protected] 2Institut für Raumfahrttechnik, Universität der Bundeswehr München, D-85577 Neubiberg, Germany 3Space, Telecommunication and Radio Science Laboratory, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 95305, USA 4Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91009, USA 5Max-Planck-Instuitut für Aeronomie, D-37189 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 6Observatoire Midi Pyrenees, F-31401 Toulouse, France 7Centre d’etude des Environnements Terrestre et Planetaires (CETP), F-94107 Saint-Maur, France 8Institute of Space & Astronautical Science (ISAS), Sagamihara, Japan 9Institut für Geowissenschaften, Abteilung Geophysik, Universität zu Kiel, D-24118 Kiel, Germany 10Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, A-8010 Graz, Austria 11Observatoire Royal de Belgique, B-1180 Bruxelles, Belgium The Mars Express Orbiter Radio Science (MaRS) experiment will employ radio occultation to (i) sound the neutral martian atmosphere to derive vertical density, pressure and temperature profiles as functions of height to resolutions better than 100 m, (ii) sound
    [Show full text]
  • Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (Cscs)/Rescue Flight Resource Book
    CSCS/Rescue Flight Resource Book JSC-62900 CONTINGENCY SHUTTLE CREW SUPPORT (CSCS)/RESCUE FLIGHT RESOURCE BOOK OVERVIEW 1 Mission Operations CSCS 2 Directorate RESCUE 3 FLIGHT DA8/Flight Director Office Final July 12, 2005 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas FINAL 07/12/05 2-i Verify this is the correct version before using. CSCS/Rescue Flight Resource Book JSC-62900 CONTINGENCY SHUTTLE CREW SUPPORT (CSCS)/RESCUE FLIGHT RESOURCE BOOK FINAL JULY 12, 2005 PREFACE This document, dated May 24, 2005, is the Basic version of the Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS)/Rescue Flight Resource Book. It is requested that any organization having comments, questions, or suggestions concerning this document should contact DA8/Book Manager, Flight Director Office, Building 4 North, Room 3039. This is a limited distribution and controlled document and is not to be reproduced without the written approval of the Chief, Flight Director Office, mail code DA8, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058. FINAL 07/12/05 2-ii Verify this is the correct version before using. CSCS/Rescue Flight Resource Book JSC-62900 1.0 - OVERVIEW Section 1.0 is the overview of the entire Contingency Shuttle Crew Support (CSCS)/Rescue Flight Resource Book. FINAL 07/12/05 2-iii Verify this is the correct version before using. CSCS/Rescue Flight Resource Book JSC-62900 This page intentionally blank. FINAL 07/12/05 2-iv Verify this is the correct version before using. CSCS/Rescue Flight Resource Book JSC-62900 2.0 - CONTINGENCY SHUTTLE CREW SUPPORT (CSCS) 2.1 Procedures Overview.......................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1 ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa Langley Research Center 2012
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA LANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER 2012 www.nasa.gov An Orion crew capsule test article moments before it is dropped into a An Atlantis flag flew outside Langley’s water basin at Langley to simulate an ocean splashdown. headquarters building during NASA’s final space shuttle mission in July. Launching a New Era of Exploration Welcome to Langley NASA Langley had a banner year in 2012 as we helped propel the nation toward a new age of air and space. From delivering on missions to creating new technologies and knowledge for space, aviation and science, Langley continued the rich tradition of innovation begun 95 years ago. Langley is providing leading-edge research and game-changing technology innovations for human space exploration. We are testing prototype articles of the Orion crew vehicle to optimize designs and improve landing systems for increased crew survivability. Langley has had a role in private-industry space exploration through agreements with SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corp. and Boeing to provide engineering expertise, conduct testing and support research. Aerospace and Science With the rest of the world, we held our breath as the Curiosity rover landed on Mars – with Langley’s help. The Langley team performed millions of simulations of the entry, descent and landing phase of the Mars Science Laboratory mission to enable a perfect landing, Langley Center Director Lesa Roe and Mark Sirangelo, corporate and for the first time made temperature and pressure vice president and head of Sierra Nevada Space Systems, with measurements as the spacecraft descended, providing the Dream Chaser Space System model.
    [Show full text]
  • Constellation Program Overview
    Constellation Program Overview October 2008 hris Culbert anager, Lunar Surface Systems Project Office ASA/Johnson Space Center Constellation Program EarthEarth DepartureDeparture OrionOrion -- StageStage CrewCrew ExplorationExploration VehicleVehicle AresAres VV -- HeavyHeavy LiftLift LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle AltairAltair LunarLunar LanderLander AresAres II -- CrewCrew LaunchLaunch VehicleVehicle Lunar Capabilities Concept Review EstablishedEstablished Lunar Lunar Transportation Transportation EstablishEstablish Lunar Lunar Surface SurfaceArchitecturesArchitectures ArchitectureArchitecture Point Point of of Departure: Departure: StrategiesStrategies which: which: Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree ProvidesProvides crew crew & & cargo cargo delivery delivery to to & & from from the the Satisfy NASA NGO’s to acceptable degree within acceptable schedule moonmoon within acceptable schedule Are consistent with capacity and capabilities ProvidesProvides capacity capacity and and ca capabilitiespabilities consistent consistent Are consistent with capacity and capabilities withwith candidate candidate surface surface architectures architectures ofof the the transportation transportation systems systems ProvidesProvides sufficient sufficient performance performance margins margins IncludeInclude set set of of options options fo for rvarious various prioritizations prioritizations of cost, schedule & risk RemainsRemains within within programmatic programmatic constraints constraints of cost, schedule & risk ResultsResults in in acceptable
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace-America-April-2019.Pdf
    17–21 JUNE 2019 DALLAS, TX SHAPING THE FUTURE OF FLIGHT The 2019 AIAA AVIATION Forum will explore how rapidly changing technology, new entrants, and emerging trends are shaping a future of flight that promises to be strikingly different from the modern global transportation built by our pioneers. Help shape the future of flight at the AIAA AVIATION Forum! PLENARY & FORUM 360 SESSIONS Hear from industry leaders and innovators including Christopher Emerson, President and Head, North America Region, Airbus Helicopters, and Greg Hyslop, Chief Technology Officer, The Boeing Company. Keynote speakers and panelists will discuss vertical lift, autonomy, hypersonics, and more. TECHNICAL PROGRAM More than 1,100 papers will be presented, giving you access to the latest research and development on technical areas including applied aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, and air traffic operations. NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES The forum offers daily networking opportunities to connect with over 2,500 attendees from across the globe representing hundreds of government, academic, and private institutions. Opportunities to connect include: › ADS Banquet (NEW) › AVIATION 101 (NEW) › Backyard BBQ (NEW) › Exposition Hall › Ignite the “Meet”ing (NEW) › Meet the Employers Recruiting Event › Opening Reception › Student Welcome Reception › The HUB Register now aviation.aiaa.org/register FEATURES | APRIL 2019 MORE AT aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org The U.S. Army’s Kestrel Eye prototype cubesat after being released from the International Space Station. NASA 18 30 40 22 3D-printing solid Seeing the far Managing Getting out front on rocket fuel side of the moon drone traffi c Researchers China’s Chang’e-4 Package delivery alone space technology say additive “opens up a new could put thousands manufacturing is scientifi c frontier.” of drones into the sky, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE for LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B
    LUNAR NETWORK TRACKING ARCHITECTURE FOR LUNAR FLIGHT Shane B. Robinson∗ A trade study was conducted with the objective of comparing and contrasting the radiometric naviga- tion performance provided by various architectures of lunar-based navigations assets. Architectures considered consist of a compliment of two beacons located on the lunar surface, and two orbiting bea- cons that provide range and range-rate measurements to the user. Configurations of these assets include both coplanar and linked constellations of frozen elliptic orbiters and halo orbiters. Each architecture was studied during the lunar-approach, lunar-orbit, and landing phases of a South Pole lunar sortie mis- sion. Navigation filter performance was evaluated on the basis of filter convergence latency, and the steady state uncertainty in the navigation solution. The sensitivity of the filter solution to Earth-based tracking augmentation and availability of range measurements was also studied. Filter performance was examined during the build up of the lunar-based navigation system by exploring different combi- nations of orbiting and surface-based assets. 1 INTRODUCTION The objective of the work outlined in this document is to conduct a parametric trade intended to evaluate some proposed constellations of moon-orbiting navigation and communication beacons. These orbiting beacons are intended to support the lunar missions of NASA’s Constellation program. This study is sponsored by the flight performance systems integration group at JPL (FPSIG), whose work is funded by the NASA Constellation program office. The work outlined in this report will focus on investigating lunar network aided navigation performance during near lunar phases of baseline missions proposed by the Constellation program.
    [Show full text]
  • High Altitude Nuclear Detonations (HAND) Against Low Earth Orbit Satellites ("HALEOS")
    High Altitude Nuclear Detonations (HAND) Against Low Earth Orbit Satellites ("HALEOS") DTRA Advanced Systems and Concepts Office April 2001 1 3/23/01 SPONSOR: Defense Threat Reduction Agency - Dr. Jay Davis, Director Advanced Systems and Concepts Office - Dr. Randall S. Murch, Director BACKGROUND: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) was founded in 1998 to integrate and focus the capabilities of the Department of Defense (DoD) that address the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat. To assist the Agency in its primary mission, the Advanced Systems and Concepts Office (ASCO) develops and maintains and evolving analytical vision of necessary and sufficient capabilities to protect United States and Allied forces and citizens from WMD attack. ASCO is also charged by DoD and by the U.S. Government generally to identify gaps in these capabilities and initiate programs to fill them. It also provides support to the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC), and its Panels, with timely, high quality research. SUPERVISING PROJECT OFFICER: Dr. John Parmentola, Chief, Advanced Operations and Systems Division, ASCO, DTRA, (703)-767-5705. The publication of this document does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of the sponsoring agency. 1 Study Participants • DTRA/AS • RAND – John Parmentola – Peter Wilson – Thomas Killion – Roger Molander – William Durch – David Mussington – Terry Heuring – Richard Mesic – James Bonomo • DTRA/TD – Lewis Cohn • Logicon RDA – Les Palkuti – Glenn Kweder – Thomas Kennedy – Rob Mahoney – Kenneth Schwartz – Al Costantine – Balram Prasad • Mission Research Corp. – William White 2 3/23/01 2 Focus of This Briefing • Vulnerability of commercial and government-owned, unclassified satellite constellations in low earth orbit (LEO) to the effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Rideshare and the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle: the Key to Low-Cost Lagrange-Point Missions
    SSC15-II-5 Rideshare and the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle: the Key to Low-cost Lagrange-point Missions Chris Pearson, Marissa Stender, Christopher Loghry, Joe Maly, Valentin Ivanitski Moog Integrated Systems 1113 Washington Avenue, Suite 300, Golden, CO, 80401; 303 216 9777, extension 204 [email protected] Mina Cappuccio, Darin Foreman, Ken Galal, David Mauro NASA Ames Research Center PO Box 1000, M/S 213-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; 650 604 1313 [email protected] Keats Wilkie, Paul Speth, Trevor Jackson, Will Scott NASA Langley Research Center 4 West Taylor Street, Mail Stop 230, Hampton, VA, 23681; 757 864 420 [email protected] ABSTRACT Rideshare is a well proven approach, in both LEO and GEO, enabling low-cost space access through splitting of launch charges between multiple passengers. Demand exists from users to operate payloads at Lagrange points, but a lack of regular rides results in a deficiency in rideshare opportunities. As a result, such mission architectures currently rely on a costly dedicated launch. NASA and Moog have jointly studied the technical feasibility, risk and cost of using an Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) to offer Lagrange point rideshare opportunities. This OMV would be launched as a secondary passenger on a commercial rocket into Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) and utilize the Moog ESPA secondary launch adapter. The OMV is effectively a free flying spacecraft comprising a full suite of avionics and a propulsion system capable of performing GTO to Lagrange point transfer via a weak stability boundary orbit. In addition to traditional OMV ’tug’ functionality, scenarios using the OMV to host payloads for operation at the Lagrange points have also been analyzed.
    [Show full text]