DOCSLIB.ORG

Toward Leaner Launchers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toward Leaner Launchers US space launches take too long and cost too much. USAF is working with NASA and industry to fix the problem. Toward Leaner Launchers By Suzann Chapman, Associate Editor I N 1982, the US had ninety percent II of the world's space-launch mar- ket, but by 1992 that figure had dropped to thirty percent as the Euro- pean Space Agency's Arianespace be- gan to take hold in the global market- place. Other countries also offered "economy" launches of their own. As part of the drive to Cost and efficiency were the driv- improve space-launch ing factors in this realignment. Ariane- operations. USAF and industry have reduced space provided launches at far lower time on the pad for cost and with a reduced cycle time medium-lift boosters, and fewer employees. The US launch such as this Atlas II, industry, with origins in 1950s-era launched from Cape intercontinental ballistic missile sys- Canaveral AS, Fla., in tems, featured long delays and man- December 1995. power-intensive operations, leading to high cost and unhappy customers. The Defense Department's 1994 Space-Launch Modernization Plan criticized the delays and lack of re- sponsiveness, noting the impact on DoD and commercial customers. That same year, Air Force Secretary Sheila E. Widnall announced a drive for more routine and affordable space- launch operations. The effort seems to be paying off for the Air Force. For one thing, USAF and the aerospace industry have managed to drive down the costs and cut the processing times on AIR FORCE Magazine/July 1996 73 today's launch systems. Some cycle Launcher Processing Times (Days) times have been slashed by more than fifty percent. In addition, they are optimistic From receipt Time on pad about the success of the latest effort to produce a new expendable launch vehicle (ELV), saying that the pro- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 gram will pay for itself by 2010. Moreover, they said that the product 1989-92 30 /40 of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program will help 1993-96 45 / 25 revive the US commercial launch business. 1990-94 I The Defense Department expects 2 / 87 that the EELV program will mark 1995-96 I the first serious modernization of 2 / 42 the nation' s launch vehicles and lead to reduced costs. However, until the 1988-94 60 / 90 EELV medium- and heavy-lift ver- sions come on line, the Air Force 1995-96 75 / 39 must continue to use its older ICBM- based booster force. 1989-95 116 / 108 Improving Medium, Heavy Lift 1996 37 / 128 The Air Force and industry are, in at CCAS fact, streamlining and improving 1989-95 134 / 155 operation of today' s fleet, said Col. Tommy Brazie, head of the Space 1996 0 / 155 and Missile Systems Center' s Launch at VAFB Programs System Program Office (SPO). He said that SMSC is "driv- ing with our [Air Force] Space Com- mand partners to normalize [launch] launch arena. Likewise, DoD' s At- only the 155 needed on the pad. Colo- operations." las Reliability Enhancement Program nel Brazie noted that the difference in The emphasis has been on reduc- has produced valuable advances that processing times between the two ing time on the pad for the USAF have been transferred to the com- facilities is primarily a result of medium-lift boosters—Delta II, Ti- mercial sector. Vandenberg' s use of a pad originally tan II, and Atlas II. The Air Force The Titan IV is the nation' s only designed to launch space shuttles. has improved efficiency and reduced heavy-lift ELV. It bucks the general For the Titan IV, even more than cost by conducting more of its ve- proposition that the less time on the for medium-lift vehicles, process- hicle processing at the contractor pad the better. Colonel Brazie said ing times vary greatly depending on plant and launch facility before plac- that performing tests off the pad and the complexity of the payload or the ing the booster on the pad—so-called then repeating the same tests on the particular satellite being launched. "clean vehicle" processing. pad was neither necessary nor cost- The fact that current ELVs are This change is illustrated in the effective. "We chose to eliminate tailored to meet specific payload re- chart above right. Time on the pad the off-pad testing instead of on-pad quirements, rather than employing a for Delta II boosters has dropped from [testing], so we could test the ve- standard payload interface, adds to forty days in 1989 to twenty-five in hicle in the stacked and ready-to-go cost and creates processing delays. 1993. In 1988, Titan II processing configuration," he said. Maj. Gen. David L. Vesely, com- took 150 days—sixty at the facility Titan IV has different processing mander of Air Force Space Com- and ninety on the pad. That total has requirements, which depend on its mand's 14th Air Force, oversees been cut by thirty-six days. Atlas II launch location—Cape Canaveral launch operations on both coasts. has shown even greater improvements, AS, Fla., or Vandenberg AFB, Calif. He likened the current process to shaving forty-five days from its over- (See chart above.) changing the engines on a cargo all processing time, all from on-pad Historically, preparation for Ti- aircraft each time it' s loaded or un- time. Colonel Brazie projects that on- tan IV launches at the Cape took an loaded. The General noted that, with pad processing for Atlas II will fall average of 224 days-116 at the fa- the new EELV, satellites should have by another seven days this year. cility and 108 on the pad. Now, pro- a standard interface with the booster, The Colonel noted that other effi- cessing takes 165 days, a reduction "like putting [cargo] pallets on an ciencies and savings have come from of 26.3 percent in overall cycle time. airlifter." the synergy among DoD, NASA, and At Vandenberg, processing histori- Some standardization for payloads industry. The Atlas and Delta pro- cally has averaged 289 days, with is already in the works for the latest grams in particular have benefited 155 spent on the pad. Today, that version of the Titan heavy-lift boost- from advances in the commercial time has been cut 134 days, down to er. The Titan IVB will employ mis- 74 AIR FORCE Magazine/ July 1996 sion-unique kits, providing a stan- Recent Launches dard interface for payloads to permit launch-site processing. The configuration will be the same DoD NASA Commercial as for the Titan IVA from the bottom of the rocket to the top of the pay- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 load interface skirt. From there up, the Titan IVB will be able to be 1991 customized on the pad. "Should we have to swap payloads, 1992 there is reduced schedule impact— we save three months and have re- 1993 duced cost—about $5 million per vehicle," said Colonel Brazie. 1994 He said that other improvements 1995 to the B model include "heroic" measures, such as changing the en- 1991 tire electrical system on the booster core. The new system, which is sim- 1992 pler and more easily checked out, 1993 uses up-to-date commercial parts and should "drastically reduce process- 1994 ing times." A new ground system also uses commercial software and 1995 hardware instead of the "hodge- 1991 podge" system of the A model. The Colonel said the new ground system 1992 provides better data earlier, adding that it is much easier and less expen- 1993 sive to maintain. The Titan IVB will have twenty- 1994 five percent increased performance 1995 from its upgraded solid rocket mo- tors. The new SRMs will feature three 1991 segments instead of the current seven- segment version and will be checked 1992 out before they are mated to the core, 1993 not on the pad. USAF plans to launch the first 1994 Titan IVB from Cape Canaveral in Fiscal 1997 and from Vandenberg in 1995 Fiscal 1999. Colonel Brazie said the Air Force and Lockheed Martin, the prime con- tractor for Titan IV, continue to seek commercial access to Atlas and Delta vamp the space-launch scheduling further improvements. Telemetry and launchpads on a "noninterference" process, to establish quarterly launch data lines now run from the launch basis. reviews, and to strictly adhere to facility to Denver. The technicians Traditionally, military launches have launch windows. can work from home, saving travel outnumbered commercial launches. In "There's no quick fix, but we're costs and allowing them to be more 1994, the split changed to fifty-fifty, seeing results with our standardiza- productive if weather delays occur, and in 1995, commercial launches sur- tion efforts," he said. he continued. passed military launches. The number Another streamlining move was of commercial and civil launches is creation of Colonel Brazie' s launch- New SPO, New Thinking projected to exceed the number of program SPO. The new SPO brings In 1995, the Air Force began a military launches for the next few years. current launch vehicles under one concerted effort to reduce the cost of The Air Force has also been up- management. The Air Force expects spacelift. Secretary Widnall said the grading its launch facility infrastruc- the new launch SPO to reduce over- Air Force has "officially ended the ture under the Range Standardization head costs and foster synergy among study phase of improving our space- and Automation program. AFSPC has launch programs. launch situation, and we're aggres- invested heavily and plans to con- Colonel Brazie said he plans to sively pursuing the action phase." tinue to do so for a few more years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Atlas Launch System Mission Planner's Guide, Atlas V Addendum
    ATLAS Atlas Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide, Atlas V Addendum FOREWORD This Atlas V Addendum supplements the current version of the Atlas Launch System Mission Plan- ner’s Guide (AMPG) and presents the initial vehicle capabilities for the newly available Atlas V launch system. Atlas V’s multiple vehicle configurations and performance levels can provide the optimum match for a range of customer requirements at the lowest cost. The performance data are presented in sufficient detail for preliminary assessment of the Atlas V vehicle family for your missions. This guide, in combination with the AMPG, includes essential technical and programmatic data for preliminary mission planning and spacecraft design. Interface data are in sufficient detail to assess a first-order compatibility. This guide contains current information on Lockheed Martin’s plans for Atlas V launch services. It is subject to change as Atlas V development progresses, and will be revised peri- odically. Potential users of Atlas V launch service are encouraged to contact the offices listed below to obtain the latest technical and program status information for the Atlas V development. For technical and business development inquiries, contact: COMMERCIAL BUSINESS U.S. GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES BUSINESS INQUIRIES Telephone: (691) 645-6400 Telephone: (303) 977-5250 Fax: (619) 645-6500 Fax: (303) 971-2472 Postal Address: Postal Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. P.O. Box 124670 P.O. Box 179 San Diego, CA 92112-4670 Denver, CO 80201 Street Address: Street Address: International Launch Services, Inc. Commercial Launch Services, Inc. 101 West Broadway P.O. Box 179 Suite 2000 MS DC1400 San Diego, CA 92101 12999 Deer Creek Canyon Road Littleton, CO 80127-5146 A current version of this document can be found, in electronic form, on the Internet at: http://www.ilslaunch.com ii ATLAS LAUNCH SYSTEM MISSION PLANNER’S GUIDE ATLAS V ADDENDUM (AVMPG) REVISIONS Revision Date Rev No.
    [Show full text]
  • Launch Options for the Future: a Buyer's Guide (Part 7 Of
    — Chapter 3 Enhanced Baseline CONTENTS , Page Improving the Shuttle . 27 Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRMs) . 27 Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRBs) . 28 Lighter Tanks . 29 Improving Shuttle Ground Operations . 29 Improving Existing ELVs . 29 Delta . 30 Atlas-Centaur . ● ● . .* . 30 Titan . ● . ✎ ✎ . 30 Capability . ✎ . ✎ ✎ . ● ✎ ✎ . 30 Table 3-1. Theoretical Lift Capability of Enhanced U.S. Launch Systems. 31 Chapter 3 Enhanced Baseline The ENHANCED BASELINE option is the U.S. Government’s “Best Buy” if . it desires a space program with current or slightly greater levels of activity. By making in- cremental improvements to existing launch vehicles, production and launch facilities, the U.S. could increase its launch capacity to about 1.4 million pounds per year to LEO. The investment required would be low compared to building new vehicles; however, the ade- quacy of the resulting fleet resiliency and dependability is uncertain. This option would not provide the low launch costs (e.g. 10 percent of current costs) sought for SDI deploy- ment or an aggressive civilian space initiative, like a piloted mission to Mars, IMPROVING THE SHUTTLE The Shuttle, though a remarkable tech- . reducing the number of factory joints and nological achievement, never achieved its in- the number of parts, tended payload capacity and recent safety . designing the ASRMs so that the Space modifications have further degraded its per- Shuttle Main Engines no longer need to formance by approximately 4,800 pounds. be throttled during the region of maxi- Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRMs) or mum dynamic pressure, Liquid Rocket Boosters (LRBs) have the potential to restore some of this perfor- ● replacing asbestos-bearing materials, mance; studies on both are underway.
    [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]
  • Launch Options for the Future: a Buyer's Guide
    Launch Options for the Future: A Buyer's Guide July 1988 NTIS order #PB89-114268 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Launch Options for the Future: Buyer’s Guide, OTA-ISC-383 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1988). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600540 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword Adequate, reliable space transportation is the key to this Nation’s future in space. Over the next several years, Congress must make critical decisions regarding the direction and funding of U.S. space transportation systems. These decisions include improving existing launch sys- tems, designing and procuring new launch systems, and developing advanced technologies. America’s constrained budgetary environment and the lack of a national consensus about the future of the U.S. space program make Congress’s role in this process more difficult and im- portant than ever. In order to decide which paths to take in space transportation, Congress must first decide what it wants to do in space and what it can afford. A space transportation system designed to meet current needs would be woefully inadequate to support a piloted mission to the planet Mars or to deploy ballistic missile defenses. Accordingly, this special report, which is part of a broader assessment of space transportation requested by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporta- tion, takes the form of a “buyer’s guide” to space transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Titan Iv Requirements
    OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TITAN IV REQUIREMENTS Report No. 94-089 April 21, 1994 Department of Defense Additional Copies To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit, Audit Planning and Technical Support Directorate, at (703) 614-6303 (DSN 224-6303) or FAX (703) 614-8542. Suggestions for Future Audits To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Planning and Coordination Branch, Audit Planning and Technical Support Directorate, at (703) 614-1868 (DSN 224-1868) or FAX (703) 614-8542. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: Inspector General, Department of Defense OAIG-AUD (ATTN: APTS Audit Suggestions) 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, Virginia 22202-2884 DoD Hotline To report fraud, waste, or abuse, call the DoD Hotline at (800) 424-9098 (DSN 223-5080) or write to the DoD Hotline, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 20301-1900. The identity of writers and callers is fully protected. Acronyms FYDP Future Years Defense Program IV&V Independent Verification and Validation OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense RFP Request for Proposal SLAG Space Launch Advisory Group SPO System Program Office SRM Solid Rocket Motor SRMU Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-2884 April 21, 1994 MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER) SUBJECT: Audit Report on Titan IV Requirements (Report No. 94-089) We are providing this audit report for your review and comments. It discusses requirements for the Titan IV expendable launch vehicle and for independent validation and verification of critical computer resources.
    [Show full text]
  • The 6555Th Table of Contents
    The 6555th Table of Contents The 6555th Missile and Space Launches Through 1970 by Mark C. Cleary 45th Space Wing History Office Table of Contents Preface Chapter I - Foundations of the 6555th: The Post War Legacy Section 1 - Post-War legacy Through 1949 Section 2 - Activities at Holloman, Eglin and Patrick AFB, 1950-1951 Chapter II - MATADOR and the Era of Winged Missiles Section 1 - MATADOR Operations Through 1954 Section 2 - MATADOR and MACE Operations 1955-1963 Section 3 - LARK, BOMARC and SNARK Operations Section 4 - The NAVAHO Program The 6555th Table of Contents Chapter III - The 6555th's Role in the Development of Ballistic Missiles Section 1 - Ballistic Missile Test Organizations and Commanders Section 2 - The Eastern Test Range in the 1950's Section 3 - Ballistic Missile Test Objectives Section 4 - The THOR Ballistic Missile Program Section 5 - The ATLAS Ballistic Missile Program Section 6 - The TITAN Ballistic Missile Program Section 7 - Organization, Resources and Activities in the 1960's Section 8 - The MINUTEMAN Ballistic Missile Development Program Chapter IV - Taking the High Ground: The 6555th's Role in Space Through 1970 Section 1 - U. S. Military Space Efforts Through 1960 Section 2 - ATLAS, THOR and BLUE SCOUT Space Operations Section 3 - The TITAN II/GEMINI Program Section 4 - The TITAN III Program Section 5 - Organizational Changes 1965-1970 Preface (1st Edition, November 1991) When I assumed the duties of Chief, ESMC History Office in January 1986, I was completely unaware of the 6555th's contributions to America's missile and space efforts in the 1950s and 1960s. Like most Americans -- indeed, like most people the world over -- I assumed that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration dominated most aspects of the United States space effort after 1958.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Summary Assurance in Lieu of the Requirement for the Launch Service Provider Apollo Spacecraft to the Moon
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Launch Services Program he Launch Services Program was established for mission success. at Kennedy Space Center for NASA’s acquisi- The principal objectives are to provide safe, reli- tion and program management of Expendable able, cost-effective and on-schedule processing, mission TLaunch Vehicle (ELV) missions. A skillful NASA/ analysis, and spacecraft integration and launch services contractor team is in place to meet the mission of the for NASA and NASA-sponsored payloads needing a Launch Services Program, which exists to provide mission on ELVs. leadership, expertise and cost-effective services in the The Launch Services Program is responsible for commercial arena to satisfy Agencywide space trans- NASA oversight of launch operations and countdown portation requirements and maximize the opportunity management, providing added quality and mission information summary assurance in lieu of the requirement for the launch service provider Apollo spacecraft to the Moon. to obtain a commercial launch license. The powerful Titan/Centaur combination carried large and Primary launch sites are Cape Canaveral Air Force Station complex robotic scientific explorers, such as the Vikings and Voyag- (CCAFS) in Florida, and Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) in ers, to examine other planets in the 1970s. Among other missions, California. the Atlas/Agena vehicle sent several spacecraft to photograph and Other launch locations are NASA’s Wallops Island flight facil- then impact the Moon. Atlas/Centaur vehicles launched many of ity in Virginia, the North Pacific’s Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the larger spacecraft into Earth orbit and beyond. the Marshall Islands, and Kodiak Island in Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Up from Kitty Hawk Chronology
    airforcemag.com Up From Kitty Hawk Chronology AIR FORCE Magazine's Aerospace Chronology Up From Kitty Hawk PART ONE PART TWO 1903-1979 1980-present 1 airforcemag.com Up From Kitty Hawk Chronology Up From Kitty Hawk 1980-1989 F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters, first flight June 1981. Articles noted throughout the chronology are hyperlinked to the online archive for Air Force Magazine and the Daily Report. 1980 March 12-14, 1980. Two B-52 crews fly nonstop around the world in 43.5 hours, covering 21,256 statute miles, averaging 488 mph, and carrying out sea surveillance/reconnaissance missions. April 24, 1980. In the middle of an attempt to rescue US citizens held hostage in Iran, mechanical difficulties force several Navy RH-53 helicopter crews to turn back. Later, one of the RH-53s collides with an Air Force HC-130 in a sandstorm at the Desert One refueling site. Eight US servicemen are killed. Desert One May 18-June 5, 1980. Following the eruption of Mount Saint Helens in northwest Washington State, the Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service, Military Airlift Command, and the 9th Strategic Reconnaissance Wing conduct humanitarian-relief efforts: Helicopter crews lift 61 people to safety, while SR–71 airplanes conduct aerial photographic reconnaissance. May 28, 1980. The Air Force Academy graduates its first female cadets. Ninety-seven women are commissioned as second lieutenants. Lt. Kathleen Conly graduates eighth in her class. Aug. 22, 1980. The Department of Defense reveals existence of stealth technology that “enables the United States to build manned and unmanned aircraft that cannot be successfully intercepted with existing air defense systems.” Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2)
    NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration February 1990 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2) (_AgA-i'M-I02993) ORAF[ _-NVTRr_NM_TAL I-MPACT Nq0-]4777 STATEMEf'!T FDR THt ULYsSeS MTSSIqN (TIER 2) (NASA) 1_7 p C_EL. ]3? Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Ulysses Mission (Tier 2) Office of Space Science and Applications Solar System Exploration Division Washington, DC 20546 February 1990 Copies of this document can be obtained from: NeUonel Technical Information Service (NTIS) 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Phone: (703) 487-4650 For Rush Orders: (703) 4874700 Request the document as: N90-14727 ABSTRACT LEAD AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546 COOPERATING AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Dudley G. McConnell NASA Headquarters Code EL Washington, DC 20546 (202) 453-1587 DATE: February 1990 This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the environmental impacts which may be caused by the implementation of a space flight mission to observe the polar regions of the Sun. The proposed action is completing the preparation and operation of the Ulysses spacecraft, including its planned launch on the Space Transportation System (STS) Shuttle in October 1990 or in the backup opportunity in November 1991, and the alternative of canceling further work on the mission. The Tier I EIS (NASA 1988a) included a delay alternative which considered the Titan IV launch vehicle as an alternative booster stage for launch in 1991 or later. However, in November 1988, the U.S. Air Force, which procures the Titan IV, notified the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that it could not provide a Titan IV vehicle for the 1991 launch opportunity because of high priority Department of Defense requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    THE CAPE Military Space Operations 1971-1992 by Mark C. Cleary 45th Space Wing History Office Table of Contents Preface Chapter I -USAF Space Organizations and Programs Table of Contents Section 1 - Air Force Systems Command and Subordinate Space Agencies at Cape Canaveral Section 2 - The Creation of Air Force Space Command and Transfer of Air Force Space Resources Section 3 - Defense Department Involvement in the Space Shuttle Section 4 - Air Force Space Launch Vehicles: SCOUT, THOR, ATLAS and TITAN Section 5 - Early Space Shuttle Flights Section 6 - Origins of the TITAN IV Program Section 7 - Development of the ATLAS II and DELTA II Launch Vehicles and the TITAN IV/CENTAUR Upper Stage Section 8 - Space Shuttle Support of Military Payloads Section 9 - U.S. and Soviet Military Space Competition in the 1970s and 1980s Chapter II - TITAN and Shuttle Military Space Operations Section 1 - 6555th Aerospace Test Group Responsibilities Section 2 - Launch Squadron Supervision of Military Space Operations in the 1990s Section 3 - TITAN IV Launch Contractors and Eastern Range Support Contractors Section 4 - Quality Assurance and Payload Processing Agencies Section 5 - TITAN IIIC Military Space Missions after 1970 Section 6 - TITAN 34D Military Space Operations and Facilities at the Cape Section 7 - TITAN IV Program Activation and Completion of the TITAN 34D Program Section 8 - TITAN IV Operations after First Launch Section 9 - Space Shuttle Military Missions Chapter III - Medium and Light Military Space Operations Section 1 - Medium Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations Section 2 - Evolution of the NAVSTAR Global Positioning System and Development of the DELTA II Section 3 - DELTA II Processing and Flight Features Section 4 - NAVSTAR II Global Positioning System Missions Section 5 - Strategic Defense Initiative Missions and the NATO IVA Mission Section 6 - ATLAS/CENTAUR Missions at the Cape Section 7 - Modification of Cape Facilities for ATLAS II/CENTAUR Operations Section 8 - ATLAS II/CENTAUR Missions Section 9 - STARBIRD and RED TIGRESS Operations Section 10 - U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Small Payload Interface – an Assessment of US Piggyback Launch Capability
    SSC00-XI-3 Universal Small Payload Interface – An Assessment of US Piggyback Launch Capability Shahed Aziz AeroAstro, Inc. 327 A Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02210 (617) 451-8630 [email protected] Paul Gloyer AeroAstro, Inc. Bldg 8201, Room 209 Stennis Space Center, MS 39529 (228) 688-2790 [email protected] Joel Pedlikin AeroAstro, Inc. 327 A Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02210 (617) 451-8630 [email protected] Kimberly Kohlhepp AeroAstro, Inc. 327 A Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02210 (617) 451-8630 [email protected] Abstract. Small satellites are becoming the solution of choice for planners trying to reduce space mission costs and shorten schedules. Secondary launches are a quick, frequent, low-cost, reliable solution for small satellites. Most international small spacecraft are launched as secondary piggyback payloads, aboard larger more efficient rockets. However, piggyback accommodations in the US are rare, done only on a case-by-case basis, and far from low cost. AeroAstro is presently developing the Universal Small Payload Interface (USPI), a standardized template for integrating and launching small spacecraft. It is designed so that mission developers can design to its requirements in order to be compatible on demand with a number of different secondary launch vehicle slots. The ‘Phase A’ USPI, based exclusively on existing secondary opportunities, will be complete by August 2000. Phases B and C, based on potential modifications of existing launch vehicles, will be complete by the end of the year. Missions will be quickly designed to a common interface standard, decreasing their dependence on a specific launch. When the spacecraft is ready, the next USPI launch available will be used, bringing ‘launch on-demand’ closer to reality.
    [Show full text]
  • In Better Times, Martin Marietta Titan 340 Ex- Pendable Launch Vehi- Cle (ELV) Lifts Off with Spacebound Military Payload
    In better times, Martin Marietta Titan 340 Ex- pendable Launch Vehi- cle (ELV) lifts off with spacebound military payload. Successive Titan 340 failures bracketed the destruc- tion of Space Shuttle Challenger. putting USAF's space-launch program on hold last year. Things are looking up, now that Air Force Systems Command's Space Division has con- ducted its Titan 340 in- spection and recovery program and has put into effect its compre- hensive space-launch recovery plan. leading to a better mix of booster rockets to augment the Shuttles in assuring fu- ture US access to space. Mr HE US space program is begin- Vital military pay- ning to lose the snakebitten look loads are still on the it took on last year amid a shocking succession of accidents befalling ground, but USAF is Space Shuttle Challenger and three unmanned launch vehicles. rebuilding its launch The program still has a long, long capability to be way to go in fully recovering from the impact of those accidents. They stronger and more left the Air Force incapable of versatile than that of launching growing numbers of satel- lites vital to national security. the pre-Challenger This sobering—even scary— state of affairs will persist into next era. year and will not be much alleviated for another year or so after that. Shuttle Orbiters will not fly again until February 1988, at the earliest. The first of the big Titan IV Comple- mentary Expendable Launch Vehi- cles (CELVs) now being developed to carry outsized payloads high into Coming space will not be ready for launch until early 1989.
    [Show full text]