DOCSLIB.ORG

Minotaurminotaur Uuser'sser's Gguideuide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minotaurminotaur Uuser'sser's Gguideuide MinotaurMinotaur UUser'sser's GGuideuide March 2002 Release 1.0 Approved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited © 2002 by Orbital Sciences Corporation. All rights reserved. ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION March 2002 Minotaur® Users Guide Release 1.0 Approved for Public Release Distribution Unlimited Copyright © 2002 by Orbital Sciences Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Minotaur User's Guide Preface This Minotaur User's Guide is intended to familiarize potential space launch vehicle users with the Minotaur launch system, its capabilities and its associated services. The launch services described herein are available for US Government sponsored missions via the United States Air Force (USAF) Space and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12, Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP). Readers desiring further information on Minotaur should contact the USAF OSP Program Office: USAF SMC Det 12/RP 3548 Aberdeen Ave SE Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5778 Telephone: (505) 846-8957 Fax: (505) 846-1349 Additional copies of this User's Guide and Technical information may also be requested from Orbital at: Business Development Orbital Sciences Corporation Launch Systems Group 3380 S. Price Road Chandler, AZ 85248 Telephone: (480) 814-6028 E-mail: [email protected] Release 1.0 March 2002 Minotaur User's Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 MINOTAUR LAUNCH SERVICE...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Minotaur Launch System Overview ......................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Minotaur Launch Service ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Minotaur Launch Vehicle ......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.1 Lower Stack Assembly ................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.2 Upper Stack Assembly ................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Launch Support Equipment ...................................................................................... 2-4 3.0 GENERAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Mission Profiles ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Launch Sites............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 Western Launch Sites ................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Eastern Launch Sites ..................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Performance Capability........................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Injection Accuracy .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.5 Payload Deployment .............................................................................................. 3-5 3.6 Payload Separation ................................................................................................. 3-5 3.7 Collision/Contamination Avoidance Maneuver ....................................................... 3-6 4.0 PAYLOAD ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Steady State and Transient Acceleration Loads ......................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Optional Payload Isolation System................................................................. 4-2 4.2 Payload Vibration Environment ................................................................................ 4-3 4.3 Payload Shock Environment ..................................................................................... 4-3 4.4 Payload Acoustic Environment ................................................................................. 4-3 4.5 Payload Structural Integrity and Environments Verification ....................................... 4-4 4.5.1 Recommended Payload Testing and Analysis ................................................. 4-4 4.6 Thermal and Humidity Environments ....................................................................... 4-5 4.6.1 Ground Operations ....................................................................................... 4-5 4.6.2 Powered Flight .............................................................................................. 4-6 4.6.3 Nitrogen Purge (non-standard service) ......................................................... 4-7 4.7 Payload Contamination Control............................................................................... 4-7 4.8 Payload Electromagnetic Environment ................................................................... 4-7 5.0 PAYLOAD INTERFACES .................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Payload Fairing ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Payload Dynamic Design Envelope ............................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Payload Access Door ..................................................................................... 5-1 5.1.3 Increased Volume Payload Fairing ................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Payload Mechanical Interface and Separation System .............................................. 5-1 Release 1.0 March 2002 i Minotaur User's Guide TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 5.2.1 Standard Non-Separating Mechanical Interface........................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Separating Mechanical Interface .................................................................. 5-5 5.2.3 Orbital Supplied Drill Templates .................................................................. 5-5 5.3 Payload Electrical Interfaces................................................................................... 5-5 5.3.1 Payload Umbilical Interfaces........................................................................ 5-5 5.3.2 Payload Battery Charging ............................................................................. 5-5 5.3.3 Payload Command and Control .................................................................... 5-5 5.3.4 Pyrotechnic Initiation Signals...................................................................... 5-10 5.3.5 Payload Telemetry ...................................................................................... 5-10 5.3.6 Non Standard Electrical Interfaces ............................................................. 5-10 5.3.7 Electrical Launch Support Equipment ......................................................... 5-10 5.4 Payload Design Constraints .................................................................................. 5-10 5.4.1 Payload Center of Mass Constraints ............................................................ 5-10 5.4.2 Final Mass Properties Accuracy ................................................................. 5-10 5.4.3 Pre-Launch Electrical Constraints ............................................................... 5-10 5.4.4 Payload EMI/EMC Constraints..................................................................... 5-10 5.4.5 Payload Dynamic Frequencies................................................................... 5-11 5.4.6 Payload Propellent Slosh............................................................................. 5-11 5.4.7 Payload-Supplied Separation Systems ........................................................ 5-11 5.4.8 System Safety Constraints ........................................................................... 5-11 6.0 MISSION INTEGRATION ............................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Mission Management Approach ............................................................................... 6-1 6.1.1 SMC Det 12/RP Mission Responsibilities ........................................................ 6-1 6.1.2 Orbital Mission Responsibilities ..................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Mission Planning and Development ......................................................................... 6-2 6.3 Mission Integration Process ...................................................................................... 6-2 6.3.1 Integration Meetings ...................................................................................... 6-2 6.3.2 Mission Design Reviews ................................................................................ 6-4 6.3.3 Readiness Reviews ........................................................................................ 6-4 6.4 Documentation ........................................................................................................ 6-4 6.4.1 Customer-Provided Documentation ............................................................... 6-4 6.4.1.1 Payload Questionnaire .................................................................... 6-4 6.4.1.2 Payload Mass Properties .................................................................. 6-4 6.4.1.3 Payload Finite Element Model ........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite
    46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit AIAA 2008-1131 7 – 10 January 20006, Reno, Nevada Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Stephen A. Whitmore* and Tyson K. Smith† Utah State University, Logan, UT, 84322-4130 A trade study investigating the economics, mass budget, and concept of operations for delivery of a small technology-demonstration satellite to a medium-altitude earth orbit is presented. The mission requires payload deployment at a 19,000 km orbit altitude and an inclination of 55o. Because the payload is a technology demonstrator and not part of an operational mission, launch and deployment costs are a paramount consideration. The payload includes classified technologies; consequently a USA licensed launch system is mandated. A preliminary trade analysis is performed where all available options for FAA-licensed US launch systems are considered. The preliminary trade study selects the Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle, derived from the decommissioned Peacekeeper missile system, as the most favorable option for payload delivery. To meet mission objectives the Minotaur V configuration is modified, replacing the baseline 5th stage ATK-37FM motor with the significantly smaller ATK Star 27. The proposed design change enables payload delivery to the required orbit without using a 6th stage kick motor. End-to-end mass budgets are calculated, and a concept of operations is presented. Monte-Carlo simulations are used to characterize the expected accuracy of the final orbit.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Nasa's Acquisition of Commercial Launch Services
    FEBRUARY 17, 2011 AUDIT REPORT OFFICE OF AUDITS REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL National Aeronautics and Space Administration REPORT NO. IG-11-012 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-09-011-00) Final report released by: Paul K. Martin Inspector General Acronyms COTS Commercial Orbital Transportation Services CRS Commercial Resupply Services DOD Department of Defense EELV Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle ESMD Exploration Systems Mission Directorate GAO Government Accountability Office GLAST Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope IBEX Interstellar Boundary Explorer ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ICESat-II Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite IDIQ Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity ISS International Space Station LADEE Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer LCROSS Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite LRO Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter LSP Launch Services Program NLS NASA Launch Services OCO Orbiting Carbon Observatory OIG Office of Inspector General PPBE Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution SMAP Soil Moisture Active Passive SMD Science Mission Directorate SOMD Space Operations Mission Directorate ULA United Launch Alliance REPORT NO. IG-11-012 FEBRUARY 17, 2011 OVERVIEW REVIEW OF NASA’S ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH SERVICES The Issue Commercial U.S. launch services providers compete domestically and internationally for contracts to carry satellites and other payloads into orbit using unmanned, single-use vehicles known as expendable launch vehicles (ELVs). However, since the late 1990s the global commercial launch market has generally declined following the downturn in the telecommunications services industry, which was the primary customer of the commercial space industry. Given this trend, U.S. launch services providers struggling to remain economically viable have been bolstered by the Commercial Space Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-303), which requires NASA and other Federal agencies to plan missions and procure space transportation services from U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FY2009 NRO Congressional Budget Justification Book
    NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 14675 Lee Road Chantilly, VA 20151-1715 6 July 2009 Mr. Steven Aftergood Senior Research Analyst Federation of American Scientists 1725 DeSales St NW, 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Dear Mr. Aftergood: This is in response to your faxed letter, dated 5 March 2008, received in the Information Management Services Center of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) on 7 March 2008. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you requested "a copy of all unclassified portions of the NRO Congressional Budget Justification Book (CBJB) for Fiscal Year 2009.° Your request was processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended. A thorough search of our files and databases located one record, consisting of 465 pages that is responsive to your request. This record is being released to you in part. Material withheld is denied pursuant to FOIA exemption(b) (3) which applies to information specifically exempt by statute, 50 U.S.C. § 403-1(i) which protects intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. AS you are aware, the FOIA authorizes federal agencies to assess fees for record services. Based upon the information provided, you have been placed in the "other" category of requesters, which means that a requester is responsible for charges incurred for the cost of search time exceeding two hours and duplication in excess of the first 100 pages of document reproduction in the processing of this request. In your request, you expressed a willingness to pay fees up to the amount of $50.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Minotaur I User's Guide
    This page left intentionally blank. Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D REVISION SUMMARY VERSION DOCUMENT DATE CHANGE PAGE 1.0 TM-14025 Mar 2002 Initial Release All 2.0 TM-14025A Oct 2004 Changes throughout. Major updates include All · Performance plots · Environments · Payload accommodations · Added 61 inch fairing option 3.0 TM-14025B Mar 2014 Extensively Revised All 3.1 TM-14025C Sep 2015 Updated to current Orbital ATK naming. All 3.2 TM-14025D Sep 2018 Branding update to Northrop Grumman. All 3.3 TM-14025D Sep 2020 Branding update. All Updated contact information. Release 3.3 September 2020 i Minotaur I User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-14025, Rev. D This page left intentionally blank. Release 3.3 September 2020 ii Minotaur I User’s Guide Preface TM-14025, Rev. D PREFACE This Minotaur I User's Guide is intended to familiarize potential space launch vehicle users with the Mino- taur I launch system, its capabilities and its associated services. All data provided herein is for reference purposes only and should not be used for mission specific analyses. Detailed analyses will be performed based on the requirements and characteristics of each specific mission. The launch services described herein are available for US Government sponsored missions via the United States Air Force (USAF) Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD), Rocket Systems Launch Program (SMC/ADSL). For technical information and additional copies of this User’s Guide, contact: Northrop Grumman
    [Show full text]
  • Three Events Occurred During This Period Which Together Constitute a Major Milestone in the Way Meteorological Data Are Pr
    6.1 DESIGNING WEATHER SUPPORT FOR FUTURE RANGES – RESULTS FROM THE ADVANCED RANGE TECHNOLOGY WORKING GROUP WEATHER SUBGROUP William P. Roeder1 and John T. Madura2 145th Weather Squadron, Patrick Air Force Base, FL 2Weather Office, Kennedy Space Center, FL 1. INTRODUCTION 2. ARTWG WEATHER TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP The Advanced Range Technology Working Group The ARTWG Weather Subgroup, which included (ARTWG) was formed to identify the technologies government, industry and university participants, prepared required for the best performing, most cost-effective future a technology roadmap summarizing desired major space launch and test Ranges, and the R&D required to capabilities for optimal meteorological support to space achieve those technologies. The ARTWG resulted from a ranges for 25 years into the future. The 25-year planning White House Office of Science and Technology Policy time was further divided into three sub-periods (Table-2). (2000) report on the future of America’s space program. The near term requirements can be met with technology The White House tasked NASA and the U.S. Air Force to that is currently available and implementation can begin cooperatively identify the R&D requirements necessary to immediately. The mid term requirements are those that ensure the future competitiveness of U.S. ranges. Two will likely be available in 5-10 years or will require a small parallel initiatives resulted, the ARTWG (2004) co-chaired amount of development. The far term requirements are by NASA and the Air Force, and the companion Advanced advanced capabilities that will require considerable time Spaceport Technology Working Group (ASTWG) (2003), for research and development.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 72/Monday, April 15, 2019
    15296 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 72 / Monday, April 15, 2019 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Docket: Background documents or FSS—Flight safety system comments received may be read at PC—Probability of casualty Federal Aviation Administration http://www.regulations.gov at any time. PI—Probability of impact Follow the online instructions for RLV—Reusable launch vehicle 14 CFR Parts 401, 404, 413, 414, 415, accessing the docket or go to the Docket Table of Contents 417, 420, 431, 433, 435, 437, 440, and Operations in Room W12–140 of the 450 I. Overview of Proposed Rule West Building Ground Floor at 1200 II. Background [Docket No.: FAA–2019–0229; Notice No. New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, A. History 19–01] DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday B. Licensing Process through Friday, except Federal holidays. C. National Space Council RIN 2120–AL17 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For D. Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements Aviation Streamlined Launch and Reentry questions concerning this action, contact Randy Repcheck, Office of Rulemaking Committee Licensing Requirements III. Discussion of the Proposal Commercial Space Transportation, A. The FAA’s Approach To Updating and AGENCY: Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Streamlining Launch and Reentry Administration (FAA), Department of Independence Avenue SW, Washington, Regulations Transportation (DOT). DC 205914; telephone (202) 267–8760; B. Single Vehicle Operator License ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking email [email protected]. C. Performance-Based Requirements and (NPRM). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Means of Compliance D. Launch From a Federal Launch Range SUMMARY: This rulemaking would Authority for This Rulemaking E.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions
    Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com The Evolving Launch Vehicle Market Supply and the Effect on Future NASA Missions Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint International Conference & Workshop June 12-15, New Orleans, LA Bob Bitten, Debra Emmons, Claude Freaner 1 Presented at the 2007 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual International Conference and Workshop - www.iceaaonline.com Abstract • The upcoming retirement of the Delta II family of launch vehicles leaves a performance gap between small expendable launch vehicles, such as the Pegasus and Taurus, and large vehicles, such as the Delta IV and Atlas V families • This performance gap may lead to a variety of progressions including – large satellites that utilize the full capability of the larger launch vehicles, – medium size satellites that would require dual manifesting on the larger vehicles or – smaller satellites missions that would require a large number of smaller launch vehicles • This paper offers some comparative costs of co-manifesting single- instrument missions on a Delta IV/Atlas V, versus placing several instruments on a larger bus and using a Delta IV/Atlas V, as well as considering smaller, single instrument missions launched on a Minotaur or Taurus • This paper presents the results of a parametric study investigating the cost- effectiveness of different alternatives and their effect on future NASA missions that fall into the Small Explorer (SMEX), Medium Explorer (MIDEX), Earth System Science Pathfinder (ESSP), Discovery,
    [Show full text]
  • Photographs Written Historical and Descriptive
    CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY HAER FL-8-B BUILDING AE HAER FL-8-B (John F. Kennedy Space Center, Hanger AE) Cape Canaveral Brevard County Florida PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD SOUTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 100 Alabama St. NW Atlanta, GA 30303 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION, MISSILE ASSEMBLY BUILDING AE (Hangar AE) HAER NO. FL-8-B Location: Hangar Road, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Industrial Area, Brevard County, Florida. USGS Cape Canaveral, Florida, Quadrangle. Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: E 540610 N 3151547, Zone 17, NAD 1983. Date of Construction: 1959 Present Owner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Present Use: Home to NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) and the Launch Vehicle Data Center (LVDC). The LVDC allows engineers to monitor telemetry data during unmanned rocket launches. Significance: Missile Assembly Building AE, commonly called Hangar AE, is nationally significant as the telemetry station for NASA KSC’s unmanned Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) program. Since 1961, the building has been the principal facility for monitoring telemetry communications data during ELV launches and until 1995 it processed scientifically significant ELV satellite payloads. Still in operation, Hangar AE is essential to the continuing mission and success of NASA’s unmanned rocket launch program at KSC. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A in the area of Space Exploration as Kennedy Space Center’s (KSC) original Mission Control Center for its program of unmanned launch missions and under Criterion C as a contributing resource in the CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1 a Survey of the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria
    1.1 A Survey Of The Lightning Launch Commit Criteria William P. Roeder and Todd M. McNamara 45th Weather Squadron, Patrick AFB, FL 1. 45 WS MISSION The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) provides comprehensive weather services to America’s space program at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) (Harms et al., 1999). These services include weather support for pre-launch, launch, post-launch, routine weather forecast, 24/7 watches/warnings, flight briefings, and special missions. A major part of the 45 WS support to launch is evaluating and forecasting the Lightning Launch Commit Criteria (LLCC) (Roeder et al., 1999) and User Launch Commit Criteria (Boyd et al., 1995). The LLCC protect against natural and rocket triggered lightning strikes to the in-flight rocket. The User Launch Commit Criteria include low level winds so the rocket doesn’t Figure 1. Average cloud-to-ground lighting flash density topple or get blown back into the launch pad 2 during launch, and ceiling and visibility so the (flashes/km •year) for the CONUS (1989–1993), corrected for detection efficiency. Data are from the ascending rocket can be tracked by camera to National Lightning Detection Network. Figure provided ensure it is on the correct trajectory. Launch by Dr. Richard Orville, Texas A&M University. customers include the DoD, NASA, and commercial customers for approximately 30 launches per year. The launch vehicles supported 2. INTRODUCTION TO THE LIGHTNING recently include Titan, Atlas, Delta, Athena, LAUNCH COMMIT CRITERIA Pegasus, and Space Shuttle space launch vehicles, and Trident ballistic missiles.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Spaceport
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration America’s Spaceport www.nasa.gov America’s Spaceport John F. Kennedy Space Center “This generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it — we mean to lead it.” President John Fitzgerald Kennedy September 12, 1962 he John F. Kennedy Space Center — America’s Spaceport — is the doorway to upon Spanish treasure ships laden with riches from space. From its unique facilities, humans and machines have begun the exploration the mines of Mexico and Peru. Shoals, reefs and T of the solar system, reaching out to the sun, the moon, the planets and beyond. storms also exacted their toll on the treasure fleets, While these spectacular achievements have fired the imagination of people throughout leaving behind a sunken bonanza now being reaped the world and enriched the lives of millions, they represent only a beginning. At America’s by modern-day treasure hunters. Spaceport, humanity’s long-cherished dream of establishing permanent outposts on the new space frontier is becoming a reality. By the early 18th century, America’s Spaceport Origins echoed with the footsteps of other intruders: Yet, our leap toward the stars is also an epilogue to a rich and colorful past . an almost English settlers and their Indian allies (the latter to forgotten legacy replete with Indian lore, stalwart adventurers, sunken treasure and hardy become known as the Seminoles) from colonies in pioneers. Georgia and South Carolina. Thus began a new era of conflict and expansion that ouldw continue until The sands of America’s Spaceport bear the imprint of New World history from its earliest the end of the Second U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Minotuar-User-Guide-3.Pdf
    This page left intentionally blank. Minotaur IV • V • VI User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-17589, Rev. E REVISION SUMMARY VERSION DOCUMENT DATE CHANGE PAGE 1.0 TM-17589 Jan 2005 Initial Release All 1.1 TM-17589A Jan 2006 General nomenclature, history, and administrative up- All dates (no technical updates) 1. Updated launch history 2. Corrected contact information 2.0 TM-17589B Jun 2013 Extensively Revised All 2.1 TM-17589C Aug 2015 Updated to current Orbital ATK naming. All 2.2 TM-17589D Aug 2015 Minor updates to correct Orbital ATK naming. All 2.3 TM-17589E Apr 2019 Branding update to Northrop Grumman. All Corrected Figures 4.2.2-1 and 4.2.2-2. Corrected Section 6.2.1, paragraph 3. 2.4 TM-17589E Sep 2020 Branding update. All Updated contact information. Updated footer. Release 2.4 September 2020 i Minotaur IV • V • VI User’s Guide Revision Summary TM-17589, Rev. E This page left intentionally blank. Release 2.4 September 2020 ii Minotaur IV • V • VI User’s Guide User’s Guide Preface TM-17589, Rev. E The information provided in this user’s guide is for initial planning purposes only. Information for develop- ment/design is determined through mission specific engineering analyses. The results of these analyses are documented in a mission-specific Interface Control Document (ICD) for the payloader organization to use in their development/design process. This document provides an overview of the Minotaur system design and a description of the services provided to our customers. For technical information and additional copies of this User’s
    [Show full text]
  • Fy2010 Defense Budget
    U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F D E F E N S E FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET REQUEST S U M M A R Y J U S T I F I C A T I O N • M A Y 2 0 0 9 On behalf of the President, I am pleased to transmit to Congress this volume that presents the Department of Defense’s budget request of $533.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2010. The purpose of the Secretary’s Summary Justification is to inform Cong ress and provide the American people a clear understanding of how their tax dollars are being invested to provide for our Nation’s defense. It includes: • An explanation of the Department’s missions, accomplishments, and priorities; • A summary of the request by Military Department and Defense agencies; • Information on special areas of interest and emphasis for Fiscal Year 2010; and • Details on the Department’s major weapons programs. The Military Departments and Defense agencies will provide Congress with additional detailed justification materials on this request. The requested funds would: provide military pay, benefits, and world-class healthcare for 2.3 million Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen ($163.9 billion); support military operations and force readiness ($160.9 billion); invest in modernization ($186.1 billion); and support family housing and facilities ($23.0 billion). In addition to the $533.8 billion request, the Administration requests $130.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2010 to support ongoing Overseas Contingency Operations.
    [Show full text]