Transcript Document

•
CK
C
R
ce
Spa
O
Mi
H
•
U N DI N G
&
en
ter
•
SO
ROCK
ET
•
RAM •
OG
PR SPACE LAUN
EMS LAUNCH
ST
SY MINUTEMAN
TS
C
ssile ystems
S
E
Department of Defense
VSE
R&D
Responsive
Spaceflight (RRS)
Lt Col Taylor Locker
Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design
DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM
VSS
Lt Col Kirk Sharp
Senior Program Advisor
DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM
Slide 1
Why Were We at SMC/TD?
• Propose a holistic concept for repeatable
launching of Space RDT&E missions in 12-18
months, using mechanisms that are in place today
– A ‘solution’ other than “give me money, people, and a
launch vehicle, and I can in X years . . .”
– Proposal solves the business (of spaceflight) problem
with standard customer - service provider relationship
– Proposal requires customer funding source only
– Accesses existing capacity across the S&T community
• Need a champion to pursue this RRS strategy, or
redirection – i.e. Gen Worden gave the challenge
Slide 2
Bottom Line Up Front
• 12–18 month S&T spaceflight can be done today with a team
• Finding a solution has been hard, because no single
organization has all the RRS capability in place right now
– One could in future w’ new resources, IDIQ source selections, etc
• Thus, why not, an Alliance of Gov’t (all DoD or para-DoD) Orgs/
Labs, each coming to the table, to acquire any mission now?
– STP has (at least the working level) coordinated with AFRL, LANL,
NRL, RDSMO, RSLP, & SDL and received a positive response
(initial commitment) to propose this RRS Alliance
• Willingness to use their existing finance (FM) and contracts (PK)
mechanisms (e.g., funding/contract vehicles) to get work done today
– Alliance requires a Board of Directors (Alliance Principals), a
Secretariat (e.g., STP), and a reporting authority (e.g., SMC/TD)
• Some SMC Flag Officer support for the proposed “Alliance”
Slide 3
Responsive Space (RS)
Missions
Responsive Space
Operational Responsive Space (ORS)
• Space Control
• Satellite Close Inspection
• Foreign Mission “Shadowing”
• Anti-Satellite Operations
• Ballistic Missile Intercept from Space
(2 days to week)
• Force Application
• Conventional Land Attack Through
Space (6-8 hours)
• Force Enhancement
•Rapid Satellite Replacement
(2 days to week)
R&D Responsive Space (RRS)
• Space Weather R&D
• Data collection of transient events
Critical Technology Demonstration
• Risk Reduction Testing
• Rapid Prototype Testing for TRL 6 S&T
into Space systems
• All RRS missions require from no a priori
knowledge of a sensor (‘black box’) to onorbit operations in 12-18 months vice >48
months @ >$1M/mo now
Question: What is needed to reduce the cycle time (currently >48 mos)
and have a repeatable 12-18 month cycle time for Space demonstrations?
Slide 4
R&D Responsive Space
Discovery Process
Activities
• Interviews
• Meetings with Key
Organizations
• Workshop – RRS Summit
• Data Collection
–
–
–
–
Unique contribution
Facilities
Agreements
Contracts
• Discussed w/ Likely S/C Build
Contractors (e.g., RSDO)
• Sought Aerospace Input
Key S&T Organizations
• Space S&T Integrated
Experiments (AFRL/VSE)
• Space Structures & Controls S&T
(AFRL/VSS)
• Rocket Systems Launch Program
(Det 12/RP)
• DoD Space Test Program
(Det 12/ST)
• R&D Space & Missile Operations
(Det 12/VO)
• Los Alamos National Laboratory
(LANL/ISR)
• NRL Naval Center for Space
Technology (NRL/NCST)
• USU Space Dynamics Lab (SDL)
Slide 5
Our Answer!
Is Based On:
R&D Responsive
Space can be done
TODAY!
•
Expert opinion of some very
experienced Space RDT&E (incl.
S&T) professionals (recog. best)
•
Experiences and review of unique
technical offerings from each key
Space S&T organization
•
Collaboration and cooperation of
key organizations to deliver a
repeatable (vice one off) process
•
If RRS problem is properly
constrained (e.g., fit Minotaur)
R&D Responsive Space is not easy, and has
never been done on a repeatable basis!*
*Note: Was in glory days of the late 60s by RRS Alliance principal NCST and the glory days of SDI by AFRL (MSTI)
Slide 6
How We Attacked the Problem
– Discovery Tool
Basic Concept
What you want to do…..
Mission Level
Activities
Space Mission
Need
Project
Design
Project
Execution
Applied to
What you need to have to allow it…..
Enabling
Expertise
Foundation
Capabilities
Contract
Management
Launch
Vehicles
Technical
Management
Spacecraft
Development
Flight
Operations
Procedural
Management
Fiscal
Management
RRS Scenarios
•Dedicated LV, Build S/C
•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
•Piggyback on Host S/C
•Auxiliary kicked off LV
(including Space Shuttle)
Personnel
Management
•ISS External Payload
(Only ISS Power)
Slide 7
RRS Basic Concept
What we want to do…..
Mission Level
Activities
Space Mission
Need
Project
Design
Project
Execution
What one needs to have to allow it…..
Enabling
Expertise
Foundation
Capabilities
Launch
Vehicles
Spacecraft
Development
Flight
Operations
Contract
Technical
Procedural
Fiscal
Personnel
Management Management Management Management Management
Slide 8
RRS Doable Scenario’s
•
•
•
•
1: Dedicated Launch Vehicle (Build S/C)
2: Dedicated Launch Vehicle (S/C Brought)
3: Piggyback on Host Spacecraft or LV
4: Auxiliary satellite deployed from launch
vehicle (includes shuttle deployables)
• 5: ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power)
These scenario’s helped identify needs, barriers, dependencies,
and get-aheads. They are a starting point, not a destination.
Slide 9
How We Attacked the Problem
– Discovery Tool
Basic Concept
What you want to do…..
Mission Level
Activities
Space Mission
Need
Project
Design
Project
Execution
Applied to
What you need to have to allow it…..
Enabling
Expertise
Foundation
Capabilities
Contract
Management
Launch
Vehicles
Technical
Management
Spacecraft
Development
Flight
Operations
Procedural
Management
Fiscal
Management
RRS Scenarios
•Dedicated LV, Build S/C
•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
•Piggyback on Host S/C
•Auxiliary kicked off LV
(including Space Shuttle)
Personnel
Management
•ISS External Payload
(Only ISS Power)
We based solutions on what we know can be done today,
and on the “team” approach (for repeatability & depth)
Slide 10
What Did We Learn
- Results Of Discovery Process!
• Consensus – A formal team, confederation of the willing,
Alliance, is necessary to carry out repeatable R&D Responsive
Spaceflight credibly NOW!
• No one organization can muster critical mass to accomplish
the RRS goal repetitively TODAY! - A single org (e.g., STP)
could do it in the future with the proper resource investment.
• R&D Responsive Space must be performed as a new process –
leaves existing processes (e.g., SERB) alone (non-responsive).
• An Alliance collaboration offers a robust and responsive
foundation from which to build a repeatable process – synergy
reduces schedule, (esp. non recurring) cost, and cycle time
• Organizational commitment to participate must be followed by
resource (manning & funding) commitment necessary to meet
timeline for “responsive” – TBD in RRS Implementation
• For each scenario there are barriers, needs, dependencies, and
schedule realities that must be recognized and addressed
Slide 11
Scenario #1: Dedicated LV, Build S/C
Example
Barriers
Technical Envelope
•
•
•
•
Minotaur LV (Pre Buy)
S/C Must Fit Minotaur
Standard S/C Design
•
•
•
•
Needs & Dependencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Freeze Mission Requirements by PDR
Concept design & SRR in one month
Train Ops on the ground with S/C when
available
Select LV by S/C SRR
Need quick response to Gov’t Reviews
Must have long lead items on-the-shelf
Standard interfaces defined 30-60 days
to PDR
Review Process – increases time and
dollars
LV – 18 Months unless pre-buy
Personnel Availability
Long lead time for S/C parts
Frequency allocation process
Schedule Realities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If an existing “standard” bus is available 30-60 days to
do PDR is doable
Technical complexity drives timeframe
On-orbit time drives timeframe
Use of “approved” COTS & pre-positioning long lead
items essential
Each organizations integration approach drives
timeframe
Commissioning S/C will drive design & timeframe
LV – Minotaur in 18 months doable without dollars up
front
Increased design margin – improves speed of reviews
& reduces risk
Slide 12
RRS Alliance Member Capabilities
Capabilities Overlap Supports Rapid Availability & Depth for RRS Repeatability
Modeling &
Simulation
Mission
Design &
Mgmt
S/C
(including
bus build)
AFRL/VSE
X
X**
X*
AFRL/VSS
X
X**
LANL/ISR
X
X**
NRL/NCST
X
X
RDSMO
X
In alphabetical
order
LVs
Ground
Systems &
Operations
X
X*
RSLP
I&T Facilities
& Services
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SDL
X
STP
X
X*
X
X
X#
* One off, custom SV. In-house build with contractor parts. Can meet
18 month schedule, depending on sensor type.
** Some limited capability. # Shuttle & Other
Slide 13
The RRS Alliance Concept How Would It Work?
RRS Alliance
RRS
Customer
Board of Directors
RRS Alliance
Secretariat
•Admin
•Cost Analysis
•Mission Support
Slide 14
The RRS Alliance Concept How Would It Work?
RRS Alliance
RRS
Customer
Scenarios
•Dedicated LV, Build S/C
•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
•Piggyback on Host S/C
•Auxiliary on LV
(including Space Shuttle)
•ISS External Payload
(Only ISS Power)
Board of Directors
RRS Alliance
Secretariat
•Admin
•Cost Analysis
•Mission Support
In
alphabetic
al order
Modeling
&
Simulatio
n
Mission
Design
& Mgmt
S/C
(includin
g bus
build)
AFRL/VSE
X
X**
X*
AFRL/VSS
X
X**
L
V
s
I&T
Facilities
&
Services
Ground
Systems &
Operations
X
RRS Alliance Capabilities
LANL/ISR
X
X**
NRL/NCS
T
X
X
RDSMO
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD)
RSLP
X
SDL
X
STP
X
X*
X
X
X
#
Slide 15
The RRS Alliance Concept How Would It Work?
RRS Alliance
RRS
Customer
Board of Directors
Scenarios
•Dedicated LV, Build S/C
•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
•Piggyback on Host S/C
•Auxiliary on LV
(including Space Shuttle)
•ISS External Payload
(Only ISS Power)
Project
Team
• ~~~~~
• ~~~~~
• ~~~~~
RRS Alliance
Secretariat
•Admin
•Cost Analysis
•Mission Support
Technical
Solution
Barriers
• ~~~~~~
• ~~~~~~
• ~~~~~~
• ~~~~~~
Management Approach
In
alphabetic
al order
Modeling
&
Simulatio
n
Mission
Design
& Mgmt
S/C
(includin
g bus
build)
AFRL/VSE
X
X**
X*
AFRL/VSS
X
X**
L
V
s
I&T
Facilities
&
Services
Ground
Systems &
Operations
X
RRS Alliance Capabilities
LANL/ISR
X
X**
NRL/NCS
T
X
X
RDSMO
X
X*
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD)
RSLP
X
SDL
X
STP
X
X*
X
X
X
#
RRS
Mission
+ RRS Investment Vision
Future Needs
• Program
• Technology
• Processes
Slide 16
Why An Alliance?
Vice Single Organization
• The synergy of the sum of our “best” R&D Space
professionals (team) is greater than any one org (the parts)
– Lowers cost, defines standards, utilizes existing facilities, builds
appropriate overlap for greater repeatability, reduces cycle time
• Increases technical envelope – An increased number of
rapid response solutions to today’s need can be exercised
• Shares investment in rapid response technologies (e.g.,
TacSat series, /VSS & GSFC’s MR2) is possible once a
commitment from Alliance members is formally established
• A properly managed Alliance can keep shared commitments
visible and accountable, collaborate vice compete
• Broader experience with new ‘tools’ (modeling & simulation)
is enhanced with larger organization participation (F1 model)
Slide 17
Conclusion – The Way Ahead
• R&D Responsive Space Alliance Needs Sponsorship, Resource
Commitments to Develop Successful Implementation Plan
– Sponsor should appoint a Secretariat (e.g., STP) to facilitate the
Alliance BoD (Principals) & perform basic Alliance administration
– Secretariat will need to codify commitments, agreements,
Implementation Plan, and execution process - ASAP
– Sponsor or Secretariat should be commissioned to identify R&D
Responsive Space barriers and their mitigation or work around
• RRS Alliance Willing to Demonstrate Credibility by Doing Real
Pilot Mission of /TD’s choice. We now know it is Roadrunner!
• Alliance will need continued SMC corporate support of this
strategy including help removing ‘red tape’ barriers
R&D Responsive Space can be done TODAY!
Slide 18
Roadrunner (TacSat-2)
July ’05? Spaceflight (STP-RSLP)
Primary Experiments
•
A panchromatic and three-color imaging system to provide
operational NIRS-5 data. (AFRL/VSE)
•
A 200W Hall thruster electric propulsion systems; the AFRL/PRS
Micro-satellite Propulsion Integration (MPI) experiment ranked
#19 on the ’03 DoD SERB list.
•
The software system to provide for autonomous and rapid
checkout of the satellites/payloads in orbit.
•
In the current baseline data (imagery) would be requested
through the SIPRNET. These multiple tasking requests would be
tasked at the Virtual Mission Operations Center (VMOC).
Other Possible SERB Experiments
•
Target Indication Experiment (TIE). TIE is ranked #15 on the ’03
DoD SERB list. (NRL/NCST)
•
Miniaturized Vibration Isolation System (MVIS). MVIS is ranked
#6 on ‘03 DoD SERB list. (AFRL/VSS)
•
AFRL/VSB Atmospheric Density System (ADS). ADS is ranked
#14 on the ’03 DoD SERB list.
•
ShockRing is ranked #21 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. (AFRL/VSS)
Slide 19
We Give Free Estimates!
(including other Gov’t customers like JPL)
Slide 20
Back Up Charts
Slide 21
Other RRS Scenarios
Technical Envelope, Schedule, Needs, Barriers
Quad Charts
Slide 22
Scenario #2: Dedicated LV, Bring S/C
Barriers
Technical Envelope
•
•
•
Minotaur LV (Pre Buy)
S/C Must Fit Minotaur
Standard S/C Design
Needs & Dependencies
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Nail down classification issues by end of mission design
(SCG if needed)
S/C structural model to do “hard mount” coupled loads (takes
60-90 days) to start mission design
ICD Issues (to LV, to GSE) must be really fleshed out up
front
S/c frequencies, data rates, data stream must be fully
explained during mission design phase
FCC authorization must be obtained by S/C
Lots of S/C technical data will be required by Ops team
Mission assurance planning must be done up front (roles and
responsibilities laid out)
Operations characterization completed by PDR
• Ops handbook draft, support for training/simulations
Need access to S/C technical team to support operations
development and on-orbit efforts
Full understanding of mission assurance responsibilities
Need 6-9 months to prepare for operations if all detail known
– S/C provider must
recognize booster and
OPS Center “Limitations”
– Frequency allocation
process
Schedule Realities
–
–
–
–
Need all S/C characterized by 2 months
prior to S/C thermal vacuum testing
If S/C bringer is also doing operations,
only need to provide launch
Need “Mission Assessment” at start
(about 1 month)
Minimum ops development time 6-9
months (if same as other types of s/c, if
all data is available
Slide 23
Scenario #3: Piggyback on Host S/C
Technical Envelope
• Dependent upon S/C
Barriers
– Current “prime (sponsor) culture”
is against doing piggybacks at all.
“Nothing but the primary mission”
– Risk adverse primes (sponsors)
(No new technology, no
additional things)
– Frequency allocation process
Needs & Dependencies
Schedule Realities
– Detailed ICD for “fitting” on the
Prime (by Prime PDR,
preconfigured interfaces)
– Prime interfaces must be
“Nailed” at start
– Must know before hand about
capacity on primes
– Must have realistic costing for
integration
– Completely dependent on prime
s/c schedule
– Preconfigured interfaces foster
increased potential to meet
timeline
Slide 24
Scenario #4: Auxiliary kicked off LV
(incl. Space Shuttle)
Technical Envelope
•
•
ESPA Class Spacecraft
Standard S/C Design
Needs & Dependencies
– Details of unused capacity (by
LV/mission)
– ICD for adapter (mechanical and
electrical)
– Schedule driven by Prime payload
– EELV having contract mechanism to
accept secondaries (and trade
space)
– ISS core completed to free up
Shuttle capacity
Barriers
– EELV not doing regular “ESPA”
launches
– R&D community ability to use
every opportunity (Lack of $)
– For Shuttle, NASA Integration
and Safety Process
– Frequency allocation process
Schedule Realities
– Very much like Option #1
– Schedule defined and controlled by
Prime Payload
Slide 25
Scenario #5: ISS External Payload
(Only ISS Power)
Technical Envelope
•
•
•
Only taking ISS Power
Limited crew involvement,
low impact on ISS
Safe without services
Barriers
– NASA Integration & Safety
Process takes time = Money
– NASA isn’t a credible Partner
because of past history with DOD
– NASA vs. DoD culture clash
– Frequency allocation process
Needs & Dependencies
Schedule Realities
– ISS Constraints limit usability
– If you fit the “ISS Paradigm” then
it is responsive, capability is
evolving
– 24 months (can be accelerated)
Slide 26
RRS Alliance Implementation
Notional until Implementation Plan
Is Fleshed Out
Slide 27
RRS Alliance Implementation
TBD: Now That Commissioned
Charter: Provide an …..
Structure:
Function of the Board of Directors:
Requirements for Board Membership:
Function of Secretariat; Commissioning Authority
Slide 28
RRS Alliance Secretariat
Functional Position
Full Time Equivalents
Director
Secretary
Mission Designer
FM
PK
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.2
0.2
Secretariat Total
3.4
Slide 29
Notional Project Flow
Project
Comes
To Alliance
Alliance
Board Meets
Alliance Board
Responds to
Customer
Supplier
Shakeout
Customer gives
Go / No Go
Build Project
Organization
Project
Execution
Evaluation
Slide 30
Notional RRS Project Team
Functional Position
Yr 1
Yr 2
Comments
Mission Mgr
Team Leads
Mission Design
S/C Development
team
LV Integration
Flight Planning
GS Development
Flight Ops
FM
PK
"SPO" Total
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
0.0
2.5
0.2
5.0
5.0
1.0
0.2
1.0
17.9
0.7 + LV team, e.g. RSLP
3.0
2.5
5.0
0.2
0.5
16.4
+ S/C contractor
Slide 31
RRS Alliance Capabilities
Top Level Summary by Subject Area
Slide 32
Alliance Support Infrastructure
(e.g., Mechanisms, Contracts, etc)
•
AFRL/VSE
–
•
Aerospace Engineering (I&T) Facility
AFRL/VSS
– SBIRs w’ AeroAstro, SpaceDev, CSA, etc
•
LANL/ISR
– Contract with SSTL (specifically for CFESat) would new procurement for a 2nd
satellite. Various electrical, mechanical machining vehicles, which can be used
•
NRL/NCST
– Contracts w’ Orbital, SpaceX, SpectrumAstro, etc
•
RDSMO
– Contracts w’ Northrop-Grumman & Lockheed-Martin, Black (SCI, SAR/SAP) &
White (unclas) experiment process capability. SCF with access to AFSCN
•
RSLP
–
•
IDIQ w’ Orbital for Minotaurs, Peacekeepers
STP
– No current RRS funding or contracting mechanisms with exception of SMDC
(initially would serve as real estate broker for the Alliance when commissioned)
•
SDL
– UARC funding mechanisms w’ NRL & MDA, contracts w’ SmallSats community
Slide 33
Current Mission Planning
Capabilities
•
•
•
•
•
STP has performed extensive mission planning for SERB experiments. STP
receives specifications for all payloads and then “bundles” them to procure a new
SV or finds individual piggyback opportunities for each by matching requirements
of payload to established missions. STP has mission planning processes in place
in-house to quickly and efficiently match payloads with access to space.
NRL performs mission planning for their in-house SV builds.
AFRL/VS performs mission planning for their in-house SV builds. AFRL/VS
Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) hosts Satellite Tool Kit. Several
multi-year contract vehicles are available to perform mission mod and sim (MRC,
PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money.
Tasking must be within scope of contract. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract.
LANL has performed mission planning for our in-house SV builds
SDL can provide up-front SV design. SDL services can be accessed using the
sole-source UARC contract. (University Affiliated Research Center) already in
place. Any DoD organization can funnel money through it as long as it has
something to do with space sensors, expect a 1-month turnaround. However, in
an emergency we can typically carry the program for a month or two on internal
funding. In those cases we have started work on contracts within the same week.
Slide 34
Current S/C Capabilities
- Facilities
•
•
•
•
AFRL/VS Aerospace Engineering Facility (AEF) hosts environmental chambers,
baking and curing chambers, T-Vac chambers, EMI screen room, shaker tables,
clean rooms, solar simulation lamp, spin table, and mass properties table. J&T
contract handles most of the SV I&T tasks.
SDL hosts Thermal Optical Research chamber, T-Vac chambers, RF-shielded
anechoic chamber, shaker table, clean rooms, machine shop, and 5 SCIFS.
Scheduling is rarely a problem, and all could be made available almost on-demand.
NRL hosts anechoic chambers, integration facilities, clean rooms, T-Vac chambers,
vibration shakers, acoustic chamber, pyro shock and static load test capabilities,
ground-based instrument calibration facilities, satellite laser ranging facility, and an
on-orbit calibration facility.
LANL hosts clean rooms; T-vac chambers; screen room; various calibration facilities;
photon, x-ray, neutron, and gamma-ray sources; laser; linear accelerator; classified
and unclassified computing facilities; classified and unclassified shock facilities; RF
and optics labs; satellite integration facility, and electron cyclotron resonance ion
beam facility. LANL also has 2 SCIFs for ‘black’ projects.
Slide 35
Current S/C Capabilities
- Services
•
•
•
AFRL/VS Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) has modeling and
simulation capabilities for SV subsystems, payload modeling, hardware-in-the-loop
evaluations, and development of flight software. Several multi-year contract vehicles
are available to perform mod and sim (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they
have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking must be within scope of contract.
Approx 30 days to get them on-contract.
SDL builds custom SVs, so does not have a standard structure to offer, but can
perform the following: Structure, electronics, and thermal blanket design &
fabrication; thermal reflectors or paint application; cable buildup; sensor re-design;
some sensor design & build; sensor and spacecraft integration; sensor testing;
spacecraft testing (EMI/EMC, Thermal vac, shake & vibe); SV-LV integration
assistance. SDL services can be accessed using the sole-source UARC contract.
(University Affiliated Research Center) already in place. Any DoD organization can
use it as long as it has something to do with space sensors. Approx 30 days to get
them on-contract.
NRL builds custom SVs, so does not have a standard structure to offer, but has task
order contracts with Orbital Sciences and Honeywell in place for parts and services
that can be used if in scope. Can get them on-contract in a day, if necessary.
Slide 36
Current S/C Capabilities
- S/C Builds
• AFRL/VSE has MightySat II.1 bus to offer. It has flown. Long-lead
items are in storage, and bus can be available in less than 1 year.
MightySat specs: 68.6cm x 88.9 cm x 88.9 cm, 125 Kg (includes 37
kg payload), orbit avg. power consumption 150 W (includes 60 W for
payload).
• SDL and NRL can build custom SVs in-house, and provide them in
under a year if the sensor is simple. Schedule is highly dependent on
sensor selected.
Slide 37
Future S/C Capabilities
w’ Proper Resourcing
• AFRL/VSE working on a more capable (more payload for the
SV mass) model of MightySat called MicroSat that is not yet
available.
• NRL/NCST is working with the Office of Force
Transformation’s ‘Operationally Responsive Space Experiment
Initiative’ to provide a rapid, tailored, and operationally relevant
experimental space capability to tactical forces. This includes
a standard micro-satellite bus, interfaces, and a modular
payload capability.
• Within 2 months, SDL will be prepared to do a full EMI/EMC
test
Slide 38
Current LV Capabilities
•
•
RSLP is only provider in Alliance for launch vehicles, launch analysis, integration
facilities. No current process for manifest of secondaries exists.
Current OSP-2 contract with Orbital Sciences provides Minotaur and Peacekeeper in
negotiated configuration only (task order contract). Minotaur available 18 mos from
money received to launch
OSP-2 Peacekeeper
OSP Minotaur
• Capability: 1030 Kg to
• Capability: 335 Kg to
400nm, 99° inclination
400nm, 99° inclination
• Approx payload envelope
• Approx payload envelope
19”
35”
31”
53”
60”
40”
48”
122”
48”
81”
Slide 39
Launch Vehicle Payload
Volume Comparison
Minotaur
PK SLV
PK SLV
Minotaur
(14.3 m3 = 507 ft3)
(1.95 m3 = 69 ft3)
Slide 40
Future LV Capabilities
• RSLP is only LV provider in Alliance
• RSLP is putting together own pitch for SMC chain to offer
quicker launches, if ~$4M is invested up front. RSLP will take
money and develop LV up to certain point and freeze - could
shorten launch schedule to as short as 6-months.
• Launch opportunities for secondaries: multi-payload adaptor and
large payload fairing for Minotaur are qualified and ready, but
have not flown (will fly in ’05). 2 multi-payload adaptors and a
large payload fairing for Peacekeeper in work.
• Hope to have new Spaceports contract up in 2 years to provide
access to VAFB, CCAS, WFF, and Kodiak
Slide 41
Current Operations
Capabilities
• RDSMO has a ground system facility permitting dynamic
reconfiguration based on customer requirements
– In-house development or Customer delivered equipment
– Operations staff (cost shared with other programs to the extent
possible)
– High and low level redundancy for aggregate 99.65% internal
availability and 97% using the AFSCN
• NRL has a permanent control center (Blossom Point) with mobile
antennas and fixed antennas inside and outside CONUS.
• On-orbit payload data processing performed by SAIC and MRC
contractors for AFRL/VSE.
• SDL has payload data reduction and analysis capability.
• LANL has two autonomous ground stations, LANL and University
of Alaska, Fairbanks for highly inclined orbits. LANL also has the
DPAC or the highly sophisticated data processing center that has
been used by MTI that could be adapted.
Slide 42
Miscellaneous RRS Notes
•
•
•
•
Benefits of an Alliance vice Sole Source:
– Increase sponsor commitment
– Enhance Personnel Retention and growth
– Influence R&D Mission Design Requirements
– One-stop shop for R&D Responsive Space
– Streamline Interfaces
– Identify Holes in our R&D Responsive Space Options
Alliance BOD must be a formal organization authorized and validated
Requirement for Board Member:
– Technically knowledgeable on their organization’s offering and able to get
authority to commit
– Able to make decisions about the acceptance of a project to the R&D
Responsive Space
– Must have TRUST
Project/Program/Mission Manger
– Must be very experienced and able to handle interfaces between
organizations.
Slide 43