Launch Vehicle

1
Section 32 Launch Vehicle
. . . Dave Breedlove / M. Stowe / A.
Piloto Kennedy Space Center
2
Contents

• Launch Vehicle Integration Status David Breedlove
• Changes Since March Red Team Review
• Mission Unique Hardware Status Merri Anne Stowe
• Payload Fairing
• Launch Vehicle Summary David Breedlove
• Summary of RFA responses

3
Launch Vehicle Integration Status
4
(No Transcript)
5
Changes Since March Red Team Review
6
Mission Design Changes

• The SAC-C injection orbit has changed from 705 km
  circular to 685x705 km
• No impact to EO-1 mission

7
EO-1/SAC-C Boost Profile
8
EO-1/SAC-C Orbit Injection Profile
9
Performance Margin
IS
WAS
Based on Oct. 17 Launch
10
Launch Site

• Astrotech awarded contract for S/C Processing
• EO-1 requested to process in Astrotech
• To reduce risk in moving Satellite from 836 to
  Astrotech
• Provides schedule contingency for S-band
  integration
• Requirements change is in work
• Swales Team working with KSC, WTR, and Astrotech
• SLC-2, Level-6 access platforms for EO-1 are in
  work
• Design/implementation scheduled to meet Oct.
  launch date

11
EO-1/SAC-C ELV Mission Unique Hardware Status
12
Readiness Reviews

• Meeting Location Date
• Red Team Review GSFC 3/28-31/00
• Pre-Vehicle On Stand (Pre-VOS) Huntington
  Beach 9/00
• KSC Center Directors Launch Vehicle KSC TBD
• Readiness Review (1-2 wks prior to MRR)
• GSFC Spacecraft MRR GSFC TBD
• Launch Site Readiness Review VAFB 1 day prior to
  S/C on stand
• Flight Readiness Review VAFB TBD
• Launch Management Coordination Meeting VAFB F-2
  Day
• Mission Rehearsal VAFB F-2 Day
• Launch Readiness Review VAFB F-1 Day

13
Applicable Launch Vehicle Issues
14
Applicable Launch Vehicle Issues

• Payload Fairing Transportation Incident
• Fairing has been repaired, Boeing and KSC
  Engineering are in agreement, formal closure
  pending ERB
• Payload Fairing Acoustic Blanket Modifications
• Modifications are complete
• GN2 Purge Tube Replacement
• Tubing inside the fairing has been replaced
• Fluoroglide Contamination Concern
• Covered in following charts

15
Payload Fairing Contamination Concern Background

• At the time of payload fairing separation, some
  small debris was seen on video of the
  Globalstar-7 mission
• Contamination appears as small, bright flakes and
  particles
• Material originates at the fairing rail
  separation plane, and disperses quickly after
  separation
• Possible contaminants investigated by Boeing
  include ice, rain intrusion, dust, aluminum tape
  used to tape over rivet heads, Sparesyl, charred
  paint, and Fluoroglide
• Boeings investigation concluded that the most
  probable source of the contamination was
  Fluoroglide applied to the fairing separation
  rail bellows
• GS-7s fairing bellows had received a second
  application of Fluoroglide due to installation
  difficulties. The EO-1/SAC-C fairing bellows
  received only one application.

16
Payload Fairing Contamination Concern Chronology

• Engineering Review Board 00312KSC met on March 3,
  2000 concluded Fluoroglide was the only credible
  root cause of the contamination.
• Disposition of the EO-1/SAC-C payload fairing was
  deferred to a later date.
• The Board was of the opinion that a flight
  rationale could be developed for EO-1 since the
  EO-1/SAC-C fairing had received only one
  application of Fluoroglide vice the two
  applications on the GS-7 fairing, and fairing
  separation video of a single Fluoroglide
  application mission was available.
• The EO-1 Program was given the ERB information
  and copies of the GS-5 and GS-7 videos to review.
  They were asked to identify which instruments
  had a view of the fairing splitline and to assess
  the acceptability of the contamination risk.
• The instrument field of view information was
  provided on April 27.

17
Payload Fairing Contamination Concern Chronology
(continued)

• On June 16, 2000, the EO-1 Program notified KSC
  via telecon that the contamination risk was not
  acceptable. An official memo followed on June
  20.
• ERB 00312KSC was reconvened on June 19. It
  recommended that the EO-1/SAC-C payload fairing
  not be flown as-is for this mission
• Fluoroglide contamination assessed as
  undetermined and S/C could not accept the risk.
• Official notification of this decision was sent
  to Boeing at the end of June.

18
Payload Fairing Contamination Concern Chronology
(continued)

• A telecon between KSC and Boeing was held on July
  17 to discuss alternative ways to get a
  flightworthy payload fairing for EO-1/SAC-C.
• Boeing maintains that the videos do not show
  Fluoroglide being deposited on any spacecraft
  surfaces
• Boeing maintains that risk of contamination to
  the S/C is very low

19
Payload Fairing Contamination Concern Resolution

• The selected option for resolving the
  contamination concern is to install a shield
  along the part of the fairing splitline that is
  in the EO-1 instruments field of view.
• The design details are still in work.
• KSC will have an Engineering Review Board for the
  final design prior to fabrication.
• The shield will be qualified by analysis for
  flight.
• Installation will be done at Vandenberg AFB.
• No impact to the launch schedule.

20
Shield Concept

• Task
• Drill through the heavy half separation rail and
  bolt on a debris shield from STA 397.57 forward.
  Coarse sun Sensor Side only (Quad II)
• Touch up Sparesyl and paint

21
Launch Vehicle Summary

• Changes Since The 3/30/00 Red Team Review
• Minor change to SAC-C separation orbit, no impact
  to the EO-1 mission
• Astrotech chosen for Spacecraft Processing
• Hardware Status
• DPAF is complete and qualified for flight
• No change from the last review
• A straightforward modification has been
  identified to allay concerns about possible
  contamination due to Fluoroglide on the payload
  fairing separation bellows
• No impact on launch date
• The EO-1/SAC-C launch vehicle will be ready to
  support the launch campaign