DOCSLIB.ORG

Results of the Tenth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight SA-10, MPR-SAT-FE-66-11, July 14, 1966

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Results of the Tenth Saturn I Launch Vehicle Test Flight SA-10, MPR-SAT-FE-66-11, July 14, 1966 HUNTSVILLE ALABAMA U N MPR-SAT-FE-66-i t J (Supersedes MPR-SAT-65-14) July 14, 1966 X69-75421 (ACCE$$}0_IN_) ./BER) " (THRU) _; <k/ ,ooo_, o (NASA'CR OR T__) (CATEGORYI _. AVAILABLE TO U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND CONTRACTORS ONLY RESULTSOFTHETENTHSATURN, LAUNCHVEHICLE [u] .C,_BsTfIc_o _ c_a_ _£Sk "+ , / +. _ ,+1 -: • 1_ ,t:_ 'v- Sc_e_t;*; SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP GROUP-4 _/ Down_r_W_L3y_rvats; Declasf_ars. %, L " \ ',., ". MSFC - Fo_m 774 (Rev Ma_ 1_66) C • _, SECURITY NOTE This document contains irrformation affecting the national defense of the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Law, Title 18, U.S.C. , Sec- tions 793 and 794 as amended. The revelation ol its contents in any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law. MPR-SAT-FE-66-11 RESULTS OF TIIE TENTH SATURN I LAUNCII VEIIICLE TEST FLIGHT SA-IO By Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group George C. Marshall Space Flight Center AI3STIIA CT This report presents the results of the early engi- neering evaluation of the SA-10 test flight. Sixth of the Block II series, SA-i0 was the fifth Saturn vehicle to car W an Apollo boilerplate (BP-9) payload and the third in a series to carry a Pegasus payload (Pegasus C). The performance of each major vehicle system is discussed with special emphasis on malfunctions and deviations. This test flightof SA-10 was the tenth consecutive success for the Saturn I vehicles and marks the end el the Saturn I program This was the third flight test of the Pegasus meteoroid technology satellite, the third flight test to utilize the iterative guidance mode, the fourth flight test utilizing the ST-f24 guidance system forboth stages, andthe fifth flight test to dem- onstrate the closed loop performance of the path guidance during S-IV burn. The performaneeofthe guidance system was successful and the insertion velocity was very near the expected value. This was also the third flight test of the unpressurized prototype production Instrument Unit and passive thermal control systemwhiehg411 be used on Saturn lJ3 and V vehicles. All missions of the flight were successfully accom- plished. Any questions or comments pertaining to the in- formation contained in this report are invited and should be directed to: Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center lfuntsville, Alabama Attention: Chairman, Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group R-AERO-F (Phone 876-4575) GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGIIT CENTER MPR-_T-FE-66-1 l July 14, 1966 [Supersedes MPR-SAT-65-14) / NOTICE_ THiS DOCT:,_NT CONTAINSINFORMATION Afi!-_Fl_S TtL: ff,"_TjlC_,LOEFF_::_',,L t,_ THE UN,TED SI;',l_',,e_; ; J '.. ,,::., :- TIlE [SP_n._E LA";_ i_r,'_JilLIeT__.,, __:: ' ;']_ .,_i_ 79.], IIS CROUP 4 .j V., '._lP"_II_ '-. ' "...'_ :_ ._.,",,r!;t_TS /t,_ ' ,,i inte rva_l_classifled SATURN FLIGHT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP 22 ..... __- 1_'__-- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Contributions to this report were made by various elements of MSFC, dolm F. Kennedy Space Center, Douglas Aircraft Company, Chrysler Corporation, IBM Corporation, Rocketdyne, and Pratt& Whitney. With- out the joint efforts and assistance of these elem_'nts, this integrated report would not have been possible. The Saturn Flight Evaluation Working Group is espe- ciallyindebted to the following 10r their major contri- butions: John F. Kennedy Space Center Douglas Aircraft Company Chrysler Corporation Space Division International Business Machines Corporation Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Research and Development Operations Aero-Astrodynamics Laboratory Acre-Space Environment Office Aerodynamics Division Flight Evaluation and Operations Studles Division A strionics Labor atot_' Electrical Systems Integration Division Flight Dynamics Brmlch Guidance and Control Division Instrumentation and CommUnica- tions Division Computation Laboratory R& D Application Division Propulsion and Vehicle Engineering Laboratory Propulsion Division Structures Division Vehicle Systems Division i! oxTm TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I. FLIGItT "rEST SUMMAHY ......................................... l l. 1 Flight Test Results ......................................... l I. 2 Test Objectives ............................................ 2 1.3 Times of Events ................. , . ..... , ....... , , ........ '> SECTION II. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 4 SFCTION III. LAUNCH OPERATIONS ........................................... 5 3. 1 Summary ................................................ 5 3.2 Prelauneh Milestones ........................................ 5 3.3 Atmospheric Conditions ...................................... 5 3.4 Countdown ................................................ 5 3.5 Propellant Loading .......................................... 5 3.5. i S-I Stage ........................................... 5 3.5.2 S IV Stage .......................................... 7 3.5.2.1 LOX ....................................... 7 3.5.2.2 LIt2 ....................................... 8 3.5.2.3 Cold Helium ................................. 8 3.6 Holddown ................................................. 9 3.7 Ground Support Equipment ..................................... 9 3.7.1 Mechanical Ground Support Equipment ........................ 9 3, 7.2 Electrical Support Equipment ............................. 9 3.8 Blockhouse Redline Values .................................... 9 SECTION IV. MASS CHARACTERISTICS ......................................... 10 4. 1 Vehicle Mass ............................................. l0 4.2 Vehicle Center of Gravity and Moment of Inertia ...................... 10 SECTION V. TRAJECTORY ................................................. 14 5. 1 Summary ................................................ 14 5.2 Trajectory Comparison with Nominal .............................. 14 5.3 Insertion Conditions (S-IV Cutoff + 10 Seconds) ....................... 17 SECTION VI. PROPULSION .................................................. 18 6. I Summary ................................................ 18 6.2 S-I Stage Performance ....................................... 18 6.2.1 Overall Stage Propulsion Performance ....................... 18 6.2.2 Flight Simulation of Cluster Performance ..................... 20 6.2.3 Individual Engine Performance ............................. 21 6.3 S-I Pressurization Systems .................................... 21 6.3. I Fuel Pressurization System ............................... 21 6.3.2 LOX Tank Pressurization System ........................... 22 6.3.3 Control Pressure System ................................. 22 6.3.4 LOX-SOX Disposal System ............................... 22 6.3.5 Hydrogen Vent Duct Purge ................................ 23 6.4 S-I Stage Propellant Utilization ................................. 23 6.5 S-I Stage Hydraulic Systems .................................... 24 6.6 Retro Rocket Performance ..................................... 25 6.7 S-IV Stage Propulsion ....................................... 25 6.7. t Overall S-IV Stage Propulsion Performance .................... 25 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cent'd) Page 6.7.2 Stage Performance .................................. 25 6.7.2. I Engine Analysis ............................. 25 6.7.2, 2 Flight Simulation ............................. 26 6.7.3 Individual Engine Performance ........................... 28 6.7.3. I Engine Cooldown ............................. 28 6.7, 3.2 Start Transients ............................. 28 6.7.3.3 Steady State Operation ......................... 28 6.7.3.4 Cutoff Transients ............................ 29 6.8 S-IV Pressurization System ................................. 29 6.8. I LH 2 Tank PressurJ, zation .............................. 29 6.8. I. t LH2 Pump Inlet Conditions ...................... 30 6.8.2 LOX Tank Pressurization ............................. 31 6.8.2. t Helium bleater Operation ....................... 32 6.8.2.2 LOX Pump Inlet Conditions ...................... 32 6.8.3 Cold Helium Supply .................................. 33 6.8.4 Control Helium System ................................ 33 6.9 Propellant Utilization ...................................... 33 6.9. I Propellant Mass History ................................ 34 6.9.2 System Response .................................... 34 6, 9.3 PU System Command ................................. 34 6.10 S-IV Hydraulic System ..................................... 35 6. Ii U11age Rockets ........................................... 35 SECTION VII. GUIDANCE AND CONTROL ....................................... 36 7. I Summary .............................................. 36 7, 2 System Description ........................................ 36 7.3 Control Analysis .......................................... 38 7.3. I S-I Stage Flight Control ................................ 38 7.3. i. i Pitch Plane ................................. 38 7.3. 1.2 Yau' Plane ................................. 38 7.3. I. 3 Control Design Parameters ...................... 40 7.3. I. 4 Roll Plane ................................. 40 7.3.2 S-IV Stage Flight Control .............................. 41 7.4 Functional Analysis ....................................... 42 7.4. l Control Sensors .................................... 42 7.4. i. i Control Accelerometers ........................ 42 7.4. I. 2 Angle-of-Attack Sensors ....................... 42 7.4. i. 3 Rate Gyros ................................. 43 7.4.1.4 Control Acceleration Switch ...................... 43 7.4. I. 5 Resolver Chain Error
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris
    r bulletin 109 — february 2002 Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris D. Mehrholz, L. Leushacke FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques, Wachtberg, Germany W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Darmstadt, Germany Earth’s space-debris environment tracked, with estimates for the number of Today’s man-made space-debris environment objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 has been created by the space activities to 200 000. that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 The sources of this debris are normal launch rocket launches since then, as well as many operations (Fig. 2), certain operations in space, other related debris-generating occurrences fragmentations as a result of explosions and such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation collisions in space, firings of satellite solid- events. rocket motors, material ageing effects, and leaking thermal-control systems. Solid-rocket Among the more than 8700 objects larger than 10 cm in Earth orbits, motors use aluminium as a catalyst (about 15% only about 6% are operational satellites and the remainder is space by mass) and when burning they emit debris. Europe currently has no operational space surveillance aluminium-oxide particles typically 1 to 10 system, but a powerful radar facility for the detection and tracking of microns in size. In addition, centimetre-sized space debris and the imaging of space objects is available in the form objects are formed by metallic aluminium melts, of the 34 m dish radar at the Research Establishment for Applied called ‘slag’.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Ground Processing and Launch Facilities
    Ground Processing and Launch Facilities • Historical examples – Early Launch Facilities – Saturn I – Saturn V – Russian • Modern examples – Shuttle – Delta IV Heavy – DC-XA U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design1 Cape Canaveral circa 1950 U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design2 Map of Cape Canaveral U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design3 “ICBM Row” U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design4 LC-5 – Mercury-Redstone U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND 5 ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design LC-5 Emergency Crew Escape System U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND 6 ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design Atlas Support Gantry U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND 7 ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design LC-14 – Mercury-Atlas U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND 8 ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design Titan II Access Tower Operation U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND 9 ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design LC-34 Schematic U N I V E R S I T Y O F Ground Processing and Launch Facilities MARYLAND ENAE 791 - Launch and Entry Vehicle Design10 Saturn
    [Show full text]
  • Can the Saturn V Be Flown on a Cluster of Five F10 Motors?
    In This Issue Flying the Apogee Saturn V Kit on High- Power Motors Also In This Issue Can the Saturn V Be Flown on a Cluster of Five F10 Motors? Cover Photo: The Apogee Saturn V kit fl own on a G80 Rocket Engine. Get your own kit at: http://www.apogeerockets.com/Saturn5.asp Apogee Components, Inc. — Your Source For Rocket Supplies That Will Take You To The “Peak-of-Flight” 3355 Fillmore Ridge Heights Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907-9024 USA www.ApogeeRockets.com e-mail: [email protected] ISSUE 284 APRIL 12, 2011 Flying The Apogee Saturn V Kit On High Power Motors. By Tim Doll At NARAM 52, Tim Van Milligan mentioned that he is the start as a ‘mid power’ rocket – intended to fly with a often questioned regarding flying the Apogee Saturn V with motor using less than 62.5 grams of propellant with a liftoff high power motors (basically, any motor H or larger). Hav- weight of less than 1500 grams (~3.3 lbs). While a con- ing flown my Apogee Saturn V numerous times ‘high power’ scious decision to keep from limiting the potential market to – literally to failure - I thought I’d relate my experiences, those with a high power certification, making a large Saturn along with the relative strengths and weaknesses of the V ‘mid power’ necessitated certain design compromises Apogee Saturn V when subjected to the extremes of high to keep the rocket weight within the mid power thrust and power flight. weight constraints. In essence, it constrained the motor mount to 29mm and limited the weight and hence strength The Apogee Saturn V was designed pretty much from of the rocket.
    [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]
  • THE EARLY APOLLO PROGRAM Project Apollo Was an American Space Project Which Landed People on the Moon and Brought Them Safely Back to Earth
    AIAA AEROSPACE M ICRO-LESSON Easily digestible Aerospace Principles revealed for K-12 Students and Educators. These lessons will be sent on a bi-weekly basis and allow grade-level focused learning. - AIAA STEM K-12 Committee. THE EARLY APOLLO PROGRAM Project Apollo was an American space project which landed people on the Moon and brought them safely back to Earth. Most people know about Apollo 1, in which three astronauts lost their lives in a fire during a countdown rehearsal, and about Apollo 8, which flew to the Moon, orbited around it, and returned to Earth. Just about everybody knows about Apollo 11, which first landed astronauts on the Moon. But what happened in between these missions? This lesson explores the lesser-known but still essential building blocks of the later missions’ success. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS): ● Discipline: Engineering Design ● Crosscutting Concept: Systems and System Models ● Science & Engineering Practice: Constructing Explanations and Designing Solutions GRADES K-2 K-2-ETS1-1. Ask questions, make observations, and gather information about a situation people want to change to define a simple problem that can be solved through the development of a new or improved object or tool. NASA engineers knew that Apollo astronauts would need special training to succeed in their missions to the moon, but how could they train under conditions similar to those the crew would encounter? One answer was to send them to places with barren areas and volcanic features that were like what they expected to find on the lunar surface. The astronauts received geology training as well as practicing maneuvers in their spacesuits and driving a replica of the GRADES K-2 (CONTINUED) lunar rover vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA News 01 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C
    NASA News 01 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546 AC 202 755-8370 (0 3 For Release: o *[J£ Bill Pomeroy 00 c« Headquarters, Washington, D.C, 3 P. M., WEDNESDAY, Dfn (Phone: 202/755-8370) October 10, 1979 in ^ Ken Atchison 0 Headquarters, Washington, D.C, (Phone: 202/755-2497) a RELEASE NO: 79-126 a PEGASUS 2 REENTRY EXPECTED IN NOVEMBER w The Pegasus 2 spacecraft assembly, launched by NASA in 1965, is expected to reenter the Earth's atmosphere on or about Nov. 5, according to notification given NASA by the North American Air Defense Command. The command compiles information on satellite payloads, rocket bodies and other orbiting pieces that could survive the friction and heat of reentry and impact on Earth. Pegasus 2, launched May 25, 1965, was used to gather micrometeoroid data for use in the design of spacecraft. -more- -2- It was one of three such spacecraft, all launched in 1965. Pegasus 1 reentered Sept. 17, 1978, over Africa and Pegasus 3 reentered Aug. 4, 1969, over the Pacific Ocean. The Pegasus 2 assembly weighs about 10,430 kilograms (23,000 pounds) and is 21 meters (70 feet) long. The space- craft itself weighs about 1,450 kg (3,200 lb.). It is attached to the empty S-IV stage and the instrument unit of the Saturn I launch vehicle. None of the sections has any radioactive nuclear power sources or materials aboard. It is estimated that approximately 9,705 kg (21,400 lb.) of orbital hardware will be destroyed by reentry heating.
    [Show full text]
  • The Space Mission at Kwajalein
    THE SPACE MISSION AT KWAJALEIN The Space Mission at Kwajalein Timothy D. Hall, Gary F. Duff, and Linda J. Maciel The United States has leveraged the Reagan The Reagan Test Site (RTS), located on Kwajalein Atoll in the central western Test Site’s suite of instrumentation radars and » Pacific, has been a missile testing facility its unique location on the Kwajalein Atoll to for the United States government since the enhance space surveillance and to conduct early 1960s. Lincoln Laboratory has provided technical space launches. Lincoln Laboratory’s technical leadership for RTS from the very beginning, with Labo- ratory staff serving assignments there continuously since leadership at the site and its connection to May 1962 [1]. Over the past few decades, the RTS suite the greater Department of Defense space of instrumentation radars has contributed significantly to community have been instrumental in the U.S. space surveillance and space launch activities. The space-object identification (SOI) enterprise success of programs to detect space launches, was motivated by early data collected with the Advanced to catalog deep-space objects, and to provide Research Projects Agency (ARPA)-Lincoln C-band exquisite radar imagery of satellites. Observables Radar (ALCOR), the first high-power, wide- band radar. Today, RTS sensors continue to provide radar imagery of satellites to the intelligence community. Since the early 1980s, RTS radars have provided critical data on the early phases of space launches out of Asia. RTS also supports the Space Surveillance Network’s (SSN) catalog-maintenance mission with radar data on high-priority near-Earth satellites and deep-space satellites, including geosynchronous satellites that are not visible from the other two deep-space radar sites, the Millstone Hill radar in Westford, Massachusetts, and Globus II in Norway.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Launch Report
    Commercial Space Transportation QUARTERLY LAUNCH REPORT Featuring the launch results from the previous quarter and forecasts for the next two quarters 1st Quarter 1998 U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n • F e d e r a l A v i a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n A s s o c i a t e A d m i n i s t r a t o r f o r C o m m e r c i a l S p a c e T r a n s p o r t a t i o n QUARTERLY LAUNCH REPORT 1 1ST QUARTER 1998 REPORT Objectives This report summarizes recent and scheduled worldwide commercial, civil, and military orbital space launch events. Scheduled launches listed in this report are vehicle/payload combinations that have been identified in open sources, including industry references, company manifests, periodicals, and government documents. Note that such dates are subject to change. This report highlights commercial launch activities, classifying commercial launches as one or more of the following: • Internationally competed launch events (i.e., launch opportunities considered available in principle to competitors in the international launch services market), • Any launches licensed by the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation of the Federal Aviation Administration under U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pegasus XL Development and L-1011 Pegasus Carrier Aircraft
    I PEGASUS<iI XL DEVELOPMENT AND L-1011 I PEGASUS CARRIER AIRCRAFT I by Marty Mosier' Ed Rutkowski2 I Orbital Sciences Corporation Space Systems Division I Dulles, VA Abstract Pegasus XL vehicle design, capability, develop­ ment program, and payload interfaces. The L- I The Pegasus air-launched space booster has 1011 carrier aircraft is described, including its established itself as America's standard small selection process, release mechanism vehicle and launch vehicle. Since its first flight on April 5, 1990 payload support capabilities, and certification pro­ Pegasus has delivered 13 payloads to orbit in the gram. Pegasus production facilities are described. I four launches conducted to-date. To improve ca­ pability and operational flexibility, the Pegasus XL development program was initiated in late 1991. Background I The Pegasus XL vehicle has increased propellant, improved avionics, and a number of design en­ The Pegasus air-launched space booster (Fig­ hancements. To increase the Pegasus launch ure 1), which first flew on April 5, 1990, provides a I system's flexibility, a Lockheed L-1 011 aircraft has flexible, and cost effective means for delivering been modified to serve as a carrier aircraft for the satellites into low earth orbit. 1 Four launches vehicle. In addition, the activation of two new have occurred to-date, delivering a total of 13 Pegasus production facilities is underway at payloads to orbit. Launches have been conducted I Vandenberg AFB, California and the NASA Wal­ from both the Eastern (Kennedy Space Center, lops Flight Facility, Wallops, Virginia. The Pe­ Florida) and Western (Vandenberg, California) gasus XL vehicle, L-1011 carrier aircraft, and Ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Summary Assurance in Lieu of the Requirement for the Launch Service Provider Apollo Spacecraft to the Moon
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Launch Services Program he Launch Services Program was established for mission success. at Kennedy Space Center for NASA’s acquisi- The principal objectives are to provide safe, reli- tion and program management of Expendable able, cost-effective and on-schedule processing, mission TLaunch Vehicle (ELV) missions. A skillful NASA/ analysis, and spacecraft integration and launch services contractor team is in place to meet the mission of the for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads needing a Launch Services Program, which exists to provide mission on ELVs. leadership, expertise and cost-effective services in the The Launch Services Program is responsible for commercial arena to satisfy Agencywide space trans- NASA oversight of launch operations and countdown portation requirements and maximize the opportunity management, providing added quality and mission information summary assurance in lieu of the requirement for the launch service provider Apollo spacecraft to the Moon. to obtain a commercial launch license. The powerful Titan/Centaur combination carried large and Primary launch sites are Cape Canaveral Air Force Station complex robotic scientific explorers, such as the Vikings and Voyag- (CCAFS) in Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in ers, to examine other planets in the 1970s. Among other missions, California. the Atlas/Agena vehicle sent several spacecraft to photograph and Other launch locations are NASA’s Wallops Island flight facil- then impact the Moon. Atlas/Centaur vehicles launched many of ity in Virginia, the North Pacific’s Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the larger spacecraft into Earth orbit and beyond. the Marshall Islands, and Kodiak Island in Alaska.
    [Show full text]