DOCSLIB.ORG

Kick Motor Insertion I (Star

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kick Motor Insertion I (Star Launch and Deployment Analysis for a Small, MEO, Technology Demonstration Satellite Tyson Smith, Graduate Research Assistant Stephen A. Whitmore, Assistant Professor Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department 22nd Small Satellite Conference Logan Utah, August 12, 2008 Mission Requirements Short ID Requirement Verification Method Design Compliance Orbit Altitude 19,000 ± 85 (1σ)km Monte Carlo simulations Yes, by analysis (TRD 4.3.1) Orbit Inclination 55° ± 0.1° Monte Carlo simulations Yes, by analysis (TRD 4.3.1) Orbit Eccentricity e < 0.001 Monte Carlo simulations Yes, by analysis (TRD 4.3.1) • Sandia National Laboratory investigating advanced sensor technologies for nuclear explosion monitoring. • To be deployed with next generation GPS constellation. • SDL/USU investigating feasibility/mission operations for small, prototype satellite to space-qualify emerging sensor technologies prior to deployment with operational GPS III constellation 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 2 Preliminary Launch Vehicle Trade Analysis • SandiaSat is a classified payload … US launcher mandated • Must have MTO Capability, Costs < $60 million • Available FAA-Licensed USA Launch Systems, CIRCA 2006 - Athena (LMA) - Atlas (ULA) - Delta (ULA) • Preliminary Analysis Narrowed - Pegasus (OSC) Field to “Short List” - Taurus (OSC) - Minotaur (OSC) - Falcon (Space-X) - Space Shuttle (USA, NASA) - Zenit3SL (Sea Launch, MultiNational) 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 3 Candidate Launch Vehicle “Short List” Minotaur IV Athena II – Maximum LEO Payload: 820 – 2065 kg - Maximum LEO Payload: >1735 kg, possible GTO capability – Successful Launches: 6 of 7 since 1995 - Successful Launches: no manifests to date, Uses Legacy Peacekeeper stages (51 launches) – Launch Site: The Cape (28.5 - 50 deg inclination) - Launch Site: Cape, Wallops (28.5 - 55 deg inclination), Kodiak (64 – 116 deg inclination) Vandenberg (55-120 deg.) - Cost: $22 –26 million – Negative Factor: Inclination restrictions, Limited Lift - Cost: $25 million Capacity, Only 590 Kg to GTO - Negative Factors: No operational record, limited lift capability Minotaur V Taurus XL - Maximum LEO Payload: >2500 kg, Hi-Energy version of -Maximum LEO Payload: 1590 kg Minotaur IV -Successful Launches: 7 of 8 Since 1995 - Successful Launches: no manifests to date, Uses Legacy Peacekeeper stages (51 launches) -Launch Sites: The Cape (28.5 - 50 deg inclination) Vandenberg (55 – 120 deg inclination) - Launch Site: Cape, Wallops (28.5 - 55 deg inclination), Vandenberg (55-120 deg.) -Cost: $18 – 20 million “Least Risk Option” - Cost: $25-28 million -Negative Factor: >Limited GTO lift capability, Only 440 kg - Negative Factors: No operational record to GTO 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 4 “Short List” Launch Energy Comparisons C3 Launch Energy Analysis: • No Athena Launch from WFF • WFF preferred due to Cost and launch Availability • Minotaur V has “slight edge” and is Down-selected 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 5 Baseline Minotaur V Launch Vehicle Baseline Minotaur V Configuration Uses legacy Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) for Stages 1-3 Peacekeeper 1st stage (Motor TU-903) Peacekeeper 2nd stage (Motor SR-119) Peacekeeper 3nd stage (Motor SR-120) 4th Stage – Star 48B long 5th Stage – Star 37FM (spin stabilized) or Star 37 FMV (3 axis) • Star 37 FM motor designed for GEO Final Orbit kick, excessive ΔV for MEO orbit insertion • ATK Star 48V Replaces (Minotaur IV) Orion -38 • Heavy Loaded Star 37-FM 4th Stage for Hi-Energy Motor Weight (1148) Limits Trajectory MTO payload capability 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 6 Proposed Changes to Minotaur V Launch Configuration 1st Stage – TU-903 2nd Stage – SR-119 3rd Stage – SR-120 4th Stage – Star 48B long • Replace 5th stage Star 37 kick motor with Smaller Star 27 • Proposed configuration allows payload delivery from MTO To the required MEO orbit without 6th stage kick motor 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 7 MEO Kick ΔV Analysis (1) • Required ΔV for MTO (1300 x 19,000 km) to MEO (19,000 x 19,000 km) μ 2μ μ ΔVkick = − − = 1.26 km/sec Re + hfinal Re + hfinal aMTO • ATK Star 27 Motor • Assume 425 kg Payload to ΔV = g I ln⎡ 1 + P ⎤ = MEO available 0 sp ⎣ mf ⎦ • ATK Star 37 FMV Motor 1.63 km/sec (29.6% high) ΔV = g I ln⎡ 1 + P ⎤ = available 0 sp ⎣ mf ⎦ Propellant Offload 3.72 km/sec (factor of 3 high) still required to adjust available ΔV 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 8 MEO Kick ΔV Analysis (2) With its ability to accommodate various • Star 27 with 28% propellant off load propellant loadings (9% offload flown) and ΔV = g I ln⎡ 1 + P ⎤ = explosive transfer available 0 sp ⎣ mf ⎦ assemblies, it has served as the apogee kick motor for various applications. • With 28% propellant Off load … loaded Star 27 Motor Weight is ~ 268 kg = 1.27 km/sec “Just enough + margin for MEO insertion” • Offloaded mass available for PAYLOAD margin 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 9 High-Fidelity Minotaur V Launch Simulation • Data for Motor/stages derived from OSC Minotaur IV Users Guide+additional public domain sources. 1-D Steady, variable mass, altitude engine model •4-DOF Simulation with Pitch Profile Control, Interactive “Pilot” Input Capability • Simulations verified using Minotaur IV to check against OSC Trajectory published in Minotaur IV Launch Guide. - Results matched well with data. • Configuration Aero-Coefficients derived using Apogee Rockets Aero- CFD® for subsonic aero 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 10 • USU-developed Incidence Angle Code for Supersonic aero Launch Optimization (1) • Launch simulation optimized pitch profile for maximum stage IV MTO Orbit energy (constrained with 19,000 km altitude apogee) 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 11 Launch Optimization (2) • Direct insertion into MTO orbit at 1680 km altitude 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 12 Mission CONOPS/Timeline • Launch • Transfer 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 13 Launch Simulation Visual 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 14 Mass Budget (from optimized launch profile) Stage IV (Star 48) Mass (kg) Total mass delivered to MTO perigee 1002.4 kg Mass after avionics module and Star 48 jettison 681.3 kg Stage V (Star 27) Lightband separation system Lower ring 4.11 kg Upper ring 2.06 kg Inert motor weight 27.5 kg Nominal full propellant load (27% off-load) 333.76 kg (243.65 kg) Kick motor adaptor cone 15 kg De-spin thruster system 7 kg Total mass delivered to MEO (before kick motor separation) 436.5 kg Delivered MEO spacecraft mass allocation (after kick motor separation) 360.4kg 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 15 Monte Carlo Analysis (1) • Characteristics perturbed for launch and final orbit insertion • Launch error sources, 1σ – Pitch profile, +0.05% total error (deviation from optimal) • Assumes pitch guidance feedback – Uncertainty in drag coefficient, + 5% 997 end-to-end launch- – Uncertainty in lift coefficient, + 5% -to-MEO insertion – Thrust uncertainty, + 0.1% – Burn time uncertainty, + 0.1% Simulations performed – Total impulse uncertainty, + 0.1414% • Kick motor insertion I (Star 27) uncertainties (from ATK) – Thrust error, 0.16667% – Burn time uncertainty, 0.084% – Total impulse uncertainty, 0.1867% – Burn pitch misalignment uncertainty, +1o – Burn out-of-plane misalignment uncertainty, +1o • Lightband separation uncertainties – Separation ΔV uncertainty, + 0.1 m/sec – Separation pitch misalignment uncertainty, +1o – Separation out-of-plane misalignment uncertainty, +1o 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 16 Monte Carlo Analysis (2) • 997 data runs, 8 August 2010 launch Parameter Mean 1-σ Stnd. MEO Results (Final Orbit) Value Dev. a, km 25370.2 +80.8 e 0.00124 +0.0004 i, deg 54.991 +0.115 Ω,deg 197.71 +0.080 ω,deg 151.25 +0.119 Perigee, km 18975.8 +83.9 Apogee, km 19022.9 +86.2 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 17 Summary • Modified Minotaur V Configuration with Star 27 kick motor base lined for this mission • Star 27 requires ~ 25-30% offload for payload insertion • Proposed configuration allows payload delivery to Required MEO orbit without 6th stage kick motor • Total spacecraft weight after kick motor separation ~ 360 kg • Total mission time line from launch to achieving final orbit ~11,374 sec (3.16 hours) • MLB with 26 separation spring prevents recontact for lifetime of payload • Monte Carlo analysis shows 3σ apogee/perigee accuracy ~ 19000 ± 85 km • Monte Carlo analysis shows final orbit inclination ~ 55° ± 0.1 ° • Monte Carlo analysis shows final orbit eccentricity ~ 0.001 ± 0.0004 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 18 Supplementary Slides 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 19 Preliminary Launch Vehicle Selection (2) • Atlas Series Performance, 2000 US $$ “Cost prohibitive” 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 August 2008, Logan, Utah 20 Preliminary Launch Vehicle Selection (3) • Athena / Delta Series Performance, 2000 US $$ “potentially acceptable” “too small” 22nd Small Sat Conference SSC08-VIII-5 “Cost Augustprohibitive” 2008, Logan, Utah 21 Preliminary Launch Vehicle Selection (4) • Miscellaneous Launchers, 2000 US $$ “too “Cost small” prohibitive”
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]
  • Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch
    The Space Congress® Proceedings 2019 (46th) Light the Fire Jun 4th, 3:30 PM Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Ste. Marie, Thomas, "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch" (2019). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 31. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-2019-46th/presentations/31 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Support to Commercial Space Launch Colonel Thomas Ste. Marie Vice Commander, 45th Space Wing CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs; Blue text – in work; * – sub-orbital CCAFS Launch Customers: 2013 Complex 39B: NASA SLS Complex 41: ULA Atlas V (CST-100) Complex 40: SpaceX Falcon 9 Complex 37: ULA Delta IV; Delta IV Heavy NASA Space Launch System Launch Complex 39B February 4, 2013 Complex 46: Space Florida, Navy* Skid Strip: NGIS Pegasus Atlantic Ocean: Navy Trident II* Black text – current programs;
    [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]
  • L AUNCH SYSTEMS Databk7 Collected.Book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM Databk7 Collected.Book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
    databk7_collected.book Page 17 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS databk7_collected.book Page 18 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM databk7_collected.book Page 19 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM CHAPTER TWO L AUNCH SYSTEMS Introduction Launch systems provide access to space, necessary for the majority of NASA’s activities. During the decade from 1989–1998, NASA used two types of launch systems, one consisting of several families of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and the second consisting of the world’s only partially reusable launch system—the Space Shuttle. A significant challenge NASA faced during the decade was the development of technologies needed to design and implement a new reusable launch system that would prove less expensive than the Shuttle. Although some attempts seemed promising, none succeeded. This chapter addresses most subjects relating to access to space and space transportation. It discusses and describes ELVs, the Space Shuttle in its launch vehicle function, and NASA’s attempts to develop new launch systems. Tables relating to each launch vehicle’s characteristics are included. The other functions of the Space Shuttle—as a scientific laboratory, staging area for repair missions, and a prime element of the Space Station program—are discussed in the next chapter, Human Spaceflight. This chapter also provides a brief review of launch systems in the past decade, an overview of policy relating to launch systems, a summary of the management of NASA’s launch systems programs, and tables of funding data. The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988) From 1979 through 1988, NASA used families of ELVs that had seen service during the previous decade.
    [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]
  • Aas 14-281 Suborbital Intercept And
    AAS 14-281 SUBORBITAL INTERCEPT AND FRAGMENTATION OF ASTEROIDS WITH VERY SHORT WARNING TIMES Ryan Hupp,∗ Spencer Dewald,∗ and Bong Wiey The threat of an asteroid impact with very short warning times (e.g., 1 to 24 hrs) is a very probable, real danger to civilization, yet no viable countermeasures cur- rently exist. The utilization of an upgraded ICBM to deliver a hypervelocity as- teroid intercept vehicle (HAIV) carrying a nuclear explosive device (NED) on a suborbital interception trajectory is studied in this paper. Specifically, this paper focuses on determining the trajectory for maximizing the altitude of intercept. A hypothetical asteroid impact scenario is used as an example for determining sim- plified trajectory models. Other issues are also examined, including launch vehicle options, launch site placement, late intercept, and some undesirable side effects. It is shown that silo-based ICBMs with modest burnout velocities can be utilized for a suborbital asteroid intercept mission with an NED explosion at reasonably higher altitudes (> 2,500 km). However, further studies will be required in the following key areas: i) NED sizing for properly fragmenting small (50 to 150 m) asteroids, ii) the side effects caused by an NED explosion at an altitude of 2,500 km or higher, iii) the rapid launch readiness of existing or upgraded ICBMs for a suborbital asteroid intercept with short warning times (e.g., 1 to 24 hrs), and iv) precision ascent guidance and terminal intercept guidance. It is emphasized that if an earlier alert (e.g., > 1 week) can be assured, then an interplanetary inter- cept/fragmentation may become feasible, which requires an interplanetary launch vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Almanac 2007
    2007 Space Almanac The US military space operation in facts and figures. Compiled by Tamar A. Mehuron, Associate Editor, and the staff of Air Force Magazine 74 AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 Space 0.05g 60,000 miles Geosynchronous Earth Orbit 22,300 miles Hard vacuum 1,000 miles Medium Earth Orbit begins 300 miles 0.95g 100 miles Low Earth Orbit begins 60 miles Astronaut wings awarded 50 miles Limit for ramjet engines 28 miles Limit for turbojet engines 20 miles Stratosphere begins 10 miles Illustration not to scale Artist’s conception by Erik Simonsen AIR FORCE Magazine / August 2007 75 US Military Missions in Space Space Support Space Force Enhancement Space Control Space Force Application Launch of satellites and other Provide satellite communica- Ensure freedom of action in space Provide capabilities for the ap- high-value payloads into space tions, navigation, weather infor- for the US and its allies and, plication of combat operations and operation of those satellites mation, missile warning, com- when directed, deny an adversary in, through, and from space to through a worldwide network of mand and control, and intel- freedom of action in space. influence the course and outcome ground stations. ligence to the warfighter. of conflict. US Space Funding Millions of constant Fiscal 2007 dollars 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Fiscal Year 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total Fiscal Year NASA DOD Other Total 1959 1,841 3,457 240 5,538 1983 13,051 18,601 675 32,327 1960 3,205 3,892
    [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]
  • The Delta Launch Vehicle- Past, Present, and Future
    The Space Congress® Proceedings 1981 (18th) The Year of the Shuttle Apr 1st, 8:00 AM The Delta Launch Vehicle- Past, Present, and Future J. K. Ganoung Manager Spacecraft Integration, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. H. Eaton Delta Launch Program, McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Ganoung, J. K. and Eaton, H., "The Delta Launch Vehicle- Past, Present, and Future" (1981). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 7. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1981-18th/session-6/7 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE DELTA LAUNCH VEHICLE - PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE J. K. Ganoung, Manager H. Eaton, Jr., Director Spacecraft Integration Delta Launch Program McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. INTRODUCTION an "interim space launch vehicle." The THOR was to be modified for use as the first stage, the The Delta launch vehicle is a medium class Vanguard second stage propulsion system, was used expendable booster managed by the NASA Goddard as the Delta second stage and the Vanguard solid Space Flight Center and used by the U.S. rocket motor became Delta's third stage. Government, private industry and foreign coun­ Following the eighteen month development program tries to launch scientific, meteorological, and failure to launch its first payload into or­ applications and communications satellites.
    [Show full text]
  • The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017
    Federal Aviation Administration The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 January 2017 Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 i Contents About the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 51 United States Code, Subtitle V, Chapter 509 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA AST’s mission is to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA AST is directed to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA AST’s website: http://www.faa.gov/go/ast Cover art: Phil Smith, The Tauri Group (2017) Publication produced for FAA AST by The Tauri Group under contract. NOTICE Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration. ii Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 GENERAL CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Launch Vehicles 9 Launch and Reentry Sites 21 Payloads 35 2016 Launch Events 39 2017 Annual Commercial Space Transportation Forecast 45 Space Transportation Law and Policy 83 Appendices 89 Orbital Launch Vehicle Fact Sheets 100 iii Contents DETAILED CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
    [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]
  • N AS a Facts
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Launch Services Program he Launch Services Program (LSP) manufacturing, launch operations and rockets for launching Earth-orbit and Twas established at Kennedy Space countdown management, and providing interplanetary missions. Center for NASA’s acquisition and added quality and mission assurance in In September 2010, NASA’s Launch program management of expendable lieu of the requirement for the launch Services (NLS) contract was extended launch vehicle (ELV) missions. A skillful service provider to obtain a commercial by the agency for 10 years, through NASA/contractor team is in place to launch license. 2020, with the award of four indefinite meet the mission of the Launch Ser- Primary launch sites are Cape Canav- delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. The vices Program, which exists to provide eral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Florida, expendable launch vehicles that NASA leadership, expertise and cost-effective and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) has available for its science, Earth-orbit services in the commercial arena to in California. and interplanetary missions are United satisfy agencywide space transporta- Other launch locations are NASA’s Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas V and tion requirements and maximize the Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the Delta II, Space X’s Falcon 1 and 9, opportunity for mission success. Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific’s Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Pegasus and facts The principal objectives of the LSP Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Taurus XL, and Lockheed Martin Space are to provide safe, reliable, cost-effec- Kodiak Island in Alaska. Systems Co.’s Athena I and II.
    [Show full text]