DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Gemini

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project Gemini NASA SP-4002 PROJECT GEMINI TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATIONS Prepared by James M. Grimwood and Barton C. Hacker with Peter J. Vorzimmer THE NASA HISTORICAL SERIES ___.,/ Scientific and Technical Information Division '___7 OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION 1969 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Price $2.75 (paper cover) Librm'j o_ C._'¢ss Catalog Card Number 68-62086 FOREWORD Gemini was one of the early pioneering efforts in the developing space capability of this nation. The initiation of this program was timed to take advantage of the knowledge gained in our first series of manned space flights-- Project Mercury. The Mercury program successfully demonstrated manned orbital flight. Perhaps more important it provided extensive information on how to build and fly spacecraft for the more complex missions yet to come. Drawing on this experience, the Gemini program was able to produce for its time a highly flexible space vehicle of considerable operational capability. These characteristics enabled a rapid expansion of American flight horizons. The most significant achievements of Gemini involved precision maneuver- ing in orbit and a major extension of the duration of manned space flights. These included the first rendezvous in orbit of one spacecraft with another and the docking of two spacecraft together. The docking operation allowed the use of a large propulsion system to carry men to gre_ter heights above Earth than had been previously possible, thereby enabling the astronauts to view and photograph Earth over extensive areas. Precision maneuvering was also employed during the very high speed reentry back to the surface of Earth, enabling accurate landings to be made. The length of our manned space flights was extended to as long as 14 days, a duration that has yet to be exceeded as of this writing, although this was accomplished about three years ago. Of great general interest were the investigations of the operations of an astronaut outside the confines of his spacecraft, protected from the hard vac- uum of space by his pressurized space suit. These extravehicular activities did in f_t produce some difficulties, but, in the end, highly successful operations were conducted. All of these activities have greatly contributed to expanding activities in space that we now have underway or will be forthcoming. In Apollo, the pro- gram involved with landing men on the lunar surface, the crews must be trans- ported roughly 0_40,000 miles to the Moon and then back to Earth. This trip will take a week or more. The Apollo spacecraft must perform a rendezvous not near Earth but out at lunar distances in order for this mission to be success- ful. Once again, the astronauts must leave their spacecraft and s in their pressure suits, step out onto the lunar surface so that scientific exploration can be con- ducted. The fact that all of these things were initially demonstrated and then investigated further in a number of the Gemini missions greatly aids the devel- opment of the more difficult missions that we are about to undertake. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Gemini program was the man- ner in which the astronauts contributed to the success of each mission. In the flying of the spacecraft, in the management of the systems, in the overcoming of problems_ and in the aid to attainment of important scientific and technologi- cal information, their presence enhanced greatly the success of the program. v PROJECT GEMINI: A CIIRONOLOGY They were backed up by a large and dedicated team of people here on the ground who designed, developed, and checked out the vehicles and controlled the flights. The Chronology presented herein as a factual presentation of events taken primarily from official documentation of the program. It, therefore_ cannot reflect many of the "behind the scenes" activities so important to the con- duct of a successful program involving exploratory endeavors. The high moti- vation to make the Gemini program work, file rapid reaction in overcoming dif- ficulties, 1,_rge and small, and the attention to detail are all factors contributing to the ten successful manned flights which provided nearly two thousand man hours of direct space flight experience. CtIARLES W. MATHEWS Deputy Associate Administrator O_ce of Manned Space Flight September 16, 1968 vi CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .................................... viii INTRODUCTION .............................................. xiii PART I--CONCEPT AND DESIGN ............................ 1 PART II--DEVELOPMENT AND QUALIFICATION ............ 69 PART III--FLIGHT TESTS .................................... 173 APPENDICES ................................................. 263 i. GEMINI PROGRAM FLIGHT SUMMARY DATA ................... 264 TABLE A: General...................................... 264 TABLE B: OrbitalOperations............................. 266 TABLE C: ProjectGemini Experiments.................... 268 TABLE D: ExtravehicularActivityon Gemini Missions...... 270 2. GEMINI PROGRAM AND MISSION OBJECTIVES .................. 271 3. VEHICLE MANUFACTURING AND TESTING HISTORIES ........... 277 TABLE A: Gemini Launch Vehicle........................ 277 TABLE B: Gemini Target Vehicle......................... 279 TABLE C: Gemini Target Launch Vehicle.................. 280 TABLE D: Gemini Spacecraft............................. 281 4. WORLDWIDE TRACKING NETWORK ........................... 282 5. COST OF GEMINI PROGRAM................................. 283 6. NASA CENTERS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES PARTICI- PATING IN THE GEMINI PROGRAM ............................ 283 7. CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND VENDORS ............... 284 8. U.S. MANNED SPACE FLIGHT RECORD, SUMMARY OF MERCURY AND GEMINI FLIGHTS ...................................... 290 INDEX ........................................................ 291 vii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE PAGE Frontispiece First successful rendezvous .................................. ii 1 Proposed mission for modified Mercury capsule ................ 3 2 Early version of "lifting" Mercury capsule .................... 5 3 Proposed version of one-man space station ..................... 6 4 Orbital operations requiring a rendezvous development program__ 8 5 Deployment sequence for Mercury paraglider ................... 9 6 Interior arrangement for proposed two-man Mercury spacecraft__ 10 7 Adapter section of proposed two-man Mercury spacecraft ....... 11 8 Proposed "Lunar Lander" for use with advanced Mercury space- craft: Artist's conception .................................... 12 9 Drawing of modified Titan II for launch of advanced Mercury___ 13 10 Launch schedule for final version of Mark II Project Development Plan ...................................................... 15 11 First publicly released illustration of Gemini spacecraft ......... 2O 12 Operating principle of General Electric fuel cell for Gemini ...... 22 13 Early conception of rendezvous mission ....................... 23 14 Block diagram of Gemini environmental control system ......... 25 15 General arrangement of liquid rocket systems in the Gemini spacecraft and typical thrust chamber assembly ................ 26 16a Gemini flight trainer for crew training ......................... 28 16b Gemini docking trainer for crew training ...................... 28 17 Main elements of the radar rendezvous system on Gemini space- craft and Agena target vehicle ............................... 29 18 Block diagram of the attitude control and maneuvering electronics system of Gemini spacecraft ................................. 29 19 Gemini spacecraft landing gear for land landing with the para- glider ..................................................... 30 20 Ejection scats in the Gemini spacecraft" Artist's conception ...... 31 21 Reactant supply system for Gemini htel cells .................. 33 22 Operation of the horizon sensor for Gemini spacecraft ........... 33 23 Retrograde rocket system for the Gemini spacecraft ............ 34 24 Gemini spacecraft communications system ..................... 35 25 Table showing communiciation functions during a mission ....... 36 26 Inertial guidance system .................................... 37 27 General nomenclature of the Gemini spacecraft ................ 38 28 Gemini spacecraft tracking aids .............................. 39 29 Block diagram of the Gemini spacecraft guidance and control 4O system .................................................... 30 Solid-propellant retrograde rocket motor ...................... 45 31 Parachute recovery system for the first Gemini spacecraft ....... 46 Vlll LIST OF ILLUST_ATI0_S FIGURE PAGE 32 Paraglider deployment sequence of events ..................... 48 33 Emergency parachute recovery system for half-scale paraglider flight test vehicle ........................................... 49 34 "Off-the-pad" escape mode for aborted Gemini mission .......... 50 35 Airborne systems functional test stand at Martin-Baltimore ..... 52 36 Emergency parachute recovery system for full-scale paraglider flight test vehicle ........................................... 54 37 Engineering mockup of Gemini spacecraft at McDonnell, St. Louis ..................................................... 57 38 Proposed layout of Gemini facilities at Cape Canaveral ......... 58 39 Sequence of events for Gemini missions ....................... 59 40 Proposed sequence of events for first Gemini mission
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model For
    A QUANTITATIVE HUMAN SPACECRAFT DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL FOR ASSESSING CREW ACCOMMODATION AND UTILIZATION by CHRISTINE FANCHIANG B.S., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007 M.S., University of Colorado Boulder, 2010 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2017 i This thesis entitled: A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization written by Christine Fanchiang has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Dr. David M. Klaus Dr. Jessica J. Marquez Dr. Nisar R. Ahmed Dr. Daniel J. Szafir Dr. Jennifer A. Mindock Dr. James A. Nabity Date: 13 March 2017 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ii Fanchiang, Christine (Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) A Quantitative Human Spacecraft Design Evaluation Model for Assessing Crew Accommodation and Utilization Thesis directed by Professor David M. Klaus Crew performance, including both accommodation and utilization factors, is an integral part of every human spaceflight mission from commercial space tourism, to the demanding journey to Mars and beyond. Spacecraft were historically built by engineers and technologists trying to adapt the vehicle into cutting edge rocketry with the assumption that the astronauts could be trained and will adapt to the design. By and large, that is still the current state of the art. It is recognized, however, that poor human-machine design integration can lead to catastrophic and deadly mishaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Resumes
    REPORT RESUMES ED 019 218 88 SE 004 494 A RESOURCE BOOK OF AEROSPACE ACTIVITIES, K-6. LINCOLN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, NEBR. PUB DATE 67 EDRS PRICEMF.41.00 HC-S10.48 260P. DESCRIPTORS- *ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE, *PHYSICAL SCIENCES, *TEACHING GUIDES, *SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE, *SCIENCE ACTIVITIES, ASTRONOMY, BIOGRAPHIES, BIBLIOGRAPHIES, FILMS, FILMSTRIPS, FIELD TRIPS, SCIENCE HISTORY, VOCABULARY, THIS RESOURCE BOOK OF ACTIVITIES WAS WRITTEN FOR TEACHERS OF GRADES K-6, TO HELP THEM INTEGRATE AEROSPACE SCIENCE WITH THE REGULAR LEARNING EXPERIENCES OF THE CLASSROOM. SUGGESTIONS ARE MADE FOR INTRODUCING AEROSPACE CONCEPTS INTO THE VARIOUS SUBJECT FIELDS SUCH AS LANGUAGE ARTS, MATHEMATICS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION, SOCIAL STUDIES, AND OTHERS. SUBJECT CATEGORIES ARE (1) DEVELOPMENT OF FLIGHT, (2) PIONEERS OF THE AIR (BIOGRAPHY),(3) ARTIFICIAL SATELLITES AND SPACE PROBES,(4) MANNED SPACE FLIGHT,(5) THE VASTNESS OF SPACE, AND (6) FUTURE SPACE VENTURES. SUGGESTIONS ARE MADE THROUGHOUT FOR USING THE MATERIAL AND THEMES FOR DEVELOPING INTEREST IN THE REGULAR LEARNING EXPERIENCES BY INVOLVING STUDENTS IN AEROSPACE ACTIVITIES. INCLUDED ARE LISTS OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION SUCH AS (1) BOOKS,(2) PAMPHLETS, (3) FILMS,(4) FILMSTRIPS,(5) MAGAZINE ARTICLES,(6) CHARTS, AND (7) MODELS. GRADE LEVEL APPROPRIATENESS OF THESE MATERIALSIS INDICATED. (DH) 4:14.1,-) 1783 1490 ,r- 6e tt*.___.Vhf 1842 1869 LINCOLN PUBLICSCHOOLS A RESOURCEBOOK OF AEROSPACEACTIVITIES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION K-6) THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. 1919 O O Vj A PROJECT FUNDED UNDER TITLE HIELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT A RESOURCE BOOK OF AEROSPACE ACTIVITIES (K-6) The work presentedor reported herein was performed pursuant to a Grant from the U.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Summaries
    TIROS 8 12/21/63 Delta-22 TIROS-H (A-53) 17B S National Aeronautics and TIROS 9 1/22/65 Delta-28 TIROS-I (A-54) 17A S Space Administration TIROS Operational 2TIROS 10 7/1/65 Delta-32 OT-1 17B S John F. Kennedy Space Center 2ESSA 1 2/3/66 Delta-36 OT-3 (TOS) 17A S Information Summaries 2 2 ESSA 2 2/28/66 Delta-37 OT-2 (TOS) 17B S 2ESSA 3 10/2/66 2Delta-41 TOS-A 1SLC-2E S PMS 031 (KSC) OSO (Orbiting Solar Observatories) Lunar and Planetary 2ESSA 4 1/26/67 2Delta-45 TOS-B 1SLC-2E S June 1999 OSO 1 3/7/62 Delta-8 OSO-A (S-16) 17A S 2ESSA 5 4/20/67 2Delta-48 TOS-C 1SLC-2E S OSO 2 2/3/65 Delta-29 OSO-B2 (S-17) 17B S Mission Launch Launch Payload Launch 2ESSA 6 11/10/67 2Delta-54 TOS-D 1SLC-2E S OSO 8/25/65 Delta-33 OSO-C 17B U Name Date Vehicle Code Pad Results 2ESSA 7 8/16/68 2Delta-58 TOS-E 1SLC-2E S OSO 3 3/8/67 Delta-46 OSO-E1 17A S 2ESSA 8 12/15/68 2Delta-62 TOS-F 1SLC-2E S OSO 4 10/18/67 Delta-53 OSO-D 17B S PIONEER (Lunar) 2ESSA 9 2/26/69 2Delta-67 TOS-G 17B S OSO 5 1/22/69 Delta-64 OSO-F 17B S Pioneer 1 10/11/58 Thor-Able-1 –– 17A U Major NASA 2 1 OSO 6/PAC 8/9/69 Delta-72 OSO-G/PAC 17A S Pioneer 2 11/8/58 Thor-Able-2 –– 17A U IMPROVED TIROS OPERATIONAL 2 1 OSO 7/TETR 3 9/29/71 Delta-85 OSO-H/TETR-D 17A S Pioneer 3 12/6/58 Juno II AM-11 –– 5 U 3ITOS 1/OSCAR 5 1/23/70 2Delta-76 1TIROS-M/OSCAR 1SLC-2W S 2 OSO 8 6/21/75 Delta-112 OSO-1 17B S Pioneer 4 3/3/59 Juno II AM-14 –– 5 S 3NOAA 1 12/11/70 2Delta-81 ITOS-A 1SLC-2W S Launches Pioneer 11/26/59 Atlas-Able-1 –– 14 U 3ITOS 10/21/71 2Delta-86 ITOS-B 1SLC-2E U OGO (Orbiting Geophysical
    [Show full text]
  • Technical History of the Environmental Control System for Project Mercury
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19670029737 2020-03-24T01:19:15+00:00Z NASA TECHNICAL NOTE -NASA L_-TN D-4126 cp. \ LO KI TECHNICAL HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR PROJECT MERCURY by Frank H, Samonski, Jr. Manned Spacecrafi Center Hozcston, Texas NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. C. OCTOBER 1967 ?" TECH LIBRARY KAFB, "I I llllll lllll1llll lllll Hlll IYH lllll Ill1 Ill 0330793 NASA TN D-4126 TECHNICAL HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM FOR PROJECT MERCURY By Frank H. Samonski, Jr. Manned Spacecraft Center Houston, Texas NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION ~~ For sale by the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information Springfield, Virginia 22151 - CFSTl price $3.00 I ABSTRACT This report presents a technical history of the environmental control system for Project Mercury. Significant system changes and flight experience with the environmental control system are described. Attention is also given to the structure of test pro- grams employed to satisfy the mission objectives. ii CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY .................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ............ 2 Pressure-Suit Subsystem .......................... 2 Cabin Subsystem ............................... 5 SYSTEM CHANGES ............................... 7 Oxygen-Supply Filler Valve ......................... 7 Pressure- Switch Deletion .......................... 7 Oxygen Flow Sensor ............................
    [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]
  • Gemini 4 an Astronaut Steps Into the Void
    springer.com Popular Science : Popular Science in Astronomy Shayler, David J. Gemini 4 An Astronaut Steps into the Void Details the first American spacewalk in a leap forward from the Mercury program Follows each detail of Gemini's extended duration flight, NASA's first, relying extensively on archives Continues the Pioneers in Early Spaceflight series which looks one-by-one at the Mercury and Gemini flights The flight of Gemini 4 in June 1965 was conducted barely four years after the first Americans flew in space. It was a bold step by NASA to accomplish the first American spacewalk and to extend the U.S. flight duration record to four days. This would be double the experience gained from the six Mercury missions combined. This daring mission was the first to be directed from Springer the new Mission Control at the Manned Spacecraft Center near Houston, Texas. It also revealed 1st ed. 2018, XXV, 378 p. that: Working outside the spacecraft would require further study. Developing the techniques to 1st 81 illus., 46 illus. in color. rendezvous with another object in space would not be as straightforward as NASA had hoped. edition Living in a small spacecraft for several days was a challenging but necessary step in the quest for even longer flights.Despite the risks, the gamble that astronauts Jim McDivitt and Ed White undertook paid off. Gemini 4 gave NASA the confidence to attempt an even longer flight the Printed book next time. That next mission would simulate the planned eight-day duration of an Apollo lunar Softcover voyage.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Investigation of Reaction Control System Design on Spacecraft Handling Qualities for Earth Orbit Docking
    Initial Investigation of Reaction Control System Design on Spacecraft Handling Qualities for Earth Orbit Docking Randall E. Bailey1 E. Bruce Jackson,2 and Kenneth H. Goodrich 3 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, 23681 W. Al Ragsdale4, and Jason Neuhaus 5 Unisys Corporation, Hampton, VA, 23681 and Jim Barnes6 ARINC, Hampton, VA, 23666 A program of research, development, test, and evaluation is planned for the development of Spacecraft Handling Qualities guidelines. In this first experiment, the effects of Reaction Control System design characteristics and rotational control laws were evaluated during simulated proximity operations and docking. Also, the influence of piloting demands resulting from varying closure rates was assessed. The pilot-in-the-loop simulation results showed that significantly different spacecraft handling qualities result from the design of the Reaction Control System. In particular, cross-coupling between translational and rotational motions significantly affected handling qualities as reflected by Cooper-Harper pilot ratings and pilot workload, as reflected by Task-Load Index ratings. This influence is masked – but only slightly – by the rotational control system mode. While rotational control augmentation using Rate Command Attitude Hold can reduce the workload (principally, physical workload) created by cross-coupling, the handling qualities are not significantly improved. The attitude and rate deadbands of the RCAH introduced significant mental workload and control compensation to evaluate when deadband firings would occur, assess their impact on docking performance, and apply control inputs to mitigate that impact. I. Introduction Handling qualities embody “those qualities or characteristics of an aircraft that govern the ease and precision with which a pilot is able to perform the tasks required in support of an aircraft role."1 These same qualities are as critical, if not more so, in the operation of spacecraft.
    [Show full text]
  • Reusable Rocket Upper Stage Development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation Tool to Determine the Feasibility of Upper Stage Reusability L
    Reusable Rocket Upper Stage Development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation Tool to Determine the Feasibility of Upper Stage Reusability L. Pepermans Technische Universiteit Delft Reusable Rocket Upper Stage Development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimisation Tool to Determine the Feasibility of Upper Stage Reusability by L. Pepermans to obtain the degree of Master of Science at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Wednesday October 30, 2019 at 14:30 AM. Student number: 4144538 Project duration: September 1, 2018 – October 30, 2019 Thesis committee: Ir. B.T.C Zandbergen , TU Delft, supervisor Prof. E.K.A Gill, TU Delft Dr.ir. D. Dirkx, TU Delft This thesis is confidential and cannot be made public until October 30, 2019. An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Cover image: S-IVB upper stage of Skylab 3 mission in orbit [23] Preface Before you lies my thesis to graduate from Delft University of Technology on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of reusable upper stages. During the accompanying literature study, it was determined that the technology readiness level is sufficiently high for upper stage reusability. However, it was unsure whether a cost-effective system could be build. I have been interested in the field of Entry, Descent, and Landing ever since I joined the Capsule Team of Delft Aerospace Rocket Engineering (DARE). During my time within the team, it split up in the Structures Team and Recovery Team. In September 2016, I became Chief Recovery for the Stratos III student-built sounding rocket. During this time, I realised that there was a lack of fundamental knowledge in aerodynamic decelerators within DARE.
    [Show full text]
  • Reusable Stage Concepts Design Tool
    DOI: 10.13009/EUCASS2019-421 8TH EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR AERONAUTICS AND AEROSPACE SCIENCES (EUCASS) DOI: ADD DOINUMBER HERE Reusable stage concepts design tool Lars Pepermans?, Barry Zandbergeny ?Delft University of Technology Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft [email protected] yDelft University of Technology Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS Delft Abstract Reusable launch vehicles hold the promise of substantially reducing the cost of access to space. Many different approaches towards realising a reusable rocket exist or are being proposed. This work focuses on the use of an optimisation method for conceptual design of non-winged reusable upper stages, thereby allowing it to take into account landing on land, sea or mid-air retrieval as well as landing the full stage or the engine only. As the optimisation criterion, the ratio of the specific launch cost of the reusable to the expendable version is used. The tool also provides for a Monte Carlo analysis, which allows for investigating the ruggedness of the design solution(s) found. The article will describe the methods implemented in the Conceptual Reusability Design Tool (CRDT) together with the modifications made to ParSim v3, a simulation tool by Delft Aerospace Rocket Engi- neering. Furthermore, it will present the steps taken to verify and validate CRDT. Finally, several example cases are presented based on the Atlas V-Centaur launch vehicle. The cases demonstrate the tools capa- bility of finding optimum and the sensitivity of the found optimum. However, it also shows the optimum when the user disables some Entry Descent and Landing (EDL) options. 1. Introduction To make space more accessible, one can reduce the cost of an orbital launch.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Apollo 15: “The Problem We Brought Back from the Moon”
    Appendix A Apollo 15: “The Problem We Brought Back From the Moon” Postal Covers Carried on Apollo 151 Among the best known collectables from the Apollo Era are the covers flown onboard the Apollo 15 mission in 1971, mainly because of what the mission’s Lunar Module Pilot, Jim Irwin, called “the problem we brought back from the Moon.” [1] The crew of Apollo 15 carried out one of the most complete scientific explorations of the Moon and accomplished several firsts, including the first lunar roving vehicle that was operated on the Moon to extend the range of exploration. Some 81 kilograms (180 pounds) of lunar surface samples were returned for anal- ysis, and a battery of very productive lunar surface and orbital experiments were conducted, including the first EVA in deep space. [2] Yet the Apollo 15 crew are best remembered for carrying envelopes to the Moon, and the mission is remem- bered for the “great postal caper.” [3] As noted in Chapter 7, Apollo 15 was not the first mission to carry covers. Dozens were carried on each flight from Apollo 11 onwards (see Table 1 for the complete list) and, as Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott recalled in his book, the whole business had probably been building since Mercury, through Gemini and into Apollo. [4] People had a fascination with objects that had been carried into space, and that became more and more popular – and valuable – as the programs progressed. Right from the start of the Mercury program, each astronaut had been allowed to carry a certain number of personal items onboard, with NASA’s permission, in 1 A first version of this material was issued as Apollo 15 Cover Scandal in Orbit No.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Mercury Fact Sheet
    NASA Facts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 April 1996 FS-1996-04-29-LaRC ___________________________________________________________________________ Langley’s Role in Project Mercury Project Mercury Thirty-five years ago on May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard was propelled into space aboard the Mercury capsule Freedom 7. His 15-minute suborbital flight was part of Project Mercury, the United States’ first man-in-space program. The objectives of the Mer- cury program, eight unmanned flights and six manned flights from 1961 to 1963, were quite specific: To orbit a manned spacecraft around the Earth, investigate man’s ability to function in space, and to recover both man and spacecraft safely. Project Mercury included the first Earth orbital flight made by an American, John Glenn in February 1962. The five-year program was a modest first step. Shepard’s flight had been overshadowed by Russian Yuri Gagarin’s orbital mission just three weeks earlier. President Kennedy and the Congress were NASA Langley Research Center photo #59-8027 concerned that America catch up with the Soviets. Langley researchers conduct an impact study test of the Seizing the moment created by Shepard’s success, on Mercury capsule in the Back River in Hampton, Va. May 25, 1961, the President made his stirring chal- lenge to the nation –– that the United States commit Langley Research Center, established in 1917 itself to landing a man on the moon and returning as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics him to Earth before the end of the decade. Apollo (NACA) Langley Memorial Aeronautical Labora- was to be a massive undertaking –– the nation’s tory, was the first U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • John F. Kennedy Space Center
    1 . :- /G .. .. '-1 ,.. 1- & 5 .\"T!-! LJ~,.", - -,-,c JOHN F. KENNEDY ', , .,,. ,- r-/ ;7 7,-,- ;\-, - [J'.?:? ,t:!, ;+$, , , , 1-1-,> .irI,,,,r I ! - ? /;i?(. ,7! ; ., -, -?-I ,:-. ... 8 -, , .. '',:I> !r,5, SPACE CENTER , , .>. r-, - -- Tp:c:,r, ,!- ' :u kc - - &te -- - 12rr!2L,D //I, ,Jp - - -- - - _ Lb:, N(, A St~mmaryof MAJOR NASA LAUNCHINGS Eastern Test Range Western Test Range (ETR) (WTR) October 1, 1958 - Septeniber 30, 1968 Historical and Library Services Branch John F. Kennedy Space Center "ational Aeronautics and Space Administration l<ennecly Space Center, Florida October 1968 GP 381 September 30, 1968 (Rev. January 27, 1969) SATCIEN S.I!STC)RY DCCCIivlENT University uf A!;b:,rno Rr=-?rrh Zn~tituta Histcry of Sciecce & Technc;oGy Group ERR4TA SHEET GP 381, "A Strmmary of Major MSA Zaunchings, Eastern Test Range and Western Test Range,'" dated September 30, 1968, was considered to be accurate ag of the date of publication. Hmever, additianal research has brought to light new informetion on the official mission designations for Project Apollo. Therefore, in the interest of accuracy it was believed necessary ta issue revfsed pages, rather than wait until the next complete revision of the publiatlion to correct the errors. Holders of copies of thia brochure ate requested to remove and destroy the existing pages 81, 82, 83, and 84, and insert the attached revised pages 81, 82, 83, 84, 8U, and 84B in theh place. William A. Lackyer, 3r. PROJECT MOLL0 (FLIGHTS AND TESTS) (continued) Launch NASA Name -Date Vehicle -Code Sitelpad Remarks/Results ORBITAL (lnaMANNED) 5 Jul 66 Uprated SA-203 ETR Unmanned flight to test launch vehicle Saturn 1 3 7B second (S-IVB) stage and instrment (IU) , which reflected Saturn V con- figuration.
    [Show full text]