DOCSLIB.ORG

Current Launch System Industrial Base

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Current Launch System Industrial Base Current Launch System Industrial Base Ray F. Johnson Vice President Space Launch Operations Space Systems Group The Aerospace Corporation October 19, 2011 © The Aerospace Corporation 2011 Agenda • EELV Launch Systems and Industrial Base • Rocket Propulsion Industrial Base 2 Atlas V Evolution GTO Capability (klbs) Atlas II/III Family Atlas V Family 30 Stretched 5.4 m 5.4 m Payload Payload 25 Fairing Fairing 3.3m/4.2m Payload Fairing (PLF) Dual Engine 20 Centaur Single Common Avionics (DEC) Engine Centaur Upgrades (RL10A-4-1) Centaur RL10A-4-2 GSO Kits (SEC) 3.1m 3.8m 15 Interstage Common Assembly Core (ISA) Booster BoosterTM Core LOX (CCB) 3.1m Stretch Booster Core 10 (MA-5A Solid Booster & Rocket Sustainer CCB Boosters Engines) SRBs Liquid (SRBs) RD-180 Rocket 5 Engine Boosters Atlas V Atlas V Atlas V (4XX Series) (5XX Series) Atlas V Atlas IIA Atlas IIAS Atlas IIIA Atlas IIIB (401) (1-3 SRBs) (0-5 SRBs) (Heavy) IOC 6/92 12/93 5/00 2/02 8/02 7/03 3 Delta IV Evolution GTO Delta II/III Family Delta IV Family Capability (klbs) Stretched 4m Stretched Payload 5.1m 30 5.1m Fairing Payload Fairing Payload Fairing 2.9m/3m 25 Payload Fairing (PLF) Delta III 4m Upper Upper STAR 48/37FM Payload Stage Stage SRM Fairing Widened & Third Stage Stretched Stretched 20 Hyper Engine Second Stage Cryo (AJ10-118K ) Second 2.4m Stage 5.1m Interstage RL10B-2 15 Common 2.4m Booster Booster Core Core (RS-27A (CBC) Booster 10 Engine) CBC Liquid Castor IVA GEM 46 GEM 60 GEM 40 Rocket Solid Rocket (SRBs) (SRBs) (SRBs) Boosters Boosters CBC 5 RS-68 Engine Delta IV Delta IV Delta II Delta II Delta III Delta IV (Med+ 4 series) (Med+ 5 series) Delta IV (69XX) (79XX) (89XX) (Med) (2 SRBs) (2 or 4 SRBS) (Heavy) IOC 2/89 11/90 8/98 3/03 11/02 7/04 4 EELV Industrial Base • As EELV’s anchor tenant, NSS must provide a steady production rate, decoupled from launch manifest, to establish a healthy industrial base – Launch industrial base is shrinking due to decreased market; exacerbated by current USG buying practices • Solution: steady production rate provides long-term, focused, and well- defined commitment to industry – Removes uncertainty from program and retains capacity – Preserves capability for next generation space launch 5 EELV Industrial Base (Cont’d) • Rate is the key factor that keeps prime and sub production from going dark, increasing costs/risks – Detailed analysis with ULA, PWR, ATK, Aerojet – Restart / recertification cost and effort significant • Keystone of new EELV approach is annual minimum production rate of 8 cores – 4 Atlas, 4 Delta -- 5 USAF / 3 NRO / year commitment • Steady production achieved through Block Buys – “Block” = Annual Production Rate X Defined Duration Production Rate Commitment Critical To Industrial Base Health and EELV Program Stability 6 U.S. Rocket Engine Development 1945-2010 • Today, there are no new engine development programs in the U.S. 20 19 Post Space Space 18 Race EELV Ares WWII Shuttle 17 Dev. & COTS 16 15 EnginesNewNumberof inDevelopment Development 14 Period 13 12 11 10 9 EngineSystem 8 # of New 7 Engines 6 5 4 3 2 1 Year 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Reprinted with permission of CPIAC 7 U.S. Rocket Propulsion Industry Evolution • Since 1941, more than a dozen U.S. companies had been involved in rocket propulsion business • Only a few major U.S. companies are active today, however various new commercial space entities are emerging From 1941 Today Liquid Solid Rocketdyne Liquid Thiokol Solid Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Pratt & Whitney Hercules TRW Aerojet Atlantic Research Corp Northrop Aerojet ATK General Electric Grand Central Rocket Co. Grumman American Pacific Corp Rocket Research Corp Rohm & Hass Co. Space-X Hamilton Standard Div. United Technology Center Reaction Motors Small Business Blue Origin, Busek, Exquadrum, Florida Turbine, Orbitec WASK, Williams International, XCOR & many more… 8 Liquid Rocket Engines “State of the Industry:” • Limited recent U.S. liquid rocket engine development – RS-68 and Merlin – Designed to focus on reducing production recurring costs – J-2X is completing development – RL10 (A-4-2, B-2) – multiple performance enhancements, reduced overall design margins • 50-year-old craftsman-based manufacturing • Limited growth opportunity without major redesign – RD-180 – Produced in Russia with insight from the US companies – AJ26 – Americanization of Russian NK33 – SSME – Last NASA funded development effort resulting in steady production – DoD Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT), funded ~$200M over last 15 years -- technology focused only • New commercial space companies entering the market – SpaceX, OSC, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Sierra Nevada, etc… – Potentially “disruptive” to current access to space cost model – Still building maturity required for critical high value payloads – Long term market demand is uncertain 9 Operational Liquid Engines in U.S. Today Atlas V Delta IV Space Shuttle Falcon Developer: Commercial (Space-X) RETIRED NEW ENTRANT RL10A-4-2 RL10B-2 (2011) (LOX/LH2, 22k lbf) (LOX/LH2, 25k lbf) Merlin (1X) • First flown in • First flown in 1963 (LOX/RP, 1963 • Currently flying at 2X • Currently flying at design Pc High Expansion 2X design Pc Nozzle) Kestrel (LOX/RP, 6k lbf) SSME (3X) (400 Series) (500 Series) (LOX/LH2, (1) (9) 408k lbf SL) RD-180 (Med) (Med+ 4m) (Med+ 5m) (Heavy) Merlin (1X/9X) (LOX/RP, 860k lbf SL) RS-68 • First flown in (LOX/RP, 1981 115-125k lbf SL) • First flown (LOX/LH2, 656k lbf SL) • Retired in 2011 in 2002 • First flown in 2002 • First successful • Russian • RS-68A upgrade flight in 2008 made design certification (Falcon 1) completed in 2011 Delta II retiring after 2 NASA missions Reprinted courtesy of U.S. Air Force 10 LOX/LH2 Upper Stage Engines World’s 1st Hydrogen Engine & Its Evolution Engine Qualification Year 1961 1963 1966 1967 1985 1991 1994 1998 1999 2000 Model A-1 A-3 A-3-1 A-3-3 A-3-3A A-4 A-4-1 B-2 A - 4 - 1A A-4-2 RL10A-1 RL10A-3 RL10A-3-3A RL10B-2 RL10A-4-2 • 15k lbf • 15k lbf • 16.5k lbf • 24.7k lbf • 22.3k lbf • Pc=300 psia • Pc=300 psia • Pc=475 psia • Pc=640 psia • Pc=610 psia • Isp = 422 s • Isp = 427 s • Isp = 444.4 s • Isp = 464 s • Isp = 451 s (Delta IV) (Atlas V) st st The World’s 1 The World’s 1 • Successive increases in performance over 50 years “Qualified” “Flown” (running at 2X design Pc) LOX/LH2 LOX/LH2 Engine Engine 11 Next Generation Engine (NGE) Overview • USAF considering an LOX/LH2 alternative engine to replace aging RL10 – Request for Information posted September 2010 • NGE Objectives Top-level Technical Requirements – Modern manufacturing techniques & materials Thrust (vacuum) 30klbfs – Increased designed-in reliability and performance margins Isp (vacuum) 465 seconds or greater – Sustainable and low cost Nozzle Fixed (preferred, but not • Creates interagency partnership opportunity required) Restartable Minimum of 4 flight starts – Incorporates NSS & NASA requirements Life expectancy 3000 seconds or greater – Captures emerging commercial needs Reusable Not required • Leverage advanced design tools & technologies Mixture Ratio Adjustable during matured by AFRL/NASA technology investment operation Length (gimbal to NTE 90 inches – e.g. AFRL Upper Stage Engine Technology (USET) nozzle exit) • Creates open competition Exit Diameter NTE 73 inches (desired) Threshold Reliability 0.9990 or greater – Bolster U.S. liquid propulsion industrial base capability NGE serves critical need for modern, reliable, cost effective engine, sustainment of industrial base and U.S. leadership in propulsion technology 12 Lessons Learned Launch Failures • In past 50 years, propulsion enabled ballistic and spacelift capabilities – Powered first US ICBMs – Evolved into space launch vehicle systems – Continuous improvements in performance, reliability, operability • Historically, more than 40% of all launch vehicle failures caused by propulsion subsystem malfunctions (#1 contributor)* Launch Vehicle Subsystem Failures (2010-9-30) by Tomei, E. J., & Chang, I.- Improving propulsion S., Aerospace subsystem reliability is critical to mitigating future launch failures • A launch failure incurs the loss of not only expensive hardware (launch vehicles/satellites), but extremely high recovery cost 13 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nasa X-15 Program
    5 24,132 6 9 NASA X-15 PROGRAM By: T.D. Barnes - NASA Contractor - 1960s NASA contractors for the X-15 program were Bendix Field Engineering followed by Unitec, Inc. The NASA High Range Tracking stations were located at Ely and Beatty Nevada with main control being at Dryden/Edwards AFB in California. Personnel at the tracking stations consisted of a Station Manager, a Technical Advisor, and field engineers for the Mod-2 Radar, Data Transmission System, Communications, Telemetry, and Plant Maintenance/Generators. NASA had a site monitor at each tracking station to monitor our contractor operations. Though supporting flights of the X-15 was their main objective, they also participated in flights of the XB-70, the three Lifting Bodies, experimental Lunar Landing vehicles, and an occasional A-12/YF-12/SR-71 Blackbird flight. On mission days a NASA van picked up each member of the crew at their residence for the 4:20 a.m. trip to the tracking station 18 miles North of Beatty on the Tonopah Highway. Upon arrival each performed preflight calibrations and setup of their various systems. The liftoff of the B-52, with the X-15 tucked beneath its wing, seldom occurred after 9:00 a.m. due to the heat effect of the Mojave Desert making it difficult for the planes to acquire altitude. At approximately 0800 hours two pilots from Dryden would proceed uprange to evaluate the condition of the dry lake beds in the event of an emergency landing of the X-15 (always buzzing our station on the way up and back).
    [Show full text]
  • Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140002716 2019-08-29T14:36:45+00:00Z Liquid Propulsion Systems – Evolution & Advancements Launch Vehicle Propulsion & Systems LPTC Liquid Propulsion Technical Committee Rick Ballard Liquid Engine Systems Lead SLS Liquid Engines Office NASA / MSFC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted, unless for course participation and to a paid course student, in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of AIAA and/or course instructor. Contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Professional Development Program, Suite 500, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4344 Modules 1. Rocket Propulsion Fundamentals 2. LRE Applications 3. Liquid Propellants 4. Engine Power Cycles 5. Engine Components Module 1: Rocket Propulsion TOPICS Fundamentals • Thrust • Specific Impulse • Mixture Ratio • Isp vs. MR • Density vs. Isp • Propellant Mass vs. Volume Warning: Contents deal with math, • Area Ratio physics and thermodynamics. Be afraid…be very afraid… Terms A Area a Acceleration F Force (thrust) g Gravity constant (32.2 ft/sec2) I Impulse m Mass P Pressure Subscripts t Time a Ambient T Temperature c Chamber e Exit V Velocity o Initial state r Reaction ∆ Delta / Difference s Stagnation sp Specific ε Area Ratio t Throat or Total γ Ratio of specific heats Thrust (1/3) Rocket thrust can be explained using Newton’s 2nd and 3rd laws of motion. 2nd Law: a force applied to a body is equal to the mass of the body and its acceleration in the direction of the force.
    [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]
  • PCEC V2.3 (For Real This Time)
    PCEC v2.3 (For Real This Time) 2021 NASA Cost & Schedule Symposium 14 Apr 2021 Brian Alford Mark Jacobs Booz Allen Hamilton TGS Consultants Shawn Hayes Richard Webb TGS Consultants KAR Enterprises NASA MSFC Victory MIPSSSolutions Team SB Diversity Outline • PCEC Overview • Robotic SC Updates • CASTS Updates • PCEC v2.3 Interface Updates • Closing Victory Solutions MIPSS Team 2 What is PCEC? • The Project Cost Estimating Capability (PCEC) is the primary NASA in-house developed parametric tool for estimating the cost of robotic missions, launch vehicles, crewed vehicles, etc. – Overarching tool for creating an estimate that spans the full NASA WBS – CERs included out-of-the-box for estimating the costs of a flight system (e.g., thermal) and support functions (e.g., project management) – Connects to other NASA-sponsored specialized tools to cover the complete NASA WBS (e.g., NICM, MOCET) – Excel-based (presented as add-in in the Ribbon) with completely visible calculations and code – Consists of the PCEC Interface (the Ribbon and supporting code) and the PCEC Library (the artifacts used to estimate cost) – Available to the General Public Victory Solutions MIPSS Team 3 What is PCEC? Cont’d • PCEC comprises two primary ‘models’, offered seamlessly to the user under a single, integrated tool – Robotic Spacecraft (Robotic SC) – Crewed and Space Transportation Systems (CASTS) • These models have separate data normalizations, collections of CERs, core WBSs, modeling approaches, estimating template worksheets, and scope – Estimating artifacts constitute
    [Show full text]
  • Orion Capsule Launch Abort System Analysis
    Orion Capsule Launch Abort System Analysis Assignment 2 AE 4802 Spring 2016 – Digital Design and Manufacturing Georgia Institute of Technology Authors: Tyler Scogin Michel Lacerda Jordan Marshall Table of Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Mission Profile ............................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 8 2. Conceptual Design ............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Design Process ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Vehicle Performance Characteristics ......................................................................................... 15 2.3 Vehicle/Sub-Component Sizing ................................................................................................. 15 3. Vehicle 3D Model in CATIA ................................................................................................................ 22 3.1 3D Modeling Roles and Responsibilities: .................................................................................. 22 3.2 Design Parameters and Relations:............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160008869 2019-08-29T17:47:59+00:00Z CHAPTER 12 Materials for Liquid Propulsion Systems John A. Halchak Consultant, Los Angeles, California James L. Cannon NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama Corey Brown Aerojet-Rocketdyne, West Palm Beach, Florida 12.1 Introduction Earth to orbit launch vehicles are propelled by rocket engines and motors, both liquid and solid. This chapter will discuss liquid engines. The heart of a launch vehicle is its engine. The remainder of the vehicle (with the notable exceptions of the payload and guidance system) is an aero structure to support the propellant tanks which provide the fuel and oxidizer to feed the engine or engines. The basic principle behind a rocket engine is straightforward. The engine is a means to convert potential thermochemical energy of one or more propellants into exhaust jet kinetic energy. Fuel and oxidizer are burned in a combustion chamber where they create hot gases under high pressure. These hot gases are allowed to expand through a nozzle. The molecules of hot gas are first constricted by the throat of the nozzle (de-Laval nozzle) which forces them to accelerate; then as the nozzle flares outwards, they expand and further accelerate. It is the mass of the combustion gases times their velocity, reacting against the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle, which produce thrust according to Newton’s third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. [1] Solid rocket motors are cheaper to manufacture and offer good values for their cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Design for Demise Analysis for Launch Vehicles
    A first design for demise analysis for launch vehicles Henrik Simon, Stijn Lemmens Space debris: Inactive, manmade objects in space Source: ESA Overview Introduction Fundamentals Modelling approach Results and discussion Summary and outlook What is the motivation and task? INTRODUCTION Motivation . Mitigation: Prevention of creation and limitation of long-term presence . Guidelines: LEO removal within 25 years . LEO removal within 25 years after mission end . Casualty risk limit for re-entry: 1 in 10,000 Rising altitude Decay & re-entry above 2000 km Source: NASA Source: NASA Solution: Design for demise Source: ESA Scope of the thesis . Typical design of upper stages . General Risk assessment . Design for demise solutions to reduce the risk ? ? ? Risk A Risk B Risk C Source: CNES How do we assess the risk and simulate the re-entry? FUNDAMENTALS Fundamentals: Ground risk assessment Ah = + 2 Ai � ℎ = =1 � Source: NASA Source: NASA 3.5 m 5.0 m 2 2 ≈ ≈ Fundamentals: Re-entry simulation tools SCARAB: Spacecraft-oriented approach . CAD-like modelling . 6 DoF flight dynamics . Break-up / fragmentation computed How does a rocket upper stage look like? MODELLING Modelling approach . Research on typical design: . Elongated . Platform . Solid Rocket Motor . Lack of information: . Create common intersection . Deliberately stay top-level and only compare effects Modelling approach Modelling approach 12 Length [m] 9 7 5 3 2 150 300 500 700 800 1500 2200 Mass [kg] How much is the risk and how can we reduce it? SIMULATIONS Example of SCARAB re-entry simulation 6x Casualty risk of all reference cases Typical survivors Smaller Smaller fragments fragments Pressure tanks Pressure tanks Main tank Engine Main structure + tanks Design for Demise .
    [Show full text]
  • NYC Aerospace Rocket Program
    NYC Aerospace Rocket Program NYC Aerospace’s 100,000ft rocket program is committed to designing and manufacturing a sounding rocket to reach 100,000ft, above 99% of the atmosphere. The purpose of this mission is to research the applications of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) to large rockets. Many future aerospace engineers have learned a great deal about rocketry from participating in this project, which is one of NYC Aerospace’s many projects involving students citywide. Rocket details Our goal is to send a single-stage rocket to 100,000ft using ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP). In order to reach this altitude, the rocket will likely need to maintain structural integrity at velocities on the order of Mach 2 and above. Therefore, the rocket body will need to be made of a light metal such as aluminum or titanium. A metal body necessitates the capacity of the rocket motor to be in the O range of near 30,000Ns of impulse. Assuming a perfectly efficient motor, this requires around 30lb of propellant. We can calculate fuel fraction by first establishing our delta v budget. Δv = √2gz = √2(9.8m/s2)(30480m) =772m/s= mach 2.25 Using the delta v necessary, we can calculate the minimum fuel fraction using Tsiolkovsky’s ideal rocket equation. Assuming the specific impulse of our motor is 228s: m final Δv =− v eln m initial m final = exp(− 772/2280) = 0.71 m initial Thus, we only need 29% of our rocket to be fuel. This brings the max mass of our rocket to 103lb.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstellar Probe on Space Launch System (Sls)
    INTERSTELLAR PROBE ON SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM (SLS) David Alan Smith SLS Spacecraft/Payload Integration & Evolution (SPIE) NASA-MSFC December 13, 2019 0497 SLS EVOLVABILITY FOUNDATION FOR A GENERATION OF DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION 322 ft. Up to 313ft. 365 ft. 325 ft. 365 ft. 355 ft. Universal Universal Launch Abort System Stage Adapter 5m Class Stage Adapter Orion 8.4m Fairing 8.4m Fairing Fairing Long (Up to 90’) (up to 63’) Short (Up to 63’) Interim Cryogenic Exploration Exploration Exploration Propulsion Stage Upper Stage Upper Stage Upper Stage Launch Vehicle Interstage Interstage Interstage Stage Adapter Core Stage Core Stage Core Stage Solid Solid Evolved Rocket Rocket Boosters Boosters Boosters RS-25 RS-25 Engines Engines SLS Block 1 SLS Block 1 Cargo SLS Block 1B Crew SLS Block 1B Cargo SLS Block 2 Crew SLS Block 2 Cargo > 26 t (57k lbs) > 26 t (57k lbs) 38–41 t (84k-90k lbs) 41-44 t (90k–97k lbs) > 45 t (99k lbs) > 45 t (99k lbs) Payload to TLI/Moon Launch in the late 2020s and early 2030s 0497 IS THIS ROCKET REAL? 0497 SLS BLOCK 1 CONFIGURATION Launch Abort System (LAS) Utah, Alabama, Florida Orion Stage Adapter, California, Alabama Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle RL10 Engine Lockheed Martin, 5 Segment Solid Rocket Aerojet Rocketdyne, Louisiana, KSC Florida Booster (2) Interim Cryogenic Northrop Grumman, Propulsion Stage (ICPS) Utah, KSC Boeing/United Launch Alliance, California, Alabama Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter Teledyne Brown Engineering, California, Alabama Core Stage & Avionics Boeing Louisiana, Alabama RS-25 Engine (4)
    [Show full text]
  • 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics from Air Bubbles Cast in the Fuel (Voids) Can Cause Problems During Hot-Fire Operations
    Genetic Algorithm Optimization of a Cost Competitive Hybrid Rocket Booster George Story1 NASA MSFC Huntsville, Al Performance, reliability and cost have always been drivers in the rocket business. Hybrid rockets have been late entries into the launch business due to substantial early development work on liquid rockets and solid rockets. Slowly the technology readiness level of hybrids has been increasing due to various large scale testing and flight tests of hybrid rockets. One remaining issue is the cost of hybrids vs the existing launch propulsion systems. This paper will review the known state-of-the-art hybrid development work to date and incorporate it into a genetic algorithm to optimize the configuration based on various parameters. A cost module will be incorporated to the code based on the weights of the components. The design will be optimized on meeting the performance requirements at the lowest cost. I. Introduction Hybrids, considered part solid and part liquid propulsion system, have been caught in the middle of development goals of the various NASA and military programs. Solid rocket motor technology has matured due to the design simplicity, on-demand operational characteristics and low cost. The reliability of solids, given minimal maintenance requirements, made them the ideal system for military applications. On the other hand, liquid rocket engine technology has matured due to their higher specific impulse (ISP) over solids and variable control thrust capability. Hybrid Rockets have been used in only one flight-production application (Teledyne Ryan AQM-81A ‘Firebolt Supersonic Aerial Target) and one series of recent manned flight demonstrations (Burt Rutan’s SpaceshipOne), suggesting that advantages have been overlooked in some potential applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta IV Parker Solar Probe Mission Booklet
    A United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta IV Heavy what is the source of high-energy solar particles. MISSION rocket will deliver NASA’s Parker Solar Probe to Parker Solar Probe will make 24 elliptical orbits an interplanetary trajectory to the sun. Liftoff of the sun and use seven flybys of Venus to will occur from Space Launch Complex-37 at shrink the orbit closer to the sun during the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. NASA seven-year mission. selected ULA’s Delta IV Heavy for its unique MISSION ability to deliver the necessary energy to begin The probe will fly seven times closer to the the Parker Solar Probe’s journey to the sun. sun than any spacecraft before, a mere 3.9 million miles above the surface which is about 4 OVERVIEW The Parker percent the distance from the sun to the Earth. Solar Probe will At its closest approach, Parker Solar Probe will make repeated reach a top speed of 430,000 miles per hour journeys into the or 120 miles per second, making it the fastest sun’s corona and spacecraft in history. The incredible velocity trace the flow of is necessary so that the spacecraft does not energy to answer fall into the sun during the close approaches. fundamental Temperatures will climb to 2,500 degrees questions such Fahrenheit, but the science instruments will as why the solar remain at room temperature behind a 4.5-inch- atmosphere is thick carbon composite shield. dramatically Image courtesy of NASA hotter than the The mission was named in honor of Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory Numbers Are Total Active Inventory Figures As of Sept
    Gallery of USAF Weapons Note: Inventory numbers are total active inventory figures as of Sept. 30, 2011. ■ 2012 USAF Almanac Bombers B-1 Lancer Brief: A long-range, air refuelable multirole bomber capable of flying intercontinental missions and penetrating enemy defenses with the largest payload of guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. Function: Long-range conventional bomber. Operator: ACC, AFMC. First Flight: Dec. 23, 1974 (B-1A); Oct. 18, 1984 (B-1B). Delivered: June 1985-May 1988. IOC: Oct. 1, 1986, Dyess AFB, Tex. (B-1B). Production: 104. Inventory: 66. Aircraft Location: Dyess AFB, Tex.; Edwards AFB, Calif.; Eglin AFB, Fla.; Ellsworth AFB, S.D. Contractor: Boeing, AIL Systems, General Electric. Power Plant: four General Electric F101-GE-102 turbofans, each 30,780 lb thrust. Accommodation: pilot, copilot, and two WSOs (offensive and defensive), on zero/zero ACES II ejection seats. Dimensions: span 137 ft (spread forward) to 79 ft (swept aft), length 146 ft, height 34 ft. B-1B Lancer (SSgt. Brian Ferguson) Weight: max T-O 477,000 lb. Ceiling: more than 30,000 ft. carriage, improved onboard computers, improved B-2 Spirit Performance: speed 900+ mph at S-L, range communications. Sniper targeting pod added in Brief: Stealthy, long-range multirole bomber that intercontinental. mid-2008. Receiving Fully Integrated Data Link can deliver nuclear and conventional munitions Armament: three internal weapons bays capable of (FIDL) upgrade to include Link 16 and Joint Range anywhere on the globe. accommodating a wide range of weapons incl up to Extension data link, enabling permanent LOS and Function: Long-range heavy bomber.
    [Show full text]