See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290539796

The multi-role capsule as an example of function based requirement generation

Article · October 2007

CITATIONS READS

4 206

1 author:

Mark Hempsell
Hempsell Astronautics Limited
66 PUBLICATIONS   190 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Necropolis View project

SKYLON View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Hempsell on 21 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mark Vol.
JBIS, Hempsell
60, pp.358-366, 2007

THE MULTI-ROLE CAPSULE AS AN EXAMPLE OF

FUNCTION BASED REQUIREMENT GENERATION

MARK HEMPSELL
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Queens Building, University Walk, Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK .
Email: [email protected]

A “function based” requirement generation process has been proposed as a superior methodology to the conventional
“mission based” approach when dealing with space infrastructure elements. The Excalibur Multi-role capsule is used to
illustrate the use of this new methodology on a personnel transport system element. Working from the objective that it should
be the most flexible and capable crew space transportation system possible in current circumstances, the core functions that
support the objective are identified. Some of these functions and performance parameters are fixed, being either a discrete
function or a parameter that has an optimum value. Other performance parameters are unconstrained, having a (normally
unachievable) target that the system should move towards. The Excalibur concept was used as a feasibility design to test the
technical viability of the fixed parameters and establish the achievable values for the unconstrained parameters. All the
technical requirements are derived on the basis of the feasibility design without any reference to any missions it might perform;
proving the function based methodology can be made to work
Keywords: Requirement generation, space infrastructure, Excalibur, Multi-role capsule, crew space transportation

1. INTRODUCTION

A space infrastructure is a collection of elements (a system of parameters. These come in two forms either a parameter where
systems) providing the totality of functions required to undertake an optimum value can be established, or an unconstrained
space activity. In its current form it consists of launch systems, parameter that has a “direction of goodness”. The study design
personnel transport systems, orbit transfer stages, fixed elements purpose is to confirm the feasibility of the optimum value in the
(like space stations), communications and navigation systems. first case and to establish what can feasibly be requested in the
direction of goodness in the second case.
Looking at past history and current planning indicates that
in the fifty years since the early 1970’s there will have been While these changes in the role of the feasibility design may
almost no change to mankind’s space capability. Consideration seem to be subtle, they have a major impact on the outcome. A
of the lack of progress in expanding the space infrastructure mission based approach will tend to grow beyond the optimum
has highlighted the requirement generation process as being parameter values to capture upper or lower end missions which
the key problem [1]. The work has proposed that a “function the wider perspective of the function based approach would
based” requirement generation process, as opposed to a more indicate are best ignored. When it comes to unconstrained
conventional “mission based” approach, may produce more parameters the mission derived values fall below the maximum
appropriate and effective systems to support space activity. obtainable values as they are only set to what is needed for the
The logic of the Function Based Requirement Generation Proc- missions under consideration. As a consequence mission de-
ess is shown in Fig. 1. rived systems tend to be larger than desirable while having
have less capability than function derived systems. So if a
The key to this new approach being, instead of deriving function based process is used, the overall result should be
requirements from the missions that are expected to be under- smaller, more optimally sized, systems with a far greater range of
taken and then exploring whether they are feasible thorough functions and corresponding utility.
study designs, the function process produces the best study
design to fulfil the function and then explores what missions it 2. DERIVING THE OBJECTIVE
can undertake to make a judgement as to its merit.
One function of an overall space infrastructure is the transport
The detailed methodology for using the feasibility design in of personnel. This function has been the subject of a study
this way is shown in Fig. 2. using a function based objective approach to requirement gen-
eration. This has lead to the Excalibur Multi-role Capsule feasi-
In this methodology the key difference in the process is in bility concept (Fig. 3). The details of this study feasibility
the handing of requirements that are expressed as performance design have been previously reported [2], as has the mission
capture potential [3]. This paper considers the requirement
This paper was originally presented at 57th International Astronautical generation process for the personnel transport function that
Congress, Valencia, Spain, 2-6 October 2006. Paper No. IAC-06- Excalibur addresses as an illustration of the function based
D3.3.04. approach.

358
 The Multi-Role Capsule as an Example of Function Based Requirement Generation

Fig. 1 Function based requirement generation process.

FUNCTION OBJECTIVES FEASIBILITY DESIGN

Type of Discrete Function

Is function possible?
Function? (Hard)

Numerical
Performance

Performance Optimum Value

Can optimum be achieved?
objective? (Hard)

Target Direction
What is a realistic value?
(Soft)

Fig. 2 The methodology of function based analysis.

Like most space infrastructure elements the basic function

of a Personnel Transport System (PTS) is very simply stated: it Fig. 3 Excalibur multi-role capsule.
is to transport people from one place in space to another, that is
both between orbital locations and between space and the
surfaces of celestial bodies (including the Earth). This needs the clarification that the system is solely aimed
the personnel transport and is not a system with a habitation
In a terrestrial context the function of transporting people is capability for long duration flights such as interplanetary mis-
performed by a great variety of systems optimised for different sions.
passenger numbers and distance. On the road system the func-
tion is performed vehicles capable of carrying anywhere be- 3. DERIVING TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
tween 1 and a few 10s of people a few hundred miles. In the
aviation infrastructure the function is performed by aircraft 3.1 Crew Sizing
capable of carrying between 1 and 500 people over thousands
of miles. Elsewhere it is argued that where single systems undertake an
infrastructure role it should be sized as small as possible while
However, as argued elsewhere [1, 2], while this may also be still being able to capture the vast majority of missions [1]. This
the case for space in the very long term, this is certainly not the reduces the acquisition costs and it minimises the mismatch
case now or at any time in the plan-able future. The USA [4, 5], when it is used for smaller missions. Further it throws the
Europe and Russia [6] are looking at new personnel transfer burden of achieving a total infrastructure capability onto the
systems, and in every case the new system, if developed, will number of systems built, and the number of missions each
replace existing systems and is likely to be the only space system built undertakes, both areas where greater utilisation
personnel transport system that will develop for several dec- produces greater economies.
ades to come. Thus the driver here, like on all the other elements
of the space infrastructure, is that the function of personnel In the case of a PTS, its size is determined by the number of
transport must be performed by just one system. Any role the people it can carry. As a measure of effectiveness the more
one personal transport element cannot undertake, will be a people the system can carry the better but each additional
capability denied to the infrastructure as a whole. person has a major impact on the system. Using rough figures
each addition passenger (i.e. not needing a control station)
From these arguments we can established that the space adds around 600 kg to the system. Of this total, the person and
personnel transport function will need to be conducted by a effects including pressure suit (200 kg) and the consumables
single system with an objective: (140 kg for 14 days) do not apply if the capacity is not used,
however roughly 250 kg/person is built into the basic system
“to be the most flexible and capable crew space and will fly regardless of the actual number of people carried on
transportation system possible in current a particular mission (Table 1 provides a justification for this
circumstances.” value).

359
Mark Hempsell

TABLE 1: Additional Mass on Basic Capsule per Additional an emergency return is actually more likely to occur due
Crew Member. to a medical condition effecting only one crewmember
and in this case, if there is only one attached vehicle,
ITEM MASS (kg) NOTES then the whole crew needs to abandon the station.
Whereas if two smaller vehicles are available that together
Seat 25 2 g couch can return the entire crew, then in the event of a single
Cabin fittings 8 person emergency only one system needs to be used
Consumable store 7 5% of 140 kg and at least half the crew can stay on the ISS to continue
ECLSS enlarge 10 operations.
Avionics & power 15
Thermal control 25 Additional 400 W iii) The third factor relates to the wider utilisation of the
Add. structure 130 2m3 hab volume transport system once attached to the ISS. If a single
Prop & AOCS 10 Knock on attached vehicle is providing the assured crew return
function, then it cannot leave to perform other missions.
TOTAL 230 Take as 250 kg The Excalibur mission studies [3] highlighted that there
are a large number of excursion missions that could be
conducted using ISS as a base; enhancing its utilisation
This 250 kg adds to the acquisition cost and also impacts the
considerably. But this potential can only be realised if
operational capability by reducing what velocity is achievable there are at least two vehicles based at the station one to
when flown with smaller than maximum crews. This confirms the
perform the excursion mission while the second provides
general “keep it small” rule applies in this case.
assured return to the crew who remain behind.
If the crew consists of only one or two people then the system So two personnel transport vehicles with a three or four
would essentially be restricted to use by pilot astronauts and person capability cannot only support a crew of 6 on the ISS,
provide a very limited capability to transport specialists. So a but actually provide a better, more flexible, capability. It is
minimum crew size would be three people to ensure non-pilots can another example of the failure of a mission driven requirements
be carried. The Excalibur feasibility study suggested in fact four process as the 6 person requirement not only makes the acqui-
would be possible within the identified constraints ensuring half sition of both Orion CEV and Kliper more expensive, but also
the crew compliment can be non-pilots and this was incorporated ends up compromising their ability to do other missions.
into the specification. However this is a weak conclusion and if it
were found only a three person capability would be possible the 3.2 Characteristic Velocity
system utility would be almost the same.
The total characteristic velocity of the system is the key factor
5 people and beyond added more mass and volume than the determining the missions that can be achieved. The greater the
potential RLV is likely to be able to launch and also increase the characteristic velocity the more missions become feasible. Al-
likely cost; with little additional utility to justify it. When com- though there are fixed mission points, such the requirement for
pared with likely missions a crew of four was found adequate Earth orbit to lunar orbit or lunar orbit to surface) generally the
for all activity until the size of the overall infrastructure is so more velocity available the greater the range of missions can be
large that multiple specialist systems with different crew sizes performed, on a continuous basis and without limit. Any in-
can be justified and even in this case there is still a need for a crease in velocity capability is of value. Hence this is an uncon-
small 3-4 man system. strained parameter and the study design is used to establish the
highest value that can feasibly be set.
The conclusion that a 3 or 4 man crew is optimum is contrary
to recent crew transport initiatives Orion CEV [4] and Kliper [6] The characteristic velocity is of course dependant on the
both of which have requirements for a crew of 6. This is driven size of the propulsion system. Given the long in-orbit lifetime
by a perceived specific mission requirement to deliver a full requirement the propellant choice was realistically only nitro-
crew to the ISS and be able to return them even in emergency gen tetroxide and a hydrazine variant; fixing the specific im-
conditions. This is a classic mission driven requirement and pulse at around 3000 N sec /kg. In the size range under consid-
when explored actually has several factors suggest a smaller eration the dry mass of the propulsion system is going to be
system would in fact be a better system. around 10% the propellant mass, so if the system consisted of
just propulsion the characteristic velocity would be 7 km/sec. In
i) The first factor is a political concern as to whether only
practice once the rest of the transport system is considered the
one delivery would be used on the ISS when more than
maximum achievable characteristic velocity will be consider-
partner has the ability to launch crew. If both Orion and
ably below this.
Kliper are used simultaneously then there is more than
double the capacity required. If the two systems are The Excalibur feasibility design ended up with a total system
used alternately to fly crew to the ISS then each system
fuelled mass of 10.1 tonnes made up of a 5000 kg capsule end of
would be only fly once of twice a year, which is not really
mission mass that could contain 5100 kg of usable propellant.
viable. Of the 5000 kg end of mission mass roughly 500 kg is related to
ii) The second factor relates to the need to be able to return propulsion.
crew in the event of emergency. There is a consensus
that in current circumstances only a permanently attached Perhaps surprisingly, the total system fuelled mass was not
crew return system can adequately fulfil this requirement. found a constraint. A system that carried 15 tonnes of propel-
In the case where the emergency return is a result of the lant would have an end of mission mass around 6 tonnes and
ISS becoming uninhabitable that necessitates the station the total mass of 21 tonnes is well with the capacity of many
to be abandoned then one system with a full crew current launch systems. This would have a characteristic veloc-
capability would perform the “lifeboat” role well. However ity of 3.8 km/sec. Even if the total system fuelled mass exceeds

360
 The Multi-Role Capsule as an Example of Function Based Requirement Generation

sensible assumptions about launch system capacity a sensible available the longer the period between replacement launches
viable system is still possible. A system with 35 tonnes of and therefore greater the overall cost effectiveness. The sec-
propellant and an 8 tonne end of mission mass has an attractive ond driver is that interplanetary mission have very long flight
5 km/sec characteristic velocity capability. Even though the 43 times, during which replacing the PTS would not be possible,
tonne total mass is beyond any realistic launch system it could the longer the total in-orbit life then the greater the range of
always be launched with a small fuel load and then fully fuelled interplanetary missions that can be supported.
on orbit when the mission requires it.
Both the Shuttle (14 days) and Soyuz (6 months) have very
However the Excalibur feasibility study found the limiting limited total in orbit lives but neither was originally design for
factor was the volume of the propellant tanks that could be extended in orbit stays. In both cases it is the stability of
squeezed into a shape that could meet the launch system con- consumables (such as cryogens and hydrogen peroxide) that is
straint of 4.5 m diameter and still provide a high lift to drag the main factor determining the in orbit life.
shape on re-entry. The propellant tankage required for the high
characteristic velocity systems just could not be accommo- By contrast many unmanned spacecraft have operational
dated. It was this that limited the maximum useable propellant lifetimes of over a decade so the correct choice of technologies
load to 5100 kg giving a more modest characteristic velocity of and material should enable in orbit lifetimes of several years.
2.1 km/sec. The Excalibur feasibility design uses the same consumables as
typical communications satellite and a provisional assessment
In order to allow for a much larger mission velocities the judged a specification value of over a decade was an achievable
feasibility design adopted drop tanks [3]. These could be of figure.
almost any size giving characteristics velocities approaching
the 7 km/sec identified as the maximum achievable by the tech- 3.3.2 Mission Duration
nology assumed, but the tanks dominate the system. The feasi-
bility design centred on a drop tank using the same tanks as The mission duration is the time the PTS can operate alone
used inside the Excalibur (Fig. 4), which produced a mass about without support before needing to return to a servicing facility.
the same as a fuelled Excalibur and thus could be handled by To operate effectively several missions should be able during a
the same launch vehicle. The Excalibur with a standard tank has total in-orbit life. This means the system needs to undergo
a characteristic velocity of 4.1 km/sec, which is the basis of the complete preventive maintenance (servicing) while in orbit –
specified value. that is to be able to resupply all consumables and make all
necessary adjustments, replacements and inspections needed
3.3 Lifetime to maintain a flightworthy status.

There are two aspects to the PTS lifetime requirements. The first The active mission duration has a strong impact on dry mass
is the total life in space between launch and return to Earth and due to the sizing of the life support system and the increase in
the second is the time the system can spend in independent habitation volume that the structure needs to enclose. The
flight on active missions before needing servicing. These are mission duration is a secondary consideration compared to
unconstrained performance targets with the overall driver for characteristic velocity and so the specified value should mini-
both of these times to be maximised. mise the impact on end of mission mass.

3.3.1 Total In-Space Life The habitable volume was found to be the primary re-
quirement driver. Given the objective has excluded a full
The total in-orbit life is a measure of how long the system can be habitation capability, the system can consider volumes at
relied upon to undertake a mission once launched. There are tolerable levels rather than optimal. The volume require-
two rationales that provide the drivers for the longest possible ments defined by NASA-STD-3000 [7] show a steep rise in
in space life. The first driver is that the longer the system is volume requirements for the first month with a levelling off

Fig, 4 Excalibur with drop tank.

361
Mark Hempsell

to a full long term requirements after 2 or 3 months. So a The inclusion of a return to earth within the function based
mission duration of around 14 days needs a third the volume process can be justified by considering is as part of the “map”
require by a long duration misison. within which the system will operate. It is not intended that the
function based process should consider the system in an ideal-
A mission duration requirement of days would suggest the ised abstract existence process. The “real life” constraints im-
use of open loop life support systems. This minimises the posed by the solar system, and by the other elements of the
installed mass and the consumables can be adjusted for a infrastructure such as launch systems (as discussed below)
particular mission so the life support impact was found to be need to be reflected in the requirements.
less of a consideration.
The orbit from which it returns was open and was set at an
The Excalibur feasibility design found the overall parametric escape parabolic (e=1) to cover return from the whole of Earth
for mission duration was very flat, this in part was due to the Moon space. The earth landing site was also an unconstrained
use of the Unified Fluid System where most of the life support parameter both more flexibility as to surface type and the accu-
consumables come from the propellant tanks, meaning the sys- racy of the final landing point being key issues. The hot heli-
tems allows mission life duration to be extended at the expense copter landing approach of the Excalibur allows landing site
of characteristic velocity. So no strong value was found, and a accuracy to within the limits of satellite navigation with final
rather arbitrary 10 days was selected. crew control - around 3 m. this would enable the realisation of
the long held ideal objective of being able to land within hospi-
3.4 Environment tal grounds with an injured crew member

3.4.1 Open Space 3.4.2 Airless Celestial Bodies

One of the key ways to incorporate a multi-role capability into There is a very significant increase in the functionality of the
an element is to maximise the places it can operate. If the PTS is PTS if, in addition to orbit to orbit transport, it could also
to have a role in extending the human space infrastructure land on the surfaces of astronomical bodies, i.e. moons and
throughout the solar system the drive is to be able to operate planets. Including this function would provide a very major
from interstellar space to as close to the Sun as possible. increase in infrastructure capability in a very cost effective
manner. Planetary landers (including a return to Earth capa-
The key problem with moving away from the Sun is it con- bility) are identified by the NASA Advanced Mission Cost
strains the power generation options. The Excalibur feasibility Model (AMCM) [8] as the most costly items to develop so
design uses fuel cells for the primary power generation, and fuel every new lander that is required would be a major undertak-
cell performance is independent of solar distance. With regard ing with a consequent slowing the of advance of space
to the other factors effected by Solar distance, such as thermal capability. Conversely every body that can be reached by
balance, once the overall system is designed for distances the PTS is accessible for the price of an operational mission
represented by Mars and the asteroids then there is little addi- on an “as and when desired” basis.
tional problem to make the system able to operate into interstel-
lar space, which for the purposes of the specification is defined The main impact of extending the PTS operations to the
as 100 AU. surface of astronomical bodies is the constraints and functions
required to perform landings and take offs. The majority of
The key problem with moving towards the Sun is handling bodies have no substantial atmosphere so a “hot helicopter”
the additional heat input. Given the PTS will have to handle re- technique is the only viable technical way to control final
entry heating there is a basic built in resistance to high tempera- decent and to achieve a soft touchdown. The feasibility study
tures before this is factor is considered. A detailed study of the needed to address three key issues to establish the viability of
thermal limitations of the Excalibur feasibility design has not be this.
undertaken as the solar distance was not considered a critical
parameter and the specification was set arbitrarily at double the i) Can the necessary guidance and navigation be
insolation rate in earth orbit corresponding to 0.7 AU from the incorporated?
Sun. ii) Can a sufficiently flexible propulsion system be
incorporated?
3.4.2 The Earth
iii) Can the human factors required be incorporated?
In addition to operating in the orbital space environment, a PTS
would also be required to return crew to Earth. Earth is a special The guidance and navigation provisions were clearly a de-
case as the ability to perform one way return journeys is a velopment cost issue, but of course much cheaper than a whole
valuable, indeed essential, requirement. new vehicle. Many of these provisions would be need in a
vehicle that can return to earth in any case. However once
This is a borderline case for the functional approach as it incorporated, their impact on the system acquisition cost or
specifies a planetary body and so is getting close to being the performance would be very small.
definition of a mission. However the complexity of earth atmos-
phere return requires the characteristics to be fully defined and The propulsion requirements centre on the main engines,
a more generic way of specifying the capability was not found. which need a thrust level, and a throttleability, compatible with
In any case the study design suggested that operating on other a hot helicopter approach The Excalibur feasibility study showed
bodies in the solar system with atmospheres within current this was possible using the Reaction Engines Sangrail engine
technology constraints this was not possible with a multi-role (Fig. 5) for landings between 1 g and 1/20 g with an engine out
design [3], so a more generic requirement definition would have capability. Smaller bodies can be handled by the RCS system
little value. down to any size [3]. Thus the specification is for the PTS to be

362
 The Multi-Role Capsule as an Example of Function Based Requirement Generation

Fig. 5 Reaction Engines Sangrail.

able to make a precision soft landing on any body from zero g

up to a surface gravity of 1 g, subject to the overall characteris-
tic velocity constraints and any aerobraking the system allows.

The final question explored by the feasibility design is

whether it is possible to adequately address the conflicting
human factors issue of a crew station where the pilot needs to
able to guide the spacecraft in either a docking direction and a
landing direction given that ideally these should be 180 degrees
apart (so the main engine thrust vector is aligned with the
centre of the docking port). This has proved an issue in the
past: for example, neither the Soyuz periscope nor the Apollo
Lunar Module standing configuration were entirely satisfac-
tory design solutions. A further constraint on the crew station
is that the crew orientation must be compatible with the high g
loads experienced during hypersonic flight within the earth’s
atmosphere.

In the Excalibur design (Fig. 6) the pilots are seated at 45

degrees to the thrust axis, looking slightly up through the
forward window for docking and past the pilot’s forearm through
the side window for landing visibility. When experiencing aero-
dynamic forces the loads are approximately full on the back with Fig. 6 Excalibur pilot station.
the feet slightly above the head. It was therefore concluded that
design solutions exist for the human factors issues of the wider
operational range and a vehicle that could land on planetary Excalibur study design confirmed this capability was feasi-
surfaces while being effective for in orbit operations was feasi- ble as can be seen in the floor plan in Fig. 7, which has an
ble. airlock very similar in capacity to that on the Space Shuttle,
the main different being the external hatch (0.8 m x 1.8m) is
3.5 EVA Provisions more suitable for exit on planetary surfaces than the Shut-
tle’s circular hatch.
A transport system can either transport between nodes, with
supporting services, or between nodes and other places 3.6 Interfaces
without supporting services. In space “other places” means
the crew will often need to perform EVAs to fulfil mission 3.6.1 Launch Vehicles
objectives and this provision needs to be incorporated into
the system. If the PTS could achieve a characteristic velocity of around 10
km/sec, then it would be possible to achieve earth orbit un-
It would enhance the flexibility of the PTS if not all the aided. But this has been established as far in excess of what can
crew need to be in pressure suits when an EVA is undertaken realistically be obtained with current technology and therefore
– i.e. there is an airlock provision. This is an arrangement the system must be carried into orbit on a specialist launch
that has been proven on many Space Shuttle missions. The system.

363
Mark Hempsell

3.6.2 Docking

The primary means of interfacing with other infrastructure

elements will be via a hard docking facility with integral crew
transfer. There are two standards on the ISS; the Soyuz’s
“Pin – Cone” and the Shuttle’s Androgynous Peripheral
Docking System (APDS). The Orion CEV is currently planned
to introduce a third standard (if standard is the right word
given the multiplicity of docking and berthing systems on
the ISS) called the Low Impact Docking System (LIDS) [15]
which is reported to be incompatible with the APDS [16]. The
proliferation of docking standards is highly undesirable be-
cause the overall infrastructure can only be made to work
effectively and, more important, safely with one standard-
ised androgynous docking system [17] on all its elements. It
also makes selection of a docking system for the PTS diffi-
cult. It should be whatever the infrastructure standard is, but
without such a standard the only course is to guess what the
eventual standard will be.
Fig. 7 Excalibur floor plan, highlighting EVA airlock. A PTS will need to be able to dock with any other PTS and so
the docking system must be androgynous. As a defined system
Currently this would mean an Expendable Launch Vehicle the APDS was used in the feasibility design and incorporated
(ELV) and that the PTS would be expected to carry crew into the specification. A feature that provides considerable
during the launch. Later it can be envisaged that the expend- extra utility to the PTS systems is to have the main engine thrust
able launch system would be replaced by a reusable launch aligned to docking port axis and both these to the centre of
system. In this case the personnel system would be launched mass of the PTS system. Given the system to which it is at-
by the RLV un-crewed as it both safer and more effective to tached also has its centre of mass aligned to the docking port,
carry personnel into orbit using a special module [9, 10]. the PTS can then act as a tractor, or tug, raising and lowering
Thus the PTS can be seen as a “transition system” [11] that orbits of other systems.
is required to work effectively in both ELV and RLV based
infrastructures. 4. CONCLUSIONS

Which actual ELV would be specified depends upon who is The function based approach to a PTS was used to derive all
developing the PTS; but the Excalibur feasibility design could the technical requirements on the basis of the Excalibur
be carried by many current launch systems across the world [3]. feasibility design without any reference to any of the mis-
Several secondary requirements can be identified to provide sions it might perform. For this study some areas where not
compatibility with an ELV. examined as fully as would be expected on a proper Phase A,
for example the rather cursory thermal analysis. However the
• A launch system interface that places the crew in a
approach that could have been taken in a fuller study using
suitable orientation for high g loads.
a functional objective as the starting point is clear. So the
• There will need to be an on the launch pad evacuation study meets the objective of illustrating how the process
capability. can be used and the results are summarised in Table 2. It is
• There will need to be launch vehicle escape system. argued this proves the function based methodology can be
made to work.
• The maximum mass would be around 20 tonnes (but this
is superseded by the RLV constraints) The judgement on the utility, and hence worth of the system
• A feasible diameter around 5m (but this is also superseded in the function based requirement process is decided by the
by the RLV constraints) mission capture it can demonstrate and this has been done for
the Excalibur [3]. The justification for the use of the function
The RLV is undefined, but many studies have been con- based approach is that it produces requirement specifications
ducted and as regard payload provisions a typical payload for infrastructure elements that significantly improve the capa-
bay diameter is 4.5 m and a typical payload mass is around 10 bility compared with the stagnation that has been the conse-
tonnes. This is compatible with studies such as Delta Clip- quence of the mission based requirement generation process.
per [12], VentureStar [13], and Skylon.[14]. This leads to the In the case of Excalibur the test would be how it compares with
final mass and volume constraints in the specification, and it the Orion CEV.
is this volume constraint that ultimately restricts the fuel
tank volume and hence the characteristic velocity as dis- Both Excalibur and Orion systems have a crew of 4 (for most
cussed above. missions) and both have comparable acquisition costs (in the
$5-$10 billion region). However the function based approach
Other work has shown that it is better to launch the crew has produced in Excalibur a system that can land on the Moon’s
separately from the PTS when using RLVs [2, 3]. It is also not surface directly, the Orion requires a separate Lunar module to
necessary to launch the PTS fully fuelled as the specifica- be developed. The Excalibur can also land on all but six of the
tion already effectively calls for an unlimited in-orbit refuel- solid bodies in the Solar System [3], the Orion can land on none.
ling capability. The specification wording reflects these The Excalibur can perform excursion missions (including res-
freedoms. cues) from the ISS, while the Orion must stay permanently

364
 The Multi-Role Capsule as an Example of Function Based Requirement Generation

TABLE 2: PTS Requirement Summary.

Requirement Requirement Feasibility Requirement Wording

Type Design
Crew Size Optimum Value = 4 Confirmed The PTS shall be able to carry four people in the anthro-
pogenic range 5% to 95%. Two of this crew shall have
the facilities to fly the system over all the mission phases.

Characteristic Velocity Target = High Better 4.1 km/sec The PTS shall be able to carry the full crew for a mission
characteristic velocity in excess of 4100m/s

Total In –orbit Life Target = High Better 10 years The PTS shall be able to be exposed to the specified
environments for a period of at least 10 years.

In Orbit Resupply Discrete Function Confirmed The PTS shall be able to be fully resupplied with all
mission duration and characteristic velocity limiting
consumables during its in-orbit life.

Mission Duration Target = High Better 10 days The PTS shall be able to undertake a mission that ex-
ceeds 10 days without connection to any other system.

Operational Environment Target = Sun surface 0.7 AU to 100 AU The PTS shall operate in open space at distances from
to interstellar space the Sun between less than 0.7 AU to greater than 100
AU.

Earth Return Discrete Function Confirmed The PTS shall be able to return the crew from any earth
orbit up to a parabolic escape (e=1).
The PTS shall be able to land with an accuracy of 3 m on
flat terrain and open ocean surfaces.

Landing Capability Discrete Function Confirmed The PYS shall be able to land on the surface of astro-
nomic bodies without effective atmosphere where the
surface gravity is between 0 and 1 g subject to the
constraints of the systems Characteristic Velocity.

EVA Discrete Function Confirmed The PTS shall have full provision for any number of the
crew to perform EVAs, either in microgravity or on the
surface of an airless body.

ELV Constaint Discrete Function Confirmed The PTS shall be able to interface with an ELV (with
adaptors) and be capable of supporting a full crew
compliemt during the launch.

ELV Safety Discrete Function Confirmed While on the ELV launch facilities the full crew shall be
able to enter and leave the cabin within 20 seconds.
During an ELV launch the PTS shall be able to be fitted
with a system that shall permit it to escape the ELV and
return the crew to the earth’s surface safely.

RLV Constraints Discrete Function Confirmed The PTS shall be able to fit within a 4.5 m diameter 8 m
long payload bay and have launch mass including all
interfacing equipment, but not with any crew nor neces-
sarily a full fuel load, below 10 tonnes.

Docking Provision Discrete Function Confirmed The PTS shall be fitted with an Androgynous Peripheral
Docking System allowing hard connection to another
system and personnel transfer from the main cabin area.

Tractor Discrete Function Confirmed The Androgynous Peripheral Docking System shall be
aligned along the thrust line of the PTS main propulsion
system and the PTS centre of mass with sufficient accu-
racy to enable the controlled firing of the main engines
while docked.

365
 Mark Hempsell

attached. The Excalibur can literally land on any terrestrial performs considerably better, and it also has considerably more
helicopter landing pad, the Orion requires a landing site large functionality.
enough to account for parachute dispersion. The Excalibur has
the flexibility to operate and exploit a reusable launch system Thus the function based approach has not just produced a
based infrastructure, the Orion would be made redundant by system that is superior to Orion in the wider context (which is to
such a change. be expected) it has also produced a superior system for the
missions that were Orion’s primary objective. Therefore in the
Table 3 shows a comparison of Excalibur and Orion as de- case of a PTS, it has been shown that the function based
fined in Reference 18. This reinforces the distinction in the requirement generation process has produced a viable specifi-
requirement generation processes. The Excalibur is smaller overall cation for a superior system than has been produced under the
and has an optimise crew size. However on the unconstrained more conventional mission based requirement generation meth-
parameters such as cargo and characteristic velocity, Excalibur odology.

TABLE 3: Comparison of Orion and Excalibur.

Orion Excalibur
Crew (max) 6 4
Cargo 100 kg (from Moon) 350 kg (14 cargo bags)
Volume: Total Pressurised 20 m3 16 m3
Habitable 11 m3 9 m3
Fuelled mass 23400 kg 10100 kg
22700 kg (with drop tank)
Propellant mass 9350 kg 5100 kg
15700 kg (with drop tank)
Main Engine Thrust 33 kN 4.5 to 127 kN
Total characteristic velocity 1738 m/s 2100 m/sec
4100 m/s (with drop tank)
Precision Earth Landing No Yes
Planetary/moon landing No Yes
EVA airlock No Yes
Cold gas proximity RCS No Yes
RLV compatibility No Yes

REFERENCES

1. M. Hempsell, “Requirement Generation for Space Infrastructure 126, 2003.

Systems”, JBIS, 60, pp.350-357, 2007. 11. C.M. Hempsell, “Interim Orbital Transfer Stages for use with
2. M. Hempsell, “Multi-role Capsules: Fulfilling Their Potential”, Reusable Launch Systems as an Example of Transition Systems”,
JBIS, 58, pp.347-356, 2005. Space Technology, 19, pp.227-236, 1999.
3. M. Hempsell, “Mission Capture with a Multi-role Capsule”, JBIS, 12. W.A. Gaubatz, “Designing For Routine Space Access”, Journal of
59, pp.194-203, 2006. Practical Applications in Space, IV, pp.123-136, 1993.
4. Frank Morring, “Moon Bound Again”, Aviation Week and Space 13. M.A. Dornhiem, “Follow on Plan Key to X-33 Win”, Aviation
Technology, 163, 26th September 2005. Week and Space Technology, 145, 8th July 1996.
5. Frank Morring, “Next Up”, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 14. R. Varvill and A. Bond, “The SKYLON Spaceplane”, JBIS, 57,
165, 4th September 2006. pp.22-32, 2004.
6. www.energia.ru. (accessed 5th Sept 2006) 15. F. Morring, “A Capsule: NASA Narrows the Field for CEV
7. Man-Systems Integration Standards NASA-STD-3000 1995 from Competition”, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 165, 4 th
W.J.Larson and L.K.Pranke, “Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis September 2006.
and Design”, MacGraw-Hill. 16. F. Morring, “Source Selection”, Aviation Week and Space Technology,
8. W.J.Larson and L.K.Pranke, “Human Spaceflight: Mission Analysis 164, 19th June 2006.
and Design”, MacGraw-Hill. 17. C.M. Hempsell, “Standardisation of Interfaces Within the Space
9. M. Hempsell, “Space Tourism in the Context of a Diverse Market”, Infrastructure”, JBIS, 39, pp.92-96, 1986.
JBIS, 59, pp.411-416, 2006. 18. “Constellation Programme: The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle”,
10. J. Scott-Scott, M. Harrison and A. Woodrow, “Considerations for NASA Fact Sheet FS-2006-08-022-JSC.
Passenger Transport by Advanced Spaceplanes”, JBIS, 56, pp.118-

(Received 28 February 2007; 13 July 2007)

366

View publication stats