80 likes | 209 Views
USC. U T I L I Z A T I O N • E V O L U T I O N • D E C O M M I S S I O N. International Space Station: Investing in Humanity’s Future. International Exploration Framework William Russell Will.russell@cobham.com ASTE 527 December 15, 2009.
E N D
USC U T I L I Z A T I O N • E V O L U T I O N • D E C O M M I S S I O N International Space Station:Investing in Humanity’s Future International Exploration Framework William Russell Will.russell@cobham.com ASTE 527 December 15, 2009
BackgroundWhat we do well, and what we need to overcome • NASA Strengths • Capacity: Orion will seat 2X as Apollo • Reliability: USA #1 in safe, manned exploration • Infrastructure: ISS Access & many “COTS” suppliers • NASA Weaknesses • Inadequate time/funding: Ares I, Ares V, Altair, etc • Not Top National Priority: Backseat to job creation
Proposed Solution:International Exploration Framework for economic growth • Give ISS partners seats on upcoming NEO/MARS/ MOON mission in return for financing • COTS suppliers meet this demand and grow jobs in U.S. • If necessary, sell mission “privileges” for additional funding • First footsteps on destination surface: $XXB • Mission return off partner’s coastline: $XB ISS would store exploration supplies delivered by COTS flights The first footprints on an exploration mission are probably worth billions in national prestige alone Orion CEV could splashdown near a partners coastline – a huge spectacle
BenefitsHarmonize our approach with our constraints • Creates US Jobs NOW with Foreign Investment • Also further international relations & free-trade • Explore Space Despite Inadequate NASA Resources • Little or no increase in NASA budget required • 3 Americans act as “mission hosts” on each mission • Leverage investment in ISS rendezvous, interfaces, etc • Fully Compatible with Augustine Study • Don’t need to build additional ARES vehicle or Altair • Can leverage existing work on Orion CEV and Ares I • Utilize COTS heavily • Supports ISS beyond 2015
Concept of Operations 4. Int’l Exploration Mission 3. ISS Mission Supply Depot 1. Int’l funded COTS Pre-Supply Missions 5. Int’l Splashdown & Homecoming 2. Int’l CEV Crew
Concept Implications Necessary adaptations to status quo • Political/Organizational • NASA Charter must be adapted to accommodate “global trade” mindset • Technical • ISS must accommodate depot size, mass & power req’ts • Additional truss structure may be required to depot supplies White House is already keen on Int’l partnership ISS initially designed to support a “dual keel” for expansion
ISS PartnersAn expanded customer base for COTS services • United States (GDP: $13.84T) • Japan (GDP: $4.27T) • Russia (GDP: $1.29T) • Canada (GDP: $1.27T) • ESA • Germany (GDP: $2.8T) • France (GDP: $2.6T) • United Kingdom (GDP: $2.13T) • Italy (GDP: $1.8T) • Spain (GDP: $1.36T) • Netherlands (GDP: $827B) • Belgium (GDP: $376.5B) • Sweden (GDP: $338.5B) • Switzerland (GDP: $303.2B) • Norway (GDP: $246.6B) • Denmark (GDP: $203.3B) $12.98T $2.29T
Mission Logistics Fitting the puzzle pieces together • Modest number of Int’l flights can accumulate enough mass at ISS to replace an HLV1 • ESA & Japanese Transfer Vehicles (TV) have enough mass to deliver entire stages • Could explore use of “common design exploration stages” 1: Notional ARES-V claims 71,000Kg to TLI