SPST Briefing for Code R
Associate Administrator
and
Senior Management
November 9, 2001
NASA Headquarters
1
Introduction
Walt Dankhoff
SPST Executive Sec
2
Agenda
 Introduction
Walt Dankhoff , SAIC
SPST Executive Sec
 Air / Space Transportation
Analogies Study
Pete Mitchell
SAIC, Lead
 Development of Advanced RLV
System Development Algorithm
Russel Rhodes
NASA-KSC, Lead
 Bottom-Up Identification of
Technology Solutions to
RLV Development Impediments
Dr. Jay Penn
Aerospace Corp, Lead
 Collaborative Prioritization of
Bottom-Up Technologies
Dr. Pat Odom
SAIC, Lead
3
Agenda (concluded)
 Planned Tasks for FY 2002
SPST Activities
 Discussion and Feedback
All
4
Purpose of Review
• Provide an Understanding of the value of past and
continued support of the SPST to MSFC and NASA.
• Maximize the Value of continuing support of the SPST to
enhance the achievement of safe, dependable and
affordable space transportation goals.
• Specifically review the activities and products produced
by four unique SPST teams that supported these goals in
the past year.
• Highlight the value of proposed continuing support
activities by the SPST Teams.
• Stimulate “discussion and feedback” from NASA
Headquarters management regarding continuing SPST
support of Advanced Space Transportation (Gen2 and
Gen3).
5
Strengths of the SPST
• Team consists of senior members with broad diversified
experience in Space Transportation and Propulsion. Addresses
Space Transportation total life cycle from R&D to operations.
• It has representation from industry, government (NASA and
USAF), universities, entrepreneurs and private non-profit firms.
• Has a proven track record – over ten years.
• Developed and employed unique (out of the box) processes for
assessing and prioritizing space transportation systems,
vehicles and technologies.
• Flexible – It can be very responsive. No time required for formal
agreements or contracts.
• Has common objectives - i.e. meet national space transportation
goals, Gen2, Gen3 etc.
• It represents a win-win situation – benefit to “customers” and
“participants”
6
Membership Diversity
The SPST is composed of the premiere people in the USA from the Aerospace Propulsion
Industry, Aerospace Vehicle Industry, Not for profit Aerospace Industry, US Government and
Academia. This group has been in existence for a decade and the membership has floated as
people retire and develop other interest and the membership has stayed around 150 persons.
Academia
US Government
NASA
USAF
US Army
DOT
OMB
Liquid Propulsion Industry
Aerojet
P&W
Rocketdyne
Solid Propulsion Industry
Aerojet
Atlantic Research`
Thiokol
Primex
Aerospace Vehicle Industry
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
TRW
Kelly
Pioneer
Aerospace Subsystems/Components
Not-for-profit Aerospace
Netherlands
Space Transportation Association
Total
7
19
68
7
1
1
1
3
4
3
1
2
4
2
10
11
3
1
1
27
4
1
1
175
Potential “Customers”
• Customers are defined as an organization that has
expressed a need for specific SPST support. Note:
results of SPST task/activity provided to the customer –
but available to other members of the space
transportation community.
• In the past “customers” have been broadly NASA, more
specifically – NASA HQS and MSFC.
• Most recently, focused on MSFC/ASTP – RLV Gen3
• Products equally applicable/useful to RLV Gen2.
• Other potential customers are USAF/RL, FAA and
Universities – (note Universities mostly working on
advanced technologies) consistent with SPST long-range
vision.
8
Air / Space Transportation
Analogies Study
Pete Mitchell, Lead
9
SPST Study of Analogies Between Air
and Space Transportation Development
• Task initiated during SPST meeting with Art
Stephenson, MSFC Director and staff
• Focus of task is aircraft propulsion (jet engines)
and rocket propulsion systems (Aero/Astro)
• Study elements:
– Establish task team (regular telecons).
– Perform literature search (AIAA support).
– Define correlations and differences including design approaches,
test requirements, operating life, flight rates, cost drivers, etc.
– Focus on lessons learned from Aero that would benefit Space
Transportation.
– Document study results and present to MSFC Management.
10
Aviation/Space Analog Team
Government and Industry Representatives
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dave Christensen, Lockheed-Martin
Benjamin Donahue, Boeing
Walt Dankhoff, SPST Exec Sec
Harry Erwin, NASA-JSC
William Escher, SAIC
James French, Orbital Science Corp
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
Jerry Grey, AIAA
Roger Herdy, Micro Craft
Larry Hunt, NASA-LRC
Pete Mitchell, SAIC (team leader)
Carl Rappoport, FAA (now retired)
William Taylor, NASA-GRC
Jet Engine and Rocket Propulsion
Data Comparison
Comm.
Jet Engine
Mil.
Fighter
Engine
SSME
Gen-2
XLR-99
(X-15)
Thrust, Klb
100
35
512
<1,000
60
Thrust/Weight
~5.5
>7.5
~70
~70
65
Weight, lbs
16,000
4,000
7,000
<15,000
913
Cost
Base
<Base
5 – 10X
<5 – 10X
---
Flights/Yr
~500
<300
~3 – 5
20
~40
Design Life,
Flights
Combuster Press.,
psia
Max Turb Temp,
Deg F
Accel Time, Idleto-Max
Flt Time @ Max
Power
Cruise Power
Level
8,000
4,000
100
20 – 40
~500
~500
100 –
240
~3,000
<4,000
600
~2,500
>2,500
<2,000
<2,000
1,350
>5
<5
~1
~1
~3
5%
20%
95%
95%
~50%
25%
25%
104%
100%
50%
12
Development Phase
Detail Design Specification Requirements
for Rocket & Jet Engines
Military Fighter Engine
Liquid Rocket Engine
Design Life*
4000 EFH (Cold Parts) & 2000
EFH (Hot Parts)
27,000 Sec. & 60 Starts
Low Cycle Fatigue (LCF)
Life*
High Cycle Fatigue
4000 TAC Cycles (For Hot
Section)
240 Engine Missions
10 Million Cycles (Infinite)
10 Million Cycles
Safety Factors*
2.0 For LCF & >1.0 All Other
1.4 for Ult. & 1.1 for
Yield
Pressure Vessel Design
2.0 Times Max OP
1.2 Times 2-Sigma Max
Material Properties
3-Sigma
3-Sigma
Critical Speed Margin
Damping Required
20% W/O Damping
Rotor Burst Speed
20% Margin
20% Margin
Mission Duration*
3 Hours
520 Seconds
* Major differences are design life, LCF requirements, safety factors & mission duration
13
Right Design Choices Early on Count Most
14
Progressive Reduction in Critical
Jet Engine Failures
15
Fighter Engine Data
The jet engine industry has increased performance & reduced weight, while
improving reliability, maintainability, and operability in advanced engines.
TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED PERFORMANCE & SAFETY
ENGINE
THRUST
LBF
WEIGHT
LBM
THRUST/
WEIGHT
SAFETY
CLASS A
MISHAP
J79
17,000
3695
4.6
9.48
J57
13,750
3870
3.6
5.61
J75
26,500
5,960
4.4
4.56
TF41
15,000
3204
4.7
1.86
F100-200
22,600
3190
7.1
1.89
F110-100
28,000
3289
8.5
1.61
F100-220
27,000
3405
7.9
1.03
F110-129
29,000
3980
7.3
1.73
F100-229
29,100
3745
7.7
<1.00
Source: AFSC Database & Source Book, Aviation Week & Space Technology, January 1996
16
Development of Advanced RLV
System Development Algorithm
Russel Rhodes, Lead
17
SpaceLiner 100 Propulsion Task Force
Functional Requirements Sub-Team Membership
• Russel Rhodes, NASA-KSC Lead
• Uwe Hueter, NASA-MSFC
• Walt Dankhoff, SAIC
• Bryan DeHoff, Aero.Tech.Serv.
• Glenn Law, Aerospace Corp.
• Mark Coleman, CPIA
• Robert Bruce, NASA-SSC
• Ray Byrd, Boeing-KSC
• Clyde Denison, NGC
• Bill Pannell, NASA-MSFC
• Pete Mitchell, SAIC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dan Levack, Boeing/Rocketdyne
Bill Escher, SAIC
Pat Odom, SAIC
David Christensen, LMCO
Jim Bray, LM-MAF
Tony Harrison, NASA-MSFC
Keith Dayton/John Robinson, Boeing
Co
• Andy Prince, MSFC
• Carey McCleskey, NASA-KSC
• Jay Penn, Aerospace Corp.
• John Hutt, NASA-MSFC
•CUSTOMER PROVIDING EVALUATION INPUT:
Uwe Hueter, NASA-MSFC
18
Introduction
Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability
- Supporting 3rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements-
• The Functional Requirements Team of the
national Space Propulsion Synergy Team (SPST)
is developing the NASA ASTP 3rd Generation RLV
“System Algorithm” at NASA’s request
• The System Algorithm is a network flow diagram
designed to provide management insight into the
relative influence that system operations and
programmatic attributes will have on the achievement of program goals
• This Influence Diagramming technique is used to
construct and numerically exercise a system
development algorithm
19
Algorithm Development Process
Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability
- Supporting 3rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements-
•
•
•
•
•
•
Define program goals/key objectives
Establish the key system operations and
and programmatic attributes of the program
that will determine the successful achievement
of the goals
Identify the primary influence interrelationships
among the attributes and between the attributes
and the goals
Use an influence (network) diagram to model the
attributes and goals linkages
Load in the attribute weightings
Exercise the model (algorithm) to provide insight
into limitations and adjustments required to make
it usable for program planning and management
20
Conclusions
Systems approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability
- Supporting 3rd Generation RLV/SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements-
• SPST Algorithm provides risk management insight into the key program objectives by assessing the
benefit of R&D investment strategies
• The Systems Algorithm is a network flow diagram designed to provide management insight into the
relative influence that system operations and programmatic attributes will have on the achievement of
program goals
• Algorithm can be used for development of other Space transportation System applications
• Application specific inputs are needed
• Customer objective weights
• R&D investment time frame
• The Algorithm tool provides visibility of the impacts of changes in
investment strategies on key objectives during all phases of the program
• R&D including the X-vehicle
• Industry DDT&E
• Commercial Operations
• The model is very good for Choosing R&D investment strategies
• Relative magnitude of one investment scenario to another
• Good tool to judge changes to R&D program
• Key attributes/sub-attributes flow-down to the measurable criteria are those used in the Technology
Workshop evaluation
21
22
23
24
25
Systems Approach to Dependable, Responsive, Safe, and Affordable Space Transportation
- Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -
IDENTIFYING AND INTEGRATING TOP-LEVEL SYSTEM ATTRIBUTES
LOW RISK R&D
R&D
ATTRTIBUTES
DUAL USE
POTENTIAL
LOW NONRECURRING
COST
LIFE CYCLE COST
LOW COST R&D
INVESTORS
INCENTIVE
DDT&E
ATTRIBUTES
LOW DDT&E
ACQUISITION
COST
NON-RECURRING INVESTMENT
SHORT
SCHEDULE
BENEFIT
FOCUSED
LOW RISK
DDT&E
TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS
SHORT
SCHEDULE
LOW
LIFE
CYCLE
COST
DEPENDABLE
INHERENT
RELIABILITY
FLEET
PURCHASE
ATTRIBUTES KEY
OPERATIONS
ATTRIBUTES
OPERABLE
R&D
DDT&E
LOW
RECURRING
COST
100X
CHEAPER
COST,
$/LB
RESPONSIVE
SAFE
OPERS
OPERS
OPERS
COST FOCUS
GEN3
GOALS
26
10,000 X
SAFER
3/22/01
Systems Approach to Dependable, Responsive, Safe, and Affordable Space Transportation
- Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -
SPST ETO-ATTRIBUTES REFERENCE TABULATION
REUSABLE EARTH-TO-ORBIT
Operational Effectiveness Criteria
Operational Phase Attributes
Weight
Affordable / Low Life Cycle Cost
Min. P/L Cost Impact on Launch Sys.
Low Recurring Cost
. Low Cost Sensitivity to Flt. Growth
. Operation and Support
Initial Acquisition
Vehicle/System Replacement
14.39
2.43
Dependable
Highly Reliable (hardware)
Intact Vehicle Recovery
Mission Success
Operate on Command
Robustness
Design Certainty
22.21
3.80
2.53
0.68
7.60
3.80
3.80
Responsive
Flexible
.
Resiliency
.
Launch on Demand
Capacity
Operable (Operations)
.
Process Verification
.
Auto Sys. Health Verification
.
Auto Sys. Corrective Action
.
Ease of Vehicle/Sys. Integration
.
Maintainable
.
Simple
.
Easily Supportable
45.41
1.22
2.74
1.22
1.22
Operational Phase Attributes (cont)
Safety
Vehicle Safety
Personnel Safety
Public Safety
Equipment and Facility Safety
1.62
7.60
0.00
2.74
Weight
10.12
2.53
2.53
2.53
2.53
Environmental Compatibility
Minimum Impact on Space Environment
Minimum Effect on Atmosphere
Minimum Environ. Impact All Sites
7.91
2.43
2.74
2.74
Public Support
Benefit GNP
Social Perception
0.00
0.00
0.00
Programmatic Criteria
(39.01)
2.53
7.60
7.60
1.22
4.86
7.60
7.60
Program Acquisition Phase (DDT&E)
.
Cost
.
Schedule
.
Investor Incentive
.
Risk
.
Technology Options
100
25
15
25
25
10
Technology R&D Phase
.
Cost
.
Benefit Focused
.
Schedule
.
Risk
.
Dual Use Potential
100
30
30
15
15
10
DATA REF: SL 100 designCriteriaMatrix (1-27-00).xls SpaceDesCrit(ETO reusable)
AND Attributes vs Programmatics Pareto SPST / SL-100 Space propulsion (6_14)
• ‘ZEROS AMENDMENT’ Jan ‘01
NOTE: Color code same as preceding charts
27
2/22/01
Systems Approach to Dependable, Responsive, Safe, and Affordable Space Transportation
- Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -
IDENTIFYING THE FOUR KEY OPERATIONAL ATTRIBUTE CONTENT
DDT&E
LOW
LIFE
CYCLE
COST
OPERATIONS
ATTRIBUTES
OPERABLE
ATTRIBUTES COLOR KEY
LOW
RECURRING
COST
RESPONSIVE
• FLEXIBLE
• LAUNCH ON DEMAND
• RESILIENCY
• CAPACITY
• LOW COST SENSTVTY
TO FLT RATE GROWTH
• MIN COST IMPACT OF
P/L ON SYSTEM
• VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
+OPERABLE CNTRBTN
• AUTO SYS HLTH VERFCTN
• EASE VEH/SYS INTGRTN
• MAINTAINABLE
• EASILY SUPPORTABLE
• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR
+DEPENDABLE CNTRBTN
• SPST DEPENDABLE
• SIMPLE
• AUTO SYS CRCTV ACTN
• PROCESS VERIFICATION
• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR
• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
DEPENDABLE
INHERENT
RELIABILITY
FLEET
PURCHASE
100X
CHEAPER
COST,
$/LB
RESPONSIVE
SAFE
GEN3
GOALS
10,000 X
SAFER
DDT&E
DEPENDABLE
OPERABLE
SAFETY
COST FOCUS
SAFETY
• PERSONNEL SAFETY
• PUBLIC SAFETY
• VEHICLE SAFETY
• EQPT & FAC SAFETY
+ENVIRONMENT CNTRBTN
• MIN EFFECT ON ATMSPHR
• MIN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT ALL SITES
• MIN IMPACT ON SPACE ENVIR
+DEPENDABLE CNTRBTN
• SPST DEPENDABLE
• SIMPLE
• AUTO SYS CRCTV ACTN
• PROCESS VERIFICATION
• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR
• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
SPST DEPENDABLE
• HIGHLY RELIABLE H/W
• INTACT VEHICLE RCVRY
• MISSION SUCCESS
• OPERATE ON COMMAND
• ROBUSTNESS
• DESIGN CERTAINTY
+OPERABLE/COST CNTRBTN
• AUTO SYS CRCTV ACTION
• PROCESS VERIFICATION
• SIMPLE
• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR
• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
28
OPERABLE
• AUTO SYS HLTH VERFCTN
• EASE VEH/SYS INTGRTN
• MAINTAINABLE
• EASILY SUPPORTABLE
• OPER & SUPPORT LABOR
+DEPENDABLE CNTRBTN
• SPST DEPENDABLE
• OPER & SUPORT LABOR
• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
2/27/01
Systems Approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability
- Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements -
ATTRIBUTES CONTRIBUTING TO DEPENDABLE
REUSABLE ETO SPST WEIGHTS
(45.11 - Components sum)
INTCT VEH RCVRY 2.53
INHERENT RELIABILITY
DEPENDABLE
CREW ESCAPE
OPERATE ON COMMAND 7.60
MISSION SUCCESS
0.68
ROBUST DESIGN
SPST ‘DEPENDABLE’
• HIGHLY RELIABLE H/W
3.80
• INTACT VEH RECOVERY 2.53
• MISSION SUCCESS
0.68
ROBUST
DSGN CRTNTY
3.80
3.80
AUTO SYS CORCT ACTN
7.60
• OPERATE ON COMMAND 7.60
• ROBUSTNESS
• DESIGN CERTAINTY
.
SPST SUM
3.80
3.80
22.21
INFRSTRCTR. OPS.
OPRTN & SUPRT
7.60 / 2
PROCS VRFCTN 2.53
INFLUENCE CONTRIBUTION
RELIABLE
HARDWARE
• AUTO SYS CORRECTIVE
. ACTION
7.60
• PROCESS
. VERIFICATION
2.53
• SIMPLE
7.60
PROCESS
VERIFICATION
HI REL H/W
3.80
SYS RPLCMT
2.74 / 2
SPST ATTRIBUTES
. & WEIGHTINGS
AFFORDABLE /
LOW LCC
14.4
DEPENDABLE
22.2
RESPONSIVE
45.4
SAFETY
10.1
ENVIRONMENTAL 7.9
SUM = 100.0
• OPERATION & SUPPORT
. (LABOR)
7.60 / 2
• SYSTEM REPLACEMENT 2.74 / 2
DEPENDABLE TOTAL 45.11
SIMPLE
SIMPLE
7.60
29
2/20/01
Systems Approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability
- Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements Design Certainty
Correlation Value
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Raw Score
579.799
533.855
473.34
438.656
379.602
322.371
267.22
241.445
226.854
223.911
199.197
104.094
633.744
600.679
588.672
566.944
559.8
523.846
506.522
499.832
498.679
491.89
489.86
435.823
427.162
383.499
374.19
301.213
293.455
284.236
263.781
211.105
209.898
138.055
87.006
Benefit Criteria
# of components with demonstrated high reliability (+)
System margin (+)
Design Variability (-)
Technology readiness levels (+)
Mass Fraction required (-)
# of element to element interfaces requiring engineering control (-)
Ave. Isp on refer. trajectory (+)
# of modes or cycles (-)
Margin, thrust level / engine chamber press(+)
Margin, mass fraction (+)
Margin, ave. specific impulse (+)
Ideal delta-V on ref. trajectory (-)
# of active systems required to maintain a safe vehicle (-)
# of different propulsion systems (-)
# of systems with BIT BITE (+)
# of active components required to function including flight operations (-)
# of systems requiring monitoring due to hazards (-)
% of propulsion system automated (+)
% of propulsion subsystems monitored to change from hazard to safe (+)
# of unique stages (flight and ground) (-)
# of in-space support sys. req'd for propulsion sys. ( - )
# of active on-board space sys. req'd for propulsion ( - )
On-board Propellant Storage & Management Difficulty in Space (-)
# of different fluids in system (-)
# of propulsion sub-systems with fault tolerance (+)
ISP Propellant transfer operation difficulty (resupply) (-)
# of expendables (fluid, parts, software) (-)
# of umbs. req'd to Launch Vehicle ( - )
# of engines (-)
Resistance to Space Environment (+)
# of active engine systems required to function (-)
# of engine restarts required (-)
Transportation trip time (-)
# of major systems required to ferry or return to launch site (plus logistics support) (-)
# of processing steps to manufacture (-)
30
Systems Approach to Dependability, Responsiveness, Safety, and Affordability
- Supporting SpaceLiner 100 Functional Requirements Technology R & D
Cost
Correlation Value
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
Benefit Focused
Correlation Value
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
Schedule
Correlation Value
9
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
Risk
Correlation Value
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
3
Dual use Potential
Correlation Value
9
3
3
3
Raw Score
820.0
750.0
750.0
640.0
630.0
600.0
550.0
400.0
390.0
210.0
Benefit Criteria
TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)
TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)
TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)
TRD-Current TRL (+)
TRD-cost to reach TRL -6 (-)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)
TRD-# of new facilities required costing over $2M (-)
TRD-#related technology databases available (+)
TRD-total annual funding by item at peak budget requirements (-)
Raw Score
820.0
750.0
750.0
600.0
640.0
630.0
550.0
390.0
210.0
Benefit Criteria
TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)
TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)
TRD-cost to reach TRL -6 (-)
TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)
TRD-Current TRL (+)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)
TRD-#related technology databases available (+)
TRD-total annual funding by item at peak budget requirements (-)
Raw Score
820.0
750.0
640.0
630.0
750.0
600.0
550.0
400.0
390.0
Benefit Criteria
TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)
TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)
TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)
TRD-Current TRL (+)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)
TRD-cost to reach TRL -6 (-)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)
TRD-# of new facilities required costing over $2M (-)
TRD-#related technology databases available (+)
Raw Score
820.0
750.0
640.0
630.0
550.0
390.0
750.0
400.0
TRD-# technology breakthroughs required to develop and demonstrate (-)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)
TRD-# full scale ground or flight demonstrations required (-)
TRD-Current TRL (+)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes previously demonstrated (+)
TRD-#related technology databases available (+)
TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)
TRD-# of new facilities required costing over $2M (-)
Raw Score
180.0
750.0
750.0
390.0
TRD-# multiuse applications including space transportation (+)
TRD-# operational effectiveness attributes addressed for improvement (+)
TRD-estimated time to reach TRL 6 from start of R&D (-)
TRD-#related technology databases available (+)
Benefit Criteria
Benefit Criteria
31
Bottom-Up Identification of
Technology Solutions to
RLV Development Impediments
Jay Penn, Lead
32
Integrated Technology Team Participants
Jay Penn – Team Lead
Dan Levack
Russel Rhodes
John Robinson
Bill Pannell
Bruce Fleming
Bryan DeHoff
Carey McCleskey
Clyde Denison
Constantine Salvador
David Christensen
Glenn Law
John Olds
Mike Sklar
Pat Odom
Walter Dankhoff
Aerospace Corporation
Boeing/Rocketdyne
KSC
Boeing
MSFC
LM Space Systems
Aerospace Tech. Services
KSC
Northrup/Grumman
Pratt & Whitney
LM Space Systems
Aerospace Corporation
Georgia Tech
Boeing/KSC
SAIC
SAIC
33
Work Flow Plan
National Space Policy
Strategic Direction
NASA / ASTP
Garry Lyles, Director
SPST Steering
Committee
Transportation
Architectures
Team # 2 John Robinson, Boeing
SL100 Functional
Requirements
Team # 1 Russ Rhodes, KSC
Assessment Criteria
Programming Factors
Technologies Identification
Preparation of White Papers
Team # 3 Dan Levack
Boeing, Rocketdyne
Technologies Assessment
& Prioritization Workshop
Team # 4 Dr. Pat Odom, SAIC
34
“Bottoms Up” Assessment
Team # 5 Jay Penn, Aero
Identify “Impediments”
Brainstorm “Solutions”
• System Concepts
• Technologies
Products
To
MSFC / ASTP
Key ITT Findings/Observations
•
22 High Leverage Technologies Identified
•
•
•
•
•
•
Many not be exciting but address areas where large improvements are
required
Technologies are required by all envisioned concepts (cross-cutting)
Key technologies focused on meeting and design criteria in areas of
reliability, safety and operability
Technology solutions suggest that we re-think overall design processes
• E.g. increased emphasis on synergies/reductions of subsystems
13 New Processess Identified
• Make Operability, Reliability, Safety and Operations cost as much a part
of the design process as performance
• Funding Effort Required to Develop Described Processes (Formalized)
11 Key Studies Outlined – More to Come
• Study identification process far from complete
• Funding will eventually be required to 1) more completely define studies
to be performed and to complete studies
35
Key ITT
Findings/Observations
•
•
SPST now sees ITT as high value activity
Numerous impediments to why technology solutions to Design Criteria
Not Implemented
•
•
Must be assessed/understood in context of technology/concept solutions
• Existing Paradigms (Need to be challenged)
• Heritage/Implementation costs
• Experience base/systems engineering to evaluate does not exist
• It’s not fun or glamorous!
• A structured requirements and traceability process for key attribute
criteria doesn’t exist
• Operability (access, inspection, reduction of operations activities)
• Reliability (functional redundancy, elimination of failure modes,
e.g. critically 1 failures)
Not evaluated by cost/benefit or maximum leverage
• Detailed quantitative analysis required (at flight/ground systems level)
36
Collaborative Prioritization of
Bottom-Up Technologies
Pat Odom, Lead
37
Introduction and Background
• The SPST has provided propulsion technology
assessment and prioritization support to the
NASA ASTP for more than three years
> In-space propulsion technologies (Apr’ 1999)
> 3rd Gen RLV top-down technologies (Apr’ 2000)
• In April 2001 a national SPST workshop prioritized
potential bottom-up technology solutions for
impediments to achieving 3rd Gen RLV program
goals (using the same evaluation criteria as 3rd Gen
RLV top-down process to allow merging results)
• The results apply to 2nd Gen systems as well
38
Candidate Technology Areas
The SPST bottom-up assessment process
Identified 26 candidate technology solution
Areas organized into 6 propulsion related categories:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
IVHM Technologies
Margin Technologies
Operations Technologies
Safety Technologies
Thermal Control Technologies
Technologies to Reduce No. Systems
39
Workshop Participants
Programmatic Evaluators
Technical Evaluators
Ben Donahue
Drew DeGeorge
Dr. John Olds
Boeing
AFRL
Georgia Tech
Vic Giuliano
Pratt&Whitney
Dr. Clark Hawk
UAH
Dr. Jay Penn
Aerospace Corp
Dave Goracke
Boeing Rocketdyne
Larry Hunt
NASA LRC
W. T. Powers
NASA MSFC
Dr. John Hutt
NASA MSFC
Dave McGrath
Thiokol
John Robinson
Boeing
Pete Mitchell
SAIC
Dr. Charles Merkle
UTSI
Costante Salvator
Pratt&Whitney
Phil Sumrall
NASA Hqs
Scott Miller
General Dynamics
Larry Talafuse
Lockheed Martin
An Industry, Government and Academia Team
40
Collaborative AHP Data Entry
Technologies
for Given Technology
Category
Evaluation
Criteria
Pivot
Technology
Each of
Candidate
Technologies
Pairwise
Comparisons
Against Each
Criterion
Each Evaluator
SAIC ITIPS
Software
Strength of
Comparisons
on Saaty Scale
Collaborative
Prioritization
Results
41
42
43
44
45
Summary and Conclusions
•
The SPST workshop provided roughly 10,000
data inputs to the propulsion technology
prioritization computations
•
The 26 potential technology solution areas
were successfully assessed and prioritized
> Against 25 technical and 19 programmatic
criteria
> Separately against the potential to increase
system safety and decrease cost
•
The crosscutting results apply to both 2nd and
3rd Gen RLV systems development
46
Summary and Conclusions
•
•
Based on all 25 technical and 19 programmatic
criteria, the highest priority technologies are
those that:
1. Reduce number of RLV systems to be
developed
2. Increase system margins
3. Simplify thermal control of the flight vehicle
Detail results are summarized in AIAA paper
2001-3983 (37th Joint Propulsion Conference &
Exhibit)
47
Summary and Plans for FY 2002
SPST Activities
48
Consistent Findings and Conclusions
•
Prior to Design and Development Phase
1. Establish Aggressive Functional/Operational
Requirements
• Long Life-Maximize Time Between Removals of
Sub Systems and Components for Replacement of
Overhauls
• Minimize Ground Support Operations (Minimum
“Turn Around Time”)
• Provide Automated Predictive System Health
Verification and Maintenance Requirements (IVHM)
2. “Flow Down” Functional/Operational Requirements to
Design Criteria and Technologies Needed to Satisfy
Requirements
3. Conduct System Ground and Flight Tests to
Demonstrate Maturity and Reduce Risks
49
Consistent Findings and Conclusions
•
System Design and Development Phase
1. Rigorously enforce all of the Functional/Operational
requirements
2. Adhere to all of the design criteria
3. Focus on Systems Dependability and Operability. At
least equal to focus on performance
4. Use evolutionary approaches wherever possible.
Reduce risk from major revolutionary change.
50
Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002
1.
Serve as an expert source of propulsion systems technology data
and design inputs to the ITAC and NASA In-House systems analyses
of Third Generation Hypersonic RLV concepts
•
Draw appropriate knowledgeable personnel together from the SPST
membership to perform needed tasks when required
Reference: Recent task support for Chris Naftel (Marc Neely / new
Systems Analysis Lead) to Determine Design Reference Missions
sets for 3rd Generation RLV Hypersonic Program
•
What are the characteristics that should be modeled?
•
What values (Metrics) should be considered as reasonable and what
range should be used for these metrics
51
Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002
2.
Review past system studies to establish the applicability of the
groundrules, assumptions, input data, and results to ITAC
systems analyses modeling and data standards
•
•
Compare ground rules and assumptions used in past advanced
space transportation studies for relevancy to ITAC and In-House
studies systems analyses
Provide data to support upcoming NASA budget cycles and
reviews
52
Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002
3.
Identify and recommend system engineering and management
processes needed to meet 3rd Gen goals
•
Perform follow-on to the Bottom-Up Identification and Definition of
Third Generation Technology Investment Needs effort to include both
the R&D Technology and the DDT&E Acquisition phases for further
definition of the system engineering and management processes
53
Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002
4.
Expand the Air Space Analogy Studies
•
Perform follow-on to the Air Space Analogy Studies for greater
insight into lessons learned from R&D investment toward DDT&E
and Operations improvements. Provide Identification and Definition
of Third Generation Technology Investment Needs effort to include
these lessons learned into both the R&D Technology and the DDT&E
Acquisition phases
54
Proposed Follow-On Activities in FY 2002
5.
Perform follow-on activities of the Space Systems Influence
Algorithm in support of 2nd Gen goals
•
Activities may be focused on education of customer use of tools and
value in smart decision making (how it works or provide
understanding of its development process)
55
Discussion and Feedback
56