SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL AEROSPACE REPORTS
A Biweekly Publication of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
VOLUME 43, ISSUE 18 - SEPTEMBER 09, 2005
15 LAUNCH VEHICLES AND LAUNCH OPERATIONS
Includes all classes of launch vehicles, launch/space vehicle systems, and boosters; and launch operations.
For related information see also 18 Spacecraft Design, Testing and Performance; and 20 Spacecraft Propulsion and Power.
20050204032 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL, USA
X-37 Storable Propulsion System Design and Operations
Rodriguez, Henry; Popp, Chris; Rehagen, Ronald J.; [2005]; 17 pp.; In English; 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, 10-13 Jul. 2005, Tucson, AZ, USA Contract(s)/Grant(s): NAS8-02070 Report No.(s): AIAA Paper 2005-3958; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A03, Hardcopy
In a response to NASA’s X-37 TA-10 Cycle-1 contract, Boeing assessed nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4) and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) Storable Propellant Propulsion Systems to select a low risk X-37 propulsion development approach. Space Shuttle lessons learned, planetary spacecraft, and Boeing Satellite HS-601 systems were reviewed to arrive at a low risk and reliable storable propulsion system. This paper describes the requirements, trade studies, design solutions, flight and ground operational issues which drove X-37 toward the selection of a storable propulsion system. The design of storable propulsion systems offers the leveraging of hardware experience that can accelerate progress toward critical design. It also involves the experience gained from launching systems using MMH and N2O4 propellants. Leveraging of previously flight-qualified hardware may offer economic benefits and may reduce risk in cost and schedule. This paper summarizes recommendations based on experience gained from Space Shuttle and similar propulsion systems utilizing MMH and N2O4 propellants. System design insights gained from flying storable propulsion are presented and addressed in the context of the design approach of the X-37 propulsion system. Author
Propulsion System Configurations; Storable Propellants; X-37 Vehicle; Flight Operations
20050204127 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA
| |
| Tools for Aviation/Aerospace |
| IHS sells products and services designed to meet the needs of today's engineers. To learn more, and for a free quote, please complete the form below. |
|
NESC Peer-Review of the Flight Rationale for Expected Debris Report
Harris, Charles E.; Raju, Ivatury S.; Stadler, John H.; Piascik, Robert S.; Kramer-White, Julie A.; Labbe, Steve G.; Ungar, Eugene K.; Rotter, Hank A.; Rogers, James H.; Null, Cynthia H.; July 2005; 153 pp.; In English Contract(s)/Grant(s): WU 104-08-41 Report No.(s): NASA/TM-2005-213792/VERSION1.0; NESC-RP-05-82/05-010-E/VERSION1.0; L-19161/VERSION1.0; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A08, Hardcopy
Since the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) has significantly improved the understanding of launch and ascent debris, implemented hardware modifications to reduce debris, and conducted tests and analyses to understand the risks associated with expected debris. The STS-114 flight rationale for expected debris relies on a combination of all three of these factors. A number of design improvements have been implemented to reduce debris at the source. The External Tank (ET) thermal protection system (TPS) foam has been redesigned and/or process improvements have been implemented in the following locations: the bipod closeout, the first ten feet of the liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank protuberance air load (PAL) ramp, and the LH2 tank-to-intertank flange closeout. In addition, the forward bipod ramp has been eliminated and heaters have been installed on the bipod fittings and the liquid oxygen (LO2) feedline forward bellows to prevent ice formation. The Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) bolt catcher has been redesigned. The Orbiter reaction control system (RCS) thruster cover ‘butcher paper’ has been replaced with a material that sheds at a low velocity. Finally, the pad area has been cleaned to reduce debris during lift-off. Author
Launching; Debris; Aerodynamic Loads; External Tanks; Liquid Hydrogen; Ice Formation; Space Shuttles; Thermal Protection
20050205017 Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech., Pasadena, CA, USA
Human Planetary Landing System (HPLS) Capability Roadmap: Wrap Up
Manning, Rob; Capabilities Roadmap Briefings to the National Research Council; March 1, 2005; 7 pp.; In English; See also 20050205013; Original contains color illustrations; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A02, Hardcopy; Available from CASI on CD-ROM only as part of the entire parent document
When and how does the full scale system and subsystems need to be qualified & Human-rated for flight? Answer: No later than 29. Full scale AEDL Flight Tests can and should be done at Earth (need to get fast turn around between multiple tests). Do we need a Full Scale Validation Flight Test at Mars? Answer: Not, specifically, but the AEDL community is very uncomfortable with the notion of the very first full scale AEDL being piloted. The full scale unpiloted AEDL advance cargo mission that immediately precedes the human landing could do the trick. What kind of precursor AEDL Flight Tests are needed at Mars? Answer:We need to validate our performance & aerodynamic models by flying a scaled (1/10th?) version of the Full Scale Mission by 22. When and how do we decide on the AEDL system to fly? Answer: No later than 2015 (earlier is harder). We need to do multi-path full scale flight simulations and subscale / component development testing starting ASAP. If we find an AEDL for a landing mass of 40 MT, will this same architecture and technology paradigm extend to landing 80 MT? 120 MT? Is there another break point? Answer: We do not know yet. Derived from text
Aerodynamic Characteristics; Flight Simulation; Landing Aids
20050205024 NASA, Washington, DC, USA
Transformational Spaceport and Range Capabilities Roadmap Interim Review to National Research Council External Review Panel
Poniatowski, Karen; Capabilities Roadmap Briefings to the National Research Council; March 1, 2005; 105 pp.; In English; See also 20050205013; Original contains color illustrations; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A06, Hardcopy; Available from CASI on CD-ROM only as part of the entire parent document
Contents include the following: Overview/Introduction. Roadmap Approach/Considerations. Roadmap Timeline/Spirals. Requirements Development. Spaceport/Range Capabilities. Mixed Range Architecture. User Requirements/Customer Considerations. Manifest Considerations. Emerging Launch User Requirements. Capability Breakdown Structure/Assessment. Roadmap Team Observations. Transformational Range Test Concept. Roadmap Team Conclusions. Next Steps. Derived from text
User Requirements; Space Transportation
20050205025 National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA
| |
| Aerospace Engineering Design |
| ESDU packages provide validated design data, methods and software, offering a valuable toolset to aerospace engineers. To learn more, and for a free quote, please complete the form below. |
|
Panel E: Robotic Access and Human Planetary Landing Systems Capabilities Roadmap Briefings to the National Research Council
March 1, 2005; 4 pp.; In English; See also 20050205013; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A01, Hardcopy; Available from CASI on CD-ROM only as part of the entire parent document
The following information is for members of the public who attend open sessions of NRC meetings: This meeting is being held to gather information to help the panel conduct its study. This panel will examine the information and material obtained during this meeting, in an effort to inform its work. Although opinions may be stated and lively discussion may ensue, no conclusions are being drawn at this time and no recommendations will be made. In fact, the panel will deliberate thoroughly before writing its draft report. Moreover, once the draft report is written, it must go through a rigorous review by experts who are anonymous to the panel, and the panel then must respond to this review with appropriate revisions that adequately satisfy the Academy s Report Review committee and the chair of the NRC before it is considered an NRC report. Therefore, observers who draw conclusions about the panel s work based on today s discussions will be doing so prematurely. Furthermore, individual panel members often engage in discussion and questioning for the specific purpose of probing an issue and sharpening an argument. The comments of any given panel member may not necessarily reflect the position he or she may actually hold on the subject under discussion, to say nothing of that person s future position as it may evolve in the course of the project. Any inference about an individual s position regarding findings or recommendations in the final report is therefore also premature. Derived from text
Planetary Landing; Robotics
20050205043 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA
Aerocapture, Entry, Descent and Landing (AEDL) Human Planetary Landing Systems. Section 10: AEDL Analysis, Test and Validation Infrastructure
Arnold, J.; Cheatwood, N.; Powell, D.; Wolf, A.; Guensey, C.; Rivellini, T.; Venkatapathy, E.; Beard, T.; Beutter, B.; Laub, B., et al.; Capabilities Roadmap Briefings to the National Research Council; March 1, 2005; 48 pp.; In English; See also 20050205013; Original contains color illustrations; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A03, Hardcopy; Available from CASI on CD-ROM only as part of the entire parent document
Contents include the following: 3 Listing of critical capabilities (knowledge, procedures, training, facilities) and metrics for validating that they are mission ready. Examples of critical capabilities and validation metrics: ground test and simulations. Flight testing to prove capabilities are mission ready. Issues and recommendations. Derived from text
Planetary Landing; Systems Analysis; Aerocapture; Landing Aids
20050205049 NASA, USA
NASA’s Human Planetary Landing Systems Capability Roadmap Development: General Background and Introduction
Mueller, Rob; Capabilities Roadmap Briefings to the National Research Council; March 1, 2005; 37 pp.; In English; See also 20050205013; No Copyright;Avail: CASI; A03, Hardcopy; Available from CASI on CD-ROM only as part of the entire parent document
General Background and Introduction of Capability Roadmaps Agency Objective. Strategic Planning Transformation. Advanced Planning Organizational Roles. Public Involvement in Strategic Planning. Strategic Roadmaps and Schedule. Capability Roadmaps and Schedule. Purpose of NRC Review. Capability Roadmap Development (Progress to Date) Derived from text
Human Performance; Landing Aids; Planetary Landing
20050205915 Space and Missile Systems Organization, Kirkland AFB, NM USA
DoD Space Test Program: Secondary Payload Planner’s Guide for Use on the EELV Secondary Payload Adapter
Nov. 2004; 23 pp.; In English; Original contains color illustrations Report No.(s): AD-A435515; No Copyright; Avail: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) Secondary Payload Planner’s Guide is published by the DoD Space Test Program (STP) Office, Space and Missiles System Center, Kirtland AFB, NM, to provide interface information for secondary satellites. This document should be used in conjunction with the EELV Standard Interface Specification (SIS) and each launch vehicle provider’s Planner Guides. Note that the term ‘secondary payloads’ refers to complete satellites. The terms ‘secondary payloads’, ‘secondary satellites’ and ‘secondaries’ are used interchangeably throughout this document. DTIC
Adapters; Aerospace Systems; Launch Vehicles; Payloads; Planning
20050205946 Naval Observatory, Washington, DC USA
Panel Discussion on GNSS Interoperability
Detoma, Edoro; Beard, Ronald L.; Fruehauf, Hugo; Hammesfahr, Jens; Hegarty, Chris; Klepczynski, William J.; Koshelyaevsky, Nicholas; Lewandowski, Wlodzimierz; McCarthy, Dennis D.; Powell, Thomas D.; Jan. 2005; 21 pp.; In English; Original contains color illustrations Report No.(s): AD-A435860; No Copyright; Avail: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
This panel discussion on GPS SIGNALS GNSS INTEROPERABILITY CHALLENGES and OPPORTUNITIES focuses on the following topics: A. Ensuring Radio Frequency (RF) compatibility - June 2004 US-EU agreement for GPS-Galileo + follow-on working groups; - Ongoing bilateral discussions between USA and other nations/ organizations for QZSS, GLONASS, SBAS, etc.; B. Enhancing interoperability Incorporation of system time offset messages in navigation data for new civil/ military signals. Are there other inter-system messages that would be useful? Increasing commonality in messages, signal structures, services. Is dissimilarity, in some cases, more beneficial?; C. Spectrum protection. As new GPS signals and Galileo come online, people need to be ensured that they will continue to enjoy all capabilities that they are enjoying today from GPS. The Europeans are investing billions in Galileo, and they would like to make sure that they are not going to be interfered with by GPS. A lengthy document attached to the US-EU agreement in June 2004, by reference, describes the methodology that should be used to ensure that the two systems are RF-compatible. Similar documents are being used by the U.S. now in bilateral discussions with Japan for QZSS, as in other bilateral discussions. As far as interoperability goes, there is a need to provide time offsets between Galileo system time and GPS time. Back in October, a document ICD-GPS-200D was approved by the GPS Joint Program Office, which is the new baseline document, not only for the new L2 civil signal, but also for the L1-L2P (Y) Code and L1-C/A code. This document describes all the messages that will be used for L2C. DTIC
Global Positioning System; Interoperability; Navigation Satellites
20050206001 Ontario Engineering International, Inc., Riverside, CA USA
Adaptive Computer Systems
Abbott, Russell; Cannon, Scott; Jan. 2002; 7 pp.; In English Report No.(s): AD-A436050; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; A02, Hardcopy
A Scaleable Plug and Play interface has been developed and demonstrated in a multibus architecture with 4-8 modules. The modules can be added and removed at will without any reprogramming or rebooting of the modules. Any failure or latchup of any network module will not stop bus communication with the remaining modules. A demonstration has been conducted simulating the addition, removal, and failure of various nodes. This Plug and Play interface will be capable of supporting an adaptive network architecture that can be implemented into future spacecraft or robotic outposts on Mars. When the Plug and Play architecture is combined with a ‘standardized electrical and mechanical interface’ the ability for spacecraft to reconfigure themselves is gained allowing replacement, upgraded or adhoc subsystems to be added to the spacecraft for new missions. The implementation of this type of Plug and Play system will be to lower barriers of entry to providers of spacecraft components and subsystems by providing a common interface that eliminates the problem of proprietary bus architectures. DTIC
Adaptation; Computers; Protocol (Computers); Robotics
20050206124 Barron Associates, Inc., Charlottesville, VA USA
A Reconfigurable Guidance Approach for Reusable Launch Vehicles
Schierman, J. D.; Ward, D. G.; Monaco, J. F.; Hull, J. R.; Jan. 2001; 12 pp.; In English; Original contains color illustrations Report No.(s): AD-A436263; AIAA-2001-4429; No Copyright; Avail: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
A guidance system with reconfiguration capabilities has been developed for reusable launch vehicles (RLVs). The focus of the development is on reconfiguration after a catastrophic effector failure during final approach - a failure that would otherwise cause loss of the vehicle. We assume here that the vehicle employs a reconfigurable inner-loop control system that recovers some maneuvering capabilities and maintains attitude stability. However, for RLVs, it is often the case that nominal performance cannot be fully recovered, and the outer-loop guidance system must account for the degraded response characteristics. Two approaches are presented. The first approach augments the existing production guidance system with adaptation capabilities. A case study shows that stability is maintained following a primary pitch effector failure. However, it is shown that the trajectory commands to the guidance loops must also be re-targeted in order to achieve a safe landing. The second approach employs an on-line optimal trajectory re-targeting algorithm. A database of neighboring optimal trajectories is encoded in an efficient manner and interrogated on line at regular intervals. Given the current states and certain vehicle parameters, this procedure generates optimal guidance commands and integrates the optimal trajectory to the next update point. A proof-of-concept study of this approach was performed. Following a primary speed control failure, the study shows that this approach achieves acceptable landing conditions. DTIC
Guidance (Motion); Launch Vehicles; Reusable Launch Vehicles
20050206125 Barron Associates, Inc., Charlottesville, VA USA
Adaptive Guidance Systems for Hypersonic Reusable Launch Vehicles
Schierman, John D.; Ward, David G.; Hull, Jason R.; Monaco, Jeffrey F.; Ruth, Michael J.; Jan. 2001; 13 pp.; In English; Original contains color illustrations Report No.(s): AD-A436268; No Copyright; Avail: Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
This paper presents an adaptive guidance system approach applied to hypersonic Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs). After an effector failure, it is assumed that the inner-closed-loop system utilizes a reconfigurable control algorithm to recover nominal maneuvering capabilities to the extent possible. However, nominal performance will typically not be fully recovered for RLVs, and the outer-loop guidance system must account for the degraded vehicle response. Two main approaches for the adaptive guidance system are presented. The first approach augments the existing production guidance system by adding adaptation capabilities. A case study shows that stability is maintained following a primary pitch effector failure. This is achieved by adapting gains in the guidance feedback loops. However, it is shown that the trajectory commands to the guidance loops must also be re-targeted in order to achieve a safe landing. The second approach employs an on-line optimal trajectory re-targeting algorithm. Here, the calculus of variations is used to generate a database of admissible neighboring extremals. This database is then encoded in an efficient manner to generate mappings between the current states and vehicle capabilities and the costates defining the admissible optimal trajectories. These mappings are interrogated on-line at regular intervals to obtain the optimal guidance commands. A proof-of-concept case study of this approach shows that the final landing conditions are achieved following a primary speed control effector failure. DTIC
Adaptation; Hypersonic Vehicles; Launch Vehicles; Reusable Launch Vehicles
20050207449 Boeing Co., Canoga Park, CA, USA
A Reliability Model to Assess Reliability of Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle and Next Generation Vehicles
Huang, Zhao; Kuck, Frederick; Fint, Jeff, et al.; [2005]; 1 pp.; In English; AIAA Conference, 10 Jul. 2005, Tucson, AZ, USA Contract(s)/Grant(s): NAS8-01140; Copyright; Avail: Other Sources; Abstract Only
One important thrust in NASA s space exploration vision is to improve the safety and reliability of future launch vehicles. A quantitative reliability model is an essential technical tool to evaluate launch vehicle reliability and to enhance launch vehicle configuration down selection and detailed designs. A quantitative reliability model that supports NASA’s thrust has been developed and implemented in an MS Excel spreadsheet. The model addresses key reliability parameters, and provides for sensitivity analysis of various vehicle designs. This paper presents the specific elements of the model and examples of selected sensitivity analysis results. Reliability input parameters in the model include the following: 1. Main propulsion element failure probability; 2. Propulsion element catastrophic failure fraction (Cf). This is defined as the ratio of probability of uncontained failures over sum of probability of uncontained failures and contained failures); 3. Engine-out design vs. no-engine-out design; 4. Engine with redlines vs. no redlines; 5. Different levels of health management system implementation; 6. Launch Escape System (LES) reliability; and 7. Power level correlation with reliability. The sensitivity results will illustrate the impact of each of the above parameters on several reliability metrics: Loss of Mission (LOM), LOV (Loss of Vehicle) and Loss of Crew (LOC). Author
Reliability Analysis; Mathematical Models; Launch Vehicle Configurations; Space Shuttles
20050209959 NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cocoa Beach, FL, USA
STS-114: Post Launch Press Conference
July 26, 2005; In English; 35 min., 37 sec. playing time, in color, with sound; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; V03, Videotape-VHS; B03, Videotape-Beta
Dean Acosta, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs hosted this post launch press conference. Present were Mike Griffin, NASAAdministrator;William Ready, Associate Administrator for Space Operations; Bill Parsons, Space Shuttle Program Manager; Mike Leinbach, NASA Launch Director; and Wayne Hill, Deputy Program Manager for Space Shuttle Program. Each expressed thanks to all of NASAOfficials and employees, contractors, vendors and the crew for their hard work the past two and a half years that resulted the successful and pristine launch of Space Shuttle Discovery. The Panel emphasized that through extensive technical analysis, thorough planning and tremendous amount of public support brought them full circle again to return to flight. Flight safety, debris during rocket separation, sensors, observations from the mission control, launch conditions were some of the topics discussed with the News media. CASI
Space Transportation System; NASA Space Programs; Spacecraft Launching; Launching; Discovery (Orbiter)
20050210004 NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cocoa Beach, FL, USA
STS-114: Discovery Post MMT Briefing
July 28, 2005; In English; 1 hr., 5 min., 45 sec. playing time, in color, with sound; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; V04, Videotape-VHS; B04, Videotape-Beta
Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager and Steve Poulos, Manager Orbit Project Office at Johnson Space Center is seen during a post Mission Management Team (MMT) briefing. The purpose of this briefing is to talk about the status of the Space Shuttle Discovery Orbiter, the Thermal Protection System (TPS) and the External Tank. Hale presents pictures of the missing foam off of the Hydrogen Protuberance Air Load (PAL) ramp and trajectory debris particles. Poulos explains in detail diagrams of the reinforced carbon-carbon system, possible scuff on the wing panel, coating damage, protruding gap filler and damaged tile blanket. Poulos tells what concerns him the most in terms of tile damage to the Space Shuttle Discovery. CASI
Space Transportation System; Discovery (Orbiter); Mission Planning; Postlaunch Reports
20050210005 NASA Kennedy Space Center, Cocoa Beach, FL, USA
STS-114: Discovery Mission Status/Post MMT Briefing
August 04, 2005; In English; 49 min. playing time, in color, with sound; No Copyright; Avail: CASI; V03, Videotape-VHS; B03, Videotape-Beta
Bob Castle, Mission Operations Representative, and Wayne Hale, Space Shuttle Deputy Program Manager are seen during a post Mission Management Team (MMT) briefing. Bob Castle talks about the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) payload and its readiness for unberthing. Wayne Hale presents pictures of the Space Shuttle Thermal Blanket, Wind Tunnel Tests, and Space Shuttle Blanket Pre and Post Tests. Questions from the news media about the Thermal Protection System after undocking and re-entry of the Space Shuttle Discovery, and lessons learned are addressed. CASI
Discovery (Orbiter); Payloads; Space Shuttle Missions; NASA Space Programs; Mission Planning
Source: NASA.
|
IHS sells products and services designed to meet the needs of today's aviation & aerospace engineers, including:
- Quick access to FAA, JAA, ICAO and UK-CAA information and regulations.
- Validated engineering methods, data, principles, worked examples, programs and related equations on over 1340 specific aerospace, process, structural and mechanical engineering topics.
- The IHS Fasteners eCatalog, providing decision support for the identification, specification and sourcing of aerospace & defense standard fasteners/hardware such as bolts, screws, nuts, washers, rivets, studs, etc.
- Standards documents and collections from the top aerospace & aviation standards development organizations, including SAE International, AIAA, AIA, FAA and NASA.
|