Transcript Intro – Gen. James - NASASpaceFlight.com

HLV Industry Day
Hybrid Launch Vehicle
Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning
ORS AoA Review
Mr. Bob Hickman
Aerospace Corporation
Space and Missile Systems Center
07 March 2005
ORS AoA Mission Areas
• Rapid reconstitution
of space capabilities
lost due to enemy
action
• Augmentation of
critical ISR
capabilities
Force Enhancement
• Cost Effective Lift
• Responsive launch
• Routine launch
• Recover Space Assets
• On-Orbit Servicing
• Support ACTDs &
Testing
Space Support
• Global Precision Strike
• Common Aero
Vehicle (CAV) Flexible
Weapon Carrier
• Centers of Gravity
• HDBT & WMD Defeat
• Response from CONUS
• < 120 min
Force Application
• Defensive
Counterspace
• Satellite Protection
• Offensive
Counterspace
• Space Surveillance
• Small (300-lb) PLs to
high-energy orbits
Counterspace
AoA defined lift capacity, responsiveness, and affordability to enable these missions
2
ORS Effect on Military Utility
10%
Red OCS
SFA
20%
Blue OCS
30%
Replenishment
40%
% Improvement
FEBA Penetration
50%
0%
low
medium
high
Aggressiveness Assumption
ORS capability has significant military utility across all three
aggressiveness levels examined
3
ORS AoA Military Utility Analysis
Many thousands of military campaign simulations
Identified specific performance parameters to guide spacecraft design
SFA
4
Space Alternatives vs. Launch Alternatives
Space Vehicle Architectures
Current Way
of Doing
Business
Responsive
Micro-Sats
Recoverable
Satellites
Store SpHLV
On-Orbit
Responsive
Satellites
Serviceable
Satellites
Retrievable
Satellites
Distributed
Micro-Sats
Launch Vehicle Architectures
71
Launch Vehicle
Architectures
AoA Process considered how different future space architectures would
affect the desirability of each launch option
5
Spacelift Vehicle Options
EELV
RLV (TSTO)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optimized LH-LH
Optimized RP-RP
Optimized RP-LH
Bimese LH-LH
Bimese RP-RP
Hypersonic Rocket
New ELVs
• 3-Stage Solid
• 2-Stage Liquid
Hybrid
Payload Classes
• 1 Klb – 45 Klb to LEO
• LH Reusable Booster
• RP Reusable Booster
• Liquid or Solid Upper Stages
6
The Hybrid* Vehicle
*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages
Hybrid Vehicle Based Architectures
(1)
 Best choice in 85% of representative futures
• Best or within 6% of best choice in 92% of representative futures
• Best or within 15% of best choice in 96% of representative futures

Hybrid architectures minimize the worst outcome (max regret)
for all levels of production costs, levels of operability, and
levels of military utility
Why?
 Relatively low development costs
(2)
 Reduces launch costs by 67%
 2-4 Day turn-around time
 Low technical risk
AFFORDABILITY
RESPONSIVENESS
RISK
___
1) Based on 20-Year LCC
2) Compared to EELV prices, published as of Dec 2003
7
The Hybrid* Vehicle
*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages
~Mach 7 Separation
~200,000 ft
REUSABLE
BOOSTER
$1k-$2k/lb to LEO
1-2 Day Turn Time
EXPENDABLE
UPPER STAGES
8
Why Hybrids* Cost Less
RLV
Expended Hardware (Klb)
Reused Hardware (Klb)
ELV
Hybrid*
0
33
12
36% of ELV
196
0
61
31% of RLV
Fully-Reusable RLVs
Fully-Expendable ELVs
Hybrid ELV-RLVs
• Are big because orbiter must
go to/from orbit
• Expend large amounts of
hardware
• Drives higher development and
production costs
• Drives higher recurring
costs
• Balance ELV-RLV Production and
Development costs, resulting in
lower LCC for most cases
Hybrids offer cost-effective combination of RLV & ELV characteristics
(This example based on 15 Klb to LEO capability, LH2 Propellant)
9
Hybrid Vehicle Responsiveness
based on Shuttle Ops Data
Industrial
Base
Infrastructure
Integration
Launch
Launch Vehicle
Launch
Vehicle
Vehicle
Payloads
Spaceport
Post Ops
1st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems
• Modern
• Benign Environment
Engines
• Fewer Engines • Modern SelfContained Actuation
• High Margins
439 man-hrs
ORS
Propulsion
• Batteries only
• No Fuel Cells
• No APUs
• No OMS
• No TPS
• Non-toxic
Required
RCS
42
34
0
7
Mechanical
Electrical
Thermal
OMS/RCS
STS
• Canisterized • No Crew or long
duration missions
Payloads
2
0
P/L Integration Crew Support
5,771
7,764
8,205
10,434
12,482
18,914
15,893
Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs
*
Result Supported By ORS AoA & AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies)
10
The HLV (Mach 6+) Flight Environment
199 FLIGHTS:
The X-15: 1959 -1968
DEMONSTRATED:
High Speed: Mach 6.33, with Inconel hot
structure
Low Cost: < ~$1.6M / flight (inflated to FY04)
Fast Turn: < 48 hours
Robust Rocket Engine (XLR-99): Throttleable, restartable, 24 MFBO
Demonstrated operable rocket powered flight above Mach 6
11
Design Curve Sensitivity
Vehicle Gross Weight (106 lb)
7
6
5
Incentive to
optimize
performance
4
3
2
1
Hybrid
0
0.76
0.78
0.80
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.90
Propellant Mass Fraction
Hybrids facilitate robust designs, with low risk.
12
HLV Planned Modular Development
Notional Example
Shuttle depicted
for size comparison
only.
Peacekeeper
or
Falcon SLV
Upper Stages
Payload to LEO
Payload to GTO
Flyback Method
1,500 lb
none
ORS
Hybrid
PK* Stg 1 & 3
or FALCON
14,100 lb**
4,500 lb
Jet Flyback
ORS
2-Booster
Hybrid
PK or FALCON
24,000 lb**
8,200 lb
Jet Flyback
ORS
2-Booster
Hybrid (Growth)
2 New U/S
45,000 lb
15,000 lb
Jet Flyback
*PK=Peacekeeper
** Constrained to Mach 7 staging
*** GTO performance requires STAR or MIS upper stages
13
AFROCC Decision (15 July 2004)
DECISION: The AFROCC has reviewed the ORS AoA, and approves
it to proceed to USAF/CV as a pre-MS A (KDP A) AoA-A based on the
following recommendations:
 Leverage lessons learned from AF-DARPA FALCON demo
 Conduct Architecture Studies
o Responsive spacecraft: size and functions study
o Integration and technology needs
 Pursue a Hybrid launch vehicle: spiral development approach
o Step one: Small scale hybrid integration demonstrator
o Step two: Full scale operational hybrid demonstrator
o Step three: Vehicle production /operations
Additionally, the AFROCC requires an update of the costing section of
the AoA prior to MS B.
//Signed//
HARRY C. DISBROW, Jr.
Chairman
Air Force Requirements for
Operational
Capabilities Council
14
Summary Findings
Hybrids can reduce costs by factor of 3-6 and have 1-2
day turn time
Planned evolution recommended by ORS AoA, beginning
with subscale demo, followed by full-scale Y-vehicle
AFROCC approved the AoA’s recommendations
Low risk compared to Mach 25 Vehicles
Modular architecture of hybrid launch vehicles can be
designed to cover all weight classes
15