Minotaur PDF

Minotaur
User's Guide
March 2002
Release 1.0
Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited
© 2002 by Orbital Sciences Corporation. All rights reserved.

ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION
March 2002 Minotaur® Users Guide

Release 1.0
Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited
Copyright © 2002 by Orbital Sciences Corporation.

All Rights Reserved.
Minotaur User's Guide Preface
This Minotaur User's Guide is intended to familiarize potential space launch vehicle users with the
Minotaur launch system, its capabilities and its associated services. The launch services described
herein are available for US Government sponsored missions via the United States Air Force (USAF)
Space and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12, Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP).
Readers desiring further information on Minotaur should contact the USAF OSP Program Office:
USAF SMC Det 12/RP

3548 Aberdeen Ave SE
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5778
Telephone: (505) 846-8957

Fax: (505) 846-1349
Additional copies of this User's Guide and Technical information may also be requested from
Orbital at:
Business Development
Orbital Sciences Corporation
Launch Systems Group
3380 S. Price Road
Chandler, AZ 85248
Telephone: (480) 814-6028

E-mail: [email protected]
Release 1.0 March 2002

Minotaur User's Guide
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 MINOTAUR LAUNCH SERVICE...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Minotaur Launch System Overview ......................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Minotaur Launch Service ......................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Minotaur Launch Vehicle ......................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.1 Lower Stack Assembly ................................................................................... 2-2
2.3.2 Upper Stack Assembly ................................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Launch Support Equipment ...................................................................................... 2-4
3.0 GENERAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Mission Profiles ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Launch Sites ............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Western Launch Sites ................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2 Eastern Launch Sites ..................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Performance Capability ........................................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Injection Accuracy .................................................................................................. 3-2
3.5 Payload Deployment .............................................................................................. 3-5
3.6 Payload Separation ................................................................................................. 3-5
3.7 Collision/Contamination Avoidance Maneuver ....................................................... 3-6
4.0 PAYLOAD ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Steady State and Transient Acceleration Loads ......................................................... 4-1
4.1.1 Optional Payload Isolation System ................................................................. 4-2
4.2 Payload Vibration Environment ................................................................................ 4-3
4.3 Payload Shock Environment ..................................................................................... 4-3
4.4 Payload Acoustic Environment ................................................................................. 4-3
4.5 Payload Structural Integrity and Environments Verification ....................................... 4-4
4.5.1 Recommended Payload Testing and Analysis ................................................. 4-4
4.6 Thermal and Humidity Environments ....................................................................... 4-5
4.6.1 Ground Operations ....................................................................................... 4-5
4.6.2 Powered Flight .............................................................................................. 4-6
4.6.3 Nitrogen Purge (non-standard service) ......................................................... 4-7
4.7 Payload Contamination Control............................................................................... 4-7
4.8 Payload Electromagnetic Environment ................................................................... 4-7
5.0 PAYLOAD INTERFACES .................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Payload Fairing ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.1 Payload Dynamic Design Envelope ............................................................... 5-1
5.1.2 Payload Access Door ..................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.3 Increased Volume Payload Fairing ................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Payload Mechanical Interface and Separation System .............................................. 5-1
Release 1.0 March 2002 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
5.2.1 Standard Non-Separating Mechanical Interface ........................................... 5-1

5.2.2 Separating Mechanical Interface .................................................................. 5-5
5.2.3 Orbital Supplied Drill Templates .................................................................. 5-5
5.3 Payload Electrical Interfaces ................................................................................... 5-5
5.3.1 Payload Umbilical Interfaces ........................................................................ 5-5
5.3.2 Payload Battery Charging ............................................................................. 5-5
5.3.3 Payload Command and Control .................................................................... 5-5
5.3.4 Pyrotechnic Initiation Signals ...................................................................... 5-10
5.3.5 Payload Telemetry ...................................................................................... 5-10
5.3.6 Non Standard Electrical Interfaces ............................................................. 5-10
5.3.7 Electrical Launch Support Equipment ......................................................... 5-10
5.4 Payload Design Constraints .................................................................................. 5-10
5.4.1 Payload Center of Mass Constraints ............................................................ 5-10
5.4.2 Final Mass Properties Accuracy ................................................................. 5-10
5.4.3 Pre-Launch Electrical Constraints ............................................................... 5-10
5.4.4 Payload EMI/EMC Constraints ..................................................................... 5-10
5.4.5 Payload Dynamic Frequencies ................................................................... 5-11
5.4.6 Payload Propellent Slosh............................................................................. 5-11
5.4.7 Payload-Supplied Separation Systems ........................................................ 5-11
5.4.8 System Safety Constraints ........................................................................... 5-11
6.0 MISSION INTEGRATION ............................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Mission Management Approach ............................................................................... 6-1
6.1.1 SMC Det 12/RP Mission Responsibilities ........................................................ 6-1
6.1.2 Orbital Mission Responsibilities ..................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Mission Planning and Development ......................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Mission Integration Process ...................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.1 Integration Meetings ...................................................................................... 6-2
6.3.2 Mission Design Reviews ................................................................................ 6-4
6.3.3 Readiness Reviews ........................................................................................ 6-4
6.4 Documentation ........................................................................................................ 6-4
6.4.1 Customer-Provided Documentation ............................................................... 6-4
6.4.1.1 Payload Questionnaire .................................................................... 6-4
6.4.1.2 Payload Mass Properties .................................................................. 6-4
6.4.1.3 Payload Finite Element Model ......................................................... 6-5
6.4.1.4 Payload Thermal Model for Integrated Thermal Analysis.................. 6-5
6.4.1.5 Payload Drawings............................................................................ 6-5
6.4.1.6 Program Requirements Document (PRD) Mission Specific
Annex Inputs .................................................................................. 6-5
6.4.1.6.1 Launch Operations Requirements (OR) Inputs ........................ 6-5
6.5 Safety ....................................................................................................................... 6-5
6.5.1 System Safety Requirements .......................................................................... 6-5
6.5.2 System Safety Documentation........................................................................ 6-6
Release 1.0 March 2002 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
7.0 GROUND AND LAUNCH OPERATIONS ....................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Minotaur/Payload Integration Overview ................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Ground And Launch Operations .............................................................................. 7-1
7.2.1 Launch Vehicle Integration ............................................................................ 7-1
7.2.1.1 Planning and Documentation ........................................................ 7-1
7.2.1.2 Vehicle Integration and Test Activities ............................................ 7-1
7.2.1.2.1 Flight Simulation Tests ................................................. 7-1
7.2.2 Payload Processing/Integration ...................................................................... 7-1
7.2.2.1 Payload to Minotaur Integration .................................................... 7-2
7.2.2.2 Pre-Mate Interface Testing ............................................................. 7-2
7.2.2.3 Payload Mating and Verification .................................................... 7-2
7.2.2.4 Final Processing and Fairing Closeout ........................................... 7-2
7.2.2.5 Payload Propellant Loading ........................................................... 7-2
7.2.2.6 Final Vehicle Integration and Test .................................................. 7-2
7.3 Launch Operations .................................................................................................. 7-2
7.3.1 Launch Control Organization ........................................................................ 7-2
8.0 OPTIONAL ENHANCED CAPABILITIES ......................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Mechanical Interface and Separation System Enhancements .................................... 8-1
8.1.1 Separation Systems ........................................................................................ 8-1
8.1.2 Additional Fairing Access Doors .................................................................... 8-1
8.1.3 Payload Isolation System ............................................................................... 8-1
8.1.4 Increased Payload Volume............................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Performance Enhancements ..................................................................................... 8-2
8.2.1 Insertion Accuracy ......................................................................................... 8-2
8.3 Environmental Control Options ................................................................................ 8-2
8.3.1 Conditioned Air ............................................................................................. 8-2
8.3.2 Nitrogen Purge .............................................................................................. 8-2
8.3.3 Enhanced Contamination Control .................................................................. 8-3
8.3.3.1 High Cleanliness Integration Environment (Class 10K or 100K) .......... 8-3
8.3.3.2 Fairing Surface Cleanliness Options ................................................... 8-3
8.3.3.3 High Cleanliness Fairing Environment ............................................... 8-3
8.4 Enhanced Telemetry Options ................................................................................... 8-3
8.4.1 Enhanced Telemetry Bandwidth ..................................................................... 8-3
8.4.2 Enhanced Telemetry Instrumentation ............................................................. 8-3
8.4.3 Navigation Data ............................................................................................ 8-4
9.0 SHARED LAUNCH ACCOMMODATIONS ..................................................................... 9-1

9.1 Load-Bearing Spacecraft .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Non Load-Bearing Spacecraft ................................................................................... 9-2
Release 1.0 March 2002 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
APPENDIX A Payload Questionnaire ..................................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B Electrical Interface Connectors ....................................................................... B-1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 2-1 OSP Minotaur Launch Vehicle ......................................................................... 2-1

Figure 2-2 OSP Minotaur Launch Vehicle Configuration ................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-3 Minotaur Upper Stack Assembly Processing at Orbital's
Vehicle Assembly Building at VAFB ................................................................. 2-3
Figure 2-4 Minotaur EGSE Configuration ........................................................................... 2-5
Figure 2-5 Minotaur Launch Control Consoles Configuration ............................................ 2-5
Figure 3-1 Minotaur Typical Mission Profile ...................................................................... 3-1
Figure 3-2 Minotaur Launch Site Options .......................................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-3 Minotaur Performance - California Spaceport Launches (SSI CLF) .................... 3-3
Figure 3-4 Minotaur Performance - Kodiak Launch Complex Launches ............................ 3-3
Figure 3-5 Minotaur Performance - Spaceport Florida Launches ....................................... 3-4
Figure 3-6 Minotaur Performance - Virginia Spaceflight Center Launches ......................... 3-4
Figure 3-7 Stage Impact Points for Typical Sun-Synchronous Launch From VAFB ............. 3-5
Figure 3-8 Injection Accuracies to Low Earth Orbits ........................................................ 3-5
Figure 3-9 Typical Pre-Separation Payload Pointing and Spin Rate Accuracies .............. 3-5
Figure 4-1 Phasing of Dynamic Loading Events ............................................................... 4-1
Figure 4-2 Payload Design CG Net Load Factors (Typical).............................................. 4-1
Figure 4-3 Minotaur 3-Sigma High Maximum Acceleration as a Function
of Payload Weight ............................................................................................ 4-2
Figure 4-4 Payload Random Vibration Environment During Flight .................................... 4-3
Figure 4-5 Maximum Shock Environment - Launch Vehicle to Payload ............................. 4-3
Figure 4-6 Maximum Shock Environment - Payload to Launch Vehicle ............................. 4-3
Figure 4-7 Payload Acoustic Environment During Liftoff and Flight ................................. 4-4
Figure 4-8 Factors of Safety Payload Design and Test ..................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-9 Recommended Payload Testing Requirements................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-10 Payload Thermal and Humidity Environments ................................................ 4-5
Figure 4-11 Minotaur Worst-Case Payload Fairing Inner Surface Temperature
During Ascent (Payload Region) ....................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4-12 Minotaur Launch Vehicle RF Emitters and Receivers ........................................ 4-8
Release 1.0 March 2002 iv

LIST OF FIGURES
CONTINUED
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 5-1 Payload Fairing Dynamic Envelope with 38 in (97 cm) Diameter
Payload Interface ............................................................................................ 5-2
Figure 5-2 Payload Fairing Access Door Placement Zone ................................................. 5-3
Figure 5-3 Non-Separable Payload Mechanical Interface .................................................. 5-4
Figure 5-4 38 in (97 cm) Separable Payload Interface ...................................................... 5-6
Figure 5-7 Payload Separation Velocities Using the Standard
Separation System ............................................................................................ 5-9
Figure 5-8 Vehicle/Spacecraft Electrical Connectors and Associated
Electrical Harnesses ......................................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-9 Payload Mass Properties Measurement Tolerance .......................................... 5-10
Figure 6-1 OSP Management Structure .............................................................................. 6-1
Figure 6-2 Typical Minotaur Mission Integration Schedule ................................................ 6-3
Figure 8-1 Softride for Small Satellites (SRSS) Payload Isolation System ............................. 8-1
Figure 8-2 Optional 61 in. Diameter Fairing ..................................................................... 8-2
Figure 9-1 Typical Load Bearing Spacecraft Configuration .............................................. 9-1
Figure 9-2 JAWSAT Multiple Payload Adapter Load Bearing Spacecraft ......................... 9-2
Figure 9-3 Five Bay Multiple Payload Adapter Concept .................................................. 9-2
Figure 9-4 Dual Payload Attach Fitting Configuration ...................................................... 9-3
Figure B-1 Typical Minotaur Payload Electrical Interface Block Diagram ....................... B-2
Release 1.0 March 2002 v

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Glossary
A Ampere g Gravitational Force

AADC Alaska Aerospace Development GACS Ground Air Conditioning System
Corporation
GFE Government Furnished Equipment
AC Air Conditioning
GN 2 Gaseous Nitrogen
ACS Attitude Control System
GPB GPS Position Beacon
AFRL Air Force Research Laboratory
GPS Global Positioning System
AODS All-Ordnance Destruct System GSE Ground Support Equipment
ATP Authority to Proceed GTO Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit
C/CAM Collision/Contamination Avoidance HAPS Hydrazine Auxiliary Propulsion System
Maneuver
HEPA High Efficiency Particulate Air
CCAS Cape Canaveral Air Station
Hz Hertz
CDR Critical Design Review
I/F Interface
CFE Customer Furnished Equipment
ICD Interface Control Drawing
CG,cg Center of Gravity
ILC Initial Launch Capability
CLA Coupled Loads Analysis
IMU Inertial Measurement Unit
CLF Commercial Launch Facility
in Inch
cm Centimeter
INS Inertial Navigation System
CVCM Collected Volatile Condensable
Materials ISO International Standardization
Organization
dB Decibels
IVT Interface Verification Test
deg Degrees
kbps Kilobits per Second
DPAF Dual Payload Attach Fitting
kg Kilograms
ECS Environmental Control System
km Kilometer
EGSE Electrical Ground Support Equipment
lb Pound
EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility
lbm Pound(s) of Mass
EME Electromagnetic Environment
LCR Launch Control Room
EMI Electromagnetic Interference
LEV Launch Equipment Vault
FLSA Florida Spaceport Authority LITVC Liquid Injection Thrust Vector Control
FM Frequency Modulation LOCC Launch Operations Control Center
ft Feet LRR Launch Readiness Review
FTLU Flight Termination Logic Unit LSA Lower Stack Assembly
FTS Flight Termination System LSE Launch Support Equipment
Release 1.0 March 2002 vi

m/s Meters per Second POC Point of Contact

Mbps Mega Bits per Second ppm Parts Per Million
mA Milliamps
PRD Program Requirements Document
MACH Modular Avionics Control Hardware
PSD Power Spectral Density
MDR Mission Design Review
PSP Prelaunch Safety Package
MHz MegaHertz
RCS Roll Control System
MIL-STD Military Standard
RF Radio Frequency
MIWG Mission Integration Working Group
mm Millimeter RGIU Rate Gyro Interface Unit
MPA Multiple Payload Adapter RGU Rate Gyro Unit
MRD Mission Requirements Document rpm Revolutions per Minute

MRR Mission Readiness Review RSLP Rocket Systems Launch Program
MSPSP Missile System Prelaunch Safety RWG Range Working Group
Package
ms Millisecond s&a Safe & Arm
N/A Not Applicable scfm Standard Cubic Feet per Minute
NCU Nozzle Control Unit SEB Support Equipment Building
NM Nautical Mile sec Second(s)

OD Operations Directive SINDA Finite Element Thermal Analysis Tool
OD Outside Dimension Tradename
ODM Ordnance Driver Module SLC Space Launch Complex
OR Operations Requirements Document SLV Space Launch Vehicle
OSP Orbital Suborbital Program SMC Space and Missile Systems Center
P/L Payload SOC Statement of Capabilities

PACS Pad Air Conditioning System SPL Sound Pressure Level
PAF Payload Attach Fitting
SRM Solid Rocket Motor
PCM Pulse Code Modulation
SRS Shock Response Spectrum
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PI Program Introduction SRSS Softride for Small Satellites
PID Proportional-Integral-Derivative SSI Spaceport Systems International
Release 1.0 March 2002 vii

STA Station
TLV Target Launch Vehicle
TML Total Mass Loss
TVC Thrust Vector Control
UDS Universal Documentation System
UFS Ultimate Factory of Safety
USAF United States Air Force
V/M Volts per Meter
VAB Vehicle Assembly Building
VAFB Vandenberg Air Force Base
W Watt
WFF Wallops Flight Facility
WP Work Package
YFS Yield Factor of Safety
Release 1.0 March 2002 viii

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 1.0 - Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION User’s Guide describes Minotaur-unique

This User’s Guide is intended to integration and test approaches (including the
familiarize payload mission planners with the typical operational timeline for payload
capabilities of the Orbital Suborbital Program integration with the Minotaur vehicle) and the
(OSP) Minotaur Space Launch Vehicle (SLV) existing ground support equipment that is used to
launch service. This document provides an conduct Minotaur operations.
overview of the Minotaur system design and a
description of the services provided to our
customers. Minotaur offers a variety of enhanced
options to allow the maximum flexibility in
satisfying the objectives of single or multiple
payloads.
The Minotaur’s primary mission is to

provide low cost, high reliability launch services
to government-sponsored payloads. Minotaur
accomplishes this using flight-proven components
with a significant flight heritage such as surplus
Minuteman II boosters, the upper stage Pegasus
motors, the Pegasus Fairing and Attitude Control
System, and a mix of Pegasus, Taurus, and sub-
orbital Avionics all with a proven, successful
track record. The philosophy of placing mission
success as the highest priority is reflected in the
success and accuracy of all Minotaur missions to
date.
The Minotaur launch vehicle system is

composed of a flight vehicle and ground support
equipment. Each element of the Minotaur system
has been developed to simplify the mission design
and payload integration process and to provide
safe, reliable space launch services. This User’s
Guide describes the basic elements of the
Minotaur system as well as optional services that
are available. In addition, this document provides
general vehicle performance, defines payload
accommodations and environments, and outlines
the Minotaur mission integration process.
The Minotaur system can operate from a

wide range of launch facilities and geographic
locations. The system is compatible with, and
will typically operate from, commercial spaceport
facilities and existing U.S. Government ranges at
Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), Cape
Canaveral Air Station (CCAS), Wallops Flight
Facility (WFF), and Kodiak Island, Alaska. This
Release 1.0 March 2002 1-1

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 2.0 - Minotaur Launch Service
2. MINOTAUR LAUNCH SERVICE transportability, and operation from multiple

launch sites. Minotaur draws on the successful
2.1. Minotaur Launch System Overview heritage of three launch vehicles: Orbital’s
The Minotaur launch vehicle, shown in Pegasus and Taurus space launch vehicles and
Figure 2-1, was developed by Orbital for the the Minuteman II system of the USAF. Minotaur’s
United States Air Force (USAF) to provide a cost upper two stages and avionics are derived from
effective, reliable and flexible means of placing the Pegasus and Taurus systems, providing a
small satellites into orbit. An overview of the combined total of more than 30 successful space
system and available launch services is provided launch missions. Orbital’s efforts have enhanced
within this section, with specific elements covered or updated Pegasus and Taurus avionics
in greater detail in the subsequent sections of this components to meet the payload-support
User’s Guide. requirements of the OSP program. Combining
these improved subsystems with the long
Minotaur has been designed to meet the successful history of the Minuteman II boosters
needs of United States Government-sponsored has resulted in a simple, robust, self-contained
customers at a lower cost than commercially launch system that has been completely
available alternatives by the use of surplus successful in its flights to date and is fully
Minuteman boosters. The requirements of that operational to support government-sponsored
program stressed system reliability, small satellite launches.
The Minotaur system also includes a

complete set of transportable Launch Support
Equipment (LSE) designed to allow Minotaur to
be operated as a self-contained satellite delivery
system. To accomplish this goal, the Electrical
Ground Support Equipment (EGSE) has been
developed to be portable and adaptable to varying
levels of infrastructure. While the Minotaur
system is capable of self-contained operation
using portable vans to house the EGSE, it is
typically launched from an established range
where the EGSE can be housed in available,
permanent structures or facilities. This has been
the case for the first launches from VAFB.
The vehicle and LSE are designed to be

capable of launch from any of the four commercial
Spaceports (Alaska, California, Florida, and
Virginia), as well as from existing U.S. Government
facilities at VAFB and CCAS. The Launch Control
Room (LCR) serves as the actual control center for
conducting a Minotaur launch and includes
consoles for Orbital, range safety, and customer
personnel. Further description of the Launch
Support Equipment is provided in Section 2.4.
2.2. Minotaur Launch Service

Figure 2-1. OSP Minotaur Launch Vehicle The Minotaur Launch Service is provided

through the combined efforts of the USAF and Minotaur mission integration process completely
Orbital, along with associate contractors including identifies, documents, and verifies all spacecraft
TRW and Commercial Spaceports. The primary and mission requirements. This provides a solid
customer interface will be with the USAF Space basis for initiating and streamlining the integration
and Missile Systems Center, Detachment 12, process for future Minotaur customers.
Rocket Systems Launch Program (RSLP),
designated SMC Det 12/RP. Orbital is the launch 2.3. Minotaur Launch Vehicle
vehicle provider. For brevity, this integrated The Minotaur vehicle, shown in expanded
team effort will be referred to as “OSP”. Where view in Figure 2-2, is a four stage, inertially
interfaces are directed toward a particular member guided, all solid propellant ground launched
of the team, they will be referred to directly (i.e. vehicle. Conservative design margins, state-of-
“Orbital” or “SMC Det 12/RP”). the-art structural systems, a modular avionics
architecture, and simplified integration and test
OSP provides all of the necessary capability, yield a robust, highly reliable launch
hardware, software and services to integrate, test vehicle design. In addition, Minotaur payload
and launch a satellite into its prescribed orbit. In accommodations and interfaces have been
addition, OSP will complete all the required designed to satisfy a wide range of potential
agreements, licenses and documentation to payload requirements.
successfully conduct Minotaur operations. All
Minotaur production and integration processes 2.3.1. Lower Stack Assembly
and procedures have been demonstrated and are The Lower Stack Assembly (LSA) consists
in place for future Minotaur missions. The of the refurbished Government Furnished
Figure 2-2. OSP Minotaur Launch Vehicle Configuration

Equipment (GFE) Minuteman Stages 1 and 2. subsystems, the LSE, and the payload, if required,
Only minor modifications are made to the utilizing standard RS-422 serial links and discrete
boosters, including harness interface changes. I/O. The Minotaur design incorporates Orbital’s
Modular Avionics Control Hardware (MACH) to
The first stage consists of the Minuteman provide power transfer, data acquisition,
II M55A1 solid propellant motor, Nozzle Control Minuteman booster interfaces, and ordnance
Units (NCU), Stage 1 Ignition Safe/Arm, S1/S2 initiation. MACH has exhibited 100% reliability
Interstage and Stage 1 FTS. Four gimbaled nozzles on OSP SLV and Target Launch Vehicle (TLV)
provide three axis control during first stage burn. flights and several of Orbital’s suborbital launch
The Second stage consists of a refurbished vehicles. In addition, the Minotaur telemetry
Minuteman II SR19 motor, Liquid Injection Thrust system has been upgraded to provide up to 2
Vector Control subsystem (LITVC), S2 ignition Mbps of real-time vehicle data with dedicated
safe/arm device, a Roll Control System (RCS), and bandwidth and channels reserved for payload
the Stage 2 FTS components. Attitude control use.
during second stage burn is provided by the
operational LITVC and hot gas roll control. A Attitude Control Systems –– The Minotaur
Rate Gyro Unit (RGU) is installed on the outer Attitude Control System (ACS) provides three-
skin of the SR19 to enhance the vehicle control axis attitude control throughout boosted flight
and increase launch availability. and coast phases. Stages 1 and 2 utilize the
Minuteman Thrust Vector Control (TVC) systems.
2.3.2. Upper Stack Assembly The Stage 1 TVC is a four-nozzle hydraulic system,
The Minotaur Upper Stack is composed while the Stage 2 system combines liquid
of Stages 3 and 4 which are the Alliant injection for pitch and yaw control with hot gas
TechSystems Orion 50XL and 38 SRMs, roll control. Stages 3 and 4 utilize the same TVC
respectively. These motors were originally systems as Pegasus and Taurus. They combine
developed for Orbital’s Pegasus program and single-nozzle electromechanical TVC for pitch
have been adapted for use on the ground- and yaw control with a three-axis cold-gas
launched Minotaur vehicle. Common design attitude control system resident in the avionics
features, materials and production techniques section providing roll control.
are applied to both motors to maximize reliability
and production efficiency. The motors are fully Attitude control is achieved using a three-
flight qualified based on their heritage, design axis autopilot that employs Proportional-Integral-
conservatism, ground static fires and over thirty
successful flights. Processing of the Minotaur
Upper Stack is conducted at the same processing
facility as Pegasus, directly applying the
integration and testing experience of Pegasus to
the Minotaur system (Figure 2-3).
Avionics — The Minotaur avionics system

has heritage to the Pegasus and Taurus designs.
However, the Minotaur design was upgraded to
provide the increased capability and flexibility
required by the OSP contract, particularly in the
area of payload accommodations. The flight
computer, which is common to Pegasus and Figure 2-3. Minotaur Upper Stack Assembly
Taurus, is a 32-bit multiprocessor architecture. It Processing at Orbital's Vehicle Assembly
provides communication with vehicle Building at VAFB

Derivative (PID) control. Stages 1 and 2 fly a pre- With the addition of a structural adapter,
programmed attitude profile based on trajectory either fairing can accommodate multiple
design and optimization. Stage 3 uses a set of pre- payloads. This feature, described in more detail
programmed orbital parameters to place the vehicle in Section 9.0 of this User’s Guide, permits two or
on a trajectory toward the intended insertion apse. more smaller payloads to share the cost of a
The extended coast between Stages 3 and 4 is used Minotaur launch, resulting in a lower launch cost
to orient the vehicle to the appropriate attitude for for each as compared to other launch options.
Stage 4 ignition based upon a set of pre-programmed
2.4. Launch Support Equipment
orbital parameters and the measured performance
The Minotaur LSE is designed to be
of the first three stages. Stage 4 utilizes energy readily adaptable to varying launch site
management to place the vehicle into the proper configurations with minimal unique
orbit. After the final boost phase, the three-axis cold- infrastructure required. The EGSE consists of
gas attitude control system is used to orient the readily transportable consoles that can be
vehicle for spacecraft separation, contamination housed in various facility configurations
and collision avoidance and downrange downlink depending on the launch site infrastructure. The
maneuvers. The autopilot design is modular, so EGSE is composed of two primary functional
additional payload requirements such as rate control elements: Launch Control and Vehicle Interface
or celestial pointing can be accommodated with (Figure 2-4). The Launch Control consoles are
minimal additional development. located in a LCR, depending on available launch
site accommodations. The Vehicle Interface
Telemetry Subsystem –– The Minotaur EGSE is located in structures near the pad,
typically called a Support Equipment Building
telemetry subsystem provides real-time health
(SEB). Fiber optic connections from the Launch
and status data of the vehicle avionics system, as
Control to the Vehicle Interface consoles are
well as key information regarding the position, used for efficient, high bandwidth
performance and environment of the Minotaur communications and to minimize the amount of
vehicle. This data may be used by Orbital and the cabling required. The Vehicle Interface racks
range safety personnel to evaluate system provide the junction from fiber optic cables to
performance. The minimum data rate is 750 kbps, the copper cabling interfacing with the vehicle.
but the system is capable of data rates up to 2 Mbps.
The LCR serves as the control center
Payload Fairings –– The baseline Minotaur during the launch countdown. The number of
fairing is identical to the Pegasus fairing design. personnel that can be accommodated are
However, due to differences in vehicle loads and dependent on the launch site facilities. At a
environments, the Minotaur implementation minimum, the LCR will accommodate Orbital
allows a larger payload envelope. The Minotaur personnel controlling the vehicle, two Range
payload fairing consists of two composite shell Safety representatives (ground and flight safety),
halves, a nose cap integral to a shell half, and a and the Air Force Mission Manager. A typical
layout is shown in Figure 2-5. Mission-unique,
separation system. Each shell half is composed of
customer-supplied payload consoles and
a cylinder and ogive sections.
equipment can be supported in the LCR and
SEB, within the constraints of the launch site
Options for payload access doors and facilities or temporary structure facilities.
enhanced cleanliness are available. A larger 61 Interface to the payload through the Minotaur
inch diameter (OD) fairing is also in development payload umbilicals and land lines provides the
and is available for future missions. Further details capability for direct monitoring of payload
on the baseline fairing are included in Section 5.1 functions. Payload personnel accommodations
and for the larger fairing in Section 8.1. will be handled on a mission-specific basis.

Launch Control Room
Telemetry
Monitor Console
Data Reduction
Console
Support Equipment Building
Background
Limit Checking
Console
Flight Computer
Console Power
Supply
Rack
Data Display Fiber

Copper Lines
Console Serial FTS
Interface Interface Patch Panel
Rack Rack
Power Control
Console Arming/
Ignition
Rack
Data Display
Console
Payload I/F
Rack
FTS Control
Console
TM14025_059
Payload
Console
Figure 2-4. Minotaur EGSE Configuration
Figure 2-5. Minotaur Launch Control Consoles Configuration

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 3.0 - General Performance
3. GENERAL PERFORMANCE 3.2. Launch Sites

Depending on the specific mission and
3.1. Mission Profiles range safety requirements, Minotaur can operate
Minotaur can attain a range of posigrade from several East and West launch sites, illustrated
and retrograde inclinations through the choice of in Figure 3-2. Specific performance parameters
launch sites made available by the readily are presented in Section 4.
adaptable nature of the Minotaur launch system.
A typical mission profile to a sun-synchronous
3.2.1. Western Launch Sites
orbit is shown in Figure 3-1. High energy and
For missions requiring high inclination
Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) missions
orbits (greater than 60°), launches can be
can also be achieved. All performance parameters
presented herein are typical for most expected conducted from facilities at VAFB, CA, or Kodiak
payloads. However, performance may vary Island, AK. Both facilities can accommodate
depending on unique payload or mission inclinations from 60° to 120°, although
characteristics. Specific requirements for a inclinations below 72° from VAFB would require
particular mission should be coordinated with an out-of-plane dogleg, thereby reducing payload
OSP. Once a mission is formally initiated, the capability. Initial Minotaur missions were
requirements will be documented in the Mission launched from the California Spaceport facility,
Requirements Document (MRD). Further detail operated by Spaceport Systems International
will be captured in the Payload-to-Launch Vehicle (SSI), on South VAFB, near SLC-6. The launch
Interface Control Drawing (ICD). facility at Kodiak Island, operated by the Alaska
Figure 3-1. Minotaur Typical Mission Profile

KODIAK LAUNCH
COMPLEX
VIRGINIA SPACE FLIGHT
Kodiak Island, AK CENTER
Wallops Island, VA
• Commercial Launch Sites
at NASA's Wallops Flight
Facilities
WESTERN RANGE
EASTERN RANGE
Vandenberg AFB, CA
Patrick AFB, FL
• Government Launch Sites
• Government Launch Sites
• California Spaceport SSI CLF
• Spaceport Florida
TM14025_081
Figure 3-2. Minotaur Launch Site Options
Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) 3.3. Performance Capability

has been used for both orbital and suborbital Minotaur performance curves for circular
launches. and elliptical orbits of various altitudes and
inclinations are detailed in Figure 3-3 through
3.2.2. Eastern Launch Sites Figure 3-6 for launches from all four Spaceports.
For Easterly launch azimuths to achieve These performance curves provide the total
mass above the standard, non-separating
orbital inclinations between 28.5° and 60°,
interface. The mass of any Payload Attach Fitting
Minotaur can be launched from facilities at Cape (PAF) or separation system is to be accounted for
Canaveral, FL or Wallops Island, VA. Launches in the payload mass allocation. Figure 3-7
from Florida will nominally use the Florida illustrates the stage vacuum impact points for a
Spaceport Authority (FLSA) launch facilities at typical sun-synchronous trajectory from VAFB.
LC-46 on CCAS, Cape Canaveral, FL. These will
be typically for inclinations from 28.5° to 40°, 3.4. Injection Accuracy
although inclinations above 35° may have Minotaur injection accuracy is
summarized in Figure 3-8. Better accuracy can
reduced performance due to the need for a
be provided dependent on specific mission
trajectory dogleg. The Virginia Spaceflight Center
characteristics. For example, heavier payloads
facilities at the WFF may be used for inclinations will typically have better insertion accuracy, as
from 30° to 60°. Southeasterly launches from will higher orbits. An enhanced option for
WFF offer fewer overflight concerns than CCAS. increased insertion accuracy is also available
Inclinations below 35° and above 55° are feasible, (Section 8.2.1). It utilizes the flight-proven
albeit with doglegs and altitude constraints due Hydrazine Auxiliary Propulsion System (HAPS)
to stage impact considerations. developed on the Pegasus program.

1100
Circular Orbit
1000 Elliptical Orbit (Perigee = 100NM)
900
800
Apogee Altitude (NM)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
99 90 80 72
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Payload (lbm) TM14025_062a
Figure 3-3. Minotaur Performance - California Spaceport Launches (SSI CLF)
1100
Circular Orbit
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
80 75 70 65
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Figure 3-4. Minotaur Performance - Kodiak Launch Complex Launches

1100
Circular Orbit
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
35 28. 5
0
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Figure 3-5. Minotaur Performance - Spaceport Florida Launches
1100
Circular Orbit
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100 50 45 38
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
Figure 3-6. Minotaur Performance - Virginia Spaceflight Center Launches

70
60
50
40
Stage 1
Latitude (deg)
30
Stage 2
20
10
10
Stage 3
20
180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100
Longitude (deg) TM14025_066
Figure 3-7. Stage Impact Points for Typical Sun-Synchronous Launch From VAFB
Tolerance 3.5. Payload Deployment

Error Type (Worst Case) Following orbit insertion, the Minotaur
Stage 4 avionics subsystem can execute a series
of ACS maneuvers to provide the desired initial
Altitude (Insertion Apse) ±10 nm (18.5 km) payload attitude prior to separation. This
Altitude (Non-Insertion ±50 nm (92.6 km) capability may also be used to incrementally
Apse) reorient Stage 4 for the deployment of multiple
spacecraft with independent attitude
Altitude (Mean) ± 30 nm (55.6 km) requirements. Either an inertially-fixed or spin-
Inclination ±0.2° stabilized attitude may be specified by the
customer.
Figure 3-8. Injection Accuracies to Low Earth
Orbits The maximum spin rate for a specific
mission depends upon the spin axis moment of
Error inertia of the payload and the amount of ACS
Type Angle Rate propellant needed for other attitude maneuvers.
3-Axis Yaw ±1.0° ±0.5°/sec Figure 3-9 provides the typical payload pointing
and spin rate accuracies.
Pitch ±1.0° ±0.5°/sec
Roll ±1.0° ±0.5°/sec 3.6. Payload Separation
Spinning Spin Axis ±1.0° ≤10 rpm Payload separation dynamics are highly
dependent on the mass properties of the payload
Spin Rate 3°/sec and the particular separation system utilized.
Figure 3-9. Typical Pre-Separation Payload The primary parameters to be considered are
Pointing and Spin Rate Accuracies payload tip-off and the overall separation velocity.

Payload tip-off refers to the angular

velocity imparted to the payload upon separation
due to payload 8 cg offsets and an uneven
distribution of torques and forces. If an optional
Orbital-supplied Marmon Clamp-band
separation system is used, payload tip-off rates
are generally under 4°/sec per axis. Orbital
performs a mission-specific tip-off analysis for
each payload.
Separation velocities are driven by the

need to prevent recontact between the payload
and the Minotaur upper stage after separation.
The value will typically be 2 to 3 ft/sec (0.6 to 0.9
m/sec).
3.7. Collision/Contamination Avoidance

Maneuver
Following orbit insertion and payload
separation, the Minotaur Stage 4 will perform a
Collision/Contamination Avoidance Maneuver
(C/CAM). The C/CAM minimizes both payload
contamination and the potential for recontact
between Minotaur hardware and the separated
payload. OSP will perform a recontact analysis
for post separation events.
A typical C/CAM begins soon after

payload separation. The launch vehicle performs
a 90° yaw maneuver designed to direct any
remaining Stage 4 motor impulse in a direction
which will increase the separation distance
between the two bodies. After a delay to allow
the distance between the spacecraft and Stage 4
to increase to a safe level, the launch vehicle
begins a “crab-walk” maneuver to impart a small
amount of delta velocity, increasing the separation
between the payload and the fourth stage of the
Minotaur.
Following the completion of the C/CAM

maneuver as described above and any remaining
maneuvers, such as downlinking of delayed
telemetry data, the ACS valves are opened and
the remaining ACS nitrogen propellent is
expelled.

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 4.0 - Payload Environment
4. PAYLOAD ENVIRONMENT Dynamic loading events that occur

This section provides details of the pre- throughout various portions of the flight in-
dicted environmental conditions that the pay- clude steady state acceleration, transient low
load will experience during Minotaur ground frequency acceleration, acoustic impingement,
operations, powered flight, and launch system random vibration, and pyrotechnic shock
on-orbit operations. events. Figure 4-1 identifies the time phasing
of these dynamic loading events and environ-
Minotaur ground operations include ments and their significance. Pyroshock events
payload integration and encapsulation within are not indicated in this figure, as they do not
the fairing, subsequent transportation to the occur simultaneous with any other significant
launch site and final vehicle integration activi- dynamic loading events.
ties. Powered flight begins at Stage 1 ignition
and ends at Stage 4 burnout. Minotaur on-or- 4.1. Steady State and Transient Acceleration
bit operations begin after Stage 4 burnout and Loads
end following payload separation. To more Design limit load factors due to the
accurately define simultaneous loading and combined effects of steady state and low
environmental conditions, the powered flight frequency transient accelerations are defined
portion of the mission is further subdivided into in Figure 4-2. These values include uncertainty
smaller time segments bounded by critical margins and are typical for an 800 lbm
flight events such as motor ignition, stage sepa- payload.
ration, and transonic crossover.
Event Axial (G's) Lateral (G's)
The environmental design and test crite- Liftoff 0 ±4.6 0 ±1.6
ria presented have been derived using measured
Transonic 3.2 ±0.5 0.2 ±1.2
data obtained from previous Pegasus, Taurus and
Minotaur missions, motor static fire tests, other Supersonic 3.8 ±0.5 0.4 ±1.1
system development tests and analyses. These S2 Ignition 0 ±6.6 0 ±3.3
criteria are applicable to Minotaur configurations S3 Ignition 0 ±6.1 0 ±0.5
using the standard 50 in. diameter fairing. The
predicted levels presented are intended to be rep- S3 Burnout See Fig 4-3 0.3 ±0.0
resentative of mission specific levels. Mission S4 Burnout See Fig 4-3 0.3 ±0.0
specific analyses that are performed as a stan- TM14025_068
dard service are documented or referenced in Figure 4-2. Payload Design CG Net Load
the mission ICD. Factors (Typical)
Supersonic/ Balance of S2 S2 S3 S3 S4
Item Liftoff Transonic Max Q S1 Burn Ignition Burn Ignition Burn Burn
Typical Flight 3 sec 17 sec 30 sec 10 sec N/A 70 sec N/A 70 sec 70 sec
Duration
Steady State Loads Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Transient Loads Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No
Acoustics Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Random Vibration Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
TM14025_067
Figure 4-1. Phasing of Dynamic Loading Events

During powered flight, the maximum liminary design purposes, Orbital can provide
steady state accelerations are dependent on the preliminary Center-of-Gravity (CG) netloads
payload mass. The maximum level can po- given a payload’s mass properties, CG loca-
tentially occur in either Stage 3 or 4 burn. Fig- tion and bending frequencies.
ure 4-3 depicts the axial acceleration at burn-
out for each stage as a function of payload
4.1.1. Optional Payload Isolation System
mass.
OSP offers a flight-proven payload load
isolation system as a non-standard service.
During upper stage burnout, prior to
This mechanical isolation system has demon-
staging, the transient loads are relatively be-
strated the capability to significantly alleviate
nign. There are significant transient loads that
the transient dynamic loads that occur during
occur at both Stage 2 and Stage 3 ignition.
flight. The isolation system can provide relief
During the transient portion of these ignition
to both the overall payload center of gravity
events, the steady state axial loads are rela-
loads and component or subsystem responses.
tively nonexistent.
Typically the system will reduce transient loads
to approximately 50% of the level they would
As dynamic response is largely governed
be without the system. In addition, the system
by payload characteristics, a mission specific
generally reduces shock and vibration levels
Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA) will be per-
transmitted between the vehicle and space-
formed, with customer provided finite element
craft. The exact results can be expected to vary
models of the payload, in order to provide more
for each particular spacecraft and with loca-
precise load predictions. Results will be refer-
tion on the spacecraft. The isolation system
enced in the mission specific ICD. For pre-
14.0
13.0
3-Sigma High Maximum Axial Acceleration (G's)
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
S3
8.0
7.0 S4
6.0
5.0
4.0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 kg
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 lbm

Payload Mass
Does Not Include Random Vibe TM14025_051
Figure 4-3. Minotaur 3-Sigma High Maximum Acceleration as a Function of Payload Weight

does impact overall vehicle performance (by 10K

approximately 20-40 lb [9-18 kg]) and the (10,000,
5K (1000, 3500) 3500)
available payload dynamic envelope (by up to
4.0 in (10.16 cm) axially and approximately 1.0
2K (1850, (10,000,
in (2.54 cm) laterally). 3000) 3000)
1K
4.2. Payload Vibration Environment 500
SRS (G's)
The in-flight random vibration curve
shown in Figure 4-4 encompasses all flight vi- 200
bration environments. 100 (100, 55)
1e-1 50
(100, 51) Separating Shock
Breakpoints Non-Separating Shock
Frequency PSD 20
(Hz) (g2/Hz)
10
20 0.002 100 200 300 500 1K 2K 3K 5K 10K
60 0.004
300 0.004 Frequency (Hz) TM14025_052
PSD (g2/Hz)
800 0.012
1000 0.012
1e-2 2000 0.002 Figure 4-5. Maximum Shock Environment -
3.5344 gRMS
60 Sec Duration Launch Vehicle to Payload
1e+4
1e-3
10 100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz) TM14025_069 1e+3
PSD (g2/Hz)
Figure 4-4. Payload Random Vibration Breakpoints

Environment During Flight Natural
Frequency SRS (G)
1e+2 (Hz) Q=10
4.3. Payload Shock Environment
The maximum shock response spectrum 100 85
1000 3500
at the base of the payload from all launch ve- 1850 5000
hicle events will not exceed the flight limit 10,000 5000
levels in Figure 4-5 (separating shock). For 1e+1
missions that do not utilize an Orbital supplied 100 1000 10000
Frequency (Hz)
payload separation system, the shock re- TM14025_070
sponse spectrum at the base of the payload

Figure 4-6. Maximum Shock Enviroment -
from vehicle events will not exceed the lev-
Payload to Launch Vehicle
els in Figure 4-5 (non-separating shock).
4.4. Payload Acoustic Environment
If the payload employs a non-Orbital
The acoustic levels during lift-off and
separation system, then the shock delivered
to the Stage 4 vehicle interface must not ex- powered flight will not exceed the flight limit
ceed the limit level characterized in Figure levels shown in Figure 4-7. If the vehicle is
4-6. Shock above this level could require launched over a flame duct, the acoustic lev-
requalification of components or an accep- els can be expected to be lower than shown.
tance of risk by the payload customer. This has been demonstrated with flight data.

135 a. Design Limit Load — The maximum pre-

dicted ground-based, powered flight or
Sound Pressure Level (dB - re:2.9e-9psi)
130
on-orbit load, including all uncertainties.
b. Design Yield Load — The Design Limit
125
Load multiplied by the recommended
Yield Factor of Safety (YFS) indicated in
Figure 4-8. The payload structure must
120
have sufficient strength to withstand simul-
taneously the yield loads, applied tem-
115
perature, and other accompanying envi-
ronmental phenomena for each design
110
condition without experiencing detrimen-
tal yielding or permanent deformation.
105
10 100 1000 10000
c. Design Ultimate Load — The Design Limit
Frequency (Hz) Load multiplied by the recommended Ul-
Breakpoints Breakpoints Cont'd timate Factor of Safety (UFS) indicated in
Natural Natural Figure 4-8. The payload structure must
Frequency SPL (dB- Frequency SPL (dB-
(Hz) re:2.9e-9psi) (Hz) re:2.9e-9psi)
have sufficient strength to withstand simul-
20 113 500 128.6 taneously the ultimate loads, applied tem-
25 118 630 128 perature, and other accompanying envi-
32 123 800 126.3
40 123.8 1000 124.7
ronmental phenomena without experienc-
50 124.7 1250 123 ing any fracture or other failure mode of
63 125.5 1600 121.3 the structure.
80 126.3 2000 119.7
100 127.2 2500 118
125 128 3150 116.3 Design Factor of Safety
160 128.8 4000 114.7 Design and on Limit Loads
Test
200 129.7 5000 113 Test Options Yield Ultimate Level
250 130.5 6300 111.3 (YFS) (UFS)
315 129.9 8000 109.7
400 129.3 10,000 108 Dedicated Test Article 1.00 1.25 UFS
TM14025_071 Proto-Flight Article 1.25 1.50 1.25
Figure 4-7. Payload Acoustic Environment Proof Test Each

1.10 1.25 1.10
During Liftoff and Flight Flight Article
No Static Test 1.60 2.00 N/A

4.5. Payload Structural Integrity and Envi- TM14025_047
ronments Verification Figure 4-8. Factors of Safety Payload Design
The primary support structure for the and Test
spacecraft must possess sufficient strength, ri-
gidity, and other characteristics required to 4.5.1. Recommended Payload Testing and
survive the critical loading conditions that ex- Analysis
ist within the envelope of handling and mis- Sufficient payload testing and/or analysis
sion requirements, including worst case pre- must be performed to ensure the safety of
dicted ground, flight, and orbital loads. It must ground crews and to ensure mission success.
survive those conditions in a manner that as- The payload design should comply with the
sures safety and that does not reduce the mis- testing and design factors of safety in Figure
sion success probability. Spacecraft design 4-8. At a minimum, it is recommended that
loads are defined as follows: the following tests be performed:

a. Structural Integrity — Static loads, sine The payload organization must provide
vibration, or other tests should be per- Orbital with a list of the tests and test levels to
formed that combine to encompass the which the payload was subjected prior to pay-
acceleration load environment pre- load arrival at the integration facility.
sented in Section 4.1.
b. Random Vibration — The flight level 4.6. Thermal and Humidity Environments
environment is defined in Figure 4-4. The thermal and humidity environment
Recommended test levels are defined to which the payload may be exposed during
in Figure 4-4. vehicle processing and pad operations are de-
c. Acoustics — Depending on the pay- fined in the sections that follow and listed in
load configuration, the payload or- Figure 4-10.
ganization may elect to perform
acoustic testing on the payload, or 4.6.1. Ground Operations
sub-sections of the payload, in addi- The payload environment will be main-
tion to, or in-lieu of, random vibra- tained by the Ground or Pad Air Conditioning
tion testing. The acoustic levels are Systems (GACS or PACS). The GACS provides
defined in Figure 4-7. conditioned air to the payload in the Vehicle
Assembly Building (VAB) after fairing integra-
Test tion. The PACS is used at the launch pad after
Test Type Purpose Test Level vehicle stacking operations. Air Conditioning
Random Vibration: the Qualification Flight Limit Level + 6dB (AC) is not provided during transport or lifting
Flight Limit Level Is
Acceptance Flight Limit Level
operations without the enhanced option that
Characterized in
Figure 4-4 Protoflight Flight Limit Level + 3dB
includes High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA)
filtration. The conditioned air enters the fairing
Figure 4-9. Recommended Payload Testing at a location forward of the payload, exits aft of
Requirements the payload and is provided up to 5 minutes prior
Temp Range Purity Class

Event Control Humidity (%)
Deg C Deg F (Note 3)
Pre-Payload Fairing Installation
• Outside VAB Clean Tent 23 ±5 74 ±10 AC 45 ±15 None
• Inside VAB Clean Tent 23 ±5 74 ±10 Filtered AC 45 ±15 100 K (M6.5)
(Non Standard)
Post-Payload Fairing Installation PLF Inlet PLF Inlet

(GSE)
• VAB (GACS) 23 ±5 74 ±10 Filtered AC 45 ±15 100 K (M6.5)
• Transportation to Launch Pad Ambient Ambient Filtered Ambient <60 100 K (M6.5)
(Optional) (Note 4) (Note 4) (Note 1)
• Lifting Operations (Optional) Ambient Ambient Filtered AC Ambient Optional
PACS (Ground) PLF Inlet PLF Inlet Filtered AC (Note 2) 100 K (M6.5)
13 - 29 55 - 85 Filtered AC
Notes:
1. GSE AC Performance is Dependent Upon Ambient Conditions. Temperature Is Selectable and Controlled to Within ±4 ˚F
(±2 ˚C) of Set Point. Resultant Relative Humidity is Maintained to 45 ±15%.
2. PACS Performance is Dependent Upon Ambient Conditions (Dew Point). Temperature is Selectable and Controlled Within
±4 ˚F (±2 ˚C) of Set Point. Resultant Relative Humidity is Maintained to 45 ±15%.
3. Class 10K (M5.5) Can Be Provided Inside the VAB Clean Tent and at the Payload Fairing Air-Conditioning Inlet on a Mission
Specific Basis As a Non-Standard Service.
4. Temperature Control During Transport and Lifting Ops Available as a Non-Standard Service.
Figure 4-10. Payload Thermal and Humidity Environments

to launch. Baffles are provided at the air condi- of the payload. As a non-standard service, a low
tioning inlet to reduce impingement velocities emissivity coating can be applied to reduce
on the payload if required. emissivity to less than 0.1. Interior surfaces aft
of the payload interface will be maintained at
Fairing inlet conditions are selected by the less than 250 °F (121 °C). Figure 4-11 shows
customer, and are bounded as follows: the worst case transient temperature profile of
• Dry Bulb Temperature: 55-85 °F the inner fairing surface adjacent to the pay-
(13-29 °C) controllable to ±4 °F (±2 °C) load during powered flight.
of setpoint;
• Dew Point Temperature: 38-62 °F This temperature limit envelopes the
(3-17 °C) maximum temperature of any component inside
• Relative Humidity: determined by drybulb the payload fairing with a view factor to the
and dewpoint temperature selections and payload with the exception of the Stage 4 mo-
generally controlled to within ±15%. tor. The maximum Stage 4 motor surface tem-
Relative humidity is bound by the psy- perature exposed to the payload will not ex-
chrometric chart and will be controlled ceed 350 °F (177 °C), assuming no shielding be-
such that the dew point within the fairing tween the aft end of the payload and the for-
is never reached. ward dome of the motor assembly. Whether this
temperature is attained prior to payload separa-
4.6.2. Powered Flight tion is dependent upon mission timeline.
The maximum fairing inside wall tem-
perature will be maintained at less than 200 °F The fairing peak vent rate is typically less
(93 °C), with an emissivity of 0.92 in the region than 0.6 psi/sec. Fairing deployment will be
180
350
140 300
Temperature (˚C)
Temperature (˚F)
250
100
200
60 150
100
20
50
0
-20
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Flight Time (Sec)
• Data Analytically Derived (Using Flight-Verified Models)
• Worst Case Heating Profile (Hot Trajectory)
• Fairing Inner Surface Temperature in Payload Region TM14025_053a
Figure 4-11. Minotaur Worst-Case Payload Fairing Inner Surface Temperatures

During Ascent (Payload Region)

initiated at a time in flight that the maximum load processing activities up to fairing encap-
dynamic pressure is less than 0.01 psf. sulation. The soft walled clean room and
anteroom(s) utilize HEPA filter units to filter the
4.6.3. Nitrogen Purge (non-standard service) air and hydrocarbon content is maintained at 15
If required for spot cooling of a payload ppm or less. The payload organization is respon-
component, Orbital will provide GN2 flow to sible for providing the necessary clean room gar-
localized regions in the fairing as a non-standard ments for payload staff as well as vehicle staff
service. The GN2 will meet Grade B specifica- that need to work inside the clean room.
tions, as defined in MIL-P-27401C and can be
regulated to at least 5 scfm. The GN2 is on/off The inner surface of the entire surface of
controllable in the launch equipment vault and the fairing and payload cone assemblies can
in the launch control room. be cleaned to cleanliness criteria which ensures
no particulate matter visible with normal vision
The system’s regulators are set to a desired when inspected from 6 to 18 inches under 100
flow rate during prelaunch processing. The sys- ft-candle incident light. The same will be true
tem cannot be adjusted after the launch pad has when the surface is illuminated using black light,
been cleared of personnel. 3200 to 3800 Angstroms (Visibly Clean Plus Ul-
traviolet). In addition, Orbital can ensure that
Payload purge requirements must be co- all materials used within the encapsulated vol-
ordinated with Orbital via the ICD to ensure that ume have outgassing characteristics of less than
the requirements can be achieved. 1.0% TML and less than 0.1% CVCM. Items
that don’t meet these levels can be masked to
4.7. Payload Contamination Control ensure they are encapsulated and will have no
The Minotaur vehicle, all payload integra- significant effect on the payload.
tion procedures, and Orbital’s contamination
control program have been designed to minimize With the enhanced contamination control
the payload’s exposure to contamination from option, Orbital provides an Environmental Con-
the time the payload arrives at the payload pro- trol System (ECS) from payload encapsulation
cessing facility through orbit insertion and sepa- through vehicle lift-off. The ECS continuously
ration. The Vehicle Assembly Building is main- purges the fairing volume with clean filtered air.
tained as a visibly clean, temperature and hu- Orbital’s ECS incorporates a HEPA filter unit to
midity controlled work area at all times. The provide FED-STD-209 Class M5.5 (10,000) air.
Minotaur assemblies that affect cleanliness within Orbital monitors the supply air for particulate
the encapsulated payload volume include the matter via a probe installed upstream of the fair-
fairing, and the payload cone assembly. These ing inlet duct prior to connecting the air source
assemblies are cleaned such that there is no par- to the payload fairing.
ticulate or non-particulate matter visible to the
normal unaided eye when inspected from 2 to 4 Minotaur contamination control is based
feet under 50 ft-candle incident light (Visibly on industry standard contamination reference
Clean Level II). If required, the payload can be documents, including the following:
provided with enhanced contamination control MIL-STD-1246C, “Product Cleanliness Levels
as a non-standard service. and Contamination Control Program”
FED-STD-209E, “Airborne Particulate Cleanliness
With enhanced contamination control, a Classes in Cleanrooms and Clean Zones.”
soft walled clean room can be provided to en-
sure a FED-STD-209 Class M6.5 (100,000) or 4.8. Payload Electromagnetic Environment
Class M5.5 (10,000) environment during all pay- The payload Electromagnetic Environment

(EME) results from two categories of emitters: 1) cific EME experienced by the payload during
Minotaur onboard antennas and 2) Range ra- ground processing at the VAB and the launch
dar. All power, control and signal lines inside site will depend somewhat on the specific
the payload fairing are shielded and properly facilities that are utilized as well as opera-
terminated to minimize the potential for Elec- tional details. However, typically the field
tromagnetic Interference (EMI). The Minotaur strengths experienced by the payload during
payload fairing is Radio Frequency (RF) ground processing with the fairing in place
opaque, which shields the payload from ex- are controlled procedurally and will be less
ternal RF signals while the payload is encap- than 2 V/m from continuous sources and less
sulated. Based on analysis and supported by than 10 V/m from pulse sources. The highest
test, the fairing provides 20 db attenuation be- EME during powered flight is created by the
tween 1 and 10000 MHz. C-Band transponder transmission which re-
sults in peak levels at the payload interface
Figure 4-12 lists the frequencies and plane of 28 V/m at 5765 MHz. Range trans-
maximum radiated signal levels from vehicle mitters are typically controlled to provide a
antennas that are located near the payload field strength of 10 V/m or less. This EME
during ground operations and powered flight. should be compared to the payload’s RF sus-
Antennas located inside the fairing are inac- ceptibility levels (MIL-STD-461, RS03) to de-
tive until after fairing deployment. The spe- fine margin.
SOURCE 1 2 3 4 5
Function Command Tracking Tracking Launch Instrumentation
Destruct Transponder Transponder Vehicle on Telemetry
(Optional)
Receive/Xmit Receive Transmit Receive Transmit Transmit
Band UHF C-Band C-Band S-Band S-Band
Frequency 416.5 or 5765 5690 2288.5 2269.5
(MHz) 425.0
Bandwidth N/A N/A
Power Output N/A 400 W (peak) N/A 10 W 10 W
Sensitivity -107 dB -70 dB
Modulation Tone Pulse Code Pulse Code PCM/FM PCM/FM
TM14025_072
Figure 4-12. Minotaur Launch Vehicle RF Emitters and Receivers

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 5.0 - Payload Interfaces
5. PAYLOAD INTERFACES evaluate payload dynamic deflection with the

This section describes the available me- Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA). The payload con-
chanical, electrical and Launch Support Equip- tractor should assume that the interface plane is
ment (LSE) interfaces between the Minotaur rigid; Orbital has accounted for deflections of the
launch vehicle and the payload. interface plane. The CLA will provide final veri-
fication that the payload does not violate the dy-
5.1. Payload Fairing namic envelope.
The standard payload fairing consists of
two graphite composite halves, with a nosecap 5.1.2. Payload Access Door
bonded to one of the halves, and a separation Orbital provides one 8.5 in. x 13.0 in.
system. Each composite half is composed of a (21.6 cm x 33.0 cm), graphite, RF-opaque pay-
cylinder and an ogive section. The two halves load fairing access door. The door can be posi-
are held together by two titanium straps, both of tioned according to user requirements within the
which wrap around the cylinder section, one near zone defined in Figure 5-2. The position of the
its midpoint and one just aft of the ogive section. payload fairing access door must be defined no
Additionally, an internal retention bolt secures later than L-8 months. Additional access doors
the two fairing halves together at the surface can be provided as a non-standard service.
where the nosecap overlaps the top surface of
the other fairing half. The base of the fairing is
5.1.3. Increased Volume Payload Fairing
separated using a frangible joint. Severing the
An increased volume payload fairing is
frangible joint allows each half of the fairing to
currently in development for the Minotaur ve-
then rotate on hinges mounted on the Stage 3
hicle. This larger fairing is discussed in more
side of the interface. A contained hot gas gen-
detail in Section 8.1.4.
eration system is used to drive pistons that force
the fairing halves open. All fairing deployment
5.2. Payload Mechanical Interface and Sepa-
systems are non-contaminating.
ration System
Minotaur provides for a standard non-
5.1.1. Payload Dynamic Design Envelope
The fairing drawing in Figures 5-1 show separating payload interface and several optional
the maximum dynamic envelopes available for Orbital-provided payload separation systems.
the payload during powered flight. The dynamic Orbital will provide all flight hardware and inte-
envelopes shown account for fairing and vehicle gration services necessary to attach non-separat-
structural deflections only. The payload contrac- ing and separating payloads to Minotaur. Ground
tor must take into account deflections due to handling equipment is typically the responsibil-
spacecraft design and manufacturing tolerance ity of the payload contractor. All attachment
stack-up within the dynamic envelope. Proposed hardware, whether Orbital or customer provided,
payload dynamic envelope violations must be must contain locking features consisting of lock-
approved by OSP via the ICD. ing nuts, inserts or fasteners.
No part of the payload may extend aft of 5.2.1. Standard Non-Separating Mechanical In-
the payload interface plane without specific OSP terface
approval. These areas are considered stayout Figure 5-3 illustrates the standard, non-
zones for the payload and are shown in Figure separating payload mechanical interface. This
5-1. Incursions to these zones may be approved is for payloads that provide their own separation
on a case-by-case basis after additional verifica- system and payloads that will not separate. Di-
tion that the incursions do not cause any detri- rect attachment of the payload is made on the
mental effects. Vertices for payload deflection Avionics Structure with sixty #10 fasteners as
must be given with the Finite Element Model to shown in Figure 5-3.

0° Pyrotechnic Event
Harness
Connector
Pigtails
Legend:
to Payload Stayout Zone
Clamp/Separation Payload
System Components Stayout Zones
77.7
φ
30.6
Forward View
90° 270° Looking Aft
Payload Interface
Connector
180°
78.7 Payload
φ 38 Inches (97 cm) Payload 31.0 Dynamic
Separation System Envelope
Stayout Zone
Notes:
(1) Fairing Door Location Is
Flexible Within a Specific Fairing
Region. (Figure 5-2). R 270.5
(2) Payload Must Request Any 106.5
Envelope Aft of Payload
Interface Plane. Ogive Mate
(3) If Payload Falls within ACS Line
Controllability Dead Band
They Must Honor ACS
212.9
Stayout Zone.
83.8
(4) If the Payload Requires
Nitrogen Cooling, then the
Payload Envelope Will be
Locally Reduced by 1 Inch
Along the Cooling Tube
Routing. 110.0
43.3
119.4
Payload Interface Plane φ
for Payload Separation 10.0 47.0
ACS Stayout
System 4.0
Zone
Payload Interface Plane

for Non-Separating Payloads 2.5
1.0
38 in (97 cm) Avionics Structure 100.3

φ
22 in (56 cm) Long 39.5
+X
+Z
Dimensions in cm
in Side View TM14025_036
Figure 5-1. Payload Fairing Dynamic Envelope With 38 in (97 cm) Diameter Payload Interface

Notes:
38" Payload 23" Payload
Interface Place Interface Place Minotaur Coordinates
Minotaur Station X* Minotaur Station X*
+X
(cm/in) (cm/in)
Separable 1661.4/654.1 1685.5/663.6
Non-Separable 1651.5/650.2 1677.9/660.6
(1) Entire Access Hole Must Be Within Specified Range. +Z
(2) One 8.5 in x 13.0 in (21.6 cm x 33.0 cm) Door per
Mission Is Standard.
(3) Edge of Door Cannot Be Within 5 in (13 cm) of
Fairing Joints.
*Without a Soft Ride Load Isolation System
Station X
+1,749.3
+688.7
Access
Door Zone
Station X
+1,669.8
+657.4
13 Arc
5 Length
13
Arc Length
5
Applies on Either
Side of Fairing Joints at
0° and 180°
cm
Dimensions in
in TM14025_037
Figure 5-2. Payload Fairing Access Door Placement Zone

22.9
9.0
Payload Harness
10.3
4.1
Minotaur
Stage 4
Harness
45° Forward
+X
Harness Access Hole

5.7 ±0.09
φ
2.3 ±0.04
Forward Interface of φ 38 in (97 cm),
VIEW A-A 56 cm (22 in) Long Avionics Structure
Bolt Circle Consists of Rotated 90° CCW Applies at 45° (Pyrotechnic Event) and
0.20 in (60 0.51 cm) 225° (Payload Interface)
Holes Equally Spaced, 98.6
Starting at 0° φ
0° 38.8
A Bolt Circle
A
45°
Pyrotechnic Event
Connector
21.25 19.95
2X 2X Minotaur
Coordinates
90° 270° +Y
1.90
+Z
Payload
Stayout
Zone
119.4
φ
47.0
Fairing Dynamic Envelope
225°
Payload Interface Connector
180°
Forward View
cm Looking Aft
Dimensions in in TM14025_038
Figure 5-3. Non-Separable Payload Mechanical Interface

5.2.2. Separating Mechanical Interface trical interface supports battery charging, ex-
Three flight qualified optional separation ternal power, discrete commands, discrete te-
systems are available, depending on payload lemetry, analog telemetry, serial communica-
interface and size. The 38 in (97 cm) separable tion, payload separation indications, and up to
payload interface is shown in Figure 5-4; the four redundant ordnance events. If an optional
23 in (59 cm) separable payload interface is Orbital-provided separation system is utilized,
shown in Figure 5-5; the 17 in (43 cm) sepa- Orbital will provide all the wiring through the
rable payload interface is shown in Figure 5-6. separable interface plane, as illustrated in Fig-
Each of these three systems are based on a ure 5-8 and Figure B-1 of Appendix B. If the
Marmon band design.
option is not exercised the customer will be re-
sponsible to provide the wiring from the space-
The separation ring to which the payload
craft to the separation plane.
attaches is supplied with through holes and the
separation system is mated to the spacecraft dur-
ing processing at the VAB. The weight of hard- 5.3.1. Payload Umbilical Interfaces
ware separated with the payload is approxi- Orbital can provide a maximum of 60
mately 8.7 lbm (4.0 kg) for the 38 in (97 cm) wires from the ground to the spacecraft via a
system, 6.0 lbm (2.7 kg) for the 23 in (59 cm)
dedicated payload umbilical within the vehicle.
system, and 4.7 lbm (2.1 kg) for the 17 in (43
This internal umbilical is approximately 25 ft in
cm) system. Orbital-provided attachment bolts
length. This umbilical is a dedicated pass through
to this interface can be inserted from either the
launch vehicle or the payload side of the inter- harness, which allows the payload command,
face (NAS630xU, dash number based on pay- control, monitor, and power to be easily con-
load flange thickness). The weight of the bolts, figured for user requirements. The closest prox-
nuts, and washers connecting the separation imity for locating customer supplied payload
system to the payload is allocated to the sepa- GSE equipment is the LEV (Launch Equipment
ration system and included in the launch ve- Vault). The cabling from the LEV to the launch
hicle mass. vehicle is approximately 350 ft.
At the time of separation, the payload is 5.3.2. Payload Battery Charging

ejected by matched push-off springs with suffi- Orbital provides the capability for remote
cient energy to produce the relative separation controlled charging of payload batteries, using
velocities shown in Figure 5-7. If non-standard a customer provided battery charger. This
separation velocities are needed, different power is routed through the payload umbilical
springs may be substituted on a mission-specific cable. Up to 4.0 Amps per wire pair can be
basis as a non-standard service.
accommodated. The payload battery charger
should be sized to withstand the line loss from
5.2.3. Orbital Supplied Drill Templates
the LEV to the spacecraft.
Orbital will provide a matched drill tem-
plate to the payload contractor to allow accu-
rate machining of the fastener holes. The Or- 5.3.3. Payload Command and Control
bital provided drill template is the only approved Discrete sequencing commands gener-
fixture for drilling the payload interface. The ated by the launch vehicle’s flight computer are
payload contractor will need to send a contracts available to the payload as closed circuit opto-
letter requesting use once they have determined isolator pulses in lengths of 40 ms multiples. The
their need dates. current at the payload interface must be less
than 10 mA. The payload must supply the volt-
5.3. Payload Electrical Interfaces age source and current limiting resistance to
The existing design for the payload elec- complete this circuit.

Minotaur
Coordinates Bolt Cutters (2)
(Redundant)
+Y
0˚
+Z Payload Interface
Payload Pyro
Connector
90 ˚ 270˚
Bolt Circle Consists of

0.19 in (60 0.48 cm) Payload
Holes Equally Spaced, Push-Off
Starting at 0˚ Springs (4 Places)
Payload Umbilical Connector
180˚
Forward View Looking Aft
4.0 kg (8.7 lbm) Remains with

Payload (Includes Harness)
5.0 10.0
2.0 4.0
98.58
φ Bolt Circle
38.81 Payload Interface
Separation Plane
Plane
Payload Separation
Clamp Band
+X
Avionics Structure
+Y
Side View
cm
Dimensions in
in
TM14025_039
Figure 5-4. 38 in (97 cm) Separable Payload Interface

Payload Interface Payload Pyro Connector
0°
Payload Push-Off
Springs (4 Places)
Clamp Band
Minotaur
Bolt Cutters (2) Coordinates
(Redundant)
+Y
90° 270°
+Z
Adpater Cone
0.25 in (32 0.64 cm)
Holes Equally Spaced,
180° Starting at 0°
Payload Umbilical
Connector
3.75 7.49
2.7 Kg (6.00 lbm) 1.48 2.95
Remains with Payload
φ 59.06 Bolt Circle
(Includes Harness) 23.25
Payload Attachment
Separation Plane
Plane
Bolt Cutters (2)

(Redundant)
Adapter Cone Payload Separation Clamp Band
+X cm
Side View Dimensions in
in
+Y
TM14025_040

0°
Bolt Cutters (2)

(Redundant)
Clamp Band
0.25 in (24 0.64 cm)
Holes Equally Spaced, Payload Push-Off
Starting at 0º Springs (12 Places)
90° 270°
Minotaur
Coordinates
+Y
+Z
Adapter
Cone
180°
4.7 lbm (2.1 Kg) 43.2

Remains with Payload
3.75 φ
1.48 17.0 7.49
Bolt Circle 2.95
Payload Attachment Plane
Separation
Plane
Payload Separation
Bolt Cutters (2)
Clamp Band
(Redundant)
Adapter Cone
+X
cm
Side View from 0˚ Dimensions in
+Y in
TM14025_041

1.75
38 in (97 cm) Interface 5.00

1.5
23 in (59 cm) Interface
Separation Velocity (m/sec)
Separation Velocity (ft/sec)

17 in (43 cm) Interface
1.25 4.00
1.00
3.00
.75
2.00
.5
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 kg
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 lbm

Payload Weight
TM14025_042
Figure 5-7. Payload Separation Velocities Using the Standard Separation System
Launch Vehicle Payload Spacecraft

Interface
Plane
Plug Shell
Receptacle Shell Separation Plane
S Socket Contacts Harness
Recommend
P Pin Contacts Length
Hard Mount
Specified by
Payload Mate #2
Performed
at VAB
P S
Plug with S P
Pin Contacts
Receptacle with
Mate #1 Performed Can Be Supplied
Socket Contacts
at Orbital During to Payload
Note: Sep System and Pigtails Delivered Separation System
to VAB as a Unit Assembly
TM14025_043
Figure 5-8. Vehicle/Spacecraft Electrical Connectors and Associated Electrical Harnesses

5.3.4. Pyrotechnic Initiation Signals centerline for the standard configuration (within
Orbital provides the capability to directly the accuracy listed in Figure 5-9). Payloads
initiate 16 separate pyrotechnic conductors whose c.g. extend beyond the 1.5 in. lateral
through two dedicated Ordnance Driver Mod- offset limit will require Orbital to verify the spe-
ules (ODM). The ODM provides a 10 A, 100 cific offsets that can be accommodated.
ms, current limited pulse into a 1 ±0.1 W initia-
tion device. Measurement Accuracy
Mass ±1 lbm (±0.5 kg)
5.3.5. Payload Telemetry
Standard Minotaur service provides a Principal Moments of Inertia ±5%
number of dedicated payload discrete (bi-level)
and analog telemetry monitors through dedi- Cross Products of Inertia ±0.5 sl - ft2(±0.7 kg - m2)
cated channels in the vehicle encoder. For dis-
Center of Gravity X, Y and Z Axes ±6.4 mm (±0.25 in)
crete monitors, the payload customer must pro-
TM14025_045
vide the 5 Vdc source and the return path. The
current at the payload interface must be less Figure 5-9. Payload Mass Properties
than 10 mA. Separation breakwire monitors can Measurement Tolerance
be specified if required. The number of analog
channels available for payload telemetry moni- 5.4.2. Final Mass Properties Accuracy
toring is dependent on the frequency of the data. The final mass properties statement must
Payload telemetry requirements and signal specify payload weight to an accuracy of at
characteristics will be specified in the Payload least 1 lbm (0.5 kg), the center of gravity to an
ICD and should not change once the final te- accuracy of at least 0.25 in (6.4 mm) in each
lemetry format is released at approximately L- axis, and the products of inertia to an accuracy
6 months. of at least 0.5 slug-ft2 (0.7 kg-m2). In addition, if
the payload uses liquid propellant, the slosh fre-
5.3.6. Non Standard Electrical Interfaces quency must be provided to an accuracy of 0.2
Non-standard services such as serial Hz, along with a summary of the method used
command and telemetry interfaces can be ne- to determine slosh frequency.
gotiated between OSP and the payload contrac-
tor on a mission-by-mission basis. 5.4.3. Pre-Launch Electrical Constraints
Prior to launch, all payload electrical in-
5.3.7. Electrical Launch Support Equipment terface circuits are constrained to ensure there is
Orbital will provide space for a rack of no current flow greater than 10 mA across the
customer supplied EGSE in the LCR, or either of payload electrical interface plane. The primary
the on-pad equipment vaults. The equipment
support structure of the spacecraft shall be elec-
will interface with the launch vehicle/space-
trically conductive to establish a single point elec-
craft through either the dedicated payload um-
trical ground.
bilical interface or directly through the payload
access door. The payload customer is respon-
sible for providing cabling from the EGSE loca- 5.4.4. Payload EMI/EMC Constraints
tion to the launch vehicle/spacecraft. The Minotaur avionics share the payload
area inside the fairing such that radiated emis-
5.4. Payload Design Constraints sions compatibility is paramount. OSP places
The following sections provide design no firm radiated emissions limits on the payload
constraints to ensure payload compatibility with other than the prohibition against RF transmis-
the Minotaur system. sions within the payload fairing. Prior to launch,
Orbital requires review of the payload radiated
5.4.1. Payload Center of Mass Constraints emission levels (MIL-STD-461, RE02) to verify
Along the Y and Z axes, the payload c.g. overall launch vehicle EMI safety margin (emis-
must be within 1.5 in (3.8 cm) of the vehicle sion) in accordance with MIL-E-6051. Payload

RF transmissions are not permitted after fairing for Minotaur payloads. These are compliance
mate and prior to an ICD specified time after documents and must be strictly followed. It is
separation of the payload. An EMI/EMC analy- the responsibility of the customer to ensure that
sis may be required to ensure RF compatibility. the payload meets all OSP, Orbital, and range
imposed safety standards.
Payload RF transmission frequencies must
be coordinated with Orbital and range officials Customers designing payloads that employ
to ensure non-interference with Minotaur and hazardous subsystems are advised to contact OSP
range transmissions. Additionally, the customer early in the design process to verify compliance
must schedule all RF tests at the integration site with system safety standards.
with Orbital in order to obtain proper range clear-
ances and protection.
5.4.5. Payload Dynamic Frequencies

To avoid dynamic coupling of the payload
modes with the natural frequency of the vehicle,
the spacecraft should be designed with a struc-
tural stiffness to ensure that the lateral fundamen-
tal frequency of the spacecraft, fixed at the space-
craft interface is typically greater than 12 Hz.
However, this value is effected significantly by
other factors such as incorporation of a space-
craft isolation system and/or separation system.
Therefore, the final determination of compatibil-
ity must be made on a mission-specific basis.
5.4.6. Payload Propellent Slosh

A slosh model should be provided to Or-
bital in either the pendulum or spring-mass for-
mat. Data on first sloshing mode are required
and data on higher order modes are desirable.
The slosh model should be provided with the
payload finite element model submittals.
5.4.7. Payload-Supplied Separation Systems

If the payload employs a non-Orbital sepa-
ration system, then the shock delivered to the
Stage 4 vehicle interface must not exceed the limit
level characterized in Section 4.3 (Figure 4-6).
As stated in that section, shock above this level
could require a requalification of components or
an acceptance of risk by the payload customer.
5.4.8. System Safety Constraints

OSP considers the safety of personnel
and equipment to be of paramount importance.
EWR 127-1 outlines the safety design criteria

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 6.0 - Mission Integration
6. MISSION INTEGRATION ordinate all mission planning and contracting

activities. SMC Det 12/RP is supported by TRW
6.1. Mission Management Approach and other associate contractors for technical and
The Minotaur program is managed logistical support, particularly utilizing their ex-
through the US Air Force, Space and Missile Sys- tensive expertise and background knowledge of
tems Center, Rocket Systems Launch Program the Minuteman booster and subsystems.
(SMC Det 12/RP). SMC Det 12/RP serves as the
primary point of contact for the payload custom- 6.1.2. Orbital Mission Responsibilities
ers for the Minotaur launch service. A typical As the launch vehicle provider, Orbital’s
integrated OSP organizational structure is shown responsibilities fall into four primary areas:
in Figure 6-1. Open communication between a. Launch Vehicle Program Management
SMC Det 12/RP, Orbital, and the customer, em- b. Mission Management
phasizing timely transfer of data and prudent c. Engineering
decision-making, ensures efficient launch ve- d. Launch Site Operations
hicle/payload integration operations.
Orbital assigns a Mission Manager to man-
6.1.1. SMC Det 12/RP Mission Reponsibilities age the launch vehicle technical and program-
The program office for all OSP missions is matic interfaces for a particular mission. The Or-
the SMC Det 12/RP. They are the primary Point bital Mission Manager is the single POC for all
of Contact (POC) for all contractual and techni- aspects of a specific mission. This person has
cal coordination. SMC Det 12/RP contracts with overall program authority and responsibility to
Orbital to provide the Launch Vehicle and sepa- ensure that payload requirements are met and
rately with commercial Spaceports and/or Gov- that the appropriate launch vehicle services are
ernment Launch Ranges for launch site facilities provided. The Orbital Mission Manager will
and services. Once a mission is identified, SMC jointly chair the Mission Integration Working
Det 12/RP will assign a Mission Manager to co- Groups (MIWGs) with the SMC Det 12/RP Mis-
SMC Det 12/RP

Rocket Systems Launch
Program (RSLP) Office
Orbital Sciences Corp SMC Det 9 TRW

OSP Prime Contractor RSLP VAFB Support RSLP SETA Support
• Vehicle Development • Range Interface • Technical Support

• Mission and Payload • Facility Control • Independent Analysis
Integration • Launch Support • MM Expertise
• Launch Operations
Ogden ALC Spaceports and

MM Motor Processing Government Ranges
• MM Motor Processing • Launch Facilities

• Logistics • Range Instrumentation
• X-Rays • Flight Safety TM14025_073
Figure 6-1. OSP Management Structure

sion Manager. The Mission Managers respon- d. Range interface, safety, and flight
sibilities include detailed mission planning, pay- operations activities, document ex-
load integration services, systems engineering, changes, meetings and reviews.
mission-peculiar design and analyses coordina-
tion, payload interface definition, launch range Figure 6-2 details the typical Mission Cycle
coordination, integrated scheduling, launch site for a specific launch and how this cycle folds
processing, and flight operations. into the Orbital vehicle production schedule with
typical payload activities and milestones. A typi-
6.2. Mission Planning and Development cal Mission Cycle is based on a 18 month inter-
OSP will assist the customer with mission val between mission authorization and launch.
planning and development associated with This interval reflects the OSP contractual sched-
Minotaur launch vehicle systems. These services
ule and has been shown to be an efficient sched-
include interface design and configuration con-
ule based on Orbital’s Taurus and Pegasus pro-
trol, development of integration processes,
gram experience. However, OSP is flexible to
launch vehicle analyses, facilities planning,
negotiate either accelerated cycles, which take
launch campaign planning to include range ser-
vices and special operations, and integrated advantage of the Minotaur/Pegasus multi-cus-
schedules. tomer production sets, or extended cycles re-
quired by unusual payload requirements, such
The procurement, analysis, integration and as extensive analysis or complex payload-launch
test activities required to place a customer’s pay- vehicle integrated designs or tests or funding limi-
load into orbit are typically conducted over a 20 tations.
month long standard sequence of events called
the Mission Cycle. This cycle normally begins 6.3. Mission Integration Process
18 months before launch, and extends to eight
weeks after launch.
6.3.1 Integration Meetings
Once contract authority to proceed is re- The core of the mission integration pro-
ceived, the Mission Cycle is initiated. The con- cess consists of a series of Mission Integration
tract option designates the payload, launch date, and Range Working Groups (MIWG and RWG,
and basic mission parameters. In response, the respectively). The MIWG has responsibility for
Minotaur Program Manager designates an Or- all physical interfaces between the payload and
bital Mission Manager who ensures that the the launch vehicle. As such, the MIWG creates
launch service is supplied efficiently, reliably, and implements the Payload-to-Minotaur ICD in
and on-schedule. addition to all mission-unique analyses, hard-
ware, software, and integrated procedures. The
The typical Mission Cycle interweaves the RWG is responsible for the areas of launch site
following activities: operations; range interfaces; safety review and
a. Mission management, document ex- approval; and flight design, trajectory, and guid-
changes, meetings, and formal re- ance. Documentation produced by the RWG
views required to coordinate and includes all required range and safety submit-
manage the launch service. tals.
b. Mission analyses and payload inte-
gration, document exchanges, and Working Group membership consists of
meetings. the Mission Manager and representatives from
c. Design, review, procurement, testing Minotaur engineering and operations organiza-
and integration of all mission-pecu- tions, as well as their counterparts from the cus-
liar hardware and software. tomer organization. While the number of meet-

Release 1.0
Minotaur Payload User's Guide

Task Name M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M13 M14 M15 M16 M17 M18 M19 M20 M21
MISSION INTEGRATION
Mission Integration Working Groups/ Operations Working Groups
ATP ATP
MISSION KICK-OFF
LAUNCH SITE SELECTION
MISSION DESIGN REVIEWS MDR-1 MDR-2 MRR LRR
ILC ILC
PAYLOAD MILESTONES AND DOCUMENTS

MILESTONES (TYPICAL) PDR CDR P/L TO VAB
P/L DRAWINGS PRELIM FINAL
P/L FINITE ELEMENT MODEL PRELIM FINAL
P/L MASS PROPERTIES PRELIM UPDATE FINAL (MEASURED)
INTEGRATION DOCUMENTATION TEST PLAN INTEGRATION PROCEDURES
P/L ICD VERIFICATION
MISSION DESIGN AND ENGINEERING

PAYLOAD ICD PRELIM FINAL
COUPLED LOADS ANALYSIS PRELIM FINAL
March 2002
MASS PROPS REPORT PRELIM REV FINAL PRE-LAUNCH

TARGETING RPT PRELIM FINAL
QUICK LOOK POST-FLIGHT REPORT QUICK-LOOK
FINAL POST FLIGHT REPORT FINAL
SAFETY PROCESS
MSPSP (Payload Annex) PRELIM FINAL
Section 6.0 - Mission Integration

P/L HAZARDOUS PROCEDURES PRELIM FINAL
RANGE SAFETY TRAJECTORY PRELIM FINAL
RANGE DOCUMENTATION (UDS)

PI/SOC (AS REQ'D) PI SOC
PRD/PSP(AS REQ'D) PRD PSP
PL PRD Annex PL PRD Annex
OR/OD OR OD
MISSION CONSTRAINTS/COUNTDOWN PRELIM FINAL
LAUNCH VEHICLE MANUFACTURE

PROCURE & FAB COMPONENTS
INTEGRATION & TEST
FIELD OPERATIONS
PAYLOAD INTEGRATION
LAUNCH OPERATIONS
TM14025_074
6-3
Figure 6-2. Typical Minotaur Mission Integration Schedule

ings, both formal and informal, required to de- which include—but are not limited to—the vari-
velop and implement the mission integration pro- ous Range support agencies and U.S. Govern-
cess will vary with the complexity of the space- ment agencies such as the U.S. Department of
craft, quarterly meetings are typical. Transportation and U.S. State Department. Cus-
tomer-provided documents represent the formal
communication of requirements, safety data, sys-
6.3.2. Mission Design Reviews (MDR) tem descriptions, and mission operations plan-
Two mission-specific design reviews will ning. The major products and submittal times
be held to determine the status and adequacy of associated with these organizations are divided
the launch vehicle mission preparations. They into two areas—those products that are provided
are designated MDR-1 and MDR-2 and are typi- by the customer, and those produced by Or-
cally held 6 months and 13 months, respectively, bital.
after authority to proceed. They are each analo-
gous to Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs) and
Critical Design Reviews (CDRs), but focus pri- 6.4.1. Customer-Provided Documentation
marily on mission-specific elements of the launch Documentation produced by the cus-
vehicle effort. tomer is detailed in the following paragraphs.
6.3.3. Readiness Reviews 6.4.1.1. Payload Questionnaire

During the integration process, reviews are The Payload Questionnaire is designed
held to provide the coordination of mission par- to provide the initial definition of payload re-
ticipants and management outside of the regular quirements, interface details, launch site facili-
contact of the Working Groups. Due to the vari- ties, and preliminary safety data to OSP. The
ability in complexity of different payloads and customer shall provide a response to the Pay-
missions, the content and number of these re- load Questionnaire form (Appendix A), or pro-
views can be tailored to customer requirements. vide the same information in a different format,
As a baseline, Orbital will conduct two readi- in time to support the Mission Kickoff Meeting.
ness reviews as described below. The customer’s responses to the payload ques-
tionnaire define the most current payload re-
Mission Readiness Review — Conducted quirements and interfaces and are instrumental
within one month of launch, the Mission Readi- in Orbital’s preparation of numerous documents
ness Review (MRR) provides a pre-launch assess- including the ICD, Preliminary Mission Analy-
ment of integrated launch vehicle/payload/facil- sis, and launch range documentation. Addi-
ity readiness prior to committing significant re- tional pertinent information, as well as prelimi-
sources to the launch campaign. nary payload drawings, should also be included
with the response. Orbital understands that a
Launch Readiness Review — The Launch definitive response to some questions may not
Readiness Review (LRR) is conducted at L-1 day be feasible. These items are defined during the
and serves as the final assessment of mission normal mission integration process.
readiness prior to activation of range resources
on the day of launch.
6.4.1.2. Payload Mass Properties
Payload mass properties must be pro-
6.4. Documentation vided in a timely manner in order to support
Integration of the payload requires de- efficient launch vehicle trajectory development
tailed, complete, and timely preparation and sub- and dynamic analyses. Preliminary mass prop-
mittal of interface documentation. As the launch erties should be submitted as part of the MRD
service provider, SMC Det 12/RP is the primary at launch vehicle authority to proceed. Up-
communication path with support agencies, dated mass properties shall be provided at pre-

defined intervals identified during the initial launches from other Ranges, a Range-specific
mission integration process. Typical timing of PRD will be created. This document describes
these deliveries is included in Figure 6-2. requirements needed to generally support the
Minotaur launch vehicle. For each launch, an
annex is submitted to specify the range support
6.4.1.3. Payload Finite Element Model
needed to meet the mission’s requirements. This
A payload mathematical model is required
annex includes all payload requirements as well
for use in Orbital’s preliminary coupled loads
as any additional Minotaur requirements that may
analyses. Acceptable forms include either a
arise to support a particular mission. The cus-
Craig-Bampton model valid to 120 Hz or a
tomer completes all appropriate PRD forms for
NASTRAN finite element model. For the final
submittal to Orbital.
coupled loads analysis, a test verified mathemati-
cal model is desired.
6.4.1.6.1. Launch Operations Requirements
(OR) Inputs
6.4.1.4. Payload Thermal Model for Inte-
To obtain range support for the launch op-
grated Thermal Analysis
eration and associated rehearsals, an OR must
An integrated thermal analysis can be per-
be prepared. The customer must provide all pay-
formed for any payload as a non-standard ser-
load pre-launch and launch day requirements for
vice. A payload thermal model will be required
incorporation into the mission OR.
from the payload organization for use in Orbital’s
integrated thermal analysis if it is required. The
analysis is conducted for three mission phases: 6.5. Safety
a. Prelaunch ground operations;
b. Ascent from lift-off until fairing jetti-
6.5.1. System Safety Requirements
son; and
In the initial phases of the mission inte-
c. Fairing jettison through payload de-
gration effort, regulations and instructions that
ployment.
apply to spacecraft design and processing are
reviewed. Not all safety regulations will apply to
Models must be provided in SINDA for-
a particular mission integration activity. Tailor-
mat. There is no limit on model size although
ing the range requirements to the mission unique
turn-around time may be increased for large mod-
activities will be the first step in establishing the
els.
safety plan. OSP has three distinctly different
mission approaches affecting the establishment
6.4.1.5. Payload Drawings
of the safety requirements:
Orbital prefers electronic versions of pay-
a. Baseline mission: Payload integration
load configuration drawings to be used in the
and launch operations are conducted
mission specific interface control drawing, if
at VAFB, CA
possible. Orbital will work with the customer to
b. Campaign/VAFB Payload Integration
define the content and desired format for the
mission: Payload integration is con-
drawings.
ducted at VAFB and launch opera-
tions are conducted from a non-VAFB
6.4.1.6. Program Requirements Document launch location.
(PRD) Mission Specific Annex Inputs c. Campaign/Non-VAFB Payload Inte-
To obtain range support, a PRD must be gration mission: Payload integration
prepared. A Minotaur PRD has been submitted and launch operations are conducted
and approved by the Western Range. For at a site other than VAFB.

For the baseline and VAFB Payload Inte- radioactive materials, propellants, pressurized
gration missions, spacecraft prelaunch operations systems, toxic materials, cryogenics, and RF ra-
are conducted at Orbital’s VAB, Building 1555, diation. Procedures relating to these systems as
VAFB. For campaign style missions, the space- well as any procedures relating to lifting opera-
craft prelaunch operations are performed at the tions or battery operations should be prepared
desired launch site. for safety review submittal. OSP will provide this
information to the appropriate safety offices for
Before a spacecraft arrives at the process- approval.
ing site, the payload organization must provide
the cognizant range safety office with certifica-
tion that the system has been designed and tested
in accordance with applicable safety require-
ments (e.g. EWR 127-1 Range Safety Require-
ments for baseline and VAFB Payload Integra-
tion missions). Spacecraft that integrate and/or
launch at a site different than the processing site
must also comply with the specific launch site’s
safety requirements. Orbital will provide the cus-
tomer coordination and guidance regarding ap-
plicable safety requirements.
It cannot be overstressed that the appli-

cable safety requirements should be considered
in the earliest stages of spacecraft design. Pro-
cessing and launch site ranges discourage the use
of waivers and variances. Furthermore, approval
of such waivers cannot be guaranteed.
6.5.2. System Safety Documentation

For each Minotaur mission, OSP acts as
the interface between the mission and Range
Safety. In order to fulfill this role, OSP requires
safety information from the payloader. For
launches from either the Eastern or Western
Ranges, EWR 127-1 provides detailed range
safety regulations. To obtain approval to use the
launch site facilities, specified data must be pre-
pared and submitted to the OSP Program Office.
This information includes a description of each
payload hazardous system and evidence of com-
pliance with safety requirements for each sys-
tem. Drawings, schematics, and assembly and
handling procedures, including proof test data
for all lifting equipment, as well as any other in-
formation that will aid in assessing the respec-
tive systems should be included. Major catego-
ries of hazardous systems are ordnance devices,

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Section 7.0 - Ground and Launch Ops
7. GROUND AND LAUNCH OPERATIONS 7.2.1.2. Vehicle Integration and Test Activi-
ties
7.1. Minotaur/Payload Integration Overview The major vehicle components and sub-
The processing of the Minotaur upper assemblies that comprise the Minotaur Upper
stack utilizes many of the same proven tech- Stack Assembly, including the Stage 3 and Stage
niques developed for the Pegasus and Taurus 4 Orion motors, are delivered to Orbital’s VAB
launch vehicles. This minimizes the handling located at VAFB, CA. There, the vehicle is hori-
complexity for both vehicle and payload. Hori- zontally integrated prior to the arrival of the pay-
zontal integration of the Minotaur vehicle upper load. Integration is performed at a convenient
stages simplifies integration procedures, increases working height, which allows relatively easy ac-
safety and provides excellent access for the inte- cess for component installation, inspection and
gration team. In addition, simple mechanical and test.
electrical interfaces reduce vehicle/payload inte-
gration times, increase system reliability and mini- The integration and test process ensures
mize vehicle demands on payload availability. that all vehicle components and subsystems are
thoroughly tested. Since the Minuteman motors
7.2. Ground And Launch Operations are not available at the VAB, a high fidelity simu-
Ground and launch operations are con-
lator consisting of actual Minuteman components
ducted in three major phases:
is used.
a. Launch Vehicle Integration — As-
sembly and test of the Minotaur ve-
hicle 7.2.1.2.1. Flight Simulation Tests
b. Payload Processing/Integration — Flight Simulation Tests use the actual flight
Receipt and checkout of the satellite software and simulate a “fly to orbit” scenario
payload, followed by integration with using simulated Inertial Navigation System (INS)
Minotaur and verification of inter- data. The Flight Simulation is repeated after each
faces major change in vehicle configuration (i.e., Flight
c. Launch Operations — Includes trans- Simulation #2 after stage mate, Flight Simulation
port of the upper stack to the launch #3 with payload electrically connected (if re-
pad, final integration, checkout, arm- quired) and Flight Simulation #4 after the pay-
ing and launch. load is mechanically integrated). After each test,
a complete review of the data is undertaken prior
7.2.1. Launch Vehicle Integration to proceeding. The payload nominally partici-
pates in Flight Simulation #3 and #4.
7.2.1.1. Planning and Documentation

Minotaur integration and test activities are 7.2.2. Payload Processing/Integration
controlled by a comprehensive set of Work Pack- Payloads normally undergo initial check-
ages (WPs), that describe and document every out and processing at Air Force or commercial
aspect of integrating and testing Minotaur and facilities at VAFB. The payload is then sent to
its payload. Mission-specific work packages are the VAB for integration with the Minotaur upper
created for mission-unique or payload-specific stack. After arrival at the VAB, the payload com-
procedures. All procedures are issued by pletes its own independent verification and
Orbital’s Vandenberg Planning Department be- checkout prior to beginning integrated process-
fore work is started. Any discrepancies encoun- ing with Minotaur. Following completion of
tered are recorded on a Discrepancy Report and Minotaur and payload testing the payload will
dispositioned as required. All activities are in be enclosed inside the fairing. The required pay-
accordance with Orbital’s ISO 9001 certification. load environments will be maintained inside the

fairing until launch. Any payload specific haz- 7.2.2.4. Final Processing and Fairing Closeout
ardous procedures should be coordinated After successful completion of Flight Simu-
through Orbital to the launch range no later than lation #4, all consumables are topped off and
120 days prior to first use (draft) and 30 days prior ordnance is connected. Similar payload opera-
to first use (final). tions may occur at this time. Once consumables
are topped off, final vehicle / payload closeout is
7.2.2.1. Payload to Minotaur Integration performed and the fairing is installed. The pay-
The integrated launch processing activi- load will coordinate with OSP access to the pay-
ties are designed to simplify final launch pro- load from payload mate until final closeout be-
cessing while providing a comprehensive veri- fore launch.
fication of the payload interface. The systems
integration and test sequence is engineered to 7.2.2.5. Payload Propellant Loading
ensure all interfaces are verified. Payloads utilizing integral propulsion sys-
tems with propellants such as hydrazine can be
7.2.2.2. Pre-Mate Interface Testing loaded and secured through coordinated Orbital
If required, the electrical interface be- and contractor arrangements for use of the pro-
tween Minotaur and the payload is verified pellant loading facilities in the VAB. This is a
using a mission unique Interface Verification non-standard service.
Test (IVT) to jointly verify that the proper func-
tion of the electrical connections and com- 7.2.2.6. Final Vehicle Integration and Test
mands. These tests, customized for each mis- Due to operational constraints, the Lower
sion, typically check bonding, electrical com- Stack Assembly, consisting of the Minuteman mo-
patibility, communications, discrete com- tors, is processed by the Air Force at a separate
mands and any off nominal modes of the pay- facility. After testing by Orbital, it is delivered
load. After completing the IVT, a Flight Simu- directly to the launch pad to await the arrival of
lation (Flight Sim #3) is performed with the the upper stack. After the vehicle is fully stacked
payload electrically - but not mechanically - at the pad, final tests are completed to verify ve-
connected to Minotaur to demonstrate the full hicle integrity and all interfaces to the range are
sequence of events in a simulated flight sce- exercised.
nario. Once Flight Sim #3 is successfully com-
pleted, the payload is mechanically mated to 7.3 Launch Operations
the launch vehicle. For payloads with simpli-
fied or no electrical interfaces to Minotaur, it 7.3.1. Launch Control Organization
may be acceptable to proceed to payload mate The Launch Control Organization is split
immediately after the IVT. For pre-mate veri- into two groups: the Management group and the
fication of the mechanical interface, the sepa- Technical group. The Management group con-
ration system can also be made available be- sists of senior range personnel and Mission Di-
fore final payload preparations. rectors/Managers for the launch vehicle and pay-
load. The Technical Group consists of the per-
7.2.2.3. Payload Mating and Verification sonnel responsible for the execution of the launch
Following the completion of Flight Sim #3, operation and data review/assessment for the
the jumpers between the payload and Minotaur Payload, the Launch Vehicle and the Range. The
are removed. Once the payload aft end close- Payload’s members of the technical group are
outs are completed, the payload will be both me- engineers who provide technical representation
chanically and electrically mated to the Minotaur. in the control center. The Launch Vehicle’s
Following mate, the flight vehicle is ready for the members of the technical group are engineers
final integrated systems test, Flight Simulation #4. who prepare the Minotaur for flight, review and

assess data that is displayed in the Launch Con-

trol Room (LCR) and provide technical represen-
tation in the LCR and in the Launch Operations
Control Center (LOCC). The Range’s members
of the technical group are personnel that main-
tain and monitor the voice and data equipment ,
tracking facilities and all assets involved with RF
communications with the launch vehicle. In
addition, the Range provides personnel respon-
sible for the Flight Termination System monitor-
ing and commanding.

Section 8.0 - Optional Enhanced
Minotaur Payload User's Guide Capabilities
8. OPTIONAL ENHANCED CAPABILITIES nent or subsystem responses. Typically the sys-

The OSP launch service is structured to tem will reduce transient loads to approximately
provide a baseline vehicle configuration which 50% of the level they would be without the sys-
is then augmented with optional enhancements tem. The exact results can be expected to vary
to meet the unique needs of individual payloads. for each particular spacecraft and with location
The baseline vehicle capabilities are defined in on the spacecraft. Generally, a beneficial reduc-
the previous sections and the optional enhanced tion in shock and vibration will also be provided.
capabilities are defined below. The isolation system does impact overall vehicle
performance (by approximately 20-40 lb [9-18
8.1. Mechanical Interface and Separation Sys- kg]) and the available payload dynamic enve-
tem Enhancements lope by up to 4.0 in (10.16 cm) axially and up to
1.0 in (2.54 cm) laterally.
8.1.1. Separation Systems
8.1.4. Increased Payload Volume
Orbital offers several alternate separating
To accommodate payloads larger than
interfaces as optional services. The baseline op-
those that can be accommodated by the stan-
tional separation system is the Orbital 38 in. de-
sign, but several flight-proven, Orbital-developed
Payload Attach Fittings (PAFs) can be utilized.
These systems are discussed in Section 5.2.1 and
5.2.2. In addition, other separation systems rang-
ing from an Orbital-developed 10 in. diameter
system to the SAAB 38.81 in. system can be pro-
vided as additional negotiated options.
8.1.2. Additional Fairing Access Doors

OSP provides one 8.5 in x 13.0 in (21.6
cm x 33.0 cm), graphite, RF-opaque payload fair-
ing access door (per Section 5.1.2). Additional
doors can be provided within the range speci-
fied in Section 5.1.2. Other fairing access con-
figurations, such as small circular access panels,
can also be provided as negotiated mission-spe-
cific enhancements.
8.1.3. Payload Isolation System

OSP offers a flight-proven payload isola-
tion system as a non-standard service. This
Softride for Small Satellites (SRSS) was developed
by Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and CSA
Engineering. It was successfully demonstrated
on the two initial Minotaur missions in the typi-
cal configuration shown in Figure 8-1. This me-
chanical isolation system has demonstrated the
capability to significantly alleviate the transient
dynamic loads that occur during flight. The iso-
lation system can provide relief to both the over- Figure 8-1. Softride for Small Satellites (SRSS)
all payload center of gravity loads and compo- Payload Isolation System

by approximately 50 to 250 lbm, depending on

the orbit. Specific performance capability as-
175.0
sociated with the HAPS can be provided by con-
tacting the OSP program office. HAPS is more
162.3
effective at higher altitude and also permits in-
jection of shared payloads into different orbits.
22.7 HAPS, which is mounted inside the Avionics
Structure, consists of a hydrazine propulsion
133.5 subsystem and a Stage 4 separation subsystem.
After burnout and separation from the Stage 4
motor, the HAPS hydrazine thrusters provide
additional velocity and both improved perfor-
35.6 mance and precise orbit injection. The HAPS
propulsion subsystem consists of a centrally
AVAILABLE
mounted tank containing approximately 130
ENVELOPE 82.2 lbm (59 kg) of hydrazine, helium pressurization
(DYNAMIC) gas, and three fixed, axially pointed thrusters.
The hydrazine tank contains an integral blad-
der which will support multiple restarts.
8.3. Environmental Control Options

54.7
8.3.1. Conditioned Air

Conditioned air can be provided within
INTERFACE PLANE
0.0
the fairing volume using an Environmental Con-
trol System (ECS) via a duct that is retracted in
TM14025_075
the last minutes prior to launch. Temperature
and humidity can be regulated within the limits
Figure 8-2. Optional 61 in. Diameter Fairing indicated in Figure 4-10. A filter is installed to
provide a Class 100,000 environment, typically.
dard Pegasus-based fairing, a larger fairing de- Upon exercise of the Enhanced Cleanliness op-
sign is being developed in conjunction with tion, a certified HEPA filter is used in the input
AFRL. A preliminary dynamic envelope is duct to assure the necessary low particulate en-
shown in Figure 8-2. A slight performance de- vironment (Class 100,000 or Class 10,000).
crease will be incurred.
8.3.2. Nitrogen Purge
8.2. Performance Enhancements OSP can provide gaseous nitrogen purges
to the payload after fairing encapsulation until
8.2.1. Insertion Accuracy lift-off. The system distribution lines are routed
Enhanced insertion accuracy or support along the inner surface of the fairing. If required
for multiple payload insertion can be provided for spot cooling of a payload component, Or-
as an enhanced option utilizing the Hydrazine bital will provide GN2 flow to localized regions
Auxiliary Propulsion System (HAPS). Orbital in- in the fairing. The GN2 will meet Grade B speci-
sertion accuracy can typically be improved to fications, as defined in MIL-P-27401C and can
±10 nm (±18.5 km) or better in each apse and be regulated between 2.4-11.8 l/sec (5-25 scfm).
±0.1 deg in inclination. For orbits above 600 The GN2 is on/off controllable in the launch
km, the HAPS can also increase payload mass equipment vault and in the launch control room.

The system’s regulators are set to a de- characteristics of less than 1.0% TML and less
sired flow rate during prelaunch processing. than 0.1% CVCM. Items that don’t meet these
The system cannot be adjusted after the launch levels can be masked to ensure they are encap-
pad has been cleared of personnel. sulated and will have no significant effect on the
payload.
Payload purge requirements must be co-
ordinated with Orbital via the ICD to ensure that 8.3.3.3 High Cleanliness Fairing Environment
the requirements can be achieved. With the enhanced contamination control
option, Orbital provides an ECS from payload
encapsulation until just prior to vehicle lift-off.
8.3.3. Enhanced Contamination Control
The ECS continuously purges the fairing volume
Understanding that some payloads have
with clean filtered air. Orbital’s ECS incorpo-
requirements for enhanced cleanliness, OSP of-
rates a HEPA filter unit to provide FED-STD-209
fers a contamination control option, which is
Class M5.5 (10,000) air. Orbital monitors the
composed of the elements in the following sec-
supply air for particulate matter via a probe in-
tions (which is also discussed in Section 4.7).
stalled upstream of the fairing inlet duct prior to
Minotaur customers can also coordinate combi-
connecting the air source to the payload fairing.
nations of the elements listed below to meet the
unique needs of their payloads.
8.4. Enhanced Telemetry Options
8.3.3.1 High Cleanliness Integration Environ- OSP can provide mission specific instru-
ment (Class 10K or 100K) mentation and telemetry components to support
With enhanced contamination control, a additional payload or experiment data acquisi-
soft walled clean room can be provided to en- tion requirements. Telemetry options include ad-
sure a FED-STD-209 Class M6.5 (100,000) or ditional payload-dedicated bandwidth and GPS-
Class M5.5 (10,000) environment during all pay- based precision navigation data.
load processing activities up to fairing encapsu-
lation. The soft walled clean room and 8.4.1. Enhanced Telemetry Bandwidth
anteroom(s) utilize HEPA filter units to filter the A second telemetry data stream capable
air and hydrocarbon content is maintained at 15 of up to 2 Mbps data rate can be provided. Maxi-
ppm or less. The payload organization is respon- mum data rates depend on the mission cover-
sible for providing the necessary clean room gar- age required and the launch range receiver
ments for payload staff as well as vehicle staff characteristics and configuration. This capa-
that need to work inside the clean room. bility was successfully demonstrated on the in-
augural Minotaur mission.
8.3.3.2 Fairing Surface Cleanliness Options
The inner surface of the fairing and pay-
load cone assemblies can be cleaned to cleanli- 8.4.2. Enhanced Telemetry Instrumentation
ness criteria which ensures no particulate matter To support the higher data rate capability
visible with normal vision when inspected from in Section 8.4.1, enhanced telemetry instrumen-
6 to 18 inches under 100 ft-candle incident light. tation can be provided. The instrumentation can
The same will be true when the surface is illumi- include strain gauges, temperature sensors, ac-
nated using black light, 3200 to 3800 Angstroms celerometers, analog data, and digital data con-
(Visibly Clean Plus Ultraviolet). In addition, Or- figured to mission-specific requirements. This
bital can ensure that all materials used within capability was successfully demonstrated on the
the encapsulated volume have outgassing inaugural Minotaur mission.

8.4.3. Navigation Data

Precision navigation data using an inde-
pendent GPS-receiver and telemetry link is avail-
able as an enhanced option. This option utilizes
the Orbital-developed GPS Position Beacon
(GPB) and provides a better than 100 m position
accuracy with a nominal 1 Hz data rate. This
capability was successfully demonstrated on the
inaugural Minotaur mission.

Section 9.0 - Shared Launch
Minotaur Payload User's Guide Accommodations
9. SHARED LAUNCH ACCOMMODATIONS

Minotaur is uniquely capable of provid-
ing launches of multiple satellite payloads, le- Fairing
veraging SMC Det 12/RP and Orbital’s exten- Dynamic
Envelope
sive experience in integrating and launching
multiple payloads. In addition to the five satel-
lites successfully separated on the inaugural
Typical
Minotaur JAWSAT mission, multiple spacecraft Forward
configurations have been flown on many of Spacecraft
Orbital’s Pegasus and Taurus missions to date. Volume φ 23.00 in.
(2.95) Separation Ring
Two technical approaches are available

for accommodating multiple payloads. These Typical
Aft Load Bearing
design approaches are: Spacecraft
Volume
Load-Bearing Spacecraft — aft spacecraft φ 38 in.
designed to provide the structural load Separation Ring
(3.95)
path between the forward payload and the φ 38 in. Avionics
launch vehicle, maximizing utilization of Thrust Tube
(22.00 in. Long)
available mass performance and payload φ 46.00
fairing volume (Dynamic) TM14025_077
Non Load-Bearing Spacecraft — aft Figure 9-1. Typical Load Bearing Spacecraft
spacecraft whose design cannot provide Configuration
the necessary structural load path for the
forward payload are those involving mechanical and electrical
compatibility with the forward payload. Struc-
9.1. Load-Bearing Spacecraft tural loads from the forward payload during all
Providing a load-bearing aft payload maxi- flight events must be transmitted through the aft
mizes use of available volume and mass. The payload to the Minotaur. Orbital will provide
available mass for the aft payload is determined minimum structural interface design criteria for
by the Minotaur performance capability to orbit shear, bending moment, axial and lateral loads,
less the forward payload and attach hardware and stiffness.
mass. All remaining mission performance, ex-
cluding a stack margin, is available to the aft The second approach involves the use of
payload. The load-bearing spacecraft interfaces an Orbital design using the MicroStar bus, suc-
directly to the avionics assembly interface and cessfully developed and flown for ORBCOMM
the forward payload via pre-determined inter- spacecraft. The MicroStar bus features a circular
faces. These interfaces include standard Orbital design with an innovative, low-shock separation
separation systems and pass-through electrical system. The spacecraft bus is designed to allow
connectors to service the forward payload. Fig- stacking of co-manifested payloads in “slices”
ure 9-1 illustrates this approach. within the fairing. The bus design is compact and
provides exceptional lateral stiffness.
Two approaches may be taken for load-
bearing spacecraft. The first approach is to use a A variation on the load bearing spacecraft
design developed by other spacecraft suppliers, approach was flown on the JAWSAT inaugural
which must satisfy Minotaur and forward pay- mission, in which the primary payload (JAWSAT)
load structural design criteria. The principal re- was a Multiple Payload Adapter (MPA) from
quirements levied upon load-bearing spacecraft which four small satellites were separated (Fig-

9.2. Non Load-Bearing Spacecraft

For aft spacecraft that are not designed for
withstanding and transmitting structural loads
from the forward payload, several options are
possible including AFRL and Orbital design con-
cepts, as well as the flight-proven Dual Payload
Attach Fitting (DPAF).
The DPAF structure (Figure 9-4) is an all

graphite structure which provides independent
load paths for each satellite. The worst-case “de-
sign payload” for the DPAF is a 425 lbm (193
TM14025_078 kg) spacecraft with a 20 in. (51 cm) center of
mass offset and first lateral frequency of typically
Figure 9-2. JAWSAT Multiple Payload 12 Hz. The DPAF is designed to accommodate
Adapter Load Bearing Spacecraft this “design payload” at both the forward and aft
locations, although the combined mass of the two
ure 9-2). After separating the smaller “piggy- payloads cannot exceed Minotaur capabilities.
back” satellites, the JAWSAT MPA was also The upper spacecraft loads are transmitted
separated as an autonomous satellite by utiliz- around the lower spacecraft via the DPAF struc-
ing the Orbital 23 in. separation system and ture, thus avoiding any structural interface be-
adapter cone. An updated concept to provide tween the two payloads.
greater payload options and primary payload
volume (by mounting directly to the avionics
assembly) is shown in Figure 9-3.
Integrated coupled loads analyses will be

performed with test verified math models pro-
vided by the payload. These analyses are required
to verify the fundamental frequency and deflec-
tions of the stack for compliance with the
Minotaur requirement of 12 Hz minimum. De-
sign criteria provided by OSP will include “stack”
margins to minimize interactive effects associ-
ated with potential design changes of each pay-
load. OSP will provide the necessary engineer-
ing coordination between the spacecraft and
launch vehicle.
Electrical pass-through harnesses will also

need to be provided by the aft payload along
with provisions for connectors and interface veri-
fication. The spacecraft supplier will need to pro-
vide details of the appropriate analyses and tests
TM14025_079
to OSP to verify adequacy of margins and show
that there is no impact to the forward spacecraft Figure 9-3. Five Bay Multiple Payload Adapter
or the launch vehicle. Concept

Primary Payload Dimensions in cm

in
Separation Plane
Secondary Payload
Ogive Radius 58 Separation Plane
Separation System
269.2 23
106.0 128.8 97 Separation 43 Separation
50.7 38 System 17 System
φ 114.3
Available
Primary φ 66.0 45.0
φ 76.0 Secondary Dynamic
Payload Payload 26.0
29.9 Envelope
Volume Volume
101.6 55.9
+Y 40.0 22.0 Minotaur Avionics
102.9
40.5
+X Beginning of Ogive Adapter Cone Separation Plane
TM14025_082
Figure 9-4. Dual Payload Attach Fitting Configuration

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Appendix A
Appendix A
Payload Questionnaire
Release 1.0 March 2002 A-1

MINOTAUR
PAYLOAD QUESTIONNAIRE
SATELLITE IDENTIFICATION
FULL NAME:
ACRONYM:
OWNER/OPERATOR:
INTEGRATOR(s):
ORBIT INSERTION REQUIREMENTS*

SPHEROID q Standard (WGS-84, R e = 6378.137 km)
q Other:
ALTITUDE Insertion Apse: Opposite Apse:
q nmi q nmi
___ ± __ q km ± q km
or... Semi-Major Axis: Eccentricity:
q nmi
___ ± __ q km ≤e≤
INCLINATION
± deg
ORIENTATION Argument of Perigee: Longitude of Ascending Node (LAN):
± deg ± deg
Right Ascension of Ascending Node (RAAN):
± deg ...for Launch Date:

* Note: Mean orbital elements
LAUNCH WINDOW REQUIREMENTS

NOMINAL LAUNCH DATE:
OTHER CONSTRAINTS (if not already implicit from LAN or RAAN requirements, e.g., solar beta angle,
eclipse time constraints, early on-orbit ops, etc):
1
MINOTAUR
EARLY ON-ORBIT OPERATIONS

Briefly describe the satellite early on-orbit operations, e.g., event triggers (separation sense, sun acquisition,
etc), array deployment(s), spin ups/downs, etc:
SATELLITE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS

ACCELERATION Longitudinal: g’s Lateral: g’s
VELOCITY Relative Separation Velocity Constraints:
ANGULAR RATES
Longitudinal: Pitch: ± deg/sec
(pre-separation)
± deg/sec Yaw: ± deg/sec
ANGULAR RATES
Longitudinal: Pitch: ± deg/sec
(post-separation)
± deg/sec Yaw: ± deg/sec
ATTITUDE Describe Pointing Requirements Including Tolerances:
(at deployment)
SPIN UP Longitudinal Spin Rate: ± deg/sec

OTHER Describe Any Other Separation Requirements:
SPACECRAFT COORDINATE SYSTEM

Describe the Origin and Orientation of the spacecraft reference coordinate system, including its orientation with
respect to the launch vehicle (provide illustration if available):
2
MINOTAUR
SPACECRAFT PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS

STOWED Length/Height: Diameter:
CONFIGURATION q in q cm q in q cm
Other Pertinent Dimension(s):
Describe any appendages/antennas/etc which extend beyond the basic satellite envelope:
ON-ORBIT Describe size and shape:

CONFIGURATION
If available, provide dimensioned drawings for both stowed and on-orbit configurations.
SPACECRAFT MASS PROPERTIES*

PRE-SEPARATION Inertia units: q lb -in q kg-m
m
2 2
Mass: q lb q kg
m
Ixx:
Xcg: q in q cm Iyy:
Izz:
Ycg: q in q cm Ixy:
Iyz:
Zcg: q in q cm Ixz:
POST-SEPARATION Inertia units: q lb -in q kg-m
m
2 2
(non-separating Mass: q lb q kg
m
adapter remaining with
Ixx:
launch vehicle)
Xcg: q in q cm Iyy:
Izz:
Ycg: q in q cm Ixy:
Iyz:
Zcg: q in q cm Ixz:
* Stowed configuration, spacecraft coordinate frame
3
MINOTAUR
ASCENT TRAJECTORY REQUIREMENTS
Free Molecular Heating at Fairing Separation: q Btu/ft /hr 2
(Standard Service: 360 Btu/ft2/hr) FMH q W/m 2
Fairing Internal Wall Temperature q deg F

(Standard Service: 200°F) T q deg C
Dynamic Pressure at Fairing Separation: q lb /ft 2
q N/m
f
(Standard Service: 0.01 lbf /ft2) q 2
Ambient Pressure at Fairing Separation: q lb /in 2
q N/m
f
2
(Standard Service: 0.3 psia) P
Maximum Pressure Decay During Ascent: q lb /in /sec2
q N/m /sec
f
2
(Standard Service: 0.6 psia) 3
Thermal Maneuvers During Coast Periods:
(Standard Service: none)
SPACECRAFT ENVIRONMENTS
THERMAL Spacecraft Thermal Dissipation, Pre-Launch Encapsulated: Watts
DISSIPATION
Approximate Location of Heat Source:
TEMPERATURE Temperature Limits During Max q deg F q deg C

Ground/Launch Operations: Min q deg F q deg C
(Standard Service is 55°F to 80°F)
Component(s) Driving Temperature Constraint:
Approximate Location(s):
HUMIDITY Relative Humidity: or, Dew Point:

Max % Max q deg F q deg C
Min % Min q deg F q deg C
(Standard Service is 37 deg F)
NITROGEN Specify Any Nitrogen Purge Requirements, Including Component Description, Location,
PURGE and Required Flow Rate:
(Nitrogen Purge is a Non-Standard Service)

CLEANLINESS Volumetric Requirements (e.g. Class 100,000):
Surface Cleanliness (e.g. Visually Clean):
Other:
LOAD LIMITS Ground Transportation Load Limits: Axial g’s Lateral g’s
4
MINOTAUR
ELECTRICAL INTERFACE
Bonding Requirements:
Are Launch Vehicle Supplied

Pyro Commands Required? Yes / No If Yes, magnitude: amps for msec
(Standard Service is 10 amps maximum for 100 msec)
Are Launch Vehicle Supplied If Yes, describe:
Discrete Commands Required? Yes / No
Is Electrical Access to the Satellite Required... After Encapsulation? Yes / No

at Launch Site Yes / No
Is Satellite Battery Charging Required... After Encapsulation? Yes / No
at Launch Site? Yes / No
Is a Telemetry Interface with the Launch Vehicle Flight Computer Required? Yes / No
If Yes, describe:
Other Electrical Requirements:
Please complete attached sheet of required pass-through signals.
RF RADIATION
Time After Separation Until RF Devices Are Activated:
(Note: Typically, no spacecraft radiation is allowed from encapsulation until 30 minutes after liftoff.)
Frequency: MHz Power: Watts

Location(s) on Satellite (spacecraft coordinate frame):
Longitudinal q in q cm Clocking (deg), Describe:
5
MINOTAUR
REQUIRED PASS-THROUGH SIGNALS

Item Max Total Line
# Pin Signal Name From LEV To Satellite Shielding Current Resistance
(amps) (ohms)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
MINOTAUR
MECHANICAL INTERFACE
DIAMETER Describe Diameter of Interface (e.g. Bolt Circle, etc):
SEPARATION Will Launch Vehicle Supply the Separation System? Yes / No

SYSTEM
If Yes approximate location of electrical connectors:
special thermal finishes (tape, paint, MLI) needed:
If No, provide a brief description of the proposed system:
SURFACE Flatness Requirements for Sep System or Mating Surface of Launch Vehicle:
FLATNESS
FAIRING Payload Fairing Access Doors (spacecraft coordinate frame):

ACCESS
Longitudinal inq q cm Clocking (deg), Describe:
Note: Standard Service is one door

DYNAMICS Spacecraft Natural Frequency:
Axial Hz Lateral Hz
Recommended: > 35 Hz > 12 Hz

OTHER Other Mechanical Interface Requirements:
7
MINOTAUR
GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Describe any additional control facilities (other than the baseline Support Equipment Building (SEB) and
Launch Equipment Vault (LEV)) which the satellite intends to use:
SEB Describe (in the table below) Satellite EGSE to be located in the SEB.
[Note: Space limitations exist in the SEB, 350 ft umbilical cable length to spacecraft typical]
Equipment Name / Type Approximate Size (LxWxH) Power Requirements
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................

Is UPS required for equipment in the SEB? Yes / No
Is Phone/Fax connection required in the SEB? Yes / No Circle: Phone / FAX
LEV Describe (in the table below) Satellite EGSE to be located in the LEV.
[Note: Space limitations exist in the SEB, 150 ft umbilical cable length to spacecraft typical]
Equipment Name / Type Approximate Size (LxWxH) Power Requirements
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................
.................................................................. ............................................... ................................

Is UPS required for equipment in the LEV? Yes / No
Is Ethernet connection between SEB and LEV required? Yes / No
8
Minotaur Payload User's Guide Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Electrical Interface Connectors
There are two electrical interface connectors on the payload separation plane. The first connector is
specifically designed for ordnance. Its part number is MS27474T14F-18SN. The second connector
is designed for power, payload battery charging, discrete commands, discrete telemetry, separation
indicators, analog telemetry, and serial communication. Its part number is MS27474T16F-42SN.
Typical circuits passing through the payload-to-launch vehicle electrical connections are shown in
Figure B-1.
Release 1.0 March 2002 B-1

Minotaur Payload User's Guide Appendix B
Launch Vehicle Spacecraft Standard Quantity
Discrete Commands 5
5V
Discrete Telemetry
Monitors (5 Hz) 5
5V
Separation Indicator 3
10 Amp, 100 msec

Pyro Initiation 4 Redundant Pairs
Analog Telemetry
20 mVpp to 10 Vpp
6
±50 V
Serial Communication Link 1
RS-422/RS-485
60 Conductors
GSE Pass-Through Wiring
(Various AWG/Shielding Available)
Note: Channels Can be Reallocated Based on Customer Requirements TM14025_080
Figure B-1. Typical Minotaur Payload Electrical Interface Block Diagram
Release 1.0 March 2002 B-2

Minotaur PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minotaur PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minotaur PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the Minotaur User's Guide?

What is the purpose of the Minotaur User's Guide?

What launch services are available through Minotaur?

What launch services are available through Minotaur?

Minotaur

Approved for Public Release

© 2002 by Orbital Sciences Corporation. All rights reserved.

March 2002 Minotaur® Users Guide

Approved for Public Release

Copyright © 2002 by Orbital Sciences Corporation.

USAF SMC Det 12/RP

Telephone: (505) 846-8957

Telephone: (480) 814-6028

Release 1.0 March 2002

2.0 MINOTAUR LAUNCH SERVICE...................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 GENERAL PERFORMANCE ............................................................................................. 3-1

4.0 PAYLOAD ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 4-1

5.0 PAYLOAD INTERFACES .................................................................................................. 5-1

Release 1.0 March 2002 i

5.2.1 Standard Non-Separating Mechanical Interface ........................................... 5-1

6.0 MISSION INTEGRATION ............................................................................................... 6-1

Release 1.0 March 2002 ii

7.0 GROUND AND LAUNCH OPERATIONS ....................................................................... 7-1

8.0 OPTIONAL ENHANCED CAPABILITIES ......................................................................... 8-1

9.0 SHARED LAUNCH ACCOMMODATIONS ..................................................................... 9-1

Release 1.0 March 2002 iii

APPENDIX A Payload Questionnaire ..................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B Electrical Interface Connectors ....................................................................... B-1

Figure 2-1 OSP Minotaur Launch Vehicle ......................................................................... 2-1

Release 1.0 March 2002 iv

Release 1.0 March 2002 v

A Ampere g Gravitational Force

Release 1.0 March 2002 vi

m/s Meters per Second POC Point of Contact

mm Millimeter RGIU Rate Gyro Interface Unit

MPA Multiple Payload Adapter RGU Rate Gyro Unit

MRD Mission Requirements Document rpm Revolutions per Minute

N/A Not Applicable scfm Standard Cubic Feet per Minute

NCU Nozzle Control Unit SEB Support Equipment Building

NM Nautical Mile sec Second(s)

ODM Ordnance Driver Module SLC Space Launch Complex

OR Operations Requirements Document SLV Space Launch Vehicle

P/L Payload SOC Statement of Capabilities

PID Proportional-Integral-Derivative SSI Spaceport Systems International

Release 1.0 March 2002 vii

Release 1.0 March 2002 viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION User’s Guide describes Minotaur-unique

The Minotaur’s primary mission is to

The Minotaur launch vehicle system is

The Minotaur system can operate from a

Release 1.0 March 2002 1-1

2. MINOTAUR LAUNCH SERVICE transportability, and operation from multiple

The Minotaur system also includes a

The vehicle and LSE are designed to be

2.2. Minotaur Launch Service

Release 1.0 March 2002 2-1

Figure 2-2. OSP Minotaur Launch Vehicle Configuration

Release 1.0 March 2002 2-2

Avionics — The Minotaur avionics system