A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-153- Table F-2 STPSS STRUCTURAL COMPONENT WEIGHT SUMMARY Component Structural Component Weight (lb) Core module ........................... 240 Spin-control-orientation module ....... 70 Three-axis-orientation module ......... 150 Precision three-axis module ........... 150 Solar array Standard 50 W subpanel (19" x 45") ....................... 3.0 ea. "Picture frame" (boom, hinges, etc.) ............................. 2.0-2.6 ea. SOURCE: Ref. 1. COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL SUBSYSTEMS The AEM is primarily aluminum sheet and stringer construction, using standard Burner IIA extrusions for longerons. The conical shell that interfaces between the spacecraft and the Scout F booster is probably the most "exotic" structural element from a structures standpoint. However, it too is formed from aluminum sheet, and fabrication appears to be well within the state of the art and, in addition, will not be used on STPSS missions. The module support structure of the MS is a simple 3-D truss. The subsystem modules utilize honeycomb panels that frame into aluminum stock edges. The transition adapter is of more complex construction; however, the fabrication procedures appear to be based on proven techniques. The basic structure of the STPSS appears to use more nonstandard components, i.e., rings and diverging box beams. The structural weight is also a higher percentage of the instrument payload weight than it is in the AEM and M*S. Additionally, alignment may be a more critical aspect of STPSS construction because loads have to be transferred between the inner cylinders of the core module and orientation module with minimal'edge moments. The additional complexity of the STPSS structure will be reflected primarily as a fabrication cost, rather than as one of development risk.
-154- In summary, the AEM and MMS structural subsystems appear to use proven techniques and, for the most part, standard members. The STPSS certainly is no simpler in construction and is probably more costly on a relative basis. d
Page 2 and 3:
LEYEL r o R-2619-RC May 1980 Standa
Page 4 and 5:
SECUNITY CLASSIFICATION OF Twa PAGE
Page 6 and 7:
Standard 5pacecraft.ProcurementL_ A
Page 8 and 9:
-ivas representing the official vie
Page 10 and 11:
the missions required. Third, the p
Page 12 and 13:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknow
Page 14 and 15:
-xii- VI. APPLYING THE NASA-DOD COO
Page 16 and 17:
-. - am~rumn -xv- TABLES 1. Nominal
Page 18 and 19:
-Xvii- 11-19. Case IV(N)...........
Page 20 and 21:
-xx- L-ANX - Large Diameter Applica
Page 22 and 23:
-1- I. INTRODUCTION The National Ae
Page 24 and 25:
-3- development. Finally, the polic
Page 26 and 27:
-5- of which spacecraft would enabl
Page 28 and 29:
-7- II. U.S. SPACE PROGRAM: DEVELOP
Page 30 and 31:
-9- thought. (8 ) The launching of
Page 32 and 33:
-1- had shown great alarm or acknow
Page 34 and 35:
-13- for other purposes. ,(15) it w
Page 36 and 37:
-15- and that determination as to w
Page 38 and 39:
-17- program and the coordination o
Page 40 and 41:
t -19- legislation, messages, petit
Page 42 and 43:
-21- of the continuing Soviet accom
Page 44 and 45:
-23- Subsequently, the Director of
Page 46 and 47:
-25- to be asked by one of the agen
Page 48 and 49:
-27- space systems; operational sys
Page 50 and 51:
-29- no near-earth orbit manned ope
Page 52 and 53:
ImP, ~ ~ ~~~~ ......... ~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 54 and 55:
-33- 5. Using off-the-shelf, space-
Page 56 and 57:
-35- 1. Spacecraft configurations a
Page 58 and 59:
-37- STANDARD SPACECRAFT DESCRIPTIO
Page 60 and 61:
-39- The payload cluster, while uni
Page 62 and 63:
-41- payload or propulsion, is abou
Page 64 and 65:
-43- z z 0 0 - 0r CL 0 E 4 41- u- 0
Page 66 and 67:
-45- The STPSS can carry a nominal
Page 68 and 69:
i -47- orbit-adjust module, while t
Page 70 and 71:
-49- M9IS The basic MMS, summarized
Page 72 and 73:
-51- 1980-1990 time period are divi
Page 74 and 75:
-53- about 7.5 payloads per spacecr
Page 76 and 77:
-55- 0- - - - - - - - - - cc - - -
Page 78 and 79:
-57- STPSS (STPSS-LC) spacecraft ca
Page 80 and 81:
-59- Table 7 ESTIMATED UNIT 1 COST
Page 82 and 83:
-61- Nonrecurring Costs. Nonrecurri
Page 84 and 85:
-63- where SRU = Service Rendered U
Page 86 and 87:
-65- IV. STANDARD SPACECRAFT ACQUIS
Page 88 and 89:
-67- The costs associated with thes
Page 90 and 91:
-69- to increase to 13. That was fo
Page 92 and 93:
-71- 500 * STPSS 400 AW-STPSS PROGR
Page 94 and 95:
-73- The implications of the forego
Page 96 and 97:
-75- option. Other candidates becom
Page 98 and 99:
-77- the Air Force's Space Test Pro
Page 100 and 101:
-79- decrease any total program cos
Page 102 and 103:
-81- COST LAUNCH COSTS (Millions of
Page 104 and 105:
-83- V. NASA-DOD COOPERATION: ORGAN
Page 106 and 107:
-85- the MHS program stemmed from t
Page 108 and 109:
-87- The Air Force had studied the
Page 110 and 111:
-89- Air Force Headquarters to NASA
Page 112 and 113:
-91- turns out, NASA had agreed to
Page 114 and 115:
also evaluate whether or not adequa
Page 116 and 117:
-95- design, mission model, cost es
Page 118 and 119:
-97- Force interface was retained,
Page 120 and 121:
-99- experience and by identifying
Page 122 and 123:
. . . . . . . -.. . . . . . . . . .
Page 124 and 125: -103- the nation and other governme
Page 126 and 127: -105- Appendix A ESTIMATES OF COST
Page 128 and 129: -107- RANGE OF BIDS Item Range ($ t
Page 130 and 131: -109- Table A-1 SPACECRAFT COSTS--N
Page 132 and 133: 'I FI Table A-2 SPACECRAFT COSTS WI
Page 134 and 135: -113- Table A-3 LAUNCH COSTS--NOMIN
Page 136 and 137: -115- Table A-5 LAUNCH COSTS FOR TH
Page 138 and 139: Table B-I POWER SYSTEM COMPARISONS
Page 140 and 141: -119- NOTES TO TABLE B-I (Cont.) mo
Page 142 and 143: -121- The duration of the data pass
Page 144 and 145: -123- INNNU AWA n -. s vo (I T 'API
Page 146 and 147: -125- each battery has its own char
Page 148 and 149: -127- Table B-2 POWER SUMMARY Chara
Page 150 and 151: -129- Appendix C COMMUNICATIONS AND
Page 152 and 153: -131- chiefly for storing commands
Page 154 and 155: -133- Table C-2 C&DH CHANGES REQUIR
Page 156 and 157: -135- Table C-3 C&DH CHANGES REQUIR
Page 158 and 159: -137- NOTES TO TABLE C-3 (Cont.) we
Page 160 and 161: - 139- Table D-1 ATTITUDE CONTROL A
Page 162 and 163: * -141- and three reaction wheels a
Page 164 and 165: -143- by the commonly adopted desig
Page 166 and 167: -145- Table E-l--Continued I Unit T
Page 168 and 169: -147- flight-proven elastomeric dia
Page 170 and 171: -149- Appendix F STRUCTURAL SUBSYST
Page 172 and 173: -151- points are provided by three
Page 176 and 177: -155- Appendix G THERMAL CONTROL SU
Page 178 and 179: -157- sunlight. These surfaces incl
Page 180 and 181: -159- Appendix H PROGRAM OPTIONS FO
Page 182 and 183: I 4 I IQ. w ~ w 01 " 1 I I I I 0 .c
Page 184 and 185: -163- Table H-4 ORBIT 2: PAYLOAD AS
Page 186 and 187: -165- c0 k- c" Q N 3- W 0 0 IT -- c
Page 188 and 189: -167- Table 1-7 CASE I (A)a PROGRAM
Page 190 and 191: -169- Table H-9 CASES I (K) AND V (
Page 192 and 193: -171- Table H-11 CASE II(B) PROGRAM
Page 194 and 195: -173- Table H-13 CASE 111(C) PROGRA
Page 196 and 197: -175- Table H-15 CASE 111(M) PROGRA
Page 198 and 199: -177- Table H-17 CASE IV(D) PROGRAM
Page 200 and 201: -17 9- Table H-19 CASE IV(N) PROGRA
Page 202 and 203: -181- Table Hi-21 CASE V (E) PROGRA
Page 204 and 205: -183- Table H-23 CASE VI(F) PROGRAM
Page 206 and 207: -185- Appendix J AIR FORCE AND NASA
Page 208 and 209: MEMORANDUM OF AGRE1MENT ON THE PROC
Page 210 and 211: -189- 2.2 DOD SPACE TEST PROGRAM: T
Page 212 and 213: -191- l4.1.7 STP will review the HF
Page 214 and 215: I -193- 5.0 NASA AND DOD FINANCIAL
Page 216 and 217: -195- 5.4.3 Post Delivery Phase: NA
Page 218 and 219: I '-197- $4 .0 0 A 0 f-4 ;C:ur 0 V
Page 220 and 221: t 4 In I Io H 0p Ad ~t m 00 -199- E
Page 222 and 223: -201- COPIED August 24, 1976 Honora
Page 224 and 225:
-204- 13. "The National Space Progr
Page 226 and 227:
-206- 39. Tec hnical vpoaal for a M
show all

A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?