nd

Ames Research Center
– Integrated Vehicle
Health Management
– Computational Tools
Stennis Space Center
– Rocket Propulsion
Testing
Kennedy Space Center
– Payload and
Launch Operations
– Range Operations
Dryden Flight
Research Center
– Atmospheric
Flight Operations
Johnson Space Center
– Crew and Passenger
Systems
– NASA Unique
Marshall Space Flight Center
– System Integration – Vehicle Definition
– Propulsion Systems – Systems Engineering
– Program Integration – Flight Mechanics
May 2002 Update
Langley Research Center
– Airframe Design
– Integrated Thermal
Structures
– Materials
JPL
– Autonomous
Operations
– Microelectronics/
Sensors
Goddard Space
Flight Center
– Payload and
Launch Operations
– Range Operations
Glenn Research
Center
– Subsystems
• Avionics
• Power
Air Force
– Requirements
– Research Lab
2

nd
FY99 FY00
Space Transportation
Architecture
Studies/Integrated Space
Transportation Plan
FY01 FY02
Phase 1
Architecture Definition and
Risk Reduction
AAS
Phase 1
T
I
M
I
A
T
R
S
R
R
S
D
R
2GRLV Decision Gates
FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06
Phase 2
Architecture Design
Risk Reduction/Advanced Development
DART
Orbital
Express
Flt Test
Pathfinder
Selection of Multiple Architectures and Risk Reduction Tasks
Approval by Source Selection Official and Center Directors
Initial Architecture &
Technology Review
Full-Scale
Development Decision
Selection of ~Two Architectures and Advanced Development Tasks
Architecture/Systems Rqmts. Review
Technology Integration Review
May 2002 Update
3

Program Planning and Control
Rose Allen, Manager
Jerry Cook, Deputy
nd
Program Office
Manager
Deputy
Quality Assurance Man.
Chief Engineer
Dennis Smith
Dan Dumbacher
C. Chesser
R. Hughes
Tech. Asst.
ESA
MSA
B. Morris
Jill Holland
Judy Dunn
Consultants
E.G. F. Wojtalik, G. Oliver, B. Lindstrom
Ext. Rqmts. Assessment Team
M. Stiles J. Seemann
Sys. Engineering
& Integration
Dale Thomas, Manager
Chuck Smith, Deputy
Architecture
Definition
Steve Creech, Manager
Arch. Mgr.
Arch. Mgr
Bob Armstrong
Charlie Dill
Arch. Mgr Pete Rodriguez
CTV
Alternate Access
Steve Davis
C. Crumbly
Program Integration
& Risk Management
Danny Davis, Manager
Bart Graham, Deputy
Airframe
(LaRC)
Manager
LSE
D. Bowles
Julie Fowler
Operations
(KSC)
Manager
LSE
Scott Huzar
Flight Mechanics
(MSFC)
Manager Scott Jackson
LSE J. Mulqueen
NASA Unique
(JSC)
David Leestma
Barry Boswell
Subsystems
(GRC)
Manager
LSE
Mike Skor
Tom Hill
Propulsion
(MSFC)
Manager
Dep. Mgr.
Lead Sys. Engr.
Garry Lyles
Steve Richards
George Young
Flt. Demos & Exp. Integ.
(MSFC)
Manager
May 2002 Update
IVHM
(ARC)
Manager
Asst. Mgr./LSE
Bill Kahle
Kevin Flynn
4

Alternate Access to Station

Business Manager
Richard Leonard
Program Analyst
Louise Hammaker
Contracting Office
Earl Pendley
Betty Kilpatrick
Configuration Management Specialist
Thad Henry
SRM&QA
Vacant
NASA UNIQUE PROJECT
OFFICE
Technology Risk Reduction
ISS Program Interface
AAS ARCHITECTURE OFFICE
Manager - Chris Crumbly
Asst Manager/LSE - James Poe
Technology Manager – Patton Downey
Architecture Manager – Melinda Self
Resident Mgr JSC – Saroj Patel
Technical Assistant – Paul Hamby
Technical Assistant – Bill Peters
FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT OFFICE
DART Project
SPACE TRANSPORTATION
DIRECTORATE
Architecture Insight
ENGINEERING
DIRECTORATE
Architecture Insight
May 2002 Update
6


Purpose
– Funding is intended to enable NASA and private industry to establish and use alternative means of access to the International Space Station. These funds will be used to purchase services when they become available; however, in the near-term they will support:

System analysis studies

Technology development or operational technology demonstrations

Flight demonstrations to reduce risks associated with near-term commercial launch systems to service Space
Station cargo requirements

Benefits
– Autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations technology development critical for both AAS and 2 nd
Generation RLV applications
– Increased competition
– Near-term flight opportunities
– Enabling commercial capabilities for ISS-unique needs
– Incubation of a business base for the 2 nd
Generation RLV
– ISS logistics contingency capability and operational flexibility

Risks to be Mitigated
– Lack of proven, domestic automated rendezvous and proximity sensors, software, avionics, and rendezvous techniques
– Gaps in industry understanding of ISS vicinity operations and of available resources for docking/berthing, power, and communications resources
– Lack of a sustainable market that would drive private investments for technology advances
May 2002 Update
7

Charter: Demonstrate an alternative access capability for the ISS

Phase 1
– Concept Definition and Technical Risk Reduction
– Technical Risk Reduction through DART, Orbital Express, and TA 9.8 efforts
– Concept Definition

Multiple contractor teams will develop concepts through Systems Design Review

NASA will contribute lessons learned, technical advice, and technical assistance
– Phase 1 products will be used to develop the AAS system flight demonstration RFP

Phase 2
– System Flight Demonstration and Technology Investment – (PATHFINDER)
– Additional enabling technologies may be funded if required
– NASA will fund the demonstration of at least one commercial AAS concept
– The goals of the AAS flight demonstration are:
 Demonstrate concept feasibility and affordability
 Further maturation of autonomous rendezvous and proximity operations technologies
 Demonstrate compliance with ISS safety and operational requirements
 Operate as a pathfinder to future 2GRLV autonomous cargo vehicles

Phase 3
– AAS Service Acquisition
– If the need is defined and a cost effective capability exists then commercial services will be procured
– NASA expects the service acquisition phase to transition from Code R to Code M
May 2002 Update
8

May 2002 Update
9

Alternate Access to Station


AAS surveyed industry for concepts and supported NRA 8-30
(RLV Risk Reduction)
–
In Fall 00, NASA funded industry team 90-day studies

Assess ISS Visiting Vehicle (VV) requirements

Provide architecture concepts to meet AAS requirements

Identify necessary advanced development and risk reduction efforts

Results received Dec 00

Industry Teams:
OSC Microcosm
Coleman Aerospace
Boeing
Lockheed
Kistler Aerospace
HMX, Ltd.
Andrews Space & Tech.
– Many Diverse Concepts Proposed

7 of 8 teams proposed new development projects

Payload delivery concepts included ISS docking, berthing, and EVA transfer
– NRA 8-30 proposals evaluated and some revealed high synergy with AAS

Flight demonstrations of proximity operations/automated rendezvous technologies

Technical Risk Reduction Selections

Orbital Sciences Corporation DART

Option for Kistler automated rendezvous experiment
May 2002 Update
11


Cargo
– Light Payload (500 lbm min.) will accommodate
90% of critical spares “Horseblanket”
– Cargo removed from ISS will be considered
“waste”—recovery not required
– Heavy mission must remove 50% of delivered cargo mass/Light mission is exempt*
*
Superceded by recommendation from subsequent study by USA that
100% of mass/volume delivered should be returned or disposed

Visiting Vehicle Requirements
Interpretations
– Space-based (ISS formation flying) cargo transfer vehicles undesirable
– ISS-based (attached to ISS) cargo transfer vehicles may be considered
– NASA has oversight for duration of VV mission and requires periodic VV reporting/telemetry
– VV developer must maintain relationship with
ISSP and MOD control boards

Mated Operations
– Due to damage potential, ISSP does not endorse
VV docking to APAS on USOS*
– Cargo transfer options:
• CBM available for berthing operations
(w = 50 inches)
• USOS manual airlock/EVA retrieval possible (w = 24 inches
— requires NBL testing)
• JEM Automated airlock possible — any EVA transfer design must not preclude JEM option (w = 22 inches)
– Probable mission duration
• Light mission: 4-7 days
• Heavy mission: 2-4 weeks
*
Decision under review by ISSPO

Other
– CBMs, FRGFs, sensors, reflectors, etc. are not
GFE
– Some USOS modifications for rendezvous and proximity operations acceptable
• AAS funds hardware/software changes and their integration
• ISS Baseline cargo delivery methods must not be adversely affected
May 2002 Update
12


Shuttle
–
Far-Field: Ground Based Tracking
–
Mid-Range: Ku-Band Radar
– Near-Field: Trajectory Control System (TCS) & HHL (Hand-Held Lidar) & Video
Screen Overlays

Russian Progress
– Far-Field: Ground Based Tracking
–
Mid-Range: KURS Radar
— Omni Antennas on ISS
– Near Field: KURS Radar — Directional Antennas on ISS or TORU

HTV and ATV (planned)
– Far-Field: Absolute GPS or Ground Tracking
–
Mid-Range: Relative GPS

JEM PROX Integrated Into JEM

Compatible GPS Receivers Integrated Into HTV
– Near-Field: ESA Laser Sensor

ATV will also use TBD video sensor for docking (to be developed)

HTV requires only coarse data sufficient to approach berthing box
May 2002 Update
13

Launch
Far Range
1
~40km
Mid Range
3
~0.5 km
Near Range
Mate
Ground-Based Tracking, TDRS Tracking, Absolute GPS
P-I-L
Optical
2
Radar
4
Lidar
5
SV Diff
7
RGPS
6
Proven technology/technique (No or Low Risk)
Some technological/technique development needed (Medium Risk)
Major technological/technique development needed (High Risk)
Space to Space Comm Range
8
1 - Far-Range is understood, demonstrated, and reliable.
2 - Optical sensors available and tested but need mods to satisfy VV needs. VGS currently out to ~150 m would need range increase (AVGS out to 1.5 km) and obsolete parts update, TCS ~ 1.5 km would need relative attitude incorporation, removal of crew interaction requirements, and obsolete parts update.
Both would need reflector/target integration or verification for applicability.
3 - Current ISS configuration does not allow Far-Range and Near-Range sensors performance to overlap for VV missions; therefore, a Mid-Range solution is needed for all VV missions.
4 - Radar technology exists to perform Mid Range, but power and weight hits are prohibitive for small vehicles. Also, no systems currently available.
5 - Lidar technology shows promise but requires technology development to get necessary ranges and real-time capability. Plus, power and weight are potential impacts.
6 - RGPS requires a space-to-space comm link (and an adequate GPS unit on the ISS), cannot be performed further out than comm link range; if comm link can be extended into the Far-Range ranges (and the appropriate GPS unit installed/accessed on ISS) then RGPS could be a solution to the Mid-Range problem. Technology development issues should be workable.
7 - SV Diff can work starting in the Far-Range but as the range decreases, an increase is needed in the number of updates and eventually a space-to-space comm link will be required. Even with space- to-space link, SV Diff will be a demonstration challenge for Mid-Range (performance issue).
8 Currently, no U.S. space-to-space communication systems exist that can satisfy visiting vehicle requirements (required by VVIDD).
May 2002 Update
14


Existing Systems
–
UHF System
 Many AAS Concepts Propose Using the “Existing UHF” – Some Significant Issues

System Is Designed for STS – Primarily Used for EVA Comm

UHF range is insufficient to support VV trajectory requirements

No Parts Readily Available – No GFE That Can Be Provided to AAS

Development Effort Would Be Required by AAS to Be Usable for This Application

None of AAS Concepts Proposed Any Development Effort.
– Service Module S-Band (Russian)

Interfaces With USOS Challenging
– JEM S-Band

Not Available Until 2005

Technology Transfer Issues

Options
–
Use JEM with compatible Radio on VV (First Mission NET 2005)
–
Replicate JEM System and Add to ISS & VV
– Mod Existing UHF System
–
Procure & Implement Existing TDRSS (NASA Standard Transceiver) System
May 2002 Update
15


New U.S. visiting vehicle has rendezvous and proximity operations issues

Overall systems solution requires USOS asset upgrade and/or use of JEM assets

JEM not available before FY2005 and has potential usage issues (ITAR/technology transfer)

Existing vehicles — radar and “pilot-in-the-loop”

Shuttle — ground tracking, on board radar, TCS,
HHL, & “pilot-in-the-loop”

Progress — ground tracking, KURS radar, & contingency TORU teleoperated “pilot-in-the-loop”

Baseline vehicles plan new automated designs

HTV - GPS, relative GPS (not yet demonstrated), ESA laser sensor for range/rate

ATV - GPS, relative GPS (not yet demonstrated), ESA laser sensor/TBD video sensor

Rendezvous navigation sensors require development
– Shuttle “pilot-in-the-loop” system not viable for AAS
–
No single system solves the problem

Optimum scenario would be single sensor or data source for navigation

Three separate solutions required (far-, mid-, and near-range) with overlap for hand-off
–
Suite of sensors needed

Mid-range navigation to ISS poses biggest challenge

Current ISS configuration does not allow far-range sensors to overlap near-range sensors

Lidar is promising but requires technology development

Radar solves mid-range issue but brings power, weight, and availability concerns

U.S. space-to-space communications must be enhanced or use of JEM assets must be assured
May 2002 Update
16


Launch Vehicle/Cargo Vehicle proposals all require significant development
–
IOC of FY03 service is not realistic with present state of the industry
– Significant technology development required = high risk
– Technologies to be advanced or deployed include: space-to-space communication system, mid-range relative navigation sensors, near-field navigation sensors, cargo integration and delivery systems, GN&C, docking hardware

ISS Visiting Vehicle requirements are challenging

New ISS rendezvous/proximity operations assets probable and must be funded by AAS
– Space to Space Com
–
Reflectors

Cargo integration and delivery system concepts need to converge
–
On-demand payload integration and delivery technology requires deployment to industry
– Ground-based logistics methodology requires some additional attention
May 2002 Update
17


Industry has not proven that service acquisition is available without significant risks
– Technical Risk (technology is not proven)
– Business Risk (high non-recurring costs)

New ideas can enter the industry if we implement new business approaches
– NASA commercial contracting policies present a perceived barrier
– Disruptive innovations can be a catalyst for change in the industry

Automated Rendezvous and Proximity Operations require technical risk reduction
– Demonstration missions
– Advanced sensor development
– Space-to-space communications enhancement

The ability to autonomously dock and deliver payload to the ISS is a critical requirement for the 2 nd Generation RLV and key to the SLI program:
– Technology is essential
– Significant effort is required to mature this technology

As a part of the 2 nd Generation RLV program, AAS can be utilized to meet significant NASA needs using innovative methods
May 2002 Update
18

Alternate Access to Station


Several strategies were studied by NASA for AAS implementation:
1.
Development of rendezvous sensor suite and avionics (i.e., a “smart” front end)
2.
Development of a NASA orbital transfer vehicle
3.
Conversion to a technology development and demonstration project
4.
Incremental approach of technology development, demonstration, and service acquisition
Option 4 Chosen

It quickly became apparent that Option 4 was the best strategy
–
Several implementation approaches were considered:
A.
Small business set-aside for emerging aerospace providers
B.
Addition of AAS requirements to NRA 8-30 (2GRLV) Cycle 2 solicitation leading to traditional contract
C.
Commercial contract for full AAS systems
D.
Cooperative agreements with milestone payments beginning with concept development leading to flight demonstration
E. Traditional concept design (study only) contract followed by innovative flight demonstration procurement
Option E Chosen
May 2002 Update
20

Major Milestones
Requirements and Concepts
• Requirements Definition
• Concept Definition
Pathfinder
• Ground Tests, Simulations,
Demonstrations
• System Flight Demonstration
FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07
Decision
Gate 1 DART
XSS-11
Orbital
Express
Flight Demo
Decision
Gate 2
FY08 FY09 FY10
 AAS SERVICE
 ARPO TECHNOLOGY
T
I
M
I
A
T
R
S
R
R
S
D
R

ORBITAL SPACE PLANE
 GOV’T/COMMERCIAL
SATELLITE SERVICING
STS-87 & 95 XSS-11
Orbital
Rendezvous
Station
Keeping
Fly Around
Approach
RSO
VGS
LAMP
ISS C&C
TA 9.8
Efforts
DART (24Hrs)
Orbital
Rendezvous
Station
Keeping
Fly Around
Approach
Inspect
Collision
Avoidance
OE ASTRO
(6M)
Orbital
Rendezvous
Station
Keeping
Fly Around
Approach
Inspect
MULBCOM
Dock
Fluid Transfer
Component
Replacement
AVGS
NEXTSAT
AUTO RENDEZVOUS AND
PROXIMITY OPERATIONS
(ARPO) TECHNOLOGIES
Communications and Control
Sensors
GN&C Algorithms
Range Finder
GPS/Relative GPS
State Vector Differencing
TRL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
OTHER
SENSORS
AVGS II
May 2002 Update 9
PATHFINDER
ISS Ops & Safety
Validation
Orbital Rendezvous
Station Keeping
ISS Approach & Berth
CAM
Communication &
Control
ISS Departure
Return to earth
21

The AAS strategy is a phased and systematic approach to ensure that SLI technology requirements will be met while offering the opportunity for innovative companies to participate and begin commercial AAS services or at least make progress towards that goal.
– Phase 1 (Underway)

Reduce the risks associated with Automated Rendezvous/Proximity Operations (ARPO) through technology development and demonstration
— initial contracts secured
 Orbital’s Demonstration of Autonomous Rendezvous Technologies (DART)

Partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) on Orbital Express

Pursue definition of requirements with our ISS customer — ongoing

Fund more detailed definition of industry concepts — selection expected early summer 2002

Evaluate need for and potentially procure target satellite for rendezvous flight demonstrations
– Phase 2 (Projected mid-FY03 start)

Perform the efforts necessary to enable the purchase of AAS mission services

Invest in additional technology development identified in Phase 1

Demonstrate viable AAS systems on-orbit

Investigating innovative procurement approaches for this phase
– Phase 3 (Projected FY06 start)

AAS service acquisition commences

Acquisition of services is dependent on the maturity of flight demonstrations, technology development;
ISS needs; cost justification
May 2002 Update
22


A 3-month study was conducted by USA to define AAS Logistics Re-
Supply for the ISS.

Scope of study included determination of mission needs, cargo launch requirements/constraints, ISS/crew requirements for orbital transfer, and de-orbit needs.

Design Reference Missions for several payload cases were defined.

USA under contract to support continued ISS OPS education for contractors.
May 2002 Update
24


A cargo matrix was derived from the ISS Logistics Data Base and U.S. ISS experiment users.
– Cargo may include ORU’s, Mid-deck Locker Equivalent (MLE) packages of crew support items including dry and wet consumables, and science experiment support items and return samples.
–
Cargo assessments will be provided for:

Pre-launch environmental controls and processing requirements

Launch environmental controls requirements

Launch restraint and packaging

Orbital transfer requirements

Cargo Hazard levels
May 2002 Update
25

DRM ID
Description
Total Mass
(cargo and accommodations)
DRM1
Quick
Response
1500 kg/flight
DRM2
Max pressurized
17300 kg/year
Volume
(Pressurized cases include accommodations
Unpressurized cases do not include accommodations)
ISS Attach period
DRM3
Max unpressurized
6300 kg/year
90 CTBE/flight 1025 CTBE/year 350 ft 3 /year
Min ~ 6 days
Max ~ 35 days
Min ~ 8 days
Max ~ 35 days
Min ~ 8 days
Max ~ 35 days
DRM4
Min pressurized
5660 kg/year
DRM5
Min unpressurized
2940 kg/year
340 CTBE/year 160 ft 3 /year
Min ~ 11 days
Max ~ 21 days
Min ~ 11 days
Max ~ 21 days
Response
Period
45 Days
Recommended
Flights per Year based on ISS
OPS plan
N/A
< One year
5
< One year
5
< One year
2
< One year
2
May 2002 Update
26


Multiple contracts of 12 months duration are planned for AAS Logistics
Resupply Service Concept Definition.
– Initial requirements will be based on ISS requirements for visiting vehicles (SSP
50235 IDD) and the USA study results.
–
Requirements from USA study are bounds for the effort, but are not constraints for a point design.

Scope of the service concept includes all requirements for processing and transporting cargo from the Earth to the ISS.
–
It is highly desirable, but not mandatory, that the service include a cargo return capability.
– ISS vicinity operations, ISS docking/berthing, ISS resources (i.e., power, communications) are critical to development of a feasible service.
–
Payload transfer operations should include an assessment of ISS human factors and crew time.
May 2002 Update
27


Contractor proposed service concept definition will include:

Systems requirements,

Operations concept,

Systems design definition,

Identification of enabling technologies,

Service plan*
* Service plan should include a cost estimate for service implementation.

The systems requirements, design, and operations concept will address the launch facility, ground processing, launch vehicle, carrier/upper stage, ISS rendezvous/proximity operations, berthing/docking with ISS, payload transfer, and payload return capability.
– Launch facility considerations include availability, attainable orbits, range safety, vehicle restrictions, hazard requirements, and usage costs.
– Launch vehicle considerations include (make or buy decision) performance capability, availability, unique ground processing, reliability, expendable versus reusable, and cost.
–
Carrier/Upper Stage system design should address performance capability, payload capacity/packaging, reusability, and compatibility with SSP-50235.
May 2002 Update
28


Acknowledged Technology gaps exist in the Orbital Transfer Vehicle element, that includes autonomous rendezvous and proximity sensors, software, avionics, and rendezvous techniques.

Identification of key enabling technologies will be requested for potential future efforts.

NASA is looking for innovative and cost-effective approaches to meet the requirements of AAS Logistics Resupply Service.
May 2002 Update
29

One aspect of AAS is the push for innovative procurement practices.

Phase 1 utilizing traditional procurement methods
– Products from Phase 1 activities (requirements definition, concept definition, technical risk reduction) can be procured efficiently through existing procurement processes
– Through NRA 8-30, Kistler Aerospace, United Space Lines, and others proved that emerging aerospace providers can compete and win major NASA contracts within the current structure

Phase 2 procurement methods are TBD
– Technology investments for Phase 2 will likely be procured through existing means
– NASA intends to study innovative practices for procurement of Phase 2 flight demonstrations
– Some procurement options we are studying include:

Commercial Contracts

Cooperative Agreements

Prizes

Phase 3 procurement methods are TBD
– AAS intends to capitalize on current efforts within NASA for procurement innovation and reform
– Phase 2 procurement options may be adopted for Phase 3 service acquisition
– The very nature of service acquisition, rather than hardware acquisition, will drive innovation in
Phase 3 procurement processes
May 2002 Update
30


AAS could serve as a change agent for the government-industry relationship

NASA seeks to purchase services rather than vehicles

We are committed to pursuing technology advances in support of 2 nd
Gen. RLV

However, we are equally committed to providing an alternate means of delivering domestic cargo to the ISS by any means permissible by law and by policy.
May 2002 Update
31


NASA has selected a strategy to implement Alternate Access in a way that meets the original charter.

AAS will pursue an incremental strategy for enabling commercial AAS services utilizing a multi-phase approach of technology risk reduction,
NASA-funded concept definition, demonstration of flight systems capable of meeting AAS mission needs, and initial AAS service acquisition.

Alternate Access will be managed within the 2 nd
Generation RLV Program as part of the Office of Aerospace Technology-led Space Launch
Initiative.

Alternate Access is responsible for developing key technology for the 2 nd
Generation RLV Program and for enabling commercial firms to meet potential ISS needs.

When services become available, the Office of Space Flight will procure such services as the need is justified.
May 2002 Update
32

“NASA was created as an agency of the Government:
to do those things that are beyond the horizons and capabilities of individuals and the private sector in the realm of aeronautics and space exploration;
to develop and demonstrate capabilities and possibilities that, quite simply, would not be done if we did not undertake them.
In so doing, we often go where no one has gone before, and in that effort there are risks and uncertainties. But we have a responsibility to our ultimate stakeholders —the taxpayers—to make every effort to manage those risks and understand those uncertainties
-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe
2/27/2002 NASA Budget Hearing
House of Rep, Committee on Science
May 2002 Update
33