Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center Dennis R. Jenkins, Project - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center

Dennis R. Jenkins, Project Director

To stimulate curiosity and inspire science learning in everyone by creating fun, memorable experiences, because we value science as an indispensable tool for understanding our world, accessibility and inclusiveness, and enriching people’s lives

To stimulate curiosity and inspire science learning in everyone by creating fun, memorable experiences Our Mission

Master Plan | California Science Center

New Parking Facilities 2003 2004 Wallis Annenberg Building for Science Learning and Innovation Phase II: Ecosystems 2010 2019 Phase III: Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center Phase I 1998 2004 Science Center School

ENDEAVOUR STACK

Space Shuttle Orbiters | On Display

• On 4 January 2004, George W. Bush directed NASA retire

the space shuttle no later than 2010 (it took a bit longer)

• In 2008, NASA began soliciting information on transferring

the remaining program assets to museums

• Ultimately, 13 institutions made the short list to receive an
• rbiter
• Dr. Ken Phillips, the Curator of Aerospace Sciences,

authored the proposal that resulted in the California Science Center scoring highest in the NASA evaluation

Space Shuttle Orbiters | On Display

• On 12 April 2011, Charlie Bolden announced:
• OV-101 would go to the Intrepid Air, Sea, and Space

Museum in New York

• OV-103 would go to the National Air and Space Museum

at the Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles

• OV-104 would go to the KSC Visitor Complex in Florida
• OV-105 would go to the California Science Center in Los

Angeles

Space Shuttle Orbiters| Display Concepts

• Although each of the display sites selected different concepts

for their exhibits, three of them are of the orbiter by itself

• OV-101 – On its landing gear (eventually might be displayed

as flared for landing with a replica tailcone)

• OV-103 – On its landing gear
• OV-104 – Mounted on pedestals with payload bay doors open

to simulate on-orbit activities

• OV-105 – Vertical stack with one payload bay door open

Space Shuttle Orbiters| Getting Them to the Museums

• Moving the four orbiters represented an interesting challenge
• OV-103 was easy; land at Dulles and tow on an existing taxiway to the

Udvar-Hazy Center; much pomp and circumstance

• OV-101 was a challenge; load at Dulles, fly to JFK, off-load, and then take

a barge through Jamaica Bay and up the Hudson to the Intrepid

• OV-104 was an easy move but a difficult display. Move down mostly

existing roads at KSC to the new Orbiter Home. Then jack 60 feet in the air and tilt one wing down 43.21 degrees

• OV-105 was by far the most difficult; 15 miles through the street of Los

Angeles

Master Plan | Phase III: Rendering 1992

Project Milestones | OV-105 Ferry Flight

Project Milestones | OV-105 Ferry Flight

Project Milestones | OV-105 Ferry Flight

Project Milestones | OV-105 Arrival at LAX

Project Milestones | OV-105 Off-Load at LAX

Project Milestones | OV-105 Off-Load at LAX

Project Milestones | Storage in United Hangar at LAX

Project Milestones | Three Nights and Three Days

Project Milestones | Three Nights and Three Days

Project Milestones | Three Nights and Three Days

Project Milestones | Temporary Samuel Oschin Pavilion

Project Milestones | Temporary Samuel Oschin Pavilion

Project Milestones | Payloads

• The final display will have one payload bay door open so

guests can see into the payload bay from various levels of the replica gantry and its glass elevator.

• Astrotech donated the two remaining Spacehab modules to the

Science Center, which decided to configure Endeavour largely as STS-118, the flight of Barbara Morgan.

• During late 2014, we opened the payload bay doors and

installed a replica SRMS, a replica airlock/ODS, a replica tunnel adapter, a flown Spacehab (FU3), and the ICC-VLD (although this was not flown on STS-118, it is similar to the ESP-3 that was flown).

• The payload bay doors are very lightweight composite
• They were not designed to open in 1-g without assistance
• The orbiter processing facilities were designed with the

necessary equipment to support the doors

• In fact, the payload bay doors had only been opened twice
• utside an OPF or the Palmdale assembly facility
• Once in the Edwards AFB weight and balance hangar
• For the final display of Atlantis at the KSC Visitor

Complex

• The same team that opened in the OV-104 doors also opened

the OV-105 doors for the payload installation

Project Milestones | Payloads

Project Milestones | Payloads

Project Milestones | Payloads

Project Milestones | Payloads

Project Milestones | Payloads

Project Milestones | Payloads

Project Milestones | Open Bays 9/10 Showing Systems

Project Milestones | Elevon Actuator

Project Milestones | Elevon Actuator

• As initially envisioned, the Endeavour stack would use the

ET-STA and Frankenstein boosters long displayed at KSC

• A detailed inspection showed none of the components were

structurally sound given their long exposure to the Florida environment

• The Science Center

passed on ET-STA but accepted the boosters as set dressing

• NASA donated an

aft skirt, but it was later found to be unusable

Project Milestones | Concept Evolution

• Therefore, the plan changed to using a replica external

tank supported internally by 80 tons of steel

• The solid rocket boosters would also be structural steel

internally but would use the former KSC Visitor Complex boosters as skin

• This presented some interesting engineering challenges

to ensure the replica steel structure reacted loads in the same way as the normal stack components to prevent damage to Endeavour during seismic events

• It also meant that structurally equivalent attach

hardware needed to be developed to support Endeavour

• This last item was overcome when the Science Center

convinced NASA to release the unused attach hardware from the only remaining flight external tank (ET-94)

Project Milestones | Concept Evolution

• However, creating a replica external tank presented some

interesting issues by itself.

• The only high-fidelity tank made to-date was the new tank

commissioned by the KSC Visitor Complex to sit in front of the new Atlantis exhibit.

• Although it looks okay from a distance, it is obviously a

replica when you are within 50 feet of it. For the new Endeavour exhibit, guests will be within 8 feet of the vertical stack, necessitating a better solution.

• In addition, the KSC Visitor Complex stack did not need to

support an orbiter or react to seismic events (although it did need to withstand hurricanes).

Project Milestones | Concept Evolution

KLSC Visitor Complex Replica ET and SRBs

• The obvious answer was to get a real external tank, except, of course,

that the ET was the one expendable component of the space shuttle

• system. None of the flight tanks ever came home (in one piece)
• Three test tanks still existed: ET-MPTA at the US Space and Rocket

Center; ET-STA, which had already been rejected for structural reasons; and ET-GVTA, which was sitting, disassembled, at Michoud

• But there was one remaining flight tank: ET-94. This deferred-build

lightweight tank had been built for Columbia science missions but had not been used before the orbiter was lost during STS-107 (using ET-93)

• Being a lightweight tank, it was too heavy for ISS missions
• So it sat at Michoud
• After a lot of negotiations, NASA donated the tank to the Science Center

for use on the Endeavour stack

• Now to get it from Michoud to Los Angeles

Project Milestones | Concept Evolution

ET-94 with Disassembled ET-GVTA at Michoud

ET-GVTA after February 2017 Michoud Tornado

Project Milestones | ET-94

• The problem was, the tank was at the Michoud Assembly

Facility in New Orleans; the Science Center is in Los Angeles

• Thus began a journey that ultimately took six weeks

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

Project Milestones | ET-94

• So that solved the ET problem
• But how to support the stack since the two SRBs the Science Center had

acquired from KSC were of questionable structural integrity

• The boosters were a mix of filament-wound cases from the abortive

attempt to set up a launch site at Vandenberg AFB and flown steel cases

• But they had sat outside in the Florida environment for more than 20

years and there was no good data on the effects of exposure on the FWC cases

• There were also no models or analysis of the dynamic behavior of a mix
• f FWC and steel cases
• Fortunately, NASA and Orbital ATK stepped up. NASA donated flight

qualified aft skirts and frustums while ATK donated two sets of steel motor cases they had purchased for the stillborn Liberty launch vehicle

Project Milestones | Solid Rocket Boosters

Aft Dome ET Attach Stiffener Stiffener Fwd Dome

Left Booster Right Booster

Capture Feature Cylinder Cylinder Capture Feature Cylinder Cylinder Capture Feature Cylinder Cylinder STS-6, 24, TEM-9, STS-68 STS-78, STS-95, FSM-8, -9 STS-115, STS-128 DM-4, STS-5, QM-7 STS-33R, 45, 48, 58, 69, 94 STS-92, FSM-13, STS-128 QM-7, STS-33R, 48, 58, 69 STS-84, 97, 121, 125 STS-6, 24, TEM-1, STS-43 STS-56, 69, 94, 106 TEM-13, STS-131 DM-8, STS-28R, 37, 60 STS-74, 87, 102, 124 DM-5, STS-11, 27, DM-8 STS-28R, 41, 46, 64, 79 STS-91, 111, 119 Not Used STS-19, 32, QM-7, STS-28R STS-39, 54, 67, 82, 103 TEM-13, STS-130 TEM-7, STS-52, 63, 82, 103 STS-107, PRM-1, FSM-14 STS-112, 123, 133 GTM-3, STS-6, STS-23, TEM-4, STS-37, 54, 71, 83, 103, 107 DM-7, DM-8, QM-8, STS-35, 47 STS-68, 78, 99, TEM-12 STS-119 DM-3, QM-3, STS-5, 19 STS-32, 32R, 44, 87 STS-102, 117, 130 PVM-1, FSM-1, FSM-4, FSM-5 FSM-6, FSM-7, FSM-8, FSM-9 DM-5, STS-11, 27, DM-8 STS-30R, FSM-1, 2, STS-51 STS-69, 94, 106, 114, 119 DM-9, QM-8, STS-31R, 49, 66 STS-82, 97, 121, 125 STS-13, 28, DM-9, STS-28R STS-40, FSM-3, STS-65, 78 STS-93 STS-113, FSM-11 STS-126 Not Used STS-19, 32, DM-9 STS-30R, 37, 53, 66, 79, 93 STS-107, FSM-12, STS-127 TEM-4, STS-39, 91 STS-108, 118 STS-112, FSM-15 DM-5, STS-14 Aft Dome ET Attach Stiffener Stiffener Fwd Dome Capture Feature Cylinder Cylinder Capture Feature Cylinder Cylinder Capture Feature Cylinder Cylinder

DM – Demonstration Motor FSM – Flight Support Motor FVM – Flight Verification Motor PRM – Production Rate Motor STS – Space Transportation System TEM – Technical Evaluation Motor

Case Histories

Original Solid Rocket Booster Loading for Pima

Original Solid Rocket Booster Arrives at Pima

Project Milestones | Solid Rocket Booster Aft Skirts

Project Milestones | Solid Rocket Booster Frustums

• The California Science Center is the only place in the world

that will have a complete space shuttle stack assembled from actual flight hardware (with a few replica or recreated pieces here and there).

• Of course, the VAB is in Florida, so assembling the stack

will, of necessity, require a different technique.

• The Science Center did not want to build the new facility

around the stack since that would involve working over the stack to build the roof, etc., risking something dropping onto the orbiter and its fragile TPS.

• Therefore, the east side of the building wall be left off and

the stack inserted through a large hole into its final position.

• After the stack is in the building, the wall will be finished.

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Building a Stack

Project Milestones | Final Display

Project Milestones | Final Display

Project Milestones | Final Display

• California suffers from a major flaw – it is home to an active earthquake

fault

• The Endeavour stack needs to survive earthquakes
• The stack is secured to an 1,800-ton concrete pad that rests on six seismic
• isolators. This mitigates a lot of the horizontal movement (but none of

the vertical movement) seen during earthquakes

• Preliminary data showed that the space shuttle flight loads should

envelope any expected seismic loads

• But since the Science Center is a public building, engineers needed to

prove the stack could withstand the expected seismic events

• This ultimately involved marrying two disciplines – civil structural

engineering and aerospace engineering that did not really speak the same language or even use the same reference coordinate systems

Project Milestones | Living in California

Endeavour Seismic Isolation Pad

SRB Hold-Down Posts

LS Dyna Model Beams

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)

• There are two primary criteria for the seismic design of civil structures
• First is the Design Basis Event (DBE)
• Second is the Maximum Credible Event (MCE)
• The Phase III building and seismic isolator pad structure are being

designed for the Maximum Credible Event (MCE) loads which are 150 percent of the Design Basis Event (DBE) loads. These design factors are required by the ASCE codes. The building and isolator pad will survive MCE loads without collapse, but may sustain significant damage

• The Endeavour Stack was evaluated using the same criteria and

Maximum Credible Event (MCE) loads. The stack will elastically survive multiple cycles of DBE and at least one cycle of MCE loads without structural failure

• This is good news but requires the Endeavour stack be assembled using

the same criteria we used to prepare for launch

Further Elaboration

• The MCE is a very rare event, so the loads, based on a database of

30,000 earthquake recordings, are far from what is typically observed, but they are in line with what is typically used to design critical structures in Los Angeles

• In structural engineering, it is the state of practice to design a building

such that it will not collapse under MCE conditions. The building could be damaged beyond repair, but life safety for the occupants would be expected

• There is a 2-percent chance that the stack will experience the MCE loads

during the next 50 years; in other words those loads and displacements are expected to be observed once every 2,500 years

• In all likelihood there will be around 10 significant earthquakes

(magnitude 5+) in the Los Angeles basin over the next 50 years and, in the worst of these earthquakes, the ground shaking will probably be only 10-percent of the MCE loads

Further Elaboration

• The maximum responses from seven MCE ground motions were used for

the design of isolation system and elements of structure below it.

• The maximum of the base displacement response was used to verify the

maximum displacement demand for the isolators.

• To cover all Y and Z load combinations, each of the seven MCE cases

were applied along each Y and Z axis, resulting in 14 load cases. Horizontal (H1) was applied along the Y axis for GM 1-7, and along the Z axis for GM 8-14. Horizontal (H2) was applied along the Z axis for GM 1-7, and along the Y axis for GM 8-14. Vertical (V) was applied along the X axis and added into all 14 GM load cases.

• Load cases were also defined for both the upper and lower limits of

isolator friction resulting in 14 load cases for the upper limit and 14 additional load cases for the lower friction limit.

• All three load components (H1, H2 and V) were applied at the same time.

Comparing Aerospace loads to Seismic (Civil) Loads

• Based upon discussions with ARUP and the seismic engineers, and after

reviewing the ASCE 7 Civil Engineering Building Codes, engineers determined that, for the purpose of Shuttle Stack seismic analysis, the DBE loads are equivalent to the space shuttle maximum design flight “limit loads” and the MCE loads are the equivalent to the space shuttle maximum design flight “ultimate loads.”

• By definition, the limit loads were the highest 3-sigma worst case flights

loads derived from all flight regimes, and the ultimate loads were generally 140 percent of limit loads (Factor of Safety = 1.40).

Input Ground Accelerations (H1 direction)

Endeavour Stack Response

Endeavour Stack Seismic Results

• All of the Stack connection loads are at or within their maximum design
• loads. A summary of the lowest factors of safety is as follows:
• The forward Orbiter-ET attach point has the lowest factor of safety,

1.07 at DBE and 1.00 at MCE. This indicates the attach hardware will meet all of the seismic design requirements but, officially, has no additional margin (factor of safety)

• The forward ET-SRB (right side) X-load factor of safety is 1.13
• The forward ET-SRB (left side) X-load factor of safety is 1.34
• The SRB hold down (right side) factor of safety is 1.31
• The SRB hold down (left side) factor of safety is 1.37
• It should also be noted that all of these connections were designed to

allowable flight loads and each most likely has additional load capacity beyond these flight loads. But we are not counting on it

Samuel Oschin Air and Space Center

AIR Gallery

SPACE Gallery

SHUTTLE Gallery