SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Mechanical

jessewaller avatar
jessewaller
12 diapositives · 212 Views · Jan 04, 2020

Explore launch vehicle volume comparisons & mechanical mass details from the SNAP Study conducted at Goddard Space Flight Center on June 28, 2001. Gain insights into configurations, bus layout, mass properties, issues, and concerns. Dive into the specifications of Delta III, Atlas EPF, and Sea Launch.

#mechanical #mechanical ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Mechanical - slide 1
01 / 12Mechanical
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Mechanical
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. SNAP Study Mechanical Dave Peters George Roach June 28, 2001 ...a man who's willing to make a decision in the first place can always make another one to correct any mistake he's made. Harry S. Truman

  2. Topics • Launch Vehicle Volume Comparisons • Configurations • Launch • Deployed • Bus layout • Mechanical Mass, Cost, & TRL • Mass Properties • Issues and Concerns • Back-ups • Launch vehicle lift capacity comparisons SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  3. Launch Vehicle Volume Comparisons Delta III Atlas EPF SeaLaunch Delta II 6.57 M SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  4. Deployed Configuration Solar Array Wrap around, body mounted 50% OSR & 50% Cells Secondary Mirror and Mount Primary Mirror Optical Bench Thermal Radiator Sub-system electronics Propulsion Tanks SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  5. Bus Layout Sub-system electronics Momentum Wheels (4 Ithaco “B”) Sub-system electronics 5# thrusters (4 sets of 2) Propulsion Tanks FIDO electronics • Points to consider • Mass balance • Thermal • Access for servicing propulsion tanks • Integration and test access Sub-system electronics SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  6. Mechanical Mass, Cost, & TRL • Mass (kg) • Bus Structure • Thrust tube 33 • Plates 31 • Misc. brackets, clips, etc. 79 143 total • Structure Cost (FY01$) • Per RAO accounting model $2.12 M • Historical average 18% of mission cost $34 M • TRL #6 : System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) • Subsystem prototypes or models of the proposed bus have been successfully tested under space conditions in orbital flight, but in a bus configuration different than the proposed bus. • Bus prototypes or models will require major modifications for proposed mission. This will require flight requalification. • Proven launch vehicle to be used. SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  7. Mass Properties Z • Spacecraft • Lift-off • C.G………………… 23.4, -126.3, 1186.0 (mm) • Inertia’s wrt C.G. • Ixx ……………… 3.6e9 • Iyy ……………… 3.3e9 • Izz ……………… 2.1e9 Y X SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  8. Mechanical Issues and Concerns • RSDO Spacecraft Bus • There are several “RSDO” buses that could accommodate this mission. However, due to the unique payload instrument interface, extensive re-design of the mechanical structure is necessary. A mission unique structure will be mandatory. At this time we feel that there will be sufficient volume to accommodate the sub-system components. The main concern being the reaction wheels and their relationship to the C.G. • Mass and Volume • No mass problem • Volume is close on the Delta III and Atlas EPF. • This volume conflict is very slight and could be resolved by a slight reduction of the MLI Shroud Assembly • Mechanical interfaces • Mission axial C.G. height within limits for launch vehicle PAF. • Mission lateral C.G. are within limits for launch vehicle PAF. • Mission stiffness for launch vehicle is TBD at this phase of the study. SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  9. BACK-UP Slides SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  10. Launch Vehicle Performance(Delta III) 2700 -2 SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  11. Launch Vehicle Performance(Atlas III) 3100 -2 SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center

  12. Launch Vehicle Performance(Sea Launch) 3300 -2 SNAP Study, June 28, 2001 Goddard Space Flight Center