DOCSLIB.ORG

08ICES-0046 Testing the Celentano Curve: an Empirical Survey of Predictions for Human Spacecraft Pressurized Volume

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
08ICES-0046 Testing the Celentano Curve: an Empirical Survey of Predictions for Human Spacecraft Pressurized Volume 08ICES-0046 Testing the Celentano Curve: An Empirical Survey of Predictions for Human Spacecraft Pressurized Volume In 1963, Celentano, Amorelli, and Freeman published a set of curves that predicted the amount of pressurized volume per crew member to conduct a space mission at three levels of accommodation: “tolerable, performance, optima.” Since this seminal paper, habitability researchers and organizations have published more than a dozen interpretations and variations of the Celentano curves. This paper presents an analysis of the Celentano hypothesis, and its acolytes, testing them against the historical and empirical data or human spaceflight. In each case, the authors frame their predictions in terms of “meeting crew needs.” Most notable among these predictions of volumetric “requirements,” NASA adopted an embodiment of the Celentano curve in the 1987 and 1995 editions of NASA Standard 3000 (Man-System Integration Standard). Since Yuri Gagarin flew in Voskhod in 1961, space agencies have launched over 250 human spaceflights. These spaceflights -- from the earliest flights in tiny Mercury capsules to the capacious International Space Station -- provide the baseline from which to evaluate and test this long-accepted set of predictions. But first a caveat: it is possible to assert that the spacecraft volume met crew needs only insofar as none of them became sick, performed inadequately, or died from the cause of insufficient volume. What the historical record affords is a metric to analyze how pressurized volume varies with mission duration. FIGURE 1 shows the original Celentano plot that features the volume prediction rising steeply over the shorter missions, but leveling out at about six months. Celentano, Amorelli and Freeman posited three levels of accommodation “tolerable, performance, and optimal,” but did not define them clearly. FIGURE 2 shows the NASA Standard 3000 interpretation of the Celentano curves, with all three levels of accommodation passing through the origin (no crew time-no volume?). FIGURE 3 shows the complete historic spaceflight data set for all spaceflights through 2006. FIGURE 4 shows the plot of the empirical and historical record for the mission duration maxima of each spacecraft type for each size crew that flew in it, plus the future CEV and Lunar Lander crew modules. This analysis shows that pressurized volume increases as both a power curve and a logarithmic curve with a coefficient of determination (R2 value) of 72 percent and 60 percent respectively. Within the historic envelope of spaceflight experience of over a year in space, the volume trend does not level off but continues to rise. FIGURE 1. The original “Celentano Curve” 1963 showing Volume in ft^3 on the Y-axis and Mission Duration in months on the X-Axis. The three curves are labeled from top to bottom as “Optimal, Performance, and Tolerable.” FIGURE 2. NASA Standard 3000, Man-System Integration Standard, Figure 8.6.2.1-1. Guideline for determination of total habitable volume per person in the space module. FIGURE 3. Logarithmic graph of the historic record of 256 spaceflights through 2006. Salyut Missions Testing the Celentano Curve: Spaceflight Mission Series Mir Missions 1000.00 Skylab Missions Mercury Missions Gemini Missions Apollo Missions Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Space Shuttle Only Missions ISS Expeditions Shuttle-Spacelab Missions M^3 100.00 Shuttle-SpaceHab in Shuttle-Mir Missions Vostok-Voskhod Missions Soyuz Missions Member All Shuttle Missions Shenzhou Crew Power (Skylab Missions) per Power (Shuttle-SpaceHab) 10.00 Log. (Salyut Missions) Log. (Mir Missions) Volume Power (ISS Expeditions) Log. (Apollo Missions) Log. (Mercury Missions) Log. (Gemini Missions) Log. (Vostok-Voskhod Missions) Log. (Space Shuttle Only Missions) 1.00 Power (Soyuz Missions) 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 Log. (Shuttle-Mir Missions) Duration in Days Log. (Shuttle-SpaceHab) Power (Shenzhou) FIGURE 4. Historic and empirical record: the volume per crew member versus mission duration for crewed spacecraft maxima for mission duration for every crew size in each spacecraft configuration. Pressurized Volume Per Crew Member Versus Mission Duration for Crewed Spacecraft Unique Data Points: Maxima for Mission Durations for Every Crew Size in Each Spacecraft Configuration 1000 ISS Expd. 10 m^3 in Mir EO19 ISS Expd. 8 Mir EO9/10, LD3 Skylab 4 ISS Expd. 4 Mir EO 26/27, Perseus 100 Salyut 7 EO5/Kosmos 1443 Mir EO5 Mir EO20/Euromir 95 ISS Expd. 1 Mir EO15/16, LD4 Salyut 7 EO4-2/Kosmos 1443 Mir EO4/LD2 Mir EO3 Salyut 4 (Almaz) Salyut 6 STS-73/USML2 Salyut 7 EO1 Crewmember Mir EO1 STS-9/SL1 Salyut 1 Salyut 7 EO3 per STS-61A SL D1 STS-78 LMSL STS-107 SH DM STS-77 SH-5 SM STS-111 STS-95 SH 6 SM STS-80 Volume STS-59 10 Shenzhou 6 STS-67 NGB Lunar Lander ESAS Lunar Lander Soyuz 9 Vostok 5 Apollo 12 ASTP CEV 701 w/ 4 Crew Pressurized Soyuz 7 Apollo 17 LM Apollo 8 Voskhod 2 CEV 701 w/6 Crew y = 1.74x0.7444 Mercury 8 R 2 = 0.7221 Gemini 6 1 1 y = 23.782Ln(x) - 34.708 10 100 Dup ASTP 1000 R 2 = 0.6047 Mission Duration in Days.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Raumstationen.Pdf
    LARS WEILER ‹[email protected]› GPN14 – 19. JUNI 2014 RAUMSTATIONEN Bilder: NASA, ESA ÜBERSICHT • Motivation • Vorraussetzungen • Raumstationen • Zukunft MOTIVATION LEBEN IM WELTRAUM MOTIVATION FORSCHUNG ANFORDERUNGEN AN RAUMFAHRER VORRAUSSETZUNGEN ORBITING VORRAUSSETZUNGEN DOCKING VORRAUSSETZUNGEN DOCKING VORRAUSSETZUNGEN DOCKING VORRAUSSETZUNGEN DOCKING VORRAUSSETZUNGEN DOCKING RAUMSTATIONEN • Салют – Salyut • Skylab • Мир – Mir • Raumlabor • ISS/МКС • 天宫 一号 – Tiangong СССР – UDSSR САЛЮТ – SALYUT ДОС – Долговременная орбитальная станция (Langzeit-Orbital-Station) Алмаз – Almaz (Diamant) СССР – UDSSR САЛЮТ 1 – SALYUT 1 СССР – UDSSR АЛМАЗ – ALMAZ СССР – UDSSR САЛЮТ 4 – SALYUT 4 СССР – UDSSR САЛЮТ 6 – SALYUT 6 ТРАНСПОРТНЫЙ КОРАБЛЬ СНАБЖЕНИЯ ТКС – TKS СССР – UDSSR САЛЮТ 7 – SALYUT 7 СССР – UDSSR САЛЮТ 7 – SALYUT 7 USA – NASA SKYLAB USA – NASA SKYLAB USA – NASA SKYLAB СССР/РУССИЯ – UDSSR/RUSSLAND МИР – MIR DAS BAIKONUR-MYSTERIUM INKLINATION DAS BAIKONUR-MYSTERIUM INKLINATION МИР – MIR BESATZUNG MIRCORP ZEITGLEICH ZUR ISS МИР – MIR FEUER МИР – MIR KOLLISION МИР – MIR KOLLISION МИР – MIR VERSCHROTTUNG EUROPA – ESA / USA – NASA SPACELAB USA – NASA SPACEHAB РОСКОСМОС / NASA / ESA / JAXA / CSA ASC ISS / МКС ! INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION ! МЕЖДУНАРОДНАЯ КОСМИЧЕСКАЯ СТАНЦИЯ ISS AUFBAU ISS ORBIT RAUMSCHIFFE СОЮЗ – SOYUZ RAUMSCHIFFE HERMES ISS TRASPORTFRACHTER DRAGON CARGO ISS TRASPORTFRACHTER DRAGON RETURN ISS TRASPORTFRACHTER ПРОГРЕСС – PROGRESS ISS TRASPORTFRACHTER ПРОГРЕСС – PROGRESS ISS TRANSPORTFRACHTER MPLM ISS TRANSPORTFRACHTER ATV ISS
    [Show full text]
  • Shuttle-Mir Rendezvous & [Locking Missions
    / tv -t_ ---Fi>{ NASA-TM-II2692 • _7, w- -_ ° ;: Fourth Report of the Task Force on the Shuttle-Mir Rendezvous & [locking Missions March 1, 1995 A Task Force of the NASA Advisory Council THOMAS P. STAFFORD 1006 Cameron Street Alexandria, VA 22314 March 1, 1995 Dr. Bradford Paxkinson Chairman, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Advisory Council National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546-0001 Dear Dr. Parkinson: Enclosed is the fourth report of the NAC Task Force on the Shuttle-Mir Rendezvous and Docking Missions. This report is the culmination of a two and one-half month review of preparations in Russia for the Phase 1A missions (Soyuz TM-21, Mir 18 Main Expedition, and STS-71). Once again the Task Force received tremendous support from many individuals and organizations at NASA. The same applied to our site visits in Russia where we were met with an openness and candor which served to reinforce our confidence in the ultimate success of the upcoming missions. Over the next two months, the Task Force will be focusing its efforts in two areas. The first are the preparations for STS-71, including the status of the Orbiter Docking System and the analysis of data produced by the STS-63 mission. The second area is the NASA and NASA contractor presence in Russia, including the interaction of Phase 1 and Phase 2 personnel, NASA and contractor functions, and the transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2. Sincerely, Thomas P. Stafford CC: NASA/HQ/Code A/Mr. Goldin NASA/HQ/Code A/Gen. Dailey NASA/HQ/Code A/Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet Steps Toward Permanent Human Presence in Space
    SALYUT: Soviet Steps Toward Permanent Human Presence in Space December 1983 NTIS order #PB84-181437 Recommended Citation: SALYUT: Soviet Steps Toward Permanent Human Presence in Space–A Technical Mere- orandum (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, OTA- TM-STI-14, December 1983). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 83-600624 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Foreword As the other major spacefaring nation, the Soviet Union is a subject of interest to the American people and Congress in their deliberations concerning the future of U.S. space activities. In the course of an assessment of Civilian Space Stations, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) has undertaken a study of the presence of Soviets in space and their Salyut space stations, in order to provide Congress with an informed view of Soviet capabilities and intentions. The major element in this technical memorandum was a workshop held at OTA in December 1982: it was the first occasion when a significant number of experts in this area of Soviet space activities had met for extended unclassified discussion. As a result of the workshop, OTA prepared this technical memorandum, “Salyut: Soviet Steps Toward Permanent Human Presence in Space. ” It has been reviewed extensively by workshop participants and others familiar with Soviet space activities. Also in December 1982, OTA wrote to the U. S. S. R.’s Ambassador to the United States Anatoliy Dobrynin, requesting any information concerning present and future Soviet space activities that the Soviet Union judged could be of value to the OTA assess- ment of civilian space stations.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of S.P
    ANNUAL REPORT OF S.P. KOROLEV ROCKET AND SPACE PUBLIC CORPORATION ENERGIA FOR 2019 This Annual Report of S.P.Korolev Rocket and Space Public Corporation Energia (RSC Energia) was prepared based upon its performance in 2019 with due regard for the requirements stated in the Russian Federation Government Decree of December 31, 2010 No. 1214 “On Improvement of the Procedure to Control Open Joint-Stock Companies whose Stock is in Federal Ownership and Federal State Unitary Enterprises”, and in accordance with the Regulations “On Information Disclosure by the Issuers of Outstanding Securities” No. 454-P approved by the Bank of Russia on December 30, 2014 Accuracy of the data contained in this Annual Report, including the Report on the interested-party transactions effected by RSC Energia in 2019, was confirmed by RSC Energia’s Auditing Committee Report as of 01.06.2020. This Annual Report was preliminary approved by RSC Energia’s Board of Directors on August 24, 2020 (Minutes No. 31). This Annual Report was approved at RSC Energia’s General Shareholders’ Meeting on September 28, 2020 (Minutes No 40 of 01.10.2020). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT RSC ENERGIA ............................. 6 1.1. Company background .........................................................................................................................6 1.2. Period of the Company operation in the industry ...............................................................................6 1.3. Information about the purchase and sale contracts for participating interests, equities, shares of business partnerships and companies concluded by the Company in 2019 ..............................................7 1.4. Information about the holding structure and the organizations involved ...........................................8 2. PRIORITY DIRECTIONS OF RSC ENERGIA OPERATION ........................ 11 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Engineering Lesson Plan: Russian Rocket Ships!
    Engineering Lesson Plan: Russian Rocket Ships! Sputnik, Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz Launcher Schematics Uttering the text “rocket ship” can excite, mystify, and inspire young children. A rocket ship can transport people and cargo to places far away with awe-inspiring speed and accuracy. The text “rocket scientist” indexes a highly intelligent and admirable person, someone who is able to create, or assist in the creation of machines, vehicles that can actually leave the world we all call “home.” Rocket scientists possess the knowledge to take human beings and fantastic machines to space. This knowledge is built upon basic scientific principles of motion and form—the understanding, for young learners, of shapes and their function. This lesson uses the shape of a rocket to ignite engineering knowledge and hopefully, inspiration in young pupils and introduces them to a space program on the other side of the world. Did you know that the first person in space, Yuri Gagarin, was from the former Soviet Union? That the Soviet Union (now Russia) sent the first spacecraft, Sputnik I, into Earth’s orbit? That today, American NASA-based astronauts fly to Russia to launch and must learn conversational Russian as part of their training? Now, in 2020, there are Russians and Americans working together in the International Space Station (ISS), the latest brought there by an American-based commercial craft. Being familiar with the contributions Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has made to space travel is an integral part of understanding the ongoing human endeavor to explore the space all around us. After all, Russian cosmonauts use rocket ships too! The following lesson plan is intended for kindergarten students in Indiana to fulfill state engineering learning requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Rex D. Hall and David J. Shayler
    Rex D. Hall and David J. Shayler Soyuz A Universal Spacecraft ruuiiMicPublishedu 11in1 aaaundiiuiassociationi witwimh ^^ • Springer Praxis Publishing PRHB Chichester, UK "^UF Table of contents Foreword xvii Authors' preface xix Acknowledgements xxi List of illustrations and tables xxiii Prologue xxix ORIGINS 1 Soviet manned spaceflight after Vostok 1 Design requirements 1 Sever and the 1L: the genesis of Soyuz 3 The Vostok 7/1L Soyuz Complex 4 The mission sequence of the early Soyuz Complex 6 The Soyuz 7K complex 7 Soyuz 7K (Soyuz A) design features 8 The American General Electric concept 10 Soyuz 9K and Soyuz 1 IK 11 The Soyuz Complex mission profile 12 Contracts, funding and schedules 13 Soyuz to the Moon 14 A redirection for Soyuz 14 The N1/L3 lunar landing mission profile 15 Exploring the potential of Soyuz 16 Soyuz 7K-P: a piloted anti-satellite interceptor 16 Soyuz 7K-R: a piloted reconnaissance space station 17 Soyuz VI: the military research spacecraft Zvezda 18 Adapting Soyuz for lunar missions 20 Spacecraft design changes 21 Crewing for circumlunar missions 22 The Zond missions 23 The end of the Soviet lunar programme 33 The lunar orbit module (7K-LOK) 33 viii Table of contents A change of direction 35 References 35 MISSION HARDWARE AND SUPPORT 39 Hardware and systems 39 Crew positions 40 The spacecraft 41 The Propulsion Module (PM) 41 The Descent Module (DM) 41 The Orbital Module (OM) 44 Pyrotechnic devices 45 Spacecraft sub-systems 46 Rendezvous, docking and transfer 47 Electrical power 53 Thermal control 54 Life support 54
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Space Program
    C05500088 TOP eEGRET iuf 3EEA~ NIE 11-1-71 THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM Declassified Under Authority of the lnteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel, E.O. 13526, sec. 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP Appeal No. 2011 -003, document 2 Declassification date: November 23, 2020 ifOP GEEAE:r C05500088 1'9P SloGRET CONTENTS Page THE PROBLEM ... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS l DISCUSSION 5 I. SOV.IET SPACE ACTIVITY DURING TfIE PAST TWO YEARS . 5 II. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE PROSPECTS . 6 A. General ............................................. 6 B. Organization and Management . ............... 6 C. Economics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. 8 III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL FACTORS ... 9 A. General .. .. .. .. .. 9 B. Launch Vehicles . 9 C. High-Energy Propellants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 D. Manned Spacecraft . 12 E. Life Support Systems . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 F. Non-Nuclear Power Sources for Spacecraft . 16 G. Nuclear Power and Propulsion ..... 16 Te>P M:EW TCS 2032-71 IOP SECl<ET" C05500088 TOP SECRGJ:. IOP SECREI Page H. Communications Systems for Space Operations . 16 I. Command and Control for Space Operations . 17 IV. FUTURE PROSPECTS ....................................... 18 A. General ............... ... ···•· ................. ····· ... 18 B. Manned Space Station . 19 C. Planetary Exploration . ........ 19 D. Unmanned Lunar Exploration ..... 21 E. Manned Lunar Landfog ... 21 F. Applied Satellites ......... 22 G. Scientific Satellites ........................................ 24 V. INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION ............. 24 A. USSR-European Nations .................................... 24 B. USSR-United States 25 ANNEX A. SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITY ANNEX B. SOVIET SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES ANNEX C. SOVIET CHRONOLOGICAL SPACE LOG FOR THE PERIOD 24 June 1969 Through 27 June 1971 TCS 2032-71 IOP SLClt~ 70P SECRE1- C05500088 TOP SEGR:R THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM THE PROBLEM To estimate Soviet capabilities and probable accomplishments in space over the next 5 to 10 years.' SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS A.
    [Show full text]
  • Tragic Tangle: Soyuz-1
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Tragic Tangle: Soyuz-1 Leadership ViTS Meeting June 2010 Bryan O’Connor Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance Wilson B. Harkins Deputy Chief, Safety and Mission Assurance This and previous presentations are archived at: sma.nasa.gov/safety-messages THE MISHAP On April 23,1967, the Soviet Union launched the Soyuz-1 spacecraft to achieve a new and elaborate docking capability. Multiple malfunctions on orbit forced ground crews to abort the mission. In a crippled spacecraft with rapidly draining power reserves, Cosmonaut Colonel Vladimir Komarov heroically maneuvered the craft for re-entry to Earth. Upon re-entry, the vehicle’s drag and backup parachutes entangled. With no means of braking, Soyuz-1 struck the ground at 90 miles per hour, and the USSR’s most experienced cosmonaut was killed. The Space Race Begins •1961-1963: The USSR flies six successful Vostok crewed missions. •1964-1966: No Soviet manned flights •1961-1966: The U.S. flies six crewed Mercury and ten crewed Gemini missions, pioneering techniques for use en route to the moon. Under immense pressure to overtake the Americans, the Soviets planned a 1967 mission involving two Soyuz spacecraft to rendezvous, dock, transfer cosmonauts, and commemorate May Day. Soyuz and Apollo Test Failures •November 1966: Kosmos-133 unmanned Soyuz suffers maneuvering problems upon re-entry and automatically self-destructs over the Pacific. • December 1966: Second unmanned Soyuz’ booster explodes on pad •January 1967: Apollo 204 fire kills three astronauts. • February 1967: Kosmos-140 unmanned Soyuz heat shield experiences 30mm burn-through during entry. •April 1967: Despite failures, as May Day approaches, Design Bureau Cosmonaut Colonel gives order for dual Soyuz mission.
    [Show full text]
  • → Space for Europe European Space Agency
    number 164 | 4th quarter 2015 bulletin → space for europe European Space Agency The European Space Agency was formed out of, and took over the rights and The ESA headquarters are in Paris. obligations of, the two earlier European space organisations – the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO) and the European Launcher Development The major establishments of ESA are: Organisation (ELDO). The Member States are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, ESTEC, Noordwijk, Netherlands. Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada is a Cooperating State. ESOC, Darmstadt, Germany. In the words of its Convention: the purpose of the Agency shall be to provide for ESRIN, Frascati, Italy. and to promote, for exclusively peaceful purposes, cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space applications, with a view ESAC, Madrid, Spain. to their being used for scientific purposes and for operational space applications systems: EAC, Cologne, Germany. → by elaborating and implementing a long-term European space policy, by ECSAT, Harwell, United Kingdom. recommending space objectives to the Member States, and by concerting the policies of the Member States with respect to other national and international ESA Redu, Belgium. organisations and institutions; → by elaborating and implementing activities and programmes in the space field; → by coordinating the European space programme and national programmes, and by integrating the latter progressively and as completely as possible into the European space programme, in particular as regards the development of applications Co-Chairs of the Council: satellites; Bo Andersen and Jean-Yves Le Gall → by elaborating and implementing the industrial policy appropriate to its programme and by recommending a coherent industrial policy to the Member States.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of an Inflatable Airlock for Deep Space Exploration
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFLATABLE AIRLOCK FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION Douglas A. Litteken NASA Johnson Space Center Thomas C. Jones NASA Langley Research Center AIAA SPACE Forum Orlando, Florida September 18, 2018 OUTLINE • Introduction • History of Inflatable Airlock Development • Design Considerations for Inflatable Airlocks • Generic Airlock Considerations for Space Applications • Inflatable Airlock Specific Considerations • Conclusions and Future Work 9/18/2018 D. Litteken, NASA/JSC/ES2 | AIAA SPACE 2018 2 OUTLINE • Introduction • History of Inflatable Airlock Development • Design Considerations for Inflatable Airlocks • Generic Airlock Considerations for Space Applications • Inflatable Airlock Specific Considerations • Conclusions and Future Work 9/18/2018 D. Litteken, NASA/JSC/ES2 | AIAA SPACE 2018 3 INTRODUCTION • Airlocks have been used for EVAs (extravehicular activities) since 1965 • Airlock designs including integrated, single, and dual-chamber, along with various volumes and hatch shapes have been used Type In Service Name Dimensions Volume Mass EVA Hatch From To /Chamber L x D (ft) (ft3) (lbm) Shape Opening (in) 1965 1965 Voskhod 2 Volga Inflatable 8.2 x 3.9 88.3 551 Circular 26 1965 1966 Gemini Capsule Integral 19.0 x 9.8 90 8490 Trapezoid 15 x 51 x 37 1969 1972 Apollo Ascent Module Integral 3.5 x 7.7 159 4740 Square 32 x 32 1973 1974 Skylab Airlock Single 12.8 x 5.4 322 16936 Trapezoid 15 x 51 x 37 1983 2011 Shuttle Airlock Single 6.9 x 5.3 150 827 D-Shape 40 1989 2001 Mir Kvant Airlock Single 19.0 x 13.1 1413 21164 Circular 39 2001 Present ISS Pirs Airlock Single 16.1 x 8.4 460 7892 Circular 39 2001 Present ISS Quest Airlock Dual 18.0 x 13.1 1200 21896 D-Shape 40 9/18/2018 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Vehicle Classification for Decision-Making of Small
    Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 234–241, 2021 DOI: 10.2322/tjsass.64.234 Launch Vehicle Classification for Decision-Making of Small Satellite Launch Options* Mengying ZHANG,1) Qin XU,2)† and Qingbin ZHANG1) 1)College of Aerospace Science and Engineering, National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410073, China 2)Center for Assessment and Demonstration Research, Academy of Military Science, Beijing 100091, China In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the small satellite launch market. With the rapid development of novel launchers, for small satellite owners and operators, how to effectively and efficiently choose appropriate launch ve- hicles has become a major concern. Based on updated launch records, a reliable launch data source for multi-attribute eval- uation and reclassification is established. Using a statistical classification process, active launch vehicles are classified into five representative-in-class launchers on the basis of their capabilities and performance. Unlike the previous categorisation based on payload ability, this method captures launch cost, technology maturity, reliability and availability of each cat- egory within the current launch vehicles in service. Moreover, representatives are selected as the baseline types for the high-level planning and designing of complex small satellite launch missions. The analysis indicates that this study pro- vides a valid statistical classification and selection strategy of representative-in-class launch vehicles to support decision- making for rapid assessment on a large number of small satellite launch missions. Key Words: Small Satellite, Launcher Selection, Reliability, Launch Cost 1. Introduction 350 Small satellites (<=1000kg) 300 The past decade has witnessed a boom in the small satellite Large satellites (>1000kg) market.
    [Show full text]
  • SOYUZ THROUGH the AGES the R-7 Rocket That Led to the Family of Soyuz Vehicles Launching Today Lifted Off for the First Time Onfeb
    RUSSIAN SPACE SOYUZ THROUGH THE AGES The R-7 rocket that led to the family of Soyuz vehicles launching today lifted off for the first time onFeb. 17, 1959. The last launch, on Dec. 27, 2018, was number 1,898. Irene Klotz and Maxim Pyadushkin Vostochny Cosmodrome anufactured by the Progress Rocket Space Center in Sama- Evolution of Soyuz-Family Launch Vehicles ra, Russia, the medium-lift expendable booster originally was used for Soviet-era human space missions and later became the R-7 Soyuz Soyuz-L workhorse for the country’s civilian and military space programs. M 1957 First launch of the ICBM (SS-6 1966-76 (32 launches, 1970-71 (three launches, Sapwood) that served as a basis for including 30 successful, all successful, The first rocket officially named Soyuz was launched in Soviet/Russian launch vehicles from Baikonur) from Baikonur) 1966 and has since flown 1,050 times, of which 1,023 were including the Soyuz family successful. Production of Soyuz rockets peaked in the early Soyuz 1980s at about 60 vehicles per year. Medium-Class Launch Vehicle Russia began offering Soyuz launch services internationally in the mid-1980s through Glavkosmos, a commercial entity set up to sell Soviet rocket and space technologies. Manufacturer: Progress Rocket Space Soyuz-U/-U2 Soyuz-M Center, Samara, Russia In 1996, Russia created Starsem, a joint venture (35% ArianeGroup, 25% Roscosmos, 25% RKTs Progress, 15% 1991 Breakup of the 1973-2017 1971-76 (eight launches, Soviet Union, (859 launches, including all successful, from Plesetsk) Dimensions Arianespace) that had exclusive rights to provide commercial launch services on Soyuz launch vehicles.
    [Show full text]