Presentation on theme: "Slide 1 Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM Department of Defense R&D Responsive Spaceflight (RRS) Lt Col Kirk."— Presentation transcript:
Slide 1 Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM Department of Defense R&D Responsive Spaceflight (RRS) Lt Col Kirk Sharp Senior Program Advisor DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM VSE VSS
Slide 2 Why Were We at SMC/TD? Propose a holistic concept for repeatable launching of Space RDT&E missions in months, using mechanisms that are in place today –A ‘solution’ other than “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
Slide 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 no single 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 their existing 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”
Slide 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 months vice >48 >$1M/mo now Responsive Space (RS) Missions 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 Question: What is needed to reduce the cycle time (currently >48 mos) and have a repeatable month cycle time for Space demonstrations?
Slide 5 R&D Responsive Space Discovery Process 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)
Slide 6 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 can be done TODAY! 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)
Slide 7 Basic Concept Flight Operations Spacecraft Development Launch Vehicles Enabling Expertise Mission Level Activities Procedural Management Fiscal Management Contract Management Technical Management Found- ation Capa- bilities Personnel Management Project Execution Project Design Space Mission Need What you want to do….. What you need to have to allow it….. 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) How We Attacked the Problem – Discovery Tool Applied to
Slide 8 RRS Basic Concept Flight Operations Spacecraft Development Launch Vehicles Enabling Expertise Mission Level Activities Procedural Management Fiscal Management Contract Management Technical Management Foundation Capabilities Personnel Management Project Execution Project Design Space Mission Need What we want to do….. What one needs to have to allow it…..
Slide 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.
Slide 10 Basic Concept Flight Operations Spacecraft Development Launch Vehicles Enabling Expertise Mission Level Activities Procedural Management Fiscal Management Contract Management Technical Management Found- ation Capa- bilities Personnel Management Project Execution Project Design Space Mission Need What you want to do….. What you need to have to allow it….. 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) We based solutions on what we know can be done today, and on the “team” approach (for repeatability & depth) We based solutions on what we know can be done today, and on the “team” approach (for repeatability & depth) How We Attacked the Problem – Discovery Tool Applied to
Slide 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
Slide 12 Scenario #1: Dedicated LV, Build S/C Example 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 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 days to PDR Schedule Realities If an existing “standard” bus is available 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
Slide 13 RRS Alliance Member Capabilities RRS Alliance Member Capabilities Capabilities Overlap Supports Rapid Availability & Depth for RRS Repeatability In alphabetical order Modeling & Simulation Mission Design & Mgmt S/C (including bus build) LVs I&T Facilities & Services Ground Systems & Operations AFRL/VSEXX**X*X*X AFRL/VSSXX** LANL/ISRXX**XX NRL/NCSTXXX*X*XX RDSMOXXX RSLPX SDLXX*X*X STPXXX#X# * One off, custom SV. In-house build with contractor parts. Can meet 18 month schedule, depending on sensor type. ** Some limited capability. # Shuttle & Other
Slide 14 The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work? RRS Customer RRS Customer RRS Alliance Secretariat Admin Cost Analysis Mission Support RRS Alliance Board of Directors
Slide 15 RRS Alliance Capabilities (Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD) In alphabetic al order Modeling & Simulatio n Mission Design & Mgmt S/C (includin g bus build) LVsLVs I&T Facilities & Services Ground Systems & Operations AFRL/VSEXX**X*X*X AFRL/VSSXX** LANL/ISRXX**XX NRL/NCS T XXX*X*XX RDSMOXXX RSLPX SDLXX*X*X STPXXX#X# The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work? RRS Customer RRS Customer 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 Alliance Board of Directors
Slide 16 RRS Alliance Capabilities (Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD) In alphabetic al order Modeling & Simulatio n Mission Design & Mgmt S/C (includin g bus build) LVsLVs I&T Facilities & Services Ground Systems & Operations AFRL/VSEXX**X*X*X AFRL/VSSXX** LANL/ISRXX**XX NRL/NCS T XXX*X*XX RDSMOXXX RSLPX SDLXX*X*X STPXXX#X# The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work? RRS Customer RRS Customer 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 Technical Solution Barriers ~~~~~~ Project Team ~~~~~ Management Approach Future Needs Program Technology Processes + RRS Investment Vision RRS Alliance Board of Directors RRS Mission RRS Mission
Slide 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 MR 2 ) 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)
Slide 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!
Slide 19 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) Roadrunner (TacSat-2) July ’05? Spaceflight (STP-RSLP) Primary Experiments Other Possible SERB Experiments
Slide 20 We Give Free Estimates! (including other Gov’t customers like JPL)
Slide 23 Scenario #2: Dedicated LV, Bring S/C 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 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 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
Slide 24 Scenario #3: Scenario #3: Piggyback on Host S/C 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 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 Schedule Realities –Completely dependent on prime s/c schedule –Preconfigured interfaces foster increased potential to meet timeline
Slide 25 Scenario #4: Scenario #4: Auxiliary kicked off LV (incl. Space Shuttle) 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 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
Slide 26 Scenario #5: Scenario #5: ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power) 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 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)
Slide 27 RRS Alliance Implementation Notional until Implementation Plan Is Fleshed Out
Slide 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
Slide 30 Notional Project Flow Project Comes To Alliance Evaluation Project Execution Build Project Organization Customer gives Go / No Go Alliance Board Responds to Customer Supplier Shakeout Alliance Board Meets
Slide 31 Notional RRS Project Team Functional PositionYr 1 Yr 2 Comments Mission Mgr Team Leads Mission Design S/C Development S/C contractor team LV Integration LV team, e.g. RSLP Flight Planning GS Development Flight Ops FM PK "SPO" Total
Slide 32 RRS Alliance Capabilities Top Level Summary by Subject Area
Slide 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 2 nd 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
Slide 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.
Slide 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.
Slide 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.
Slide 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.
Slide 38 Future S/C Capabilities w’ 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
Slide 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 31” 40” 48” 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 53” 60” 122” 81” 19” 35”
Slide 40 Launch Vehicle Payload Volume Comparison PK SLV (14.3 m 3 = 507 ft 3 ) Minotaur (1.95 m 3 = 69 ft 3 ) Minotaur PK SLV
Slide 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
Slide 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.
Slide 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.