Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation
•
1 gefällt mir•494 views
Summary of Phase I - Developed an investment portfolio that strikes a balance of new developments, technology, and operational programs with an eye towards a new way of exploring. - Created a point of departure DRM that is flexible and can evolve over time to support multiple destinations with the identified systems. - Identified a minimum subset of elements needed to conduct earlier beyond LEO missions. - Infused key technology developments that should begin in earnest and identified gaps which should help inform additional technology prioritization over and above the NEO focused DRM. - Costed the DRM using traditional costing methodologies. - Determined alternative development options are required to address the cost and schedule shortfalls."
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Ähnlich wie Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation
Ähnlich wie Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation (20)
Mehr von Bill Duncan
Mehr von Bill Duncan (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Human Exploration Framework Team Presentation
- 1. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on HEFT Phase I Closeout Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 2. Agenda Summary / Key Findings Steve Altemus DRM Review Kent Joosten Technology Feed Forward and Gaps Chris Culbert Launch Vehicle Angelia Walker Crewed SpacecraN Steve Labbe Cost Study History Rita Willcoxon Phase I Summary & Conclusions Steve Altemus TransiQon to Phase II John Olson Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 2
- 3. Summary of Phase I Developed an investment porTolio that strikes a balance of new developments, technology, and operaQonal programs with an eye towards a new way of exploring. Created a point of departure DRM that is flexible and can evolve over Qme to support mulQple desQnaQons with the idenQfied systems. IdenQfied a minimum subset of elements needed to conduct earlier beyond LEO missions. Infused key technology developments that should begin in earnest and idenQfied gaps which should help inform addiQonal technology prioriQzaQon over and above the NEO focused DRM. Costed the DRM using tradiQonal cosQng methodologies. Determined alternaQve development opQons are required to address the cost and schedule shorTalls. Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 3
- 4. RecommendaQons In order to close on affordability and shorten Launch Vehicle the development cycle, NASA must change its • Ini#ate development of a evolvable moderate SSP‐ tradiQonal approach to human space systems derived in‐line HLV 100 t class in FY2011 acquisiQon and development Crewed SpacecraN Development Path • Develop an Orion‐derived direct return vehicle and in‐house developed Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on • Balance large tradi#onal contrac#ng prac#ces with Vehicle fixed price or cost challenges coupled with in‐house development • Do not develop a dedicated ISS ERV • Use the exis#ng workforce, infrastructure, and • Further trade CTV func#onality and HLLV crew ra#ng contracts where possible costs against Commercial Crew u#liza#on for explora#on • Leverage civil servant workforce to do leading edge development work Ground ops processing and launch AlternaQve Development Approaches infrastructure • Take advantage of exis#ng resources to ini#ate the • Ini#ate ground ops system development consistent development and help reduce upfront costs with spacecraW and launch vehicle development - Launch Vehicle Core Stage Technology Development - Mul#‐Mission Space Explora#on Vehicle • Focus technology development on near term - In Space Propulsion explora#on goals (NEO by 2025) – Solar Electric Propulsion Freighter • Revise investments in FTD, XPRM, HLPT, ETDD, and – Cryo Propulsion Stage / Upper Stage HRP and others to align with the advanced systems - Deep Space Habita#on capabili#es iden#fied in the framework • Re‐phase technology investments to support the defined human explora#on strategy, mission and architecture Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 4
- 5. DRM IntroducQon Previous HEFT DRM analyses helped draw conclusions regarding system requirements for the NEO missions examined • In‐space propulsion technology advances and high system reusability did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 1) • Commercial on‐orbit refueling did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 2). Commercial launch rate available for explora#on missions significantly limited by costs of infrastructure expansion. “Hybrid” DRM analysis (“DRM 4”) presented to Steering Council 17 August. AddiQonal analysis performed to assess: • “Balanced” HLLV/Commercial launchers • Impacts of “moderate” HLLV capacity • Impacts of dele#on of solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology/system • Qualita#ve assessment of SEP Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 5
- 6. Concept of OperaQons (NEO Crewed Missions, 100 t HLLV) NEO 30d at NEO MMSEV continues operations at NEO 159d Transit 193d Transit SEP #1 EP Module Staging Location of Dock All Elements SEP #2 is Target Dependent CPS#1 E-M L1 DSH 339d Transit 339d Transit 4d Transit SEP #2 CPS#2 LEO 407 km x 407 km CTV CTV w/Crew CTV SM SEP #1 DSH MMSEV MMSEV OR SEP #2 CPS #1 EP Module CPS #2 CPS #2 EDL Kick stage Commercial Crew HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t EARTH CREW LAUNCH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 6
- 7. In‐Space Mission Elements for DRM 4 Solar Electric Cryogenic Propulsion Propulsion Stage Crew Transfer MulQ Mission (SEP) Space Deep Space (CPS) Vehicle Electric ExploraQon Habitat (CTV) Propulsion Vehicle (DSH) Kick Module (MMSEV) (EPM) Stage Mass (kg) ** 13,500 6,700 23,600 6,300 12,600 10,600 2,900 4.57 (max Diameter (m) 5.2 4.5 1.9 7.5 5.75 (stowed) 5.75 (stowed) stowed) Length (m) 4.2 6.8 7.7* 3 12.3 9 5.1 Pressurized Vol. (m3) 18.4 12 115 n/a n/a n/a n/a NOTES: • Elements Not To Scale • * Habitat length with adapters: 9.8 m • ** Inert mass shown for CPS, SEP and EPM Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 7
- 8. Systems Extensibility/EvoluQon for Other DesQnaQons HEO/GEO NEO Lunar Orbit Lunar Surface* Phobos/Deimos Mars* CTV CTV CTV+ CTV+ CTV+ CTV+ HLLV HLLV HLLV HLLV HLLV HLLV+ x1 x3 x1 x2 +xN xN Rover Cab, Rover Cab, MMSEV MMSEV MMSEV Ascent Cab? Ascent Cab? CPS CPS CPS CPSx2 CPSxN CPSxN Surface Transit Surface Transit Hab, HAB Hab Hab+ Transit Hab+ SEP SEP+, NEP or NEP * AddiEonal systems required for these desEnaEons Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 8
- 9. Campaign Profile DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew NEO HEO (No Crew) HEO E‐M L1 E‐M L1 RoboQc RoboQc Precursor Precursor Inflatable DSH Demo Test CPS Flagship Flight L1 mission w/ ~55 t Full Scale SEP 30 kWe Flagship Deployment of Opportunity Payloads MMSEV CTV Test at ISS w/ High‐Speed CTV Entry Commercial Crew Ellip#cal Reenty Test Test to NEO HLLV Flight to HEO to E‐M L1 (via E‐M L1) NEO Mission Commercial Crew / Cargo ConOps 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Indicates flight to LEO 9 10 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 9
- 10. Integrated Cost EsQmates DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew & CTV‐E Prime to RepresentaQve NEO $20,000 Program Integra#on Robo#cs Precursor $18,000 CTV CPS MMSEV $16,000 DSH SEP Commercial Crew Development $14,000 Commercial HLLV Mission Opera#ons $12,000 Ground Opera#ons and Infrastructure Development $ in Millions $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Years Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 10
- 11. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on DRM Review Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 12. IntroducQon Previous HEFT DRM analyses helped draw conclusions regarding system requirements for the NEO missions examined • In‐space propulsion technology advances and high system reusability did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 1) • Commercial on‐orbit refueling did not obviate need for higher capacity launcher (excessive number of commercial launches, DRM Set 2). Commercial launch rate available for explora#on missions significantly limited by costs of infrastructure expansion. “Hybrid” DRM analysis (“DRM 4”) presented to Steering Council 17 August. AddiQonal analysis performed to assess: • “Balanced” HLLV/Commercial launchers • Impacts of “moderate” HLLV capacity • Impacts of dele#on of solar electric propulsion (SEP) technology/system • Qualita#ve assessment of SEP Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 12
- 13. Concept of OperaQons (NEO Crewed Missions, 100 t HLLV) NEO 30d at NEO MMSEV continues operations at NEO 159d Transit 193d Transit SEP #1 EP Module Staging Location of Dock All Elements SEP #2 is Target Dependent CPS#1 E-M L1 DSH 339d Transit 339d Transit 4d Transit SEP #2 CPS#2 LEO 407 km x 407 km CTV CTV w/Crew CTV SM SEP #1 DSH MMSEV MMSEV OR SEP #2 CPS #1 EDL EP Module Results in CPS #2 CPS #2 Kick stage CxP‐like “1.5 launch” Commercial Crew architecture along with Low‐boiloff associated HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t CPS may issues not be required EARTH CREW LAUNCH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 13
- 14. Campaign Profile DRM 4: 100 t HLLV w/ Commercial Crew NEO HEO (No Crew) HEO E‐M L1 E‐M L1 RoboQc RoboQc Precursor Precursor Inflatable DSH Demo Test CPS Flagship Flight L1 mission w/ ~55 t Full Scale SEP 30 kWe Flagship Deployment of Opportunity Payloads MMSEV CTV Test at ISS w/ High‐Speed CTV Entry Commercial Crew Ellip#cal Reenty Test Test to NEO HLLV Flight to HEO to E‐M L1 (via E‐M L1) NEO Mission Commercial Crew / Cargo ConOps 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Indicates flight to LEO 9 10 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 14
- 15. DRM Hybrid: Chemical/SEP 100 t HLLV Mass AllocaQon 100 t HLLV Elements are not to scale Elephant stands and element adapters will use unallocated mass Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 15
- 16. Concept of OperaQons (NEO Crewed Missions, 70 t HLLV) NEO L1 and beyond ops same as 100t op#on Dock All Elements EPM CPS #2 SEP #1 E-M L1 339d Transit SEP#2 transfers DSH to L1 339d Transit Kick Stage Kick Stage SEP#1 transfers Kick Stage 4d Transit CPS #1 to L1 LEO 407 km x 407 km Both stacks leave CPS #1 LEO at the same time OR CPS #2 CTV CTV DSH SEP #2 MMSEV MMSEV SEP #1 EPM Kick Stage Could Potentially Kick Stage Kick Stage Kick Stage Replace One HLLV Commercial Lanch Crew HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t HLV ‐ 70t EARTH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 16
- 17. DRM Hybrid: Chemical/SEP 70 t HLLV Mass AllocaQon 70 t HLLV HLLV 2 has negaQve unallocated mass (‐1.15t) Elements are not to scale Elephant stands and element adapters will use unallocated mass Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 17
- 18. Comparison of Crew Launches 70t 75t 85t 100t Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 18
- 19. Concept of OperaQons 100 t HLLV – All Chemical In‐Space Propulsion 30d at NEO NEO MMSEV Cryo Stage #4 Cryo Stage #5 211d Transit 126d Transit Kick Stage Cryo Stage #3 Dock All Elements DSH Cryo Stage #2 LEO Cryo Stage #1 CTV-AE CTV-AE CTV SM DSH DSH 5X Cryo Stages OR MMSEV MMSEV EDL Kick stage 5 X HLLV ‐ 100t HLLV ‐ 100t Elements are not to scale EARTH Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 19
- 20. Risk Assessment Comparisons Area SEP (100 t) SEP (70 t) Chem (100 t) Chem (70 t) # of Unique Elements 7 7 5 5 Total # of Elements 9 11 9 12 # Launches (HLLV) 3 5 6 9 # AR&Ds 8 9 9 12 # of Undocks 10 14 10 13 # Propellant Transfers 0 0 0 0 Chemical Prop Burns 7 9 14 19 Mission Life#me 841 Days 930 Days 821 Days 1091 Days Crew Time 394 Days 394 Days 371 Days 371 Days IMLEO Mass (t) 254 262 537 591 NEO Arrival Stack Mass (t) 57 57 109 121 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 20
- 21. Solar Electric Propulsion Benefits & Highlights Baseline Slope = 7.29 13.5t CTV Slope = 4.33 “Gear” RaQo for SEP missions significantly beper than chemical stages Mission flexibility – departure/return windows SEP affords more “graceful”, less catastrophic propulsion system failure modes SubstanQal power available at desQnaQon and during coast periods Reusable architecture potenQal Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 21
- 22. DRM Assessment Summary ObservaQons • Balanced HLLV/Commercial launchers – Reasonable balance of commercial and government launches achievable through robo#c precursors, flagships and full‐scale demos • Impacts of moderate HLLV capacity – 100 t class launcher allows single launch of systems needed for crewed flight to HEO, reduces launches needed for NEO by ~50% • Impacts of solar electric propulsion – SEP architecture reduces by half the mass to LEO and decreases sensi#vity to mass growth by ~60% • QualitaQve assessment of SEP – offers unique mission flexibility, reduc#on in risk and extensibility to more ambi#ous explora#on missions Top PrioriQes Looking Forward • Perform func#onality trades amongst architecture elements, par#cularly CTV/MMSEV/Hab • Understand CTV func#onality and rela#onship to Commercial Crew through opera#onal concept analysis including con#ngencies • Trade reusability of key transporta#on/habita#on elements • Perform campaign analysis – other missions of interest and how well DRM elements and technologies play (e.g., CPS evolu#on to HLLV upper stage, or vice versa) • Perform boroms‐up element design, layout and packaging for SEP, MMSEV and Hab including radia#on protec#on strategies Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 22
- 23. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Technology Feed Forward and Gaps Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 24. Summary Human missions to NEOs require a focused technology investment porTolio • The agency is already inves#ng in every area needed to enable this class of mission, but emphasis must be put in the right areas • Latest DRM analysis adds Solar Electric Propulsion to other areas of early investment emphasis As definiQon of the mission profile matures and our understanding of the deep space environment improves, addiQonal technology needs may be idenQfied (e.g. radiaQon protecQon for hardware) Core improvements in the way NASA has always done business are needed in areas such as logisQcs management, hardware supportability, soNware development, and mission operaQons with limited ground support. While these improvements may not be directly technology related, they are criQcal to implemenQng the defined DRM. Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 24
- 25. Technology Progress towards other DesQnaQons HEFT DRM 4 DRM 4 Other Crew DesQnaQon Lunar Surface (Long Technology Area Near‐Earth Objects EM‐L1 / Lunar Orbit Mars Orbit Dur.) Mars Surface Propulsion Technologies Heavy LiN Propulsion Technology ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! In‐Space Chemical Propulsion ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! ! High Efficiency In‐Space Propulsion ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Cryogenic Fluid Management (e.g. zero boil off) ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Cryogenic Fluid Transfer ! ! ! ! ! Technologies for Human Health & HabitaQon Life Support and HabitaQon ˜! ˜! ! ! ! ExploraQon Medical Capability ˜! ˜! ! ! ! Space RadiaQon ProtecQon ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Human Health and Countermeasures ˜! ˜! ! ! ! Behavioral Health and Performance ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Space Human Factors & Habitability ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Symbol Technology development complete ˜! Technology Required for this des#na#on Addi#onal tech. dev. required ! Technology is applicable to this des#na#on Technology not developed ! Not Applicable Need more data NASAWATCH.COM 25
- 26. Technology Progress towards other DesQnaQons (cont’d) HEFT DRM 4 DRM 4 Other Crew DesQnaQon Lunar Surface (Long Technology Area Near‐Earth Objects EM‐L1 / Lunar Orbit Mars Orbit Dur.) Mars Surface Power Technologies High Efficiency Space Power Storage ˜! ˜! ! ! ! High Power Space Electrical Pwr GeneraQon ˜! ˜! ! ! ! Entry Descent & Landing Technologies High Speed Earth re‐entry (> 11 km/s) ˜! ˜! ! ˜! ! Aeroshell & Aerocapture ! ! ! ! ! Precision Landing ! ! ! ! ! EVA & RoboQcs Technologies EVA Technology ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Human ExploraQon TeleroboQcs ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! ! Human RoboQc Systems ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Surface Mobility ! ! ! ! ! Symbol Technology development complete ˜! Technology Required for this des#na#on Addi#onal tech. dev. required ! Technology is applicable to this des#na#on Technology not developed ! Not Applicable Need more data NASAWATCH.COM 26
- 27. Technology Progress towards other DesQnaQons (cont’d) HEFT DRM 4 DRM 4 Other Crew DesQnaQon Lunar Surface (Long Technology Area Near‐Earth Objects EM‐L1 / Lunar Orbit Mars Orbit Dur.) Mars Surface SoNware & Electronic Technologies Autonomous Systems ! ! ! ! ! Advanced Avionics/SoNware ! ! ! ! ! Advanced Nav/Comm ! ! ! ! ! Other Technologies Advanced Thermal Control & ProtecQon Systems ˜! ˜! ˜! ! ! Automated Rendezvous and Docking ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! ˜! Supportability & LogisQcs ! ! ! ! ! Lightweight Materials & Structures ! ! ! ! ! Environment MiQgaQon (e.g.Dust) ! ! ! ! ! In‐Situ Resource UQlizaQon ! ! ! ! ! Symbol Technology development complete ˜! Technology Required for this des#na#on Addi#onal tech. dev. required ! Technology is applicable to this des#na#on Technology not developed ! Not Applicable Need more data NASAWATCH.COM 27
- 28. Extensibility of Solar Electric Propulsion Stage Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on 1,000 kWe + Nuclear Stage • ETDD thruster cluster or advanced high power thruster Technology Demonstration Complexity and Available Power • Robo#c to Mars MegaWaO‐Class Fast‐Transit SpacecraR • Human Cargo / Precursor • Extensible for Surface Power TRL9 SEP Stage 90 kW FTD‐1 SEP Stage/ARDV NEXT Ion + 30 kWe FAST Array A Bridge Technology for ESMD Human OperaNons • NASA SMD Science • DoD Opera#onal Missions 300 kWe SEP Stage ETDD Advanced EP Thruster + 90 kWe TRL9 SEP Stage 30 kW • Cargo/Crew to NEO • Reusable Orbital Transfer • Lunar Cargo Demonstrate SpacecraO buses with increasing power & decreasing specific mass to enable advanced electric and plasma propulsion spacecraO that will decrease trip Nmes to Mars and beyond. Each demonstraNon spacecraO bus has immediate applicaNon & payoff to other mission objecNves. NEP power system technologies are extensible to surface power. State‐of‐Art • < 3 kWe devices • GEOCOM auxiliary propulsion • Planetary science (DS1, Dawn) 2015 2020 2025 NASAWATCH.COM Beyond ‐>
- 29. Key ObservaQons No wasted technology investments • Every technology needed to enable a human NEO mission also is needed for other human des#na#ons There are technologies needed for other desQnaQons NOT needed for a human NEO mission; technology gaps Gap technologies that represent unique NASA needs will require the agency to sustain key core competencies for future missions • Precision landing • Aeroshell/aerocapture • Space Nuclear Power • ISRU Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 29
- 30. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Launch Vehicle Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 31. Launch Vehicle Issue RecommendaQon • An HLV is central to any robust human explora#on • Accelerate the HLV decision – moderate HLV program • Ini#ate a Shurle‐derived inline HLV Program • Delaying a decision on HLV configura#on and beginning in FY2011 requirements to 2015 limits NASA’s op#ons and - Ini#al 90 – 100 t range hampers planning - Defer upper stage to Block II • There is no benefit to delaying work on the HLV, no technology needed for capability development Note: An RP‐based HLV (100‐120 t) and a replacement for the - Industry RFI Response (Russian) RD‐180 is higher cost to NASA and therefore Risk if unresolved requires supplemental funding from DoD to offset increased • NASA will lose an opportunity to build from the costs exis#ng flight‐proven systems • Losing the capability to build an SSP‐derived HLV will require the development of new manufacturing, processing, and launch infrastructure at addi#onal cost and schedule risk. 33. 0' 0 3 3 ø ø 0 3 3 ø ' . ' . 12.5' ø Key Trade 27.5’ Inline 33’ Inline 33’ RP Geometry Shurle ET diameter Saturn V heritage 33’ diameter Saturn V heritage 33’ diameter Booster 4 or 5 segment PBAN booster, evolvable to HTPB 5 segment PBAN booster, evolvable to HTPB 1.25 m lbf RP engines on boosters SSME (RS‐25D) transi#oning to 1.25 m lbf thrust class LOX/RP‐1 Core Stage Engine RS‐68B evolvable to RS‐68B E/O RS‐25E engine Upper Stage Engine RL10A4‐3 J‐2X J‐2X‐285 Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 31
- 32. Moderate HLV OpQons –70 t to 100 t Comparison >130 t >70 t ~100 t US Engine Trade Payload Trade Op#ons Op#ons • 10 m shroud (baseline) Upper Stage evolved • RS‐25E • 8.4 m shroud from CPS • J‐2X • Orion Crew Capable • NGE (RL10 replacement) Evolves OR to 5 seg PBAN SRB to Composite HTPB SRBs Ini#al Capability > 70 t Ini#al Capability ~100 t Ul#mate Capability >130 t 4 Segment PBAN SRBs 5 Segment PBAN SRBs 5 Segment HTPB Composite SRBs 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 3 RS‐25D 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 5 RS‐25D 27.5’ dia Core Stage using RS‐25E No Upper Stage No Upper Stage NASAWATCH.COM Upper Stage evolved from CPS
- 33. EvoluQon OpQons 4/3 (70 t) Vehicle EvoluQon • 76 t with 4/3 vehicle in cargo configura#on • 85 t capability with 4/3 vehicle and a RS‐25 D Upper Stage • ~105 t capability with 4/3 vehicle, US, and HPTB/Composite case SRB’s • Performance analysts' recommenda#on - 1st stage under‐thrusted for super heavy liW - Add another pair of 4 segment boosters 5/5 (100 t) Vehicle EvoluQon • 101 t with 5/5 vehicle in cargo configura#on • 127 t with RS‐25 US • >140 t with RS‐25 US and HPTB/composite case SRB’s StarNng with 3 engine core and 4 segment motors requires both core and motor evoluNon to achieve > 130 t Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 33
- 34. Cost Concept Comparison of Major Discriminators Cost through FY17 ‐ $B 100 t 70 t ATP to First Flight 7.5 years 7 years Core Stage 4.5 4.8 (DDT&E + Produc#on) RS‐25D Sustaining 0.6 0.8 RS‐25E 0.7 0 (DDT&E + Produc#on) 4 Segment SRB Sustaining 0 2.8 5 Segment SRB 3.0 0 (DDT&E + Produc#on) First Flight w/RS‐25E’s FY23 FY25 Total Cost thru FY17* 11.6 11.0 *Costs do not include reserves & FTEs, and do not fully fund to the first test flight Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 34
- 35. Moderate HLV Vehicle Discriminators 70 t vs. 100 t 70 t 100 t 4 Segment PBAN SRBs 5 Segment PBAN SRBs 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 3 RS‐25D 27.5’ dia Core Stage using 5 RS‐25D No Upper Stage No Upper Stage RS‐25E development may be deferred RS‐25E development required up‐front 5 flights with 15 RS 25‐D units 3 flights with 15 RS 25‐D units NEO mission flight rate and schedule NEO mission flight rate and schedule determines produc#on limits determines produc#on limits • 15 engines per NEO mission (DRM 4) • 15 engines per NEO mission (DRM 4) • Produc#on rates of 20/yr achievable • Produc#on rates of 20/yr achievable 4 segment motors (RSRM) 5 segment motors (RSRMV) • Obsolescence issues (asbestos) may need • Obsolescence not an issue; 5 motors to be addressed – possible delta qual of planned for qual, may be less 1‐5 addi#onal motors • Heritage hardware assessed to new • Would require new avionics (could use environments and loads RSRMV avionics) • Parachutes challenges (in work) ATP to first‐flight – 6 years • New avionics suites (in work) ATP to first‐flight – 6.5 years MPS more complex (DDT&E forward work) • May lead to more MPTA tes#ng Base hea#ng more challenging (DDT&E forward work) NASAWATCH.COM 35
- 36. Required Ground OperaQons ModificaQons for Any Shuple‐Derived HLV One fill + 2 scrub One total launch Current FSS height & MLP flame hole do load arempts arempt with not support either HLV configura#on. (3 arempts total) current sphere with current capacity sphere capacity (without 48 hr. (without 48 hr. replenishment) replenishment) Shurle 70 t HLV 100 t HLV Mods required for either HLV OpQon KSC Facility Large Cost Drivers: • New Tower for high‐eleva#on access • Manifest (flights per year, spacing, etc.) • New ML Base (similar cost to MLP mods) with Tower (driven by determines KSC Infrastructure rollout stabiliza#on and LV/spacecraW rollout purge requirements) • VAB plazorm mods to meet access requirements • Flight Hardware ConfiguraQon • Pad flame deflector mods (based on engine configura#on) • Reusable hardware increases • Structural reinforcement driven by tower, vehicle & ML base weight facility footprint • Pad, Pad Slope, Crawler, Crawlerway, VAB, etc. • Ship to Integrate Flight Hardware • Facili#es & GSE must be brought into compliance with current minimizes KSC facility footprint construc#on standards & codes (VAB life safety & fire suppression) • GHE recovery system may be required (out‐years) Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 36
- 37. Heavy LiN Launch Vehicle (HLLV) RecommendaQon IniQate a 100 t class Shuple‐derived moderate HLLV • Accommodates difficult NEO crewed missions with less risk • Defers Upper stage to Block II and evolve US from CPS • U#lizes experienced workforce • Hardware has demonstrated reliability and performance • More payload capability for the investment Further Launch Vehicle trades should be completed by HLPT Team at MSFC Perform a trade of the feasibility of Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) evoluQon to Upper Stage (HEFT Phase II) • Evolu#on of the CPS from the current Ares I Upper Stage design is feasible to evolve to an earth departure stage (EDS) with modest CFM requirements • CPS design could build on exis#ng elements of Ares I US for early demonstra#on • Extensibility for longer loiter required for CPS is feasible Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 37
- 38. Na#onal Aeronau#cs and Space Administra#on Crewed SpacecraN ‐ Revised Approach Steering Council September 2, 2010 NASAWATCH.COM
- 39. Crewed SpacecraN/ERV – As presented July 13th Issue Risk if unresolved • HEFT assessments iden#fied a func#onal • Pursuing an ISS ERV diverts near term requirement for a crewed explora#on resources that could be berer aligned with spacecraW advancing human (beyond LEO) explora#on • Developing an Orion‐derived explora#on RecommendaQon vehicle • Switch Focus to develop an Orion‐derived - Provides a clear explora#on spacecraW focus exploraQon spacecraN using a block approach - Leverages CxP investment, maintaining - Do not develop a dedicated ISS ERV Agency momentum, and preserves prime contractor rela#onship • Development Path - Can yield an ISS ERV via Block development - Orion‐derived direct return vehicle and in‐ house developed exploraQon craN • No dedicated ISS ERV in any explora#on - Manage the Orion‐derived explora#on DRMs spacecraW to fit the available budget using - ERV development is a sub‐op#mum detour rigorous design‐to‐cost targets in the path to an explora#on spacecraW - Implement lean in‐house development of the - ERV development reduces available budget MMSEV for key systems and tech development by • Alterna#ve Development Path more than $2.0B - Orion block 2 vehicle - with airlock and robo#c elements Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 39
- 40. Crew Transfer Vehicle FuncQonality ConsideraQons Hybridized DRM‐4 uQlizes either an Ascent/Entry (CTV‐AE) or Entry only (CTV‐E) Extended Quiescent Period Propulsion System Reqs. ConQngency Abort Support Crew Support DuraQon Entry, Descent & Landing Ascent Aborts Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 40
- 41. Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) FuncQonality OpQons There are natural capability break points that suggest several CTV opQons • Future assessment to refine these is required to fully defined CTV func#onality CTV‐E: minimal EOM (only) funcQon • Does not provide support for (on‐orbit) con#ngency abort func#ons CTV‐AE: provides ascent/entry • Must include the Ascent Abort (LAS) capability/func#onality • Provides CM/SM crewed support (LEO to HEO / DSV sep thru EDL / Cont. Abort Reqs.) CTV‐E*: entry + (on orbit) conQngency abort funcQons • CTV‐E* is a reduc#on of system capability from CTV‐AE - Eliminates the Ascent Abort (LAS) capability/func#onality • Maintain SM func#onality to cover crewed support & con#ngency abort requirements Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 41
- 42. Crew Transfer Vehicle (CTV) OpQons – CapabiliQes CTV ConfiguraQon CTV‐E CTV‐E* CTV‐A/E Crew in CTV during ascent? No No Yes Ascent Abort (Pad to LEO) No No Yes No. of Crew ‐ Delivery of Crew to LEO / Return from 3‐4 3‐4 3‐4 beyond LEO Ascent/On‐orbit Crew Support (hrs) 0 / 0 0 / 216 12+ / 216 Crew Support For EDL & Recovery (hrs) 40 40 40 Quiescent Time (days) 400 400 400 Automated Rendezvous & Docking – AR&D TBD TBD Yes Main Propulsion delta‐V (m/s) <200 1500+ 1500+ Entry Speed for Entry Descent & Landing – EDL (km/s) <11.8 <11.8 <11.8 EDL & Recovery System (water landing) Yes Yes Yes RCS Control for EDL Yes Yes Yes ConQngency (In Space) Abort No Yes Yes Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 42
- 43. Crew Transfer Vehicle‐Entry (CTV‐E) FuncQonality ImplicaQons Minimum CTV‐E capability implies certain condiQons • All beyond LEO missions require CTV‐E, MMSEV & CPS + Comm. Crew launch • LEO to L1 crew support (~4 days) off‐loaded to the MMSEV • No stand alone in‐space con#ngency abort support (insufficient crew support Eme) - Requires combina#on with MMSEV and CPS AddiQonal implicaQons • Does not support early beyond LEO mission w/CTV only (insufficient crew support Eme, insufficient Delta‐V) • Places Commercial Crew in Cri#cal Path for explora#on missions • CTV‐E is not on path to provide Commercial Crew alterna#ve Pre‐Decisional: For NASA Internal Use Only NASAWATCH.COM 43