DOCSLIB.ORG

A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: a Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: a Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: A Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program The National Academies Press Committee to Review NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. NNH05CC16C between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Cover: Design by Timothy Warchocki. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-12583-3 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-12583-9 Available in limited supply from Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-2858. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Wash- ington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engi- neering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad com- munity of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the gov- ernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org COMMITTEE TO REVIEW NASA’S EXPLORATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM EDWARD CRAWLEY, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Co-Chair BONNIE J. DUNBAR, Museum of Flight, Co-Chair GARY L. BENNETT, Metaspace Enterprises ELIZABETH CANTWELL, Los Alamos National Laboratory SHYAMA P. CHAKROBORTY, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems RAMON L. CHASE, Analytic Services, Inc. GARY S. GEYER, Consultant, Las Cruces, New Mexico KENNETH GWINN, Sandia National Laboratories AYANNA HOWARD, Georgia Institute of Technology STEVEN D. HOWE, Universities Space Research Association JOHN R. HOWELL, University of Texas at Austin JOHN E. HURTADO, Texas A&M University RAMKUMAR KRISHNAN, Fluidic Energy, Inc. IVETT A. LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory RAYMOND MARIELLA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory DANIEL MASYS, Vanderbilt University EDWARD McCULLOUGH, Boeing Company DOUGLAS MEHOKE, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory JAMES F. MILLER, Argonne National Laboratory TODD J. MOSHER, MicroSat Systems, Inc. GUILLERMO TROTTI, Trotti and Associates, Inc. GERALD D. WALBERG, Walberg Aerospace IAN WALKER, Clemson University WILLIAM W. WANG, The Aerospace Corporation MARILEE J. WHEATON, The Aerospace Corporation Staff JOHN WENDT, Study Director BRIAN DEWHURST, Study Director (from January 2008) KERRIE SMITH, Study Director (through December 2007) SARAH CAPOTE, Program Associate HEATHER LOZOWSKI, Financial Associate (through March 2008) v AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD RAYMOND S. COLLADAY, Lockheed Martin Astronautics (retired), Chair CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., Jack and Panther, LLC ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, Aviation Safety Consultant, Catlett, Virginia AMY L. BUHRIG, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group PIERRE CHAO, Center for Strategic and International Studies INDERJIT CHOPRA, University of Maryland, College Park ROBERT L. CRIPPEN, Thiokol Propulsion (retired) DAVID GOLDSTON, Harvard University R. JOHN HANSMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PRESTON A. HENNE, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation JOHN M. KLINEBERG, Space Systems/Loral (retired) RICHARD H. KOHRS, Independent Consultant, Dickinson, Texas IVETT A. LEYVA, Air Force Research Laboratory EDMOND L. SOLIDAY, United Airlines (retired) Staff MARCIA S. SMITH, Director vi Preface In January 2004, President George W. Bush announced new elements of the national space policy by issuing the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).1 The new policy set out goals for NASA, including that of exploring the “solar system and beyond” with human and robotic missions—specifically, to “extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020.” In the year that followed, NASA created the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) as the primary agent for the development of the exploration program. NASA assigned ESMD the primary responsibility for the development of space technology to support the exploration program. ESMD in turn created and charged the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) to execute this development. In the report2 that accompanied the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives,3 NASA was directed to “enter into an arrangement with the National Research Council (NRC) for an independent assessment of NASA’s restructured Exploration Technol- ogy Development Program (ETDP) to determine how well the program is aligned with the stated objectives of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), identify any gaps, and assess the quality of the research.” Although that bill did not become law, NASA nonetheless asked the NRC to make this assessment. A statement of task was developed by NASA and the NRC (see Appendix A), and a committee was formed by the NRC’s Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board to carry out this task. The Committee to Review NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program was assembled and approved by the NRC Governing Board on September 28, 2007. The committee consists of 25 members (see Appendix B) and includes a cross section of senior executives, engineers, researchers, and other aerospace profes- sionals drawn from industry, universities, and government agencies, with expertise in all of the fields comprised by the ETDP. 1National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), The Vision for Space Exploration, NP-2004-01-334-HQ, NASA, Washington, D.C., 2004, p. iii. 2U.S. House of Representatives, Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2007, H. Rept. 109-520, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 2nd Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton, D.C., 2006. 3U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 5672, Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/. vii viii PREFACE The committee held its first meeting on October 10-11, 2007, in Washington, D.C. The meeting included a series of presentations by NASA personnel that provided an overview of the administrative and technical back- ground for the ETDP. A set of questions to be used in the assessment process was agreed on by the committee and was sent to NASA for distribution to the centers. This was done in order to provide the centers with
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gryphon: a Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost
    AIAA SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition AIAA 2007-6169 18 - 20 September 2007, Long Beach, California The Gryphon: A Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost Dale Arney1, Joseph Hickman,1 Philip Tanner,1 John Wagner,1 Marc Wilson,1 and Dr. Alan Wilhite2 Georgia Institute of Technology/National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 A lunar lander is designed to provide safe, reliable, and continuous access to the lunar surface by the year 2020. The NASA Exploration System Architecture is used to initially define the concept of operations, architecture elements, and overall system requirements. The design evaluates revolutionary concepts and technologies to improve the performance and safety of the lunar lander while minimizing the associated cost using advanced systems engineering capabilities and multi-attribute decision making techniques. The final design is a flexible (crew and/or cargo) lander with a side-mounted minimum ascent stage and a separate stage to perform lunar orbit insertion. Nomenclature ACC = Affordability and Cost Criterion AFM = Autonomous Flight Manager AHP = Analytic Hierarchy Process ALHAT = Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology ATP = Authority to Proceed AWRS = Advanced Air & Water Recovery System CDR = Critical Design Review CER = Cost Estimating Relationship CEV = Crew Exploration Vehicle CH4 = Methane DDT&E = Design, Development, Testing and Evaluation DOI = Descent Orbit Insertion DSM = Design Structure Matrix ECLSS = Environmental Control & Life Support System
    [Show full text]
  • Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160008869 2019-08-29T17:47:59+00:00Z CHAPTER 12 Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems John A. Halchak Consultant, Los Angeles, California James L. Cannon NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Corey Brown Aerojet-Rocketdyne, West Palm Beach, Florida 12.1 Introduction Earth to orbit launch vehicles are propelled by rocket engines and motors, both liquid and solid. This chapter will discuss liquid engines. The heart of a launch vehicle is its engine. The remainder of the vehicle (with the notable exceptions of the payload and guidance system) is an aero structure to support the propellant tanks which provide the fuel and oxidizer to feed the engine or engines. The basic principle behind a rocket engine is straightforward. The engine is a means to convert potential thermochemical energy of one or more propellants into exhaust jet kinetic energy. Fuel and oxidizer are burned in a combustion chamber where they create hot gases under high pressure. These hot gases are allowed to expand through a nozzle. The molecules of hot gas are first constricted by the throat of the nozzle (de-Laval nozzle) which forces them to accelerate; then as the nozzle flares outwards, they expand and further accelerate. It is the mass of the combustion gases times their velocity, reacting against the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle, which produce thrust according to Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [1] Solid rocket motors are cheaper to manufacture and offer good values for their cost.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Lunar Architecture
    4. Lunar Architecture 4.1 Summary and Recommendations As defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the lunar architecture is a combination of the lunar “mission mode,” the assignment of functionality to flight elements, and the definition of the activities to be performed on the lunar surface. The trade space for the lunar “mission mode,” or approach to performing the crewed lunar missions, was limited to the cislunar space and Earth-orbital staging locations, the lunar surface activities duration and location, and the lunar abort/return strategies. The lunar mission mode analysis is detailed in Section 4.2, Lunar Mission Mode. Surface activities, including those performed on sortie- and outpost-duration missions, are detailed in Section 4.3, Lunar Surface Activities, along with a discussion of the deployment of the outpost itself. The mission mode analysis was built around a matrix of lunar- and Earth-staging nodes. Lunar-staging locations initially considered included the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, Low Lunar Orbit (LLO), and the lunar surface. Earth-orbital staging locations considered included due-east Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), higher-inclination International Space Station (ISS) orbits, and raised apogee High Earth Orbits (HEOs). Cases that lack staging nodes (i.e., “direct” missions) in space and at Earth were also considered. This study addressed lunar surface duration and location variables (including latitude, longi- tude, and surface stay-time) and made an effort to preserve the option for full global landing site access. Abort strategies were also considered from the lunar vicinity. “Anytime return” from the lunar surface is a desirable option that was analyzed along with options for orbital and surface loiter.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumables Analysis for the Apollo 10 Spacecraft Operational Trajectory
    ................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. \ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . jj:.t~:~:~:~:t~~~: .: ......:. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ::., .=:: ......................:.:. .. .-:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::: MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 69-FM-76 ::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~:t~:~:t~:~:~:. April 7, 1969 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , • N..................······················... ~ ~:ttttt~ · ~~::::::::::::.::::::::::"\ .......... ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::: , I~III~~I ":':':':':':':':':':':........... ~.:::::::::::::::::::::: ~.......................... .:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: CONSUMABLES ANALYSIS ::::::::::::::::::::::: FOR THE APOLLO 10 (MISSION F) ----- -------- SPACECRAFT OPERATIONAL 1IIIIIilllllllllllllili TRAJECTORY :::::::::::::::::.:::::: • ~t{ttmm • I Guidance and Performance Branch, MISSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION • • .:~~~ 'i •••~...••~.~~.;·7) MANNED HS:U~~OEN~T~~~TCENTER ~'. :!I~"!I CNASA-TM-X-69384) CONSUMABLESAN AL YSIS N74-70735 ~FOB THE APOLLO 10 (MISSION F) SPACECBAFT :::.OFERATIONAL TRAJECTORY (NASA) 64 p Unclas • 00/99 16454 :::::::::::::::::::::.' • MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 69-FM-76 • PROJECT APOLLO CONSUMABLES ANALYSIS FOR THE APOLLO 10 (MISSION F) SPACECRAFT OPERATIONAL TRAJECTORY By Martin L. Alexander, Sam A. Kamen, Arnold J. Loyd, Samuel O. Mayfield, Dwight G. Peterson, and Walter Scott, Jr. , Guidance and Performance Branch ~ April 7, 1969 " MISSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION • NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Experience Report Abort Planning
    APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - ABORT PLANNING by Charles T. Hyle? Charles E. Foggatt? and Bobbie D, Weber 4 Mdnned Spacecra, Center , Houston, Texas 77058 ce NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1972 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM - ­ 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NASA "I D-6847 5. Remrr natP June 1972 APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT 6. Performing Organization Code ABORT PLANNING . -. 8. Performing Organization Report NO. Charles T. Hyle, Charles E. Foggatt, and MSC S-307 - ­ Bobbie D. Weber. MSC 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 924-22-20-00-72 .-- .. -.. -­ Manned Spacecraft Center 11. Contract or Grant No. Houston, Texas 77058 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note ~__-- __ National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20546 5. Supplementary Notes The MSC Director waived the use of the International System of Units (SI) for this Apollo Experience Report, because, in his judgment, the use of SI units would impair the usefulness of the report or result in excessive cost. -~. 6. Abstract Definition of a practical return-to-earth abort capability was required for each phase of an Apollo mission. A description of the basic development of the complex Apollo abort plan is presented in this paper, The process by which the return-to-earth abort plan was developed and the constrain­ ing factors that must be included in any abort procedure are also discussed. Special emphasis is given to the description of crew warning and escape methods for each mission phase.
    [Show full text]
  • R-567 Section 5 Rev 11, GSOP for Luminary 1E, Guidance Equations
    Z GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL Submitted by Date: / 7 2^ G. M. LEVINE,•VTT' DIRECTOR.T'VTO'C'OT'/^'D 'GUIDANCET TTl^ A M 'C' ANALYSI( APOLLO GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION PROGRAM ApproV' Date: / 12. -7-2- R. A. LARSON, LUMINARY PROJECT MANAGER APOLLO GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION PROGRAM Approved: T^, (n1 Date: -> R. H. BATTIN, DIRECTOR, MISSION DEVELOPMENT APOLLO GUI04NCE AND NAVIGATION PROGRAM Approved: iUujzc Date: D. G. HOAG, DIRECTO APOLLO GUIDANCCin&D NAv(^TION PROGRAM Approved: Date: 1 a . ^ R. R. RAGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (J CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY R-567 GUIDANCE SYSTEM OPERATIONS PLAN FOR MANNED LM EARTH ORBITAL AND LUNAR MISSIONS USING PROGRAM LUMINARY IE SECTIONS GUIDANCE EQUATIONS (Rev. 11) DECEMBER 1971 ]]§( MT CHARLES STARK DRAPER CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139 LABORATORY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report was prepared under DSR Project 55-23890, sponsored by the Manned Spacecraft Center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Contract NAS 9-4065. 11 R-567 GUIDANCE SYSTEM OPERATIONS PLAN FOR MANNED LM EARTH ORBITAL AND LUNAR MISSIONS USING PROGRAM LUMINARY IE SECTION 5 GUIDANCE EQUATIONS Signatures appearing on this page designate approval of this document by NASA/MSC. Section Chief, Guidance Program Section Manned Spacecraft Center, NASA Approved: . Date: John E. Williams, Jr. Chief, Simulation and Flight Software Branch Manned Spacecraft Cent Approved: . Date: n Ij.i/i/ rames C. Stokes, Jr. /ief. Flight Support DiviSyi fanned Spacecraft Center iii BLANK FOREWORD SECTION 5 REVISION 11 The Guidance System Operations Plan (GSOP) for Program LUMINARY is published in six sections as separate volumes. 1. Prelaunch 2. Data Links 3. Digital Autopilot 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Houston, Texas February 7, 1966 Maprogram Ap0l);O Xorking Pax3 No
    Copy No. ti NiUA PROGRAM APSLLO WOP?GPAPER NO. 1195 &L??OLLO SPACECRAFT LlQuzD PRIMARY PROPMON HYSTEMS NASA \' NATIGNAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER HOUSTON, TEXAS FEBRUARY 7, 1966 MAPROGRAM AP0L);O XORKING PAX3 NO. 11% APOLLO SPACECRAFT LIQUID PRlMARY PROPULSION SYSTEMS PEU3PARED BY Propulsion Analysis Section Propulsion Analysis Section M G?L. Spencer Propulsion Analysis Section PrEmsion AnaJysis Section J. C. Smithson Propulsion Analysis Section AUTHORIZED FOR DISTRIBUTION L Assistant Director for Engineering and Developent NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE A.IMINISTRATION MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER HOUSTON, TEXAS FEBRUARY 7, 1966 iii PRECEDING PAGE BLANK NOT CONTENTS Section Page S~............................. 1 Mission Requirements . 1 Design ........................... 2 Philosophy 0.. 0, * . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 2 Basic features . 2 Pressurization and Propellant Feed Systems . Chamber-Injector Compatibility and Ablation . SrnVICE PR0PuLsI0N SYSTEM. 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 Operation. ......................... 4 DESCENT AND ASCENT PR0puI;sION SYSTEMS . Descent Propulsion System Operation , . Ascent Propulsion System Operation . , . TAuLE I - APOLLO SPACECRAFT ENGIW SPECIFICATIONS 0 . 0 . 0 0 iv FIGURES Figure 1 Earth vicinity and translunar mission ......... 10 2 Lunar vicinity mission ................ ll 3 Transeazth and entry mission ............. 12 4 The Apollo spacecraft ................. 13 5 Service propulsion system ............... 14 6 SPEengine ...................... 15 7 Lunar excursion module ................ 16 8 Descent and ascent engines as installed in LEN . 17 9 Descentstage ..................... 18 10 Ascentstage ..................... 19 u. LEMdescentengine .................. 20 12 LEMascentengine ................... 21 13 SPS thrust chamber .................. 22 14 DPS thrust chamber .................. 23 15 Ascent engine chamber detail ............. 24 16 SPS nozzle extension ................. 25 17 Descent engine cros6 section ............. 26 18 Ascent engine cross section .............
    [Show full text]
  • Project Gemini F L I G H T M a N U a L Project Gemini Flight Manual
    PROJECT GEMINI F L I G H T M A N U A L PROJECT GEMINI FLIGHT MANUAL REENTRY AN ORBITAL SIMULATOR PROJECT GEMINI FLIGHT MANUAL DRAFT UPDATED: 15/07/2020 1 | Page PROJECT GEMINI FLIGHT MANUAL TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................... 6 1. ABOUT ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 2. A BRIEF HISTORY............................................................................................................................................. 8 3. CONTROLS ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 4. KEYBOARD CONTROLS.............................................................................................................................. 11 II. MAJOR COMPONENTS .................................................................................................................................. 14 1. THE SPACECRAFT ......................................................................................................................................... 15 2. ATTITUDE CONTROL .................................................................................................................................. 19 3. CABIN ..............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Lunar Orbital Rendezvous Mission
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19690008396 2020-03-12T07:18:05+00:00Z SD 68-850-1 Extended Lunar Orbital Rendezvous Mission VOLUME I - TECHNICAL ANALYSIS SPACE DIVISION OF NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION S D m850- 1 A STUDY OF AN EXTENDED LUNAR ORBITAL RENDEZVOUS MISSION (ELOR) FINAL REPORT Volume 1 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS January 1969 ~ Contract NAS2-4942 Prepared by Study Manager SPACE DIVISION NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION SPACE DIVISION OF NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION FORE WORD This is Volume I of a three-volume report recording the results of a study of the Application of Data Derived under a Study of Space Mission Dura- tion Extension Problems to an Extended Lunar Orbital Rendezvous Mission, hereafter referred to as ELOR. The titles of the three volumes are as follows : Volume I Technical Analysis Volume I1 Supplemental Data Volume I11 Summary of Results This document contains a description of the technical analysis of the ELOR mission. The analysis was performed by the Systems Engineering Management Department of the Space Division, of the North American Rock- well Corporation. The study was performed for the Mission Analysis Division of the Office of Advance Research and Technology (OART), National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, under Contract NAS2-4942. The work was performed under the direction of Roy B. Carpenter, Jr., the Study Manager. Substantial contributions were made to this study by the following subcontractors and personnel thereof, who provided the data at no cost to either this study or the earlier baseline study: 1. A. C. Electronics A1 Lobinstine .
    [Show full text]
  • A27) Lm Rendezvous Procedures 0 Mission
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700025407 2020-03-23T18:05:09+00:00Z -F76 A27) NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. CF-R-69-23 LM RENDEZVOUS PROCEDURES •24% 0 MISSION FINAL %189 :C" MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER __..-______ HOUSTON,TEXAS •. --NUMBER)O NHRU) 57=(CODE) _________c~ by-_____ AARORMOANU,-ERSNATIONAL (CATEGORY) INFORMATIONTECHNICALSERVICE *S pn fi-d, Va 22151 1 LM RENDEZVOUS PROCEDURES G MISSION AS-506/CSM-107/LM-5 May 16, 1969 PREPARED BY:=m StepWI P. Gregaf Orbital Procedu~res Sectioed APPROVED BY% t ~ 62.(/) Miflton C. CoWrtella Chief, Orbital Procedures Section 1rLiJC J4A- Paul C. Kramer Chief, Flight Procedures Branch /4- dames W. Bilodeau Assistant Chief For Crew Integration Flight Crew Support Division Chief, Night Cfew Support Division ["onaid K.Sayton' ]j- hairman, Crew Procedies Control Board -I- TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 PURPOSE 1-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-I 3.0 DISCUSSION OF MAJOR EVENTS 3-1 3.1 Concentric Sequence Initiation 3-1 3.2 Constant Delta Height and Plane Change 3-1 3.3 Terminal Phase Initiation 3-2 3.4 Midcourse Corrections 3-2 3 5 Braking 3-2 4.0 NOMINAL PROCEDURES 4-1 4.1 Commander Tasks 4-1 4 2 LM Pilot Tasks 4-1 4.3 Abbreviations 4-1 4.4 Nominal PGNS Procedures 4-3 5.0 ABORT PROCEDURES 5-I 5.1 Nominal AGS Procedures 5-2 6.0 ONBOARD RENDEZVOUS CHARTS 6-1 6.1 Concentric Sequence Initiation 6-2 6.2 Constant Delta Height 6-4 6.3 Terminal Phase Initiation 6-6 6.4 First Midcourse Correction 6-7 6 5 Second Midcourse Correction 6-8 6 6 Relative Reference Trajectory 6-9 7.0 REFERENCES
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Requirements J-3 Type Mission
    MSC-05180 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration MISSION REQUIREMENTS J-3 TYPE MISSION March 16, 19 72 (Reprinted September 18, 1972) Contract NAS 9-12330 i MSC-05180 MISSION REQUIREMENTS J-3 TYPE MISSION Contract NAS 9-12330 Prepared by TRW Systems for Systems Engineering Division Apollo Spacecraft Program Office Manned Spacecraft Center Houston, Texas Submitted by ~"'~ J/J. rJercL~/t.- ~ey • Blackmer Mission Staff Engineer Approved by Ronald W. Kubicki, Chief Systems Engineering Division Approved by Concurrence ~£-~-~ Maxime A. Faget, Director Engineering and Development Concurrence iii CCBD ECP MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER DATE NUM~ERS NUMBERS PCN PROGRAM OFFICE December 1, 1972 CONFIGURATION MSC 2COl4lC CONTROL BOARD DIRECTIVE CHANGE PRIORITY PAGE 1 IMPACT ON 0 CSM 0 LM 0 GFE 0 LV 0 LF 0 EXP OF 1 0 GSE 0 OTHER MSFC CHANGE TITLE Change D to MSC-05180 KSC NOMENCLATURE AND PART NO. OF AFFECTED END ITEM " - CHANGE IMPACT SUfottARY Mission Requirements, J-3 Type Mission, Lunar Landing GSE 0 PRODUCTION EFFECTIVITY !MODIFICATION EFFECTIVITY SPARES 0 TRAINERS 0 ESTIMATED COST SOFTWARE 0 FY71 IFY72 IFY73 ITOTAL. FLIGHT PROGRAMS 0 None None RTCC PROGRAMS 0 SCHEDULE IMPACT AOH 0 None DISPOSITION AND DIRECTED ACTION: No contractor direction is requ re d. STOWAGE LIST 0 CHANGE TO HE IMPLEHlNTED ONLY WHEN ALL INTERFACE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED COMAT 0 TCRD 0 • The Test Conditions are modified for objectives Visual ERO 0 Light Flash Phenomenon and Skylab Contamination Study. RETEST 0 OTHER 0 • The Test Conditions are modified for experiments Lunar Sounder and Lunar Neutron Probe. WEIGHT LM • Additions to the data requirements are identified for CSM passive experiment Soil Mechanics and for experiment 07HER Lunar Seismic Profiling.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo 11 Mission Operations Report
    Report No. M-932-69-11 MISSIONOPERATIONREPORT APOLLO11IAS-506) ' MISSION HEFIRSTRE MSETEN FRFOOOMT TUPHEONPLTANHEETMOONI::ARTH JULY 1909, A. D. OFFICE OF MANNED SPACE FLIGHT WECAMEIN PEACEFORALLMANKIND Prepared by: Apollo Program Office - MAO Nell * ^RMSTIONO _IC,AE_COLitiS _DWINe ALDRINJ,I ^SI|CJNAur AS_ION*UT _I_:N*UT • c;_ ,_._ RIC_ALNIXONO FOR INTERNAL USEONLY FOREWORD MISSION OPERATION REPORTS are published expressly for the use of NASA Senior Management_ as required by the Administrator in NASA Instruction 6-2-10, dated 15 August 1963. The purpose of these reports is to provide NASA Senior Management with timely, complete, and definitive information on flight mission plans, anci to establish official mission objectives which provide the basis for assessment of mission accompl ishment. Initial reports are prepared and issued for each flight project just prior to launch. Following launch_ updating reports for each mission are issued to keep General Management currently informed of definitive mission results as provided in NASA Instruction 6-2-10. Because of their sometimes highly technical orientation_ distribution of these reports is provided to personnel having program-project management responsibillties. The _- Office of Public Affairs publishes a comprehensive series of prelaunch and postlaunch reports on NASA flight missions, which are available for general distribution. APOLLO MISSION OPERATION REPORTSare published in two volumes: the MISSION OPERATION REPORT (MOR); and the MISSION OPERATION REPORT, APOLLO SUPPLEMENT. This format was designed to provide a mission-orlented document in the MOR, with supporting equipment and facility description in the MOR, APOLLO SUPPLEMENT. TheMOR, APOLLO SUPPLEMENT isa program- oriented reference document with a broad technical description of the space vehicle and associated equlpment; the launch complex_ and mission control and support facilities.
    [Show full text]