National Aeronautics Space Administration Washington, 20546 D.C.

and

Aeoly

to Am

ot

C:JJH:brb

Honorable Bill Nelson Chairman Subcommittee on Space and Applications Committee on Science, and Technology House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Science Space

Dear

Mr.

Chairman:

The House Authorization Report 99-829, requested NASA to study the technical, operational, cost and safety requirements for External Tank (ET) orbit insertion, basic station-keeping and life support to determine the feasibility of such usage of the ET. The enclosed report provides an overview of the requirements associated with.the utilization of the ET and examines several areas of concern which must be evaluated, Please call me if you have questions concerning this report.

Enclosure cc: Honorable Robert S. Walker

EXTERNAL TANK UTILIZATION

ON ORBIT

An analysis has been conducted to investigate the feasibility of taking the Shuttle External Tank (ET) to orbit and to maintain it on orbit for later scientific or The engineering and operational problems engineering tasks. involved with this objective are basically within the current state-of-the-art of Shuttle operations, support system and in order to take the ET to orbit and to However, technology. several areas of.concern must be maintain it on orbit, Of primary interest are the following areas: evaluated. reduction of Shuttle payload capability, propellant requirements to prevent premature re-entry of the ET, additional propulsion and guidance equipment to maintain the accessibility of orbiting ET, ET oriented in orbit, probability of micrometeoroid or space debris damage to the ET or potential impact of the ET with useful satellites, cost of ET modifications and operational costs, etc. Analysis of these and other areas provides of the requirements associated with the utilization ET. an overview of the

To evaluate the additional propellant needed to take the one should first be acquainted with the two ET to orbit, One is called the customary Shuttle ascent profiles. and the other is known as the "Direct "Nominal STS Mission" Orbit Insertion Mission." the Shuttle main engines In the Nominal STS Mission, burn until a specific set of "main engine cut off" target The Shuttle The ET is separated. conditions is reached. orbital maneuvering system (OMS) then provides the additional velocity needed to place the Orbiter into a transfer orbit with the apogee equal to the desired orbit. The second OMS maneuver occurs at apogee and places the Orbiter into its final orbit. In the Nominal STS Mission, the ET then impacts in the Indian Ocean or the Southern Pacific Ocean depending on launch from the Eastern Test Range (ETR) or Western Test To take the ET to orbit in this Range (WTR) respectively. mission, a payload penalty results which is shown in Figure 1. The penalty is approximately 3000 lbs. dependinzh;z the circular orbit altitude to which the ET is taken. payload penalty is additive to the reduction of Shuttle payload weight which always occurs with increasing altitude.
_-

Figure Shuttle

1.

External

Tank Utilization for Carrying ET to

Payload Penalty vs Altitude Circular Orbit

The Direct Orbit Insertion Mission eliminates the OMS 1 burn by continuously burning the main engines to a set of cut-off conditions which will provide the proper apogee. In this scenario, the ET impacts in the Southern Pacific Ocean or the Northern Pacific Ocean for either ETR or WTRlaunches respectively. Taking the ET tcorbit in this scenario results in a payload penalty of approximately 2200 lbs., as indicated in Figure 1 for altitudes ranging from 200 to 300 n.m. At altitudes below this range, orbital lifetime without reboosting is limited to a few days. For instance, decay and re-entry from 300 Ian (160 n.m.) would occur within 30 to 35 days for atmospheric density conditions during 1988 and unless reboosting of the ET "broad side" drag orientation, Since the atmospheric density is a can be accomplished. strong function of altitude and solar cycle activity, and since the drag forces acting on the ET vary extensively with the ET orientation, a comparison of these parameters must be made to determine the reboost propellant requirements. Figure 2 shows the yearly propellant requirements to periodically reboost the ET, i.e. to maintain the initial The propellant requirements are Wtorage" altitude. 2

parameterized orientation

with of the Figure 2.

respect ET.

to solar

cycle

activity

and drag

Reboost Propellant to Maintain ET at Constant Altitude

, TWOlnMmS '1 a- '\ '\ '\ e'\

Since the-E3 cannot be maintained at low orbital altitudes for any significant time without large propellant it is necessary to place the ET at an orbital consumption, As can be seen from altitude which. is relatively drag free. Figure 2 at altitudes above 500 Jan (270 n-m.), the propellant requirement for reboosting the tank is negligible for nominal atmospheric conditions and nominal solar activity. Figure 3. OMV Propellant Placement and Orbit Maintenance

for

Initial

vs Time

An alternative, shown in Figures 3 and 4, is to place the ET initially at a sufficient altitude to conserve reboost propellant utilizing the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV) for transfer of the ET to an initial altitude above the 160 n.m. Shuttle insertion altitude. Boosting the ET to higher altitude via an OMV results in the lowest overall propellant requirement for lifetimes over three years. If it is desired to-use the tank within a few months from the launch date, a combination of boosting (to an intermediate altitude) and altitude maintenance results in the lowest propellant consumption.
Figure

4.

Alternative Mission OMV Boosts ET

Scenario

f-7

abw-w-&m ?sr

For altitudes less than 500 km (270 n.r.), a guidance system is required for attitude control and reboost guidance. This control can be provided by either an OMV or for an ET onboard system. The weight and power requirements this system are 'estimated to be 2500 lbs. aa3 125 watts respectively. A small (6.8 sgm) fixed solar array/battery system is included to provide the required power. Above an altitude of 500 km, the air drag is low enough to avoid the need for attitude control of the ET.

Another approach, based on the Martin-Michoud scavenging study, would be the use of a customized Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) which would use residual propellants left in Sufficient propellant remains in the the ET after insertion.
4

ET to boost the ET to greater than system would require a substantial however.

Such a 500 km (270 n.m.). new development program

Safety considerations would probably demand the incorporation of means for controlled de-orbit of the ET. The ET could be de-orbited by ground control using an OMV. The propellant required by an OMV which is subsequently Another option recovered by the Shuttle would be 5175 lbs. is the use of solid propellant STAR motors which would have De-orbit impulse is provided been installed prior to launch. by four Thiokol STAR 26B (or STAR 27) solid rocket motors Each SRM provides an average thrust of 7970 lbs. (SRWS). A de-orbit system of this type for approximately 18 seconds. This also requires has been defined for another application. an attitude control system to establish proper attitude for de-orbit and to provide an ET spin rate of 20 degrees per A baseline hydrazine system second prior to SRM firing. provides these capabilities. The total system weight including electrical power and communication system, a hydrazine attitude control system, and the STAR SRM's is approximately 5411 lbs. The ET is already equipped with the necessary hardware to dump and vent the residual propellants remaining at MECO. a tumble valve which is noqnaIly activated by the However, Orbiter after KECO'must be modified to prevent end-over-end In addition, the-range safety system tumbling of the ET. Further, must be modified to make the ET safe for later use. to assure venting of the gaseous hydrogen and oxygen from the a small gaseous helium bottle must ET for post MECO safety, be added, and a non-propulsive GH2 vent duct must also be The modifications of the safing system and installed. additional helium pressurization, etc. are estimated+0 weigh Safing of the STAB retromotors would approximately 335 lbs. be accomplished with a state-of-the-art range safety system similar to the system5 used on the solid rocket boosters or Arming of the system would the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS). also have to be accomplished from the Orbiter. that any of a large number of ET's (10 to 100) would collide with another useful satellite at any This is illustrated in Figure 5. altitude is very low. by 1 to 3 However, on the pverage each ET will be penetrated impacts per year with micrometeoroids, as indicated in Figure the tank walls may be penetrated by man-made 6. Furthermore, space debris between 1 and 3 times per year, increasing with There is negligible probability (less than orbit altitude. 0.001 per tank per year) that a micrometeoroid or man-made debris large enough to penetrate the ET wall and then exit from the opposite wall, generating shrapnel, will occur. The probability

However, it should be noted that the current these data are based has a fairly wide range
and the protection capability of the 5

of uncertainty, ET insulation is largely

model on which

In any event, penetration of the ET would limit the unknown. eventual use as a man-rated pressurizable vessel unless a 10,000 lbs. micrometeoroid bumper is provided.

Fiuure

5.

Probability of Collision with Useful Satellite&

per

Year per

ET

OADIT

ALpnor

OF ET pml

Figure

6.

ET Collision Rates with per Year per ET

Orbit

Debris

The rough costs of two options have been analyzed for taking the ET's to higher orbit for Wtoragen until they can be used. Option I utilizes an OMV, as discussed above, for boost to higher orbit and eventual controlled reentry. In this option each ET is equipped with a docking probe, a minimal c&mnunications capability, and the necessary The ROM recurring cost esttitc structural strengthening.
charge for a ground-based OMV to deliver each ET to higher In Option II each ET is orbit and to return the 0247). maintained at the Shuttle delivered altitude, oriented for
6

for this

option

in 1990 dollars

is $lSM (including

$4.5X use

lifetime by an The ROM recurring cost The deboost for Option I $30M. The for an OMV service charge. be an additional $850X (recurring) motors. SySt8lU.

maximum

on-orbit

onboard attitude Control estimate for this option is would be an additional $4.5M deboost for Option II would for four STAR solid rocket

The rough cost per day for the Orbiter to station-keep while scientists are Working on the ET is estimated as $7OOK if performed in conjunction with a nominal Shuttle add-on, mission, based on STS reimbursement guide esi=alated to 1990 To rendezvous with an ET previously stored on dollars. orbit, its orbital parameters must be matched exactly by the rendezvousing Shuttle Vehicle (restricted launch window, launch inclination, unique phasing orbits, etc.). A The mission cost to dedicated STS mission may be required. dedicate an eight-day STS mission to modify a standard ET using a two-man NA crew for six already in a 270 n-m. orbit, The actual figure would depend days, is in excess of $lOOM. on the type of mission and other factors that cannot be predicted now.