NASA-USAF
Reusable Space Launch
Development
Industry Day Briefing
17 January, 2002
Current Tasker
 Chartered by SecAF and NASA Administrator on 10/12/01
 NASA/AF cooperation on new generation of reusable launch vehicles to
meet national needs
 Consider initial prototype flight as early as 2007
 Air



Staff (AF/XO) tasker to AF Space Command: Develop AF
CONOPS
Operational requirements
Technical requirements
 Study Objectives:
 Credible, comprehensive plan to develop RLVs
 Define, converge (where possible) NASA, AF RLV requirements
 Roadmap to guide development
 Identify appropriate transition opportunities – with decision points and
offramps
 Establish implementation plan for joint agency effort
ONE.011-2
Study Organization / Responsibilities
SecAF/NASA
Administrator
Review
Senior Steering Group
NASA Leadership
Group
AF General Officer
Steering Group
Wolfert (USAF)
Dumbacher (MSFC) NASA
EX Sec. - Morris
AF EX Sec. - Wolfert
RED TEAM
Payloads and Sensors
Overall Program
Integration
Steve Cook (MSFC)
Col. Mike Wolfert (AFSPC)
• Development of
Integrated Program
• Implementation
Approaches
• Cost/Integrated
Budget
• Policy & Strategic
Considerations
RLV Program
Development
Requirements/
Operations
Lt Col Einstman (SMC/XRI)
Garry Lyles (MSFC)
Chuck Smith (MSFC)
Col Davis (AFSPC/DO)
AFSPC/DR
• Comprehensive System
Development Plan/Acq
Strat
 Ops
 Propulsion
 Airframe/TPS
 IVHM
 Software
 Subsystems
• Risks/Mitigation Plan
• Proposed Test Plan
• Mission Needs
Statement
• CONOPS
• DRM’s
• Requirements
Technology
Col. Jack Blackhurst (AFRL)
Paul McConnaughey (MSFC)
• Technology
Requirements
• Technology
Assessments
• Threat Assessment
• Roadmap
 Program
 Harmonization
 Budget Req’ts
NRO
ESC
ACC/DRZ)
Architectures
Hugh Brady (MSFC)
Col. Bill Gardner (SMC)
• Possible Vehicle/
Architecture Definition
 RLV Capabilities
 Payload Capabilities
• Trade Space
Definition/Trade Studies
• Operational Concepts/
Operability Assessments
• Safety/Reliability
Assessments
• Payloads/Sensors
ONE.011-3
Study Assessing Options
to Current NASA Approach
 Current NASA SLI / 3rd Gen Includes:





2012 spacelift vehicle for NASA, DoD and Commercial
Advanced development with competing approaches (minimum of 2)
Supporting technology programs
NASA unique missions
Alternate access for ISS
 One Team Study Augments with:




Capability to meet Military Spaceplane Needs
Exploring options for earlier capability
More robust advanced development program
Harmonized, robust supporting technology program
ONE.011-4
Key Observations at Mid Point
 Starting point: NASA 2nd Gen (SLI), 3rd Gen RLV programs

More mature than AF plans, provide foundation for DoD-augmented approach
 DoD, NASA requirements differ, seeking “smart” convergence


NASA: Human spaceflight
DOD: aircraft-like responsiveness and operability
 Early (2007) flight prototype development: significant payoffs possible…




Potential residual capability for DOD missions
Early (though limited) operational capability for NASA
Learn from building, operating prototype
Provides mechanism for focusing on evolved requirements
 …BUT early (2007) prototype adds significant technical, programmatic risk


Requires early decision (CY2002) with significant forward-phased funding
Historically, 66 months required from authority to proceed to first flight
 National Requirements (Quantitative and Qualitative) need to drive the
development options


Quantitative – Mission Need, Cost-to-Benefit, System Obsolescence, etc …
Qualitative – Transformational, Evolution, World/Market Predominance, etc ..
ONE.011-5
RLV Utility
 National Security Sector




Implements QDR “transformation” and
“space control” themes
Enables prompt global strike and ISR
augmentation from space
Space Commission objectives for RLV:
short-notice call-up & lower cost
Enables “launch on demand” to augment,
replenish, project, deploy and sustain
U.S. space force structure
 Civil Sector--NASA


Improves safety, reliability, availability,
and lower cost compared to Shuttle
Allows development paths for ISS crew
rescue, other future missions
 U.S. Commercial Space Sector





Enhances international competitiveness
Stimulates U.S. space industrial base
Enables revolution in space business—
new markets, elastic demand
Improves reliability, availability,
flexibility—keys to launcher selection
Aligns mission planning lead time with
satellite manufacturing in <24 months
 All Sectors




Enables new approaches to satellite
design and constellation management
On-orbit refueling could extend satellite
operating life, improve maneuverability
Enables technology insertion during
operating life of a satellite block
Reusable satellites could cost up to 2/3
less* to build, insure, and operate
* 1998 NSSA Launch on Demand Study
ONE.011-6
Key Roles for Military Spaceplane
 Deterrence, Presence, Power Projection and
Coercion
 Space Superiority
 Theater Integration
 Rapid Strike -- Adversary Vital Interests
 Halt Phase Precision Strike for
Global Strike Task Force
 Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)
 Enhanced ISR for Full Spectrum Predictive
Battlespace Awareness
 Enable and Support Combat
Search and Rescue Operations
 Support Homeland Defense
Globally Integrated Air and Space Striking Power
ONE.011-7
Payloads for Military Spaceplane
EO/IR
Ka-Band Downlink
Comm and Data Relay
(store and forward)
CCD Camera
Film Cameras (Stereo)
SIGINT
Forward Looking
IR (FLIR) EO Combo
Plug-in
Optronic
Payload
Chemical/Bio
Detection
IR MicroCam
S-Band Comm
Syntetic Aperture Radar
(SAR/MTI)
Multi-Spectral
Camera
HyperSpectral Imager
XBand Phased
Array Comm
Weather Imager
K-Band Antenna
Multi-Phase
Antenna Array
Space-to-Ground Delivery (CAV)
Space Control
ONE.011-8
MSP Operational Tasks
 Conduct Offensive and Defensive Counterspace Operations
 Radio Frequency and Microwave Systems
 Jamming
 Deploy Systems for and Conduct Operations to Provide





Space Situational Awareness
Reachback and Covert Communications
Tactical Reconnaissance
Battle Management and Intercept (GMTI and AMTI)
Immediate and Post-strike Battle Damage Assessment
 Deliver Decisive Precision Firepower
 Covert and Non-nuclear strike (Immediate Response Option)
 Halt Phase
 Time Critical and Hardened Targets
ONE.011-9
Critical Integrated Requirements














Threat Requirement
Crewed
Crew Survivability
Max Payload on-orbit duration
Rendezvous capability
Max Orbital Inclination
Max Orbital Altitude
On orbit Delta V
Max Orbiter On-orbit duration
Launch Site
Landing Site
Intact abort capability
Command and Control Site
Capable of 12-month operations













Design payload mass
Nominal de-orbit mass
Physical payload envelope
Vehicle mission reliability
Mission turnaround time –
Sustained
Mission turnaround time – Surge
Call up time – Sustained
Call up time – Crew Rescue
Sortie capacity – Sustained
Sortie capacity – Surge
Mission Planning Time – crewed
Mission Planning Time –
uncrewed
Recurring costs
ONE.011-10
Example Development Strategy
NASA Variant
2002 – 06
~2009 - ?
2012-2014
DoD Variant
 Option for Early Capability



To improve operations knowledge
base for the next vehicle
To serve as technology test platform
To provide limited operational
capability
 Ground and Flight Demonstrations



Risk Reduction
Operability
Long Term S&T
 Leads to full system capabilities
in 2012-14


Converged Cargo/MSP
Requirements
Modular variant for Human Space
Flight
ONE.011-11
Integrated Architecture Elements
Launch Vehicle
Systems
On-Orbit
Transfer &
Servicing
Reusable
Orbital Vehicles
Upper Stages
Crew Transfer
Payloads
Strategic
Ground
Facilities
Spaceport
ELV’s
Tactical
Orbital Transfer
Vehicles
Cargo Transfer
Automated
Mission
Processing
Commercial
2nd Gen RLVs
Human
3rd Gen RLVs
Re-fueling/
Servicing
Space Maneuver
Vehicles
Scientific
ONE.011-12
Systems Classes Investigated
Representative Concepts that Bound the Trade Space
Far
Near
TSTO
Air Launch
ELV-RLV
Hybrid
SSTO/
Combined Cycle
ONE.011-13
Technology Team Process
Develop Harmonized
Technology Database
- Technology Readiness Level
- Budget Profiles
Assess Technology Readiness
versus Time Phased System
Requirements
2007 Requirements
And System
Develop New and
Updated Advanced
Development and
Technology Tasks
2012 Requirements
And System
2025 Requirements
And System
Technology Gap Analysis
Review Existing Technology Projects
Other Databases
Establish Advanced
Development and
Technology Program
Roadmaps and Funding
Requirements
Iteration Between:
- Requirements
- Architectures/Concepts
- Technology
- Development Program
National Hypersonics Plan
Air Force Base + PBD 803
Space Launch Initiative
Program Definition will
Narrow the Breadth of
Development Needs, e.g.:
- Propellant selection
- Requirements Time
Phasing
ONE.011-14
Technology Assessment
Against New Requirements
= Not Available By Freeze Date
Funding Gap
= Available With Reduced Capability
RLV Tech Work Breakdown Structure
= Available With Full Capability
Systems Engineering Tools &
Integrated Vehicle Health Management
Airframe
Cryotanks
Thermal Protection System (TPS)
Vehicle Subsystems
Operations
Ground Infrastructure
Command & Control
Propulsion Systems
NASA Unique
Integrated Tech Systems Demos
AF Payloads
Flight
Demo
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
2007
2012
SOTA
Current
Funded
Programs
NA
Realm of
Possible
NA
NA
NA
ONE.011-15
Major Technology Gaps Inhibiting
Achievement of Program Goals
2009 Vehicle
2012 Vehicle
2025 Vehicle
Technology Challenges
Technology Challenges
Technology Challenges
Operable Main Engines
Non-Toxic OMS/RCS
Reusable Tanks
Crew Escape
Highly Operable
Main Engines
All Weather TPS
Airbreathing / High
T/W Rocket
Propulsion
Light Weight – Long
Life Materials
Integrated Structure
Hot Structure
Durable TPS
Automated
Checkout Systems
Long Life Quick-Turn
Cryo Tanks
Autonomous Operations
& Intelligent Vehicle
Management
Highly Intelligent / Self
Healing Systems
Aerospaceports
ONE.011-16
Example Integrated Technology Roadmap
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
Major
Milestones &
Decisions
FY06
PDR
FY07
FY08
CDR
PDR
2009 Vehicle
Key Tasks
FY10
FY11
FY12
CDR
2012 Vehicle
Tech Freeze
for 2009
 2009
Enabling
Component/
Subsystem
Technology
FY09
Tech Freeze
for 2012
1st Flight
2009 Vehicle
1st Flight
2012 Vehicle
2009 Enabling
2009 Integrated or Focused Demos
 2012/2025
Technology
2007 Upgrades
 Integrated or
Focused
Demos
2009 Upgrades for 2012
2012 Enabling
2012 Integrated or Focused Demos
Cross Cutting Technologies
2025 Enabling
DOD
NASA
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
$nn
ONE.011-17
Critical Up-Coming Study Activities
 January 14-25; RLV Working Group Session
 January 30; Final General Officers Steering Group Briefing
(NASA & AF)
 February 5; Final Senior Steering Group Briefing
 February 7; Final 4-Star Briefing
 February 12-14; RLV Working Group Session (Optional)
 February 19; USecAF & NASA Admin Briefing on Team Findings
and Recommendations
 February 28; MSP Roadmap due to USecAF
ONE.011-18
Key Industry Questions
1. What are the technology "long poles" to enable responsive space access (ie 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?
3. What level and mix of technology maturation activities (e.g., analysis, subscale and system
tests, and/or flight demonstration) does it take for your company to consider a technology
ready for incorporation into a full-scale RLV system development program? Describe the
criteria used for making such assessments
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.)?
5. Given your knowledge of currently funded NASA and Air Force programs, what changes and/or
additional technology developments are needed to meet the requirements for a new RLV
system in the 2012 timeframe?
ONE.011-19
Key Industry Questions
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
7. What is your company's perspective as to the value/need of obtaining systems integration and
operability experience from the development and flight of an RLV demonstrator as a step
towards the development of an operational vehicle to meet AF & NASA goals? Is a
demonstrator a necessary risk reduction step to meet these goals? What types of flight
demonstration(s) does your company feel are required in order to field a next generation RLV
in the 2012 timeframe? For a 2025 system?
8. What is you company position on the value of a competitive fly-off between next generation
RLV systems?
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?
10. What management/acquisition approach(es) would your company recommend for the
development of RLV(s) that meet NASA and Air Force requirements?
ONE.011-20
Key Industry Questions
11. What is your assessment of the state of the industrial base to support development of this
program simultaneously with EELV and other aerospace programs? Is there a risk to
developing this Program due to shortages or deficiencies in areas such as training and
expertise of engineers, manufacturing capability, or reliance on foreign parts and materials?
12. What options would you recommend to support airplane like operations for the Military Space
Plane? When would these operational capabilities be available to be part of a test/development
program?
13. Can we develop the launch and early orbit checkout processes, techniques, and procedures to
support first or second revolution use of sensors and payloads? Does this require increased
technology efforts?
14. What is your assessment of whether sensors and payloads can be developed that can be jointly
used by UAVs and space to support the Global Strike Task Force concept? Which areas are the
best candidates? When might these be available?
ONE.011-21