1 / 38

Transforming the National Spacelift Architecture

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

samson-love
Download Presentation

Transforming the National Spacelift Architecture

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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 --

  5. 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 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 • Space Object ID Space Support Counterspace Responsive Spacelift Objectives

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. Alternative Space Architectures Considered in AoA • Conventional architectures • Represent a future where rapid response capability is not available • Mostly for comparison purposes • Launch-on-need architectures • Represent a future where space assets are launched on an as-needed basis • Some background (peacetime) capability is also assumed • Alternate architectures • Servicing • Reusable • Retrievable MUA identified 3 levels of performance for space capabilities: 1) Navigation 2) Surveillance 3) Reconnaissance 4) Force application

  12. 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 • 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 • Improved Accessibility, Autonomous • Systems • Payload Canisterization, Standardized • Flight Ops • Reduced System Complexity • Increased Component Life • Process / Practices Improvements • Clean Pad & Steamlined Infrastructure

  13. Existing LV systems ELV Liquid two stage Solid three stage Hybrid - Pop-Up LH RLV first stage RP RLV first stage Liquid, or Solid Upper Stage RLV - TSTO Optimized LH-LH Optimized RP-RP Optimized RP-LH Bimese LH-LH Bimese RP-RP Hypersonic-Rocket ORS Launch System AnalysisSpacelift Vehicle Concepts • Five Payload Classes • 1 klb 5 klb • 15 klb 25 klb • 45 klb Extensive analysis performed on broad range of launch concepts; over 87 concepts considered

  14. 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 Worst Case RLV Production Cost and Turn-Time Relative LCC $ Relative LCC $ ELV RLV Hybrid Hypersonic ELV RLV Hybrid Hypersonic Hybrids offer the potential for lower overall launch costs without the risks of an RLV

  15. Launch Cost Comparisons Short Processing Timelines Long Processing Timelines 15k Solid ELV 15k Solid ELV 13k Hybrid 13k Hybrid 15k RP-RP Optimized RLV 15k RP-RP Optimized RLV Hybrids have significant per launch cost advantages over ELVs

  16. ORS Launch System AnalysisResults: Advantages of Hybrid (RLV/ELV) Solutions RLV ELV RLV-ELV Hybrid 36% of ELV Expended Hardware (Klb) 0 33 12 Reused Hardware (Klb) 196 0 89 45% of RLV • Fully-Expendable ELVs • Expend large amounts of hardware • Drives higher recurring costs • Fully-Reusable RLVs • Are big because the orbiter must go to and return from orbit • Drives higher development and production 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

  17. Notional Modular Family

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Program Goal Develop and Validate, through Demonstrations, Technologies that will Enable Both Near-term and Far-term Capabilities Enabling Transformational Prompt Global Strike and Demonstrating Affordable and Responsive Space Lift

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19 ‘20 ‘21 ‘22 ‘23 ‘24 ‘25 ‘26 Evolutionary Block I Goals Evolutionary Block II Goals Evolutionary Block III Goals Demo Resp Effects for Warfighter Replace EELV Lift Cap 5K - 10K lbs LEO East Lift Cap < 1K lbs LEO East Lift TBD pending payload evolution Reduce cost of space Launch from multiple sites Reduce logistics footprint Single mission satellites Focused Tech Development with NASA, NRO, DARPA & AFRL TacSat Demos TechSat Demos Small Launch Demos 1K payload - Operational Capability Medium Launch Demo Medium Operational Capability Rapid Sat Demo Rapid Sat Operational Capability Study EELV Replacement EELV Replacement Demo Long- Term Proposed Roadmap

  26. 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

  27. Backups

  28. Military Utility Analysis Payload Capabilities (Surv, Recon, Nav) LV Options CONOPS x M O E x x Satellite Architectures (7 Identified) LV Architectures (85 Identified) Low Med High MOP Launch Demands to achieve L/M/H Utility MOE= Measures of Effectiveness MOP= Measures of Performance Results LV Concept Utility Cost Risk Fleet Size, Facilities, Tech., Risk, & Cost to achieve L/M/H Utility 1 H C1 R1 2 H C2 R2 3 H C3 R3 4 M C4 R4 5 M C5 R5 6 M C6 R6 Cost Effectiveness & Risk Analysis 7 L C7 R7 8 L C8 R8 9 L C9R9 AoA Process: 4 Major Steps • Examine Military Utility (AFSPC/XPY) 2. From Military Utility, derive responsive space system architectures and launch loads 3. Explore responsive launch options to meet loads 4. Determine most cost effective launch solution

  29. 0 100 200 300 400 500 Flight Hardware Production Costs (Comparisons) 20,000 Shuttle Orbiter Production Level 2 15,000 AoA RLV Production Cost Region SRM Missiles Vehicle Cost/Inert Wt (FY'03$/Lb) 10,000 Production Level 1 Military Aircraft 5,000 ELVs Commercial Aircraft Vehicle Inert Wt (Klb)

  30. Achieving RLV Affordability & Responsiveness Processing Labor-Hours* Industrial Base Infrastructure Integration Launcher Payloads Spaceport Post Ops Net Results Short Timelines Low Cost Low Risk 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 0 0 7 42 34 2 Crew Support Propulsion Mechanical Electrical Thermal OMS/RCS P/L Integration STS 5,771 7,764 8,205 10,434 12,482 * Result Supported By ORS AoA & AFRL/Industry (RAST & SOV Studies) 15,893 18,914 Hybrid turnaround time ~26 Serial Hrs

  31. 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

  32. Servicing Space Superiority Satellite Deployment Retrieve/ return Orbit Transfer Orbit insertion Tactical ISR Orbital Profile Force Applications CONUS Based Pop-up Profile Operationally Responsive Spacelift Demonstrators with Residual Capabilities Architecture Capability Needed 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 Small Launch Demo (<1Klb FALCON) • 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] • Reusable booster – Exp. upper stages • Modular Insertion Stage (MIS) • Flight Cost ~ $20 M • Turnaround ~24-96 hrs Enabling Technology Target Performance Goal Asses. '04 None required Not applicable G Medium Launch Ops Demo (5 – 10Klb Hybrid) 18 Mar 2004 (2000)version

  33. FY22 FY23 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Operational System TFD ‘15 1st Demo Flight CDR 1st Demo Flight KDP-B KDP-A KDP-A/B TRL AFRL Space Unique AFRL Space Unique (booked to other system or concept) SPO Funds to AFRL Other Funds to AFRL Other Funds to Others AFRL Non Space Unique Unfunded - TRL (as currently funded) ORS Developmental RoadmapDemonstrators with Residual Capabilities Small Launch Demo Devel. (FALCON) 1Klb Vehicle Ops. ACQUISITION IOC Responsive Space Studies ORS AoA Concept Development Demo Definition Acquisition & Operations Support Risk Red & Design Development IOC Demo TFD ‘11 Fast-Turn Propulsion System 5+ 5 Integrated RLV Structures 6 6+ TECHNOLOGIES RLV Mission Operations 5+ 5 Technologies For ORS Block II Demo Global Flight Control/Termination 5 Ground Ops (Fast integration, fueling, etc) 5 5+ POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TDEC, DSN:833-3593 18 Mar 2004 (2000)version

  34. Operationally Responsive Spacelift ORS Block II: 5-10Klb Operational Vehicles Servicing Space Superiority Satellite Deployment Retrieve/ return Orbit Transfer Orbit insertion Tactical ISR Orbital Profile Force Applications CONUS Based Pop-up Profile Capability Needed 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 POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TD (DSN:833-3593) Technology Status Engineering Solution • ORS Block II Objective System • Upgrade Medium Launch Ops Demo • (10 Klb to LEO ‘hybrid’ RLV/ELV vehicle) to operational status • Reusable booster – Exp. upper stages • Modular Insertion Stage (MIS) • Flight Cost ~ $20 M • Turnaround ~24-96 hrs TFD = 2015 18 Mar 2004 (2000)version

  35. ORS AoA Responsive Space Studies KDP-A KDP-B Tech Freeze TRL AFRL Space Unique AFRL Space Unique (booked to other system or concept) SPO Funds to AFRL Other Funds to AFRL Other Funds to Others AFRL Non Space Unique Unfunded - TRL (as currently funded) ORS Developmental Roadmap ORS Block II: 5-10Klb Operational Vehicles: 2018 IOC Resp. Payload Dev Concept Development Demo Definition Acquisition & Operations Support Risk Red & Design Development ACQUISITION IOC Ground Ops (Fast integration, fueling, etc) 5 5+ Integrated RLV Structures 5 6+ LOX/Hydrocarbon Propulsion 5 4 Decision Pt. For Propulsion 4 LOX/LH2 Propulsion 5 Green Upper Stage Propulsion 4 TECHNOLOGIES Advance RCS/OMS Propulsion 4 Integrated Electric Systems 5 5+ Integrated A-GN&C/HM/VMS 4 5+ Intelligent Maintenance Operations POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TDEC, DSN:833-3593 4+ 4 18 Mar 2004 (2000)version

  36. Operationally Responsive Spacelift EELV Replacement (ORS Block III, >10Klb) Servicing Space Superiority Satellite Deployment Retrieve/ return Orbit Transfer Orbit insertion Tactical ISR Orbital Profile Force Applications CONUS Based Pop-up Profile Capability Needed 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 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] POC: Capt Alec Leung, SMC/TDEC, DSN:833-3593 18 Mar 2004 (2000)version

  37. Servicing Space Superiority Satellite Deployment Retrieve/ return Orbit Transfer Orbit insertion Tactical ISR Orbital Profile Force Applications CONUS Based Pop-up Profile Operationally Responsive Spacecraft Architecture Capability Needed 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. 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. Y 18 Mar 2004 (2000)version

  38. Questions To Answer ThroughData 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

More Related