1. 1 Launch Vehicle Presentation to the Heliophysics Community Workshop Bill Wrobel william.a.wrobel@nasa.gov May 19, 2008

2. 2 Agenda NASA Launch Services Current Efforts NASA Manifest Issues Launch Vehicles Small Class Minotaur Ride Share Medium Class Large Class

3. 3 Launch Services NASA currently procures expendable launch services through its NASA Launch Services (NLS) contract –In place since 2000 with current last ordering date is June 2010 –Provides for all classes of service – small, medium and large Agency is currently in the process of determining what the NLS follow-on should be post 2010 – PDT in place –Continuation, split classes –ISS re-supply will be handled separately – synergy with ELV services likely –Cost always a concern and current US market is not robust NASA likely to buy future services in blocks, as opposed to “one at a time”

4. 4 Current Efforts Issue first studied in 2006 with long term Delta II study with other variants more recently Hold internal meetings / discussion with a limited group –More resolution on manifest and true needs RFI issued for Small and Medium class missions –Gain stakeholders perspective, instead of mission by mission look Modified NASA Risk Mitigation Policy – 8610.7 –Allows for Category 3 (high value payloads) to be flown on vehicles with three successful flights, two of which must be consecutive Adjusted NLS contract to allow on-ramp of vehicles with no previous flight history –Previously vehicles must have had one flight NASA Flight Planning Board Manifest is available on the web at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/launch_services.htmhttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/launch_services.htm

5. 5 NASA Launch Services Manifest UR = UNDER REVIEW = SCIENCE = EXPLORATION SYSTEMS = SPACE OPERATIONS K = KWAJALEIN A =ATP’d F = FIRM = DOD REIMBURSABLE = VAFB LAUNCH V V For NASA Planning Purposes Only

6. 6 Commercial Launches

7. 7 Issues NASA is faces issues with all classes of service –Commercial service within the U.S. is in poor health, which NASA relies on Low production rates lead to more expensive services Constellation replenishments not likely to be from US –FAA Forecast for US commercial launch market remains weak at best Delta II had a few commercial missions in 2007 and more next year –Cosmo, Worldview, GeoEye Atlas and Delta IV each have a couple commercial missions coming up NASA’s decision makers are focusing on determining a strategy – not just mission by mission decisions –NASA’s budget is fixed –The less we do the more it costs, the more it costs the less we do

8. 8 SMALL ALTERNATE LAUNCH VEHICLE PERFORMANCE RANGE (Kg) From Payload Planner’s Guides or Company Estimates Medium Small Class - - VehicleQuick- Reach Falcon 1 Pegasus XL Athena I Minotaur I SIGNIFICANT GAP Taurus XL GAPAthena II Minotaur IV Minotaur V GAPDelta 7320 Orbit 600 km 90 deg TBD200 (a)250~300375900~1150~1200NA1650 675 km Sun sync 225325750-8001100NA1550 C3=0NA 425 TBR430 (b)NA4007425=750 (b) Perf riskHighMedLowMedLow MedLow NO LONGER AVAILABLE 50 inch PLF 84 inch PLF 92 inch PLF (b): Requires additional stage for high energy missions 92 inch PLF (a): Falcon 1e concept with higher performance (400kg) exists, but development is on hold 60 inch PLF 120 inch PLF

9. 9 MEDIUM AND EELV ALTERNATE LAUNCH VEHICLE PERFORMANCE RANGE (Kg) From Payload Planner’s Guides or Company Estimates Medium Class EELV Class - - Vehicle Orbit Delta II 7320/5 Taurus 2 Delta II 7920/5 H Athena IIIAFalcon 9GAPDelta 4040Atlas V 401Atlas V 551 C3=0750 (a)1250 (a)1400 (a)18502000275034506300 C3=10650 (a)1050 (a)1200 (a)1350 210028505300 675 km sun sync 15503600/ 2100 32003500 to 800km 6600 to 600km6800725013600 GTON/ATBS2040TBS3495398547658570 Perf riskLowHighLowHighMedLow Delta II 73/7425 No Longer Available (a) Requires upper stage for high energy missions 10 ft PLF 4 m PLF 5m PLF 4m PLF 12 ft PLF

10. 10 Performance Estimate Risk and Recommended Reserve Level of technical insight has a significant effect –Detailed insight can decrease uncertainty if developer employs robust margins and development reserves. –Payload Planner’s Guides typically do not include sufficient technical detail HighMedLow Reserve on Performance 15+%5-15%0-5% Attributes Completely new vehicle design with no system flight heritage Little or no developer experience Early in the development cycle Novel/unproven design elements Some system flight heritage More mature vehicle design Experienced developer Extensive system flight heritage Near flight ready Experienced developer Flown successfully

11. 11 Small Class Small Class vehicles include Pegasus, Taurus, Minotaur (I, IV, V), and Falcon I –NASA mission model shows relatively low rate looking ahead –Science is evaluating the larger classes for suitability to smaller missions Pegasus has proven very reliable and is a commercially available product - 26 consecutive successes –Taurus certification for OCO and Glory missions well underway Falcon I in work Considering the use of excess ballisitc missiles How important is it to support Commercial vendors?

12. 12 Using Minotaur I, IV and V The “rules” allow NASA and any other USG agency to use excess ballistic missile assets for space launch –The rules say that to use them requires Sec Def approval on a “case by case basis” –The rules say don’t hurt commercial industry and do use these DoD assets – so, do both –Best deal for the taxpayers? Generate a NASA letter to the Air Force RSLP Office asking for vehicle –First, we have to ask the question “Is this what we really want to do?” –Yes – Then submit letter to RSLP –The commercial industry will complain, as this hurts what little business they have Pegasus and Taurus may disappear –Socialization (OSTP, Commerce and Industry) –Letter must cover cost savings, risk, performance, schedule, mission requirements RSLP converts letter into a request for SECDEF approval, which coordinates request with all of Air Force Approval process may take six months or so, as it works its way though –Can be concurrent with the 18-24 month Period of Performance required to get a vehicle readied and launched Congressional notification required, ~two months prior to conversion

13. 13 Ride Sharing Next possible use of the ESPA Ring could be the DMSP-19 Mission –No guarantee at this time –No funding identified currently –FY-11 launch, polar orbit –Cost is unknown at present Dual Payload Attach Fitting (DPAF) does not exist currently for EELV –Initial cost bogey seemed high Can others can do it for less? Possible interest in co-development to share costs –Taurus developed DPAF exists and has flown, could transition to Minotaur IV with some NRE –Current DoD interest in ride sharing? –Real utility not large based on history Investigation at a low level is on-going

14. 14 Medium Class Medium Class service is currently provided by Delta II –Inventory exists for additional vehicles beyond current NASA contracted vehicles –EELV is not medium class – more expensive than customers expect for medium class, higher payload capacity and larger volume Planet Space / ATK planning to revive the Athena product line to include Athena III Orbital Sciences developing Taurus II and recent COTS award Synergy with COTS would help support this class of service

15. 15 Large Class EELV is stable due to DoD funding for both Atlas V and Delta IV –ELS and ELC ELC re-look is expected by 2010 and may impact NASA – initial numbers appear to be heading up –NSPD-40 – relook no later than 2010 –Or pay a higher “offset” post 2010

16. 16 2.35% increase Per year Under NLS 2.84% jump NLS to 19 Pack 2.10% increase Per year Under 19 Pack Note: MELVS contract had cost growth negotiated and tied to inflation COMMERCIAL MARKET BOOM. ANTICIPATION BY BOEING THAT MARKET WOULD CONTINUE TO BE GOOD. PRODUCTION OF 10-12/YEAR COMMERCIAL MARKET EVAPORATES BUT NLS WAS BID BEFORE IMPACT WAS NOTICED. ECONOMIES OF SCALE FOR 19 PACK GPS FLIES OUT. MANIFEST DOWN TO 1- 3 PER YEAR. COMMERCIAL MARKET RECOVERING Launch Service Price History (not full mission cost) for Delta II 7925 from ETR MARKET ENVIRONMENT ~LV cost without Infrastructure * Target Price for new medium class launch vehicles is at or below historical Delta II values

17. 17 Back-up

18. 18 2006 and 2007 Studies Delta II and Alternative Launch Provider (ALP) Studies NASA’s Launch Services Program (LSP) identified the risks for Delta II continuation and provided cost, schedule and technical viability of four ALP’s that passed the screening process In 2006 LSP recommended the Agency pursue Minotaur IV and V as an interim solution for Class C missions for the Delta II 7320 and 7420 (medium lite) –Not pursued at that time due to potential impact on the commercial availability of other small class vehicles –Approach is to have USAF responsible for launch success with NASA LSP advising the spacecraft project 2007 NASA estimate to fly EELV under NASA contract (~$2.5B) was approximately the same as Delta II estimate over the 2010-2020 period –Agency agreed that Delta II to be considered for missions only to the extent that it makes financial sense compared to the NASA EELV prices –2007 PPBE (budget submit) priced medium class missions using small EELV’s in an attempt to bound cost risk –As a mitigation, NASA LSP to work with Alternate Launch Providers (ALPs) to provide future capability –Adjusted agency policy NPD 8610.7 for new launch vehicles (released Feb ’08) Out brief provided to industry and government parties As a result, ULA initiated discussions with NASA on reduced Delta II prices Follow on discussions with USAF regarding new entrant criteria, contracts comparisons, DII

19. 19 Outcome of the March 2007 Agency PMC AAA briefed September and November 2007 Agency Strategic Management Council (Griffin) on concerns over entire ELV fleet –Hold an EVL Summit / Discussion with a limited group including Associate Administrators (4 meetings to date) –Continue unfunded Space Act Agreement activity for viable launch providers Science customer action from March PMC (NASA Deputy Administrator) was answered by white paper and November PMC presentation –Retirement of medium class launch capability is a significant loss for NASA –Alternate Launch Vehicles are a viable option for missions –Recommend Minotaur as “gap filler” –Recommend solicit bids on DPAF for EELV to enable buy/no-buy decision –Recommend compete in FY 2008 a new contract (or modify existing contract) to remove future price uncertainty 2008 MIssion Model is smaller than last year’s mission model –Increased spacecraft and launch vehicle costs have had an impact

20. 20 SLC-17 support planning for Kepler launch has been finalized –NASA is paying USAF to maintain SLC 17B and other required facilities thru February 2009 to support the Kepler launch Last manifested NASA Delta II mission is NPP in June 2010 –Aquarius from VAFB listed as May 2010 –SLC 2 pads are paid for thru CY 2010 LSP has one remaining Delta II it has purchased which was recently manifested –“CLIN 23” is now assigned to the Grail mission for Sept 2011 from SLC 17B –Decision to use CLIN 23 for Grail was greatly influenced by threat of termination liability if this “firm mission” was not used ULA management has provided a cost matrix for remaining Delta II Heavy inventory based on total number purchased (by all users) and last launch year –As one would expect, prices decrease as number purchased increases –Prices increase as last launch year moves later –Biggest influence on prices is the pad O&M costs and the Post Production costs Delta II

21. 21 Alternative Launch Provider Status Falcon 1 has had 2 launch attempts without a successful mission –Performance is an issue; Falcon 1 <Pegasus, Falcon IE~ Pegasus –Next launch scheduled for is June 2008 with upgraded engine Minotaur is only available thru USAF contracts –Minotaur I has 7 consecutive successful flights –Minotaur IV first launch still scheduled for December 2008 –Affects on “commercial” providers and NASA’s LSP depends on useage Athena I, II are upgraded configurations of Athena offered by Planet Space, ATK, LMA team –LMA selling intellectual property to Planet Space and will effectively help ATK learn how to build a full launch vehicle –Potential use of existing Athena assets for near term launch –ATK is in development of Castor 30 stage to replace Orbus (also used on OSC Taurus 2) –Teaming arrangement looking to shorten development time 2012 target launch for new Athena I possible –Athena III takes a 5 segment Aries SRM and uses it as a stage 0 (MEDIUM CLASS) Taurus 2 is in development at the PDR stage for launch in 2010 for NASA COTS Falcon 9 has first launch in 2009 –Delivery of stage to launch site targeted for end of 2008 –Space X will provide 3 demonstrations for NASA under COTS agreements

22. 22 NLS Contract/Procurement Development  LSP has formed the Procurement Development Team (PDT) for launch services beyond the scope of the current NLS contract –All alternatives are being explored and a strategy will be recommended –NLS ordering period expires June 2010, with a requirement to launch by December 2012 –Released an RFI to assist in the expeditious development of an approach to continue to provide the Agency with Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launch services http://procurement.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/EPS/bizops.cgi?gr=D&pin=76#129697 Responses due from industry on May 27 NASA is considering a number of possible NLS follow-on procurement strategies, including (but not limited to): –Extend the current NLS ordering period –Establish a new NLS follow-on contract(s) –Forgo the August 2008 and/or subsequent on-ramp periods in deference to the pending acquisition –Volume buys of a set(s) of missions included in the mission model, at the time of NLS extension(s) or award(s) of new contract(s) – NASA may award multiple contracts for the requirements described in the RFI based on the best competitive solution provided by industry.

23. 23 Specific Questions in RFI Technical Capability –What vehicles can meet the mission requirements –What upgrades are needed to meet the requirements –When will these vehicles first fly Launch Vehicle Certification –What are the plans to support NASA certification of the vehicles considered under technical capability –Flights that support the certification NLS contract terms and conditions –Open to any input –Specifically interested in payments, cash flow, termination, launch date flexibility, change in configuration under a block buy, on- ramps, efficiencies for NPD 8610.23 Infrastructure –What do you need to go build, or expect to get from the government to provide your service

24. 24 Space Station Re-supply Space Station re-supply has two Space Act Agreements (SAA’s) – Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) –SpaceX and Orbital Sciences (replaces RpK) –Both are funded to provide rendezvous demonstrations to the ISS –SAA’s are being run out of JSC through ESMD NASA’s SOMD has issued a draft RFP for carrying supplies to the ISS post 2010 –Commercial contract will be run out of the ISS office at JSC FAA launch license –This service is not like a typical NASA science mission and will likely carry low value commodities – limited insight and approval on the launch vehicle, but the visiting vehicle portion will by handled as usual Stimulate commercial enterprises

25. 25 CURRENT MISSION MODEL