Advanced Launch System: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:17, 18 November 2017

Latest revision as of 11:34, 21 June 2023

(9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Joint US Air Force-NASA study to replace the Titan, Atlas and Space Shuttle rockets}}

{{Refimprove|date=March 2017}}

Line 4 ⟶ 5:

==Background==

[[File:Space Launch System (16525420976).jpg|alt=rocket ship|thumb|An artist's rendering of the 2010s [[Space Launch System]], which contains some design heritage from the ALS]]

The ALS was a joint USAF and NASA study from 1987 to 1990. It was an endeavour of the years following the [[Space Shuttle Challenger disaster]]. Colonel John R. Wormington (retired Brigadier General USAF) was assigned asthe Program Director of the Joint Department of Defense and NASA Advanced Launch System Program Office. Lieutenant Colonel Michael C. Mushala (retired Major General USAF) was assigned as hisWormington's Deputydeputy. The program officeoperated from the [[Los Angeles Air Force Base]]. In October 1989, Mushala was locatedpromoted atto Colonel. In February 1990, Wormington was reassigned to command the [[Los45th AngelesSpace Wing]] at [[Patrick Air Force Base]] in [[Florida]]. Mushala became the program director and remained so until the project was disbanded in July 1990.

Mushala was promoted to Colonel in October 1989 and became Program Director when Wormington was reassigned as commander of the Eastern Space and Missile Center, Patrick AFB, FL in February 1990. Mushala closed out the program, and the System Program Office (SPO) was disbanded in July 1990. With the remaining propulsion development efforts being managed by NASA alone. Although the project had a projected [[Research_and_development|R&Dresearch and development]] cost of $15 billion, its early cancellation led to a final cost slightlyjust under $3 billion.

The ALS program office wasdiffered unique.from Itothers in that it was the only SPOone within Spacethe Systems[[Air DivisionForce (AFSC)Space andCommand]]. itThe was allowedoffice to be completelywas furnished with [[Macintosh|Apple Mac OS personal computers]] instead of the Command's mainlineusual [[Microsoft Windows#Early versions|Microsoft Windows]] systems{{Citation needed|date=July 2021}}. This was in part because NASA had already been using Apple computers. and the jointThe program neededoffice topioneered bewhat ablelater to communicate betweenbecame the SPO[[Microsoft and the many NASA sites.Project]]{{Citation needed|reason=The SPOWikipedia alsopage helpedfor pioneerProject thedoes usenot andmention developmentALS ofor whatthe laterUSAF|date=July became [[Microsoft Project]]2021}}.

== Aims ==

The ALS program considered the requirements and launch vehicles for its two primary goals. First, the USAF was taskedcharged towith deploydeploying the space- based elements of the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI) program. Secondly, because the SDIALS program was initiallyto find a projectedway to requiretransport many thousands of tons of payloadequipment tofor reachthe SDI into low Earth orbit, ALSat was intended to reduce thea cost ofless space transportation by an order of magnitude. Specifically, from aboutthan $101,000 per kilogram. toThe lessusual thancost was about $110,000 per kilogram, which interested NASAkg.<ref>"ALS Contractors Concentrate on Expendable, Reusable Designs", Aerospace Daily, 20 June 1989 page 463</ref>

The program had three main contractors, each with an $800 million multi-year contract. They were Boeing Aerospace, Martin-Marietta, and General Dynamics. The ALS program budget was just under $2.5 billion.

By 1989, the [[Presidency of George H. W. Bush|Bush Administration]] had inherited a plan for the development of the Advanced Launch System that called for the Defense Acquisition Board to approve the advanced development of the system in early 1990, leading to a first flight in 1998 and a full operational capability in 2000.<ref>Wolfe, M.G. et al, "The Advanced Launch System." 40th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Malaga Spain, 8–14 October 1989, IAF Paper 89-229.</ref> This effort would lead to the development of a modular family of [[Launch vehicle|launch vehicles]], with a payload capacity to low Earth orbit ranging from 5,000 kilograms to 200,000 kilograms, that would replace existing expendable launch vehicles in the 2000-2005 time frame.<ref>Branscome, D.R., "The United States Space Transportation Survey," Proceedings of the 2nd European Aerospace Conference on Progress in Space Transportation, (European Space Agency, ESA SP-293, August 1989), pages 39-44.</ref>

== Progress ==

However, by late 1989, it had become increasingly apparent that the requirements for the ALS program had largely disappeared.<ref>"Air Force Embraces Expendable Launchers," Military Space, 17 July 1989, page 3-4.</ref> The initial phase of SDI would be deployed using existing [[Titan IV]] and [[Atlas II]] rockets, and the launch requirements for subsequent phases of SDI deployment were too vague to require the immediate development of ALS.<ref>"Adams, Peter, "Congress May Consider ALS Too Costly, Sources Say," Defense News, 27 March 1989, page 25.</ref>

ByIn 1989, the [[Presidency of George H. W. Bush|Bush Administrationadministration]], hadvia inheritedthe aDefense planAcquisition forBoard, thewas developmentasked ofto theratify Advancedan Launchexisting Systemplan thatto called forhave the DefenseALS Acquisitionprogram Boardat to approve thean advanced developmentstate of the systemdevelopment in early 1990,; leadingready tofor a first flight in 1998; and a fullfully operational capability in 2000.<ref>Wolfe, M.G. et al, "The Advanced Launch System." 40th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Malaga Spain, 8–14 October 1989, IAF Paper 89-229.</ref> Then, Thisfrom effort would lead2000 to 2005, the developmentALS ofprogram would develop a modular family of [[Launchlaunch vehicle|launch vehicles]]s, with a payload capacity to low Earth orbit ranging from 5,000 kilograms to 200,000 kilograms, that would replace existing expendable launch vehicles in the 2000-2005 time frame.<ref>Branscome, D.R., "The United States Space Transportation Survey," Proceedings of the 2nd European Aerospace Conference on Progress in Space Transportation, (European Space Agency, ESA SP-293, August 1989), pages 39-44.</ref>

WithHowever, theby totallate development1989, costit ofwas apparent that the ALS peggedprogram atwas $15no billionlonger throughrequired.<ref>"Air itsForce firstEmbraces flightExpendable inLaunchers," 1998Military Space, 17 July 1989, page 3-4.</ref>Smith, Bruce, "USAFThe Cutsinitial Vehiclephase Designof Workthe OnSDI Advancedwould Launchemploy System,"existing Aviation[[Titan WeekIV]] &and Space[[Atlas Technology,II]] 18rockets. DecemberThe 1989,launch pagerequirements 112for subsequent phases of the SDI deployment were too vague to allow the immediate ongoing direction of the ALS program and its associated costs.</ref>"Adams, thePeter, need"Congress forMay Consider ALS seemedToo increasinglyCostly, doubtfulSources Say," Defense News, 27 March 1989, page 25.</ref><ref>Finnegan, Philip, "Report: ALS Program Lacks Mission, Should be Pared to Propulsion Study," Defense News, 25 September 1989, page 4.</ref>

The program had three prime contractors developing concept "Launch Family" systems, each with an $800 million multi-year contract. They were Boeing Aerospace, Martin-Marietta, and General Dynamics for a total program budget of a little less than $2.5 Billion (the cost of just one B-2 bomber). ByAt the end of 1990, the ALS program, oncewas thechanged centerpieceto ofa spacepropulsion planning,development hadproject beenwith reducedan toannual abudget of $150 Million per year propulsion development effortmillion.<ref>Finnegan, Philip, "U.S. Air Force, NASA Restructure Advanced Launch System Program," Defense News, 15 January 1990, page 1, 25.</ref>

==See also==