Slide 1 Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM Department of Defense R&D Responsive Spaceflight (RRS) Lt Col Kirk

Slide 1

Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design

DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM

Department of Defense

R&DResponsiveSpaceflight (RRS)

Department of Defense

R&DResponsiveSpaceflight (RRS)

Lt Col Kirk SharpSenior Program Advisor

DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM

RO

CKE

TSYSTEMS LAUNCH PROG

RA

M••

Space

&M issile Systems Cen

ter

•M INUTEMAN

•

SP

AC

EL

AU

N

CH•

SO

UN

DIN

GR

OC K E T S

VSEVSE VSSVSS

Slide 2

Why Were We at SMC/TD?Why Were We at SMC/TD?

• Propose a holistic concept for repeatable launching of Space RDT&E missions in 12-18 months, using mechanisms that are in place today– A ‘solution’ other than “give me money, people, and a

launch vehicle, and I can in X years . . .”– Proposal solves the business (of spaceflight) problem

with standard customer - service provider relationship– Proposal requires customer funding source only– Accesses existing capacity across the S&T community

• Need a champion to pursue this RRS strategy, or redirection – i.e. Gen Worden gave the challenge

Slide 3

Bottom Line Up FrontBottom Line Up Front

• 12–18 month S&T spaceflight can be done today with a team

• Finding a solution has been hard, because no single organization has all the RRS capability in place right now– One could in future w’ new resources, IDIQ source selections, etc

• Thus, why not, an Alliance of Gov’t (all DoD or para-DoD) Orgs/ Labs, each coming to the table, to acquire any mission now?– STP has (at least the working level) coordinated with AFRL,

LANL, NRL, RDSMO, RSLP, & SDL and received a positive response (initial commitment) to propose this RRS Alliance

• Willingness to use their existing finance (FM) and contracts (PK) mechanisms (e.g., funding/contract vehicles) to get work done today

– Alliance requires a Board of Directors (Alliance Principals), a Secretariat (e.g., STP), and a reporting authority (e.g., SMC/TD)

• Some SMC Flag Officer support for the proposed “Alliance”

Slide 4

R&D Responsive Space (RRS)• Space Weather R&D

• Data collection of transient events Critical Technology Demonstration

• Risk Reduction Testing

• Rapid Prototype Testing for TRL 6 S&T into Space systems

• All RRS missions require from no a priori knowledge of a sensor (‘black box’) to on-orbit operations in 12-18 months vice >48 months @ >$1M/mo now

Responsive Space (RS)Responsive Space (RS)MissionsMissions

Operational Responsive Space (ORS)• Space Control

• Satellite Close Inspection• Foreign Mission “Shadowing”• Anti-Satellite Operations• Ballistic Missile Intercept from Space (2 days to week)

• Force Application• Conventional Land Attack Through Space (6-8 hours)

• Force Enhancement•Rapid Satellite Replacement (2 days to week)

Responsive Space

Question: What is needed to reduce the cycle time (currently >48 mos) and have a repeatable 12-18 month cycle time for Space demonstrations?

Slide 5

R&D Responsive SpaceDiscovery Process

Activities• Interviews• Meetings with Key

Organizations• Workshop – RRS Summit• Data Collection

– Unique contribution

– Facilities

– Agreements

– Contracts

• Discussed w/ Likely S/C Build Contractors (e.g., RSDO)

• Sought Aerospace Input

Key S&T Organizations• Space S&T Integrated

Experiments (AFRL/VSE)• Space Structures & Controls S&T

(AFRL/VSS)• Rocket Systems Launch Program

(Det 12/RP)• DoD Space Test Program

(Det 12/ST)• R&D Space & Missile Operations

(Det 12/VO)• Los Alamos National Laboratory

(LANL/ISR)• NRL Naval Center for Space

Technology (NRL/NCST)• USU Space Dynamics Lab (SDL)

Slide 6

Our Answer!Our Answer!

Is Based On:

• Expert opinion of some very experienced Space RDT&E (incl. S&T) professionals (recog. best)

• Experiences and review of unique technical offerings from each key Space S&T organization

• Collaboration and cooperation of key organizations to deliver a repeatable (vice one off) process

• If RRS problem is properly constrained (e.g., fit Minotaur)

R&D Responsive Space can be done

TODAY!

R&D Responsive Space is not easy, and has R&D Responsive Space is not easy, and has nevernever been done on a been done on a repeatablerepeatable basis!* basis!*

R&D Responsive Space is not easy, and has R&D Responsive Space is not easy, and has nevernever been done on a been done on a repeatablerepeatable basis!* basis!*

*Note: Was in glory days of the late 60s by RRS Alliance principal NCST and the glory days of SDI by AFRL (MSTI)

Slide 7

Basic Concept

Flight Operations

Spacecraft Development

Launch Vehicles

Enabling Expertise

Mission Level Activities

Procedural Management

Fiscal Management

Contract Management

Technical Management

Found- ation Capa- bilities

Personnel Management

Project Execution

Project Design

Space Mission Need

What you want to do…..

What you need to have to allow it…..

RRS Scenarios•Dedicated LV, Build S/C•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C•Piggyback on Host S/C•Auxiliary kicked off LV (including Space Shuttle)

•ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power)

How We Attacked the ProblemHow We Attacked the Problem– – Discovery ToolDiscovery Tool

Applied to

Slide 8

RRS Basic ConceptRRS Basic Concept

Flight Operations


Launch Vehicles

Enabling Expertise



Fiscal Management

Contract Management


Foundation Capabilities


Project Execution

Project Design

Space Mission Need

What we want to do…..

What one needs to have to allow it…..

Slide 9

RRS Doable Scenario’sRRS Doable Scenario’s

• 1: Dedicated Launch Vehicle (Build S/C)• 2: Dedicated Launch Vehicle (S/C Brought)• 3: Piggyback on Host Spacecraft or LV• 4: Auxiliary satellite deployed from launch

vehicle (includes shuttle deployables)• 5: ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power)

These scenario’s helped identify needs, barriers, dependencies, and get-aheads. They are a starting point, not a destination.

Slide 10

Basic Concept

Flight Operations


Launch Vehicles

Enabling Expertise



Fiscal Management

Contract Management


Found- ation Capa- bilities


Project Execution

Project Design

Space Mission Need

What you want to do…..

What you need to have to allow it…..

RRS Scenarios•Dedicated LV, Build S/C•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C•Piggyback on Host S/C•Auxiliary kicked off LV (including Space Shuttle)


We based solutions on what we know can be done today, and on the “team” approach (for repeatability & depth)

We based solutions on what we know can be done today, and on the “team” approach (for repeatability & depth)

How We Attacked the ProblemHow We Attacked the Problem– – Discovery ToolDiscovery Tool

Applied to

Slide 11

What Did We LearnWhat Did We Learn- Results Of Discovery Process!- Results Of Discovery Process!

• Consensus – A formal team, confederation of the willing, Alliance, is necessary to carry out repeatable R&D Responsive Spaceflight credibly NOW!

• No one organization can muster critical mass to accomplish the RRS goal repetitively TODAY! - A single org (e.g., STP) could do it in the future with the proper resource investment.

• R&D Responsive Space must be performed as a new process – leaves existing processes (e.g., SERB) alone (non-responsive).

• An Alliance collaboration offers a robust and responsive foundation from which to build a repeatable process – synergy reduces schedule, (esp. non recurring) cost, and cycle time

• Organizational commitment to participate must be followed by resource (manning & funding) commitment necessary to meet timeline for “responsive” – TBD in RRS Implementation

• For each scenario there are barriers, needs, dependencies, and schedule realities that must be recognized and addressed

Slide 12

Scenario #1: Dedicated LV, Build S/CScenario #1: Dedicated LV, Build S/CExampleExample

Technical Envelope• Minotaur LV (Pre Buy)• S/C Must Fit Minotaur• Standard S/C Design

Barriers• Review Process – increases time and

dollars• LV – 18 Months unless pre-buy• Personnel Availability• Long lead time for S/C parts• Frequency allocation process

Needs & Dependencies• Freeze Mission Requirements by PDR• Concept design & SRR in one month• Train Ops on the ground with S/C when

available• Select LV by S/C SRR• Need quick response to Gov’t Reviews• Must have long lead items on-the-shelf• Standard interfaces defined 30-60 days

to PDR

Schedule Realities• If an existing “standard” bus is available 30-60 days to

do PDR is doable• Technical complexity drives timeframe• On-orbit time drives timeframe• Use of “approved” COTS & pre-positioning long lead

items essential• Each organizations integration approach drives

timeframe• Commissioning S/C will drive design & timeframe• LV – Minotaur in 18 months doable without dollars up

front• Increased design margin – improves speed of reviews

& reduces risk

Slide 13

RRS Alliance Member CapabilitiesRRS Alliance Member CapabilitiesCapabilities Overlap Supports Rapid Availability & Depth for RRS Repeatability

In alphabetical order

Modeling & Simulation

Mission Design &

Mgmt

S/C (including bus build)

LVsI&T Facilities & Services

Ground Systems & Operations

AFRL/VSE X X** X* X

AFRL/VSS X X**

LANL/ISR X X** X X

NRL/NCST X X X* X X

RDSMO X X X

RSLP X

SDL X X* X

STP X X X#

* One off, custom SV. In-house build with contractor parts. Can meet 18 month schedule, depending on sensor type.** Some limited capability. # Shuttle & Other

Slide 14

The RRS Alliance Concept - The RRS Alliance Concept - How Would It Work?How Would It Work?

RRSCustomer

RRSCustomer

RRS Alliance Secretariat•Admin•Cost Analysis•Mission Support

RRS Alliance Board of Directors

Slide 15

RRS Alliance Capabilities(Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD)


Modeling &

Simulation

Mission Design & Mgmt

S/C (includin

g bus build)

LVs

I&T Facilities

& Services


AFRL/VSE X X** X* X

AFRL/VSS X X**

LANL/ISR X X** X X

NRL/NCST X X X* X X

RDSMO X X X

RSLP X

SDL X X* X

STP X X X#


RRSCustomer

RRSCustomer

Scenarios•Dedicated LV, Build S/C•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C•Piggyback on Host S/C•Auxiliary on LV (including Space Shuttle)




Slide 16

RRS Alliance Capabilities(Brokered on a case by case basis by BoD)


Modeling &

Simulation

Mission Design & Mgmt

S/C (includin

g bus build)

LVs

I&T Facilities

& Services


AFRL/VSE X X** X* X

AFRL/VSS X X**

LANL/ISR X X** X X

NRL/NCST X X X* X X

RDSMO X X X

RSLP X

SDL X X* X

STP X X X#


RRSCustomer

RRSCustomer

Scenarios•Dedicated LV, Build S/C•Dedicated LV, Bring S/C•Piggyback on Host S/C•Auxiliary on LV (including Space Shuttle)



TechnicalSolution

Barriers• ~~~~~~• ~~~~~~• ~~~~~~• ~~~~~~

Project Team• ~~~~~• ~~~~~• ~~~~~

Management Approach

Future Needs• Program• Technology• Processes

+ RRS Investment Vision


RRSMissionRRS

Mission

Slide 17

Why An Alliance?Vice Single Organization

• The synergy of the sum of our “best” R&D Space professionals (team) is greater than any one org (the parts)

– Lowers cost, defines standards, utilizes existing facilities, builds appropriate overlap for greater repeatability, reduces cycle time

• Increases technical envelope – An increased number of rapid response solutions to today’s need can be exercised

• Shares investment in rapid response technologies (e.g., TacSat series, /VSS & GSFC’s MR2) is possible once a commitment from Alliance members is formally established

• A properly managed Alliance can keep shared commitments visible and accountable, collaborate vice compete

• Broader experience with new ‘tools’ (modeling & simulation) is enhanced with larger organization participation (F1 model)

Slide 18

Conclusion – The Way AheadConclusion – The Way Ahead

• R&D Responsive Space Alliance Needs Sponsorship, Resource Commitments to Develop Successful Implementation Plan

– Sponsor should appoint a Secretariat (e.g., STP) to facilitate the Alliance BoD (Principals) & perform basic Alliance administration

– Secretariat will need to codify commitments, agreements, Implementation Plan, and execution process - ASAP

– Sponsor or Secretariat should be commissioned to identify R&D Responsive Space barriers and their mitigation or work around

• RRS Alliance Willing to Demonstrate Credibility by Doing Real Pilot Mission of /TD’s choice. We now know it is Roadrunner!

• Alliance will need continued SMC corporate support of this strategy including help removing ‘red tape’ barriers

R&D Responsive Space can be done TODAY!R&D Responsive Space can be done TODAY!

Slide 19

• A panchromatic and three-color imaging system to provide operational NIRS-5 data. (AFRL/VSE)

• A 200W Hall thruster electric propulsion systems; the AFRL/PRS Micro-satellite Propulsion Integration (MPI) experiment ranked #19 on the ’03 DoD SERB list.

• The software system to provide for autonomous and rapid checkout of the satellites/payloads in orbit.

• In the current baseline data (imagery) would be requested through the SIPRNET. These multiple tasking requests would be tasked at the Virtual Mission Operations Center (VMOC).

• Target Indication Experiment (TIE). TIE is ranked #15 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. (NRL/NCST)

• Miniaturized Vibration Isolation System (MVIS). MVIS is ranked #6 on ‘03 DoD SERB list. (AFRL/VSS)

• AFRL/VSB Atmospheric Density System (ADS). ADS is ranked #14 on the ’03 DoD SERB list.

• ShockRing is ranked #21 on the ’03 DoD SERB list. (AFRL/VSS)

Roadrunner (TacSat-2) Roadrunner (TacSat-2) July ’05? Spaceflight (STP-RSLP)July ’05? Spaceflight (STP-RSLP)

Primary Experiments

Other Possible SERB Experiments

Slide 20

We Give Free Estimates!(including other Gov’t customers like JPL)

We Give Free Estimates!(including other Gov’t customers like JPL)

Slide 21

Back Up Charts

Slide 22

Other RRS Scenarios

Technical Envelope, Schedule, Needs, Barriers

Quad Charts

Slide 23

Scenario #2: Dedicated LV, Bring S/CScenario #2: Dedicated LV, Bring S/C

Technical Envelope• Minotaur LV (Pre Buy)• S/C Must Fit Minotaur• Standard S/C Design

Barriers– S/C provider must

recognize booster and OPS Center “Limitations”

– Frequency allocation process

Needs & Dependencies– Nail down classification issues by end of mission design

(SCG if needed)– S/C structural model to do “hard mount” coupled loads

(takes 60-90 days) to start mission design– ICD Issues (to LV, to GSE) must be really fleshed out up

front– S/c frequencies, data rates, data stream must be fully

explained during mission design phase– FCC authorization must be obtained by S/C– Lots of S/C technical data will be required by Ops team– Mission assurance planning must be done up front (roles

and responsibilities laid out)– Operations characterization completed by PDR

• Ops handbook draft, support for training/simulations– Need access to S/C technical team to support operations

development and on-orbit efforts– Full understanding of mission assurance responsibilities– Need 6-9 months to prepare for operations if all detail known

Schedule Realities– Need all S/C characterized by 2 months

prior to S/C thermal vacuum testing– If S/C bringer is also doing operations,

only need to provide launch– Need “Mission Assessment” at start

(about 1 month)– Minimum ops development time 6-9

months (if same as other types of s/c, if all data is available

Slide 24

Scenario #3: Scenario #3: Piggyback on Host S/C

Technical Envelope• Dependent upon S/C

Barriers– Current “prime (sponsor) culture”

is against doing piggybacks at all. “Nothing but the primary mission”

– Risk adverse primes (sponsors) (No new technology, no additional things)

– Frequency allocation process

Needs & Dependencies– Detailed ICD for “fitting” on the

Prime (by Prime PDR, preconfigured interfaces)

– Prime interfaces must be “Nailed” at start

– Must know before hand about capacity on primes

– Must have realistic costing for integration

Schedule Realities– Completely dependent on prime

s/c schedule

– Preconfigured interfaces foster increased potential to meet timeline

Slide 25

Scenario #4: Scenario #4: Auxiliary kicked off LV (incl. Space Shuttle)

Technical Envelope• ESPA Class Spacecraft• Standard S/C Design

Barriers– EELV not doing regular “ESPA”

launches– R&D community ability to use

every opportunity (Lack of $)– For Shuttle, NASA Integration

and Safety Process– Frequency allocation process

Needs & Dependencies– Details of unused capacity (by

LV/mission)– ICD for adapter (mechanical and

electrical)– Schedule driven by Prime payload– EELV having contract mechanism to

accept secondaries (and trade space)

– ISS core completed to free up Shuttle capacity

Schedule Realities– Very much like Option #1– Schedule defined and controlled by

Prime Payload

Slide 26

Scenario #5: Scenario #5: ISS External Payload (Only ISS Power)

Technical Envelope• Only taking ISS Power• Limited crew involvement,

low impact on ISS• Safe without services

Barriers– NASA Integration & Safety

Process takes time = Money– NASA isn’t a credible Partner

because of past history with DOD– NASA vs. DoD culture clash– Frequency allocation process

Needs & Dependencies– ISS Constraints limit usability

– If you fit the “ISS Paradigm” then it is responsive, capability is evolving

Schedule Realities– 24 months (can be accelerated)

Slide 27

RRS Alliance Implementation

Notional until Implementation Plan Is Fleshed Out

Slide 28

RRS Alliance Implementation RRS Alliance Implementation

TBD: Now That CommissionedTBD: Now That Commissioned

Charter: Provide an …..

Structure:

Function of the Board of Directors:

Requirements for Board Membership:

Function of Secretariat; Commissioning Authority

Slide 29

RRS Alliance Secretariat

Functional Position Full Time Equivalents

Director 1.0Secretary 1.0Mission Designer 1.0FM 0.2PK 0.2

Secretariat Total 3.4

Slide 30

Notional Project Flow

ProjectComes

To Alliance

EvaluationProject

ExecutionBuild ProjectOrganization

Customer givesGo / No Go

Alliance BoardResponds to

Customer

SupplierShakeout

AllianceBoard Meets

Slide 31

Notional RRS Project Team

Functional Position Yr 1 Yr 2 Comments

Mission Mgr 1.0 1.0Team Leads 1.0 1.0Mission Design 1.0 0.0S/C Development 2.5 2.5 + S/C contractor teamLV Integration 0.2 0.7 + LV team, e.g. RSLPFlight Planning 5.0 3.0GS Development 5.0 2.5Flight Ops 1.0 5.0FM 0.2 0.2PK 1.0 0.5"SPO" Total 17.9 16.4

Slide 32

RRS Alliance Capabilities

Top Level Summary by Subject Area

Slide 33

Alliance Support Infrastructure (e.g., Mechanisms, Contracts, etc)

• AFRL/VSE– Aerospace Engineering (I&T) Facility

• AFRL/VSS– SBIRs w’ AeroAstro, SpaceDev, CSA, etc

• LANL/ISR– Contract with SSTL (specifically for CFESat) would new procurement for a 2nd

satellite. Various electrical, mechanical machining vehicles, which can be used

• NRL/NCST– Contracts w’ Orbital, SpaceX, SpectrumAstro, etc

• RDSMO– Contracts w’ Northrop-Grumman & Lockheed-Martin, Black (SCI, SAR/SAP) &

White (unclas) experiment process capability. SCF with access to AFSCN

• RSLP– IDIQ w’ Orbital for Minotaurs, Peacekeepers

• STP– No current RRS funding or contracting mechanisms with exception of SMDC

(initially would serve as real estate broker for the Alliance when commissioned)

• SDL– UARC funding mechanisms w’ NRL & MDA, contracts w’ SmallSats community

Slide 34

Current Mission Planning Capabilities

• STP has performed extensive mission planning for SERB experiments. STP receives specifications for all payloads and then “bundles” them to procure a new SV or finds individual piggyback opportunities for each by matching requirements of payload to established missions. STP has mission planning processes in place in-house to quickly and efficiently match payloads with access to space.

• NRL performs mission planning for their in-house SV builds.

• AFRL/VS performs mission planning for their in-house SV builds. AFRL/VS Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) hosts Satellite Tool Kit. Several multi-year contract vehicles are available to perform mission mod and sim (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking must be within scope of contract. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract.

• LANL has performed mission planning for our in-house SV builds

• SDL can provide up-front SV design. SDL services can be accessed using the sole-source UARC contract. (University Affiliated Research Center) already in place. Any DoD organization can funnel money through it as long as it has something to do with space sensors, expect a 1-month turnaround. However, in an emergency we can typically carry the program for a month or two on internal funding. In those cases we have started work on contracts within the same week.

Slide 35

Current S/C Capabilities- Facilities

• AFRL/VS Aerospace Engineering Facility (AEF) hosts environmental chambers, baking and curing chambers, T-Vac chambers, EMI screen room, shaker tables, clean rooms, solar simulation lamp, spin table, and mass properties table. J&T contract handles most of the SV I&T tasks.

• SDL hosts Thermal Optical Research chamber, T-Vac chambers, RF-shielded anechoic chamber, shaker table, clean rooms, machine shop, and 5 SCIFS. Scheduling is rarely a problem, and all could be made available almost on-demand.

• NRL hosts anechoic chambers, integration facilities, clean rooms, T-Vac chambers, vibration shakers, acoustic chamber, pyro shock and static load test capabilities, ground-based instrument calibration facilities, satellite laser ranging facility, and an on-orbit calibration facility.

• LANL hosts clean rooms; T-vac chambers; screen room; various calibration facilities; photon, x-ray, neutron, and gamma-ray sources; laser; linear accelerator; classified and unclassified computing facilities; classified and unclassified shock facilities; RF and optics labs; satellite integration facility, and electron cyclotron resonance ion beam facility. LANL also has 2 SCIFs for ‘black’ projects.

Slide 36

Current S/C Capabilities- Services

• AFRL/VS Distributed Architecture Simulation Lab (DASL) has modeling and simulation capabilities for SV subsystems, payload modeling, hardware-in-the-loop evaluations, and development of flight software. Several multi-year contract vehicles are available to perform mod and sim (MRC, PSS, ICS, PRA, Dynacs, ASI), and they have a lot of ceiling to MPIR money. Tasking must be within scope of contract. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract.

• SDL builds custom SVs, so does not have a standard structure to offer, but can perform the following: Structure, electronics, and thermal blanket design & fabrication; thermal reflectors or paint application; cable buildup; sensor re-design; some sensor design & build; sensor and spacecraft integration; sensor testing; spacecraft testing (EMI/EMC, Thermal vac, shake & vibe); SV-LV integration assistance. SDL services can be accessed using the sole-source UARC contract. (University Affiliated Research Center) already in place. Any DoD organization can use it as long as it has something to do with space sensors. Approx 30 days to get them on-contract.

• NRL builds custom SVs, so does not have a standard structure to offer, but has task order contracts with Orbital Sciences and Honeywell in place for parts and services that can be used if in scope. Can get them on-contract in a day, if necessary.

Slide 37

Current S/C Capabilities- S/C Builds

• AFRL/VSE has MightySat II.1 bus to offer. It has flown. Long-lead items are in storage, and bus can be available in less than 1 year. MightySat specs: 68.6cm x 88.9 cm x 88.9 cm, 125 Kg (includes 37 kg payload), orbit avg. power consumption 150 W (includes 60 W for payload).

• SDL and NRL can build custom SVs in-house, and provide them in under a year if the sensor is simple. Schedule is highly dependent on sensor selected.

Slide 38

Future S/C Capabilitiesw’ Proper Resourcing

• AFRL/VSE working on a more capable (more payload for the SV mass) model of MightySat called MicroSat that is not yet available.

• NRL/NCST is working with the Office of Force Transformation’s ‘Operationally Responsive Space Experiment Initiative’ to provide a rapid, tailored, and operationally relevant experimental space capability to tactical forces. This includes a standard micro-satellite bus, interfaces, and a modular payload capability.

• Within 2 months, SDL will be prepared to do a full EMI/EMC test

Slide 39

Current LV Capabilities

• RSLP is only provider in Alliance for launch vehicles, launch analysis, integration facilities. No current process for manifest of secondaries exists.

• Current OSP-2 contract with Orbital Sciences provides Minotaur and Peacekeeper in negotiated configuration only (task order contract). Minotaur available 18 mos from money received to launch

31”

40”

48”

48”

OSP-2 Peacekeeper• Capability: 1030 Kg to

400nm, 99° inclination

• Approx payload envelope

OSP Minotaur

• Capability: 335 Kg to 400nm, 99° inclination

• Approx payload envelope

53”

60”

122”

81”

19”

35”

Slide 40

Launch Vehicle Payload Volume Comparison

PK SLV(14.3 m3 = 507 ft3)

Minotaur(1.95 m3 = 69 ft3)

Minotaur

PK SLV

Slide 41

Future LV Capabilities

• RSLP is only LV provider in Alliance

• RSLP is putting together own pitch for SMC chain to offer quicker launches, if ~$4M is invested up front. RSLP will take money and develop LV up to certain point and freeze - could shorten launch schedule to as short as 6-months.

• Launch opportunities for secondaries: multi-payload adaptor and large payload fairing for Minotaur are qualified and ready, but have not flown (will fly in ’05). 2 multi-payload adaptors and a large payload fairing for Peacekeeper in work.

• Hope to have new Spaceports contract up in 2 years to provide access to VAFB, CCAS, WFF, and Kodiak

Slide 42

Current Operations Capabilities

• RDSMO has a ground system facility permitting dynamic reconfiguration based on customer requirements– In-house development or Customer delivered equipment– Operations staff (cost shared with other programs to the extent

possible)– High and low level redundancy for aggregate 99.65% internal

availability and 97% using the AFSCN

• NRL has a permanent control center (Blossom Point) with mobile antennas and fixed antennas inside and outside CONUS.

• On-orbit payload data processing performed by SAIC and MRC contractors for AFRL/VSE.

• SDL has payload data reduction and analysis capability.• LANL has two autonomous ground stations, LANL and University

of Alaska, Fairbanks for highly inclined orbits. LANL also has the DPAC or the highly sophisticated data processing center that has been used by MTI that could be adapted.

Slide 43

Miscellaneous RRS Notes

• Benefits of an Alliance vice Sole Source:– Increase sponsor commitment– Enhance Personnel Retention and growth– Influence R&D Mission Design Requirements– One-stop shop for R&D Responsive Space– Streamline Interfaces– Identify Holes in our R&D Responsive Space Options

• Alliance BOD must be a formal organization authorized and validated • Requirement for Board Member:

– Technically knowledgeable on their organization’s offering and able to get authority to commit

– Able to make decisions about the acceptance of a project to the R&D Responsive Space

– Must have TRUST• Project/Program/Mission Manger

– Must be very experienced and able to handle interfaces between organizations.

Documents

Slide 1 Lt Col Taylor Locker Ch, Spaceflight Mission Design DoD STP, Kirtland AFB, NM Department of Defense R&D Responsive Spaceflight (RRS) Lt Col Kirk