Launch Vehicle Considerations for Moon, Mars Missions and ISS Transport

1
Launch Vehicle Considerations for Moon, Mars
Missions and ISS Transport

• An International Perspective

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-1- 3/9/04
2
Goals

• Update data presented in Stanford International
  Mars Mission Report
• Characterize importance of the
  InternationalSpace Station
• Assess impact ofNASAs new space policy
• Assess impact of todays global environment

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-2- 3/9/04
3
Design Basis Moon and Mars Missions(Payload Size
and Weight)

• Moon Mission
• Apollo Program
• Soviet Moon Program
• Stanford International Mars Mission

• Mars Mission
• Stanford International Mars Mission
• Proposed Russian Mars Missions

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-3- 3/9/04
4
Design Basis Moon Mission Payload

• Apollo Program (USA)
• Total Spacecraft Weight
• 95,000 lb (43,100 kg) 2
• Saturn V Launch Vehicle
• 270,000 lb (122,500 kg) to LEO 2
• 100,000 lb (45,360 kg) translunar 2

• Soviet Moon Program
• N1-L3 Space Complex (Sergei Korolev)
• 220,500 lb (100,000 kg) to LEO 1
• L3 Lunar Vehicle
• 21,700 lb (9,850 kg)
• 10.06 m height
• 2.93 m diameter
• Ur-500K (Proton)(V. Chelomei)
• 11,900 lb (5,390 kg) translunar

1 SP KoroleV RKK Energiya 2 NASA Special
Publication-4009
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-4- 3/9/04
5
Design Basis Mars Mission Payload

• Stanford International Mars Mission
• 100 ton to LEO HLLV
• 2 launch pads required
• Total of 9 modules placed in Earth staging orbit
  by HLLV (For single manned mission)
• Crew Transfer Vehicle(2 modules, 41 tons each)
• Cargo mission(6 Modules)
• 1 Fuel Module

• RKK Energiya Proposal (Russia) 3
• Solar Electric Vehicle
• Up to 600,000 kg single vehicle assembled in LEO
• 6 7 Launches to LEO required
• 2 year mission duration

3 SP Korolev RKK Energiya
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-5- 3/9/04
6
So what Kind of Launch Vehicle do we Need?

• Mission Architecture?
• Typical Lunar Missions
• 10 45 metric tons translunar(40 120 metric
  tons to LEO)
• Typical Mars Mission Concepts
• 100 metric tons to LEO with staging
• Can we use a smaller launch vehicle? (SsTO)

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-6- 3/9/04
7
International Launch Vehicles Considered

• Arienne 5 (France, ESA)
• Atlas V (USA, Lockheed)
• Energiya/Zenit (Russia)
• Delta IV (USA, Boeing)
• H2 (Japan)
• ChangZheng (Long March) (China)
• Soyuz (Russia)
• Shuttle Derivative (USA)
• Stanford SsTO (International)
• Proton (Russia)

New or additional launch vehicles not included
in Stanford International Mars Mission
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-7- 3/9/04
8
Launch Vehicle Payload Capacities
4 Stanford International Mars Mission Final
Report, April 1993, E235, Stanford University
School of Engineering 5 International Launch
Services (ILS) 6 Delta IV Payload Planners
Guide, MDC00H0043, Update April 2002 7 Proton
Launch System Mission Planners Guide,
LKEB-9812-1990, Issue 1, Rev. 5, December 2001
8 Jenkins, Dennis R,, Space Shuttle The
History of Developing the National Space
Transportation System, Motorbooks International,
ISBN 0-9633974-4-3, 1996. 9 The Satellite
Encyclopedia/NASDA 10 Encyclopedia Astronautica
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-8- 3/9/04
9
Launch Vehicle Cost Comparison
Price in 2003 U.S.D. computed from 1992 U.S.D.
published in Reference 11. A 1992 to 2003
inflation rate of 28 is used 11.
4 Stanford International Mars Mission Final
Report, April 1993, E235, Stanford University
School of Engineering 11 Inflationdata.com
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-9- 3/9/04
10
The Energiya

• Successor to N1 moon rocket
• 2 Stage Launch Vehicle(Stanford IMM requires
  additional third stage)
• Cryogenic core 4 LO2/kerosene strap on boosters
  (Zenit)
• Length 193 ft (59 m)N1-L3 stood 345 ft (105 m)

• Payload
• 100 Tons to LEO
• 18 Tons to GEO
• 32 Tons translunar
• 28 Tons Venus/Mars
• Track Record
• May 15,1987, mock-up of Polyus spacecraft
• Nov. 15, 1988, Buran Orbiter

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-10- 3/9/04
11
Viability of EnergiyaDoes the Energiya still
exist?

• Only two Launches
• Last launch was 16 years ago
• May 2002, Baikonur Cosmodrome Roof Collapse left
  only full-scale test model of Buran Shuttle and
  Energiya carrier rocket buried
• Energiya cited as launch vehicle for RKK
  Energiyas newly disclosed Mars mission concept

Photo of Buran and Energiya just prior to
collapse Space.com
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-11- 3/9/04
12
Russian Mars Mission Concept (SPK RKK Energiya)

• Unveiled on Energiyas website shortly after
  NASAs new space policy was announced
• Elements delivered to LEO, then assembled into a
  single vehicle

• Solar electric propulsion
• 3 months to leave earth orbit
• 8 month transit to mars
• 1 month to enter Mars orbit
• 1 month on Mars surface
• 6 person crew
• Reusable vehicle
• 6 7 Energiya Launches required

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-12- 3/9/04
13
Shuttle Derivative(The Shuttle-C)

• Shuttle-C concept devised in the mid 1980s
• NASA Marshall design for replacement of shuttle
  orbiter with recoverable main engine pod
• Uses Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters and
  External Fuel Tank

• Payload
• 77 metric tons to LEO
• 8.7 m diam / 56 m length(comparable to Energiya)
• Cost per Launch?
• Less than the STS(big deal)
• 120 - 550 mil USD? 12

Shuttle-CCredit Boeing
12 sci.space.policy newsgroup
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-13- 3/9/04
14
The Soyuz Launch Vehicle

• Based on R-7 Semyorka ICBM in the 1950s
• Designed by S.P. Korolev
• Current configuration introduced in 1966
• 3 4 Stages
• Kerosene fueled
• Manned/Unmanned
• LEO Mars escape trajectory
• Soyuz is the Most prolific launch vehicle ever
• Over ????? launches since the 1957 launch of
  sputnik
• Safety Rating
• Over 70 manned launches with ??? safety rating
  since 1961 launch of Yuri Gagarin
• Equipped with launch escape tower
• Generally preferred by U.S. astronauts over
  Space Shuttle
• Assembly line production
• Currently in uninterrupted production of 10-15
  launch vehicles per year
• In early 1980s reached peak production rate of 60
  vehicles per year

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-14- 3/9/04
15
The Soyuz Launch Vehicle

• Based on R-7 Semyorka ICBM in the 1950s
• Designed by S.P. Korolev
• Current configuration introduced in 1966
• 3 4 Stages
• Kerosene fueled
• Manned/Unmanned
• LEO Mars escape trajectory
• Soyuz is the Most prolific launch vehicle ever
• Over 1,680 launches since the 1957 launch of
  sputnik
• Safety Rating
• Over 70 manned launches with ??? safety rating
  since 1961 launch of Yuri Gagarin
• Equipped with launch escape tower
• Generally preferred by U.S. astronauts over
  Space Shuttle
• Assembly line production
• Currently in uninterrupted production of 10-15
  launch vehicles per year
• In early 1980s reached peak production rate of 60
  vehicles per year

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-14- 3/9/04
16
The Soyuz Launch Vehicle

• Based on R-7 Semyorka ICBM in the 1950s
• Designed by S.P. Korolev
• Current configuration introduced in 1966
• 3 4 Stages
• Kerosene fueled
• Manned/Unmanned
• LEO Mars escape trajectory
• Soyuz is the Most prolific launch vehicle ever
• Over 1,680 launches since the 1957 launch of
  sputnik
• Safety Rating
• Over 70 manned launches with 100 safety rating
  since 1961 launch of Yuri Gagarin
• Equipped with launch escape tower
• Generally preferred by U.S. astronauts over
  Space Shuttle
• Assembly line production
• Currently in uninterrupted production of 10-15
  launch vehicles per year
• In early 1980s reached peak production rate of 60
  vehicles per year

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-14- 3/9/04
17
The ChangZheng 2F(Long March)

• First ChangZheng rocket launched in 1960 with
  Russian aid 13
• Man rated version of Chinas Long March family of
  launch vehicles
• October 15, 2003 the Long March 2F Launched
  Shenxhou-5 spacecraft carrying the first Chinese
  Taikonaut into Low Earth orbit
• 5 Successful launches to date
• Equipped with launch escape tower
• Shenxhou autonomous orbital module allows for the
  possibility of future space station construction
  and ISS docking 13
• Major Contribution Lessons learned

13 Escutia, Paul, Chinas Space Program
Growing International Connections, Fall 2003 EDGE
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-15- 3/9/04
18
International Spaceports

• Can launch larger payloads into equatorial orbits
  from locations closer to the Earths equator.
• Other sites more ideal for polar orbits
• e.g., EADS-Rosaviakosmos agreement to launch
  Soyuz at Kourou

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-16- 3/9/04
19
ISS / Moon and Mars Manned Vehicle Construction
and Architecture

• Vehicle staging and construction in LEO
• Using the ISS as a spacecraft factory
• RKK Energiya Mars mission test plan includes test
  vehicles constructed at ISS
• Advantage Separation of Cargo and Crew

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-17- 3/9/04
20
Separation of Cargo and Crew

• Concept
• Use energetic HLLVs to loft heavy
  cargo/vehicles
• Use lighter and more reliable launch vehicles for
  crew transfer
• Opposite of Apollo/STS/Buran/SsTO concepts
• Consistently used by Russia to construct and man
  space stations
• Reduces cost and Increases Safety
• Limits Payload returned to Earth
• NASA Leaning toward this approach in the
  future(phase out STS in favor of CEV)?

2
2
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-18- 3/9/04
21
Brief History of Russian Space Station
Construction/Missions
Failed to open hatch between Salyut and
SoyuzFirst manned space station mission. Soyuz
capsule depressurized during reentryFailed to
dock with space station (Soyuz 23 control
system failure, landing in Tengiz Lake)Sept
1983, Soyuz T exploded on Launch pad, but Escape
system saved the crew
John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-19- 3/9/04
22
Conclusions

• International cooperation is crucial to success
  of Lunar, Mars Missions and continued ISS
  operations
• Launch Vehicles
• Launch Sites

• Use the right launch vehicle for the job
• 40 120 metric ton to LEO LV for large vehicle
  components
• Reliable, smaller LV for crew transfer

John Conklin - Stanford University - E235a
-20- 3/9/04