DOCSLIB.ORG

AFFORDABLE SPACECRAFT: Design and Launch Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AFFORDABLE SPACECRAFT: Design and Launch Alternatives University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Documents on Outer Space Law Law, College of 1-1990 AFFORDABLE SPACECRAFT: Design and Launch Alternatives U.S. Congress, Office ofechnology T Assessment Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelawdocs Part of the Air and Space Law Commons U.S. Congress, Office ofechnology T Assessment, "AFFORDABLE SPACECRAFT: Design and Launch Alternatives" (1990). Documents on Outer Space Law. 11. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/spacelawdocs/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Documents on Outer Space Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. AFFORDABLE SPACECRAFT Design and Launch Alternatives Background Paper • OTA" . (I)• CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Affordable Spacecraft: Design and Launch Alternatives--Background Paper, OTA-BP-ISC-60 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, January 1990). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-600776 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Ii Foreword Several major DOD and NASA programs are seeking ways to reduce the costs of launching spacecraft. However, it typically costs much, much more to build a spacecraft than to launch it into a low orbit. Therefore, unless the costs of building spacecraft are reduced, even dramatic reductions in costs of launching to low orbit would reduce total spacecraft program costs by only a few percent. This background paper examines several proposals for reducing the costs of spacecraft and other payloads and describes launch systems for implementing them. It is one of a series of products of a broad assessment of space transportation technologies undertaken by OTA at the request of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. In 1988, OTA published the special report Launch Options for the Future: A Buyer's Guide and the technical memorandum Reducing Launch Operations Costs: New Technologies and Practices. In 1989, OTA published the background paper Big, Dumb Boosters: A Low-Cost Space Transportation Option? and the special report Round Trip to Orbit: Human Spaceflight Alternatives. A summary report on space transportation, entitled Access to Space to be published in the spring of 1990, will be the final report in the space transportation series. In undertaking this effort, OTA sought the contributions of a wide spectrum of knowledgeable individuals and organizations. Some provided information; others reviewed drafts. OTA gratefully acknowledges their contributions of time and intellectual effort. OTA also appreciates the cooperation and assistance of the Air Force and NASA. However, OTA is solely responsible for the content of this background paper and the other OTA publications. ~HN~{~J Director iii Advisory Panel on Affordable Spacecraft: Design and Launch Alternatives M. Granger Morgan, Chair Head, Department of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie-Mellon University Michael A. Berta George B. Merrick Assistant Division Manager Vice President Space and Communications Group North American Space Operations Hughes Aircraft Company Rockwell International Corporation Richard E. Brackeen Alan Parker President Senior Vice President Martin Marietta Commercial Titan, Inc. Technical Applications, Inc. Edward T. Gerry Gerard Piel President Chairman Emeritus W. J. Schafer Associates, Inc. Scientific American Jerry Grey Bryce Poe, II Director, Science and Technology Policy General, USAF (retired) American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Consultant William H. Heiser Ben R. Rich Consultant Vice President and General Manager Lockheed Corporation Otto W. Hoernig, Jr. Vice President Sally K. Ride ContellAmerican Satellite Corporation California Space Institute Donald B. Jacobs Tom Rogers Vice President, Space Systems Division President Boeing Aerospace Company The Sophron Foundation John Logsdon Richard G. Smith Director, Space Policy Institute Senior Vice President George Washington University JLC Aerospace Corporation Hugh F. Loweth William Zersen Consultant Consultant Anthony J. Macina Program Manager IBM Federal Systems Division NOTE: OTA appreciates the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The views expressed in this OTA report, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment. Participation on the advisory panel does not imply endorsement of the report. iv OTA Project Staff on AFFORDABLE SPACECRAFT-DESIGN AND LAUNCH ALTERNATIVES Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA Energy, Materials, and International Security Division Alan Shaw,lnternational Security and Commerce Program Manager (from March 1989) Peter Sharfman,lnternational Security and Commerce Program Manager (through February 1989) Ray A. Williamson, Project Director (jrom February 1989) Richard DalBello, Project Director (through January 1989) Michael B. Callaham, Principal Analyst Eric O. Basques (through August 1989) Gordon Law Administrative Staff Jackie Robinson Louise Staley v Acknowledgments The following organizations generously provided OTA with information and suggestions: American Rocket Corporation Naval Research Laboratory Boeing Aerospace Company Orbital Sciences Corporation California Institute of Technology, Radio Amateur Satellite Corp. Jet Propulsion Laboratory Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency TRW, Inc. Defense Systems, Inc. U.S. Air Force Systems Command, Space Systems Electromagnetic Launch Research, Inc. Division NASA Headquarters U.S. Space Command This paper has also benefitted from the advice of many experts from the Government and the private sector. OTA especially would like to thank the following indivuals for their assistance and support. The views expressed in this paper, however, are the sole responsibility of the Office of Technology Assessment. Steve Altes Abraham Hertzberg Lt. Col. Tom O'Brien, USAF Orbital Sciences Corporation University of Washington U.S. Space Command Ivan Bekey Ross M. Jones Scott Pace NASA Headquarters California Institute of Technology U.S. Department of Commerce Jet Propulsion Laboratory James Bennett Miles Palmer American Rocket Corporation Jordin Kare Science Applications International Strategic Defense Initiative Corp. Carl Builder Organization The Rand Corp. David Rossi Clark Kirby Orbital Sciences Corporation Paul Dergarabedian, Sr. TRW, Inc. Aerospace Corp. Arthur Schnitt Henry Kolm George Donohue George Sebestyen Electromagnetic Launch Research, The Rand Corp. Defense Systems, Inc. Inc. Dani Eder Larry Stern George Koopman Boeing Aerospace Company George Mason University American Rocket Corporation John Gaines Peter Wilhelm Robert Lindberg General Dynamics Naval Research Laboratory Orbital Sciences Corporation Daniel Gregory Col. John Wormington, USAF Andrew C. MacAllister Boeing Aerospace Company USAF Systems Command, Space Radio Amateur Satellite Corp. Systems Division Col. Charles Heimach, USAF USAF Systems Command, Space Systems Division vi Contents Page Chapter 1. Summary . • . • . • . • . • . • . • • . • • . • . • . • . • . • • . • . 1 THE HIGH COST OF SPACECRAFT. 1 APPROACHES TO REDUCING PAYLOAD COSTS. .. 2 OPTIONS FOR CONGRESS ........... .. 4 Options for Influencing Spacecraft Design. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 Options for Promoting the Development of Launch Systems. .. 4 Chapter 2. Weight and Volume Margins ••.••....•.... • . • . • • • • • • . • • • . • • . • . • • • • . • . 7 Chapter 3. Fatsats .....•..•...•••.•..•••....•..•.•...•••.••••.••.•...•••••.••.•...•.••...... 9 STANDARDIZING SUBSYSTEMS ......................................................... 9 UPPER STAGES AND ORBITAL-TRANSFER VEHICLES.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 10 ESTIMATING POTENTIAL COST REDUCTION ... .. 11 A Parametric Analysis ................................................................... 12 Bottom-Up Analyses ..................................................................... 14 A Comparison of Parametric and Bottom-Up Analyses ...................................... 16 ACHIEVING POTENTIAL COST REDUCTION ............................................. 16 Chapter 4. Lightsats ....................................................... eo. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 19 SPACECRAFT CONCEPTS . .. 19 CONCEPTS FOR PHASED ARRAYS OF SPACECRAFT .................................... 20 LAUNCH REQUIREMENTS ............................................................... 22 LAUNCH SYSTEM OPTIONS ............................................................. 23 Existing Launch Vehicles ................................................................ 23 Air-Launched Vehicles ................................................................... 23 Standard Small Launch Vehicle . .. 25 Other Options .. .. 26 ISSUES .................................................................................. 27 Chapter S. Microspacecraft . • . • . • . • • . • • . • . • . • • • . • . • • . • . • . • • . • . •. 29 SPACECRAFT CONCEPTS ................................................................ 29 LAUNCH SYSTEM OPTIONS ............................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model For
    A QUANTITATIVE HUMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL FOR ASSESSING CREW ACCOMMODATION AND UTILIZATION by CHRISTINE FANCHIANG B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2017 i This thesis entitled: A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization written by Christine Fanchiang has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Dr. David M. Klaus Dr. Jessica J. Marquez Dr. Nisar R. Ahmed Dr. Daniel J. Szafir Dr. Jennifer A. Mindock Dr. James A. Nabity Date: 13 March 2017 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Fanchiang, Christine (Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization Thesis directed by Professor David M. Klaus Crew performance, including both accommodation and utilization factors, is an integral part of every human spaceflight mission from commercial space tourism, to the demanding journey to Mars and beyond. Spacecraft were historically built by engineers and technologists trying to adapt the vehicle into cutting edge rocketry with the assumption that the astronauts could be trained and will adapt to the design. By and large, that is still the current state of the art. It is recognized, however, that poor human-machine design integration can lead to catastrophic and deadly mishaps.
    [Show full text]
  • A Wunda-Full World? Carbon Dioxide Ice Deposits on Umbriel and Other Uranian Moons
    Icarus 290 (2017) 1–13 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Icarus journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus A Wunda-full world? Carbon dioxide ice deposits on Umbriel and other Uranian moons ∗ Michael M. Sori , Jonathan Bapst, Ali M. Bramson, Shane Byrne, Margaret E. Landis Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Carbon dioxide has been detected on the trailing hemispheres of several Uranian satellites, but the exact Received 22 June 2016 nature and distribution of the molecules remain unknown. One such satellite, Umbriel, has a prominent Revised 28 January 2017 high albedo annulus-shaped feature within the 131-km-diameter impact crater Wunda. We hypothesize Accepted 28 February 2017 that this feature is a solid deposit of CO ice. We combine thermal and ballistic transport modeling to Available online 2 March 2017 2 study the evolution of CO 2 molecules on the surface of Umbriel, a high-obliquity ( ∼98 °) body. Consid- ering processes such as sublimation and Jeans escape, we find that CO 2 ice migrates to low latitudes on geologically short (100s–1000 s of years) timescales. Crater morphology and location create a local cold trap inside Wunda, and the slopes of crater walls and a central peak explain the deposit’s annular shape. The high albedo and thermal inertia of CO 2 ice relative to regolith allows deposits 15-m-thick or greater to be stable over the age of the solar system.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Nomenclature: an Overview and Update
    3rd Planetary Data Workshop 2017 (LPI Contrib. No. 1986) 7119.pdf PLANETARY NOMENCLATURE: AN OVERVIEW AND UPDATE. T. Gaither1, R. K. Hayward1, J. Blue1, L. Gaddis1, R. Schulz2, K. Aksnes3, G. Burba4, G. Consolmagno5, R. M. C. Lopes6, P. Masson7, W. Sheehan8, B.A. Smith9, G. Williams10, C. Wood11, 1USGS Astrogeology Science Center, Flagstaff, Ar- izona ([email protected]); 2ESA Scientific Support Office, Noordwijk, The Netherlands; 3Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, Oslo, Norway; 4Vernadsky Institute, Moscow, Russia; 5Specola Vaticana, Vati- can City State; 6Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California; 7Uni- versite de Paris-Sud, Orsay, France; 8Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona; 9Santa Fe, New Mexico; 10Minor Planet Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 11Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona. Introduction: The task of naming planetary Asteroids surface features, rings, and natural satellites is Ceres 113 managed by the International Astronomical Un- Dactyl 2 ion’s (IAU) Working Group for Planetary System Eros 41 Nomenclature (WGPSN). The members of the Gaspra 34 WGPSN and its task groups have worked since the Ida 25 early 1970s to provide a clear, unambiguous sys- Itokawa 17 tem of planetary nomenclature that represents cul- Lutetia 37 tures and countries from all regions of Earth. Mathilde 23 WGPSN members include Rita Schulz (chair) and Steins 24 9 other members representing countries around the Vesta 106 globe (see author list). In 2013, Blue et al. [1] pre- Jupiter sented an overview of planetary nomenclature, and Amalthea 4 in 2016 Hayward et al. [2] provided an update to Thebe 1 this overview. Given the extensive planetary ex- Io 224 ploration and research that has taken place since Europa 111 2013, it is time to update the community on the sta- Ganymede 195 tus of planetary nomenclature, the purpose and Callisto 153 rules, the process for submitting name requests, and the IAU approval process.
    [Show full text]
  • Nasa X-15 Program
    5 24,132 6 9 NASA X-15 PROGRAM By: T.D. Barnes - NASA Contractor - 1960s NASA contractors for the X-15 program were Bendix Field Engineering followed by Unitec, Inc. The NASA High Range Tracking stations were located at Ely and Beatty Nevada with main control being at Dryden/Edwards AFB in California. Personnel at the tracking stations consisted of a Station Manager, a Technical Advisor, and field engineers for the Mod-2 Radar, Data Transmission System, Communications, Telemetry, and Plant Maintenance/Generators. NASA had a site monitor at each tracking station to monitor our contractor operations. Though supporting flights of the X-15 was their main objective, they also participated in flights of the XB-70, the three Lifting Bodies, experimental Lunar Landing vehicles, and an occasional A-12/YF-12/SR-71 Blackbird flight. On mission days a NASA van picked up each member of the crew at their residence for the 4:20 a.m. trip to the tracking station 18 miles North of Beatty on the Tonopah Highway. Upon arrival each performed preflight calibrations and setup of their various systems. The liftoff of the B-52, with the X-15 tucked beneath its wing, seldom occurred after 9:00 a.m. due to the heat effect of the Mojave Desert making it difficult for the planes to acquire altitude. At approximately 0800 hours two pilots from Dryden would proceed uprange to evaluate the condition of the dry lake beds in the event of an emergency landing of the X-15 (always buzzing our station on the way up and back).
    [Show full text]
  • An Integrated Reliability and Physics-Based Risk Modeling Approach for Assessing Human Spaceflight Systems
    An Integrated Reliability and Physics-based Risk Modeling Approach for Assessing Human Spaceflight Systems Susie Go*a, Donovan Mathiasa, Chris Mattenbergerb, Scott Lawrencea, and Ken Geea a NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA b Science and Technology Corp., Moffett Field, CA, USA Abstract: This paper presents an integrated reliability and physics-based risk modeling approach for assessing human spaceflight systems. The approach is demonstrated using an example, end-to-end risk assessment of a generic crewed space transportation system during a reference mission to the International Space Station. The behavior of the system is modeled using analysis techniques from multiple disciplines in order to properly capture the dynamic time- and state- dependent consequences of failures encountered in different mission phases. We discuss how to combine traditional reliability analyses with Monte Carlo simulation methods and physics-based engineering models to produce loss- of-mission and loss-of-crew risk estimates supporting risk-based decision-making and requirement verification. This approach facilitates risk-informed design by providing more realistic representation of system failures and interactions; identifying key risk-driving sensitivities, dependencies, and assumptions; and tracking multiple figures of merit within a single, responsive assessment framework that can readily incorporate evolving design information throughout system development. Keywords: PRA, simulation, physical modeling, reliability modeling, risk-informed design. 1. INTRODUCTION Over the years, NASA has developed a working knowledge and body of standards to guide both the design and the evaluation of safe human space flight systems. These include specific requirements on procedures and best practices in addition to quantitative mission risk requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Net Force That Acts on a Hockey Puck Is 10 N, the Puck
    Chapter 5 Circular Motion, the Planets, and Gravity Uniform Circular Motion Uniform circular motion is the. motion of an object traveling at a constant (uniform) speed in a circular path. • Because velocity is a vector, with a magnitude and direction, an object that is turning at a constant speed has a change in velocity. The object is accelerating. – If the object was not accelerating, it would be traveling at a constant speed in a straight line. – We will determine the magnitude and direction of the acceleration for an object moving at a constant speed in a circle Direction of Acceleration for Uniform Circular Motion. v Define an axis that is always tangential to the velocity (t), and an axis that is always perpendicular to that, radial (r), or centripetal (c). What would an acceleration in the tangential direction do? It must change the speed of the object. But for uniform circular motion, the speed doesn’t change, so the acceleration can not be tangential and must be radial. Consider a object that is twirled on a v1 string in a circle at a constant speed in a clockwise direction, as shown. Let’s P1 find the direction of the average P2 acceleration between points P1 and P2? v2 – v1 = Dv v1 + Dv = v2 v2 v This direction of Δv is the direction 1 of the acceleration. It is directly toward the center of the circle at the v2 Dv point midway between P1 and P2. The direction of acceleration is toward the center of the circle. It is called centripetal (center-seeking) acceleration.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Research and Design
    Spacecraft Research & Design Center Naval Postgraduate School NAVAL POSTGRADUATESCHOOL Thesis/Research Opportunities The Spacecraft Research and Design Center at the Naval The mission of the Naval Analytical and experimental investigation are performed to develop Postgraduate School consists of six state-of-the art laboratories: technologies for acquisition, tracking and pointing of flexible Postgraduate School is to Fltsatcom Laboratory, Spacecraft Attitude Dynamics and Control spacecraft with optical payloads; active vibration control, Isolation, enhance the security of the Laboratory, Smart Structures laboratory, Spacecraft Design and suppression using smart structures; space robotics, satellite United States of America Center, NPS-AFRL Optical Relay Mirror Spacecraft Laboratory, servicing, space system design, and computer aided design tools. through graduate and and Satellite Servicing Laboratory. These laboratories are used for professional education programs Three-Axis Simulator 1 Three-Axis Simulator 2 instruction and research in space system engineering and space • Slew maneuver torque profile to minimize settling time. focusing on the unique needs of operations curricula. The emphasis has been on providing • Active vibration isolation/suppression using smart sensors students with hands-on experience in the design, analysis, and and actuators the military officers. These programs are sustained by testing of space systems and systems and to provide students research and advanced studies directed towards the needs • Fast steering mirror pointing/jitter control facilities for experimental research. The emphasis in the research • Improved multi-body flexible dynamics and control models of the Navy and DoD. Our goals are to increase the combat h areas is on acquisition, tracking and pointing of flexible • Adaptive Optics Control effectiveness of the armed forces of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • + New Horizons
    Media Contacts NASA Headquarters Policy/Program Management Dwayne Brown New Horizons Nuclear Safety (202) 358-1726 [email protected] The Johns Hopkins University Mission Management Applied Physics Laboratory Spacecraft Operations Michael Buckley (240) 228-7536 or (443) 778-7536 [email protected] Southwest Research Institute Principal Investigator Institution Maria Martinez (210) 522-3305 [email protected] NASA Kennedy Space Center Launch Operations George Diller (321) 867-2468 [email protected] Lockheed Martin Space Systems Launch Vehicle Julie Andrews (321) 853-1567 [email protected] International Launch Services Launch Vehicle Fran Slimmer (571) 633-7462 [email protected] NEW HORIZONS Table of Contents Media Services Information ................................................................................................ 2 Quick Facts .............................................................................................................................. 3 Pluto at a Glance ...................................................................................................................... 5 Why Pluto and the Kuiper Belt? The Science of New Horizons ............................... 7 NASA’s New Frontiers Program ........................................................................................14 The Spacecraft ........................................................................................................................15 Science Payload ...............................................................................................................16
    [Show full text]
  • 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics from Air Bubbles Cast in the Fuel (Voids) Can Cause Problems During Hot-Fire Operations
    Genetic Algorithm Optimization of a Cost Competitive Hybrid Rocket Booster George Story1 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Al Performance, reliability and cost have always been drivers in the rocket business. Hybrid rockets have been late entries into the launch business due to substantial early development work on liquid rockets and solid rockets. Slowly the technology readiness level of hybrids has been increasing due to various large scale testing and flight tests of hybrid rockets. One remaining issue is the cost of hybrids vs the existing launch propulsion systems. This paper will review the known state-of-the-art hybrid development work to date and incorporate it into a genetic algorithm to optimize the configuration based on various parameters. A cost module will be incorporated to the code based on the weights of the components. The design will be optimized on meeting the performance requirements at the lowest cost. I. Introduction Hybrids, considered part solid and part liquid propulsion system, have been caught in the middle of development goals of the various NASA and military programs. Solid rocket motor technology has matured due to the design simplicity, on-demand operational characteristics and low cost. The reliability of solids, given minimal maintenance requirements, made them the ideal system for military applications. On the other hand, liquid rocket engine technology has matured due to their higher specific impulse (ISP) over solids and variable control thrust capability. Hybrid Rockets have been used in only one flight-production application (Teledyne Ryan AQM-81A ‘Firebolt Supersonic Aerial Target) and one series of recent manned flight demonstrations (Burt Rutan’s SpaceshipOne), suggesting that advantages have been overlooked in some potential applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Exploration - a Story Fifty Years Long Giuseppe Pezzella and Antonio Viviani
    Chapter Introductory Chapter: Mars Exploration - A Story Fifty Years Long Giuseppe Pezzella and Antonio Viviani 1. Introduction Mars has been a goal of exploration programs of the most important space agencies all over the world for decades. It is, in fact, the most investigated celestial body of the Solar System. Mars robotic exploration began in the 1960s of the twentieth century by means of several space probes sent by the United States (US) and the Soviet Union (USSR). In the recent past, also European, Japanese, and Indian spacecrafts reached Mars; while other countries, such as China and the United Arab Emirates, aim to send spacecraft toward the red planet in the next future. 1.1 Exploration aims The high number of mission explorations to Mars clearly points out the impor- tance of Mars within the Solar System. Thus, the question is: “Why this great interest in Mars exploration?” The interest in Mars is due to several practical, scientific, and strategic reasons. In the practical sense, Mars is the most accessible planet in the Solar System [1]. It is the second closest planet to Earth, besides Venus, averaging about 360 million kilometers apart between the furthest and closest points in its orbit. Earth and Mars feature great similarities. For instance, both planets rotate on an axis with quite the same rotation velocity and tilt angle. The length of a day on Earth is 24 h, while slightly longer on Mars at 24 h and 37 min. The tilt of Earth axis is 23.5 deg, and Mars tilts slightly more at 25.2 deg [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory Figures As of Sept
    Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2011. ■ 2012 USAF Almanac Bombers B-1 Lancer Brief: A long-range, air refuelable multirole bomber capable of flying intercontinental missions and penetrating enemy defenses with the largest payload of guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. Function: Long-range conventional bomber. Operator: ACC, AFMC. First Flight: Dec. 23, 1974 (B-1A); Oct. 18, 1984 (B-1B). Delivered: June 1985-May 1988. IOC: Oct. 1, 1986, Dyess AFB, Tex. (B-1B). Production: 104. Inventory: 66. Aircraft Location: Dyess AFB, Tex.; Edwards AFB, Calif.; Eglin AFB, Fla.; Ellsworth AFB, S.D. Contractor: Boeing, AIL Systems, General Electric. Power Plant: four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofans, each 30,780 lb thrust. Accommodation: pilot, copilot, and two WSOs (offensive and defensive), on zero/zero ACES II ejection seats. Dimensions: span 137 ft (spread forward) to 79 ft (swept aft), length 146 ft, height 34 ft. B-1B Lancer (SSgt. Brian Ferguson) Weight: max T-O 477,000 lb. Ceiling: more than 30,000 ft. carriage, improved onboard computers, improved B-2 Spirit Performance: speed 900+ mph at S-L, range communications. Sniper targeting pod added in Brief: Stealthy, long-range multirole bomber that intercontinental. mid-2008. Receiving Fully Integrated Data Link can deliver nuclear and conventional munitions Armament: three internal weapons bays capable of (FIDL) upgrade to include Link 16 and Joint Range anywhere on the globe. accommodating a wide range of weapons incl up to Extension data link, enabling permanent LOS and Function: Long-range heavy bomber.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCTION to SPACE EXPLORATION Creating a Time Capsule
    INTRODUCTION TO SPACE EXPLORATION Creating a Time Capsule Grade Level: 5 - 8 Suggested TEKS Language Arts - 5.15 6.15 7.15 8.15 Social Studies - 5.18 6.20 7.20 8.20 Time Required: 30 - 45 minutes Art - 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 Computer - 5.2 6.2 7.2 8.2 Suggested SCANS Countdown: Writing paper Interpersonal. Interprets and Communicates Information National Science and Math Standards Pencils Science as Inquiry, Physical Science, Earth & Space Science, Science & Technology, History & Nature of Science, Measurement, Observing, Communicating Ignition: For decades, space colonies have been the creation of science fiction writers. However, with world population growing at an alarming rate, the concept of a second home in space could very likely become a stark reality. Already, a number of visionary scientists have drawn up plans for off-earth habitats. Biosphere II near Tucson, Arizona is an example. Additionally, NASA has future plans for a mission to Mars in the next 20 years. It certainly appears that earth will not always be our home. With this in mind, ask the students to consider the scenario suggested next in "Liftoff." Liftoff: You will have the opportunity to bury a time capsule, a sealed and durable box, which will be opened after one hundred years. Future discoverers of the box will be able to guess from the contents what your life was like 100 years before their time. Below are six different categories. For each category, choose an object that would best represent it. Keep in mind that you may choose items like photographs, scrapbooks, films or videos, books, newspapers, miniature models, and other favorite mementos.
    [Show full text]