DOCSLIB.ORG

Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) 10/2/2014 Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) First Step Toward Reducing the Cost of Space Access by Orders of Magnitude Mr. Jess Sponable Program Manager Program Overview for COMSTAC 16 September 2014 Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited U.S. Launch – A Growing Problem • DoD payloads launched on Evolved ELV at ~$3B/year & growing • Small payloads launched at ~$50M on few remaining Minotaurs • Foreign competitors lead commercial launch, once dominated by U.S. • No surge capability, long call-up times, typically > 2 years • Budgets continue to decline, threats to space and air assets growing Falcon Evolved ELV ~5-15 flts/yr ~8 DOD flts/yr ~$54-128M/flt > $400M/flight Foreign Boosters Pegasus 70m ~60 Commercial & Gov’t flts/yr Minotaur > $120M/flight 60m Antares ~ 1 flt/yr 50m ~$55M/flt 40m United States Foreign Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 2 1 10/2/2014 Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Step One to Routine, Low Cost Access to Space XS-1 Vision • Break cycle of escalating space system costs • Aircraft-like operability enabling low cost, responsive access to space • Accelerate introduction of hypersonic technologies and next generation aircraft • Responsive platform for global reach national security and commercial applications • Enable residual capability for responsive launch of 3,000 – 5,000 lb payloads Open Design Space Technology Technical objectives • Reusable first stage • Configuration Fly XS-1 10 times in 10 days • Fly XS-1 to Mach 10+ at least once Propellants • Launch demo payload to orbit • Design for recurring cost ≤ 1/10 Propulsion CONOPS Minotaur IV (< $5M/flight for 3,000 – 5,000 lbs to LEO at 10+ flts/yr) Up To Industry Artist Concepts Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 3 Notional Government Reference X-Plane One of Many Possible Industry Solutions F-15 XS-1 Mach 10 staging with small upper stage (shown) Alternative would be Mach 5 staging with larger upper stage 700 Payload = 3,025 lbm 61.6 ft 100x100 nmi 600 28.5 deg Inclination Artist Concepts 2-Stage Vehicle (GLOW-223.9K lbs) Booster 500 Booster (2-Merlins) Propellant = 176.5K lbs Engine 2 Merlins ISP (vac) = 310 sec GLOW (K lbs) 223.9 400 PMF = 0.84 Upper Stage (GLOW-15K lbs) MECO (K lbs) 47.4 ISP (vac) = 336 sec Usable LOX/RP (K lbs) 176.5 300 PMF = 0.90 Isp (vac) 310 Altitude, K ft Altitude, Stage PMF 0.84 200 Upper Stage Staging: Time = 169.9 sec GLOW (lbs) 15.0 100 DR = 71.9 nmi Isp (vac) 336 Altitude = 237,155 ft Stage PMF 0.9 Mach = 10.8 0 Payload (K lbs) 3.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Expendable stage ~5% of stack weight Downrange, nmi Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 4 2 10/2/2014 XS-1 Phase I Awards • Phase 1 system awards The Boeing Company working with Blue Origin Northrop Grumman working with Virgin Galactic Masten Space Systems working with XCOR Artist Concepts Artist Concepts • Technology awards/cooperative efforts Honeywell – Real-time abort trajectory generation Gloyer-Taylor Labs – Composite cryogen tank fabrication and test NASA Armstrong Flight Test Center – Fiber Optic Sensor System (FOSS) SAS and LLNL – Ox Rich Staged Combustion / Next-Gen Rocket seedlings ATK/COI – CMC Thermal Protection Systems CCAT – Carbon Carbon Thermal Protection Systems • Upcoming awards • 2 Propulsion • 1 Comm / Space-Based Range Award Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 5 XS-1 Planned Schedule FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source Selection PDR Phase 1- Initial KO Phase 1 Design Propulsion - Risk Reduction Airframe - System Design XS-1 Design Integration Select CDR Phase 2 – Final XS-1 prime Phase 2 Design Fabrication XS-1 Design and IA&E Fab - Reusable aircraft IA&T - Upper stage Upper Stage Integration 1st Flight Orbital Phase 3 - Flight Test Flight Campaign Phase 3 Technology Transition Off-Ramps - Transition Opportunities USAF, NASA, Industry IDIQ Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 6 3 10/2/2014 Long Spaceplane History AFSPC MNS 1-01 MNS 2-01 SUSTAIN SAC SON 7-79 AFSPC MNS 6-84 CONOPS Spacelift PGS ICD 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 03 04 05 WWII-era German Sanger Concept X-15 Rocket Plane Program (Plus other rocket planes) USAF Aerospace Plane Program, early 1960’s X-20 Dynasoar Program, 1960s Science Dawn, Science Realm, TAV, SSTO Studies MAV, Copper Canyon $35M Have Region Artist Concepts $3,000M National Aero-Space Plane $70M DOD DC-X Program NASA Programs Orbital Test Vehicle X-40/X-37 AFRL Ground Tech Maturation $200M + Long USAF Push for Aircraft-Like Access to Space Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 7 Legacy of Past Programs Space Shuttle NASP NASPArtist Concept VentureStar $3 billion Artist Concept Initial Goals NASA human rated AF crewed NASA human rated (requirements) Payload – 65K lbs Payload < 10K lbs Payload - 65K lbs SSTO, scramjet powered SSTO, rocket powered Aircraft-like ops, fast turn Aircraft-like ops, fast turn Technology TRL ~3 and immature design TRL ~2 and immature design TRL ~3 and immature design (at start) New LOX/LH 2 SSME New LS/RAM/SCRAM/rocket Mod LOX/LH 2 aerospike rocket Unproven materials/TPS New materials/structures New composite structures Toxic OMS/RCS, etc. New LOX/LH 2 tanks New metallic TPS 1960s/1970s technology New hot structure TPS, etc New LOX/H2 tanks, etc. Approach Expendable launch (SRB, ET) X-Plane first X-Plane first Operational after 4 flights Incremental flight test Incremental flight test Evolved to “space station” Outcome Successful flights Never flew Never flew Very expensive with Design never closed Design never closed ground “standing army” Technology not available Technology not available Past programs over-specified the problem (SSTO, scramjet, heavy lift, crewed, etc.) AND relied on immature designs and technology (TRL 2/3) Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 8 4 10/2/2014 What Has Changed? 20 years of investment Technology mature & affordable Affordable Composite “Trimmed” Integrated Airframe Full Envelope Systems Health + Thermal AG&C Management Protection Systems Low Cost Autonomous Responsive Upper Stage Operations Ops FOCC Design Integration Integrated Aircraft-Like Ops RLV Subsystems Affordable Infrastructure Artist Concepts Ongoing Long Term High Ops Tempo Propulsion Off-the-Shelf propulsion available for demo Cycle of Prep, Launch, Recovery, and 250k lbf. thrust Brassboard Demos Turnaround within Single Day Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 9 XS-1 Goals 1. Break cycle of escalating space system costs Path to Affordable Space • GPS Blk III Seeking path to affordable space Sat $300-500M, Launch $300M Smaller satellites • Would enable disaggregation & Shorter lifetimes resiliency strategies Increasing One obsolescence Fly more often • 10X lower launch cost Example of Bigger satellites Today’s Cost Greater complexity More failure changes how spacecraft tolerance Growth Longer development are built Spiral Fewer satellites Less redundancy Longer life Greater redundancy More frequent tech refresh Blk I: Sat $43M, Launch $47M 2. Enable new types of aircraft & test capabilities • Space access aircraft Global ISR and protection Artist Concepts • Affordable hypersonic aircraft Low parts count & CTE structures/TPS Artist Concepts • Hypersonic testbed boost-glide systems & hypersonics Artist Concepts Artist Concepts Artist Concept Artist Concept Artist Concept Artist Concept Modular Bi-mese 3. Enable residual capability • ORS Launch single smallsat or constellations for rapid employment • Support growth options including near-term modular options Artist Concept Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 10 5 10/2/2014 DARPA Leadership Perspective: Attack the cost equation Collectively the space portfolio is supporting responsiveness and cost reduction of launch through ground-based systems. Airborne Launch Assist Space Access The E xperimental Spaceplane (XS-1) (ALASA) aims to enable responsive reusable vehicle capability would launch of 100 lb payloads from existing extend this capability to 3,000 lb globally distributed airfields to enable payloads with “aircraft-like” access to next-generation tactical missions space at 10X lower costs Artist Concept Artist Concept All images are artist’s concept Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 11 Challenges to Achieving Lower Cost XS-1 would complement heavy Falcon & EELV payloads ELV Launch Cost Breakdown 100 Mission Conventional Assurance, Launch Vehicle $0.20 Facility, Trendline Small Solid support, Launchers launch complex, Launch $1.32 Vehicles, Delta II $1.44 EELV Variants Variants 10 Technical Challenges ALASA • Design and system integration enabling “aircraft-like” operations • (k$/lbm) Specific Cost Light weight/high energy airframe, Falcon 9 high propellant mass fraction XS-1 Trade Space • Durable thermal structures/ protection, -300 oF to +3,000 oF • Reusable, long life & affordable 1 propulsion 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Payload to LEO (klbm) Note: Data extracted from FY12 PE/BPAC data, Excludes AFSPC payroll at launch sites and base O&M Distribution Statement A – Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited 12 6 10/2/2014 Goal: Design and System Integration Enable “aircraft-like” operations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The SKYLON Spaceplane
    The SKYLON Spaceplane Borg K.⇤ and Matula E.⇤ University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 80309, USA This report outlines the major technical aspects of the SKYLON spaceplane as a final project for the ASEN 5053 class. The SKYLON spaceplane is designed as a single stage to orbit vehicle capable of lifting 15 mT to LEO from a 5.5 km runway and returning to land at the same location. It is powered by a unique engine design that combines an air- breathing and rocket mode into a single engine. This is achieved through the use of a novel lightweight heat exchanger that has been demonstrated on a reduced scale. The program has received funding from the UK government and ESA to build a full scale prototype of the engine as it’s next step. The project is technically feasible but will need to overcome some manufacturing issues and high start-up costs. This report is not intended for publication or commercial use. Nomenclature SSTO Single Stage To Orbit REL Reaction Engines Ltd UK United Kingdom LEO Low Earth Orbit SABRE Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SOMA SKYLON Orbital Maneuvering Assembly HOTOL Horizontal Take-O↵and Landing NASP National Aerospace Program GT OW Gross Take-O↵Weight MECO Main Engine Cut-O↵ LACE Liquid Air Cooled Engine RCS Reaction Control System MLI Multi-Layer Insulation mT Tonne I. Introduction The SKYLON spaceplane is a single stage to orbit concept vehicle being developed by Reaction Engines Ltd in the United Kingdom. It is designed to take o↵and land on a runway delivering 15 mT of payload into LEO, in the current D-1 configuration.
    [Show full text]
  • Boarding the Spaceplane by Roger D
    PageMark-Color-Comp Job Name: 546280_SpaceTimes_Oct2015 ❏ OK to proceed PDF Page: 01_24_SpaceTimes_Oct2015.p4.pdf ❏ Make corrections and proceed Process Plan: VP.MultiPage.PDF Date: 15-10-01 ❏ Make corrections and show another proof Time: 15:28:48 Signed: ___________________ Date: ______ Operator: ____________________________ Boarding the Spaceplane by Roger D. Launius During the administration of President Ronald Reagan, senior government officials began to discuss the possibility of developing an “Orient Express,” a hybrid air and spaceplane that could carry ordinary people between New York City and Tokyo in about one hour. How is this possible? Actually, the concept is quite simple: Develop an aerospace plane that can take off like a conventional jetliner from an ordinary runway. Flying supersonic, it reaches an altitude of 45,000-50,000 feet, where the pilots start scramjet engines, a jet technology that has the potential to push jetcraft to hypersonic speeds. The spaceplane rises to the edge of space and darts to the opposite side of the globe, where the process is reversed, and the vehicle lands like a conventional airplane. It never reaches orbit, but technically it flies in space. The experience is similar to orbital flight, except for the shorter time. Artist concept of the X-37 advanced technology flight demonstrator re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. The X-37 was intended as a testbed for dozens of advanced structural, propulsion, and operational technologies that could dramatically lower the cost of future reusable launch vehicles. (Source: NASA) 4 SPACE TIMES • September/October 2015 PageMark-Color-Comp Job Name: 546280_SpaceTimes_Oct2015 ❏ OK to proceed PDF Page: 01_24_SpaceTimes_Oct2015.p5.pdf ❏ Make corrections and proceed Process Plan: VP.MultiPage.PDF Date: 15-10-01 ❏ Make corrections and show another proof Time: 15:28:48 Signed: ___________________ Date: ______ Operator: ____________________________ The spaceplane concept has long been a staple of dreams of spaceflight.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Planes and Space Tourism: the Industry and the Regulation of Its Safety
    Space Planes and Space Tourism: The Industry and the Regulation of its Safety A Research Study Prepared by Dr. Joseph N. Pelton Director, Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute George Washington University George Washington University SACRI Research Study 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………… p 4-14 1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………….. p 16-26 2.0 Methodology…………………………………………………………………….. p 26-28 3.0 Background and History……………………………………………………….. p 28-34 4.0 US Regulations and Government Programs………………………………….. p 34-35 4.1 NASA’s Legislative Mandate and the New Space Vision………….……. p 35-36 4.2 NASA Safety Practices in Comparison to the FAA……….…………….. p 36-37 4.3 New US Legislation to Regulate and Control Private Space Ventures… p 37 4.3.1 Status of Legislation and Pending FAA Draft Regulations……….. p 37-38 4.3.2 The New Role of Prizes in Space Development…………………….. p 38-40 4.3.3 Implications of Private Space Ventures…………………………….. p 41-42 4.4 International Efforts to Regulate Private Space Systems………………… p 42 4.4.1 International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety… p 42-43 4.4.2 The International Telecommunications Union (ITU)…………….. p 43-44 4.4.3 The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS).. p 44 4.4.4 The European Aviation Safety Agency…………………………….. p 44-45 4.4.5 Review of International Treaties Involving Space………………… p 45 4.4.6 The ICAO -The Best Way Forward for International Regulation.. p 45-47 5.0 Key Efforts to Estimate the Size of a Private Space Tourism Business……… p 47 5.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Golden Age of Spaceflight?
    1 Pre-Publication DRAFT When will we see a Golden Age of Spaceflight? Gregg Maryniak1 Executive Director X PRIZE Foundation St. Louis, Missouri Introduction The period of time between the World Wars is often referred to within the flying community as the “Golden Age of Aviation.” During this period of time, aviation changed from a largely experimental activity to a widely accepted means of transportation. Public attitudes towards flying also changed dramatically. Towards the end of this period aircraft such as the DC-3 were developed and deployed. The foundations of the present air traffic control system also were created during this time. In short, aviation began to be a commercially sustainable industry. Human spaceflight marks its 40th anniversary in 2001. It is clear that spaceflight and in particular, human spaceflight have not yet achieved the same large-scale commercial advances in their first 40 years as were seen in aviation. This paper considers the contrasts and parallels between aviation and spaceflight and explores whether some of the same factors that advanced aviation might lead to a Golden Age of Spaceflight in the near future. Parallels between Aviation and Space A customary lament among space advocates is that commercial spaceflight has failed to develop at the pace experienced by aviation. Wildly inappropriate parallels have often been drawn between space developments and aviation history. One example is the reference to the Space Transportation System ( the Space Shuttle) as “the DC-3 of space.” Yet there clearly are parallels between spaceflight and aviation. Both human flight and spaceflight were considered unattainable. Both contained inherent risk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uk Government Review of Potential Spaceplane Operations and Certification in in the Uk
    THE UK GOVERNMENT REVIEW OF POTENTIAL SPACEPLANE OPERATIONS AND CERTIFICATION IN IN THE UK ICAO Jerry Stubbs UK CAA March 2015 1 Government request . In August 2012, the Government tasked the Civil Aviation Authority to undertake a detailed review to better understand the operational requirements of the commercial spaceplane industry. 2 Review Objectives . To assess the extent to which UK can support safe spaceplane operations. To develop options for the certification of spaceplanes, engines and associated systems. To identify key characteristics and potential locations of a spaceport. To develop an understanding of the future market for spaceplane operations. 3 Job Done . Review was carried out in partnership with the UKSA and with the support of Industry . A High level Summary document was presented to Government on 31st March 2014. The Detailed Technical report was formally presented at the Space Day Farnborough – 15th July 2014. Government announced a public consultation on the choice of potential spaceport locations – now complete. UK signed a Memorandum of Cooperation with FAA AST 4 Review documents: . http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1198_spaceplane_certifica tion_and_operations_summary.pdf . http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP1189_UK_Government_Re view_of_commercial_spaceplane_certification_and_operatio ns_technical_report.pdf 5 Regulation of Sub-Orbital Spaceplanes: UK Legal Considerations . Sub-orbital spaceplanes are considered as ‘aircraft’ by the UK Government. Therefore EASA aviation legislation applies….. But: . Commercial sub-orbital spaceplanes are new, currently none in service, some are being tested and only likely to exist in relatively small numbers for the foreseeable future. Therefore UK Government currently considers spaceplanes as ‘Experimental’ and under the terms of the EASA Basic Regulation are Annex II aircraft and revert to National regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of Spaceplanes Beyond Offering the Advantage of Within 12 Hours
    US Strategic Command, the “own- ticularly on propulsion and vehicle er” of military space operations and control concepts. The service last sum- The Air Force has an urgent need for hypersonic, long-range, the global strike mission, has estab- mer asked US industry to turn in pro- transatmospheric vehicles. lished the requirement for a space- posals and concepts this fall. plane. This fall, the Air Force and USAF wants to build the means to NASA artist’s conception the Defense Advanced Research attack any target on the globe within Projects Agency began accepting 12 hours of an order to do so. That industry proposals for a project that requirement stems from an April 2003 in 2025 would produce a spaceplane— Air Staff study titled “Long-Range one that may look much like the Global Precision Engagement.” In defunct National Aerospace Plane it, the Air Force—working with the conceptualized in the 1980s. Joint Staff and Office of the Secre- tary of Defense—put strike capa- To Mach 15 bilities into three categories: prompt The new craft, which is described global strike, prompt theater strike, as a Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV), and persistent area strike. would be capable both of launching USAF believes the products of satellites and deploying weapons. Falcon will fulfill—to a great de- Plans call for it to fly at speeds up to gree—the prompt global strike ele- Mach 15 and carry a mix of weapons ment. The ability to conduct prompt comparable to the load carried by global strike would dissuade or de- one of today’s fighter aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • 21St Century Spaceplanes and Space Expeditionary Forces: Pivotal Capability for a Third Offset Strategy a White Paper February 2017 Executive Summary
    21st Century Spaceplanes and Space Expeditionary Forces: Pivotal Capability for a Third Offset Strategy A White Paper February 2017 Executive Summary. Reusable spaceplanes offer a third offset strategy to the U.S. that builds on the first and second offsets of nuclear weapons followed by precision navigation, munitions and stealth. Military space systems today are satellites that are large, expensive, and typically take many years to develop, launch and employ. They are also very effective at their intended function; however, that effectiveness is also destabilizing in that it is motivating foreign nations to develop and potentially employ anti-satellite (ASAT) systems that would deny the U.S. the advantage of its space systems. Today, the U.S. is heavily dependent on space capabilities, as is the U.S. public, even as foreign threats to U.S. space systems have grown precipitously. Reusable spaceplanes are stabilizing in that they can responsively and routinely replenish satellites to any orbit, while also enabling rapid access to any part of the world – capabilities seminal to the Air Force vision of Global Vigilance…Global Reach…Global Power. Spaceplane attributes like launch on demand, routine space access and low flight costs enable many options for global reach, whether via “aircraft-like” sorties of spaceplanes with sensor suites or by launching satellites into constellations. Sorties with fully reusable spaceplanes enable overflight in a manner akin to past SR-71 flights, except they enable global reach at four nautical miles (nm) per second while accessing any point on earth, and most geographic locations in less than an hour.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeking a Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of a Great Nation
    SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION Review of U.S. HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT Plans Committee Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee 1 SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION 2 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION “We choose...to do [these] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...” John F. Kennedy September 12, 1962 Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee 3 SEEKING A HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT PROGRAM WORTHY OF A GREAT NATION Table of Contents Preface .......................... ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary ..... ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 19 Chapter 2.0 U.S. Human Spaceflight: Historical Review ............................................................................ 27 Chapter 3.0 Goals and Future Destinations for Exploration ........................................................................ 33 3.1 Goals for Exploration ............................................................................................................... 33 3.2 Overview of Destinations and Approach .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet Reusable Space Systems Program: Implications for Space Operations in the 1990S
    ) (I ' ·-·.;;;;:, .. Dire.ctorate of . ttJ _)\ Intelligence . G0 Soviet Reusable Space Systems Program: Implications for Space Operations in the 1990s An Intelligence Assessment SOV 88-10061 sw 88-/IJOj6 Stpu'"hu J9RR Copy Warning Notice Intelligence Sources or Methods Involved (WNINTEL) National &curity Unauthorized Disclosure Information Subject to Criminal Sanctions Oissc:mination Control Abbr~riations NOFORN (NFJ Not releasable to foreien nationals NOSONTR~_CT_CN_C_I ___~N_o_t~re_lc_•_s•_b_le_t~o_c_M_l~rz~~-o_rs_o.,.r~c_o~nl_rz_c~lo_r~/c_o_ns_u_h_z_nt_s PROP IN (PRJ Caution-proprietary inform;.tion involved OR CON (OCJ Dissemination and Cltraction of inform.1tion ---···----------,--,---,---.,.---------,-----controlled by oricinator REl___ This inform3.tion h.u been :~uthorizcd for release to ... ___________,_ __ W_N ______ --:----- WNI ~TEL-Intcllia:cncc sources or mel hods involved A microfiche copy o( I his docu- Clauillcd bl men! is available front OIR/ Declassify: OADR DLB (~82-7177~ printed copies Derived from muhiplc sources from CPAS/IMC(~&l-HOJ; or AIM request to uscrid CPASIMCJ. Rceulu rcccip! of 01 reports can be am need chrouch CPAS/IMC. All material on this ~r:c . --·-------------------- is Unclassified. ') / ' Directorate or lntdligrocc Soviet Reusable Space Systems Program: Implications for Space Operations in the 1990s An lntdligcnce Assessment This paper was prepared b ,Qflicc of Soviet Anal)'sis. an<'.- ~f Science and Weapons Rescare #:ontributions fro. t?_o~ . Comments znd queries arc welcome and may be dircctcdl\0 . or to . USWR. J yrf sov 88-10061 SWS8-100l6 Scpumba 1933 I ' Soviet Reusable Space Systems Program: Implications for Space Operations in the_l990! Key Judgments The Soviets arc developing at least one, and possibly two, reusable space llffurmation availabl~ systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conceptual Analysis of Spacecraft Air Launch Methods
    A Conceptual Analysis of Spacecraft Air Launch Methods Rebecca A. Mitchell1 Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80303 Air launch spacecraft have numerous advantages over traditional vertical launch configurations. There are five categories of air launch configurations: captive on top, captive on bottom, towed, aerial refueled, and internally carried. Numerous vehicles have been designed within these five groups, although not all are feasible with current technology. An analysis of mass savings shows that air launch systems can significantly reduce required liftoff mass as compared to vertical launch systems. Nomenclature Δv = change in velocity (m/s) µ = gravitational parameter (km3/s2) CG = Center of Gravity CP = Center of Pressure 2 g0 = standard gravity (m/s ) h = altitude (m) Isp = specific impulse (s) ISS = International Space Station LEO = Low Earth Orbit mf = final vehicle mass (kg) mi = initial vehicle mass (kg) mprop = propellant mass (kg) MR = mass ratio NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration r = orbital radius (km) 1 M.S. Student in Bioastronautics, [email protected] 1 T/W = thrust-to-weight ratio v = velocity (m/s) vc = carrier aircraft velocity (m/s) I. Introduction T HE cost of launching into space is often measured by the change in velocity required to reach the destination orbit, known as delta-v or Δv. The change in velocity is related to the required propellant mass by the ideal rocket equation: 푚푖 훥푣 = 퐼푠푝 ∗ 0 ∗ ln ( ) (1) 푚푓 where Isp is the specific impulse, g0 is standard gravity, mi initial mass, and mf is final mass. Specific impulse, measured in seconds, is the amount of time that a unit weight of a propellant can produce a unit weight of thrust.
    [Show full text]
  • Cecil Spaceport Master Plan 2012
    March 2012 Jacksonville Aviation Authority Cecil Spaceport Master Plan Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Project Background ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 History of Spaceport Activities ........................................................................................ 1-3 1.3 Purpose of the Master Plan ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.4 Strategic Vision .............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.5 Market Analysis .............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.6 Competitor Analysis ....................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Operating and Development Plan................................................................................... 1-8 1.8 Implementation Plan .................................................................................................... 1-10 1.8.1 Phasing Plan ......................................................................................................... 1-10 1.8.2 Funding Alternatives ............................................................................................. 1-11 CHAPTER 2 Introduction .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 18.1 Development of a Commercial Spaceport
    11/07/16 DEVELOPMENT* OF*COMMERCIAL* SPACEPORT* AND* ASSOCIATED* GROUND* SEGMENT* DRIVEN* BY*SPECIFIC*SPACEPLANE* VEHICLE*AND* MISSION* OPERATION* REQUIREMENTS F.SANTORO,*ALTEC*S.p.A . Altec 2 7 ©220142 res erv ed rights International/Symposium:/‘’Hypersonic:/from/100,000/to/400,000/ft ’’/Rome,/Italy,/June/30thBJuly/1st/2016/ All www.altecspace.it CONTENTS ! Introduction ! Methodology/Overview/ ! The/Reference/Mission ! The/Reference/Spaceplane ! Ground/Segment/Concept Altec 2 7 ! Spaceports ©220142 ! The/Taiping/Airport Study Case res erv ed ! Reentry/Risk/and/Footprint/Analysis rights All ! The/Ground/Station ! The/Space/City www.altecspace.it Page22 1 11/07/16 INTRODUCTION Study case of an initiative aimed at es t ablis hing suborbital flight capabilities with emphasis to the development of the Ground Segment and evaluation of a site as candidate Spaceport From stakeholder analysis to the mission conceptselection Altec 2 7 ©220142 res erv ed rights All Space mission analysis and design: it erat iv e and recursive process, permitting a continue refinement of requirements and constraints leading to a deeper component definition level www.altecspace.it Page23 THE/REFERENCE/MISSION Suborbital Parabolic Mission • Safe VTOL passengers transportation for touristic purposes up to 100 Km altitude over a parabolic flight and reach at least 120 seconds of microgravity • Capability to execute microgravity science during parabolic flights Altec 2 7 ©220142 res erv ed rights All www.altecspace.it Page24 2 11/07/16 THE/REFERENCE/MISSION Point to
    [Show full text]