The Role, Rationale, and Economics of a Shuttle Derived Cargo Vehicle

The Space Congress® Proceedings 1983 (20th) Space: The Next Twenty Years

Apr 1st, 8:00 AM

Frank L. Williams Director, Advanced Programs, Martin Marietta Aerospace, Denver Aerospace, Michoud Division, New Orleans, Louisiana

J. R. Tewell Manager, Vehicle Systems, Martin Marietta Aerospace, Denver Aerospace, Michoud Division, New Orleans, Louisiana

Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings

Scholarly Commons Citation Williams, Frank L. and Tewell, J. R., "The Role, Rationale, and Economics of a Shuttle Derived Cargo Vehicle" (1983). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 2. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1983-20th/session-iic/2

This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE, RATIONALE AND ECONOMICS OF A * SHUTTLE DERIVED CARGO VEHICLE

Frank L. Williams J. Robert Tewell Director, Advanced Programs Manager, Vehicle Systems Martin Marietta Aerospace Martin Marietta Aerospace Denver Aerospace Denver Aerospace Michoud Division Michoud Division New Orleans, Louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana

ABSTRACT concepts will find operational use for several decades and that a The Space Transportation System is now number of factors will interact to operational and a new evolution of space produce specific derivatives of the original activities is emerging. Space is an configuration. international frontier and will be pursued The evolution of space by many nations, individually and launch vehicles in the past has been motivated collectively. Commercial exploitation of by increasing payload weights, volumes, space systems is increasing with and economics. international breadth. This is reflected by Figure 1 in which specific launch cost trends, developed by Messerschmitt-Bolkow-Blohm Launch services, formerly a government (MBB) for an ESA study, are shown. Therefore, provided function, also are encountering an it is reasonable to assume that the evolution. International competition is same motivations will govern the development keen and plans proliferate for private of launch vehicles in the industry involvement in this vital Space Transportation element System (STS) of the space flight scenario. era. For example, there is an increasing recognition that later in this decade, additional investments The United States has made good its will be required to support the growth commitment to develop and bring into in volume and weight of payloads to geosynchronous operational status a STS to meet its own earth orbit (GEO). To need as well as to provide launch services satisfy these future requirements, the U.S. space launch to industry and other nations. lv! program must remain economically attractive 'to be able to continue to support The STS has tremendous growth potential the growing U.S. commercial and international market. utilizing existing flight elements, production capacity, logistics systems and The four reusable Space Transportation launch/flight operations facilities. This System (STS) Orbiter vehicles now paper describes the growth potential, planned were originally expected to be able develops a rationale for a Shuttle to place Derived DOD and NASA payloads Cargo Vehicle and illustrates into low earth orbit its role as and have sufficient well as the economic implications operational capability of its to launch other domestic, foreign addition to the STS inventory of launch and systems. international payloads.

INTRODUCTION However, current forecast of requirements and capability indicate that even the total capability of a five orbiter STS The United States is entering a new era in program, the ESA Ariane, and the continuation launch vehicles with the of some very successful of the current completion of the design, U.S. expendable launch development, test vehicle fleet and evaluation (DDT&E) will be marginal in meeting phase of the Space the requirements Transportation in the late 1980 f s and the System. It can be readily Free World's projected, total launch capability will be based on the history of launch inadequate vehicles, to meet the demand of the 90 *s that the shuttle configuration and beyond. will evolve over time, that its basic

IIC-1 VEHICLE AVAILABILITY Accordingly, it is imperative that the LAUNCH possibilities for the evolution of the U.S. capabilities in the STS era be The Western World's space launch capability space launch, Titan, Delta, reviewed from the standpoint of maintaining currently consists of the STS, Ariane, India's SLV-3, economica1 space opera ti ons • Atlas, Scout, ESA's and Japan's N-l and N-2 launch vehicles. vehicles are not LAUNCH DEMMID .PROJECTIONS. The Scout and Scout class considered in this assessment because of the in The 'NASA uses a space transportation Traffic relatively low performance capability and India Model* formerly Mission 'Model, as support comparison to the others. Japan Delta class for planning and budgetary estimates which are each developing larger, be ready for list the launch site and the flight rate by launch vehicles which should user. Since the inception of the STS, the service in the early 1990's. model has been changed periodically to is to reflect the NASA's understanding of the user The purpose of this assessment of launch vehicles community's needs and the availability of identify the availability satisfy user's scheduled the STS to meet those needs. which could requirements through the year 2000. This STS model is sometimes misinterpreted to say that it portrays users 1 STS Assessment requirements. While it does incorporate the Transportation Operations NASA's understanding of those requirements The NASA Space 1 March 1982, has two options as they can be satisfied by the STS, it is Traffic Model, a "24" option and a "40" not required to cover the full breadth ofthe through 1994: option builds through 1988 users 1 needs - nor is that its purpose. The option. The 24 annual flight rate of 24 basic purpose is to assist the NASA to a maximum per year with a fleet of 4 budgeting/planning function for the STS. flights orbiters. The 40 option builds through 1991 flight rate of 40 flights per Determination of the total requirements for to a maximum this requires the funding of space activity from the user's perspective year; however, orbiter in FY 1983, which has not remains a much more elusive task. In the the fifth to date. Both of these near term, 3 to 5 years, existing launch been approved shown on Figure 2. It is vehicle manifests can be used to establish options are neither option can satisfy the reasonably firm requirements. To this evident that with STS alone. point , users have made sufficient user launch requirements consider additional commitments to be included on the schedule. Thus, one must vehicles to accommodate Beyond 5 years, these requirements are expendable launch demand. usually not well enough defined to be the projected user discussed outside of the particular user's Status ••organization. ELV launch rate availability, as For the purposes of this assessment, user Each ELV total was determined using requirements were developed primarily from shown in Figure 3, program plans, the NASA and AIAA projections (References 1 and present production launch records, and 2)- A .summary of the projections are shown overall historical with the existing In Figure 2. Two user requirements models launch rates consistent are shown - low and high - to bound the launch pads. ...anticipated demand. To provide a common base for comparison, ELV is plotted in Basically, the low model supports limited total launch rate for each terms. This equivalency new NASA space program starts, assuming Orbiter-equivalent the AIAA (Reference 2). funding constraints. The commercial portion was established by equivalent orbiter flights for of low model Is dominated by the AIAA The resulting are also shown in Figure 3. --projection of a continued 19% annual growth each ELV on orbit capability — In communications maximum estimate. The Titan. The Titan is capable of a possibly a very conservative pad. a more favorable of 4 launches per year per launch high model considers Titan IIIC for and other civil There is one launch pad for the economic climate pads at the international science (34D) at ETR and two launch (WTR) - one for Titan , Including support of a manned Western Test Range HID (34D). station. In the commercial IIIB (34B) and one for Titan year is the high model projects a 20% Thus, a buildup to 12 flights per environment, date of growth, starting in 1990, including possible. The current planning end of 1987. It orbit materials processing and manufacturing* Titan termination is at the

HC-2 should be acknowledged however, that launch vehicle availability by 1990 for the commercial launchings of Titan are currently high model and by 1993 in progress. for the low model. While maintaining the current U.S. ELV fleet Delta. The Delta is to be phased out early to augment the STS appears to be a temporary in the STS era, but may sustain new life due solution, it is not a viable approach to STS launch rate to uncertainties and the meeting the user requirements in the backed up launch demand 1990s. for its services. A It is essential that an economical total of 12 flights per and year is the maximum responsive unmanned launch vehicle anticipated for the Delta, be using two launch developed to augment the STS. The pads at ETR and one pad most at WTR. Termination promising solution is a launch is planned for 1987. system based on existing STS elements, namely a Shuttle Derived Cargo Vehicle (SDCV). At las/Centaur. Atlas/Centaur is currently scheduled to support Intelsat missions SDCV CONFIGURATIONS through 1985 with no further committed missions; however, FleetSatCom is a strong All potential SDCV configurations presented here share customer through 1987. A total of a common 10 flights STS major element heritage: the per year is achievable for the external Atlas/Centaur tank (ET), Space Shuttle main out of two launch pads at engines (SSMEs), ETR. solid rocket boosters (SRBs) and, to a major extent, orbiter avionics. Cost advantages Ariane. The Ariane launch availability accrue from was shared STS/SDCV production, determined by the advertised logistics and intentions of operations base and the launch agency, Arianespace. They provide a near term are heavy lift performance capability building to a 2 launch pad capability while at avoiding major new DDT&E expenditures. Kourou by 1985. The Ariane 3 is scheduled to come on line in 1984, and the Ariane 4 in SDCV Side Mount Configuration 1986. The build up rate reflects this phase in, with a maximum of 12 launches per year The SDCV Side Mount configuration, being reached in 1988. shown in Figure 6, retains the standard ET and 2 SRBs. A cargo carrier,- consisting of Japan and India. Both nations are working a recoverable propulsion/avionics (P/A) module on a Delta-class capability, with an and an expendable payload (P/L) module, estimated availability early in the 1990*s. replaces the orbiter in the STS At this time, it appears stack. The that this P/L module is capable of supporting capability will be payload used to satisfy up to 25 feet in diameter indigenous needs. Figure and 90 feet in 4 reflects a 1 length. The P/A module contains Orbiter equivalent (4 Deltas) the main (3 flight rate SSMEs) and secondary propulsion through the 90's for these countries. systems, avionics, electrical power, auxiliary power and thermal control systems. LAUNCH CAPABILITIES VS USER DEMAND Reentry and recovery systems include the aeroshell structure, thermal protection The maximum combined ELV and STS annual system, parachutes, retrorockets, and launch rate is shown in Figure landing gear. 4. As The SDCV Side Mount indicated, the maximum launch performance to a rate is 50 reference 28.5° 160 orbiter equivalent flights NM circular orbit is per year. approximately 150,000 Ibs. However, the data displayed assumes the most optimistic forecast for the launch vehicles SDCV Inline I Configuration - 100% scheduling and availability. If in fact, the schedule for the ELVs and STS The SDCV Inline I, shown in Figure 7, follows launch system historical trends, as incorporates a shortened ET as well as aircraft fleet operational the structural backbone. Two standard experience, and assuming the Arianne SRBs, a follows P/A module and a forward that pattern, an overall reduction mounted payload in launch shroud are all attached to rates by about 25% are the ET. The anticipated. payload shroud can house Therefore, a more realistic a payload of up to picture is 25 feet in diameter and portrayed in Figure 5 75 feet in length. which reflects launch The P/A module is functionally identically vehicle availability under expected to the SDCV realistic conditions. Side Mount configuration discussed previously; however, only 2 SSMEs are employed. The Inline I performance Under these conditions, even if all to launch the referenced 28.5° 160 NM circular vehicles are maintained at these expected orbit is approximately 150,000 Ibs. A 3 SSME P/A rates, user requirements will exceed the module Inline I configuration would have a 195,000 Ib. payload capability.

IIC-3 SDCV_ In line: 11 Conf igura t ion capability (IOC) of the overall SDCV program. This schedule, as shown in Figure The SDCV Inline II is a growth version of 11, includes a typical Phase A/B time span the Inline I. The Inline II, shown in as a reference point of departure. Figure 8, incorporates a stretched ET, 2 standard SRBs and a total of 4 SSMEs housed For present planning purposes, one flight in 2 P/A modules—identical to that of the demonstration is baselined prior to Inline I. The payload shroud can house a certification of IOC and it is anticipated payload of up to 33 feet in diameter and 100 that the first flight unit will undergo a feet in length. The Inline II performance flight readiness firing (FRF) analogous to to the referenced 28.5° 160 NM circular that conducted for STS-1. orbit is about 240,000 Ibs. Growth potential exists for Inline II by using 3 SSMEs in The schedule indicates that, in order to each P/A module and would result in a have SDCVs on-line by 1991, a Phase C/D payload capability of over 300,000 Ibs. hardware development program must be initiated in 1985. Performance Comparison PAYLOAD GROWTH PROJECTION Figure 9 depicts the performance of the SDCV configurations up to equatorial The SDCVs provide an additional benefit to geosyncuronous orbits. The performance the user community through its capability to characteristics assume a single stage accommodate payloads beyond that provided by expendable integral SDCV L02/LH2 upper the orbiter - both in volume and weight. stage properly sized to maximize the payload NASA Space Systems Technology Model, delivery capability. Performance Reference 3, contains NASA system and characteristics of the STS and Saturn V are program requirements, technology trends, and also shown for comparative assessment. forecasts for space technology. The model provides a base of information for guiding ECONOMIC BENEFITS technology development for future systems and programs. A review of this model An analysis was performed to determine the reveals numerous payload requirements which life cycle cost (LCC) benefits of exceed the performance capability of the introducing SDCVs into the overall space present STS as summarized in Table 1. transportation system to complement the orbiter fleet in satisfying the launch With respect to DOD, again many programs are denand. Costs were estimated for all projected which would benefit from SDCV program phases 1 —DDT&E, • production, and enhanced launch capabilities. For example, operations. Additional ' orbiters were consider the development plan for MILSTAR assumed to be acquired in a time phased under the current ground rules (Reference •saner to enable the "STS Only" to 4). The payload concept is currently accommodate the user demand models and, in constrained to the 5,000 Ib. geosyncronous the case of the mixed STS/SDCV fleets, two performance of shuttle/IUS. The final additional orbiters were procurred to operating configuration will weigh accommodate the user demand until the SDCVs approximatly 10,000 Ibs. and will require became available in the early 1990s, two launches per satellite. Thus, a constellation of 12 satellites will require results of the analysis are shown in 24 launches and cost approximately $2 Figure 10 and graphically illustrates the billion in launch costs, not including IUS si gnifieant savings potent i a 11 y avaliable costs. through the incorporation of SDCVs to complement the STS. With an SDCV only eight launches are required. The cost would be under $0.7 Also, from the user point of view, the cost billion, thereby, reducing the DOD budget per pound, or volume, of payload delivered for the MILSTAR program by over $1.3 to orbit is substantially reduced as a billion. This situation is representative result of the SDCV performance capability. of user cost considerations for GEO missions.

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE The Space Based Laser (SBL) program represents another good example. As A representative SDCV hardware development indicated in References 5 and 6, the SBL schedule was prepared to include the period requires diameters of 8 meters, or greater, of time from the authority to proceed (ATP) depending on the power requirements and for a Phase C/D contract through would weigh around 150-250K Ibs. A typical .certifies £10,0 of initial operational fleet size might consist of 18 spacecraft;

IIC-4 thus, the STS launch requirements become technology base incorporated within the excessive. Use of the SDCV with its greater present STS. This goal is best achieved by weight and size capability would not only SDCVs. reduce the number of flights, but also the complexity of payload design. Figure 12 illustrates two potential paths for the SDCV. Granted, if one considers the OBSERVATIONS potentials beyond the mid 1990's other options are feasible such as a liquid rocket To date the baseline STS program consists of booster replacement for the SRB. However, a four orbiter fleet to provide launch it avoids the pivotal issue of a system to services through the 1990s. Based on the be operational in the early 1990*8 to meet projected user demand, the four orbiter the highly probably and very competitive fleet will only accommodate NASA and DOD market that will exist for space requirements for the low model. Thus, the transportation. commercial market is largely left to be accommodated, to a major extent, by ELVs The key issue that needs resolution in the either government supported or funded by the immediate future is which course to follow; private launch vehicle sector. the SDCV Side Mount concept which would have minimum impact on the STS program, require This is reflected by the increased interest the least investment and could be within the private sector. For example, Dr. operational at the earliest date Klaus Heiss president of Space Tran, Inc. recognizing that it has limited growth recently said "the lack of government potential - vs the SDCV Inline approach funding for orbiter five should in no way which could result in a family of SDCV's to prejudge the need for a commercial orbiter. accommodate forecasted market and provide Clearly, the country needs a fifth orbiter the growth potential to cover major new if the U.S. wants to capture its share of needs that have as yet not surfaced. The the commercial world space transportation Inline approach will have somewhat more of market. It should not be left to foreign an impact on the STS system, facilities and competition unchallenged." Foreign operations, but at the same time will draw competitors now include Arianespace, and heavily on the technology, production, will include Japan, India, and Russia. logistics and operations currently in place. Japan and India will have the potential for providing launch services to other In summary, the SDCV compliments the STS, countries. Russia has proposed to fly the provides the U.S. the most attractive method Inmarsat maritime communications satellite to meet forecasted space transportation for the European Space Agency (ESA) and is needs in the most economical way. It takes interested in establishing a marketing agent advantage of the STS investment and has* the outside the Soviet Union. potential of keeping the U.S. in the best competitive posture for the 1990 f s. The challenge to the foreign competition is surfacing through various private sector The SDCV is a low risk, low cost development proposals to extend the useful lifetime of and is economically attractive. The time to the present U.S. ELV fleet under private act is now if we are to retain the U.S. management - Transpace Carriers, Inc. for prominence in the 1990's. the Delta; General Dynamics Corporation and REFERENCES Space Services, Inc. for the Atlas Centaur; and Martin Marietta Corporation for the 1. OSTS Advanced Programs Mission Model Titan. However, these programs will 1983-2000, Advanced Programs, NASA continue to use todays state of the art. Headquarters, Washington, DC, February 19, 1982. It is interesting to note that the ESA has 2. Projection of Non-Federal Demand for approved funding for new space Space Transportation Services Through transportation systems 1 long term 2000, An AIAA Assessment for the Office preparatory program which will study options of Science and Technology Policy, The beyond Arianne "in sufficient detail to lay White House, edited by Jerry Grey, AIAA, down a long term policy and thus decide on New York, NY, January 19, 1981. new space transportation programs before the 3. Space Systems Technology Model, NASA end of 1985." The priority of the European Headquarters, Washington, DC, September community is to maintain independent launch 1981. capability that meets foreseeable 4. System Analysis of National Space Launch requirements of European and other users and possibilities, Aerospace Corporation, El is competative with existing or planned Segundo, California,. June 1982* systems. Therefore, the U.S. must also 5. Aviation Week and Space Technology, continue to maintain its role as a leader in September 27, 1982, Page 14. space through the study and development of 6. Astronautics and Aeronautics, May 1982, launch systems using our present high Page 44.

IIC-5 SKCIFIC LAUNCH COST FOR EXISTING VEHICLES AND PROJECTED EUROPEAN AND US UUNCH VEHICLES

• DSV 3 B § SCOUT DELI A DSV- IL ARIA* IE1 • 4..500 ———• ATLAS - ———— •3910—^ ^ CENTAUR \ 3,200 • DELTA "pAR3 • 904 ————— CIAR4- 2,300 SAT-18 V • X OATH Qhl V ——* ————— *\ cAR5 TITAN- T> AR - RSS 1400 CENTAUR

700

m SPACE 450 SHUTTLE

( 225 ±3 SHUTTLE DERIVED 135 CARGO VVEHICLES

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Figure 1. Launch Cost Trends - 1980 $

90~i

10-

5 ORBITERS @ 8 FLIGHTS/YEAR

4 ORBITERS @ 6 FLIGHTS/YEAR

31-

( IS I Si I II I 18 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 |200q

FISCAL YEAR Figure 2. Launch Demand/STS Launch Projections

IIC-6

2000

88 88

ORBITER ORBITER

' '

CAPABILITIES CAPABILITIES

1990

^^r

^m ^m

IN IN

87 87

^^r

,^r

mmm mmm

' '

FACILITIES FACILITIES

YEAR

LAUNCH LAUNCH

ORBITER

= =

YEAR

86 86

EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT

* *

TITAN

1/2 1/2

' '

1 1

= =

BEGINNING BEGINNING

RATE RATE

FISCAL FISCAL

AS AS

FISCAL FISCAL

LAUNCH LAUNCH

85 85

ATLAS/CENTAUR

ORBITER

85 85

^^^^^ ^^^^^

ORBITER

COMBINED COMBINED

' '

YEAR YEAR

1/2 1/2

1 1

= =

LAUNCH LAUNCH

84 84

^^^^ PER PER

^^^^^*"^^^^ ^^^^^*"^^^^

^•^•i^^— ^•^•i^^—

' '

^^^

till!

PLANNED PLANNED

PROJECTED PROJECTED

OR OR

83 83

TOTAL TOTAL

T34B T34B

83 83

T34D T34D

TOTAL TOTAL

ATLAS/CENTAUR ATLAS/CENTAUR

FLIGHT FLIGHT

ARE ARE

JAPAN/INDIA JAPAN/INDIA

Availability

10-

20 20

£_ £_

-J -J

ac ac

LI-

Sio-

in in

»-

_J _J

i i

g g

Ll-

eo eo

EXISTING EXISTING

OF OF

Launch Launch

ELV ELV

SATURATION SATURATION

Maximum Maximum

ON ON

3. 3.

—

- -

BASED BASED

87 87

Figure Figure

RATES RATES

= =

YEAR

86 86

YEAR

FUNDING FUNDING

DELTA DELTA

————

CONTINUATION CONTINUATION

ARIANE

RATE RATE

LAUNCH LAUNCH

85 85

FISCAL FISCAL

ORBITER ORBITER

FISCAL FISCAL

ORBITER ORBITER

1/2 1/2

1/4 1/4

TOTAL TOTAL

LAUNCH LAUNCH

=1 =1

= =

LAUNCH LAUNCH

= =

GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

1/2 1/2

83 83

TOTAL TOTAL

AR3 AR3

TOTAL TOTAL

AR4 AR4

AR AR

DELTA DELTA

10-

;20

{220

glO

i o 50 SCHEDULEOEN ATLAS/CENTAUR OFU.S.ELVs

40- TITAN

DELTA • 30 AR1ANE -JAPAN/INDIA

4 ORBITERS @ 6 FLIGHTS/YEAR

10-

GOVERNMENT FUNDING COMMERCIAL CONTINUATION

83 I 84 I 85 I 86 I 87 f 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 2000 FISCAL YEAR Figure 4. Maximum Combined Launch Rate

90 - HIGH STS USER REQUIREMENTS-

80 -

70 -

LOW STS USER REQUIREMENTS

STS + 40- ALL EXPENDABLES

30 STS + ARIANE

20-

83| 84 |85 I 86 I 87 | 88 [89 | 90 | 91 | 92| 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 ( 2000 FISCAL YEAR Figure 5. Launch Capabilities vs User Demand

IIC-8 Figure 6. SDCV Side Mount Configuration

IIC-9 Figure 7. SDCV Inline I Configuration

IIC-10 Figure 8. SDCV Inline II Configuration

IIC-11 300

200 "*i^^

100 90 80 S SDCV INLINE II (4 SSMES) 70 60 SATURN V I (2 SSMES) PAYLOAD SDCV IN LINE CAPABILITY, 1000 Lb ^ SDCV SIDE MOUNT (3SSMES) 30

STS/STANDARD •SE CENTAUR

NSTS/IUS-2STAGE 40 25 30 35 CHARACTERISTIC VELOCITY. 1000 FT/S Figure 9. Launch Vehicle/Upper Stage Performance Capabilities

NOTE: TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH THE HIGH 80 . 81.0 AND LOW MODELS, ADDITIONAL ORBITERS, BEYOND THE FOUR ORBITER FLEET, ARE REQUIRED IN ALL CASES

11 30% S AVINGS 35% S/WINGS

LCC 60 r "1 $B 1982 56.9 15.2 aWr,**'KA I 53.4 1 52.3 1 13% SAVINGS 16% SAVINGS SO } 46.2 I 45.6 SDCV 45.1 <14.9 ! socv INLINE SDCV SDCV SDCV INLINE SC)CV STS SIDE SDCV It SDCV STS SIDE 40 ONLY MOUNT INLINE II IN LINE ONLY MOUNT NUSE ENGINE INLINE ENGINE II 1 II 1 OUT OUT 1 > f V -———— -- HI.,,...,M./ ^ V MODEL HIGH MODEL LOW

Figure 10. Cumulative Costa Through Year 2000

IIC-12 CALENDAR YEARS PROGRAM MILESTONES

PHASE A FEASIBILITY STUDY ATP PDR COR 1ST FLT IOC PHASE B DEFINITION STUDY TECHNOLOGY WINDOW DDT&E - ENGINEERING SUSTAINING - TOOL/FACIL DESIGN - TOOL/FACIL FAB/MOD - PROCUREMENT VU - COMPONENT QUALIFICATION - GROUND TEST ARTICLE FAB - GROUND VIBRATION/STRUCTURAL LOADS - '/.SCALE GROUND VIBRATION - DROP TEST RECOVERY ART. FAB TEST

- SSME - PROCUREMENT - FABRICATION - ENGINE DELIVERY vWv - MAJOR GROUND TEST - GROUND VIBRATION/STRUCTURAL LOADS - * SCALE GROUND VIBRATION - PROPULSION SEPARATION - FLIGHT ARTICLE PRODUCTION - P/A-1 FABRICATION/ASSY 1ST - P/A 2 FABRICATION/ASSY FLT - FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION .yyyiioc FRF.tafefe

Figure 11. SDCV Program Schedule

PAYLOAD WEIGHT ALTITUDE INCLINATION SPACELAB/SORTIE GROUP 100M THINNED APERTURE TELESCOPE 190,000 1,000 28.5 LARGE AMBIENT OEPLOYABLE IR TELESCOPE 45,000 1,500 28.5 ORBITING IR SUBMILLIMETER TELESCOPE 22,000 1,400 98.0 LEO PLATFORM GROUP SPACE SCIENCE PLATFORM 132 ?000 800 28.5 SPACE PLATFORM ALPHA 27,500 300 28.5 GEO PLATFORM GROUP GEO EARTH OBSERVATION STATION 20,000 19,323 0.0 MANNED GEO SORTIE (SUPPORT) 37,000 19.323 0.0 LARGE OBSERVATORIES GROUP VERY LARGE SPACE TELESCOPE 50,000 850 28.5 ORBITING VLBI 800-10,000 45.0 SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORAT OK GROUP ASTEROID MULTIPLE RENDEZVOUS 5,000 ESCAPE SATURN ORBITER DUAL PROBE 8,000 ESCAPE COMET SAMPLE RETURN 7,700 ESCAPE FREE FLYERS GROUP EXPERIMENT GEO PLATFORM (COMMUNICATIONS) 22,500 19,323 0.0 PINHOLE X-RAY CAMERA AND CORONAGRAPH 22,000 750 97,0

Table 1. Potential NASA Programs in the 1990s

IIC-13

300

INLINE INLINE

SDCV SDCV

240,000

250

Options

200

152,000

INLINE INLINE

SDCV SDCV

Development Development

H7,000

MOUN1

SDCV SDCV

A A

SIDE SIDE

/SDCV' /SDCV'

12. 12.

T5J) T5J)

Figure Figure

ELEMENT

100

MODULE MODULE

COMMON COMMON

P/A P/A

H H

65,000 SHUTTLE

BASIC BASIC

i o o