Transcript (MSP) and Reusable Launch Vehicle Study

UNCLASSIFIED
Military Spaceplane (MSP)
and Reusable Launch Vehicle
Study
Brig Gen Anarde
HQ AFSPC/XP
UNCLASSIFIED
Purpose
• Review actions to date
• Assess Reusable Launch Vehicles
• Operational Utility
• Science and Technology Maturity
• Assess X-33 and X-37 applicability
• Recommend position
• AF role in X-33 and X-37 programs
• Identify other options
• Establish glide slope for AF Reusable Launch Vehicle
way ahead
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
2
Bottom Line
•
•
Study assessments reveal substantial risks and mitigations associated
with continuing with the X-33 and X-37 programs
• No consensus (although of the two programs, the X-33 seems least
likely to offer an achievable, straight forward follow-on concept
leading to an operational vehicle) . . . More work needed on an AF
roadmap, systems concepts development, and systems engineering
trades
• Study highly recommends much closer NASA-AF partnership on SLI
and reusable technologies
• Sentiment that the systems might help evolution towards military
space plane . . . But at what cost?
Any recommendation to proceed would be heavily influenced by what
we could learn from operating these systems. These lessons learned
could enhance the evolution of integrated aerospace operations,
systems development, and requirements refinement
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
3
What have we learned?
• Premise: Reusable vehicles offer potential warfighting value
• Two Stage to Orbit -- the best alternative
• Mix of Expendable and Reusable Vehicles
• Suite of vehicles to cover the range of ops and missions
• Continued partnership with NASA imperative
• Gaps in capability:
• Operations
• Technology
• Performance
• Enablers
• Propulsion maturity
• Thermal Protection Systems
• Integrated Vehicle Health Management
• Ops Concepts and Requirements Definition
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
4
USAF: Leading the Transformation
Capabilities
Goal
Organizations
Rapid Aerospace Dominance
The Conceptual
Framework
AEF PRIME
AEFs
Strategic Plan
for Employing
Aerospace Power
EAF MOBILITY
in Future
Joint Warfighting
EAF FOUNDATION
Force Structure
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
5
Space Forces
Space
Vigilance, Reach, & Power
Space Enablers & Warriors
Providing Direct
Combat Capabilities to
Promote Peace & Stability;
Fight & Win
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
Building on
Space’s Vigilance Legacy
4/8/2015
6
Theater Impact
Rapid Force Reconstitution
Space Superiority
High Earth Orbit
(Offensive and
Defensive)
Space ISR enhancement
Precision Strike
z
Low Earth Orbit
Assets Employed
• 3 SOV with ISR
• 8 CAV per SOV
• 1 SMV per SOV
• 1 EO sensor / SMV
• 8 Microsat / SMV
3 Sorties
16 Sorties
2 Sorties
3 Sorties
Tac/ Recce & SEAD
•8 CAV on Airfield
•2 CAV on each Chokepoint
•1 Microsat on each key satellite
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
•0-8 Sorties for ISR
•0-2 Sorties for Space
Superiority
4/8/2015
7
Objectives of Relevant Flight Regimes
X-33:
Demonstrates Launch Environment
Dynamics
- Liftoff to Mach 11 (need Mach 15+)
- Opportunity to develop
operational processes
X-37:
Demonstrates limited set of Re-Entry
Environment Dynamics
- Heating and deceleration conditions from
orbit to landing
- Opportunity to develop refurbishment
protocols
These demonstrators fill only small parts of the
flight profiles required to field and operate military space plane.
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
8
Evolution to Military Space Plane
Systems/Capabilities
Payload Developments
-Sensors
- Weapons and Vehicles
-- Hyperspectral
-- Imaging
-- Radar
-- MASINT
-- SIGINT
-- Other
-- CAV
-- Precision Munitions
-- EW
-- Microsat
Prototypes
Demonstrators
Operations Considerations
Concepts
Incremental Evolution
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
-- Overland Launch
-- Integrated ISR
-- Refurbishment
-- Rapid Payload Integration
-- Rapid On-orbit Checkout
-- Standard Interfaces
-- Orbital Operations Flexibility
9
S&T Assessment
• What We Did
• Assessed technology state-of-the-art, AF S&T, NASA SLI and
value of baselined X-33/X-37 against AFSPC SOV desired
capabilities
• Results
• Current investment in AF S&T, NASA SLI and/or X-33/X-37 will
not advance SOV enabling technologies to TRL 6 (Demo) –
Still Large Tech Gap -- Needs Significant S&T Investment
• X-33 and X-37 provide only limited advances in some
technologies enabling AFSPC capabilities but would help
establish tech needs
• Will Require Additional Flight Demonstrator Prior To EMD
AF & NASA Technology Programs
Value Added to SOV
= TRL LESS THAN 3
= TRL 3 to 5
RLV ENABLING TECHNOLOGY AREAS
= TRL 6
• State-Of-The-Art (SOTA) = Shuttle + ELV + EELV
• AF S&T = Current AFRL R&D Efforts for SOV
• NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI) Narrows Technology Gap for SOV
• Limited Tech Value Of X-33/X-37, Still Requires S&T + Flight Demo
Systems Engineering/Arch
Airframe - Tanks
Airframe - TPS
Airframe - Structures
Airframe - AeroT-dynamics
Subsystem - Avionics
Subsystem - Power
Subsystem - Actuators
Operations - Ground Infrastructure
Operations - Checkout & Control
Operations - Separation Systems
Operations - Ground/Flt Interface
Operations - Fluid Transfer
IVHM
Propulsion - Main Engine
Propulsion - Feedlines and Ducts
Propulsion - Auxillary Engines
Flight Mechanics - Analysis Tech.
Flight Mechanics - GN&C
*SLI figure does not include
$4.5B additional NASA funds
SOTA
TRL = 2
TRL = 2
TRL = 2
TRL = 4
TRL = 2
TRL = 2
TRL = 1
TRL = 3
TRL = 1
TRL = 1
TRL = 1
TRL = 1
TRL = 2
TRL = 1
TRL = 2
TRL = 2
TRL = 2
TRL = 1
TRL = 2
$545M
FY02-07
$766M*
FY01-03
AF S&T
TRL = 2
TRL = 3
TRL = 3
TRL = 5
TRL = 3
TRL = 2
TRL = 3
TRL = 3
TRL = 2
TRL = 3
TRL = 1
TRL = 1
TRL = 2
TRL = 3
TRL = 2
TRL = 3
TRL = 2
TRL = 4
TRL = 2
SLI
TRL = 4
TRL = 4
TRL = 3
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
TRL = 4
TRL = 3
TRL = 5
TRL = 2
TRL = 4
TRL = 3
TRL = 3
TRL = 3
TRL = 3
TRL = 3
TRL = 4
TRL = 5
TRL = 6
TRL = 3
Technology Gap
$599M
FY02-06
X-37
$575M
FY02-06
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
FY10
X-33
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
+
or
TRL = 4
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
TRL = 4
TRL = 5
TRL = 4
TRL = 4
+
SOV Tech-MAT
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
TRL 6
Charter and Tasks
• Perform an independent assessment of the X-33 and X-37 projects
• Review programmatic issues
• Performance to date
• Program management and systems engineering processes
• Proposed team’s ability to execute program
• Assess technical risks and value of projects
• As an MSP demonstrator
• For a specific follow-on program
• For unique USAF interest
• Assess cost, status, and schedule
Charter does not include making recommendations
for USAF funding levels or participation
X-33 Program Assessment
Program Plan
• Complete 1 demonstration vehicle
• 7 Flights
• Max. Velocity: Mach 8-11
• Launch site complete
Value as a Demonstrator
• Autonomous flight control
• Metallic TPS (will only be tested to
Mach 11)
• Lifting body aerodynamics &
aerospike engine
• Operable ground &flight operations
Programmatics:
Estimate to
Complete
LM
Aero
$418M $575M
First Flight: 12/05 (success oriented
schedule likely to slip)
Program cancelled, team dispersed
High Technical Risk
• Aluminum LH2 tank integration
• Engine performance and TVC issues
• Software integration
• Metallic TPS: Joint sealing under
dynamic, thermal, and acoustic flight
environment
AF study findings are in agreement with NASA conclusions
X-37 Program Assessment
Program Plan
• First vehicle used for Approach/
Landing Test Vehicle (ATLV)
• Second vehicle to be developed as
Orbital Vehicle
• Two flight tests planned
• Launch on Delta IV: ($100M each)
Programmatics:
Estimate to
Complete
Boeing Aero
$462M $599M
First Flight: 12/05
$10M remaining in CA funds
$4M per month current spend rate
Value as a Demonstrator
High Technical Risk
• Advanced composites & modular
• Weight growth (7000 lb. limit)
construction
• Airframe production problems
• Advanced TPS (tested over complete
• Producibility of C/SiC structures
reentry domain)
• Li-ion battery development
• Autonomous guidance
• Propulsion, valves, tank and materials
• H202 propulsion experience
• Limited experience with SMV ops
AF study findings are in agreement with NASA conclusions
X-Vehicle Summary
• X-Programs are inherently high risk
• X-33 & X-37 have made significant contributions
toward understanding achievable vehicle
performance, cost, and integration issues
• will improve system engineering tools and databases
• completion of programs would permit capture of
vehicle integration and operations data
• Value as technology demonstrators limited to a
subset of necessary technologies
• Ground test alone are not sufficient to verify USAF
requirements for operability and responsiveness
• additional flight test activities are needed
Criteria for Analysis
•
•
•
•
•
Technology push
Science and Technology requirements definition
Developmental Concepts refinement
Trade space identification
Operational Expertise Evolution
•
•
•
•
Ground Ops
Flight Ops
Payload Experience
Recovery and Reconstitution
• Ability to integrate into Rapid Aerospace Dominance
• Global Strike Task Force
• Future Strike
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
16
Assessment of Options
Comments:
Major Analysis Area
X-33
X-37
Technology Push
+
+
S&T Req Definition
+
+
Cost Risk
Schedule Risk
Technical Risk
-
-*
-
Trade Space Potential
+
++
Operational Utility
++
++
Integrated Aerospace Ops
+
+
Overall Assessment
+
+
Comments
• No contingent capability
• Demonstrator only
X-33:
• Slight to marginal utility
• Current issues:
• Software development
• Thrust Vector Control
Positive advances:
• Metallic TPS
• Launch base ops
• Aerospike Engine flight
• Recovery and
Reconstitution ops
X-37:
• Slight to marginal utility
• Issues:
• Launch cost
• Few flights
• Positive advances:
• Reentry profile data
• Recovery and
Reconstitution operations
* NASA FY06 Decision for SLI
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
17
Broad Approach Required, If Decision to Proceed
•
•
•
•
Requirements Definition
• Concepts, Systems Engineering, S&T Prioritization
• National Roadmap for Reusables
• Begin new studies to define concepts with direct military utility
Organizational
• Develop integrated organization to address Military Space Plane
• Establish Program Element
• Start Pre-SPO
Managerial
• Develop cooperative agreements between ACC, ASC, AFRL, SMC,
AFSPC and NASA to manage requirements and program development
• Cooperative Planning effort with NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center
Operations
• Doctrine Development and Tactics Evolution
• Wargaming and Modeling & Simulation Analysis
• Partner for Future Strike applications with ACC
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
18
Summary
• The future of AF space requires establishing superiority
in the space medium as warfighters
• Space Superiority
• Global Precision Strike Force Enablers and Packages
• Technology demonstrators historically have provided
significant insight into viable mission suites and
operational missions for future military operations
• Begin development to pursue integrated flight
demonstrations and qualify sensors/payloads
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
19
Partnership Council Way Ahead
• NASA and AF need to harmonize space technology
investments
• AFRL Responsive Reusable Access to Space effort (R2SPACE)
• NASA Space Launch Initiative (SLI)
• SMC Advanced Space Lift II Study (ASL II)
• National team to work on roadmap for RLV
• Incorporate SLI initiatives and funding
• Review progress made at all future AFSPC/NASA/NRO
Partnership Council meetings
• AFSPC briefing for SecAF and CSAF providing study
results on X-33 and X-37
Council Conclusions:
•Do not pursue X-33 program
•Approve further study of X-37 as we develop RLV roadmap
AFSPC/XP / MSP Intro.PPT
4/8/2015
20