Wolf, Dean | Search NASA

NASA NTRS2009

Ares I First Stage Booster Deceleration System: An Overview

In 2005, the Congressional NASA Authorization Act enacted a new space exploration program, the "Vision for Space Exploratien". The Constellation Program was formed to oversee the implementation of this new mission. With an intent not simply to support the International Space Station, but to build a permanent outpost on the Moon and then travel on to explore ever more distant terrains, the Constellation Program is supervising the development of a brand new fleet of launch vehicles, the Ares. The Ares lineup will include two new launch vehicles: the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle and the Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle. A crew exploration vehicle, Orion, will be launched on the Ares I. It will be capable of docking with the Space Station, the lunar lander, Altair, and the Earth Departure Stage of Ares V. The Ares V will be capable of lifting both large-scale hardware and the Altair into space. The Ares First Stage Team is tasked with developing the propulsion system necessary to liftoff from the Earth and loft the entire Ares vehicle stack toward low Earth orbit. The Ares I First Stage booster is a 12-foot diameter, five-segment, reusable solid rocket booster derived from the Space Shuttle's four segment reusable solid rocket booster (SRB). It is separated from the Upper Stage through the use of a Deceleration Subsystem (DSS). Booster Tumble Motors are used to induce the pitch tumble following separation from the Upper Stage. The spent Ares I booster must be recoverable using a parachute deceleration system similar to that of the Shuttle SRB heritage system. Since Ares I is much heavier and reenters the Earth's atmosphere from a higher altitude at a much higher velocity than the SRB, all of the parachutes must be redesigned to reliably meet the operational requisites of the new launch vehicles. This paper presents an overview of this new booster deceleration system. It includes comprehensive detail of the parachute deceleration system, its design and deployment sequences, including how and why it is being developed, the requirements it must meet, and the testing involved in its implementation.

King, Ron↗

NASA NTRS1995

Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Lightweight Recovery System

The cancellation of the Advanced Solid Rocket Booster Project and the earth-to-orbit payload requirements for the Space Station dictated that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) look at performance enhancements from all Space Transportation System (STS) elements (Orbiter Project, Space Shuttle Main Engine Project, External Tank Project, Solid Rocket Motor Project, & Solid Rocket Booster Project). The manifest for launching of Space Station components indicated that an additional 12-13000 pound lift capability was required on 10 missions and 15-20,000 pound additional lift capability is required on two missions. Trade studies conducted by all STS elements indicate that by deleting the parachute Recovery System (and associated hardware) from the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBS) and going to a lightweight External Tank (ET) the 20,000 pound additional lift capability can be realized for the two missions. The deletion of the parachute Recovery System means the loss of four SRBs and this option is two expensive (loss of reusable hardware) to be used on the other 10 Space Station missions. Accordingly, each STS element looked at potential methods of weight savings, increased performance, etc. As the SRB and ET projects are non-propulsive (i.e. does not have launch thrust elements) their only contribution to overall payload enhancement can be achieved by the saving of weight while maintaining adequate safety factors and margins. The enhancement factor for the SRB project is 1:10. That is for each 10 pounds saved on the two SRBS; approximately 1 additional pound of payload in the orbiter bay can be placed into orbit. The SRB project decided early that the SRB recovery system was a prime candidate for weight reduction as it was designed in the early 1970s and weight optimization had never been a primary criteria.

Wolf, Dean↗