HLV Industry Day Hybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning

1. ORS AoA Review HLV Industry DayHybrid Launch Vehicle Phase I: Concept Development & Demonstration Planning Mr. Bob Hickman Aerospace Corporation Space and Missile Systems Center 07 March 2005

2. Rapid reconstitution of space capabilities lost due to enemy action • Augmentation of critical ISR capabilities • Global Precision Strike • Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) Flexible Weapon Carrier • Centers of Gravity • HDBT & WMD Defeat • Response from CONUS • < 120 min Force Application Force Enhancement • Cost Effective Lift • Responsive launch • Routine launch • Recover Space Assets • On-Orbit Servicing • Support ACTDs & Testing • Defensive Counterspace • Satellite Protection • Offensive Counterspace • Space Surveillance • Small (300-lb) PLs to high-energy orbits Space Support Counterspace ORS AoA Mission Areas AoA defined lift capacity, responsiveness, and affordability to enable these missions

3. 50% 40% 30% Replenishment 20% Red OCS Blue OCS SFA 10% 0% low medium high ORS Effect on Military Utility FEBA Penetration % Improvement Aggressiveness Assumption ORS capability has significant military utility across all three aggressiveness levels examined

4. SFA ORS AoA Military Utility Analysis • Many thousands of military campaign simulations • Identified specific performance parameters to guide spacecraft design

5. 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

6. 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 • LH Reusable Booster • RP Reusable Booster • Liquid or Solid Upper Stages • Payload Classes • 1 Klb – 45 Klb to LEO

7. Hybrid Vehicle Based Architectures Best choice in 85% of representative futures(1) 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 Reduces launch costs by 67%(2) 2-4 Day turn-around time Low technical risk AFFORDABILITY RESPONSIVENESS RISK The Hybrid* Vehicle*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages ___ 1) Based on 20-Year LCC 2) Compared to EELV prices, published as of Dec 2003

8. ~Mach 7 Separation ~200,000 ft REUSABLE BOOSTER $1k-$2k/lb to LEO 1-2 Day Turn Time EXPENDABLE UPPER STAGES The Hybrid* Vehicle*Hybrid = Reusable Booster + Expendable Upper Stages

9. RLV ELV Hybrid* 36% of ELV 0 33 12 196 0 61 31% of RLV • Fully-Reusable RLVs • Are big because orbiter must go to/from orbit • Drives higher development and production costs • 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 Why Hybrids* Cost Less Expended Hardware (Klb) Reused Hardware (Klb) Hybrids offer cost-effective combination of RLV & ELV characteristics (This example based on 15 Klb to LEO capability, LH2 Propellant)

10. Launch Vehicle Launch Vehicle 1st Stage Hybrid RLV Subsystems • Modern Engines • Fewer Engines • High Margins • Benign Environment • Modern Self-Contained Actuation • Batteries only • No Fuel Cells • No APUs • No TPS Required • No OMS • Non-toxic RCS • Canisterized Payloads • No Crew or long duration missions 439 man-hrs 0 0 7 42 34 2 ORS Propulsion Mechanical Electrical Thermal OMS/RCS P/L Integration Crew Support STS 5,771 7,764 8,205 10,434 12,482 15,893 18,914 Hybrid Vehicle Responsivenessbased on Shuttle Ops Data Industrial Base Infrastructure Integration Launch Vehicle Payloads Spaceport Post Ops Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs * Result Supported By ORS AoA & AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies)

11. 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 The HLV (Mach 6+) Flight Environment Demonstrated operable rocket powered flight above Mach 6

12. Incentive to optimize performance Region of State-of-the-Art Technologies Design Curve Sensitivity 7 6 5 1-Stage RLV (SSTO) 4 Vehicle Gross Weight (106 lb) 3 2-Stage RLV (TSTO) 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.

13. HLV Planned Modular DevelopmentNotional Example ORS 2-Booster Hybrid (Growth) Shuttle depicted for size comparison only. ORS 2-Booster Hybrid ORS Hybrid Peacekeeper or Falcon SLV PK* Stg 1 & 3 Upper Stages or FALCON PK or FALCON 2 New U/S Payload to LEO 1,500 lb 14,100 lb** 24,000 lb** 45,000 lb Payload to GTO 4,500 lb 8,200 lb 15,000 lb Flyback Method none Jet Flyback Jet Flyback Jet Flyback *PK=Peacekeeper ** Constrained to Mach 7 staging *** GTO performance requires STAR or MIS upper stages

14. AFROCC Decision (15 July 2004)

15. 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