AMS ELV Optio

AMS ELV Optio

16 February, 2006

Presented b

Trent Martin/E

Cheryl Malloy/

Compiled b

Trent Martin/E

NASA AMS Deputy Pro

Presentation Cont

Charles Young/Shuttle 

Ross Abotteen/Shuttle 

John Steils/Shuttle 

Matthew Schuetz/ISS 

Cheryl Malloy/
February 16, 2006 

Purpose of Presentation

• In Sept. 2005, Prof. Ting met with NASA Administrator

– Prof. Ting requested continued support of AMS on Shuttle– Dr. Griffin said that he would do what he could to support AMS, but AM

assume that the elimination of a Shuttle ride to ISS for AMS was a serio

– JSC AMS Project Office (APO) agreed to work with KSC to develop AM

• KSC LSP Office and AMS met with Mr. Gerstenmaier on Nov. 18, 2005

– Proposed combined Shuttle/EELV mission to essentially get more paylo

one Shuttle flight

– Mr. Gerstenmaier requested that AMS go to Shuttle and ISS for further 

• Since the November meeting, a team at JSC has been looking at this option

– Goal was to investigate the feasibility of launching the AMS on an EELV 

spacecraft bus, delivering it to ISS using a Shuttle after an on-orbit transpacecraft bus

• Identify any preliminary technical show stoppers• Highlight key issues that require further investigation

– Report findings back to NASA HQ

• Mr. Sistilli – Jan. 19, 2006• Mr. Gerstenmaier – Feb. 7, 2006• Dr. Griffin – Feb. 16, 2006
February 16, 2006 

Feasibility Study Team

• AMS Project Office (JSC/EA)

• Steve Porter• Trent Martin

• ISS

– Safety and Mission Assurance (JSC/OE)

• Saroj Patel

– Program Integration Office (JSC/OM)

• Matthew Schuetz• Neil Lemmons• Nancy Wilks• Joe LaRochelle

• Shuttle

– Flight Operations and Integration Office 

(JSC/MO)

• Charles Young• Ross Abotteen• Ken Bollweg• Steve Kunkel

• Flight Crew Operations (JSC/CB)

• Dom Gorie

• Mission Operations Dire

– Systems Division (JS

• Dean Lenort

– Flight Design (JSC/D

• Mark Schrock• Brian Yarbrough• Dick Theis• Bill Tracy• Megan Sip• Steve Staas

– Operations (JSC/DO

• James Medford

• Safety and Mission Assu

– ISS & Space Shuttle 

• John Steils• Hesham Hussein

• Launch Services Progra

• Cheryl Malloy• Norm Beck• Emilio Cruz• Tim Bulk• Brian Pitchford
February 16, 2006 

Presentation Inputs

• This presentation is a compilation of the Shuttle, 

LSP presentations

• This presentation has been reviewed by the entir

team

– Mark Sistilli (AMS Program Manager), Skip Hatfield (IS

McCormick and Robert Galvez (STS), and Ray Lugo (Lreviewed this concept

KSC Presentation ISS Presentation STS P
AMS
February 16, 2006
AMS T

Speci

AMS Unpress

Upmass 15,100 lbsVolume 1⁄4 Bay PayloadPower 2,400 W Cont. (ISS & STS)

2,800 W Peak (ISS)

High-rate Data 2 Mbps (can burst up to 20 Mbps)Crew Time Robotic only during installMagnetic Field 8500 G Center of Magnet, 2000 G Max Fringe Field a

(1400 G Center of Magnet on AMS-01)
February 16, 2006 

Options Considered

• Option 1: AMS launches on ELV with upgraded Upper Stage. AMS re

Shuttle and delivered to ISS.

• Option 2: AMS launches on ELV with Spacecraft Bus. AMS retrieved 

delivered to ISS.

• Option 3: AMS launches on ELV with upgraded Spacecraft Bus that is 

rendezvous and docking/berthing with ISS.

– COTS Capability A, External Hardware, concepts reviewed

• RFP does not include capability to lift payload the size of AMS• The COTS demonstration phase did not intend for NASA to provide hardware. A

raise complexity and cost of this demonstration.

• The demonstration flight is not required to go to the ISS test bed. 

– Both ATV and HTV can attest to the difficultly of satisfying ISS visiting veh

escpecially Automated Rendezvous and Proximity Operations. Implemen

vehicle requirements would likely delay the expected demonstration timefr

• COTS requirements as written in the RFP do NOT meet the AMS requirements.

– External cargo is limited to 5000 kgs/yr. – 100 W average, 120 Vdc power to cargo, per payload attachment site 

– This option rejected because it would take longer than 3 years to d

would cost considerably more than Options 1 or 2

• The Alternate Access to Station study several years ago showed that the cost to 

technology was $421M-$594M (2003 dollars) not including the launch vehicle an

flights to ISS
Shuttle 

launches 

with ELCs

AMS launches 

on EELV 

(L-3 to 4 Days)

Shuttle docks 

with ISS and 

removes ELCs

Shuttle 

undocks 

with ISS 

and flies to 

AMS

Shuttle docks with 

ISS, removes AMS, 

completes mission

AMS onorbit 

awaits 

Shuttle

Shuttle retrieves 

AMS and returns 

to ISS

Upper Stage/Spacecraft Bus 

reenters atmosphere via 

active reentry

1

2

7

6

5

4

8 

3
February 16, 2006 

5-

Spacecraft Bus

AMS-02 PAYLOAD

SUPPORT FIXTURE AMS SHUTTLE TRUSPACECRAFT BUS

AMS on ELV
February 16, 2006 

Operational Concept

• Assumptions

– Shuttle has 5 cryo tanks and SSPTS– Conservative timeline with margin for 

contingencies

• Overview of Activities

– AMS is launched on an ELV and placed in 

a parking orbit behind the ISS, in the ISS orbit, and at ISS altitude

– Shuttle docks to ISS with 2 unpressurized

carriers in the payload bay

– Cargo carriers are removed from Shuttle 

and placed on ISS 

– Shuttle separates from ISS and rendezvous 

with the AMS/Spacecraft Bus

– Shuttle crew grapples the AMS– Spacecraft Bus and AMS are separated– AMS is placed in the Shuttle payload bay– Shuttle rendezvous with ISS and places the 

AMS on the truss

– Shuttle separates and returns to Earth. 

* May possibly require putting an ELC back into the Shuttle bay or relocating an external carrier

Potential Planning 

L-3 AMS launch on EELVL-2L-1FD1 Shuttle Launch FD2 Shuttle Phasing Burns FD3 Shuttle Docks to ISS. FD4 ULC1 deployed to attach site FD5 ULC5 deployed to attach site FD6 Shuttle undock and phasing FD7 Rendezvous with AMS FD8 Phasing and Shuttle re-dock FD9 Shuttle Rest Day FD10 FD11 FD12 Shuttle undocks from ISS FD13 Day before landing FD14 Shuttle Landing FD15 ISS contingency day FD16 Shuttle contingency day FD17 Shuttle contingency day FD18 FD19 

AMS deploy activities *
February 16, 2006 

Expendable Launch Vehicle Configura

• Vehicle Configuration

– Both Delta IV and Atlas V have launch vehicles that can perfor

mission

• Launch Site: CCAFS• Launch Date: TBD, mid-2009• Mission Requirements:

– Orbit Requirements: LEO-200 n. mi. altitude, trailing ISS 

mi., with minimal planar dispersions

– LV Performance: 11,500kg / Performance Margin: 33%– LV launch window: TBD, ~ 7 days– Extended Mission Duration Package: TBD, ~ 30 – 45 da

• Environments

– A full evaluation of AMS requirements must be performe

however EELV throttling may be able to reduce coupled concerns

• Orbital Space Plane studies determined EELV enviro

are comparable to Shuttle
February 16, 2006 

Assumptions

• AMS uses spacecraft bus thruster system to maintain an orbit 100 

the V-bar

– Current projections assume the Station will be at an altitude o

• AMS spacecraft bus has attitude control stability 

– Active attitude control will need to be shut down when the Shu

proximity to avoid plume impingement

• Utilize non-propulsive attitude control

• AMS does not require power while in the Shuttle payload bay

– Currently AMS requires 2000 W while in the Shuttle.– This study assumes no power connection in the Shuttle paylo

of the difficulty of launching AMS with a PDA or placing the acShuttle bay

• Contingencies in the mission before AMS will probably cause the 

be scrubbed

• AMS will return to Earth for some contingency situations while it is 
February 16, 2006 

Shuttle Performance Imp

• Total reduction in delivery capability of 2,895 lbs (1,314 kg) for 

associated flight support equipment 

– Rendezvous Propellant - 1,869 lbs (848 kg)

• 534 lbs to fill the Forward RCS (354 lbs usage +180 lb• 1335 lbs more OMS prop to orbit by reducing the OMS 

ascent (1110 lbs usage + 225 lbs dispersions)

– AMS attach hardware – 1,026 lbs (466 kg)– The reduction equates to approximately 2-3 ORUs, of the 2

planned, or external payloads being removed

• Reboost propellant for Station may not be available

– Typically reboost propellant is not budgeted since it is acco

buy-back propellant when events are nominal

– Higher demands on Forward RCS and the addition of 2 ren

reduces the chance of reboost
February 16, 2006 

Payload Bay 

Configuration/Issues

• Adding the AMS retrieval to this Unpressurized ca

requires 21 Latch Control Functions 

– Shuttle’s LCF capability is only 19– Possible solution is to change the ELC trunnion spacing 

AMS to share longeron latches – must resolve the ELC dand structural loads capability

– Another solution is to gang both ROEUs together - must 

removing power/data from one of the ELCs a day early
February 16, 2006 

ISS/Shuttle Safety Impa

• Significant technical challenges to address all of the Paylo

hazards

• Most of these are potentially catastrophic hazards and will 

heading of Collision with the Orbiter

– The transfer involves,

• Shuttle RMS captures AMS grapple fixture• Upper stage opens the retention latches • Shuttle RMS pulls the AMS from the upper stage

– Contact between the spacecraft bus latches and AMS during 

operations can impart momentum to the bus

– Spacecraft bus can not counteract any induced moment beca

must remain in free-drift with all safety inhibits

– Potential hazard of spacecraft bus contact with the Orbiter

• Hazard concerns will need to be reviewed in the ongoing P

Safety Review Panel (PSRP) that is reviewing the nominal 

mission

– Spacecraft Bus must meet all payload safety requirements
February 16, 2006 

Station Crew Time Impa

• Middeck transfer does not appear to be an issue

– Transfer must occur immediately instead of over the en

but crew time is available

• 5 Shuttle docked EVAs for maintenance actions must be p

by the increment crew in the stage 

– This is a significant crew time requirement added to inc

(~17 hrs/wk over the course of a year)

• 5 Shuttle docked EVAs translates to ~8 stage EVA

increment crew due to EVA inefficiencies and trainiproficiency

• Shuttle EVAs require 85 hrs/EVA• ISS stage EVAs require 110 hrs/EVA or 160 hrs/do

– Additional EVAs consume the stage EVA capability

• Increment crew can perform a limited number of EV

stage 
February 16, 2006 

Open Issues and Conce

• Reassess Assembly Sequence and on-orbit stowage with AMS 

– May need to bring back an additional external carrier

• Less external stowage for pre-positioned spares and utili• EVA activities to prepare a carrier for return must be perf

– ELC4 on flight ULF4 could be a potential carrier for r– Currently ELC4 is manifested with the MMOD wings 

maintenance ORUs

– Or look into options where ESP-3 is removed (i.e. jettison)

• Develop AMS spacecraft bus design requirements including:

– AMS attitude control capability including plume impingement – AMS range and location from Station– 3 inhibits to safe the upper stage/spacecraft bus thruster syst

Shuttle proximity operations 

– Contact dynamics when pulling AMS away from the upper sta

drift)
February 16, 2006 

Technical Review Summa

• This preliminary assessment shows that t

significant technical hurdles to overcome, technical show-stoppers have been identi

• Majority of the issues will be driven to gro

the normal course of design and developmthe AMS Spacecraft Bus

• Must begin technical assessments by the 

January 2006 or this will not be feasible b2009
February 16, 2006 

Spacecraft Bus Package

• The highest risk (cost, schedule and technical) element of thfrom the LSP perspective, is the Spacecraft Bus Package. Thstrategizing on the best approach to mitigate risk and meet thlaunch schedule.• This package would include: Power, Attitude Control SystemCommunications, Thermal System, Safety implementation for phase with Shuttle and a collision avoidance and/or deorbit buShuttle departs for ISS. Strategies include:

– Compete and manage a simplified spacecraft bus design 

cryogenic) through the Rapid Spacecraft Development Off

GSFC

• The LSP would be responsible for integration of this bu

and EELV
February 16, 2006 

EELV Development Plan

• Early Feasibility Studies are utilized prior to a competitive procu

allow evaluation of possible high risk development items and opsolutions. The results of these studies also provide fidelity to thRequirements Document utilized in the procurement phase.

PreMissionPlanning

BaselineMission &ProcureLaunch Services

L/V & S/CEngin’g &Manfact’g

MissionPlanning

LaunchSite Ops& campaign

PL

February – May 2006 : Feasibility Studies

June – December 2006: Launch Service/Spa

January 2007 to Launch: Mission Inte

ATP December 2006

March 2006 : Release RFI for Spacecraft Bus
February 16, 2006 

Launch Service Program 

Contracts/Budget

• Full Mission Budget and profile: 

– All costs are established in real-year dollars (order year = L-30) 

NLS contract information.

– Launch service cost includes all services provided by the Launc

Program including Payload Processing Facilities

• AMS with Spacecraft Bus

– Mission Budget $303M - $323M – Budget Profile: FY06 1%, FY07 56%, FY08 25%, FY09 18%

• Spacecraft on-orbit service module provides all operational 

power, extended mission duration, two-way communication, 

• Including STS redundancy and non-propulsive attitude contr
February 16, 2006 

Budget and Phasing

• LSP requires $303M over 4 years (Assume• New integration effort for APO requires $12

years

• Includes Program Management Contingen

Subtotal 7.0 172.7 78.8 56.5 

215.9

43.2

25

3.0

169.7

2007

94.6

15.8

20

3.0

75.8

2008

62.2

5.7

10

2.0

54.5

2009

8.8

1.8

25

4.03.0

2006

Contingency 

Total 

% Contingency 

APO 

LSP 

FY/$M 
February 16, 2006 

Proposal

• If a Shuttle ride to ISS can not be identifie

AMS, implement this approach, implemenspacecraft bus approach minimizing safetwith Shuttle

– Since this requires 30-36 months to imp

feasibility assessments must begin immand the EELV procurement process mustarted no later than June 2006 to make 2009 launch date
February 16, 2006 

Backup Material
February 2006
Payload Safety 

Orbiter Collision Hazard

• The following points are not a complete listing of safety require

this type of mission. 

• Total thrust of the system will be used to establish a "safe from the Orbiter, which will probably be on the order of thou• Before the Orbiter can approach the AMS within this safe dhazardous systems must be safed to the proper fault toleranfault tolerance must be substantiated directly or indirectly by the ground• Additionally, the AMS/upper stage combination must be ceby the Payload Organization based on a hazard analysis thaanything that may have happened during ascent and orbital before Orbiter approach can begin

February 2006
• Safety features of liquid propulsion systems designed to be saf

Orbiter are different from those usually found on ELVs. In fact, thinhibits required for safety are often at odds with ELV requiremenreliability because they add single point failures to desired functi

• A liquid propulsion system must have three mechanically indepecontrol devices in series to prevent delivery of propellant. A bi-promust have them in both the fuel and oxidizer subsystems.• One of these devices must isolate the prop tank from the rest of • At least one must be fail-safe (i.e.-return to the closed position in an opening signal)• There must be at least three independent electrical inhibits contopening of the flow control devices. • The failure of any one cannot open more than one of the flow co• The status of at least two must be monitored by Crew or the gro

Orbiter Collision Hazard Requirements 

Examples

February 2006
• Any command that can remove an inhibit or activate and 

hazardous system is considered a hazardous command - Trequire a safety assessment of failure modes associated wcenter hardware, software and procedures• Non-propulsive attitude control systems (momentum whetorque rods, etc.) must be assessed for hazards associated failure• At all times, in order to facilitate rapid safing for emergencpayload must be able to be released, jettisoned, or be safe and landing in the Orbiter

Orbiter Collision Hazard Requirements 

Examples

February 2006
Space Shuttle Program

Conclusions

• Significant technical challenges to address 

the Payload Safety hazards

– Introduces crew safety critical hazards for both the S

and Shuttle

– Unresolved operational contact hazards (tip off rates

current concept

– ELV upper stage must meet all payload safety requir

• Retrieving the AMS from an ELV upper stag

significant impact to this logistics mission

– Costs 46% of the scheduled docked time (6 of 13 docked – Costs 13% of the cargo bay un-pressurized up mass 

Klbs lost)

February 2006
Other Launch Vehicle Risks

• Launch Operations CONOP

– STS and EELV must launch within close proximity

• Range must agree to priority launch dates and window • LSC’s must protect their manifest to delays• Launch window is very short

– Launch preparations and reviews for Shuttle and LSP will occur in 

• Heightened level of contingency planning including AMS cryog

the pad during possible scrub scenarios

• Late notification of PLF modification requirements to accommodate AM

– Schedule and ROM have not been validated by contactors should 

become necessary

• New flight software for guided burns and deorbit after Shuttle rendezv

– Similar software under evaluation for Solar Dynamics Observatory 

• Delta IV launch vehicle certification, if required

– Certification of the Atlas V 551 vehicle will be completed for the Pl

January 2006 (February 2007 backup)

• Payload Attach Fitting development schedule and cost are not validate

Launch Services Pr

John F. Kennedy Space Center

February 2006