SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “launch separation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2009

Launch Order, Launch Separation, and Loiter in the Constellation 1 1/2-Launch Solution

The NASA Constellation Program (CxP) is developing a two-element Earth-to-Orbit launch system to enable human exploration of the Moon. The first element, Ares I, is a human-rated system that consists of a first stage based on the Space Shuttle Program's solid rocket booster (SRB) and an upper stage that consists of a four-crew Orion capsule, a service module, and a Launch Escape System. The second element, Ares V, is a Saturn V-plus category launch system that consists of the core stage with a cluster of six RS-68B engines and augmented with two 5.5-segment SRBs, a Saturn-derived J-2X engine powering an Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and the lunar-lander vehicle payload, Altair. Initial plans called for the Ares V to be launched first, followed the next day by the Ares I. After the EDS performs the final portion of ascent and subsequent orbit circularization, the Orion spacecraft then performs a rendezvous and docks with the EDS and its Altair payload. Following checkout, the integrated stack loiters in low Earth orbit (LEO) until the appropriate Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) window opportunity opens, at which time the EDS propels the integrated Orion Altair to the Moon. Successful completion of this 1 1/2-launch solution carries risks related to both the orbital lifetime of the assets and the probability of achieving the launch of the second vehicle within the orbital lifetime of the first. These risks, which are significant in terms of overall system design choices and probability of mission success, dictated a thorough reevaluation of the launch strategy, including the order of vehicle launch and the planned time period between launches. The goal of the effort described in this paper was to select a launch strategy that would result in the greatest possible expected system performance, while accounting for launch risks and the cost of increased orbital lifetime. Discrete Event Simulation (DES) model of the launch strategies was created to determine the probability of a second launch not occurring in a timely fashion (i.e., before the assets waiting in LEO expire). An overview of the launch strategy evaluation process is presented, along with results of specific cases that were analyzed. A high-level comparison of options is then presented, along with the conclusion derived from the analysis.

Stromgren, Chel↗

NASA NTRS2006

Simulation and Analyses of Multi-Body Separation in Launch Vehicle Staging Environment

The development of methodologies, techniques, and tools for analysis and simulation of multi-body separation is critically needed for successful design and operation of next generation launch vehicles. As a part of this activity, ConSep simulation tool is being developed. ConSep is a generic MATLAB-based front-and-back-end to the commercially available ADAMS. solver, an industry standard package for solving multi-body dynamic problems. This paper discusses the 3-body separation capability in ConSep and its application to the separation of the Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) from the External Tank (ET) and the Orbiter. The results are compared with STS-1 flight data.

Pamadi, Bandu N.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Risk Analysis of On-Orbit Spacecraft Refueling Concepts

On-orbit refueling of spacecraft has been proposed as an alternative to the exclusive use of Heavy-lift Launch Vehicles to enable human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). In these scenarios, beyond LEO spacecraft are launched dry (without propellant) or partially dry into orbit, using smaller or fewer element launch vehicles. Propellant is then launched into LEO on separate launch vehicles and transferred to the spacecraft. Refueling concepts are potentially attractive because they reduce the maximum individual payload that must be placed in Earth orbit. However, these types of approaches add significant complexity to mission operations and introduce more uncertainty and opportunities for failure to the mission. In order to evaluate these complex scenarios, the authors developed a Monte Carlo based discrete-event model that simulates the operational risks involved with such strategies, including launch processing delays, transportation system failures, and onorbit element lifetimes. This paper describes the methodology used to simulate the mission risks for refueling concepts, the strategies that were evaluated, and the results of the investigation. The results of the investigation show that scenarios that employ refueling concepts will likely have to include long launch and assembly timelines, as well as the use of spare tanker launch vehicles, in order to achieve high levels of mission success through Trans Lunar Injection.

Cirillo, William M.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Orion Launch Abort Vehicle Separation Analysis Using OVERFLOW

This slide presentation reviews the use of OVERFLOW, a flow solver, to analyze the effect of separation for a launch abort vehicle (i.e., Orion capsule) if required. Included in the presentation are views of the geometry, and the Overset grids, listing of the assumptions, the general run strategy, inputs into the Overflow solver, the required computational resources, the results of the convergence study. Charts and graphics are presented to show the results.

Booth, Tom↗

NASA NTRS2011

Investigating On-Orbit Attitude Determination Anomalies for the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission

The Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) was launched on February 11, 2010 from Kennedy Space Center on an Atlas V launch vehicle into a geosynchronous transfer orbit. SDO carries a suite of three scientific instruments, whose observations are intended to promote a more complete understanding of the Sun and its effects on the Earth's environment. After a successful launch, separation, and initial Sun acquisition, the launch and flight operations teams dove into a commissioning campaign that included, among other things, checkout and calibration of the fine attitude sensors and checkout of the Kalman filter (KF) and the spacecraft s inertial pointing and science control modes. In addition, initial calibration of the science instruments was also accomplished. During that process of KF and controller checkout, several interesting observations were noticed and investigated. The SDO fine attitude sensors consist of one Adcole Digital Sun Sensor (DSS), two Galileo Avionica (GA) quaternion-output Star Trackers (STs), and three Kearfott Two-Axis Rate Assemblies (hereafter called inertial reference units, or IRUs). Initial checkout of the fine attitude sensors indicated that all sensors appeared to be functioning properly. Initial calibration maneuvers were planned and executed to update scale factors, drift rate biases, and alignments of the IRUs. After updating the IRU parameters, the KF was initialized and quickly reached convergence. Over the next few hours, it became apparent that there was an oscillation in the sensor residuals and the KF estimation of the IRU bias. A concentrated investigation ensued to determine the cause of the oscillations, their effect on mission requirements, and how to mitigate them. The ensuing analysis determined that the oscillations seen were, in fact, due to an oscillation in the IRU biases. The low frequencies of the oscillations passed through the KF, were well within the controller bandwidth, and therefore the spacecraft was actually following the oscillating biases, resulting in movement of the spacecraft on the order of plus or minus 20 arcsec. Though this level of error met the ACS attitude knowledge requirement of [35, 70, 70] arcsec, 3 sigma, the desire of the ACS and instrument teams was to remove as much of the oscillation as possible. The Kearfott IRUs have an internal temperature controller, designed to maintain the IRU temperature at a constant temperature of approximately 70 C, thus minimizing the change in the bias drift and scale factors of the mechanical gyros. During ground testing of the observatory, it was discovered that the 83-Hz control cycle of the IRU heaters put a tremendous amount of stress on the spacecraft battery. Analysis by the power systems team indicated that the constant charge/discharge on the battery due to the IRU thermal control cycle could potentially limit the life of the battery. After much analysis, the decision was made not to run the internal IRU heaters. Analysis of on orbit data revealed that the oscillations in the IRU bias had a connection to the temperature of the IRU; changes in IRU temperature resulted in changes in the amplitude and period of the IRU biases. Several mitigating solutions were investigated, the result of which was to tune the KF with larger IRU noise assumptions which allows the KF to follow and correct for the time-varying IRU biases.

Vess, Melissa F.↗

NASA NTRS2010

Evaluation of Dual-Launch Lunar Architectures Using the Mission Assessment Post Processor

The National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASA) Constellation Program is currently designing a new transportation system to replace the Space Shuttle, support human missions to both the International Space Station (ISS) and the Moon, and enable the eventual establishment of an outpost on the lunar surface. The present Constellation architecture is designed to meet nominal capability requirements and provide flexibility sufficient for handling a host of contingency scenarios including (but not limited to) launch delays at the Earth. This report summarizes a body of work performed in support of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Committee. It analyzes three lunar orbit rendezvous dual-launch architecture options which incorporate differing methodologies for mitigating the effects of launch delays at the Earth. NASA employed the recently-developed Mission Assessment Post Processor (MAPP) tool to quickly evaluate vehicle performance requirements for several candidate approaches for conducting human missions to the Moon. The MAPP tool enabled analysis of Earth perturbation effects and Earth-Moon geometry effects on the integrated vehicle performance as it varies over the 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle. Results are provided summarizing best-case and worst-case vehicle propellant requirements for each architecture option. Additionally, the associated vehicle payload mass requirements at launch are compared between each architecture and against those of the Constellation Program. The current Constellation Program architecture assumes that the Altair lunar lander and Earth Departure Stage (EDS) vehicles are launched on a heavy lift launch vehicle. The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is separately launched on a smaller man-rated vehicle. This strategy relaxes man-rating requirements for the heavy lift launch vehicle and has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of the overall architecture over the operational lifetime of the program. The crew launch occurs first, four days prior to the optimal trans-lunar injection (TLI) departure window. This is done to allow for launch delays in the Altair/EDS launch. During this time, the Orion vehicle is required to conduct orbit maintenance while loitering in low Earth orbit (LEO). The alternative architectures presented aim to eliminate the need for costly orbit maintenance maneuvers while loitering in LEO. In all of the alternative architectures considered, it is assumed that the Altair and Orion vehicles are nominally launched 90 minutes apart, depart the Earth separately, and complete the rendezvous and docking sequence at the Moon. In this lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR) strategy, both the Altair and Orion vehicles will require separate EDS stages, and each will be required to perform lunar orbit insertion (LOI). This has the effect of balancing payload requirements between the two launch vehicles at the Earth. In this case, the overall payload mass is increased slightly, but the increased mission costs could potentially be offset by requiring the construction of two rockets similar in size and nature, unlike the current Constellation architecture. Three dual-launch architecture options with LOR were evaluated, which incorporate differing methodologies for mitigating the effects of launch delays at the Earth. Benefits and drawbacks of each of the dual-launch architecture options with LOR are discussed and the overall mission performance is compared with that of the existing Constellation Program lunar architecture.

Stewart, Shaun M.↗

NASA NTRS1968

An exploratory study of parallel stage separation of reusable launch vehicles

Static and dynamic characteristics of wind tunnel model of parallel staged reusable launch vehicle during stage separation

Decker, J. P.↗

NASA NTRS2016

MarCO: Interplanetary Mission Development on a CubeSat Scale

Shortly after JPL’s Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight) mission launches, separates, and commences its cruise phase, two CubeSats will deploy from the launch vehicle’s upper stage and begin independent flight to Mars (Fig. 1). During InSight’s entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence, these twin Mars Cube One (MarCO) spacecraft will fly 3,500 km above the Martian surface, recording and relaying InSight UHF radio data to the Deep Space Network (DSN) on Earth1. MarCO is a twin CubeSat mission developed by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to accompany the InSight (Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport) Mars mission lander. MarCO's primary mission objective is to launch with InSight and independently fly to Mars to serve as a communications relay during InSight's entry, descent, and landing (EDL) phase. MarCO represents a new type of deep space mission: CubeSats at Mars. Building on the development of JPL's first interplanetary CubeSat project, the Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft Pathfinder in Relevant Environment (INSPIRE), MarCO further refined the approach to hardware, software, and ground architecture development to solve the challenges of quickly building low-budget spacecraft to fly to Mars. The greatest constraint, beyond others typical of CubeSat missions, was time. The duration between MarCO's conception to completion of spacecraft assembly was less than two years - an unprecedented schedule for any planetary mission to date. Through necessity, MarCO has built on previous experience, procedures, systems, and development methodologies, defining a new niche for supporting larger primary missions. The MarCO spacecraft are poised to write a new chapter in deep space exploration. Originally slated to launch and reach Mars in 2016, the InSight mission schedule subsequently slipped to 2018. During the original landing of InSight, Earth would not be in view, and no orbiter around Mars would have been in position to both receive UHF EDL data and simultaneously relay it back to Earth. It was from this obstacle that MarCO was conceived. Regardless of any changes to InSight’s 2018 EDL configuration geometry, MarCO is still expected to fly and serve in the same capacity as originally designed: the first CubeSat mission to Mars. CubeSats have historically been firmly in the domain of universities and small companies. As first conceived, they served as a platform upon which to teach all aspects of the space mission lifecycle. JPL took on this mission type with Interplanetary Nano-Spacecraft Pathfinder in Relevant Environment2 (INSPIRE), moving the concept into a new domain: deep space. Building from the INSPIRE platform and lessons learned, MarCO addressed new challenges in the domain of planetary missions: independent interplanetary flight and navigation, integration with a large-scale mission, long-distance and long-delay communication, short development time, and a small development team. Of these, the greatest constraint was schedule: only 18 months passed from conception of mission concept until delivery of fully assembled and tested flight hardware. Careful selection of mission team, along with extensive use of off-the-shelf equipment, and streamlining automated processes, was essential. This achievement represents the next step in the evolution of CubeSats beyond low-Earth orbit.

Werne, Thomas↗

NASA NTRS2003

StarBooster Demonstrator Cluster Configuration Analysis/Verification Program

In order to study the flight dynamics of the cluster configuration of two first stage boosters and upper-stage, flight-testing of subsonic sub-scale models has been undertaken using two glideback boosters launched on a center upper-stage. Three high power rockets clustered together were built and flown to demonstrate vertical launch, separation and horizontal recovery of the boosters. Although the boosters fly to conventional aircraft landing, the centerstage comes down separately under its own parachute. The goal of the project has been to collect data during separation and flight for comparison with a six degree of freedom simulation. The configuration for the delta wing canard boosters comes from a design by Starcraft Boosters, Inc. The subscale rockets were constructed of foam covered in carbon or fiberglass and were launched with commercially available solid rocket motors. The first set of boosters built were 3-ft tall with a 4-ft tall centerstage, and two additional sets of boosters were made that were each over 5-ft tall with a 7.5 ft centerstage. The rocket cluster is launched vertically, then after motor bum out the boosters are separated and flown to a horizontal landing under radio-control. An on-board data acquisition system recorded data during both the launch and glide phases of flight.

DeTurris, Dianne J.↗

NASA NTRS1971

Mechanical/structural design implications of space-basing on shuttle system

A conceptual design study was conducted to identify some of the mechanical/structural differences which result from the use of a tug/payload combination in a space-basing mode as contrasted with a ground-based mode of operation. The basic mechanical/structural differences associated with space-basing were identified by analyzing a space-basing strategy in which the tug and payload are launched separately by the EOS and comparing it with the ground-based mode in which the tug/payload is launched as an integral unit in the EOS. This operational concept, which is the simplest of a number of possible space-basing strategies, was also used to identify the major impacts on the Earth Orbit Shuttle. The mechanical/structural differences that were identified from a comparison of payloads operating in the ground and space-based modes of operation are discussed in addition to delineating the advantages and disadvantages associated with various payload deployment/retrieval mechanisms.

Ludlow, K. G.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Space shuttle wind tunnel testing program

The wind tunnel testing rationale and the associated test program management plan for the STS design and development stage are reviewed. Noting that estimates of the total ground testing facilities needed exceeded any previous program for an aircraft or space vehicle, tests were intended to cover launch, separation, and entry. An Orbiter flight profile is outlined, and the aerodynamic, aerothermodynamic, and structural dynamics testing objectives for launch, Orbiter, and ferry concepts are explored. The division of the STS development tasks between the Johnson Space Center and the Marshall Space Flight Center also included the formation of a coordinating panel with representatives of various wind tunnel programs and other phases of the STS development program. A total of 42,200 wind tunnel hr were used for the Shuttle development, with an additional 23,000 run in NASA supporting centers.

Whitnah, A. M.↗

NASA NTRS2018

The Recent Large Reduction in Space Launch Cost

The development of commercial launch systems has substantially reduced the cost of space launch. NASA’s space shuttle had a cost of about $1.5 billion to launch 27,500 kg to Low Earth Orbit (LEO), $54,500/kg. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 now advertises a cost of $62 million to launch 22,800 kg to LEO, $2,720/kg. Commercial launch has reduced the cost to LEO by a factor of 20. This will have a substantial impact on the space industry, military space, and NASA. Existing launch providers are reducing their costs and so are satellite developers. The military foresees an opportunity to rapidly replace compromised space assets that provided communications, weather, surveillance, and positioning. NASA supported the development of commercial space launch and NASA science anticipates lower cost missions, but human space flight planning seems unreactive. Specifically, it has been claimed that commercial spaceflight has not reduced the cost to provide cargo to the International Space Station (ISS). The key factor is that the space shuttle can provide cargo and crew to ISS while the Falcon 9 must also use the Dragon capsule, which adds cost and reduces payload. The cost of a Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule mission to ISS is about $140 million with a payload of 6,000 kg, $23,300/kg. The shuttle payload to ISS is less than to LEO, 16,050 kg, so its cost is also higher at $93,400/kg. The launch cost to ISS has been reduced by a factor of 4. Calculations that show commercial launch provides no cost reduction to ISS assume half the usually cited shuttle cost and allocate it to the actual delivered payload, about half the full capacity. In a split mission, with crew and pressurized cargo launched separately from hardware and materials, the higher Falcon 9 plus Dragon costs would apply only to a fraction of the launch mass. A 4 to 1 cost reduction saves most, 75%, of the total cost. A further reduction to 10 or 20 to 1 saves 90 or 95%, but this is only a small, 15 or 20%, portion of the original cost. The recently reduced space launch cost can be expected to substantially impact human space flight.

Jones, Harry W.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Informing the Space Launch System Booster Separation Initial CFD Run Matrix with Observed Parametric Sensitivity

It currently requires significant computational cost to simulate the flow physics of the booster separation event on the Space Launch System. This comes from the large parametric space in which the event occurs, as pre-separation flight conditions and separated booster core-relative trajectories can vary. Functionally removing the risk of core-booster collision mandates careful assessment of the fluid dynamics in terms of several trajectory parameters. However, simulating the entire trajectory envelope is computationally intractable given the high parametric dimension. In order to reduce the uncertainty in the resulting low-parametric-resolution aerodynamic booster separation database, a data-driven approach was developed to select which breakpoints should be studied by simulations and experiments and which should be relegated to a regression-based interpolation procedure. This technique works by simulating cases where the flow physics are most sensitive to changes in the parameters and leaving the less parametrically sensitive regions for interpolation. The result is a booster separation run matrix whose computational cost is comparable to that of previous database generations but has lower interpolation errors.

SLS↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Informing the Space Launch System Booster Separation Initial CFD Run Matrix with Observed Parametric Sensitivity

SLS↗

NASA NTRS1976

Automated missions of the future

The paper discusses how Goddard Space Flight Center is dealing with the problem of undertaking new space missions within the limitations of severe funding constraints by using the same basic modularized spacecraft for all major earth-observation and astronomy missions of the 1980s. The basic spacecraft is described in the context of the Solar Maximum Mission, with emphasis on the transition adapter, attitude-control module, power module, communications and data-handling module, propulsion module, launch vehicles, and redundancy. The costs associated with the basic spacecraft and transportation are compared for two modes: four spacecraft and four separate launches for four missions and two resuppliable spacecraft for the same four missions. It is concluded that the most cost-effective means of sustaining a long-term astronomy or earth-observation mission is to service the mission in space.

Purcell, J.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Advanced Modular Power Approach to Affordable, Supportable Space Systems

Recent studies of missions to the Moon, Mars and Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) indicate that these missions often involve several distinct separately launched vehicles that must ultimately be integrated together in-flight and operate as one unit. Therefore, it is important to see these vehicles as elements of a larger segmented spacecraft rather than separate spacecraft flying in formation. The evolution of large multi-vehicle exploration architecture creates the need (and opportunity) to establish a global power architecture that is common across all vehicles. The Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Modular Power System (AMPS) project managed by NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) is aimed at establishing the modular power system architecture that will enable power systems to be built from a common set of modular building blocks. The project is developing, demonstrating and evaluating key modular power technologies that are expected to minimize non-recurring development costs, reduce recurring integration costs, as well as, mission operational and support costs. Further, modular power is expected to enhance mission flexibility, vehicle reliability, scalability and overall mission supportability. The AMPS project not only supports multi-vehicle architectures but should enable multi-mission capability as well. The AMPS technology development involves near term demonstrations involving developmental prototype vehicles and field demonstrations. These operational demonstrations not only serve as a means of evaluating modular technology but also provide feedback to developers that assure that they progress toward truly flexible and operationally supportable modular power architecture.

Oeftering, Richard C.↗

NASA NTRS2009

Ares V: Game Changer for National Security Launch

NASA is designing the Ares V cargo launch vehicle to vastly expand exploration of the Moon begun in the Apollo program and enable the exploration of Mars and beyond. As the largest launcher in history, Ares V also represents a national asset offering unprecedented opportunities for new science, national security, and commercial missions of unmatched size and scope. The Ares V is the heavy-lift component of NASA's dual-launch architecture that will replace the current space shuttle fleet, complete the International Space Station, and establish a permanent human presence on the Moon as a stepping-stone to destinations beyond. During extensive independent and internal architecture and vehicle trade studies as part of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), NASA selected the Ares I crew launch vehicle and the Ares V to support future exploration. The smaller Ares I will launch the Orion crew exploration vehicle with four to six astronauts into orbit. The Ares V is designed to carry the Altair lunar lander into orbit, rendezvous with Orion, and send the mated spacecraft toward lunar orbit. The Ares V will be the largest and most powerful launch vehicle in history, providing unprecedented payload mass and volume to establish a permanent lunar outpost and explore significantly more of the lunar surface than was done during the Apollo missions. The Ares V consists of a Core Stage, two Reusable Solid Rocket Boosters (RSRBs), Earth Departure Stage (EDS), and a payload shroud. For lunar missions, the shroud would cover the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). The Ares V Core Stage is 33 feet in diameter and 212 feet in length, making it the largest rocket stage ever built. It is the same diameter as the Saturn V first stage, the S-IC. However, its length is about the same as the combined length of the Saturn V first and second stages. The Core Stage uses a cluster of five Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68B rocket engines, each supplying about 700,000 pounds of thrust. Its propellants are liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The two solid rocket boosters provide about 3.5 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. These 5.5-segment boosters are derived from the 4-segment boosters now used on the Space Shuttle, and are similar to those used in the Ares I first stage. The EDS is powered by one J-2X engine. The J-2X, which has roughly 294,000 pounds of thrust, also powers the Ares I Upper Stage. It is derived from the J-2 that powered the Saturn V second and third stages. The EDS performs two functions. Its initial suborbital burns will place the lunar lander into a stable Earth orbit. After the Orion crew vehicle, launched separately on an Ares I, docks with the lander/EDS stack, EDS will ignite a second time to put the combined 65-metric ton vehicle into a lunar transfer orbit. When it stands on the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center late in the next decade, the Ares V stack will be approximately 381 feet tall and have a gross liftoff mass of 8.1 million pounds. The current point-of-departure design exceeds Saturn V s mass capability by approximately 40 percent. Using the current payload shroud design, Ares V can carry 315,000 pounds to 29-degree low Earth orbit (LEO) or 77,000 pounds to a geosynchronous orbit. Another unique aspect of the Ares V is the 33-foot-diameter payload shroud, which encloses approximately 30,400 cubic feet of usable volume. A larger hypothetical shroud for encapsulating larger payloads has been studied. While Ares V makes possible larger payload masses and volumes, it may alternately make possible more cost-effective mission design if the relevant payload communities are willing to consider an alternative to the existing approach that has driven them to employ complexity to solve current launch vehicle mass and volume constraints. By using Ares V s mass and volume capabilities as margin, payload designers stand to reduce development risk and cost. Significant progress has been made on the Ares V to support a plaed fiscal 2011 authority-to-proceed (ATP) milestone. The Ares V team is actively reaching out to external organizations during this early concept phase to ensure that the Ares V vehicle can be leveraged for national security, science, and commercial development needs. This presentation will discuss Ares V vehicle configuration, the path to the current concept, accomplishments to date, and potential payload utilization opportunities.

Sumrall, Phil↗

NASA NTRS1994

Lunar and martian meteorite delivery services

Launch mechanisms for lunar and martian meteorites have been investigated, by integrating physical modeling constraints, geochemical cosmic-ray exposure (CRE) constraints, and petrologic constraints. The potential source region for lunar meteorites is remarkably small compared to the final crater volume. CRE constraints indicate that most launches start at depths of less than or equal to 3.2 m, and cratering theory implies derivation of suitably accelerated objects from a subvolume with diameter only about 0.3 x the final crater diameter. The shallow depth provenance is probably related to shock-wave interference, enhanced by the lunar regolith's extremely low compressional wave velocity. CRE constraints alone imply that four to five separate launch events are represented among the eight well-studied lunar meteorites. Most of the lunar meteorites are regolith breccias, which tend to show only limited compositional diversity within any kilometer-scale region of the Moon. Several others are polymict breccias, which also show relatively subdued compositional diversity, compared to igneous rocks. The observed diversity among these samples in terms of abundances of mare basalt and KREEP, and in Mg/(Mg + Fe) ratio, implies that among eight well-studied lunar meteorites only two potential source craters pairings are plausible: between Asuka-881757 + Y-793169 (most probable) and between Y-793274 + EET875721. Altogether, these eight lunar meteorites apparently represent at least six separate source craters, including three in the past 10(exp 5) years and five in the past 10(exp 6) years. CRE constraints imply that SNC meteorites are launched from systematically greater than lunar meteorites. SNCs are also systematically bigger, and all nine well-studied SNCs are uncommonly young (by martian standards) mafic igneous rocks. Comparison between Viking and Apollo results reveals that rocks the size of common meteorites are remarkably scarce in the martian regolith, probably due to pervasive weathering. A plausible explanation for these trends is that most old, small, and shallow rocks on Mars have been weakened by a two-stage process of brecciation followed by pervasive weathering, to the point where they seldom survive the stresses of spallation off the planet. The scarcity of source-crater pairing among the lunar meteorites implies that these objects can be launched from craters much smaller than previously estimated and tends to support the suggestion of Rabinowitz (1993) that present-day cratering rates for the Earth-Moon region may be higher than previously estimated.

Warren, Paul H.↗