The Space Congress® Proceedings 1988 (25th) Heritage - Dedication - Vision Apr 1st, 8:00 AM Conestoga Launch Vehicles Mark H. Daniels Special Projects Manager, SSI James E. Davidson Project Manager, SSI Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Daniels, Mark H. and Davidson, James E., "Conestoga Launch Vehicles" (1988). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 7. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1988-25th/session-11/7 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]. CONESTOGA LAUNCH VEHICLES by Mark H. Daniels Special Projects Manager, SSI and James E. Davidson Project Manager, SSI launch into space. As such, it represents an Abstract important precedent for all other space launch companies. Several major applications for commercial and government markets have developed recently which In order to conduct the launch, the company will make use of small satellites. A launch solicited and received approvals from 18 different vehicle designed specifically for small satellites Federal agencies. Among these were the Air Force, brings many attendant benefits. Space Services the State Department, the Navy, and the Commerce Incorporated has developed the Conestoga family of Department. Commerce required SSI to obtain an launch vehicles to meet the needs of five major export license, due to the extra-territoriality of markets: low orbiting communication satellites, the vehicle's splashdown point. positioning satellites, earth sensing satellites, space manufacturing prototypes, and scientific Since that time, the company has organized a team experiments. The Conestoga provides low cost, of subcontractors to develop the Conestoga family rapid schedules, one-stop shopping, flexible of vehicles and conduct upcoming launches. The launch sites, multiple satellite deployments, team includes Eagle Engineering, a Houston-based insurability, reliability, and modularity. engineering and design firm, and Morton Thiokol, a nationally recognized aerospace contractor. I. Background Recently, the company signed an agreement with Space Services Incorporated (SSI) was established NASA for the use of Wallops Flight Facility in in 1980. The founder, David Hannah, Jr., intended Virginia as a long term launch site. Also, SSI to develop a small launch vehicle to serve a has obtained financial backing from Houston developing sector of space commercialization, the Industries, the parent company of Houston Lighting small satellite market. At the time, Mr. Hannah and Power, and has agreed to provide five launches envisioned this market developing out of a trend to Starfind, Incorporated. toward miniaturized components, a need for lower cost space systems, and a mass-production concept II. Markets for small satellites which would allow for economies of scale. In any business, it is logical to analyze the market before designing a product. Therefore, After an initial difficulty with a liquid-fueled before discussing the launch vehicles which SSI rocket system, the company switched to a more has developed, let's look at the markets it is dependable, solid-fueled design. In September, intended to serve. 1982, the company successfully launched the Conestoga I. Subsequently, a series of Conestoga vehicles have been developed to service the 300 to Broadly, the market is divided into two segments. 4000 pound payload range for launch to low earth The commercial segment is concerned with orbit. profitable satellite operations, short-term development, and high return on investment. The government segment is concerned with budgetary The Conestoga I mission was a suborbital launch constraints, long-term development, high from Matagorda Island, Texas. The trajectory took reliability, and political advantage. Clearly, to the vehicle 192 nautical miles up and 350 nautical design a single vehicle to meet the needs of both miles down range. The vehicle was powered by a market segments is challenging. Minuteman M56 motor. Although the technology demonstration was important for the company, Within each of these segments, five major proving its ability to organize and conduct applications have been identified. These are low launches, it was not a significant technical orbiting networks of communications satellites, advance for aerospace engineering. For the launch positioning or navigation systems, earth sensing industry, however, it was unprecedented. It was systems, space manufacturing prototypes, and the first privately funded, privately operated scientific experimentation. Each of these 11-8 765" LEO MISSION 1 Figure 1 11-9 applications benefits from the use of smaller 3. A commercial approach is needed. A satellites. commercial approach is characterized by reduced manpower and paperwork Small satellites have several advantages. requirements, good quality control, fixed price contracts, and turnkey 1. They can be as capable as their larger launch services. The commercial counterparts. Miniaturization of operator pays for the development components has allowed increasingly cost, rather than having the customer sophisticated circuitry to occupy less (government) pay for it. Commercial volume and weight. customers find such an approach attractive because it is familiar and 2. Smaller satellites can cost less, both dependable. Commercial clients of the to develop and to launch. Small government, for instance shuttle components weigh less, are often users, often fail to evaluate the easier to mass produce, and frequently risks associated with a supplier whose come "off-the-shelf." policies are not determined by the market. Government launch vehicle 3. Smaller satellites are easier to users find a commercial approach insure, simply because they cost less. politically advantageous at present With less at risk, insurance companies due to the attitude of the current can afford lower premiums. Administration. Certain laws require the use of commercial launch services 4. Smaller satellites offer increased where possible. survivability and decreased capacity risk. Individually, a small satellite 4. The launch system should have limited is less of a target. As a network risk factors. Use of flight-proven with many interconnected elements, a components and experienced contractors group of small satellites in different could provide a significantly less orbits can continue to provide risky vehicle. Such an approach capacity despite the loss of one or offers advantages in insurance, two elements. reliability, and cost. Advanced designs can be both more costly to 5. Smaller satellites are more easily develop and more costly to operate. replaced. With lower production and launch costs, it is easier to have III. Options spare satellites in inventory, ready to replace defective or destroyed Currently, small satellite operators are faced satellites. This replaceability with many options for launching their payloads. removes the burden of high cost, Unfortunately, most of these are unappealing. highly reliable components which make many long-lived spacecraft so A. Space Shuttle. expensive. In August, 1986, President Reagan signed an Together these benefits provide sufficient Executive Order requiring the removal of incentive to satellite operators to reconsider the commercial payloads from the shuttle. Even use of traditional, large, long-lived, expensive without this policy (which, after all, is subject systems. A growing trend toward small satellites to change without notice), the shuttle has has been seen, with certain government users inherent disadvantages for the small satellite leading the way. user. These include: The analysis of the market suggests the 1, characteristics that a launch vehicle should Long lead time to launch. Even prior possess. to the Challenger tragedy, lead times for payload operators could be 1. Its total purchase price should be lengthy. Integration time, especially low. The price is particularly for space available payloads which important in view of the Government's must be ready for integration on any need to meet budgetary constraints, of several flights, could be long. and the commercial sector's need to This waiting period is particularly provide a high return on investment. unfortunate for experimenters with Dollars saved at launch return biological or other perishable directly to the "bottom line" of the materials. satellite operator. Tight Manifest. With the down-time 2. It should have a broad range of associated with the loss of 51L, an capabilities. Modular components, increasing backlog has accumulated. such as strap-on motors and a variety Today, a new payload for the shuttle of upper stages could provide such a faces a wait of years, even assuming a range. Therefore, a single vehicle is full fleet flies as often as expected. not sufficient; a family of vehicles is needed. 11-10 765 LE itlHA CTYP. 4PQ Figure 2 11-11 Figure 3 11-12 current cost estimates for such systems are low, 3 Inflexibility. The shuttle has such cost estimates are historically lower than limited capabilities. It cannot reach the actual cost of procurement and operation. altitudes higher than a few hundred nautical miles, and it cannot reach IV. The Conestoga all inclinations. Small satellites with special orbital needs must expect Faced with a clear market need which