Orbiting Technology Testbed Initiative (OTTI) Program Development Planning Strategy

1. Orbiting Technology Testbed Initiative (OTTI)Program Development Planning Strategy A Presentation to Mike Sander January 18, 1999 by Ranty Liang Mike Herring

2. Agenda • Background • Concept • Program Development Strategy • Program Development Schedule • Status

3. What is OTTI? • Multi-agency sponsored activity • Provides a series of low-cost platforms in the Mid-Earth Orbit (MEO) to address specific environmentally tolerant technology validation needs for commercial and government satellites • First flight October 2001 with successive flights every 24 months

4. Who is Involved? NASA DARPA USAF NOAA BMDO DSWA NRO

5. Shift in Spacecraft Design Paradigm • Traditional design uses radiation-hardened technology: • Parts are not readily available and expensive • Technology is usually 2-3 generations behind SOA • Contemporary design developing radiation tolerant technologies: • Systems approach used to mitigate radiation induced degradation • As parts fail, other subsystems mitigate the degradation with reconfigurable S/W and H/W and/or redundancy • Design approach promote greater use of state-of-the-art COTS components • New cross-cutting approaches need ground and space validation testing

6. NASA Planetary Exploration Needs • Future missions must be low cost and environmentally tolerant through application of advanced technologies and design processes • Excessive shielding and less than State-of-the-Art rad hard processors limit science return on investment Missions Weight (kg)Approx. Cost ($B)Total Dose (Mrad)SEU Galileo ~ 2000 $1.50 0.15 LET> 30 Europa 100 - 200 <$0.25 4.0 LET> 30 Io 100 - 200 <$0.25 5.0 LET> 30 Neptune 100 - 200 <$0.25 ? LET> ?

7. Proposed Communication Satellite Systems “Mid Earth Orbit (MEO) is considered from 1,000 to 10,000 km altitude and is primarily characterized by severe radiation environments of the Van Allen belts”

8. Dilemma of Deploying Satellites in MEO (Mid-Earth Orbit) • DoD and commercial communications exploring MEO for placement of cost effective constellations • Fewer number of satellites needed than LEO • Less signal time latency than GEO • Smaller terrestrial signal sources required (mobile communications) • Less power required for satellite transmission (lower cost) • Designers concerned with the MEO environment • Dynamic changes in overall radiation flux levels • Wide energy distribution of energetic particles • Uncertainty in reliable advanced satellite design • Higher performance, increased complexity and more compact satellite packaging implies more susceptibility to environmental damage • Cost/availability of rad/hard parts • Industry needs to stay ahead in space electronics technologies • New technologies need proof in the space environment • Industry motivated by competition from abroad

9. Radiation Environment Comparison * DRAM “MEO offers an environment to address specific technology validation needs for communications and military satellites and NASA Deep Space Explorations”

11. Identifying the Need • Industry and government workshops held on 2/19-20, 1997 and 6/30 -7/1, 1998 • Workshop Participants: • Commercial Communication • CCI, Motorola, TRW, Hughes, Loral • Satellite Manufacturers/Subsystem Venders • TRW, Lockheed/Martin, Hughes, Spectrum Astro, Texas Instruments, Loral, CTA, Boeing, & Dupont • Government • JPL, NASA • BMDO, AF, DSWA

12. Proposed OTTI Experiment Platforms • Provide a series of low cost platforms in the Mid Earth Orbit (MEO) to address specific environmentally-tolerant technology validation needs for commercial and government satellites • Complementary ground testing • Provide platforms and radiation tolerant technology know-how to industry and other government programs that provide payloads • Procure commercial off-the-shelf spacecraft with modification to survive in MEO for a defined period of time • First flight FY2001 with successive flights every 18-24 months

13. Proposed OTTI Experiment Platform Concept Space Environment Sensors Stand alone payload Simple Interface OTTI Platform Spacecraft Shared resources payload Stand alone payload Processor OTTI platform employing “mature” technologies to survive harsh radiation environment for 1-2 years

14. Suggested Program Support Concept NASA $$ INDUSTRY OTTI DoD Program . Data Analysis / Facilitate Ground Testing Mission P/L S/C L/V I & T Modeling Payload Pool Direct correlation between OTTI program contribution VS payload selection NASA Experiment DoD Selection Payloads Flt. #1 Process INDUSTRY

15. Program Development Strategy Overall Program (OTTI Infrastructure) funding: Multi-agencies and multi-NASA codes: • 45% of the funding from NASA • Code S (Ulrich, Withbroe) Code Q (Greenfield) • Code AE (Mulville) Code Y (Paules Luther) • SOMO (Seyl, Gilbert) NMP (Li) • 45% of the funding from DoD • AF (Anderson, Cox, Worden) BMDO (Pierce) • NRO (Pattishall) DARPA (Whelan) • 10% of the funding from Industry

16. Program Development Strategy (continued) Funding Profile ($M) Assuming $30M per mission and two missions 24 months apart: Launch date: Mission I 10/2001 Mission II 10/2003 NASA & DoD are being targeted at $6 to $7M/year at the peak years

17. Program Development Strategy (continued) Targeted Annual Funding ($M) • From NASA ($M) • Code S 3.0 to 4.0 • Code Y 1.0 to 2.0 • Code Q 0.5 • Code AE 0.5 to 1.0 • Code SOMO 0.5 to 1.0 • Code NMP 0.5 to 1.0 • From DoD ($M) • AF 2.0 • BMDO 2.0 • NRO 2.0 • DARPA 2.0 • Others <1.0

18. Program Development Strategy (continued) • Code S • Space Technology Demonstration Initiative (TRL level 4 through 7) being proposed by Ulrich to begin in FY01 (kick-start $ available in FY00) • As a part of the SEC augmentation (kick-start $ available in FY99) • As a part of the new thrust area: Ultra-survivable Spacecraft in the CETDP • Code Y • Develop position paper on specific OTTI benefits to Code Y • Re-visit Code Y (Paules, Luther, Asrar) • Code S/Y collaboration

19. Program Development Strategy (continued) Strategy With DoD • Brief Hans Mark, Director Defense Research & Engineering • Letter from JPL is needed to be on Mark’s calendar • Col. Worden (USAF) and Ulrich willing to support such briefing • Agencies briefed: • AFRL Anderson • AFSMC Cox • AF Space Command Worden • BMDO Pierce • NRO Pattishall • DARPA (to be conducted) Whelan • Targeting $2M per year per DoD agency

20. Program Development Schedule Signed LOI Briefing to DOD DOD commitment Final program description plan and LOI DOD stakeholders meeting NASA stakeholders meeting Initial program description plan and LOI Program Start 4/5/99 2/15/99 3/15/99 3/22/99 Inputs from all stakeholders Option Studies Cost Result Cost Review 2/15/99 2/22/99 S/C RFI 1/18/99

21. OTTI Status • Funding obtained from CETDP for FY99 • Draft Program Description Plan completed • Preliminary Launch & Mission Studies completed • A baseline and two other options to be evaluated • RFI to Industry out this week • Program cost review • LeRC unable to support OTTI - have yet to hear from LeRC & MSFC • OTTI Team • M. Herring C. Cagle J. LaBrecque K. Leschly • H. Garrett R. Stirbl R. Liang

22. Launch & Mission Studies Spacecraft Commercial Off-the-Shelf Spacecraft Modified to survive 12 to 24 months in MEO environment

23. Launch & Mission Studies (continued) Launch Options Option I: Piggy-back on GPS/Delta Refurbishment Launches Option II: Arianne V Option III: Shuttle

24. Delta Piggyback Launch Configuration(Option I) Delta secondary payload attachment

25. Option I • Small 60 kg satellite providing basic services to subsystem level experiments • Piggyback launch with GPS Block II refurbishment missions • (400 x 4000 km orbit at 37 degrees) • Support provided to experiments for 1 - 2 years • - Modular satellite subsystem experiments • - Payload specifications • Mass (kg) 25 • Volume (cm) 30 x 60 x 30 • Power (W) 25 • Environment: 80 krad/yr w/100 mil AI (400 x 4000 km)