![]() Moreover, any heavy lift choice must be scalable for manned and cargo deep space (Mars) use, possible national security payloads of the future, or possible adaptation for commercial variants during the lifetime of the vehicle’s operation.Īccording to planners involved in the 60 Day Study, a crew safety goal of one launch failure in 1,000 was the objective for the launch vehicle selected. Risk assessments included evaluating risk from technology development, launch processing risks, and schedule risk. Planners defined “affordability” as being characterized by reduced non-recurring costs, reduced recurring costs, or cost phasing-in. Multiple architectures were studied against possible multiple mission launcher options. This emphasis on shared component commonality was a continuous theme in the launch vehicle trades throughout the year.įor manned CEV flights, the series of in-line booster configurations included four and five segment SRBs derived from the existing space shuttle configuration a series of shuttle External Tank-derived “in-line” launchers, and a pair of large heavy lift shuttle-derived manned in-line vehicles. ![]() Designs for the Earth Departure Stage (EDS), which, under the lunar exploration scenario initially proposed by Project Constellation, would inject the docked CEV and lunar lander into lunar orbit, were evaluated from possible common use of engines and tankage used in the shuttle-derived launchers. Shuttle-derived launch designs were evaluated for both crew and cargo carriers. They also determined that cost effectiveness could be achieved if the launch vehicles chosen for CEV systems could yield a higher flight rate by multiple government users, such as the national security community. NASA also evaluated the changes in or construction of new ground installations that would be needed to support the CEV launcher choices.įamilies of Launch Vehicles-CEV/ET-derived Optionsįairly early in the analysis, planners determined that a new hybrid booster had no particular benefit over a launcher developed from either EELV or shuttle-derived designs. A desired element was synergy between the CEV manned booster and its heavy lift family. This evaluation looked at common elements shared between the upper stages of the CEV manned boosters and those upper stages that might be used in cargo lifters. ![]() ESMD looked at 12 crew launch vehicle (CEV) options, 35 cargo launch designs, and three classes of new upper stage configurations. An integrated launch systems study was also conducted by ESMD. In addition, an assessment of heavy lift designs derived from today’s current Atlas V and Delta IV EELV was conducted. The two series of reviews were separate but complimented each other in their wide-ranging assessments of launching options. These vehicles would be capable of in excess of 100 metric tons of lift to low orbit. Very large heavy lift launch vehicle designs were also reviewed as part of a series of trade studies led by Johnson Space Center in Houston. Booster lift capabilities studied ranged from as small as seven metric tons to in excess of 70 metric tons. Throughout most of 2004 and into the spring of 2005, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) conducted a detailed series of trade analyses of launch vehicle options for both manned CEV spacecraft and cargo requirements. A second, related study has reviewed heavy lift options using the same shuttle-derived elements. Internal NASA documents detailing the review, which was completed in late June, were obtained by the authors. Studies also looked at growth options from the nation’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV) community. In some ways these launchers will be new – yet they will also look very familiar using hardware and concepts that have long and well-established flight histories.Īnalysts have reviewed a wide variety of launch vehicle options for both manned and cargo-only versions of the NASA Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and have settled for an all-solid booster configuration, according to sources close to NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study (aka the “60 Day Study”)īut a year-long study initiated prior to the change in NASA Administrators and completed this spring gave an extensive review to both uses of a launch vehicle derived from the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) as well as a larger booster design using twin SRB motors flanking a derivative of the shuttle’s External Tank (ET), mated with a large liquid upper stage. The decision on what new launch vehicles NASA plans to use in the coming decades is rapidly coming into focus.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |