DOCSLIB.ORG

Industry Perspectives on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technicians Brent A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Industry Perspectives on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technicians Brent A Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs College of Technology Masters Theses College of Technology Theses and Projects 4-27-2010 Industry Perspectives On Reusable Launch Vehicle Technicians Brent A. Vlasman Purdue University - Main Campus, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/techmasters Vlasman, Brent A., "Industry Perspectives On Reusable Launch Vehicle Technicians" (2010). College of Technology Masters Theses. Paper 7. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/techmasters/7 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Graduate School ETD Form 9 (Revised 12/07) PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared Brent A. Vlasman By Entitled Industry Perspectives on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technicians For the degree of Master of Science Is approved by the final examining committee: David Stanley Chair Denver Lopp Timothy Ropp To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material. David Stanley Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Approved by: Gary Bertoline 4/19/2010 Head of the Graduate Program Date Graduate School Form 20 (Revised 1/10) PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer Title of Thesis/Dissertation: Industry Perspectives on Reusable Launch Vehicle Technicians For the degree of _______Master of______________ Science ___________________________________________ I certify that in the preparation of this thesis, I have observed the provisions of Purdue University Teaching, Research, and Outreach Policy on Research Misconduct (VIII.3.1), October 1, 2008.* Further, I certify that this work is free of plagiarism and all materials appearing in this thesis/dissertation have been properly quoted and attributed. I certify that all copyrighted material incorporated into this thesis/dissertation is in compliance with the United States’ copyright law and that I have received written permission from the copyright owners for my use of their work, which is beyond the scope of the law. I agree to indemnify and save harmless Purdue University from any and all claims that may be asserted or that may arise from any copyright violation. Brent A. Vlasman ______________________________________ Printed Name and Signature of Candidate 4/19/2010 ______________________________________ Date (month/day/year) *Located at http://www.purdue.edu/policies/pages/teach_res_outreach/viii_3_1.html INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVES ON REUSABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE TECHNICIANS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Brent A. Vlasman In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science May 2010 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii To Savannah. You are the reason I did this. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. v LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................vi ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1 1.1. Objectives ................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.3. Scope ......................................................................................................... 2 1.4. Significance ................................................................................................ 2 1.5. Definitions ................................................................................................... 4 1.6. Assumptions ............................................................................................... 5 1.7. Delimitations ............................................................................................... 6 1.8. Limitations .................................................................................................. 7 1.9. Summary .................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................ 8 2.1. Commercial Space Industry ........................................................................ 8 2.2. Launch Vehicle Types ................................................................................ 9 2.3. RLV Maintenance ..................................................................................... 11 2.4. Government Perspective of Commercial Space ....................................... 12 2.5. Operations and Maintenance Guide 1.0 ................................................... 14 2.6. Suborbital Industry Snapshot .................................................................... 16 2.7. Summary .................................................................................................. 19 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 20 3.1. Study Purpose .......................................................................................... 20 3.2. Exploratory, Qualitative Research ............................................................ 20 3.3. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................. 21 3.4. Sampling................................................................................................... 23 3.5. Data Collection ......................................................................................... 26 3.6. Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 31 3.7. Researcher Bias ....................................................................................... 37 3.8. Researcher Credibility .............................................................................. 38 3.9. Summary .................................................................................................. 39 CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSES AND FINDINGS ............................................. 40 4.1. Sample Attrition ........................................................................................ 40 4.2. Data Analysis and Reduction .................................................................... 41 4.2.1. Category Creation .............................................................................. 42 iv Page 4.2.2. Cross-case Analysis ........................................................................... 43 4.2.3. Deviant Cases .................................................................................... 44 4.3. Findings .................................................................................................... 45 4.3.1. Assertions ........................................................................................... 46 4.4. Summary .................................................................................................. 51 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 52 5.1. Conclusions .............................................................................................. 52 5.2. Discussion ................................................................................................ 53 5.3. Recommendations .................................................................................... 56 5.4. Summary .................................................................................................. 58 LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................... 59 APPENDICES Appendix A. Interview Transcripts ................................................................... 62 Appendix B. Coded Interview Transcripts ...................................................... 127 Appendix C. Project Brief .............................................................................. 198 Appendix D. Code Frequencies ..................................................................... 201 Appendix E. Subject Area Code Frequencies................................................ 209 Appendix F. Strength of Data Continuums .................................................... 215 v LIST OF TABLES Appendix Table Page Table D.1. Codes and Frequencies from Interview 1 ........................................ 201 Table D.2. Codes and Frequencies from Interview 2 ........................................ 203 Table D.3. Codes and Frequencies from Interview 3 ........................................ 204 Table D.4. Codes and Frequencies from Interview 4 ........................................ 205 Table D.5. Codes and Frequencies from Interview 5 ........................................ 207 Table E.1. Color Key ......................................................................................... 209 Table E.2. Rocket Propulsion Codes and Frequencies .................................... 210 Table E.3. Aviation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NASA Lessons Learned on Reusable and Expendable Launch Vehicle Operations and Their Application Towards DARPA’S Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Program
    NASA Lessons Learned on Reusable and Expendable Launch Vehicle Operations and Their Application Towards DARPA’s Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) Program C. H. Williams NASA GRC R. G. Johnson NASA KSC 15 Jan 15 Outline • Selected Historic Shuttle Operations Data • Shuttle Lessons Learned Recommendations for Lower Cost, Operationally Efficient Launch Vehicle Systems • Selected Expendable launch vehicle experiences • Past NASA Launch Vehicle Development Programs, Studies (1985 to present) • Discussion: Suggested applications of NASA Lessons Learned to already-baselined contractor XS-1 Phase I concepts Selected Historic Shuttle Operations Data 3 Original Shuttle Ops Concept vs. Actual Concept Phase (c. 1974) Operational Phase 4 Overall Results of Cost Analysis • “Direct” (Most Visible) Work Drives Massive (and Least Visible) Technical & Administrative Support Infrastructure STS Budget "Pyramid" (FY 1994 Access to Space Study) • Example: Direct Unplanned Repair Activity Drives Ops Support Infra, Logistics, Sustaining Engineering, Total SR&QA and Flight Certification Generic $M Total Operations Function FY94 (%) Elem. Receipt & Accept. 1.4 0.04% Landing/Recovery 19.6 0.58% Direct (Visible) Work “Tip of the Iceberg” Veh Assy & Integ 27.1 0.81% <10% Launch 56.8 1.69% Offline Payload/Crew 75.9 2.26% + Turnaround 107.3 3.19% Vehicle Depot Maint. 139.0 4.14% Indirect (Hidden) Traffic/Flight Control 199.4 5.93% ~20% Operations Support Infra 360.5 10.73% + Concept-Uniq Logistics 886.4 Support (Hidden) 26.38% ~70% Trans Sys Ops Plan'g & Mgmnt 1487.0 44.25%
    [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]
  • Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight NASA/SP-2014-617 Commercial Orbital Transportation Services A New Era in Spaceflight On the cover: Background photo: The terminator—the line separating the sunlit side of Earth from the side in darkness—marks the changeover between day and night on the ground. By establishing government-industry partnerships, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program marked a change from the traditional way NASA had worked. Inset photos, right: The COTS program supported two U.S. companies in their efforts to design and build transportation systems to carry cargo to low-Earth orbit. (Top photo—Credit: SpaceX) SpaceX launched its Falcon 9 rocket on May 22, 2012, from Cape Canaveral, Florida. (Second photo) Three days later, the company successfully completed the mission that sent its Dragon spacecraft to the Station. (Third photo—Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls) Orbital Sciences Corp. sent its Antares rocket on its test flight on April 21, 2013, from a new launchpad on Virginia’s eastern shore. Later that year, the second Antares lifted off with Orbital’s cargo capsule, (Fourth photo) the Cygnus, that berthed with the ISS on September 29, 2013. Both companies successfully proved the capability to deliver cargo to the International Space Station by U.S. commercial companies and began a new era of spaceflight. ISS photo, center left: Benefiting from the success of the partnerships is the International Space Station, pictured as seen by the last Space Shuttle crew that visited the orbiting laboratory (July 19, 2011). More photos of the ISS are featured on the first pages of each chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Twolstage REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEM UTILIZING a WINGED CORE VEHICLE and GLIDEBACK BOOSTERS
    NASA Technical Memorandum 101513 I. TWOlSTAGE REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEM UTILIZING A WINGED CORE VEHICLE AND GLIDEBACK BOOSTERS Ian 0. MacConochie James A. Martin James S. Wood Miles 0. Duquette July 1989 - (flASA-TM-lo%!513) TUO-STaGE REUSABLE UUUCH B89-268 78 t SYSTEil UTILIBIFSG A UIBCBD COBE VlzEICLE BllD 6UDBBACX BOOSTERS (HAS., Langley Besearch Center) 21 p CSCL 22B Unclas # 63/16 0324583 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23665 TWO-STAGE REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEM UTILIZING A WINGED CORE VEHICLE AND GLIDEBACK BOOSTERS BY Ian 0. MacConochie James A. Martin James S. Wood* Miles 0. Duquette* ABSTRACT A near-term technology launch system is descrlbed in which Space Shuttle main engines are used on a manned orbiter and also on twin strap-on unmanned boosters. The orbiter is configured with a circular body and clipped delta wings. The twin strap-on boosters have a circular body and deployable oblique wings for the glideback recovery. The dry and gross weights of the system, capable of delivering 70 klb of cargo to orbit, are compared with the values for the current Shuttle and a core vehicle with hydrocarbon-fuel ed boosters. INTRODUCTION In recent conceptual design studies of launch vehicles (Ref. l), emphasis has been placed on reducing operational complexity by employing comnonality in systems and propellants. In this regard, a launch vehicle has been configured in which liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen, and current Space Shuttle main engines are used in both a manned core vehicle (orbiting stage) and its strap-on unmanned boosters. The principal objective of this study was to investigate the size and performance of an all-oxygen/hydrogen system using fixed numbers of Shuttle main engines.
    [Show full text]
  • First Stage of a Highly Reliable Reusable Launch System
    First Stage of a Highly Reliable Reusable Launch System * $ Kurt J. Kloesel , Jonathan B. Pickrelf, and Emily L. Sayles NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California, 93523-0273 Michael Wright § NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, 20771-0001 Darin Marriott** Embry-Riddle University, Prescott, Arizona, 86301-3720 Dr. Leo Hollandtf General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems Division, San Diego, California, 92121-1194 Dr. Stephen Kuznetsov$$ Power Superconductor Applications Corporation, New Castle, Pennsylvania, 16101-5241 Electromagnetic launch assist has the potential to provide a highly reliable reusable first stage to a space access system infrastructure at a lower overall cost. This paper explores the benefits of a smaller system that adds the advantages of a high specific impulse air-breathing stage and supersonic launch speeds. The method of virtual specific impulse is introduced as a tool to emphasize the gains afforded by launch assist. Analysis shows launch assist can provide a 278-s virtual specific impulse for a first-stage solid rocket. Additional trajectory analysis demonstrates that a system composed of a launch-assisted first-stage ramjet plus a bipropellant second stage can provide a 48-percent gross lift-off weight reduction versus an all-rocket system. The combination of high-speed linear induction motors and ramjets is identified, as the enabling technologies and benchtop prototypes are investigated. The high-speed response of a standard 60 Hz linear induction motor was tested with a pulse width modulated variable frequency drive to 150 Hz using a 10-lb load, achieving 150 mph. A 300-Hz stator-compensated linear induction motor was constructed and static-tested to 1900 lbf average.
    [Show full text]
  • Reusable Launch Systems Aerospace
    Nov, 2010 DEPARTMENT OF REUSABLE LAUNCH SYSTEMS AEROSPACE ENGINEERING Soumik Bose Keshav Kishore Anand Indian Institute Of Technology, Kharagpur 1 INTRODUCTION A hundred years ago, on December 17, 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright successfully achieved a piloted, powered flight. Though the Wright Flyer I flew only 10 ft off the ground for 12 seconds, traveling a mere 120 ft, the aeronautical technology it demonstrated paved the way for passenger air transportation. Man had finally made it to the air. The Wright brother’s plane of 1903 led to the development of aircrafts such as the WWII Spitfire, and others. In 1926 the first passenger plane flew holiday makers from American mainland to Havana and Bahamas. In 23 years the world had moved from a plane that flew 120 ft and similar planes that only a chosen few could fly, to one that can carry many passengers. In October 1957, man entered the space age. Russia sent the first satellite, the Sputnik, and in April 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first man on space. In the years since Russia and United States has sent many air force pilots and a fewer scientists, engineers and others. But even after almost 50 years, the number of people who has been to space is close to 500. The people are losing interest in seeing a chosen few going to space and the budgets to space research is diminishing. The space industry now makes money by taking satellites to space. But a major factor here is the cost. At present to put a single kilogram into orbit will cost you between $10000 and $20000.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP 2012/3
    Group 2 Re-usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP 2012/3 Re-usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP Group 2 James Dobberson Robert Taylor Matthew Chapman Timothy West Mukudzei Muchengeti William Wou Group 2 Re-usable Launch and Payload Delivery System MDDP 2012/3 1. Contents 1. Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i 2. Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. ii 3. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 4. Down Selection and Integration Methodology ......................................................................... 2 5. Presentation of System Concept and Operations ...................................................................... 5 6. System Investment Plan ......................................................................................................... 20 7. Numerical Analysis and Statement of Feasibility .................................................................. 23 8. Conclusions and Future Work ................................................................................................ 29 9. Launch Philosophy ................................................................................................................. 31 10. Propulsion ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Progress of the X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program
    United States General Accounting Office Testimony GAO Before the Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, House of Representatives For Release Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT SPACE Wednesday, September 29, 1999 TRANSPORTATION Progress of the X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program Statement of Allen Li, Associate Director, National Security and International Affairs Division GAO/T-NSIAD-99-243 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be here today to discuss the status of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) X-33 Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. The purpose of this program, co-sponsored under a cooperative agreement between NASA and the Lockheed Martin Corporation, is to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and techniques needed for future reusable launch vehicles. These vehicles are in essence spacecraft or rockets whose components—either all or in part—are utilized on subsequent flights. If the X-33 Program is successful, Lockheed Martin may build a small fleet of operational vehicles called VentureStars. One way for NASA to reduce future launch costs may be to phase out the space shuttle fleet and purchase launch services from commercial sources. Our testimony summarizes our recent report on the X-33 Program1 and discusses (1) whether the X-33 Program is meeting its original cost, schedule, and performance objectives; (2) how NASA conducts oversight under the cooperative agreement; and (3) issues NASA may face if it decides to use Lockheed Martin’s VentureStar to service the International Space Station. At your request, we are also commenting on the progress of the X-33 Program in meeting the intent of the National Space Transportation Policy, the directive that establishes national policy, guidelines, and implementing actions for the conduct of national space transportation programs that will sustain and revitalize U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports
    Order Code IB93062 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports Updated September 7, 2001 Marcia S. Smith Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS U.S. Launch Vehicle Policy From “Shuttle-Only” to “Mixed Fleet” Clinton Administration Policy U.S. Launch Vehicle Programs and Issues NASA’s Space Shuttle Program Future Launch Vehicle Development Programs DOD’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Program Government-Led Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) Programs Private Sector RLV Development Efforts U.S. Commercial Launch Services Industry Congressional Interest Foreign Competition (Including Satellite Export Issues) Europe China Russia Ukraine India Japan LEGISLATION IB93062 09-07-01 Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports SUMMARY Launching satellites into orbit, once the X-33, suffered delays and on March 1, 2001 exclusive domain of the U.S. and Soviet gov- NASA decided to end the program. ernments, today is an industry in which compa- Companies developing new launch vehicles are nies in the United States, Europe, China, Rus- reassessing their plans, and NASA has initiated sia, Ukraine, Japan, and India compete. In the a new “Space Launch Initiative” (SLI) to United States, the National Aeronautics and broaden the choices from which it can choose Space Administration (NASA) continues to be a new RLV design. Some of the SLI funding responsible for launches of its space shuttle, and is going to companies that have been trying to the Air Force has responsibility for launches develop their own new launch vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the Competitive Advantage of the United States of America in Commercial Human Orbital Spaceflight Markets
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Management Papers Wharton Faculty Research 2014 An Analysis of the Competitive Advantage of the United States of America in Commercial Human Orbital Spaceflight Markets Greg Autry Laura Hhuang Jeff Foust Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers Part of the Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons Recommended Citation Autry, G., Hhuang, L., & Foust, J. (2014). An Analysis of the Competitive Advantage of the United States of America in Commercial Human Orbital Spaceflight Markets. Futron Corporation, Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers/222 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/mgmt_papers/222 For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Analysis of the Competitive Advantage of the United States of America in Commercial Human Orbital Spaceflight Markets Abstract The “Public/Private Human Access to Space” / Human Orbital Markets (HOM) study group of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) has established a framework for the identification and analysis of relevant factors and structures that support a global human orbital spaceflight market. The HOM study group has called for analysis at the national level to be incorporated in their global study. This report, commissioned by the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transport, provides a review of demonstrated and potential Human Orbital Markets and an analysis of the U.S. industrial supply chain supporting commercial human orbital spaceflight. eW utilize a multi‐method, holistic approach incorporating primarily qualitative methodologies that also incorporates relevant statistical data. Our methodology parallels the National Competitive Advantage diamond model pioneered by economist Michael Porter. The study reveals that while the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts of Operations for a Reusable Launch Vehicle
    Concepts of Operations for a Reusable Launch Vehicle MICHAEL A. RAMPINO, Major, USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies THESIS PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIRPOWER STUDIES, MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, FOR COMPLETION OF GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS, ACADEMIC YEAR 1995–96. Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama September 1997 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: Distribution unlimited. ii Contents Chapter Page DISCLAIMER . ii ABSTRACT . v ABOUT THE AUTHOR . vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ix 1 INTRODUCTION . 1 2 RLV CONCEPTS AND ATTRIBUTES . 7 3 CONCEPTS OF OPERATIONS . 19 4 ANALYSIS . 29 5 CONCLUSIONS . 43 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 49 Illustrations Figure 1 Current RLV Concepts . 10 2 Cumulative 2,000-Pound Weapons Delivery within Three Days . 32 Table 1 Attributes of Proposed RLV Concepts and One Popular TAV Concept . 9 2 Summary of Attributes of a Notional RLV . 15 3 CONOPS A and B RLV Capabilities . 19 4 Cumulative 2,000-Pound Weapons Delivery within Three Days . 32 5 Summary of Analysis . 47 iii Abstract The United States is embarked on a journey toward maturity as a spacefaring nation. One key step along the way is development of a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). The most recent National Space Transportation Policy (August 1994) assigned improvement and evolution of current expendable launch vehicles to the Department of Defense while National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA) is responsible for working with industry on demonstrating RLV technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Round Trip to Orbit: Human Spaceflight Alternatives
    Round Trip to Orbit: Human Spaceflight Alternatives August 1989 NTIS order #PB89-224661 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Round Trip to Orbit: Human Spaceflight Alternatives Special Report, OTA-ISC-419 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1989). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-600744 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 special report) Foreword In the 20 years since the first Apollo moon landing, the Nation has moved well beyond the Saturn 5 expendable launch vehicle that put men on the moon. First launched in 1981, the Space Shuttle, the world’s first partially reusable launch system, has made possible an array of space achievements, including the recovery and repair of ailing satellites, and shirtsleeve research in Spacelab. However, the tragic loss of the orbiter Challenger and its crew three and a half years ago reminded us that space travel also carries with it a high element of risk-both to spacecraft and to people. Continued human exploration and exploitation of space will depend on a fleet of versatile and reliable launch vehicles. As this special report points out, the United States can look forward to continued improvements in safety, reliability, and performance of the Shuttle system. Yet, early in the next century, the Nation will need a replacement for the Shuttle. To prepare for that eventuality, NASA and the Air Force have begun to explore the potential for advanced launch systems, such as the Advanced Manned Launch System and the National Aerospace Plane, which could revolutionize human access to space.
    [Show full text]