DOCSLIB.ORG

Launch Vehicle Options for Exploration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Launch Vehicle Options for Exploration The Space Congress® Proceedings 2004 (41st) Space Congress Proceedings Apr 28th, 8:00 AM Panel Session IV - Launch Vehicle Options for Exploration Daniel J. Collins Vice President and Delta Program Manager, The Boeing Company Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Collins, Daniel J., "Panel Session IV - Launch Vehicle Options for Exploration" (2004). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 12. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-2004-41st/april-28/12 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]. Delta Top Launcher in 2003 NASA's Workhorse Delta IV Heavy on ad Launcher Success Failure Mars Missions Delta 9 0 Soyuz 8 0 Atlas 6 0 Long March 6 0 Proton 5 0 0 Ariane 4 Spirit Opportunity Titan 4 0 Pegasus 4 0 Cosmos 3M 3 0 Sea Launch 3 0 H-2AIM·5 3 1 GSLV/PSLV 2 0 Molniya M 2 0 Rockot 2 0 Strei a 1 0 6/10/03 7/07/03 8/29/03 100% NASA Mission Success 04HB04001 _2 "~-:t·, • ' • ~~:.'llstantial . IJ)~-¥. a Investments are Available to Jump i . ~ilta· 1v .H~- . .ubsystems M~y Also be Used for · . ;~ ~~rt N~~~~ ..~1Qr ,a1ion Vision ·: ,'0Jher EJe•t•QJil·Launch Options Rocketdy ne DeltalVHeavy ~. RS-68 Heavy ~ · ,· I configuration Ii First newI U.S. to satisfy ~ .. booster engine USG heavy-lift • • in over 20 yrs per requirements USG requirements Delta IV Rocket Development Delta IV Heavy fairing Delta IV upper stage • Based on 100% successful •Adaptable for in-space heritage fairing design transportation/upper stage Decatur, AL SLC 37 at CCAFS • Titan IV heritage applications 1.Sm sq. ft. state-of-the-art New launch pad and infrastructure manufacturing facility and tooling I Boeing Has Invested Billions in Design Development and /nfrastructur~ 04H804001_3 04HB04001_4 • Apollo/Saturn programs built upon incremental • Robust capabilities minimizes Planned EELV Launches fYr steps to achieve an extraordinary objective near-term investment 28 i============i +-----=-EE_L_VC_C_AF_S_Ca_,_pa_ci~ ty _____, 24 • Saturn program built upon the solid achievements of • Decatur Manufacturing Facility 20 +-------------.., much smaller precursor launch systems - Designed to produce 40 CBCs/year 16 +--------------j Saturn Launch Vehicle Evolutionary Development • RS-68 developed and flight-proven 12 +-------------.., /~ . - Production capability sized to support Delta-IV production [! • SLC 37-B designed for 15 launches 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 per year " ~ . · :1 · Delta IV Support Of EELV And Other NASA/Civil Programs Jupiter Saturn I Saturn 18 Saturn V Assures Launch And Manufacturing Proficiency Spiral Development From Existing Systems Enabled Saturn V 04HB04001_5 04HB04001_6 58 - ~~· - ''.:•r ;iJ·:' f , .., ~,I~ 1\/7;.~E uture Heavy-Lift Needs · !B~eing J~8~fting NASA Trade Studies C3=0 (mT) 32 28 20 16 12 Delta IV Heavy Shuttle Derived "Clean Sheet" Derived Solutions Solutions Solutions Boeing Space Exploration Systems Provides Integrated Perspective 04HB04001_8 : ~4~y f ~~~< : eJta IV4)3r.o· ~ N~ar-Term Benefits for Exp·loration . ,__..JG("' .t; ~ A:•;, ~ • Flight-proven Delta IV provides significant • Flight-proven Shuttle system could enable near-term capability significant exploration capability • Boeing is part of a collaborative Industry • Delta IV provides a low cost mechanism to Study Team jump-start exploration • Shuttle-Derived Vehicle may provide a low - Candidate low-risk upgrades identified development cost option for -100-mT to LEO may enable up to 45-mT to LEO - SDV would greatly simplify operations and - NASA Exploration and USAF EEL V reduce costs program synergy • Shuttle-Derived Vehicle supports spiral development of super heavy-lift capability • Delta IV upgrades also can support alternate development solutions for super Focused On Providing Shuttle-Derived Options, heavy-lift capability Not Recommending A Preferred Configuration 1st Delta IV Heavy Launch Summer2004 04HB04001 _9 04HB04001_10 ) / ~w(,,, • .>':' 1"1~.' / •.,;,. , . , ~eing:f. ~·~~ ~. ~cle Exploration Architecture S_tudy • Launch Vehicles critically impact Exploration architecture development process - Drives destination sizing, cycle time and tonnage - Defines largest in-space transportation element • Developed single Boeing Launch Vehicle database Launch Vehicle Database • LV Database Trade Parameters - Life Cycle Cost - Performance - Spiral development - Ground infrastructure capabilities/constraints 1 OOMT 40MT 60MT 100MT 40MT 60MT 100MT 40MT 60MT I Boeing Will Provide NASA With Our Best Boeing Phantom Works Assessing New LOX/Kerosene Vehicle I Independent Launch Vehicle Assessment Options Constrained to Existing Engines, Vehicle Tooling Size, 04 HB04001_11 etc, With a $78 Non-Recurring Development Cost 04HB0400 1_12 59 .:-,.,1; , • ">T I ~aCe Tra~~~ion Options for Space Exploration i Delta IV Growth Existing/growth Delta IV, Shuttle-Derived or "Clean Sheet" options could provide f substantial Exploration capability '~ @~ Moon m:1 :~:~ "Best" Shuttle-Derived Solution ?..' Mars Detailed trade studies based on NASA's exploration requirements, funding and other considerations will be needed to identify the best solution 60 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions
    Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint International Conference & Workshop June 12-15, New Orleans, LA Bob Bitten, Debra Emmons, Claude Freaner 1 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Abstract • The upcoming retirement of the Delta II family of launch vehicles leaves a performance gap between small expendable launch vehicles, such as the Pegasus and Taurus, and large vehicles, such as the Delta IV and Atlas V families • This performance gap may lead to a variety of progressions including – large satellites that utilize the full capability of the larger launch vehicles, – medium size satellites that would require dual manifesting on the larger vehicles or – smaller satellites missions that would require a large number of smaller launch vehicles • This paper offers some comparative costs of co-manifesting single- instrument missions on a Delta IV/Atlas V, versus placing several instruments on a larger bus and using a Delta IV/Atlas V, as well as considering smaller, single instrument missions launched on a Minotaur or Taurus • This paper presents the results of a parametric study investigating the cost- effectiveness of different alternatives and their effect on future NASA missions that fall into the Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium Explorer (MIDEX), Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP), Discovery,
    [Show full text]
  • MIT Japan Program Working Paper 01.10 the GLOBAL COMMERCIAL
    MIT Japan Program Working Paper 01.10 THE GLOBAL COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH INDUSTRY: JAPAN IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Saadia M. Pekkanen Assistant Professor Department of Political Science Middlebury College Middlebury, VT 05753 [email protected] I am grateful to Marco Caceres, Senior Analyst and Director of Space Studies, Teal Group Corporation; Mark Coleman, Chemical Propulsion Information Agency (CPIA), Johns Hopkins University; and Takashi Ishii, General Manager, Space Division, The Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies (SJAC), Tokyo, for providing basic information concerning launch vehicles. I also thank Richard Samuels and Robert Pekkanen for their encouragement and comments. Finally, I thank Kartik Raj for his excellent research assistance. Financial suppport for the Japan portion of this project was provided graciously through a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Harvard Academy of International and Area Studies. MIT Japan Program Working Paper Series 01.10 Center for International Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology Room E38-7th Floor Cambridge, MA 02139 Phone: 617-252-1483 Fax: 617-258-7432 Date of Publication: July 16, 2001 © MIT Japan Program Introduction Japan has been seriously attempting to break into the commercial space launch vehicles industry since at least the mid 1970s. Yet very little is known about this story, and about the politics and perceptions that are continuing to drive Japanese efforts despite many outright failures in the indigenization of the industry. This story, therefore, is important not just because of the widespread economic and technological merits of the space launch vehicles sector which are considerable. It is also important because it speaks directly to the ongoing debates about the Japanese developmental state and, contrary to the new wisdom in light of Japan's recession, the continuation of its high technology policy as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Space
    EXPLORING SPACE: Opening New Frontiers Past, Present, and Future Space Launch Activities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center EXPLORING SPACE: OPENING NEW FRONTIERS Dr. Al Koller COPYRIGHT © 2016, A. KOLLER, JR. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without the written consent of the copyright holder Library of Congress Control Number: 2016917577 ISBN: 978-0-9668570-1-6 e3 Company Titusville, Florida http://www.e3company.com 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Foreword …………………………………………………………………………2 Dedications …………………………………………………………………...…3 A Place of Canes and Reeds……………………………………………….…4 Cape Canaveral and The Eastern Range………………………………...…7 Early Missile Launches ...……………………………………………….....9-17 Explorer 1 – First Satellite …………………….……………………………...18 First Seven Astronauts ………………………………………………….……20 Mercury Program …………………………………………………….……23-27 Gemini Program ……………………………………………..….…………….28 Air Force Titan Program …………………………………………………..29-30 Apollo Program …………………………………………………………....31-35 Skylab Program ……………………………………………………………….35 Space Shuttle Program …………………………………………………..36-40 Evolved Expendable Launch Program ……………………………………..41 Constellation Program ………………………………………………………..42 International Space Station ………………………………...………………..42 Cape Canaveral Spaceport Today………………………..…………………43 ULA – Atlas V, Delta IV ………………………………………………………44 Boeing X-37B …………………………………………………………………45 SpaceX Falcon 1, Falcon 9, Dragon Capsule .………….........................46 Boeing CST-100 Starliner …………………………………………………...47 Sierra
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing the Impact of US Air Force National Security Space Launch Acquisition Decisions
    C O R P O R A T I O N BONNIE L. TRIEZENBERG, COLBY PEYTON STEINER, GRANT JOHNSON, JONATHAN CHAM, EDER SOUSA, MOON KIM, MARY KATE ADGIE Assessing the Impact of U.S. Air Force National Security Space Launch Acquisition Decisions An Independent Analysis of the Global Heavy Lift Launch Market For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4251 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0399-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Courtesy photo by United Launch Alliance. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Space Launch Vehicles Used by The
    Current Space Launch Vehicles Used by the HEET United States S Nathan Daniels April 2014 At present, the United States relies on Russian rocket engines to launch satellites ACT into space. F The U.S. also relies on Russia to transport its astronauts to the International Space Station (as the U.S. Space Shuttle program ended in 2011). Not only does this reliance have direct implications for our launch capabilities, but it also means that we are funding Russian space and missile technology while we could be investing in U.S. based jobs and the defense industrial base. These facts raises national security concerns, as the United States’ relationship with Russia is ever-changing - the situation in Ukraine is a prime example. This paper serves as a brief, but factual overview of active launch vehicles used by the United States. First, are the three vehicles with the payload capability to launch satellites into orbit: the Atlas V, Delta IV, and the Falcon 9. The other active launch vehicles will follow in alphabetical order. www.AmericanSecurityProject.org 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 710W Washington, DC AMERICAN SECURITY PROJECT Atlas Launch Vehicle History and the Current Atlas V • Since its debut in 1957 as America’s first operational intercon- tinental ballistic missile (ICBM) designed by the Convair Divi- sion of General Dynamics, the Atlas family of launch vehicles has logged nearly 600 flights. • The missiles saw brief ICBM service, and the last squadron was taken off of operational alert in 1965. • From 1962 to 1963, Atlas boosters launched the first four Ameri- can astronauts to orbit the Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Portal Edgar Zapata.Pdf
    • • ABOUT ME PUBLICATIONS MORE • NASA NIAC EXTERNAL COUNCIL • [email protected] • ZAPATATALKSNASA.COM 2 • ONLY PART OF THE TOTAL COST TO NASA, DOD, GOVERNMENT (CLOSER TO “PRICE”) • OTHER PUBLIC DATA FOR PERSONNEL/GOVERNMENT AND OTHER PROGRAM/PROJECT RELATED PROCUREMENT COSTS WITH PRIOR, GETS NEAR TO “TOTAL COST” • THE BENEFIT ACROSS TIME, THE CUMULATIVE BENEFIT PRODUCED FOR THAT PRICE/COST, LONG TERM 4 • • • • • • • 5 • • • • • • • • • • • 6 Zapata 4/6/2021 The NASA Budget Education & IG, then Cross Agency Support '07 fwd NASA budget increases = ~ 1.8 % per year average 1995-2020 $24,000 Aerospace incl. R&D to '02 / Aeronautics '03 fwd Science $22,000 Space Flight Support (incl. Payload/Util., LSP, Comm., & SMA) $20,000 Cx '05 Fwd, SLS + Orion + Grd.Sys. '11 Fwd $18,000 NASA BUDGET Expl. R&D: Gateway $16,000 Purchase Power Expl. R&D: Advanced Cis-lunar/Landers, HRT, & Commercial LEO 19% Drop 1995-2021 Purchase Power $14,000 R&D (Many) & LifeSci; now Expl. R&D: AES Science Drop 1995 to 2021 = Space Tech. & Aero-Tech. Space Technology '10 Fwd $12,000 19% ISS R&D $10,000 ISS (Construction to '11, then Ops & Maint.) $8,000 Shift to (Cx/Ares I Cross-cutting Research Constellation canceled) Orion, SLS US Commercial Crew for ISS & Program Budget Begins & Ground Sys. Development $6,000 Management + LifeSci ISS Crew (Soyuz) & Cargo (US Commercial) << ISS 1st ISS Element $4,000 Development Launched Space Shuttle Production, Operations & Upgrades Begins 1985 (Russian) 1998 & Construction >> <-- Shuttle Shuttle Production, Earmarks $2,000 $Millions NASA Budget (Nominal Dollars) (Nominal Budget NASA $Millions Development Begins Operations 1972 & Upgrades Rescissions (2012a) $- 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Rescissions (2012b) Return To Flight Last Shuttle Columbia Purchase Power (PP) in 1995 $ Decision: End Shuttle post-ISS Flight 2011 Dragon/Cargo Cygnus/Cargo Dragon/Crew & Falcon 9 & Antares to ISS May 8 May 2012 Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Vysoké Učení Technické V Brně Vývoj Raketových
    VYSOKÉ UČENÍ TECHNICKÉ V BRNĚ BRNO UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY FAKULTA STROJNÍHO INŽENÝRSTVÍ LETECKÝ ÚSTAV FACULTY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING VÝVOJ RAKETOVÝCH MOTORŮ DEVELOPMENT OF ROCKET ENGINES BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE BACHELOR'S THESIS AUTOR PRÁCE PETER MARCINKO AUTHOR VEDOUCÍ PRÁCE Ing. ROSTISLAV KOŠTIAL SUPERVISOR BRNO 2014 Vysoké učení technické v Brně, Fakulta strojního inženýrství Letecký ústav Akademický rok: 2013/2014 ZADÁNÍ BAKALÁŘSKÉ PRÁCE student(ka): Peter Marcinko který/která studuje v bakalářském studijním programu obor: Strojní inženýrství (2301R016) Ředitel ústavu Vám v souladu se zákonem č.111/1998 o vysokých školách a se Studijním a zkušebním řádem VUT v Brně určuje následující téma bakalářské práce: Vývoj raketových motorů v anglickém jazyce: Development of rocket engines Stručná charakteristika problematiky úkolu: Zdůvodnění zavedení a rozvoje raketových motorů. Přehled dosud vyvinutých, vyvíjených a využívaných významných raketových nosičů, pro kosmické účely, jejich stručný technický popis a technicko-taktická data. Perspektivy dalšího rozvoje a nově vyvíjené projekty nosných raket pro kosmické účely. Cíle bakalářské práce: Zpracovat historicko-technický vývoj raketových motorů používaných pro kosmické účely. Seznam odborné literatury: [1]Časopis Letectví a kosmonautika [2]Internetové zdroje [3]Rakety a Kosmodromy Vedoucí bakalářské práce: Ing. Rostislav Koštial Termín odevzdání bakalářské práce je stanoven časovým plánem akademického roku 2013/2014. V Brně, dne L.S. _______________________________ _______________________________ doc. Ing. Jaroslav Juračka, Ph.D. doc. Ing. Jaroslav Katolický, Ph.D. Ředitel ústavu Děkan fakulty Abstrakt Táto práca popisuje vývoj raketových motorov od prvých rakiet až po súčasnosť. Práca je rozdelená na tri základné časti. Prvá časť popisuje základné fyzikálne princípy, ktorými sa musí raketa počas letu riadiť.
    [Show full text]
  • Boeing's Delta Rockets Have Been a Mainstay of the Space Launch
    Historical Perspective Boeing’s Delta rockets have been a mainstay of the space launch business for 50 years by Robert Villanueva n May 13, 1960, the first Delta satellites and scientific probes to planetary Delta would launch satellites that rocket lifted off from Cape Canav- rover vehicles. revolutionized weather forecasting and the Oeral’s launch pad 17A carrying Delta’s origins date back to Boeing first Telstar and Intelsat satellites, which the Echo 1 satellite. Although that mission predecessor company Douglas’ design enabled the TV phrase, “live via satellite.” failed, the program quickly followed up for the Thor intermediate-range ballistic Design changes allowed Delta to carry in August with the successful launch of missile, developed in the mid-1950s for increasingly larger and heavier payloads Echo 1A. It marked the beginning of what the U.S. Air Force. Thor, a single-stage, to space. These included larger first-stage would become one of the most successful liquid-fueled rocket, made its first success- tanks, the addition of strap-on solid rocket space launch systems ever developed. ful launch on Sept. 20, 1957, and provided boosters, increased propellant capacity, Fifty years and some 348 launches later, nuclear deterrence before intercontinental an improved main engine, adoption of Delta rockets are still flying, carrying into ballistic missiles. Thor later was modified advanced electronics and guidance space everything from earth-orbiting to become the Delta launch vehicle. systems, and development of upper 12 BOEING FRONTIERS / HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE BOEING FRONTIERS / MAY 2010 stage and satellite payload systems. The Delta IV is manufactured at a Until the early 1980s, Delta was NASA’s 1.5-million-square-foot (140,000-square- primary launch vehicle for communications, meter) production facility in Decatur, Ala.
    [Show full text]
  • Aas 12-128 Conceptual Design and Analysis of Planetary
    AAS 12-128 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF PLANETARY DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY (PDT) DEMONSTRATION MISSIONS George Vardaxis,∗ Alan Pitz,y and Bong Wiez When the warning time of the impact threat of a near-Earth object (NEO) is short, the use of nuclear explosives may become necessary to safeguard the Earth. A variety of nuclear options, such as standoff, surface contact, and subsurface explo- sions, for mitigating the impact threats of NEOs have been proposed and studied in the past two decades. Eventually in the near future, an actual flight demonstra- tion mission may become necessary to verify and validate the overall effectiveness and robustness of such various nuclear options and the associated space technolo- gies. This paper presents the conceptual mission architecture design of such flight validation missions with a consideration of three mission cost classifications (e.g., $500M, $1B, and $1.5B). INTRODUCTION Given the past occurrences of asteroids and comets colliding with the Earth, it is necessary to prepare a global plan on how to mitigate the threat of a near-Earth object (NEO) on an Earth- impacting trajectory. During the past several years, research activities at the Iowa State Asteroid Deflection Research Center (ADRC) have focused on various nuclear options, such as standoff, surface contact, and subsurface explosions.1;2;3 The most effective approach is to use a penetrated subsurface explosion to deliver a considerable amount of energy to a small depth (< 5m) resulting in the possible total disruption of the target NEO. Depending on the mission lead time, a timely execution of a real NEO deflection/disruption mission can be a challenging task.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Play US Space Systems Competitiveness
    The State of Play US Space Systems Competitiveness Prices, Productivity, and Other Measures of Launchers & Spacecraft Edgar Zapata NASA Kennedy Space Center Presentation to the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Seminar October 11, 2017 Purpose • Collect space systems cost and related data (flight rate, payload, etc.) over time • Gathers only public data • Non-recurring and recurring • Minimal data processing • A few adjustments, mostly for apples to apples comparisons • Inflation to current year dollars • Same orbit, etc. • Graph, visualize, add context • Focus on US space systems competitiveness • Keep fresh – update as data arises, launches occur, etc. • Keep fresh – focus on recent data, indicative of the future 2 Caveats & Terminology • The “price” to a customer is the “cost” to the customer (NASA, DoD, NRO, private sector, etc.) • Other government agency “costs” are personnel, government management, etc. • Occasional “asterisks”– included or not • Uncertainties are inevitable • Anecdotal evidence some launch pricing actually higher than publicly announced (Russia/Proton, etc.) • Some public data is processed more – different contracts, phases, multiple partners, not yet final, age of the data, etc. (Apollo, Commercial Crew, SLS, Orion, etc.) 3 Source Data Source data for this report is available in the NASA Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Model Contact [email protected] The NASA Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Model 12/7/2016 Updates NASA Scenarios Model Launch System for Human Exploration & Operations Life Cycle Cost Model Budgets vs. Life Cycle Costs Data 4 From “508_CFO_presentation.pdf” March 2014 As of 7/5/2017 10/1/17> US Commercial Crew dates http://spaceref.biz/agencies/commercial-crew- 4/14/15> SpaceX-13> 14 US Major flight-dates-delayed-to-2018.html Launches in 2017 6/28/15> SpaceX-14> (failed) st ULA 4/08/16> SpaceX-15> 1 SLS Demo Flight TBD.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Space Flight Support
    2019 Human Space Flight Support 60 YEARS AND COUNTING SULLIVAN, DEENA L CTR USAF AFSPC 45 OG DET 3/MANTECH Table of Contents Forward ........................................................................................ 1 Missile Harmony His Job .............................................................. 3 Bosses Cape Missile Center Yates Baby ....................................... 4 To Head Support Yates Gets Top Mercury Post ........................... 7 Amazing Maze Clutters Space ...................................................... 8 Missile-Quick Cape Tour Frays Ike ............................................. 16 And Along Came General Yates ................................................. 19 110 Major Events In Cape Canaveral History ............................. 22 Gen. Davis Gets New Assignment .............................................. 30 Interlude 1: Stories from the 304th ............................................ 31 It’s Surprise For General ............................................................ 34 Interlude 2: Stories from the Jump Team .................................. 35 John C. Ratliff’s narrative ........................................................... 35 Gen. Davis Gets Medal At Pentagon .......................................... 39 Where NASA Stops In Space Flights, DDMS Starts ..................... 40 Gen. Huston To Lead Apollo 9 Conference ................................ 42 Gen. Huston Heads DDMS meeting here ................................... 43 Meeting Set on Support of Moon Shot .....................................
    [Show full text]