DOCSLIB.ORG

Commercial Launch Vehicle Design and Predictive Guidance Development Matthew R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commercial Launch Vehicle Design and Predictive Guidance Development Matthew R THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE AUSTRALIA School of Mechanical Engineering Commercial Launch Vehicle Design and Predictive Guidance Development Matthew R. Tetlow A thesis subrnitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D in Engineering on the 20th day ofJønuøry 2003 Contents Abstract xvi Statement of originality xvlu Acknowledgements xtx Nomenclature xx Acronyms xxllt L Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 I.2 Objective 7 1.3 Practical application . 8 2 Literature Review 9 2.1 Launch vehicles to date 9 2.2 Propulsion systems 10 2.2.7 Chemical rocket propulsion 2.2.2 Air-breathingpropulsion 2.3 Vehicle design aspects 2.3.1 Vehicle configuration . 2.3.2 Number of stages/boosters 2.3.3 Vehicle layout 2.3.4 Recovery system 2.4 Orbital mechanics . 2.4.7 Mission requirements . 2.5 Launch sites 2.6 Ascent guidance 2.6.1 Open loop guidance 2.6.2 Closed loop guidance . 2.7 Flyback guidance systems 2.8 Conclusions from the literature review 3 Numerical Techniques 3.1 Simulationtechniques 3.7.1 Dynamicsmodelling 3.7.2 Propulsion modelling . 11 3.1.3 Mass modelling . 3.1.4 Atmospheremodelling 3.1.4.1 Standard atmosphere models 3.1.4.2 MSISE atmosphere models 3.1.5 Wind modelling GIWM93) 3.1.6 Earth form modelling 3.1.6.1 Spherical Earth 3.1.6.2 Higher order models 3.7.7 Gravitation field modelling . 3.I.1.1 Newtonian 3.7.1.2 Higher order models . 3.2 Optimisationtechniques 3.2.1 Gradient projection method 3.2.2 Sequential quadratic programming (NLPQL) . 3.3 Steering model parameterisation 4 Software Description 4.1 Sensitivity analysis software 4.2 Vehicle design software 4.2.7 Simulation and optimisation 111 4.2.2 Propulsion model 4.2.3 Mass model . 4.2.4 Steering model parameterisation 4.3 Ascent guidance software 4.3.1 Virtual system 4.3.I.1 Virtualvehicle 4.3.7.2 Virtual environment 4.3.2 Guidance computer . 4.3.2.1 Guidance environment models 4.3.3 Steering modelparameterisation 4.3.4 Attitude controller 4.4 Flyback guidance software 4.4.1 Virtual system 4.4.7.1 Virtualvehicle 4.4.1.2 Virtual environment 4.4.2 Guidance computer 4.4.2.1 Vehicle models . 4.4.2.2 Environment models . 4.4.3 Steering modelparameterisation lV 5 Sensitivity Analysis 100 5.1 Problemdescription 100 5.2 Nominal models 101 5.3 Results 101 5.3.1 Integration Verification 101 5.3.2 Modelling error sensitivity . 704 5.4 Sensitivity conclusion . l12 6 Launch Vehicle Design Investigation 113 6.1 Design choices 7r4 6.2 Mission analysis . 115 6.3 Reference mission tt7 6.4 Design concept 777 6.4.1 Propulsion 179 6.4.2 Aerodynamics t2l 6.4.3 Component masses 121 6.5 Staging condition results 722 6.6 Powered booster flyback results 123 6.6.1 Design choice for powered flyback concept 126 6.7 Unpowered booster flyback results 130 v 6.7.7 Design choice for unpowered flyback concept 132 6.8 Comparison 136 6.9 Summary and discussion 138 7 Predictive Guidance for Ascent 139 7.1 Introduction 139 7.2 Problemdescription 140 7.3 Vehicledescription l4l 7.4 Mission profile t42 7.5 Developmentobservations 142 7.6 Ascent guidance results 144 7.6.1 Gravitation model perturbation . 146 1.6.2 Atmosphere modelperturbation 148 1.6.3 V/ind model . 151 7.6.4 Steering parameter models r55 7.6.5 Guidance call intervals ls6 7.6.6 State errors (sensor errors) 158 1.6.7 Non-nominal atmosphereperturbations 160 1.6.8 Staging errors (staging point errors) 162 7.6.9 Thrust loss 163 7.6.70 Monte Carlo analysis 165 7.1 Summary and discussion 167 v1 I Predictive Guidance for Flyback 169 8.1 Introduction t69 8.2 Problem description . n0 8.3 Vehicle description 777 8.4 Mission profile llt 8.5 Developmentobservations 773 8.6 Flyback guidance results 776 8.6.1 Gravitation and atmosphere model 178 8.6.2 Wind model 182 8.6.3 State errors (sensor errors) 188 8.6.4 Guidance call intervals 189 8.6.5 Random wind variations 190 8.6.6 Initial condition effors (staging point errors) . 193 8.6.7 Monte Carlo analysis . t96 8.7 Summary and discussion 200 9 Conclusions 203 9.7 Vehicle design 203 9.2 Guidance 204 9.2.1 Ascent guidance 20s v11 9.2.2 Flyback guidance 206 9.3 Recommendations 201 9.4 Closing Remarks 207 Appendices 208 A Woomera weather 208 B US Standard atmosphere model 2t0 C MSISE93 atmosphere model 212 D HWM wind model 214 E Aerodynamic coefficient reference table 216 F Flyback-Monte Carlo (NE nom. wind) 218 References 220 v111 List of Figures 1.1 Kistler Kl (Kistler,2002) J 7.2 Expected yearly GEO payload market (2001-2010) (Middleton,1999) 4 1.3 Future launch market (Griner and Lyles, 1998) 6 2.1 Typical performance of a rocket engine (Huzel and Huang, 7992) 72 2.2 Linear Aerospike (NASA, 2002) 13 2.3 SSME on test stand (NAS A,2002) l4 2.4 Aerojet AJ26-60 (Kistler, 2OO2) t6 2.5 NASA X-vehicles 23 2.6 Orbit parameters 26 2.7 Angle description 28 3.1 Wing mass analysis data 51 3.2 Axes for gravitation derivation 58 3.3 Parameterisation using grid points 69 1X 3.4 Parameterisation using function coefficients lo 4.1 ATOPS parameterisation model 73 4.2 Virtual orbiter (Tetlow et a1., 2002) 7l 4.3 Program flow for ascent guidance (Tetlow et a1., 2002) 78 4.4 Virtual orbiter mass distribution 81 4.5 Typical grid type steering model for ascent 88 4.6 Program flow for flyback guidance 90 4.7 Flyback program structure 96 4.8 Typical steering model 99 5.1 Altitude vs Time for integration step comparison 702 5.2 Dynamic Pressure vs Time for integration step comparison 103 5.3 Sensitivity to specific impulse of first stage engine at sea level lo4 5.4 Sensitivity to specific impulse of first stage engine in vacuum 105 5.5 Sensitivity to specif,c impulse of second stage engine in vacuum 105 s.6 Sensitivity to mass flow rate of the first stage engine 106 5.7 Sensitivity to mass flow rate of the second stage engine 107 5.8 Sensitivity to gross lift off weight . 707 5.9 Sensitivity to initiation time of first roll manoeuvre 108 5.10 Sensitivity to final time of first ro11 manoeuvre . 108 x 5.11 Sensitivity to aerodynamic lift and drag coefficients 109 5.12 Sensitivity to constant atmospheric variation at all altitudes 110 5.13 Sensitivity to an atmospheric density increase between 40km and 60km 111 5.14 Sensitivity to an atmospheric density increase between 75km and 40km 111 6.1 Mission profile 118 6.2 Concept vehicle (Tetlow et al., 2007) 118 6.3 Staging condition comparison 723 6.4 Altitude profile 126 6.5 Velocity profile 127 6.6 Ground track 128 6.7 Booster flyback mission (post-staging) 129 6.8 Flyback control parameters 130 6.9 Altitude profile 132 6.10 Velocity profile 133 6.1I Ground track 134 6.12 Booster flyback mission (from staging) 135 6.13 Flyback control parameters 135 1.7 Ascent mission prof,le 142 7 .2 Sequence of virtual environmental variations 745 xl 7.3 Flight profile for the gravity perturbed case 147 1.4 Steering model for the gravity perturbed case t49 1.5 Flight profile for the atmosphere perturbed case. t49 7.6 Steering model for the atmosphere perturbed case 1s0 7.7 Flight profile for the tailwind case 152 7.8 Steering model for the tailwind case 152 7.9 Flight profile for the headwind case 153 7.10 Steering model for the headwind case 154 7.11 Altitude profile with sensor errors 159 7.12 Flight profile with sensor errors 159 7.13 Flight profile for the random atmospheric density and wind case l6t 7.14 Partial steering profile for the random atmospheric density and wind case 162 7.15 Monte Carlo result for final altitude t66 7.16 Monte Carlo result for flight path angle 166 8.1 Flyback mission profile 172 8.2 Sequence of virtual environmental variations 177 8.3 Flight profile for disturbed atmosphere and gravitation case 719 8.4 Steering model for disturbed atmosphere and gravitation case 181 8.5 Flight profile with South Westerly wind 183 xtl 8.6 Steering model with South'Westerly wind 18s 8.7 Flight profile with North Easterly wind 186 8.8 Steering model with North Easterly wind 188 8.9 Flight profile with random wind variation 19r 8.10 Steering model with random wind variation 192 8.11 Guided flight profile with initial condition effors 195 8.12 Steering model with initial condition effors 196 8.13 Monte Carlo result for flnal heading 198 8.14 Monte Carlo result for flight path angle 198 8.15 Monte Carlo result for velocity . 199 4.1 Wind data for'Woomera (BOM-Adelaide, 2002) 209 8.1 US Standard atmospheric density profile 2tt C.l MSISE93 atmospheric density profile 2t3 D.1 HWM Southerly winds 214 D.2 HIVM'Westerly winds 215 E.1 Aerodynamic coefficient reference table 217 F.1 Monte Carlo result for heading 218 F.2 Monte Carlo result for flight path angle 279 F.3 Monte Carlo result for velocity 219 xI11 List of Tables 1.1 Current launch vehicle costs (Isakowitz,1995) 2 2.1 Current launch vehicles (Isakowitz, 1995) 10 2.2 Orbital velocities 27 6.1 Powered booster vehicle comparison .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gryphon: a Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost
    AIAA SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition AIAA 2007-6169 18 - 20 September 2007, Long Beach, California The Gryphon: A Flexible Lunar Lander Design to Support a Semi-Permanent Lunar Outpost Dale Arney1, Joseph Hickman,1 Philip Tanner,1 John Wagner,1 Marc Wilson,1 and Dr. Alan Wilhite2 Georgia Institute of Technology/National Institute of Aerospace, Hampton, VA, 23666 A lunar lander is designed to provide safe, reliable, and continuous access to the lunar surface by the year 2020. The NASA Exploration System Architecture is used to initially define the concept of operations, architecture elements, and overall system requirements. The design evaluates revolutionary concepts and technologies to improve the performance and safety of the lunar lander while minimizing the associated cost using advanced systems engineering capabilities and multi-attribute decision making techniques. The final design is a flexible (crew and/or cargo) lander with a side-mounted minimum ascent stage and a separate stage to perform lunar orbit insertion. Nomenclature ACC = Affordability and Cost Criterion AFM = Autonomous Flight Manager AHP = Analytic Hierarchy Process ALHAT = Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology ATP = Authority to Proceed AWRS = Advanced Air & Water Recovery System CDR = Critical Design Review CER = Cost Estimating Relationship CEV = Crew Exploration Vehicle CH4 = Methane DDT&E = Design, Development, Testing and Evaluation DOI = Descent Orbit Insertion DSM = Design Structure Matrix ECLSS = Environmental Control & Life Support System
    [Show full text]
  • Project Number: JMW-USC1
    Project Number: JMW-USC1 Department of Social Science and Policy Studies THE FUTURE OF UNMANNED SPACE: A SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COMMERCIAL MARKET An Interactive Qualifying Project Report: Submitted to the Faculty of the WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science by ______________________________ Peter Brayshaw ______________________________ Brooks Farnham ______________________________ Jon Leslie December 16, 2004 _____________________________ ________________________________ Professor John M. Wilkes, Advisor Professor Peter Campisano, Co-Advisor Abstract: This report is one of many which deal with the unmanned space race. It is a prediction of who will have the greatest competitive advantage in the commercial market over the next 25 years, based on historical analogy. Background information on Russia, China, Japan, the United States and the European Space Agency, including the launch vehicles and launch services each provides, is covered. The new prospect of space platforms is also investigated. 2 Table of Contents Abstract: ...................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ......................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................. 5 Literature Review ...................................................................................... 5 Project
    [Show full text]
  • Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160008869 2019-08-29T17:47:59+00:00Z CHAPTER 12 Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems John A. Halchak Consultant, Los Angeles, California James L. Cannon NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Corey Brown Aerojet-Rocketdyne, West Palm Beach, Florida 12.1 Introduction Earth to orbit launch vehicles are propelled by rocket engines and motors, both liquid and solid. This chapter will discuss liquid engines. The heart of a launch vehicle is its engine. The remainder of the vehicle (with the notable exceptions of the payload and guidance system) is an aero structure to support the propellant tanks which provide the fuel and oxidizer to feed the engine or engines. The basic principle behind a rocket engine is straightforward. The engine is a means to convert potential thermochemical energy of one or more propellants into exhaust jet kinetic energy. Fuel and oxidizer are burned in a combustion chamber where they create hot gases under high pressure. These hot gases are allowed to expand through a nozzle. The molecules of hot gas are first constricted by the throat of the nozzle (de-Laval nozzle) which forces them to accelerate; then as the nozzle flares outwards, they expand and further accelerate. It is the mass of the combustion gases times their velocity, reacting against the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle, which produce thrust according to Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [1] Solid rocket motors are cheaper to manufacture and offer good values for their cost.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Launchers Between Commerce and Geopolitics
    The European Launchers between Commerce and Geopolitics Report 56 March 2016 Marco Aliberti Matteo Tugnoli Short title: ESPI Report 56 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in March 2016 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose with- out permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 56; March 2016. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, inciden- tal or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 56 2 March 2016 The European Launchers between Commerce and Geopolitics Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 10 1.1 Access to Space at the Nexus of Commerce and Geopolitics 10 1.2 Objectives of the Report 12 1.3 Methodology and Structure 12 2. Access to Space in Europe 14 2.1 European Launchers: from Political Autonomy to Market Dominance 14 2.1.1 The Quest for European Independent Access to Space 14 2.1.3 European Launchers: the Current Family 16 2.1.3 The Working System: Launcher Strategy, Development and Exploitation 19 2.2 Preparing for the Future: the 2014 ESA Ministerial Council 22 2.2.1 The Path to the Ministerial 22 2.2.2 A Look at Europe’s Future Launchers and Infrastructure 26 2.2.3 A Revolution in Governance 30 3.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Lunar Architecture
    4. Lunar Architecture 4.1 Summary and Recommendations As defined by the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), the lunar architecture is a combination of the lunar “mission mode,” the assignment of functionality to flight elements, and the definition of the activities to be performed on the lunar surface. The trade space for the lunar “mission mode,” or approach to performing the crewed lunar missions, was limited to the cislunar space and Earth-orbital staging locations, the lunar surface activities duration and location, and the lunar abort/return strategies. The lunar mission mode analysis is detailed in Section 4.2, Lunar Mission Mode. Surface activities, including those performed on sortie- and outpost-duration missions, are detailed in Section 4.3, Lunar Surface Activities, along with a discussion of the deployment of the outpost itself. The mission mode analysis was built around a matrix of lunar- and Earth-staging nodes. Lunar-staging locations initially considered included the Earth-Moon L1 libration point, Low Lunar Orbit (LLO), and the lunar surface. Earth-orbital staging locations considered included due-east Low Earth Orbits (LEOs), higher-inclination International Space Station (ISS) orbits, and raised apogee High Earth Orbits (HEOs). Cases that lack staging nodes (i.e., “direct” missions) in space and at Earth were also considered. This study addressed lunar surface duration and location variables (including latitude, longi- tude, and surface stay-time) and made an effort to preserve the option for full global landing site access. Abort strategies were also considered from the lunar vicinity. “Anytime return” from the lunar surface is a desirable option that was analyzed along with options for orbital and surface loiter.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumables Analysis for the Apollo 10 Spacecraft Operational Trajectory
    ................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. \ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . jj:.t~:~:~:~:t~~~: .: ......:. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ::., .=:: ......................:.:. .. .-:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::::::: MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 69-FM-76 ::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:~:t~:~:t~:~:~:. April 7, 1969 ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , • N..................······················... ~ ~:ttttt~ · ~~::::::::::::.::::::::::"\ .......... ::::::::::::::::::::::: .:::::::::::::::::::::: , I~III~~I ":':':':':':':':':':':........... ~.:::::::::::::::::::::: ~.......................... .:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: CONSUMABLES ANALYSIS ::::::::::::::::::::::: FOR THE APOLLO 10 (MISSION F) ----- -------- SPACECRAFT OPERATIONAL 1IIIIIilllllllllllllili TRAJECTORY :::::::::::::::::.:::::: • ~t{ttmm • I Guidance and Performance Branch, MISSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION • • .:~~~ 'i •••~...••~.~~.;·7) MANNED HS:U~~OEN~T~~~TCENTER ~'. :!I~"!I CNASA-TM-X-69384) CONSUMABLESAN AL YSIS N74-70735 ~FOB THE APOLLO 10 (MISSION F) SPACECBAFT :::.OFERATIONAL TRAJECTORY (NASA) 64 p Unclas • 00/99 16454 :::::::::::::::::::::.' • MSC INTERNAL NOTE NO. 69-FM-76 • PROJECT APOLLO CONSUMABLES ANALYSIS FOR THE APOLLO 10 (MISSION F) SPACECRAFT OPERATIONAL TRAJECTORY By Martin L. Alexander, Sam A. Kamen, Arnold J. Loyd, Samuel O. Mayfield, Dwight G. Peterson, and Walter Scott, Jr. , Guidance and Performance Branch ~ April 7, 1969 " MISSION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS DIVISION • NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
    [Show full text]
  • A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: a Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program
    A Constrained Space Exploration Technology Program: A Review of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program The National Academies Press Committee to Review NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. NNH05CC16C between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Cover: Design by Timothy Warchocki. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-12583-3 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-12583-9 Available in limited supply from Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 334-2858. Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Wash- ington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Expendable Launch Vehicle Propulsion
    N91-28199 NASA Space Transportation Propulsion Technology Symposium EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROPULSION June 1990 P.N. Fuller, Chairman COMSTAC Technology & Innovation Working Group 131 CONTENTS This presentation will review the current status of the U.S. ELV fleet, the international competition, and the propulsion technology of both domestic and foreign expendable launch vehicles. The ELV propulsion technology areas where research, development, and demonstration are most needed will be identified. These propulsion technology recommendations are based on the work performed by the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), an industry panel established by the Department of Transportation. Expendable Launch Vehicle Propulsion Contents • Introduction • COMSTAC • Domestic ELV Launch Fleet • Foreign ELV Launch Fleet . ELV Propulsion Systems • ELV Propulsion Technology Needs • Conclusions 132 INTRODUCTION There have been extensive changes in America's space launch architecture since the Challenger tragedy occurred in January 1986. The major impact has been the revival of the U.S. Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) fleet in response to changes in National Space Launch policy. The NASA and the Air Force have adoped use of a "Mixed Fleet" of space launchers, and have prohibited.the Shuttle Space Transportation System (STS) from competing for launch of commercial payloads. The availability of this diverse stable of launch systems has helped to assure access to space for critical payloads. The foundation for a commercial launch industry has been established in the United States for the Delta, Atlas, and Titan III launch systems. The NASA and Air Force have provided a base for a commercial launch industry by long-range procurements of ELV launch services, and access to government facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Apollo Experience Report Abort Planning
    APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT - ABORT PLANNING by Charles T. Hyle? Charles E. Foggatt? and Bobbie D, Weber 4 Mdnned Spacecra, Center , Houston, Texas 77058 ce NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 1972 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM - ­ 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. NASA "I D-6847 5. Remrr natP June 1972 APOLLO EXPERIENCE REPORT 6. Performing Organization Code ABORT PLANNING . -. 8. Performing Organization Report NO. Charles T. Hyle, Charles E. Foggatt, and MSC S-307 - ­ Bobbie D. Weber. MSC 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 924-22-20-00-72 .-- .. -.. -­ Manned Spacecraft Center 11. Contract or Grant No. Houston, Texas 77058 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note ~__-- __ National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20546 5. Supplementary Notes The MSC Director waived the use of the International System of Units (SI) for this Apollo Experience Report, because, in his judgment, the use of SI units would impair the usefulness of the report or result in excessive cost. -~. 6. Abstract Definition of a practical return-to-earth abort capability was required for each phase of an Apollo mission. A description of the basic development of the complex Apollo abort plan is presented in this paper, The process by which the return-to-earth abort plan was developed and the constrain­ ing factors that must be included in any abort procedure are also discussed. Special emphasis is given to the description of crew warning and escape methods for each mission phase.
    [Show full text]
  • IAASS13 Arianespace 2013 [Mode De Compatibilité]
    Arianespace 2013 Organization, History and Programs IAASS 2013, Montreal 23 May 2013 Contents ° Organization and Market Share ° Launch Systems History ° Ariane 5, Soyuz and Vega Programs ° Arianespace 2013 ° Conclusion May, 23 - 2013 IAASS Montreal 2013 – Arianespace 2013 Status 2 Organization and Market Share Main Arianespace Shareholders ° The company has been incorporated in 1980 ° Turnover of 1,300 M€ (in 2012) MT ° 315 employees CNES AEROSPACE 34.68 % 8.26 % ° 21 European shareholders – French space agency CNES EADS VOLVO AERO ASTRIUM ST CORP 30.42 % 1.63 % – 20 European space companies, from 10 European countries SABCA DUTCH ° Convention with the European Space 2.71 % SPACE Agency (ESA) 1.94 % ° Three launch systems operating at CSG : SAFRAN 10.57 % AVIO S.p.A. Ariane 5, Soyuz and Vega 3.38 % ° More than 50 % of all commercial satcoms RUAG SPACE launched by Arianespace AG AIR LIQUIDE 2.67 % 1.89 % The first commercial launch services company May, 23 - 2013 IAASS Montreal 2013 – Arianespace 2013 Status 3 Organization and Market Share Headquarters Washington Evry Tokyo Singapore Launch sites Kourou A worldwide presence May, 23 - 2013 IAASS Montreal 2013 – Arianespace 2013 Status 4 Organization and Market Share ° A consistent and standard approach for the 3 Launch Vehicles: – Improve quality and efficiency thanks to other launchers experience – Allow possibility of launch service back-up – Simplify customer life ° Implementation of a unique approach for the whole family: – Simplified industrial chain with a Prime Contractor for each
    [Show full text]
  • Avio 2016 Full Year Results
    Investor Presentation rd Paris, 3 December 2018 AVIO SpA- All rights reserved – subject to the restrictions of last page. Disclaimer This document has been prepared by Avio S.p.A. (“Avio” or the “Company”). This document is being provided to you solely for your information and may not be reproduced or redistributed to any other person. This document might contain certain forward-looking statements that reflect the Company’s management’s current views with respect to future events and financial and operational performance of the Company and its subsidiaries. These forward-looking statements are based on Avio’s current expectations and projections about future events. Because these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual future results or performance may differ materially from those expressed in or implied by these statements due to any number of different factors, many of which are beyond the ability of Avio to control or estimate. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements contained herein, which are made only as of the date of this presentation. Avio does not undertake any obligation to publicly release any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this presentation. Any reference to past performance or trends or activities of Avio shall not be taken as a representation or indication that such performance, trends or activities will continue in the future. This document does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy Avio’s securities, nor shall the document form the basis of or be relied on in connection with any contract or investment decision relating thereto, or constitute a recommendation regarding the securities of Avio.
    [Show full text]
  • R-567 Section 5 Rev 11, GSOP for Luminary 1E, Guidance Equations
    Z GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL Submitted by Date: / 7 2^ G. M. LEVINE,•VTT' DIRECTOR.T'VTO'C'OT'/^'D 'GUIDANCET TTl^ A M 'C' ANALYSI( APOLLO GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION PROGRAM ApproV' Date: / 12. -7-2- R. A. LARSON, LUMINARY PROJECT MANAGER APOLLO GUIDANCE AND NAVIGATION PROGRAM Approved: T^, (n1 Date: -> R. H. BATTIN, DIRECTOR, MISSION DEVELOPMENT APOLLO GUI04NCE AND NAVIGATION PROGRAM Approved: iUujzc Date: D. G. HOAG, DIRECTO APOLLO GUIDANCCin&D NAv(^TION PROGRAM Approved: Date: 1 a . ^ R. R. RAGAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (J CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY R-567 GUIDANCE SYSTEM OPERATIONS PLAN FOR MANNED LM EARTH ORBITAL AND LUNAR MISSIONS USING PROGRAM LUMINARY IE SECTIONS GUIDANCE EQUATIONS (Rev. 11) DECEMBER 1971 ]]§( MT CHARLES STARK DRAPER CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139 LABORATORY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report was prepared under DSR Project 55-23890, sponsored by the Manned Spacecraft Center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Contract NAS 9-4065. 11 R-567 GUIDANCE SYSTEM OPERATIONS PLAN FOR MANNED LM EARTH ORBITAL AND LUNAR MISSIONS USING PROGRAM LUMINARY IE SECTION 5 GUIDANCE EQUATIONS Signatures appearing on this page designate approval of this document by NASA/MSC. Section Chief, Guidance Program Section Manned Spacecraft Center, NASA Approved: . Date: John E. Williams, Jr. Chief, Simulation and Flight Software Branch Manned Spacecraft Cent Approved: . Date: n Ij.i/i/ rames C. Stokes, Jr. /ief. Flight Support DiviSyi fanned Spacecraft Center iii BLANK FOREWORD SECTION 5 REVISION 11 The Guidance System Operations Plan (GSOP) for Program LUMINARY is published in six sections as separate volumes. 1. Prelaunch 2. Data Links 3. Digital Autopilot 4.
    [Show full text]