1 / 20

A NOVEL APPROACH TO RESPONSIVE SPACE: LESSONS LEARNED BY THE DoD SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)

A NOVEL APPROACH TO RESPONSIVE SPACE: LESSONS LEARNED BY THE DoD SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP). Eleni “Sam” Sims The Aerospace Corporation Email: eleni.m.sims@aero.org. Sabrina Herrin The Aerospace Corporation Email:sabrina.l.herrin@areo.org. INTRODUCTION.

hammett-barr
Download Presentation

A NOVEL APPROACH TO RESPONSIVE SPACE: LESSONS LEARNED BY THE DoD SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A NOVEL APPROACH TO RESPONSIVE SPACE:LESSONS LEARNED BY THE DoD SPACE TEST PROGRAM (STP) Eleni “Sam” Sims The Aerospace Corporation Email: eleni.m.sims@aero.org Sabrina Herrin The Aerospace Corporation Email:sabrina.l.herrin@areo.org

  2. INTRODUCTION • STP serves as the primary provider of spaceflight for the entire DoD space science and technology community • Since 1967, STP has flown 168 missions carrying 435 experiments • At STP, Responsive Space is seen as • Being flexible to changing plans • Networking • Reusing existing designs

  3. OUTLINE • Case Studies • MISSE 5 • SPHERES • Kodiak Star • Nanosat-2 • Summary MISSE On-Orbit A Single SPHERE Kodiak Star Spacecraft NanoSat-2 on Vibe Table

  4. Case Study 1:Materials International Space StationExperiment (MISSE) Passive Experiment Container (PEC) 5 (MISSE 5)

  5. MISSE 1-4 came to STP through the DoD Space Experiments Review Board (SERB), sponsored by the AFRL MISSE 5 is a reimbursable mission Passive Experiment Container (PEC) designed by Langley Research Center, borrowed heavily from the Mir Environment Exposure Payload (MEEP) experiments hosted materials that need to be exposed to the space environment for extended periods of time and then recovered for analysis on the ground MISSE 5 uses almost the same PEC design (MISSE 1-4) to get space/solar exposure data on solar cells MISSE 5 Shuttle mission destined for the ISS in late Spring 2005 Background: MISSE 5 MISSE 1&2

  6. Case Description: MISSE 5 • Reimbursable customer approached STP about getting space exposure data on some new solar cells • STP personnel remembered the MISSE series of experiments, and proposed the MISSE PEC • MISSE 5 added a battery, thermal control, and a comm link to the PEC • From MISSE PEC design changes to testing completed HW in 15 mos • By choosing the MISSE PEC, the team leveraged all of the previous work performed on NASA human space flight safety certification • Often, it takes 2-3 years to complete the Space Shuttle or International Space Station safety process • The time to develop Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory training hardware and procedures was also shortened MISSE 5

  7. Lessons Learned: MISSE 5 • For human space flight payloads, the impacts of this safety process can be greatly reduced by tapping into existing design solutions, subsystem concepts, etc • Design reuse helps build familiarity and confidence within the human space flight community and ultimately, a more responsive approach to space flight of DoD experiments Before inventing something new, first look to see if there is anything that can be reused

  8. Case Study 2: Synchronized Position Hold Engage Re-orient Experimental Satellites (SPHERES)

  9. Background: SPHERES • Joint venture between DARPA, NASA, MIT, Payload Systems Inc, and AFRL • SPHERES tests metrology, formation flight, and autonomy algorithms using from one to three, 25-cm, 3-kg, autonomous micro-satellites, a laptop computer, and five infrared/ultrasonic (IR/US) transmitters • Commands/telemetry are sent via an RF link between the microsatellites and the laptop control station • The microsatellites receive IR/US “pings” from transmitters distributed about the test environment to determine position and attitude and control their relative positions and orientations Conceptual interpretation of SPHERES on-orbit

  10. Case Description: SPHERES • STP manifested them on a Shuttle launch to be taken to the ISS in Sep 03 • Feb 03 Columbia tragedy grounded the entire Shuttle fleet • STP encouraged SPHERES to complete all Shuttle manifest documentation in order to be ready when the flight schedule resumed • During NASA Shuttle grounding, all ISS servicing accomplished by the Russian PROGRESS resupply vehicle • STP, working with NASA, found flight opportunities available on PROGRESS • STP approached SPHERES team and NASA about putting a subset of the SPHERES HW on the Aug 03 PROGRESS flight (“12P”) • A SPHERES IR/US beacon and beacon tester were launched on 12P • Additional SPHERES complement manifested on PROGRESS 14P, scheduled for May 2004 • While the majority of the SPHERES HW planned to be carried up on the next 2 Shuttle launches, starting with the Shuttle Return-to-Flight in FY05, STP continues looking for space on PROGRESS and Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) flights SPHERES Satellite-SPH-1-0000-000

  11. Lessons Learned: SPHERES • Be prepared - completing the NASA manifest documentation allowed SPHERES to easily complete the additional PROGRESS safety documentation and take advantage of that spaceflight opportunity • Modularity adds flexibility – don’t under estimate the power of an experiment subset that can be done earlier as a risk-reduction or proof-of-concept to save time or money in the long run In this case, “responsive” means accomplishing some of the objectives soon rather than waiting until all could be executed at once later

  12. Case Study 3:Kodiak Star

  13. The mission came about because of an initial discussion over lunch at a conference between individuals from STP and NASA. The mission flew three STP SC and one NASA SC PICOSat was an STP built SC and flew the following: AFRL’s Polymer Battery Experiment (PBEX) SMC’s Ionospheric Occultation Experiment (IOX) NRL’s Coherent Eelectromagnetic Radio Tomography (CERTO) AFRL’s Optical Precision Platform Experiment (OPPEX). Sapphire and PC Sat were SC that were sponsored by the US Naval Academy STARSHINE 3 was the NASA SC Background: Kodiak Star Athena launch of Kodiak Star

  14. PICOSat and SAPPHIRE were built and on the shelf PCSat and STARSHINE 3 were in the design phase MOA signed and the mission manifested within 2 months of initial conversations Payload Upper Deck (PUD) adapter was designed, built, and tested by Lockheed Martin in 5 months Long-lead items and the least mature systems were identified and money and time were spent on those areas to bring them up to speed. STARSHINE 3 SAPPHIRE PICOSat Kodiak Star spacecraft suite PCSat Case Description: Kodiak Star

  15. Lessons Learned: Kodiak Star • Networking is invaluable in mission design • When all parties stand to benefit, things can be accomplished in a short amount of time • If you are committed to a project, apply the appropriate level of resources and make the project a priority • In order to meet an aggressive schedule, risks must be identified early and mitigation plans established at the start of the program Aggressive risk management is critical in order to keep on schedule, especially if the schedule is accelerated to begin with

  16. Case Study 4:University Nanosats-2

  17. Background: Nanosat-2 • SERB mission sponsored by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) • Originally a constellation of 3 nanosatellites built by: • Arizona State University (Sparkie) • University of Colorado at Boulder(Ralphie) • New Mexico State University (Petey) • Planned for a shuttle launch • Nanosat-2 removed from shuttle manifest due to test-related problems verifying safety related satellite function Nanosats in current configuration Petey Sparkie Ralphie Nanosats in 3 SC Configuration

  18. September 2000 – June 2003 STP investigated flying a payload on the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Heavy Demo five times First four investigations resulted in no manifest attempts due to perceived schedule or technical issues June 2003 SMC/CC asked STP to find a payload to fly on EELV Heavy Demo STP forwarded all options they felt were technically feasible, even if they did not meet all the EELV Heavy Demo requirements September 2003 Nanosats-2 is selected to fly on EELV Heavy Demo SMC, the EELV SPO and Boeing begin negotiation of technical, financial, and contractual issues January 2004 Work toward integrating the payload on the mission begins April 2004 Ready for delivery to CCAFS by May 3 for integration Case Description: Nanosats-2 NanoSat-2 in current configuration

  19. Lessons Learned: Nanosats-2 • Be open to a change in plans • Be inventive and identify all options, whether they meet every requirement or not • The community as a whole needs to be more accepting of auxiliary payloads • When a decision is made, press forward and force the work, both technical and programmatic, to begin immediately Establish your processes, agreements, budget, and responsibilities up front

  20. Responsive Space Lessons Learned Summary • Be open to a change in plans and to solutions that have never been attempted • Networking will help identify more opportunities • To accomplish something quickly, commit wholeheartedly and apply enough resources to make the project work • Risks and a plans to mitigate them should be identified in the beginning of a program • Prior to “starting from scratch,” investigate the utilization of existing resources and designs • Be prepared to take advantage of opportunities when they come along • Making a project scalable, so that objectives can be accomplished incrementally, will increase the number of manifest options and maximize the early accomplishment of some objectives

More Related