DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Space Missions Using Radioisotope Power Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Space Missions Using Radioisotope Power Systems Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). The length is 44.5 in (113 cm), the diameter is 16.8 in (42.7 cm), and the weight is 124 lb (56.2 kg). (Source: DOE) U.S. space missions using radioisotope power systems BY RICHARD R. FURLONG Twenty-six U.S. space missions have used AND EARL J. WAHLQUIST nuclear power systems to take spacecraft to places HE U.S. DEPARTMENT of Energy and its predecessors have provided nu- scientists otherwise would not be able to study. T clear power systems for use in space for about 38 years. These systems have proven craft on-board power and heating of critical generators that convert heat generated by the to be safe, reliable, maintenance-free, and ca- spacecraft components. natural decay of a radioisotope fuel (plutoni- pable of providing both thermal and electrical um-238) into electricity through the use of power for decades under the harsh environ- Early program history thermoelectric couples. ment experienced in deep space. Radioisotope power systems have been The first two space flights with RTGs were The unique characteristics of these systems providing primary spacecraft power for many the Navy’s Transit 4A and 4B navigational make them especially suited for environments unique space missions since 1961. In the mid- satellites, launched in June and November where large solar arrays are not practical, and 1950s, research was started on ways to use nu- 1961. A 3-watt RTG, which was called Systems at long distances from the Sun. To date, the clear energy to generate electrical power for for Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP-3), was DOE has provided radioisotope power sys- spacecraft. This research resulted in the de- flown on each spacecraft to prove the opera- tems and heater units for use on a total of 26 velopment of radioisotope thermoelectric tional capability of the RTGs in a space envi- missions to provide some or all of the space- generators (RTGs), which are nuclear power ronment. On subsequent flights beginning in 1963, RTGs provided total electrical power for Richard R. Furlong is a Program Manager in the Space and Defense Power Systems Office within the Of- the spacecraft. The DOE and its predecessor fice of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. He is the site Program Manager for heat source fabri- agencies have provided radioisotope power sys- cation activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in Los Alamos, N.M., and is responsible for coordi- tems for missions orbiting Earth, on the Moon, nating DOE’s contingency planning/emergency response activities at the site of radioisotope power systems and other solar system bodies. Five Apollo mis- launches. He previously served as RTG Project Manager for the Cassini program. Earl J. Wahlquist is sions used RTGs to power the Apollo Lunar the Associate Director for Space and Defense Power Systems within the Office of Nuclear Energy, Sci- Surface Experiment Packages. RTGs provided ence and Technology. He directs the design, development, and fabrication of space nuclear power sys- primary electrical power on the Viking landers tems for use by other federal agencies. He has been involved in space and national security nuclear pow- and the Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, and er systems for over 25 years. Cassini spacecraft. These missions have given 26 NUCLEAR NEWS April 1999 scientists throughout the world the opportunity to study and investigate the mysteries of the for- mation of our solar system. Why use RTGs? Nuclear power sources are very important for use in space applications for many reasons: I Long life—Nuclear power is the only pow- er source currently available for spacecraft op- erating in deep space for long missions. Ra- dioisotope power systems provide predictable power levels for mission planners to depend on (RTG power levels reduce about 0.8 per- cent per year based on the decay rate of Pu- 238 fuel). I Environment—Nuclear power sources can operate in extreme environmental conditions, such as the high-radiation belts surrounding Jupiter, extreme temperatures experienced on the moon, and severe dust storms seen on Mars. I Operational independence—RTGs pro- vide power to spacecraft without concern for where the spacecraft is in its orbit or how it is oriented in relation to the sun. An RTG begins to generate electrical power when the ra- dioisotope fuel source is loaded in the con- verter. Therefore, it can be used for spacecraft In 1968, a NIMBUS B-1 weather satellite was destroyed after its launch vehicle malfunctioned a few system checkouts prior to launch and be avail- minutes into its flight from Vandenberg AFB, Calif. The satellite had two SNAP-19B2 RTGs on-board. able to provide power to the spacecraft when The plutonium heat sources from the RTGs were recovered intact after five months in 300 feet of installed on the launch pad. seawater, from the bottom of the Santa Barbara Channel near the California coast. No radioactive fuel I Reliability—RTGs have proven to be the was released. The heat sources were disassembled and repackaged, and the plutonium was used on most reliable power systems ever flown on the next mission. The photo shows the intact heat sources during the underwater recovery operation. U.S. spacecraft. For example, the two Pioneer (Source: JPL) spacecraft operated for more than two decades before being shut down, and NASA is plan- Aiken, S.C.; Oak Ridge National Laboratory dent conditions, including accidents occurring ning on an extended Voyager mission that (ORNL), in Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Los Alamos on or near the launch pad and orbital reentry could last up to 40 years. National Laboratory (LANL), in Los Alam- accidents. The Pu-238 fuel form was changed os, N.M.; the Mound Plant, in Miamisburg, from a metal to a more stable pressed oxide. How RTGs work Ohio; and Sandia National Laboratories, in During the three mission aborts that did oc- RTGs operate on the principle of thermo- Albuquerque, N.M. cur, the RTGs performed as designed. electric generation that converts heat directly The Pu-238 processing facilities at Savan- On April 21, 1964, the Transit 5-BN-3 mis- into electricity. The principle was discovered nah River were used to process the Pu-238 ox- sion was aborted because of a launch vehicle in 1821 by a German scientist, Thomas Jo- ide fuel and package it for shipment to LANL. failure resulting in burnup of the RTG during hann Seebeck. He observed that an electric ORNL was responsible for fabricating iridium reentry, in keeping with the RTG design at the current is produced in a closed circuit when cladding that was used to encapsulate Pu-238 time. This resulted in dispersal of the plutoni- the junctions of two dissimilar metals are fuel pellets. ORNL also fabricated graphite um fuel in the upper atmosphere. Subse- maintained at different temperatures. Such components used in assembling the encapsu- quently, the RTG design was changed to pro- pairs of junctions are called thermoelectric lated fuel pellets into heat sources. At LANL, vide for survival of the fuel modules during couples, or thermocouples. the Pu-238 was processed and pressed into fuel orbital reentry. In the design of the RTGs flown on the pellets. The pellets for the RTG heat sources A second accident occurred when the Nim- Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini missions, heat were encapsulated in iridium cladding provid- bus B-1 launch on May 18, 1968, at Vanden- generated by the natural decay of the Pu-238 ed by ORNL. The encapsulated fuel pellets berg AFB, Calif., was aborted shortly after dioxide fuel is converted to electric power by were shipped from LANL to the Mound Plant launch by a range safety destruct of the vehi- silicon germanium (SiGe) thermoelectric cou- where they were assembled into heat sources. cle. The heat sources were recovered intact in ples or unicouples. A heat source module con- Mound completed the RTG assembly by in- about 300 feet of water off the California coast tains four Pu-238 fuel pellets, each weighing stalling a stack of heat sources into the ther- with no release of plutonium. The fuel cap- 151 g and encapsulated within a vented iridi- moelectric converter built by Lockheed Mar- sules were reworked and the fuel was used in um clad. Eighteen heat source modules pro- tin Astronautics, of Valley Forge, Pa. After a later mission. vide the total thermal inventory for an RTG completion of the RTG assemblies, Mound The third incident occurred in April 1970, with a heat output of about 4400 watts. The personnel conducted final acceptance tests of when the Apollo 13 mission to the moon was thermoelectric converter portion of the RTG the units, and then packaged and shipped them aborted following an oxygen tank explosion consists of 572 thermoelectric unicouples to the launch site where they were installed on in the spacecraft service module. Upon return wired in a two-string, series-parallel electric the Cassini spacecraft. to Earth, the Apollo 13 lunar excursion mod- circuit. This configuration generates about 300 ule with a SNAP-27 RTG on board reentered watts of electrical power at initial fuel loading. RTG safety the atmosphere and broke up above the south Many design improvements have been Pacific Ocean. The graphite reentry cask con- Making RTGs made over the four decades that RTGs have taining the heat source plunged into the ocean A number of DOE facilities, laboratories, flown on space missions. In addition to im- in the vicinity of the Tonga Trench, where the and contractors were used in the development, proving the efficiency of RTGs, the DOE con- ocean depth is five to six miles. Atmospheric fabrication, assembly, and testing of the RTGs ducted extensive safety testing—at Sandia and oceanic monitoring showed no evidence for the Cassini program.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 October 1999 Volume 4, Issue 4
    A publication of The Orbital Debris Program Office NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas 77058 October 1999 Volume 4, Issue 4. NEWS Marshall Researchers Developing Patch Kit to Mitigate ISS Impact Damage Stephen B. Hall, FD23A procedure and developmental status. external patching for several reasons: time KERMIt Lead Engineer constraints, accessibility, work envelope, Marshall Space Flight Center External Repair Rationale collateral damage and EVA suit compatibility. KERMIt, a Kit for External Repair of The decision was made to develop a kit for A primary risk factor in repairing Module Impacts, is now punctured modules is the being developed at the time constraint involved. Marshall Space Flight Even given the relatively Center in Huntsville, Ala. large volume of air within Its purpose: to seal the Space Station upon punctures in the assembly completion, International Space Station analyses have shown that a caused by collisions with 1-inch-diameter hole can meteoroids or space cause pressure to drop to debris. The kit will enable unacceptable levels in just crewmembers to seal one hour. In that timeframe, punctures from outside the crew must conclude a damaged modules that module has been punctured, have lost atmospheric determine its location, pressure. Delivery of the remove obstructions kit for operational use is restricting access, obtain a scheduled for next year. repair kit and seal the leak. This article -- which This action would be a expands on material challenge even if the crew appearing in the July 1999 was not injured and no issue of “Orbital Debris significant subsystem Quarterly” -- discusses the damage had occurred. rationale for an externally applied patch, Astronaut installing toggle bolt in simulated puncture sample plate on Laboratory requirements influencing Module in Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Mission to Jupiter
    This book attempts to convey the creativity, Project A History of the Galileo Jupiter: To Mission The Galileo mission to Jupiter explored leadership, and vision that were necessary for the an exciting new frontier, had a major impact mission’s success. It is a book about dedicated people on planetary science, and provided invaluable and their scientific and engineering achievements. lessons for the design of spacecraft. This The Galileo mission faced many significant problems. mission amassed so many scientific firsts and Some of the most brilliant accomplishments and key discoveries that it can truly be called one of “work-arounds” of the Galileo staff occurred the most impressive feats of exploration of the precisely when these challenges arose. Throughout 20th century. In the words of John Casani, the the mission, engineers and scientists found ways to original project manager of the mission, “Galileo keep the spacecraft operational from a distance of was a way of demonstrating . just what U.S. nearly half a billion miles, enabling one of the most technology was capable of doing.” An engineer impressive voyages of scientific discovery. on the Galileo team expressed more personal * * * * * sentiments when she said, “I had never been a Michael Meltzer is an environmental part of something with such great scope . To scientist who has been writing about science know that the whole world was watching and and technology for nearly 30 years. His books hoping with us that this would work. We were and articles have investigated topics that include doing something for all mankind.” designing solar houses, preventing pollution in When Galileo lifted off from Kennedy electroplating shops, catching salmon with sonar and Space Center on 18 October 1989, it began an radar, and developing a sensor for examining Space interplanetary voyage that took it to Venus, to Michael Meltzer Michael Shuttle engines.
    [Show full text]
  • Planetary Science Division Status Report
    Planetary Science Division Status Report Jim Green NASA, Planetary Science Division January 26, 2017 Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory CommiBee Outline • Planetary Science ObjecFves • Missions and Events Overview • Flight Programs: – Discovery – New FronFers – Mars Programs – Outer Planets • Planetary Defense AcFviFes • R&A Overview • Educaon and Outreach AcFviFes • PSD Budget Overview New Horizons exploresPlanetary Science Pluto and the Kuiper Belt Ascertain the content, origin, and evoluFon of the Solar System and the potenFal for life elsewhere! 01/08/2016 As the highest resolution images continue to beam back from New Horizons, the mission is onto exploring Kuiper Belt Objects with the Long Range Reconnaissance Imager (LORRI) camera from unique viewing angles not visible from Earth. New Horizons is also beginning maneuvers to be able to swing close by a Kuiper Belt Object in the next year. Giant IcebergsObjecve 1.5.1 (water blocks) floatingObjecve 1.5.2 in glaciers of Objecve 1.5.3 Objecve 1.5.4 Objecve 1.5.5 hydrogen, mDemonstrate ethane, and other frozenDemonstrate progress gasses on the Demonstrate Sublimation pitsDemonstrate from the surface ofDemonstrate progress Pluto, potentially surface of Pluto.progress in in exploring and progress in showing a geologicallyprogress in improving active surface.in idenFfying and advancing the observing the objects exploring and understanding of the characterizing objects The Newunderstanding of Horizons missionin the Solar System to and the finding locaons origin and evoluFon in the Solar System explorationhow the chemical of Pluto wereunderstand how they voted the where life could of life on Earth to that pose threats to and physical formed and evolve have existed or guide the search for Earth or offer People’sprocesses in the Choice for Breakthrough of thecould exist today life elsewhere resources for human Year forSolar System 2015 by Science Magazine as exploraon operate, interact well as theand evolve top story of 2015 by Discover Magazine.
    [Show full text]
  • Exomars Schiaparelli Direct-To-Earth Observation Using GMRT
    TECHNICAL ExoMars Schiaparelli Direct-to-Earth Observation REPORTS: METHODS 10.1029/2018RS006707 using GMRT S. Esterhuizen1, S. W. Asmar1 ,K.De2, Y. Gupta3, S. N. Katore3, and B. Ajithkumar3 Key Point: • During ExoMars Landing, GMRT 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 2Cahill Center for Astrophysics, observed UHF transmissions and California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 3National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, Pune, India Doppler shift used to identify key events as only real-time aliveness indicator Abstract During the ExoMars Schiaparelli separation event on 16 October 2016 and Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) events 3 days later, the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) near Pune, India, Correspondence to: S. W. Asmar, was used to directly observe UHF transmissions from the Schiaparelli lander as they arrive at Earth. The [email protected] Doppler shift of the carrier frequency was measured and used as a diagnostic to identify key events during EDL. This signal detection at GMRT was the only real-time aliveness indicator to European Space Agency Citation: mission operations during the critical EDL stage of the mission. Esterhuizen, S., Asmar, S. W., De, K., Gupta, Y., Katore, S. N., & Plain Language Summary When planetary missions, such as landers on the surface of Mars, Ajithkumar, B. (2019). ExoMars undergo critical and risky events, communications to ground controllers is very important as close to real Schiaparelli Direct-to-Earth observation using GMRT. time as possible. The Schiaparelli spacecraft attempted landing in 2016 was supported in an innovative way. Radio Science, 54, 314–325. A large radio telescope on Earth was able to eavesdrop on information being sent from the lander to other https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RS006707 spacecraft in orbit around Mars.
    [Show full text]
  • SATELLITES at WORK Space in the Seventies
    SaLf ILMITRATBONS REPROMhdONkp N BLACK ANd WHiT? SATELLITES AT WORK Space in the Seventies 4 (SPACE IN N72-13 8 6 6 (NASA-EP-8 ) SATELLITES AT WORK THE SEVENTIES) W.R. Corliss (NASA) Jun. 1971 29 p CSCL 22B Unclas Reproduced by G3/31 11470 NATIONAL TECHNICAL u. INFORMATION SERVICE U S Department of Commerce Springfield VA 22151 J National Aeronautics and Space Administration SPACE IN THE SEVENTIES Man has walked on the Moon, made scientific observations there, and brought back to Earth samples of the lunar surface. Unmanned scientific spacecraft have probed for facts about matter, radiation and magnetism in space, and have collected data relating to the Moon, Venus, Mars, the Sun and some of the stars, and reported their findings to ground stations on Earth. Spacecraft have been put into orbit around the Earth as weather observation stations, as communications relay stations for a world-wide telephone and television network, and as aids to navigation. In addition, the space program has accelerated the advance of technology for science and industry, contributing many new ideas, processes and materials. All this took place in the decade of the Sixties. What next? What may be expected of space exploration in the Seventies? NASA has prepared a series of publications and motion pictures to provide a look forward to SPACE IN THE SEVENTIES. The topics covered in this series include: Earth orbital science; planetary exploration; practical applications of satellites; technology utilization; man in space; and aeronautics. SPACE IN THE SEVENTIES presents the planned programs of NASA for the coming decade.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of the Insight Landing Site M. Golombek1, D. Kipp1, N
    Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript InSight Landing Site Paper v9 Rev.docx Click here to view linked References Selection of the InSight Landing Site M. Golombek1, D. Kipp1, N. Warner1,2, I. J. Daubar1, R. Fergason3, R. Kirk3, R. Beyer4, A. Huertas1, S. Piqueux1, N. E. Putzig5, B. A. Campbell6, G. A. Morgan6, C. Charalambous7, W. T. Pike7, K. Gwinner8, F. Calef1, D. Kass1, M. Mischna1, J. Ashley1, C. Bloom1,9, N. Wigton1,10, T. Hare3, C. Schwartz1, H. Gengl1, L. Redmond1,11, M. Trautman1,12, J. Sweeney2, C. Grima11, I. B. Smith5, E. Sklyanskiy1, M. Lisano1, J. Benardino1, S. Smrekar1, P. Lognonné13, W. B. Banerdt1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109 2State University of New York at Geneseo, Department of Geological Sciences, 1 College Circle, Geneseo, NY 14454 3Astrogeology Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001 4Sagan Center at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 5Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302; Now at Planetary Science Institute, Lakewood, CO 80401 6Smithsonian Institution, NASM CEPS, 6th at Independence SW, Washington, DC, 20560 7Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, South Kensington Campus, London 8German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Planetary Research, 12489 Berlin, Germany 9Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA; Now at Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926 10Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 11Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 12MS GIS Program, University of Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave., Redlands, CA 92373-0999 13Institut Physique du Globe de Paris, Paris Cité, Université Paris Sorbonne, France Diderot Submitted to Space Science Reviews, Special InSight Issue v.
    [Show full text]
  • Aerothermodynamic Analysis of a Mars Sample Return Earth-Entry Vehicle" (2018)
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Theses & Dissertations Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Summer 2018 Aerothermodynamic Analysis of a Mars Sample Return Earth- Entry Vehicle Daniel A. Boyd Old Dominion University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/mae_etds Part of the Aerodynamics and Fluid Mechanics Commons, Space Vehicles Commons, and the Thermodynamics Commons Recommended Citation Boyd, Daniel A.. "Aerothermodynamic Analysis of a Mars Sample Return Earth-Entry Vehicle" (2018). Master of Science (MS), Thesis, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/xhmz-ax21 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/mae_etds/43 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AEROTHERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A MARS SAMPLE RETURN EARTH-ENTRY VEHICLE by Daniel A. Boyd B.S. May 2008, Virginia Military Institute M.A. August 2015, Webster University A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE AEROSPACE ENGINEERING OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2018 Approved by: __________________________ Robert L. Ash (Director) __________________________ Oktay Baysal (Member) __________________________ Jamshid A. Samareh (Member) __________________________ Shizhi Qian (Member) ABSTRACT AEROTHERMODYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF A MARS SAMPLE RETURN EARTH-ENTRY VEHICLE Daniel A. Boyd Old Dominion University, 2018 Director: Dr. Robert L. Ash Because of the severe quarantine constraints that must be imposed on any returned extraterrestrial samples, the Mars sample return Earth-entry vehicle must remain intact through sample recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • JUICE Red Book
    ESA/SRE(2014)1 September 2014 JUICE JUpiter ICy moons Explorer Exploring the emergence of habitable worlds around gas giants Definition Study Report European Space Agency 1 This page left intentionally blank 2 Mission Description Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer Key science goals The emergence of habitable worlds around gas giants Characterise Ganymede, Europa and Callisto as planetary objects and potential habitats Explore the Jupiter system as an archetype for gas giants Payload Ten instruments Laser Altimeter Radio Science Experiment Ice Penetrating Radar Visible-Infrared Hyperspectral Imaging Spectrometer Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrograph Imaging System Magnetometer Particle Package Submillimetre Wave Instrument Radio and Plasma Wave Instrument Overall mission profile 06/2022 - Launch by Ariane-5 ECA + EVEE Cruise 01/2030 - Jupiter orbit insertion Jupiter tour Transfer to Callisto (11 months) Europa phase: 2 Europa and 3 Callisto flybys (1 month) Jupiter High Latitude Phase: 9 Callisto flybys (9 months) Transfer to Ganymede (11 months) 09/2032 – Ganymede orbit insertion Ganymede tour Elliptical and high altitude circular phases (5 months) Low altitude (500 km) circular orbit (4 months) 06/2033 – End of nominal mission Spacecraft 3-axis stabilised Power: solar panels: ~900 W HGA: ~3 m, body fixed X and Ka bands Downlink ≥ 1.4 Gbit/day High Δv capability (2700 m/s) Radiation tolerance: 50 krad at equipment level Dry mass: ~1800 kg Ground TM stations ESTRAC network Key mission drivers Radiation tolerance and technology Power budget and solar arrays challenges Mass budget Responsibilities ESA: manufacturing, launch, operations of the spacecraft and data archiving PI Teams: science payload provision, operations, and data analysis 3 Foreword The JUICE (JUpiter ICy moon Explorer) mission, selected by ESA in May 2012 to be the first large mission within the Cosmic Vision Program 2015–2025, will provide the most comprehensive exploration to date of the Jovian system in all its complexity, with particular emphasis on Ganymede as a planetary body and potential habitat.
    [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]
  • Breakthrough Propulsion Study Assessing Interstellar Flight Challenges and Prospects
    Breakthrough Propulsion Study Assessing Interstellar Flight Challenges and Prospects NASA Grant No. NNX17AE81G First Year Report Prepared by: Marc G. Millis, Jeff Greason, Rhonda Stevenson Tau Zero Foundation Business Office: 1053 East Third Avenue Broomfield, CO 80020 Prepared for: NASA Headquarters, Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) and NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Washington, DC 20546 June 2018 Millis 2018 Grant NNX17AE81G_for_CR.docx pg 1 of 69 ABSTRACT Progress toward developing an evaluation process for interstellar propulsion and power options is described. The goal is to contrast the challenges, mission choices, and emerging prospects for propulsion and power, to identify which prospects might be more advantageous and under what circumstances, and to identify which technology details might have greater impacts. Unlike prior studies, the infrastructure expenses and prospects for breakthrough advances are included. This first year's focus is on determining the key questions to enable the analysis. Accordingly, a work breakdown structure to organize the information and associated list of variables is offered. A flow diagram of the basic analysis is presented, as well as more detailed methods to convert the performance measures of disparate propulsion methods into common measures of energy, mass, time, and power. Other methods for equitable comparisons include evaluating the prospects under the same assumptions of payload, mission trajectory, and available energy. Missions are divided into three eras of readiness (precursors, era of infrastructure, and era of breakthroughs) as a first step before proceeding to include comparisons of technology advancement rates. Final evaluation "figures of merit" are offered. Preliminary lists of mission architectures and propulsion prospects are provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Venus Missions
    Appendix 1: Venus Missions Sputnik 7 (USSR) Launch 02/04/1961 First attempted Venus atmosphere craft; upper stage failed to leave Earth orbit Venera 1 (USSR) Launch 02/12/1961 First attempted flyby; contact lost en route Mariner 1 (US) Launch 07/22/1961 Attempted flyby; launch failure Sputnik 19 (USSR) Launch 08/25/1962 Attempted flyby, stranded in Earth orbit Mariner 2 (US) Launch 08/27/1962 First successful Venus flyby Sputnik 20 (USSR) Launch 09/01/1962 Attempted flyby, upper stage failure Sputnik 21 (USSR) Launch 09/12/1962 Attempted flyby, upper stage failure Cosmos 21 (USSR) Launch 11/11/1963 Possible Venera engineering test flight or attempted flyby Venera 1964A (USSR) Launch 02/19/1964 Attempted flyby, launch failure Venera 1964B (USSR) Launch 03/01/1964 Attempted flyby, launch failure Cosmos 27 (USSR) Launch 03/27/1964 Attempted flyby, upper stage failure Zond 1 (USSR) Launch 04/02/1964 Venus flyby, contact lost May 14; flyby July 14 Venera 2 (USSR) Launch 11/12/1965 Venus flyby, contact lost en route Venera 3 (USSR) Launch 11/16/1965 Venus lander, contact lost en route, first Venus impact March 1, 1966 Cosmos 96 (USSR) Launch 11/23/1965 Possible attempted landing, craft fragmented in Earth orbit Venera 1965A (USSR) Launch 11/23/1965 Flyby attempt (launch failure) Venera 4 (USSR) Launch 06/12/1967 Successful atmospheric probe, arrived at Venus 10/18/1967 Mariner 5 (US) Launch 06/14/1967 Successful flyby 10/19/1967 Cosmos 167 (USSR) Launch 06/17/1967 Attempted atmospheric probe, stranded in Earth orbit Venera 5 (USSR) Launch 01/05/1969 Returned atmospheric data for 53 min on 05/16/1969 M.
    [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]