Transcript IPA Prep Meeting - Responsive Space

UNCLASSIFIED
Transforming the National
Spacelift Architecture
Development & Transformation Directorate,
Space & Missile Systems Center,
Air Force Space Command
JEREMY NOEL, Capt, USAF
Chief Analyst
RAYMOND ESCORPIZO, Capt, USAF
Lead, Space Operations Demonstrations
EDWARD “NED” JONES, 2Lt, USAF
Space Systems Engineer, Concept Development
17 July 2015
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
Overview
Why do we need responsive spacelift?
Challenges & potential additional benefits of
responsive space efforts
Update on major activities to understand &
develop responsive spacelift


Summary of Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON)
program highlights
Proposed long-term ORS Roadmap
* See associated paper for references
UNCLASSIFIED
2
UNCLASSIFIED
Overview
Why do we need responsive spacelift?
Challenges & potential additional benefits of
responsive space efforts
Update on major activities to understand &
develop responsive spacelift


Summary of Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON)
program highlights
Proposed long-term ORS Roadmap
* See associated paper for references
UNCLASSIFIED
3
UNCLASSIFIED
Why Responsive Spacelift?
-- To Enable Responsive Space -Space enhances national security: military, commercial,
diplomacy/political, economic, etc.
Need ability to conduct continuous global operations



Space uniquely suited to task if able to rapidly adapt to changing
warfighter needs
Asymmetric opposition forces present new challenges
Need to shorten the delay between sensor and shooter
Need to maintain American interests in space--military &
commercial


Need to protect, augment, & replenish space assets on demand
Recognize increased dependence on space services & systems
Responsive space offers promise of affordable operational capability
--Information & force application at the right place & right time -UNCLASSIFIED
4
UNCLASSIFIED
Responsive Spacelift Objectives
• Global Precision Strike
• Common Aero Vehicle
(CAV) Flexible Weapon
Carrier
• Centers of Gravity
• HDBT Defeat
• WMD Defeat
• CONUS Based
• Time-to-Tgt < 120 min
• Rapid reconstitution
of space capabilities
lost due to enemy
action
• Augmentation of
critical ISR capabilities
Force Enhancement
•
•
•
•
•
•
Force Application
Cost Effective Lift
Responsive launch
Routine launch
Recover Space Assets
On-Orbit Servicing
Support ACTDs & Testing
• Defensive Counterspace
• Satellite Protection
• Offensive Counterspace
• Space Surveillance
• Space Object ID
Space Support
Counterspace
UNCLASSIFIED
5
UNCLASSIFIED
Overview
Why do we need responsive spacelift?
Challenges & potential additional benefits of
responsive space efforts
Update on major activities to understand &
develop responsive spacelift


Summary of Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON)
program highlights
Proposed long-term ORS Roadmap
* See associated paper for references
UNCLASSIFIED
6
UNCLASSIFIED
Responsive Spacelift:
Challenges To Overcome
Current lift architecture not designed to be responsive


Long development cycles & a strategic focus on space capability
Need to balance new systems with new operational concepts
Continuously changing requirements or economic outlook



Nearly every launch is somewhat unique—need for more standardization
Changing launch rates forced additional programmatic review
Result: Increased programmatic & technical risk
Higher than anticipated recurring launch costs


Driven primarily by lower than anticipated launch rates
Existing launch costs too high to effectively supply tactical effects to the
warfighter
Unknowns: Reusable element production costs and operability

Few data points for reusable systems available to accurately determine
future reusable element production costs or operability
UNCLASSIFIED
7
UNCLASSIFIED
Responsive Spacelift:
Potential Additional Benefits
Responsive & affordable spacelift may:




Open new commercial ventures
Further push technology & production capabilities,
affecting all aspects of the economy
Help American aerospace industry respond to
increased foreign spacelift competition
Invigorate a new generation of American space
enthusiasts
UNCLASSIFIED
8
UNCLASSIFIED
Overview
Why do we need responsive spacelift?
Challenges & potential additional benefits of
responsive space efforts
Update on major activities to understand &
develop responsive spacelift


Summary of Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON)
program highlights
Proposed long-term ORS Roadmap
* See associated paper for references
UNCLASSIFIED
9
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS AoA Purpose and Scope
Purpose of the AoA



Determine the best method (means) to responsively launch, maneuver,
service and retrieve space payloads so as to enhance military
effectiveness
Develop acquisition and development roadmaps for recommended
alternative(s)
Develop streamlined process for future AoAs--“Pathfinder” opportunity!
Scope of the AoA

Spans all AFSPC Mission Areas




Force Application - Leverage Prompt Global Strike (PGS) efforts and
Institute for Defense Analysis and ACC’s Future Strike Studies
Force Enhancement – Include theater ISR & and other mission area
augmentation/ replenishment
Space Support – Addresses numerous alternative launch options, and
includes on-orbit transfer & servicing
Space Control – Addresses offensive, defensive, and space situational
awareness activities
UNCLASSIFIED
10
UNCLASSIFIED
Alternative Space Architectures
Considered in AoA
Conventional architectures

Military Utility Analysis
M
O
E
x
x
x

Represent a future where rapid response
capability is not available
Mostly for comparison purposes
Launch-on-need architectures

Low Med High
MOP
Represent a future where space assets are
launched on an as-needed basis

MOE= Measures of Effectiveness
MOP= Measures of Performance
MUA identified 3 levels of
performance for space
capabilities:
1) Navigation
2) Surveillance
3) Reconnaissance
4) Force application
Some background (peacetime) capability is
also assumed
Alternate architectures



Servicing
Reusable
Retrievable
UNCLASSIFIED
11
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS Launch System Analysis
Investigated a broad range of spacelift solutions capable
of satisfying launch profiles

Designed broad range of launch vehicle configurations


Developed 71 lift architectures
Determined operability ranges (2) for all launch vehicle designs
• Reduced System Complexity
• Increased Component Life
• Process / Practices Improvements
•Clean Pad & Steamlined Infrastructure

• Improved Accessibility, Autonomous
Systems
• Payload Canisterization, Standardized
Flight Ops
Determined cost range (2) for all launch vehicles with reusable
elements
Calculated Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of each spacelift solution
Characterized the risk of each spacelift solution
UNCLASSIFIED
12
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS Launch System Analysis
Spacelift Vehicle Concepts
Existing LV systems
RLV - TSTO


ELV


Liquid two stage
Solid three stage




Hybrid - Pop-Up



Optimized LH-LH
Optimized RP-RP
Optimized RP-LH
Bimese LH-LH
Bimese RP-RP
Hypersonic-Rocket
Five Payload Classes
LH RLV first stage
RP RLV first stage
Liquid, or Solid Upper Stage
1 klb
15 klb
45 klb
5 klb
25 klb
Extensive analysis performed on broad range of launch concepts;
over 87 concepts considered
UNCLASSIFIED
13
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS Cost Comparison
Baseline Architecture
Key areas of uncertainty: RLV processing timeline and production cost
Hybrids are competitive for lowest LCC, in both best-case and worst-case
processing times and production costs
DoD-only Missions
Medium Military Utility Performance Level
Best Case RLV Production
Cost and Turn-Time
ELV
RLV
Hybrid
Worst Case RLV Production
Cost and Turn-Time
Hypersonic
ELV
RLV
Hybrid
Hypersonic
Hybrids offer the potential for lower overall launch costs without the risks of an RLV
UNCLASSIFIED
14
UNCLASSIFIED
Short Processing Timelines
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Launch Cost ($M/Launch)
Launch Cost ($M/Launch)
Launch Cost Comparisons
15k Solid ELV
13k Hybrid
15k RP-RP Optimized RLV
0
10
20
30
40
50
Long Processing Timelines
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15k Solid ELV
13k Hybrid
15k RP-RP Optimized RLV
0
Flight Rate (Launches/Year)
10
20
30
40
50
Flight Rate (Launches/Year)
Hybrids have significant per launch cost advantages over ELVs
UNCLASSIFIED
15
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS Launch System Analysis
Results: Advantages of Hybrid (RLV/ELV) Solutions
RLV
Expended Hardware (Klb)
Reused Hardware (Klb)
ELV
0
196
Fully-Reusable RLVs
• Are big because the orbiter
must go to and return
from orbit
• Drives higher development
and production costs
RLV-ELV
Hybrid
33
0
12
89
36% of ELV
45% of RLV
Fully-Expendable ELVs
• Expend large amounts of
hardware
• Drives higher recurring costs
Hybrid ELV-RLVs
• Balance ELV-RLV Production and Development
costs, resulting in lower LCC for most cases
* Based on 15 Klb to LEO capability, LH2 Propellant
Hybrids offer cost effective combination of RLV and ELV
UNCLASSIFIED
16
UNCLASSIFIED
Notional Modular Family
UNCLASSIFIED
17
UNCLASSIFIED
Spacecraft Architecture Analysis
Conclusions
Payloads can be made responsive

Responsiveness fairly insensitive to spacecraft weight
Majority of existing DoD spacecraft are >1Klb; ~10Klb LEO
equivalent covers all by GPSIII & MILSATCOM
Tactical satellites


Small satellites (<1Klb) fill unique niches: OCS & DCS
Cost effectiveness of small tactical satellites depends on the
capability you need

For capabilities imposed by ORS AoA, spacecraft significantly larger than
1Klb were required for reconnaissance, surveillance, navigation
Strategic vs. tactical constellation decisions depend on usage
rate over time and corresponding costs


Usage rates over 6-7 times in 20 years supports strategic
approach
Analysis must be made for each constellation
UNCLASSIFIED
18
UNCLASSIFIED
Launch Vehicle Architecture
Analysis Conclusions
With new design emphasis, launch vehicle responsiveness is
relatively insensitive to vehicle dry-weight
Across full range of assumptions hybrid launch vehicle offers
the best mix of operability, cost, and risk


Analysis supports 2/3 reduction in recurring launch cost, 2-day
turn-time, and low technical risk
Further understanding of operability & cost issues developed
through course of acquisition strategy




Starts with concept definition & development
Leads to hybrid operability demonstrator & operational hybrid
IOC date of 2018 based on available funding, not technical risks
Roadmaps


Use evolutionary development approach to provide a modular growth
path maximizing commonality
Technology roadmap supports subsystem-level demonstrations
UNCLASSIFIED
19
UNCLASSIFIED
Overview
Why do we need responsive spacelift?
Challenges & potential additional benefits of
responsive space efforts
Update on major activities to understand &
develop responsive spacelift


Summary of Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON)
program highlights
Proposed long-term ORS Roadmap
* See associated paper for references
UNCLASSIFIED
20
UNCLASSIFIED
Program Goal
Develop and Validate, through Demonstrations,
Technologies that will Enable Both Near-term and Farterm Capabilities Enabling Transformational Prompt
Global Strike and Demonstrating Affordable and
Responsive Space Lift
UNCLASSIFIED
21
UNCLASSIFIED
Objectives:
Small Satellite Launch
Affordable and
Responsive Spacelift
Capability
» Small payloads to LEO
• Up to 1000 lbs payload to
28.5o, circular, 100 nm
altitude
» Affordable
• Low recurring launch
cost: < $5M per launch
»Responsive
• 24 hrs to alert status
• Launch within 24 hrs from
alert status
UNCLASSIFIED
22
UNCLASSIFIED
Objectives:
Force Application
Near-Term Capability
» Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) /
Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) System
• High Endurance CAV
• 1000 lb payload (CAV)
– Unitary Penetrator
– Multiple Munitions
– Sensors, UAVs, etc.
• Global reach
• Operationally, Responsive
booster
– Surge Rate of 16
launches in 24 hours
– 24 hours to alert status
– Launch <2 hrs after
execution order
Far-Term Capability
» Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV)
• High L/D Configuration
• 12000 lb payload
– CAVs,
– cruise missiles
– SDBs
• Global down & cross range
• Aircraft-like operation
– Reusable
– Recallable
– Launch on demand
UNCLASSIFIED
23
UNCLASSIFIED
Overview
Why do we need responsive spacelift?
Challenges & potential additional benefits of
responsive space efforts
Update on major activities to understand &
develop responsive spacelift


Summary of Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS)
Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON)
program highlights
Proposed long-term ORS Roadmap
* See associated paper for references
UNCLASSIFIED
24
UNCLASSIFIED
Long- Term Proposed Roadmap
‘04
‘05
‘06
‘07
‘08
‘09
‘10
Evolutionary Block I Goals
‘11
‘12
‘13
‘14
‘15
‘16
‘17
‘18
Evolutionary Block II Goals
‘19
‘20
‘21
‘22
‘23
‘24
‘25
‘26
Evolutionary Block III Goals
Demo Resp Effects for Warfighter
Lift Cap 5K - 10K lbs LEO East
Replace EELV
Lift Cap < 1K lbs LEO East
Reduce cost of space
Lift TBD pending payload evolution
Launch from multiple sites
Reduce logistics footprint
Single mission satellites
Focused Tech Development with NASA, NRO, DARPA & AFRL
TacSat Demos
Small Launch Demos
TechSat Demos
1K payload - Operational Capability
Medium
Launch Demo
Medium
Operational Capability
Rapid Sat
Demo
Rapid Sat
Operational Capability
Study EELV
Replacement
UNCLASSIFIED
EELV Replacement Demo
25
UNCLASSIFIED
Responsive Spacelift:
Conclusions
Responsive space offers lots of opportunities


All stakeholders that develop & use space assets should benefit
Improved space capability & potential for significantly lower recurring
launch costs
Enabling responsive space means changing how we do
business
Moving toward responsive spacelift isn’t without risks

Risks can be mitigated—requires solid acquisition programs & focused
technology development efforts
ORS AoA suggests evolutionary acquisition approach




Block I: Small Launch Vehicle (FALCON program)
Evolve SLV into Hybrid (RLV-ELV) Operability Demonstrator—learn
about both reusable & expendable vehicle operability, production
costs, etc.
Block II: Operational Hybrid, IOC 2018
Block III: EELV Replacement, IOC beyond 2020
UNCLASSIFIED
26
UNCLASSIFIED
Backups
UNCLASSIFIED
27
UNCLASSIFIED
AoA Process: 4 Major
Steps
1.
2.
Examine Military Utility
(AFSPC/XPY)
From Military Utility,
derive responsive
space system
architectures and
launch loads
Military Utility Analysis
M
O
E
4.
Explore responsive
launch options to
meet loads
LV Options
Satellite Architectures
(7 Identified)
LV Architectures
(85 Identified)
x
x
x
LowMed High
MOP
MOE= Measures of Effectiveness
MOP= Measures of Performance
Launch Demands
to achieve
L/M/H Utility
CONOPS
Results
LV Concept Utility
3.
Payload Capabilities
(Surv, Recon, Nav)
Cost
Risk
1
2
3
H
H
H
C1
C2
C3
R1
R2
R3
4
5
6
M
M
M
C4
C5
C6
R4
R5
R6
7
8
9
L
L
L
C7
C8
C9
R7
R8
R9
Fleet Size, Facilities, Tech., Risk, & Cost
to achieve L/M/H Utility
Cost Effectiveness & Risk Analysis
Determine most cost
effective launch solution
UNCLASSIFIED
28
UNCLASSIFIED
Flight Hardware Production Costs
(Comparisons)
Vehicle Cost/Inert Wt (FY'03$/Lb)
20,000
Shuttle
Orbiter
15,000
AoA RLV
Production
Cost Region
SRM
Missiles
10,000
Military Aircraft
5,000
ELVs
Commercial
Aircraft
0
100
200
300
Vehicle
Inert Wt (Klb)
UNCLASSIFIED
400
500
29
AchievingUNCLASSIFIED
RLV Affordability &
Responsiveness
Processing Labor-Hours*
Industrial
Base
Infrastructure
Integration
Launcher
Payloads
Spaceport
Net Results
Short Timelines
Low Cost
Low Risk
1st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems
• Modern Engines • Benign Environment
• Fewer Engines • Modern Self-Contained
Actuation
• High Margins
439
Propulsion
42
Mechanical
• Batteries only
• No Fuel Cells
• No APUs
• No TPS • No OMS
• Canisterized
Required • Non-toxic RCS Payloads
34
Electrical
0
Thermal
STS
7
OMS/RCS
Post Ops
• No Crew or long
duration missions
0
2
P/L Integration Crew Support
5,771
7,764
8,205
10,434
12,482
* Result Supported By ORS AoA &
AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies)
18,914
15,893
Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs
UNCLASSIFIED
30
UNCLASSIFIED
Operability & Affordability
Order-of-magnitude operability/cost improvements achievable
through a combination of good system design, improved
operating practices, and application of technology
Requires combination of...
Reduced System
Complexity
Elimination of crew compartment, life support
systems, systems for long on-orbit flight
Increased
System/Component Life
Increased design margins, modern
technologies, increased component testing
Process / Practices
Improvements
Standardized LRUs and repair procedures,
management by metrics
Improved Accessibility,
Autonomous Systems
Systems designed for ease of access, R&R,
and processing without ground systems
Clean Pad & Steamlined
Infrastructure
Reduced number of interfaces, automation,
non-toxic or hazardous operations
Payload Canisterization,
Standardized Flight Ops
Payload canisters with standard interfaces and
automation of flight planning
Demonstrator program essential to maturate engineering data & metrics,
and to validate design and processing concepts
UNCLASSIFIED
31
UNCLASSIFIED
Operationally Responsive Spacelift
Demonstrators with Residual Capabilities
Architecture
On-demand payload deployment to augment and
quickly replenish constellations to support crises
and combat operations; launch to sustain required
constellations for peacetime operations;
recoverable, rapid-response transport to, through,
and from space; and integrated space operations
mission planning to provide near real-time
automated planning to enable on-demand execution
of space operations
Servicing
Space
Superiority
Satellite
Deployme
nt
Capability Needed
Retrieve
/ return
Orbit Transfer
Orbit
inserti
on
Tactical ISR
Orbital Profile
CONUS
Based
Pop-up Profile
Force Applications
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TD (DSN:833-3593)
Technology Status
Engineering Solution
Small Launch Demo (<1Klb FALCON)
Enabling Technology Target Performance Goal Asses. '04
None required
Not applicable
G
• Demonstrate ORS
• Block I: Initial focus on 1 Klb to LEO
capability (FALCON) [freeze= 2004]
• Medium Launch Ops Demo: Follow-On
effort includes 5-10 Klb to LEO ‘hybrid’
RLV/ELV vehicle [freeze= 2007]
•
•
•
•
Medium Launch Ops Demo (5 – 10Klb Hybrid)
Enabling Technology
Fast-Turn Propulsion
System
Reusable booster – Exp. upper stages
Modular Insertion Stage (MIS)
Flight Cost ~ $20 M
Turnaround ~24-96 hrs
Integ. RLV Structures
Global Flight
Control/Termination
RLV Mission Ops
Ground Ops
UNCLASSIFIED
18 Mar 2004 (2000)version
Target Performance Goal
16 hours from landing until ready for flight, 40
flight life, 20 flights between overhaul, reliability
.997, Isp 340, thrust/weight 75
100-150 sorties, 300-1000 tank cycles, TPS
repair 0.2 hours/ft**2/sortie
Asses. '07
G
G
Flight life of 50, Check-out time 1 hour,
encryption code 1 hour
G
Mission management team 6 or less
15 minute umbilical mating, 2 hours to transport
and erect, 1 hour mating
G
G
32
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS Developmental Roadmap
ACQUISITION
Demonstrators with Residual Capabilities
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23
KDP-A/B
Small Launch Demo Devel. (FALCON)
CDR
1Klb Vehicle Ops.
1st Demo Flight
IOC
ORS AoA
Responsive Space
Studies
Concept
Development
Demo
Definition
Risk Red & Design Development
KDP-B
KDP-A
1st Demo Flight
Acquisition & Operations Support
Operational System
TFD ‘15
IOC
Demo TFD ‘11
TECHNOLOGIES
Fast-Turn Propulsion System
5
5+
Integrated RLV Structures
6
TRL
- TRL (as
currently
AFRL funded)
Space Unique
6+
AFRL Space Unique
RLV Mission Operations
5
5+
Global Flight Control/Termination
(booked to other system
or concept)
SPO Funds to AFRL
Other Funds to AFRL
5
Other Funds to Others
Ground Ops (Fast integration, fueling, etc)
5
Technologies For
ORS Block II Demo
5+
AFRL Non Space Unique
Unfunded
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TDEC, DSN:833-3593
33
UNCLASSIFIED
18 Mar 2004 (2000)version
UNCLASSIFIED
Operationally Responsive Spacelift
ORS Block II: 5-10Klb Operational Vehicles
Space
Superiority
Satellite
Deployme
nt
Capability Needed
Architecture
Servicing
Retrieve
/ return
Orbit Transfer
Orbit
inserti
on
Tactical ISR
Orbital Profile
CONUS
Based
Pop-up Profile
Force Applications
On-demand payload deployment to augment and quickly
replenish constellations to support crises and combat
operations; launch to sustain required constellations for
peacetime operations; recoverable, rapid-response transport
to, through, and from space; and integrated space
operations mission planning to provide near real-time
automated planning to enable on-demand execution of
space operations
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TD (DSN:833-3593)
Technology Status
Engineering Solution
Technology
Performance Goal
• ORS Block II Objective System
Ground Ops
• Upgrade Medium Launch Ops Demo
(10 Klb to LEO ‘hybrid’ RLV/ELV
vehicle) to operational status
15 minute umbilical mating, 2 hours to
transport and erect, 1 hour mating
Integ. RLV Structures
100-150 sorties, 300-1000 tank cycles, TPS
repair 0.2 hours/ft**2/sortie
LOX/Hydrocarbon ISP 362 (if Methane),
Thrust/Weight 80, $2000 Production cost/lb,
Reliability .9997 plus Block 1 goals
LOX/Hydrocarbon and
LOX/LH2 Propulsion
Asses. '15
Y
Y
Y
•
•
•
•
Green Upper Stage
Propulsion
Reusable booster – Exp. upper stages
Modular Insertion Stage (MIS)
Flight Cost ~ $20 M
Turnaround ~24-96 hrs
Advanced RCS Propulsion
Integ. Electric Subsystems
Integ. A-GN&C/HM/VMS
TFD = 2015
ISP 320, $1000 Production cost/lb, Reliabiltiy
0.999, Engine Prep time 16 hours
ISP 358 (RP)-368 (Methane)-455 (LH2), $2000
Production cost/lb, Reliability 0.9999, 60 hours
mean time between overhaul, Engine life 100,
RCS turn time 1 hour
Flight life 100, >3000 hour mean time between
failure, 20 manhours/flight cycle time
Loss of Vehicle at 0.0005, R&R at 0.5 hours,
Software update 0.5 hours, MTBF 20000 hours,
trajectory planning 10 minutes
Y
Y
Y
Y
Intelligent Maintenance Ops Maintenance <10% of manhours, spares <5% of
UNCLASSIFIED
18 Mar 2004 (2000)version
cost
Y
34
UNCLASSIFIED
ORS Developmental Roadmap
ORS Block II: 5-10Klb Operational Vehicles: 2018 IOC
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
ACQUISITION
Resp. Payload Dev
ORS AoA Responsive Space Concept
Studies
Demo
Definition
Development
Risk Red & Design Development
KDP-B
KDP-A
Tech Freeze
IOC
Ground Ops (Fast integration, fueling, etc)
5
5+
Integrated RLV Structures
5
6+
LOX/Hydrocarbon Propulsion
TECHNOLOGIES
Acquisition & Operations Support
TRL
5
4
4
Decision Pt.
For Propulsion
LOX/LH2 Propulsion
5
Green Upper Stage Propulsion
Advance RCS/OMS Propulsion
4
Other Funds to AFRL
AFRL Non Space Unique
5+
Integrated A-GN&C/HM/VMS
Unfunded
5+
Intelligent Maintenance Operations
4
(booked to other system
or concept)
Other Funds to Others
Integrated Electric Systems
4
AFRL Space Unique
SPO Funds to AFRL
4
5
- TRL (as
AFRL funded)
Space Unique
currently
4+
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TDEC, DSN:833-3593
35
UNCLASSIFIED
18 Mar 2004 (2000)version
UNCLASSIFIED
Operationally Responsive Spacelift
EELV Replacement (ORS Block III, >10Klb)
Space
Superiority
Satellite
Deployme
nt
Capability Needed
Architecture
Servicing
Retrieve
/ return
Orbit Transfer
Orbit
inserti
on
Tactical ISR
Orbital Profile
CONUS
Based
Pop-up Profile
Force Applications
On-demand payload deployment to augment and quickly
replenish constellations to support crises and combat
operations; launch to sustain required constellations for
peacetime operations; recoverable, rapid-response transport
to, through, and from space; and integrated space
operations mission planning to provide near real-time
automated planning to enable on-demand execution of
space operations
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TD (DSN:833-3593)
Technology Status
Engineering Solution
• ORS Block III (EELV Replacement)
Objective System
• Heavy Launch Ops Demo (>10 Klb to LEO
likely fully reusable vehicle)
[Tech Freeze Date = TBD]
Enabling Technology
Propulsion
Airframe
Flight Subsystems
Operations
Target Performance Goal
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Asses.
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TDEC, DSN:833-3593
36
UNCLASSIFIED
18 Mar 2004 (2000)version
UNCLASSIFIED
Operationally Responsive Spacecraft
Architecture
Servicing
Space
Superiority
Satellite
Deployme
nt
Capability Needed
Retrieve
/ return
Develop responsive spacecraft with the following
characteristics: short acquisition cycles, low-cost to
design and build, rapid turn-on and initialization.
Satellites will augment existing space capabilities,
deliver new space capabilities, and replenish or
replace existing or planned space capabilities
traditionally in the domain of large spacecraft.
Orbit Transfer
Orbit
inserti
on
Tactical ISR
Orbital Profile
CONUS
Based
Pop-up Profile
Force Applications
POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TD (DSN:833-3593)
Technology Status
Engineering Solution
Numerous studies are underway to
determine the best way to develop
responsive spacecraft. Multiple
approaches are under consideration,
including TacSat demonstrators and design
studies.
Some capabilities can be generated with
existing technologies, and technologies to
fully take advantage of responsive
spacecraft are still being studied.
UNCLASSIFIED
Y
37
18 Mar 2004 (2000)version
UNCLASSIFIED
Questions To Answer Through
Data Mining
When do we build tactical vs. strategic constellations?
What can we conclude about spacecraft size, capability,
& LCC?
Do recurring launch costs impact preferred space
vehicle solution?
Is on-orbit servicing cost efficient? Is it necessary to
achieve desired capability?
Are reusable spacecraft cost efficient?
What is the value of maneuverability?
Preliminary results not reviewed yet by AoA Core Team
UNCLASSIFIED
38