1. Requirements and Operations Team Industry Day Briefing 17 January, 2002

2. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-2 Outline  Team Products  Requirements analysis and process  CONOPS development  Joint requirements matrix  Design reference missions  Comparison of AF and NASA requirements  Questions relevant to Requirements/Ops

3. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-3 Team Products  Mission Needs Document: A document describing the high-level technical and mission needs of the developed system  Level I Requirements Document: Quantify, compare, and combine, to the extent possible, traceable AF and NASA requirements  Concept of Operations Document: A description of how the prototype system is to be operated  Design Reference Missions: A technical description of the missions used as reference in the design of the system

4. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-4 Requirements Analysis  Analysis Addressed Five Key Questions:  Question 1.What is the impact of an RLV system towards meeting present or projected NASA/AF requirements?  Question 2.If impact warrants an RLV system, when is it needed?  Question 3.What characteristics would an RLV system need to meet NASA/AF mission requirements?  Question 4.How do the characteristics of an AF system compare to those of a NASA system?  Question 5.What is the integrated set of requirements?

5. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-5 Strategic Visions Mission Area Plans Sub-Mission areas Identify Mission Attributes (e.g. responsiveness, safety) Map attributes to requirements in each sub-mission area Downward Trace Requirements Current Missions (“to be”) Future Missions/ Concepts (“could be”) Quantify Impact on Requirements, Need Dates, Operations Determine Range in Characteristics Across Sub-mission Areas Reconcile NASA/AF Requirements to Develop an Integrated System Review and Validate Review Past Studies Questions 1 & 2 Question 3 Questions 4 & 5 Requirements Process

6. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-6 CONOPS Development  Consolidates RLV prototype missions, operations, security, safety, and logistics  AF missions stressors:  Force Applications: Global Strike  Force Enhancement: Responsive Tactical Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)  Space Control: Space Superiority  Space Support: Satellite Constellation Reconstitution. Refueling and Surge  NASA Missions  Alternate Access to International Space Station  Demonstrate technologies or objectives for follow-on systems  2nd Draft complete - will evolve as required

7. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-7 Requirements Matrix General Mission

8. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-8 Requirements Matrix General Mission (cont’d)

9. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-9 Requirements Matrix Sites

10. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-10 Requirements Matrix Payloads

11. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-11 Requirements Matrix Flight Safety/Reliability

12. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-12 Requirements Matrix Operability

13. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-13 1. Low Earth Orbit Payload Delivery Demonstrate the capability of the prototype RLV architecture to deliver a useful payload to a desired orbit. 2. Deliver Microsats and Perform Operational Maneuver Demonstrations Demonstrate the capability to dispense and deploy microsats in desired orbital locations using on-orbit DV capability. 3. Rendezvous, Proximity Operations,and Maneuver Demonstrations Demonstrate the capability of the prototype RLV architecture to perform rendezvous, station-keeping,and proximity operations. 4. Demonstrate Technologies or Objectives for Follow-on Systems Provide relevant environments for the testing and/or demonstration of developmental technologies relevant to the 2nd Generation RLV and other launch vehicle and space systems. 5. LEO Tactical Orbital Operations Platform Demonstrations Demonstrate the delivery and operation of a tactical orbital operations platform to low earth orbit. 6. Alternate Access to International Space Station Demonstrate the capabilities required to provide an alternative method of delivering supplies and equipment to the International Space Station (ISS). 7. Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) Strike Package Demonstrations Demonstrate the delivery and deployment of a Common Aero Vehicle strike package to low earth orbit. 8. Demonstrate Characteristics for Follow-on Reliability Requirements Demonstrate ground, flight and mission operations with the prototype RLV architecture. to provide traceability to Air Force and NASA reliability goals and objectives. 9. Demonstrate Reductions in Launch Cost per Pound for Routine Spacelift Demonstrate ground, flight and mission operations with the prototype RLV architecture. to provide traceability to Air Force and NASA cost goals and objectives. 10. Operability Demonstrations Demonstrate with the prototype RLV architecture the attributes to address the cost and affordability goals of the 2nd Generation RLV. 11. International Space Station Routine Resupply Demonstrate the capability with the prototype RLV architecture to meet the mission requirements of routine resupply missions to the ISS. Prototype RLV Design Reference Mission Summary

14. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-14 Comparison of AF and NASA Requirements  Concurrence in many areas: Reliability; De-orbit mass; Orbits; Abort Scenarios  NASA and AF requirements do not currently converge in certain areas:  Weight delivered to orbit:  Payload: 15 - 25 K lbs  Crewed: 45+ K lbs  Responsiveness: AF < 12 hours to 2 days; NASA weeks  On-orbit capability: Duration and maneuverability substantially higher for NASA (ISS driven)  Sortie Rate: AF driven by future conflict scenario - could be high; NASA low  Human rating: AF no requirement; NASA needed in FY12 system  Weather: The AF has a requirement to operate in stronger winds, more precipitation and a wider range of temperatures.  Launch / Landing: AF has a requirement to operate from inland CONUS AFB.

15. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-15 Questions For Industry Requirements/Ops 1.What are the technology "long poles" to enable responsive space access (i.e., capable of achieving aircraft levels of cost, reliability and safety) over the next 25 years (Including vehicle, propulsion, ground infrastructure, operations, payloads, sensors, etc.)? Given your knowledge of currently funded NASA and Air Force programs, what would be your recommended technology roadmap? What changes and/or additional long-term technology investments should begin within the next seven years? 2.What RLV technologies does your company feel are state-of-the-art and ready for full-scale development today relative to your understanding of NASA and Air Force RLV requirements? 4.What is the earliest your company believes it is feasible to field a next generation RLV system(s) capable of meeting NASA and Air Force requirements? Please elaborate on your rationale and associated milestones. What would be the top 10 issues going into full-scale (or engineering and manufacturing) development of the next RLV (e.g., funding, technology maturity, immature requirements, joint program complexity, etc.)?

16. ONE.011_Rqmts/Ops-16 Questions For Industry Requirements/Ops (cont’d) 6.What are the drivers for meeting operability needs? What is the value of early flight demonstrations using state-of-the-art systems (existing engines, TUFI TPS, SOA avionics, electric valve actuators, etc.) for demonstrating operability? What relationship (if any) exists between the size of the launch vehicle and operability? Describe/define observed interactions between safety and operability needs 9.Given your knowledge of NASA and Air Force requirements, what degree of commonality does your company believe is possible between NASA and Air Force RLV architectures and associated elements (including ground and flight systems)? Does your company see commonality between the NASA/AF needs and mission requirements and a commercial opportunity? Do you believe a modular RLV concept is possible whereby we support a near term demonstrator in the 15-25K payload class, and that booster in turn is a modular component of a larger RLV?