DOCSLIB.ORG

Minotaur I User's Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 Space Systems Sector Sector Headquarters Launch and Missile Defense Systems Division Headquarters 45101 Warp Drive 1575 South Price Road Dulles, VA 20166 Chandler, AZ 85286 +1 (703) 406-5000 +1 (480) 899-6000 www.northropgrumman.com Warren Frick Manager, Business Development (703) 234-3935 [email protected] Additional information can be obtained from the USAF OSP Office at: US Air Force, Space and Missile Systems Center, Advanced Systems and Development Directorate (SMC/AD) Rocket Systems Launch Program (SMC/ADSL) 3548 Aberdeen Ave SE Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5778 (505) 853-5533 (505) 853-0507 Release 3.3 September 2020 iii Minotaur I User’s Guide Preface TM-14025, Rev. D This page left intentionally blank. Release 3.3 September 2020 iv Minotaur I User’s Guide Table of Contents TM-14025, Rev. D PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................... iii GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................. xi 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Minotaur Family Performance and Capability ............................................................................... 2 2. MINOTAUR I CONFIGURATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Minotaur I Launch System Overview ............................................................................................ 5 2.2. Minotaur I Launch Service ............................................................................................................ 5 2.3. Minotaur I Launch Vehicle ............................................................................................................ 6 2.3.1. Lower Stack Assembly .............................................................................................................. 6 2.3.2. Upper Stack Assembly .............................................................................................................. 7 2.3.2.1. Avionics ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2.2. Attitude Control Systems ..................................................................................................... 7 2.3.2.3. Telemetry Subsystem.......................................................................................................... 8 2.3.3. Payload Interface ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.3.4. Payload Fairing .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.4. Launch Support Equipment ........................................................................................................ 10 3. GENERAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................................ 13 3.1. Mission Profiles ........................................................................................................................... 13 3.2. Launch Sites ............................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1. Western Launch Sites ............................................................................................................. 15 3.2.2. Eastern Launch Sites .............................................................................................................. 15 3.2.3. Alternate Launch Sites ............................................................................................................ 15 3.3. Performance Capability ............................................................................................................... 15 3.4. Injection Accuracy ....................................................................................................................... 20 3.5. Payload Deployment ................................................................................................................... 21 3.6. Payload Separation ..................................................................................................................... 21 3.7. Collision/Contamination Avoidance Maneuver ........................................................................... 21 4. PAYLOAD ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................. 23 4.1. Steady State and Transient Acceleration Loads......................................................................... 23 4.1.1. Transient Loads ....................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.2. Steady-State Acceleration ....................................................................................................... 25 4.2. Payload Vibration Environment................................................................................................... 26 4.3. Payload Acoustic Environment ................................................................................................... 26 4.4. Payload Shock Environment ....................................................................................................... 26 4.5. Payload Structural Integrity and Environments Verification ........................................................ 26 4.6. Thermal and Humidity Environments .......................................................................................... 27 4.6.1. Ground Operations .................................................................................................................. 27 4.6.2. Powered Flight ......................................................................................................................... 28 4.6.3. Nitrogen Purge (non-standard service) ................................................................................... 29 4.7. Payload Contamination Control .................................................................................................. 29 4.8. Payload Electromagnetic Environment ....................................................................................... 29 5. PAYLOAD INTERFACES .................................................................................................................. 31 5.1. Payload Fairing ........................................................................................................................... 31 5.1.1. 50” Standard Minotaur I Fairing ............................................................................................... 31 Release 3.3 September 2020 v Minotaur I User’s Guide Table of Contents TM-14025, Rev. D 5.1.1.1. Payload Dynamic Design Envelope .................................................................................. 31 5.1.2. Optional 61” Payload Fairing ................................................................................................... 32 5.1.2.1. Payload Dynamic Design Envelope (61” Payload Fairing) ............................................... 32 5.1.3. Payload Access Door .............................................................................................................. 34 5.2. Payload Mechanical Interface and Separation System .............................................................. 35 5.2.1. Minotaur Coordinate System ................................................................................................... 35 5.2.2. NGIS-Supplied Mechanical Interface Control Drawing ........................................................... 37 5.2.3. Standard Non-Separating Mechanical Interface ....................................................................
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]
  • Final EA for the Launch and Reentry of Spaceshiptwo Reusable Suborbital Rockets at the Mojave Air and Space Port
    Final Environmental Assessment for the Launch and Reentry of SpaceShipTwo Reusable Suborbital Rockets at the Mojave Air and Space Port May 2012 HQ-121575 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Finding of No Significant Impact AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) SUMMARY: The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) prepared a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321 et seq.), Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations parts 1500 to 1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of issuing experimental permits and/or launch licenses to operate SpaceShipTwo reusable suborbital rockets and WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft at the Mojave Air and Space Port in Mojave, California. After reviewing and analyzing currently available data and information on existing conditions and the potential impacts of the Proposed Action, the FAA has determined that issuing experimental permits and/or launch licenses to operate SpaceShipTwo and WhiteKnightTwo at the Mojave Air and Space Port would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. Therefore, preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required, and the FAA is issuing this FONSI. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable environmental laws. The Final EA is incorporated by reference in this FONSI. FOR A COPY OF THE EA AND FONSI: Visit the following internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/review/permits/ or contact Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Program Lead, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email [email protected]; or phone (202) 267-5924.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Bug" Heard 'Round the World
    ACM SIGSOFT SOFTWAREENGINEERING NOTES, Vol 6 No 5, October 1981 Page 3 THE "BUG" HEARD 'ROUND THE WORLD Discussion of the software problem which delayed the first Shuttle orbital flight JohnR. Garman Cn April 10, 1981, about 20 minutes prior to the scheduled launching of the first flight of America's Space Transportation System, astronauts and technicians attempted to initialize the software system which "backs-up" the quad-redundant primary software system ...... and could not. In fact, there was no possible way, it turns out, that the BFS (Backup Flight Control System) in the fifth onboard computer could have been initialized , Froperly with the PASS (Primary Avionics Software System) already executing in the other four computers. There was a "bug" - a very small, very improbable, very intricate, and very old mistake in the initialization logic of the PASS. It was the type of mistake that gives programmers and managers alike nightmares - and %heoreticians and analysts endless challenge. I% was the kind of mistake that "cannot happen" if one "follows all the rules" of good software design and implementation. It was the kind of mistake that can never be ruled out in the world of real systems development: a world involving hundreds of programmers and analysts, thousands of hours of testing and simulation, and millions of pages of design specifications, implementation schedules, and test plans and reports. Because in that world, software is in fact "soft" - in a large complex real time control system like the Shuttle's avionics system, software is pervasive and, in virtually every case, the last subsystem to stabilize.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H
    Small Space Launch: Origins & Challenges Lt Col Thomas H. Freeman, USAF, [email protected], (505)853-4750 Maj Jose Delarosa, USAF, [email protected], (505)846-4097 Launch Test Squadron, SMC/SDTW Small Space Launch: Origins The United States Space Situational Awareness capability continues to be a key element in obtaining and maintaining the high ground in space. Space Situational Awareness satellites are critical enablers for integrated air, ground and sea operations, and play an essential role in fighting and winning conflicts. The United States leads the world space community in spacecraft payload systems from the component level into spacecraft, and in the development of constellations of spacecraft. The United States’ position is founded upon continued government investment in research and development in space technology [1], which is clearly reflected in the Space Situational Awareness capabilities and the longevity of these missions. In the area of launch systems that support Space Situational Awareness, despite the recent development of small launch vehicles, the United States launch capability is dominated by an old, unresponsive and relatively expensive set of launchers [1] in the Expandable, Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) platforms; Delta IV and Atlas V. The EELV systems require an average of six to eight months from positioning on the launch table until liftoff [3]. Access to space requires maintaining a robust space transportation capability, founded on a rigorous industrial and technology base. The downturn of commercial space launch service use has undermined, for the time being, the ability of industry to recoup its significant investment in current launch systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions
    Post-Exit Atmospheric Flight Cruise Approach An Assessment of Aerocapture and Applications to Future Missions February 13, 2016 National Aeronautics and Space Administration An Assessment of Aerocapture Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California and Applications to Future Missions Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology for Planetary Science Division Science Mission Directorate NASA Work Performed under the Planetary Science Program Support Task ©2016. All rights reserved. D-97058 February 13, 2016 Authors Thomas R. Spilker, Independent Consultant Mark Hofstadter Chester S. Borden, JPL/Caltech Jessie M. Kawata Mark Adler, JPL/Caltech Damon Landau Michelle M. Munk, LaRC Daniel T. Lyons Richard W. Powell, LaRC Kim R. Reh Robert D. Braun, GIT Randii R. Wessen Patricia M. Beauchamp, JPL/Caltech NASA Ames Research Center James A. Cutts, JPL/Caltech Parul Agrawal Paul F. Wercinski, ARC Helen H. Hwang and the A-Team Paul F. Wercinski NASA Langley Research Center F. McNeil Cheatwood A-Team Study Participants Jeffrey A. Herath Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech Michelle M. Munk Mark Adler Richard W. Powell Nitin Arora Johnson Space Center Patricia M. Beauchamp Ronald R. Sostaric Chester S. Borden Independent Consultant James A. Cutts Thomas R. Spilker Gregory L. Davis Georgia Institute of Technology John O. Elliott Prof. Robert D. Braun – External Reviewer Jefferey L. Hall Engineering and Science Directorate JPL D-97058 Foreword Aerocapture has been proposed for several missions over the last couple of decades, and the technologies have matured over time. This study was initiated because the NASA Planetary Science Division (PSD) had not revisited Aerocapture technologies for about a decade and with the upcoming study to send a mission to Uranus/Neptune initiated by the PSD we needed to determine the status of the technologies and assess their readiness for such a mission.
    [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]
  • Future Space Launch Vehicles
    Future Space Launch Vehicles S. Krishnan Professor of Aerospace Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras Chennnai - 600 036, India (Written in 2001) Introduction Space technology plays a very substantial role in the economical growth and the national security needs of any country. Communications, remote sensing, weather forecasting, navigation, tracking and data relay, surveillance, reconnaissance, and early warning and missile defence are its dependent user-technologies. Undoubtedly, space technology has become the backbone of global information highway. In this technology, the two most important sub-technologies correspond to spacecraft and space launch vehicles. Spacecraft The term spacecraft is a general one. While the spacecraft that undertakes a deep space mission bears this general terminology, the one that orbits around a planet is also a spacecraft but called specifically a satellite more strictly an artificial satellite, moons around their planets being natural satellites. Cassini is an example for a spacecraft. This was developed under a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency. Cassini spacecraft, launched in 1997, is continuing its journey to Saturn (about 1274 million km away from Earth), where it is scheduled to begin in July 2004, a four- year exploration of Saturn, its rings, atmosphere, and moons (18 in number). Cassini executed two gravity-assist flybys (or swingbys) of Venus one in April 1998 and one in June 1999 then a flyby of Earth in August 1999, and a flyby of Jupiter (about 629 million km away) in December 2000, see Fig. 1. We may note here with interest that ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) is thinking of a flyby mission of a spacecraft around Moon (about 0.38 million km away) by using its launch vehicle PSLV.
    [Show full text]
  • THE HELIUM NEAR SPACE LABORATORY Human Near Space Access, Now, More Affordable, Reliable and Safe
    66th International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel. Copyright ©2015 by the International Astronautical Federation. All rights reserved. IAC-15-B3.2.8.30387 THE HELIUM NEAR SPACE LABORATORY Human Near Space Access, Now, More Affordable, Reliable and Safe. Annelie Schoenmaker, David Ferrer Desclaux, José Mariano López-Urdiales, Gerard Illana Meler zero2infinity SL Cerdanyola del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain +34 935 824 422 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract The HELIUM (High European Laboratory for Institutes, Universities and Markets) project offers European and international companies, researchers and scientists a platform to access Near Space. Space technologies are on a continuous growth path and many new developments (related to flag-ship Space programmes like Galileo or Copernicus, and a long tail of other Space initiatives) need to be tested, demonstrated and validated before being accepted by the industry. Currently, these newly developed technologies are tested on the ground, using climatic chambers that simulate one, or a few, Space conditions. However, it remains difficult to simulate the integrated effect of all Space conditions. It’s even more difficult to have a human in the loop, which can help understand the interactions between the environment and the experiment. zero2infinity is developing a balloon-borne laboratory that provides cost effective access to Near Space. It’s an environmentally friendly solution that. In Europe there is an increasing demand of flight opportunities to test, validate, demonstrate and calibrate technologies, equipment and new concepts that need to increase their TRL. This is essential to retain the competitiveness of the European Space sector.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility
    Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility Charles L. Kelly A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Aeronautics & Astronautics University of Washington 2018 Committee: Uri Shumlak, Chair Justin Little Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Aeronautics & Astronautics c Copyright 2018 Charles L. Kelly University of Washington Abstract Magnetoshell Aerocapture: Advances Toward Concept Feasibility Charles L. Kelly Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Professor Uri Shumlak Aeronautics & Astronautics Magnetoshell Aerocapture (MAC) is a novel technology that proposes to use drag on a dipole plasma in planetary atmospheres as an orbit insertion technique. It aims to augment the benefits of traditional aerocapture by trapping particles over a much larger area than physical structures can reach. This enables aerocapture at higher altitudes, greatly reducing the heat load and dynamic pressure on spacecraft surfaces. The technology is in its early stages of development, and has yet to demonstrate feasibility in an orbit-representative envi- ronment. The lack of a proof-of-concept stems mainly from the unavailability of large-scale, high-velocity test facilities that can accurately simulate the aerocapture environment. In this thesis, several avenues are identified that can bring MAC closer to a successful demonstration of concept feasibility. A custom orbit code that dynamically couples magnetoshell physics with trajectory prop- agation is developed and benchmarked. The code is used to simulate MAC maneuvers for a 60 ton payload at Mars and a 1 ton payload at Neptune, both proposed NASA mis- sions that are not possible with modern flight-ready technology. In both simulations, MAC successfully completes the maneuver and is shown to produce low dynamic pressures and continuously-variable drag characteristics.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Clipper a Path to the Future
    Delta Clipper A Path to the Future By Jason Moore & Ashraf Shaikh Executive Summary Although the Space Shuttle has well served its purpose for years, in order to revitalize and advance the American space program, a new space launch vehicle is needed. A prime candidate for the new manned launch vehicle is the DC-X. The DC-X isn’t a state-of-the-art rocket that would require millions of dollars of new development. The DC-X is a space launch vehicle that has already been tested and proven. Very little remains to be done in order to complete the process of establishing the DC-X as an operational vehicle. All that’s left is the building and final testing of a full-size DC-X, followed by manufacture and distribution. The Space Shuttle, as well as expendable rockets, is very expensive to build, maintain and launch. Costing approximately half a billion dollars for each flight, NASA can only afford to do a limited number of Space Shuttle missions. Also, the Shuttle is maintenance intensive, requiring hundreds of man-hours of maintenance after each flight. The DC-X, however, is very cheap to build, easy to maintain, and much cheaper to operate. If the DC-X was used as NASA’s vehicle of choice, NASA could afford to put more payloads into orbit, and manned space missions wouldn’t be the relative rarity they are now. Since not much remains in order to complete the DC-X, a new private organization dedicated solely to the DC-X would be the ideal choice for the company that would build it.
    [Show full text]
  • Spaceport Infrastructure Cost Trends
    AIAA 2014-4397 SPACE Conferences & Exposition 4-7 August 2014, San Diego, CA AIAA SPACE 2014 Conference and Exposition Spaceport Infrastructure Cost Trends Brian S. Gulliver, PE1, and G. Wayne Finger, PhD, PE2 RS&H, Inc. The total cost of employing a new or revised space launch system is critical to understanding its business potential, analyzing its business case and funding its development. The design, construction and activation of a commercial launch complex or spaceport can represent a significant portion of the non-recurring costs for a new launch system. While the historical cost trends for traditional launch site infrastructure are fairly well understood, significant changes in the approach to commercial launch systems in recent years have required a reevaluation of the cost of ground infrastructure. By understanding the factors which drive these costs, informed decisions can be made early in a program to give the business case the best chance of economic success. The authors have designed several NASA, military, commercial and private launch complexes and supported the evaluation and licensing of commercial aerospaceports. Data from these designs has been used to identify the major factors which, on a broad scale, drive their non-recurring costs. Both vehicle specific and location specific factors play major roles in establishing costs. I. Introduction It is critical for launch vehicle operators and other stakeholders to understand the factors and trends that affect the non-recurring costs of launch site infrastructure. These costs are often an area of concern when planning for the development of a new launch vehicle program as they can represent a significant capital investment that must be recovered over the lifecycle of the program.
    [Show full text]