Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Technology Needs for Space Access!
By
Nick [email protected]
FAA
And
Dan Rasky [email protected]
NASA
April 6th, 2011
Status of Current Space Access Capabilities
2
Current Domestic Launch Capabilities
3
Current Russian Launch Capabilities
4
Other International Launch Capabilities
5
Emerging Commercial Space
An important and growing segment of the US space industry...
Virgin Galactic
SpaceX Blue Origin Orbital
Sciences
XCOR
Sierra Nevada Masten
Bigelow
Armadillo
Lots of Launch Capacity Worldwide!
7
Lots of Launch Capacity Worldwide!
8
Quick Fact: Currently there is significant domestic and international excess launch capacity! 30 – 50%
Lots of Launch Capacity Worldwide!
9
Quick Fact: Currently there is significant domestic and international excess launch capacity! 30 – 50% Future space activities will require developments of new technologies to deal with a great increase in the number of space flights
New Technology Needs
• Development of Black Box(es) and Re-entry Breakup Recorders (REBR) flights as test-beds -- REBR on ELVs for data collection
-- REBR on RLVs (or perhaps initially sounding rockets) as deployable payloads
10
REBR
11
REBR
12
New Technology Needs (Cont.)
• Upgrade to the FAA's ADS-B transponder from aircraft-capable to RLV-capable (and then RV-capable) -- Would permit FAA's Air Traffic
Control to track RLVs (and then RVs) to get them in the National Airspace (NAS) on a routine basis mixed with aircraft operations
13
Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)
• ADS-B is a surveillance technology for tracking aircraft as part of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
• The United States will require the majority of aircraft operating within its airspace to be equipped with some form of ADS-B Out by January 1, 2020.
14
Technology Needs (Cont.)
• Increase TRL (preferably by flight) of Cheap, lightweight, reliable TPS: -- Ablative TPS -- or Reusable TPS (that can have diagnostics embedded in it
for Integrated Vehicle Health Management )
15
Technology Pull HIAD: Dual use, inflatable decelerator Flexible, abla=ve TPS enables 23 meter class Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) HIADs used for 40 metric ton payload delivery to Mars surface Dual heat pulse heat shield: Aerocapture, cool down in orbit, and then entry .
HIAD Surface Heating HistoryFully Margined
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 200 400 600 800 1000Time, Seconds
Tota
l Hea
ting,
W/c
m2
AerocaptureEntry
Dual Heat Peak Pulses Flexible Ablators: Traction
• Concept: ~ 1 year old, arose during FY 09 NASA Entry Descent and Landing System Analysis Project • Attracting Funding: EDL TDP FY 10 EDL-TDP & increased funding for new ETDD project.
23 m HIAD
Peak pressure Aerocap: 14 kPa Entry: 10 kPa:
Flexible Ablators are PICA and SIRCA “Cousins”
Substrate/reinforcement + Matrix = Flexible Ablator
Flexible Felt (Silica)
(Carbon)
Resin (Silicone) (Phenolic)
Matrix is mainly responsible for the pyrolysis process
SIRCA = Silicone Impregnated Reusable Ceramic (rigid silica) ablator PICA= Phenolic Impregnated Ceramic (rigid carbon) ablator
TPS (SIRCA - flex) (PICA- flex)
17
SIRCA-flex
Subsurface Microsensors for Assisted Recertification of TPS (SmarTPS)
Frank Milos/Joan Pallix Task Lead/Technical Lead
NASA Ames Research Center/ELORET Thermal Protection Materials & Systems Branch
April, 1999
Ames Research Center ! Thermal Protection Materials & Systems Branch!
The primary goal of the SmarTPS task is to develop rapid TPS inspection technology.
• Wireless subsurface RFID sensors allow operations personnel to “see through” the TPS in order to identify subsurface defects in the TPS.
• Embedded microsensors are completely remote and will allow both surface and subsurface vehicle inspection to be completed in as little as one hour.
• An instrumented model was tested in the Panel Test Facility (PTF) at four simulated flight conditions (X34) to evaluate the response of the sensors .
Prototype SensorTag
Future Vehicle Inspection/Recertification
Technology Needs (Cont.)
• Development and demos of small, cheap RVs that re-enter from LEO on demand on a routine basis without disrupting aircraft and ship operations -- E.G. Small Package Express
Earth Delivery (SPEED)
21
Joe Carroll Tether Applica0ons, Inc. 619-‐421-‐2100 [email protected]
Par0culars Pay. D x L 25 x 15 cm
Temp < 20, 4, -‐20, -‐40C? Max Gees 5 to 10
Max payload 4 kg, 7 lit. Pressure open or 1 atm.
Time 6 hrs in capsule
Strawman SPEED Scenario on ISS
1. Mission control selects payloads, recovery site, and time. 2. Crew loads capsule, puts it into small airlock, & ejects it. 3. Capsule deploys 12m spinning drag sail, for deorbit in 4 hrs. 4. GPS allows drag estimation; spin affects yaw & cone angles. 5. Ground stations check status & uplink changes (wind, etc.) 6. Capsule releases sail at 0.03-0.3 gee decel, to adjust range. 7. Capsule damps oscillations and reenters (ballistic or lifting). 8. Pilot & main chute deploy, for mid-air or water recovery.
Technology Needs (Cont.)
• Cheap, reliable Integrated Vehicle Health Management and technologies that support it
• Minimization of space debris (including technologies for removal of space debris)
• Safety of propellant depots and other on-orbit facilities (and rendezvous and docking with them)
23
24
Are Fuel Depots Viable?
Fuel depot concepts have been evaluated in at least three past industry studies:
Boeing
ULA
Northrop Grumman
Note: ULA and Boeing Depots shown refueling Cryo Propulsive Stages
(CPS)
The Case For Fuel Depots
• Quick Fact: A large fraction of the mass required in-orbit for beyond low-earth-orbit exploration missions is fuel, ~ 2/3 of the mass
• If this fuel could be provided on-orbit instead of being part of the launch vehicle payload, the required heavy lift launch capability drops considerably; by approximately a factor of 3
• On-orbit fuel depots are akin to “gas stations” for automobile travel
25
Heavy Lift
• Current discussions between NASA and Congress have centered on development of an HLLV in the 70 – 100 MT payload class
• Consider a 100 MT payload class vehicle – using
the 1/3 factor for fuel being provided on-orbit means that a ~30 MT payload class vehicle should be sufficient to enable exploration missions beyond LEO using depots
• Quick Fact: SpaceX is developing a Falcon-9H launch vehicle with a 32 MT payload capability – it’s on their flight manifest for 2012!
26
SpaceX Falcon-9H
27
Exploration Scenarios
• NASA continues to pursue planning for exploration missions
• One of the latest studies made public was called the “Human Exploration Framework Team” (HEFT-1) from a briefing last summer (posted on NASA Watch)
• The mission for this study was to send astronauts to visit a near-earth-object (NEO), an asteroid
• The baseline scenario for this mission required development of a 100 MT launch vehicle, and three launches of this vehicle
• Its instructive to compare this baseline mission to one using a on-orbit depot, and a 32 MT launch vehicle:
– e.g. the SpaceX Falcon-9H
– the Delta-IV and Atlas-V vehicles can also be evolved to this payload range
28
NEO Exploration Scenario Comparison
Scenario Develop Costs ($)
Recurring Costs ($)
On-‐Orbit Fuel Required
Total Costs for First Three Launches ($)
100 MT HLLV*
17.4B 2.3B/launch 0 24.3B
32 MT Falcon-‐9H**
0 $95M/launch 68MT
Depot*** 1-‐2B 10-‐15M/MT on-‐orbit
5.3B
Savings 15.4B 1.2B/launch 19B
Notes: * -‐ from HEFT-‐1 summary; ** -‐ from SpaceX website; *** assuming a COTS/CRS development and opera0ons approach
29
Lots of savings from use of a fuel depot!
30
How Do You Provide Fuel to the Depot?
Using the current fleet of under-capacity launch vehicles, as well as new and future vehicles:
Existing • Atlas 5 - 12,500-20,050 kg to LEO • Delta 4 - 8,600-13,500 kg to LEO • Delta 4H - 23,000 kg to LEO • Falcon 9 - 10,450 kg to LEO • International Vehicles (Ariane 5, Proton,
Soyuz, Zenit, H-II, GSLV) Planned • Taurus II - 5,100 kg to LEO • SeaLaunch coming back on-line • Falcon 9H - 32,000 kg to LEO Future Options • Reusable Launch Vehicles (considerable
USAF interest) – Hybrid (RLV/ELV) Rocket-Back-Booster by
2020 – RLV after 2030
31
Managing Other Depot Related Risks
• Rendezvous & Docking
– Progress has performed 88 consecutive, successful unmanned rendezvous and dockings supporting MIR and ISS without a mission failure
– Orbital Express successfully demonstrated US capabilities for automated rendezvous and docking, as well as fuel transfer (non-cryo)
• Cryogenic Fluid Transfer and Management – Need to perform an on-orbit cryo-propellant transfer flight demo (e.g. Cryote) – Recommend performing two depot demos by two different suppliers (e.g. FTD II) to avoid single
string supplier risks – Technology development should be pursued for reducing boil-off using both passive and active
methods • Multiple Launches
– Use of smaller launch vehicles risks less critical mission hardware per launch, reducing the consequence of launch failures
– Use of multiple launch vehicles reduces risk of failure of any single launch vehicle (e.g., Soyuz/Progress saved ISS after Columbia loss)
– Many launches helps improve launch vehicle reliability by moving beyond infant mortality period sooner
– Fabricating two or more copies of all critical flight hardware components allows for one launch failure with minimal mission impact
• Business Case – Industry is concerned that the Government will change course and cancel contracts for
commercial orbital propellant delivery – Can be mitigated by many tools to lower investment risk, including funded SAA (like COTS), loan
guarantees (used by DOE, OPIC, Maritime Admin), tax credits, and termination liability insurance (used by NASA in first SpaceHab contract.)
Notional Depot Timeline/Milestones
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Crewed Mission to NEO
Crewed Mission to Mar=an Moon
Crewed Explora=on of Mars
Depot R&D
Exis=ng Launch Vehicles Supply Depot
RLV R&D USAF/Industry Partnerships
Depot Demo 40-50MT
Operational Depot 120-240MT
Hybrid LV RLV
33
Conclusions on Depots
Major benefits seen from use of propellant depots for NASA exploration: • Depot combined with commercially developed and operated HLLV gets us within current
budget guidelines, with significant budget margin for other exploration priorities
• Improves mission and destination flexibility and timing - months of dwell time on-orbit available if required
• Increases flight hardware mass margins by allowing removal of propellant mass to compensate for hardware mass increases
• Can shorten mission durations by using extra propellant to achieve higher delta-Vs
• Creates large new market for commercial launch industry, reducing launch costs for all
• Reduces risk for Commercial Crew and Cargo delivery by ensuring adequate market to support two or more commercial suppliers
• Creates new avenues for low-risk international participation thru propellant supply and purchase agreements
• Allows for earlier exploration mission start
Depots are also maybe a key enabler for RLV development: • High flight-rate market essential for closing RLV business case
• RLV responsive space access a key priority for the USAF • Lower costs, better response and higher reliabilities will benefit all space users
Technology Needs (Cont.)
• Other technologies that enable safe, routine, reliable and affordable operation of launch, on-orbit and re-entry operations while causing minimal disruption of/risk to aircraft and ship and existing on-orbit operations, including tools and models
• Your ideas???
34
Technology Needs (Conclusion)
• In sum (as they said repeatedly at CRASTE last year):
"Maturation of technology to make RLVs operate like commercial aircraft do today”
35
