1 / 22

Launch Vehicle Considerations for Moon, Mars Missions and ISS Transport

Launch Vehicle Considerations for Moon, Mars Missions and ISS Transport. An International Perspective. John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -1- 3/9/04. Goals. Update data presented in Stanford International Mars Mission Report

diamond
Télécharger la présentation

Launch Vehicle Considerations for Moon, Mars Missions and ISS Transport

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Launch Vehicle Considerations for Moon, Mars Missions and ISS Transport An International Perspective John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -1- 3/9/04

  2. Goals • Update data presented in Stanford International Mars Mission Report • Characterize importance of the InternationalSpace Station • Assess impact ofNASA’s new space policy • Assess impact of today’s global environment John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -2- 3/9/04

  3. Design Basis Moon and Mars Missions(Payload Size and Weight) • Moon Mission • Apollo Program • Soviet Moon Program • Stanford International Mars Mission • Mars Mission • Stanford International Mars Mission • Proposed Russian Mars Missions John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -3- 3/9/04

  4. Design Basis Moon Mission Payload • Soviet Moon Program • N1-L3 Space Complex (Sergei Korolev) • 220,500 lb (100,000 kg) to LEO [1] • L3 Lunar Vehicle • 21,700 lb (9,850 kg) • 10.06 m height • 2.93 m diameter • Ur-500K (Proton)(V. Chelomei) • 11,900 lb (5,390 kg) translunar • Apollo Program (USA) • Total Spacecraft Weight • 95,000 lb (43,100 kg) [2] • Saturn V Launch Vehicle • 270,000 lb (122,500 kg) to LEO [2] • 100,000 lb (45,360 kg) translunar [2] [1] SP KoroleV RKK Energiya [2] NASA Special Publication-4009 John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -4- 3/9/04

  5. Design Basis Mars Mission Payload • Stanford International Mars Mission • 100 ton to LEO HLLV • 2 launch pads required • Total of 9 modules placed in Earth staging orbit by HLLV (For single manned mission) • Crew Transfer Vehicle(2 modules, 41 tons each) • Cargo mission(6 Modules) • 1 Fuel Module • RKK Energiya Proposal (Russia) [3] • Solar Electric Vehicle • Up to 600,000 kg single vehicle assembled in LEO • 6 – 7 Launches to LEO required • 2 year mission duration [3] SP Korolev RKK Energiya John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -5- 3/9/04

  6. So what Kind of Launch Vehicle do we Need? • Mission Architecture? • Typical Lunar Missions • 10 – 45 metric tons translunar(40 ~120 metric tons to LEO) • Typical Mars Mission Concepts • 100 metric tons to LEO with staging • Can we use a smaller launch vehicle? (SsTO) John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -6- 3/9/04

  7. International Launch Vehicles Considered • Arienne 5 (France, ESA) • Atlas V (USA, Lockheed)* • Energiya/Zenit (Russia) • Delta IV (USA, Boeing)* • H2 (Japan) • ChangZheng (Long March) (China)* • Soyuz (Russia) • Shuttle Derivative (USA)* • Stanford SsTO (International)* • Proton (Russia) *New or additional launch vehicles not included in Stanford International Mars Mission John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -7- 3/9/04

  8. Launch Vehicle Payload Capacities [4] Stanford International Mars Mission Final Report, April 1993, E235, Stanford University School of Engineering [5] International Launch Services (ILS) [6] Delta IV Payload Planners Guide, MDC00H0043, Update April 2002 [7] Proton Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide, LKEB-9812-1990, Issue 1, Rev. 5, December 2001 [8] Jenkins, Dennis R,, Space Shuttle: The History of Developing the National Space Transportation System, Motorbooks International, ISBN 0-9633974-4-3, 1996. [9] The Satellite Encyclopedia/NASDA [10] Encyclopedia Astronautica John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -8- 3/9/04

  9. Launch Vehicle Cost Comparison *Price in 2003 U.S.D. computed from 1992 U.S.D. published in Reference 11. A 1992 to 2003 inflation rate of 28% is used [11]. [4] Stanford International Mars Mission Final Report, April 1993, E235, Stanford University School of Engineering [11] Inflationdata.com John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -9- 3/9/04

  10. The Energiya • Successor to N1 moon rocket • 2 Stage Launch Vehicle(Stanford IMM requires additional third stage) • Cryogenic core + 4 LO2/kerosene strap on boosters (Zenit) • Length – 193 ft (59 m)N1-L3 stood 345 ft (105 m) • Payload • 100 Tons to LEO • 18 Tons to GEO • 32 Tons translunar • 28 Tons Venus/Mars • Track Record • May 15,1987, mock-up of Polyus spacecraft • Nov. 15, 1988, Buran Orbiter John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -10- 3/9/04

  11. Viability of EnergiyaDoes the Energiya still “exist”? • Only two Launches • Last launch was 16 years ago • May 2002, Baikonur Cosmodrome Roof Collapse left only full-scale test model of Buran Shuttle and Energiya carrier rocket buried • Energiya cited as launch vehicle for RKK Energiya’s newly disclosed Mars mission concept Photo of Buran and Energiya just prior to collapse – Space.com John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -11- 3/9/04

  12. Russian Mars Mission Concept (SPK RKK Energiya) • Unveiled on Energiya’s website shortly after NASA’s new space policy was announced • Elements delivered to LEO, then assembled into a single vehicle • Solar electric propulsion • 3 months to leave earth orbit • 8 month transit to mars • 1 month to enter Mars orbit • 1 month on Mars surface • 6 person crew • Reusable vehicle • 6 – 7 Energiya Launches required John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -12- 3/9/04

  13. Shuttle Derivative(The Shuttle-C) • Shuttle-C concept devised in the mid 1980s • NASA Marshall design for replacement of shuttle orbiter with recoverable main engine pod • Uses Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters and External Fuel Tank • Payload • 77 metric tons to LEO • 8.7 m diam / 56 m length(comparable to Energiya) • Cost per Launch? • Less than the STS(big deal) • $120 - $550 mil USD? [12] Shuttle-CCredit: Boeing [12] sci.space.policy newsgroup John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -13- 3/9/04

  14. The Soyuz Launch Vehicle • Based on R-7 Semyorka ICBM in the 1950s • Designed by S.P. Korolev • Current configuration introduced in 1966 • 3 – 4 Stages • Kerosene fueled • Manned/Unmanned • LEO – Mars escape trajectory • Soyuz is the Most prolific launch vehicle ever • Over ????? launches since the 1957 launch of sputnik • Safety Rating • Over 70 manned launches with %??? safety rating since 1961 launch of Yuri Gagarin • Equipped with launch escape tower • Generally preferred by U.S. astronauts over Space Shuttle • Assembly line production • Currently in uninterrupted production of 10-15 launch vehicles per year • In early 1980s reached peak production rate of 60 vehicles per year John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -14- 3/9/04

  15. The Soyuz Launch Vehicle • Based on R-7 Semyorka ICBM in the 1950s • Designed by S.P. Korolev • Current configuration introduced in 1966 • 3 – 4 Stages • Kerosene fueled • Manned/Unmanned • LEO – Mars escape trajectory • Soyuz is the Most prolific launch vehicle ever • Over 1,680 launches since the 1957 launch of sputnik • Safety Rating • Over 70 manned launches with %??? safety rating since 1961 launch of Yuri Gagarin • Equipped with launch escape tower • Generally preferred by U.S. astronauts over Space Shuttle • Assembly line production • Currently in uninterrupted production of 10-15 launch vehicles per year • In early 1980s reached peak production rate of 60 vehicles per year John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -14- 3/9/04

  16. The Soyuz Launch Vehicle • Based on R-7 Semyorka ICBM in the 1950s • Designed by S.P. Korolev • Current configuration introduced in 1966 • 3 – 4 Stages • Kerosene fueled • Manned/Unmanned • LEO – Mars escape trajectory • Soyuz is the Most prolific launch vehicle ever • Over 1,680 launches since the 1957 launch of sputnik • Safety Rating • Over 70 manned launches with %100 safety rating since 1961 launch of Yuri Gagarin • Equipped with launch escape tower • Generally preferred by U.S. astronauts over Space Shuttle • Assembly line production • Currently in uninterrupted production of 10-15 launch vehicles per year • In early 1980s reached peak production rate of 60 vehicles per year John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -14- 3/9/04

  17. The ChangZheng 2F(Long March) • First ChangZheng rocket launched in 1960 with Russian aid [13] • Man rated version of China’s Long March family of launch vehicles • October 15, 2003 the Long March 2F Launched Shenxhou-5 spacecraft carrying the first Chinese “Taikonaut” into Low Earth orbit • 5 Successful launches to date • Equipped with launch escape tower • Shenxhou autonomous orbital module allows for the possibility of future space station construction and ISS docking [13] • Major Contribution: Lessons learned [13] Escutia, Paul, “China’s Space Program: Growing International Connections”, Fall 2003 EDGE John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -15- 3/9/04

  18. International Spaceports • Can launch larger payloads into equatorial orbits from locations closer to the Earth’s equator. • Other sites more ideal for polar orbits • e.g., EADS-Rosaviakosmos agreement to launch Soyuz at Kourou John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -16- 3/9/04

  19. ISS / Moon and Mars Manned Vehicle Construction and Architecture • Vehicle staging and construction in LEO • Using the ISS as a spacecraft factory • RKK Energiya Mars mission test plan includes test vehicles constructed at ISS • Advantage: Separation of Cargo and Crew John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -17- 3/9/04

  20. Separation of Cargo and Crew • Concept • Use “energetic” HLLVs to loft heavy cargo/vehicles • Use lighter and more reliable launch vehicles for crew transfer • Opposite of Apollo/STS/Buran/SsTO concepts • Consistently used by Russia to construct and man space stations • Reduces cost and Increases Safety • Limits Payload returned to Earth • NASA Leaning toward this approach in the future(phase out STS in favor of CEV)? = 2 + 2 John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -18- 3/9/04

  21. Brief History of Russian Space Station Construction/Missions *Failed to open hatch between Salyut and Soyuz**First manned space station mission. Soyuz capsule depressurized during reentry***Failed to dock with space station (Soyuz 23 – control system failure, landing in Tengiz Lake)****Sept 1983, Soyuz T exploded on Launch pad, but Escape system saved the crew John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -19- 3/9/04

  22. Conclusions • International cooperation is crucial to success of Lunar, Mars Missions and continued ISS operations • Launch Vehicles • Launch Sites • Use the right launch vehicle for the job • 40 – 120 metric ton to LEO LV for large vehicle components • Reliable, smaller LV for crew transfer John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a -20- 3/9/04

More Related