On-Orbit Assembly Task Definition Study

Source-supplied abstract

McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company at Kennedy Space Center (MDSSC-KSC) has been tasked since November 1987 to provide support to the Space Station Evolution Working Group (EWG) based at NASA's Langley Research Center (LaRC). Work in the first year of this study included extensive data gathering and the development of study methodologies. The OEXP case studies as summarized in NASA Technical Memorandum 4075, Exploration Studies Technical Report FY 1988 Status, and NASA Document Z-2.1-002, Study Requirements Document FY 1989 Studies (SRD), define the mission scenarios and technical requirements which MSFC engineers and their contractors (Martin Marietta and Boeing) utilized in their design of exploration vehicles. LaRC selected case studies and vehicle designs upon which the study team performed processing analyses. An on-orbit SSF refurbishment crew of four dedicated to OEXP vehicle processing was baselined for all studies. In some Instances, LaRC modified the vehicle designs, launch manifests, or mission scenarios provided by MSFC to obtain specific data from the processing analyses. The results from the following case studies analyzed during 1989 are provided in this report: Phobos Gateway On-Orbit Assembly and Launch, Lunar Evolution Vehicle On-Orbit Refurbishment, and Mars Mission Vehicle On-Orbit Assembly and Launch. In addition, a concept for facility accommodations at Space Station Freedom (SSF) was developed and support equipment to be provided at the facility was defined. In support of the MSFC Launch/On-Orbit Processing (LOOP) study, LaRC asked us to assess ground and on-orbit processing Impacts resulting from launching the OEXP vehicles on several different ETO launch vehicles. Results developed by this study, Including processing tasks and times, and personnel and equipment requirements, will be entered Into the VPOD data base. VPOD will be used by LaRC to analyze future OEXP vehicles configurations, SSF facility and resource Impacts, and life cycle cost predictions.

Abstract text has not been adopted as a GShips conclusion.

What would change this record?

A newer or corrected version, a retraction, a verified duplicate, a material topic mismatch, a changed access state, or claim-level review would trigger a dated editorial update.