Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM

1. Department of DefenseR&DResponsiveSpaceflight (RRS) VSS VSE Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM Lt Col Kirk Sharp Senior Program Advisor DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM

2. Why Were We at SMC/TD? • Propose a holistic concept for repeatable launching of Space RDT&E missions in 12-18 months, using mechanisms that are in place today • A ‘solution’ otherthan“give me money, people, and a launch vehicle, and I can in X years . . .” • Proposal solves the business (of spaceflight) problem with standard customer - service provider relationship • Proposal requires customer funding source only • Accesses existing capacity across the S&T community • Need a champion to pursue this RRS strategy, or redirection – i.e. Gen Worden gave the challenge

3. Bottom Line Up Front • 12–18 month S&T spaceflight can be done today with a team • Finding a solution has been hard, because nosingle organization has all the RRS capability in place right now • One could in future w’ new resources, IDIQ source selections, etc • Thus, why not, an Alliance of Gov’t (all DoD or para-DoD) Orgs/ Labs, each coming to the table, to acquire any mission now? • STP has (at least the working level) coordinated with AFRL, LANL, NRL, RDSMO, RSLP, & SDL and received a positive response (initial commitment) to propose this RRS Alliance • Willingness to use theirexisting finance (FM) and contracts (PK) mechanisms (e.g., funding/contract vehicles) to get work done today • Alliance requires a Board of Directors (Alliance Principals), a Secretariat (e.g., STP), and a reporting authority (e.g., SMC/TD) • Some SMC Flag Officer support for the proposed “Alliance”

4. R&D Responsive Space (RRS) • Space Weather R&D • Data collection of transient events • Critical Technology Demonstration • Risk Reduction Testing • Rapid Prototype Testing for TRL 6 S&T into Space systems • All RRS missions require from no a priori knowledge of a sensor (‘black box’) to on-orbit operations in 12-18 months vice >48 months @ >$1M/mo now • Operational Responsive Space (ORS) • Space Control • Satellite Close Inspection • Foreign Mission “Shadowing” • Anti-Satellite Operations • Ballistic Missile Intercept from Space (2 days to week) • Force Application • Conventional Land Attack Through Space (6-8 hours) • Force Enhancement • Rapid Satellite Replacement (2 days to week) Responsive Space (RS)Missions Responsive Space Question: What is needed to reduce the cycle time (currently >48 mos) and have a repeatable 12-18 month cycle time for Space demonstrations?

5. Activities Interviews Meetings with Key Organizations Workshop – RRS Summit Data Collection Unique contribution Facilities Agreements Contracts Discussed w/ Likely S/C Build Contractors (e.g., RSDO) Sought Aerospace Input Key S&T Organizations Space S&T Integrated Experiments (AFRL/VSE) Space Structures & Controls S&T (AFRL/VSS) Rocket Systems Launch Program (Det 12/RP) DoD Space Test Program (Det 12/ST) R&D Space & Missile Operations (Det 12/VO) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL/ISR) NRL Naval Center for Space Technology (NRL/NCST) USU Space Dynamics Lab (SDL) R&D Responsive SpaceDiscovery Process

6. R&D Responsive Space can be done TODAY! Our Answer! Is Based On: • Expert opinion of some very experienced Space RDT&E (incl. S&T) professionals (recog. best) • Experiences and review of unique technical offerings from each key Space S&T organization • Collaboration and cooperation of key organizations to deliver a repeatable (vice one off) process • If RRS problem is properly constrained (e.g., fit Minotaur) R&D Responsive Space is not easy, and has never been done on a repeatable basis!* *Note: Was in glory days of the late 60s by RRS Alliance principal NCST and the glory days of SDI by AFRL (MSTI)

7. Space Mission Need Project Design Project Execution Basic Concept What you want to do….. Mission Level Activities What you need to have to allow it….. Launch Vehicles Spacecraft Development Flight Operations Enabling Expertise Found- ation Capa- bilities Contract Management Technical Management Procedural Management Fiscal Management Personnel Management How We Attacked the Problem – Discovery Tool • RRS Scenarios • Dedicated LV, Build S/C • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C • Piggyback on Host S/C • Auxiliary kicked off LV • (including Space Shuttle) • ISS External Payload • (Only ISS Power) Applied to

8. Space Mission Need Project Design Project Execution Launch Vehicles Spacecraft Development Flight Operations Enabling Expertise Contract Management Technical Management Procedural Management Fiscal Management Personnel Management Foundation Capabilities RRS Basic Concept What we want to do….. Mission Level Activities What one needs to have to allow it…..

9. RRS Doable Scenario’s • 1: Dedicated Launch Vehicle (Build S/C) • 2: Dedicated Launch Vehicle (S/C Brought) • 3: Piggyback on Host Spacecraft or LV • 4: Auxiliary satellite deployed from launch vehicle (includes shuttle deployables) • 5: ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power) These scenario’s helped identify needs, barriers, dependencies, and get-aheads. They are a starting point, not a destination.

10. Space Mission Need Project Design Project Execution Basic Concept What you want to do….. Mission Level Activities What you need to have to allow it….. Launch Vehicles Spacecraft Development Flight Operations Enabling Expertise Found- ation Capa- bilities Contract Management Technical Management Procedural Management Fiscal Management Personnel Management How We Attacked the Problem – Discovery Tool • RRS Scenarios • Dedicated LV, Build S/C • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C • Piggyback on Host S/C • Auxiliary kicked off LV • (including Space Shuttle) • ISS External Payload • (Only ISS Power) Applied to We based solutions on what we know can be done today, and on the “team” approach (for repeatability & depth)

11. What Did We Learn- Results Of Discovery Process! • Consensus – A formal team, confederation of the willing, Alliance, is necessary to carry out repeatable R&D Responsive Spaceflight credibly NOW! • No one organization can muster critical mass to accomplish the RRS goal repetitively TODAY! - A single org (e.g., STP) could do it in the future with the proper resource investment. • R&D Responsive Space must be performed as a new process – leaves existing processes (e.g., SERB) alone (non-responsive). • An Alliance collaboration offers a robust and responsive foundation from which to build a repeatable process – synergy reduces schedule, (esp. non recurring) cost, and cycle time • Organizational commitment to participate must be followed by resource (manning & funding) commitment necessary to meet timeline for “responsive” – TBD in RRS Implementation • For each scenario there are barriers, needs, dependencies, and schedule realities that must be recognized and addressed

12. Technical Envelope Minotaur LV (Pre Buy) S/C Must Fit Minotaur Standard S/C Design Barriers Review Process – increases time and dollars LV – 18 Months unless pre-buy Personnel Availability Long lead time for S/C parts Frequency allocation process Scenario #1: Dedicated LV, Build S/CExample Needs & Dependencies • Freeze Mission Requirements by PDR • Concept design & SRR in one month • Train Ops on the ground with S/C when available • Select LV by S/C SRR • Need quick response to Gov’t Reviews • Must have long lead items on-the-shelf • Standard interfaces defined 30-60 days to PDR Schedule Realities • If an existing “standard” bus is available 30-60 days to do PDR is doable • Technical complexity drives timeframe • On-orbit time drives timeframe • Use of “approved” COTS & pre-positioning long lead items essential • Each organizations integration approach drives timeframe • Commissioning S/C will drive design & timeframe • LV – Minotaur in 18 months doable without dollars up front • Increased design margin – improves speed of reviews & reduces risk

13. RRS Alliance Member CapabilitiesCapabilities Overlap Supports Rapid Availability & Depth for RRS Repeatability * One off, custom SV. In-house build with contractor parts. Can meet 18 month schedule, depending on sensor type. ** Some limited capability. # Shuttle & Other

14. The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work? RRS Alliance Board of Directors RRS Customer • RRS Alliance • Secretariat • Admin • Cost Analysis • Mission Support

15. The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work? RRS Alliance Board of Directors RRS Customer RRS Alliance Capabilities (Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD) • Scenarios • Dedicated LV, Build S/C • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C • Piggyback on Host S/C • Auxiliary on LV • (including Space Shuttle) • ISS External Payload • (Only ISS Power) • RRS Alliance • Secretariat • Admin • Cost Analysis • Mission Support

16. The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work? RRS Alliance Board of Directors RRS Customer RRS Alliance Capabilities (Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD) • Scenarios • Dedicated LV, Build S/C • Dedicated LV, Bring S/C • Piggyback on Host S/C • Auxiliary on LV • (including Space Shuttle) • ISS External Payload • (Only ISS Power) • RRS Alliance • Secretariat • Admin • Cost Analysis • Mission Support RRS Mission • Project • Team • ~~~~~ • ~~~~~ • ~~~~~ • Barriers • ~~~~~~ • ~~~~~~ • ~~~~~~ • ~~~~~~ + RRS Investment Vision Technical Solution • Future Needs • Program • Technology • Processes Management Approach

17. Why An Alliance?Vice Single Organization • The synergy of the sum of our “best” R&D Space professionals (team) is greater than any one org (the parts) • Lowers cost, defines standards, utilizes existing facilities, builds appropriate overlap for greater repeatability, reduces cycle time • Increases technical envelope – An increased number of rapid response solutions to today’s need can be exercised • Shares investment in rapid response technologies (e.g., TacSat series, /VSS & GSFC’s MR2) is possible once a commitment from Alliance members is formally established • A properly managed Alliance can keep shared commitments visible and accountable, collaborate vice compete • Broader experience with new ‘tools’ (modeling & simulation) is enhanced with larger organization participation (F1 model)

18. Conclusion – The Way Ahead • R&D Responsive Space Alliance Needs Sponsorship, Resource Commitments to Develop Successful Implementation Plan • Sponsor should appoint a Secretariat (e.g., STP) to facilitate the Alliance BoD (Principals) & perform basic Alliance administration • Secretariat will need to codify commitments, agreements, Implementation Plan, and execution process - ASAP • Sponsor or Secretariat should be commissioned to identify R&D Responsive Space barriers and their mitigation or work around • RRS Alliance Willing to Demonstrate Credibility by Doing Real Pilot Mission of /TD’s choice. We now know it is Roadrunner! • Alliance will need continued SMC corporate support of this strategy including help removing ‘red tape’ barriers R&D Responsive Space can be done TODAY!

19. Roadrunner (TacSat-2) July ’05? Spaceflight (STP-RSLP) Primary Experiments • A panchromatic and three-color imaging system to provide operational NIRS-5 data. (AFRL/VSE) • A 200W Hall thruster electric propulsion systems; the AFRL/PRS Micro-satellite Propulsion Integration (MPI) experiment ranked #19 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. • The software system to provide for autonomous and rapid checkout of the satellites/payloads in orbit. • In the current baseline data (imagery) would be requested through the SIPRNET. These multiple tasking requests would be tasked at the Virtual Mission Operations Center (VMOC). • Target Indication Experiment (TIE). TIE is ranked #15 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. (NRL/NCST) • Miniaturized Vibration Isolation System (MVIS). MVIS is ranked #6 on ‘03 DoD SERB list. (AFRL/VSS) • AFRL/VSB Atmospheric Density System (ADS). ADS is ranked #14 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. • ShockRing is ranked #21 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. (AFRL/VSS) Other Possible SERB Experiments

20. We Give Free Estimates!(including other Gov’t customers like JPL)

21. Back Up Charts

22. Other RRS Scenarios Technical Envelope, Schedule, Needs, Barriers Quad Charts

23. Technical Envelope Minotaur LV (Pre Buy) S/C Must Fit Minotaur Standard S/C Design Barriers S/C provider must recognize booster and OPS Center “Limitations” Frequency allocation process Scenario #2: Dedicated LV, Bring S/C Needs & Dependencies • Nail down classification issues by end of mission design (SCG if needed) • S/C structural model to do “hard mount” coupled loads (takes 60-90 days) to start mission design • ICD Issues (to LV, to GSE) must be really fleshed out up front • S/c frequencies, data rates, data stream must be fully explained during mission design phase • FCC authorization must be obtained by S/C • Lots of S/C technical data will be required by Ops team • Mission assurance planning must be done up front (roles and responsibilities laid out) • Operations characterization completed by PDR • Ops handbook draft, support for training/simulations • Need access to S/C technical team to support operations development and on-orbit efforts • Full understanding of mission assurance responsibilities • Need 6-9 months to prepare for operations if all detail known Schedule Realities • Need all S/C characterized by 2 months prior to S/C thermal vacuum testing • If S/C bringer is also doing operations, only need to provide launch • Need “Mission Assessment” at start (about 1 month) • Minimum ops development time 6-9 months (if same as other types of s/c, if all data is available

24. Technical Envelope Dependent upon S/C Barriers Current “prime (sponsor) culture” is against doing piggybacks at all. “Nothing but the primary mission” Risk adverse primes (sponsors) (No new technology, no additional things) Frequency allocation process Scenario #3: Piggyback on Host S/C Schedule Realities • Completely dependent on prime s/c schedule • Preconfigured interfaces foster increased potential to meet timeline Needs & Dependencies • Detailed ICD for “fitting” on the Prime (by Prime PDR, preconfigured interfaces) • Prime interfaces must be “Nailed” at start • Must know before hand about capacity on primes • Must have realistic costing for integration

25. Technical Envelope ESPA Class Spacecraft Standard S/C Design Barriers EELV not doing regular “ESPA” launches R&D community ability to use every opportunity (Lack of $) For Shuttle, NASA Integration and Safety Process Frequency allocation process Scenario #4: Auxiliary kicked off LV (incl. Space Shuttle) Needs & Dependencies • Details of unused capacity (by LV/mission) • ICD for adapter (mechanical and electrical) • Schedule driven by Prime payload • EELV having contract mechanism to accept secondaries (and trade space) • ISS core completed to free up Shuttle capacity Schedule Realities • Very much like Option #1 • Schedule defined and controlled by Prime Payload

26. Technical Envelope Only taking ISS Power Limited crew involvement, low impact on ISS Safe without services Barriers NASA Integration & Safety Process takes time = Money NASA isn’t a credible Partner because of past history with DOD NASA vs. DoD culture clash Frequency allocation process Scenario #5: ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power) Needs & Dependencies • ISS Constraints limit usability • If you fit the “ISS Paradigm” then it is responsive, capability is evolving Schedule Realities • 24 months (can be accelerated)

27. RRS Alliance Implementation Notional until Implementation Plan Is Fleshed Out

28. RRS Alliance Implementation TBD: Now That Commissioned Charter: Provide an ….. Structure: Function of the Board of Directors: Requirements for Board Membership: Function of Secretariat; Commissioning Authority

29. RRS Alliance Secretariat Functional Position Full Time Equivalents Director 1.0 Secretary 1.0 Mission Designer 1.0 FM 0.2 PK 0.2 Secretariat Total 3.4

30. Project Comes To Alliance Alliance Board Meets Supplier Shakeout Alliance Board Responds to Customer Customer gives Go / No Go Project Execution Evaluation Build Project Organization Notional Project Flow

31. Notional RRS Project Team Functional Position Yr 1 Yr 2 Comments Mission Mgr 1.0 1.0 Team Leads 1.0 1.0 Mission Design 1.0 0.0 S/C Development 2.5 2.5 + S/C contractor team LV Integration 0.2 0.7 + LV team, e.g. RSLP Flight Planning 5.0 3.0 GS Development 5.0 2.5 Flight Ops 1.0 5.0 FM 0.2 0.2 PK 1.0 0.5 "SPO" Total 17.9 16.4

32. RRS Alliance Capabilities Top Level Summary by Subject Area

33. Alliance Support Infrastructure (e.g., Mechanisms, Contracts, etc) • AFRL/VSE • Aerospace Engineering (I&T) Facility • AFRL/VSS • SBIRs w’ AeroAstro, SpaceDev, CSA, etc • LANL/ISR • Contract with SSTL (specifically for CFESat) would new procurement for a 2nd satellite. Various electrical, mechanical machining vehicles, which can be used • NRL/NCST • Contracts w’ Orbital, SpaceX, SpectrumAstro, etc • RDSMO • Contracts w’ Northrop-Grumman & Lockheed-Martin, Black (SCI, SAR/SAP) & White (unclas) experiment process capability. SCF with access to AFSCN • RSLP • IDIQ w’ Orbital for Minotaurs, Peacekeepers • STP • No current RRS funding or contracting mechanisms with exception of SMDC (initially would serve as real estate broker for the Alliance when commissioned) • SDL • UARC funding mechanisms w’ NRL & MDA, contracts w’ SmallSats community

34. Current Mission Planning Capabilities • STP has performed extensive mission planning for SERB experiments. STP receives specifications for all payloads and then “bundles” them to procure a new SV or finds individual piggyback opportunities for each by matching requirements of payload to established missions. STP has mission planning processes in place in-house to quickly and efficiently match payloads with access to space. • NRL performs mission planning for their in-house SV builds. • AFRL/VS performs mission planning for their in-house SV builds. AFRL/VS Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) hosts Satellite Tool Kit. Several multi-year contract vehicles are available to perform mission mod and sim (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking must be within scope of contract. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract. • LANL has performed mission planning for our in-house SV builds • SDL can provide up-front SV design. SDL services can be accessed using the sole-source UARC contract. (University Affiliated Research Center) already in place. Any DoD organization can funnel money through it as long as it has something to do with space sensors, expect a 1-month turnaround. However, in an emergency we can typically carry the program for a month or two on internal funding. In those cases we have started work on contracts within the same week.

35. Current S/C Capabilities- Facilities • AFRL/VS Aerospace Engineering Facility (AEF) hosts environmental chambers, baking and curing chambers, T-Vac chambers, EMI screen room, shaker tables, clean rooms, solar simulation lamp, spin table, and mass properties table. J&T contract handles most of the SV I&T tasks. • SDL hosts Thermal Optical Research chamber, T-Vac chambers, RF-shielded anechoic chamber, shaker table, clean rooms, machine shop, and 5 SCIFS. Scheduling is rarely a problem, and all could be made available almost on-demand. • NRL hosts anechoic chambers, integration facilities, clean rooms, T-Vac chambers, vibration shakers, acoustic chamber, pyro shock and static load test capabilities, ground-based instrument calibration facilities, satellite laser ranging facility, and an on-orbit calibration facility. • LANL hosts clean rooms; T-vac chambers; screen room; various calibration facilities; photon, x-ray, neutron, and gamma-ray sources; laser; linear accelerator; classified and unclassified computing facilities; classified and unclassified shock facilities; RF and optics labs; satellite integration facility, and electron cyclotron resonance ion beam facility. LANL also has 2 SCIFs for ‘black’ projects.

36. Current S/C Capabilities- Services • AFRL/VS Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) has modeling and simulation capabilities for SV subsystems, payload modeling, hardware-in-the-loop evaluations, and development of flight software. Several multi-year contract vehicles are available to perform mod and sim (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking must be within scope of contract. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract. • SDL builds custom SVs, so does not have a standard structure to offer, but can perform the following: Structure, electronics, and thermal blanket design & fabrication; thermal reflectors or paint application; cable buildup; sensor re-design; some sensor design & build; sensor and spacecraft integration; sensor testing; spacecraft testing (EMI/EMC, Thermal vac, shake & vibe); SV-LV integration assistance. SDL services can be accessed using the sole-source UARC contract. (University Affiliated Research Center) already in place. Any DoD organization can use it as long as it has something to do with space sensors. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract. • NRL builds custom SVs, so does not have a standard structure to offer, but has task order contracts with Orbital Sciences and Honeywell in place for parts and services that can be used if in scope. Can get them on-contract in a day, if necessary.

37. Current S/C Capabilities- S/C Builds • AFRL/VSE has MightySat II.1 bus to offer. It has flown. Long-lead items are in storage, and bus can be available in less than 1 year. MightySat specs: 68.6cm x 88.9 cm x 88.9 cm, 125 Kg (includes 37 kg payload), orbit avg. power consumption 150 W (includes 60 W for payload). • SDL and NRL can build custom SVs in-house, and provide them in under a year if the sensor is simple. Schedule is highly dependent on sensor selected.

38. Future S/C Capabilitiesw’ Proper Resourcing • AFRL/VSE working on a more capable (more payload for the SV mass) model of MightySat called MicroSat that is not yet available. • NRL/NCST is working with the Office of Force Transformation’s ‘Operationally Responsive Space Experiment Initiative’ to provide a rapid, tailored, and operationally relevant experimental space capability to tactical forces. This includes a standard micro-satellite bus, interfaces, and a modular payload capability. • Within 2 months, SDL will be prepared to do a full EMI/EMC test

39. Current LV Capabilities • RSLP is only provider in Alliance for launch vehicles, launch analysis, integration facilities. No current process for manifest of secondaries exists. • Current OSP-2 contract with Orbital Sciences provides Minotaur and Peacekeeper in negotiated configuration only (task order contract). Minotaur available 18 mos from money received to launch OSP-2 Peacekeeper • Capability: 1030 Kg to 400nm, 99° inclination • Approx payload envelope OSP Minotaur • Capability: 335 Kg to 400nm, 99° inclination • Approx payload envelope 19” 35” 31” 53” 60” 40” 48” 122” 48” 81”

40. Launch Vehicle Payload Volume Comparison Minotaur PK SLV Minotaur (1.95 m3 = 69 ft3) PK SLV (14.3 m3 = 507 ft3)

41. Future LV Capabilities • RSLP is only LV provider in Alliance • RSLP is putting together own pitch for SMC chain to offer quicker launches, if ~$4M is invested up front. RSLP will take money and develop LV up to certain point and freeze - could shorten launch schedule to as short as 6-months. • Launch opportunities for secondaries: multi-payload adaptor and large payload fairing for Minotaur are qualified and ready, but have not flown (will fly in ’05). 2 multi-payload adaptors and a large payload fairing for Peacekeeper in work. • Hope to have new Spaceports contract up in 2 years to provide access to VAFB, CCAS, WFF, and Kodiak

42. Current Operations Capabilities • RDSMO has a ground system facility permitting dynamic reconfiguration based on customer requirements • In-house development or Customer delivered equipment • Operations staff (cost shared with other programs to the extent possible) • High and low level redundancy for aggregate 99.65% internal availability and 97% using the AFSCN • NRL has a permanent control center (Blossom Point) with mobile antennas and fixed antennas inside and outside CONUS. • On-orbit payload data processing performed by SAIC and MRC contractors for AFRL/VSE. • SDL has payload data reduction and analysis capability. • LANL has two autonomous ground stations, LANL and University of Alaska, Fairbanks for highly inclined orbits. LANL also has the DPAC or the highly sophisticated data processing center that has been used by MTI that could be adapted.

43. Miscellaneous RRS Notes • Benefits of an Alliance vice Sole Source: • Increase sponsor commitment • Enhance Personnel Retention and growth • Influence R&D Mission Design Requirements • One-stop shop for R&D Responsive Space • Streamline Interfaces • Identify Holes in our R&D Responsive Space Options • Alliance BOD must be a formal organization authorized and validated • Requirement for Board Member: • Technically knowledgeable on their organization’s offering and able to get authority to commit • Able to make decisions about the acceptance of a project to the R&D Responsive Space • Must have TRUST • Project/Program/Mission Manger • Must be very experienced and able to handle interfaces between organizations.