|
|
Home RS2011 Conference (Details) Call for Papers Conference Program Registration Sponsor/Exhibit Prior Conferences ORS Reference Search Contact Info |
|
Past Conference Papers:
Economics
| Paper Number RS1-2003-7001: Achieving Responsive Access to Space: Market, Money, Mechanics, and Management Lessons from X-33 | |
| Carl J. Meade (Lockheed Martin), Carol S. Lane, Richard L. Webb (KT Engineering) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Achieving the goal of low cost access to space has eluded the country for decades. Several programs aimed at attaining this goal have fallen short. Multiple billions of dollars have been spent searching for low cost solutions to respond to perceived customer needs. However, our experience shows that customers for space transportation are not a monolithic entity. Different customers measure responsiveness to their requirements by different, sometimes opposing, values. Applying a one-size-fits-all approach to serving these different customer groups can lead to an inefficient expenditure of resources and a failure to respond to their needs. For example, some space lift users value low price above all else, while others value high reliability, and others high availability. Safety is the highest value of the human flight program. Each of these factors has an impact on the real and perceived risk by each party. And finally, excessively long vehicle development cycles create significant problems for all launch market customers and providers in a rapidly changing environment. To ensure true responsiveness, providers of space transportation systems must first identify the attributes that the different market segments value as being responsive. The investment required to achieve responsiveness must then be balanced against market prices and recurring cost to achieve an acceptable level of responsiveness while simultaneously creating a viable basis for a profitable business. The X-33/RLV program was not only designed to demonstrate technology, but to also try new business constructs enabling government and industry to move forward in developing the next generation low cost space transportation system. To fully reap the benefits of the lessons learned on X-33/RLV, one must look beyond the technology and the hardware that was built and assess the business and management premises on which the program was based. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-7002: Responsive Financing: The Ultimate Oxymoron? | |
| Mark R. Oderman (CSP Associates) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: Despite good intentions, our efforts to develop ‘responsive’ space systems have largely failed. A fundamental reason for this failure has been the limited attention given to the financial and budget planning required to move new space systems from concept to capability. Public and private sector financing approaches have distinct strengths and weaknesses, but little attempt has been made to create financial structures that both draw on the strengths and mitigate the shortcomings in an integrated fashion. So-called public-private partnerships in space enterprises have usually avoided this issue entirely, with predictably negative results. The author suggests that more intelligent publicprivate combinations can play a key role in creating responsive space systems, but that a new financial architecture is needed to enable them. Closer integration of government space agencies, aerospace industry and the financial community should be explored. The Department of Defense and NASA are committed to transforming their capabilities to meet new challenges and requirements; industry is ready to take on greater responsibilities, but the evolution of the underlying financial structure of space systems development and operations is a requirement that we must address. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-7003: Decision Support Tools to Enable Affordability for Responsive Space | |
| Sam Boykin (Frontier Technology), Joe Wotton (Frontier Technology) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The acquisition of new space systems must address criteria beyond faster processing, better reliability, improved technology, greater payload capacity, etc. The benefits of performance improvements must be balanced against cost to arrive at a “best value,” affordable technology solution. Affordability previously was not often prioritized for programs because technology was emphasized, with focus primarily on performance. This is relevant to nextgeneration space architectures because innovative cost analysis tools are needed to assess fiscal affordability of proposed investments, in addition to the technical viability. This paper outlines Frontier Technology effort to develop the decision support tools to measure and report affordability and return-on-investment for Responsive Space programs within a collaborative environment. Since cost savings cannot always be demonstrated for new technologies that provide previously unattainable capability, innovative methods of measuring both investment and return, is needed. This ongoing research develops an automated methodology, processes and tools to evaluate the affordability and financial returns on space investments. This capability is truly innovative because it uses the newest information technology capabilities to aggregate the best community-accepted cost data to assist the decision-making process. FTI can then apply affordability models with community-accepted data to projected space systems and architecture design changes to assess: systems and vehicles, operations costs and long-term life cycle affordability, cost implications of proposed manufacturing and testing techniques, plus advanced control concepts projected to reduce operational costs. This capability is also innovative because the estimating methodology enables program managers to conduct quick turn, high-level cost estimates to assess the affordability of proposed investments. This cost screening capability permits quicker focus on projects that have both technical and cost merit, rather than conducting longer analysis efforts on technical proposals that ultimately are not affordable. As the space community focuses on injecting cost into the program manager work environment, FTI can assist in obtaining reliable, community-accepted cost estimating at the desktop. Achieving responsive space capabilities requires tools to deal with the increasing emphasis on affordability, in addition to desired performance increases. Fortunately, innovative information technology capabilities and cost analysis tools exist that space capability customers may leverage to their benefit. The desired end state of this research is to provide an automated analysis environment with assessment tools and processes to evaluate the utility, affordability and financial returns on Responsive Space investments under consideration. The resulting decision support tools and collaborative environment have great potential for effective use in any industry or commercial environment. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-7004: The Benefits of Commercial Spaceports | |
| Jay T. Edwards (USAF) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-7005: Responsive Space Systems And Consumer Markets: The Celestis Case | |
| Charles M. Chafer (Celestis) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Consumer markets represent one of the best opportunities to foster the growth of responsive space launch systems. As in the case of global telecommunications, the power of mass markets to drive space systems development and operations is impressive. Space memorial services or “space burials” represent a substantial consumer market capable of creating significant demand for space launch systems. Only responsive space systems, as defined within the body of the paper, can successfully address this market. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-8001: Responsive Space: Near-Term Options for National Defense | |
| Matt Bille (Booz Allen Hamilton), Tony Williams (Booz Allen Hamilton), Vic Villhard (Booz Allen Hamilton) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: NASA, the U.S. government agency which has invested the most in reusable launch vehicle (RLV) technologies, has developed a revised Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) to support Space Shuttle operations, development of a crew-carrying Orbital Space Plane (OSP), and investment in technologies for a Next-Generation RLV. The Department of Defense (DoD) space community, led by the Air Force, has a number of space mission requirements, most notably the need for Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS), that could be met by a reusable launch system. Accordingly, it is important to examine to what extent the military’s needs can be meshed with NASA’s. The ISTP may offer some innovative possibilities. The OSP, the hardware available from the canceled X-38 Crew Return Vehicle, and the Shuttle itself could all be useful. For instance, NASA’s OSP, when combined with the Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), will provide a technology base for development of a reusable unmanned craft capable of several missions of interest to the military space community. The reduced need for Space Shuttle flights after the OSP becomes operational could open up the possibility for new DoD missions using the unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle. Finally, the “low end” launch requirements – those concerning rapid delivery of small satellites on demand – may be addressed by any of several innovative systems in development by private entities, DARPA, and the Air Force Space Battlelab. This is also an area of interest to NASA, which has a continuing need to launch small science satellites and a requirement for Alternate Access to Station (AAS). Not all these options will prove practical or cost-effective for NASA or the Air Force, but all demand proper examination. Matching up the current and emerging technologies and requirements is a critical first step toward improving the nation’s space-based military capabilities in a manner the nation can afford. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-2004: Responsive Launch Vehicle Cost Model | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper presents a launch vehicle cost model designed specifically to estimate the additional economic cost of two related system properties that have substantial military utility — responsiveness and surge capability. In addition, the model can be used to compare alternative methods for achieving these objectives, such as reusable, partially reusable, or fully expendable vehicles. In general, we estimate that making small space systems responsive, i.e., being able to launch with a few hours or days of demand, will add less than 5% to the total system cost per launch. Surge capability is somewhat more expensive, increasing the total cost per launch from 5% to 35%. Having a robust surge capability and the ability to do it again quickly is the most expensive option and will likely increase the cost per launch by 30% to 80%. For all of the options considered, the cost per launch decreases with increasing number of launches per year. In addition, the percentage increase for responsiveness decreases with increasing launch rate as the impact of maintaining vehicles in inventory decreases. In all of the cases considered, expendable vehicles are lower cost than reusable vehicles for all launch rates considered, i.e., 5 launches per year to 100 per year. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-1004: Aggressive Surveillance as a Key Application Area for Responsive Space | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm), Richard Van Allen (Microcosm), Christopher J. Shelner (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Traditional space-based surveillance is fundamentally strategic. Systems are expensive and take a long time to develop. Thus, they are intended primarily for global coverage and launched on a schedule largely unrelated to world events. Opponents may be aware of the broad system parameters, such as the orbit, and hide from the system when it is overhead. The goal of aggressive surveillance is to go after the opponent by being able to act or react quickly, at low cost, and in ways that cannot be predicted. In addition, aggressive surveillance allows us to take advantage of technology advances in the shortest possible time, thus significantly magnifying technological superiority. This paper describes key elements of aggressive surveillance and estimates the time and cost required for an initial implementation. These include, but are not limited to: • Low cost, responsive, scalable launch systems • Responsive communications and operations • Responsive orbits • Low cost surveillance payloads, such as visible or IR observation systems, wind lidar, and other potential detection systems • Agile spacecraft for responsive, on-orbit operations • Autonomous, on-board orbit control for the construction of virtual constellations and coordinated observations • Plug and play spacecraft and payload systems for rapid changes or insertion of new technology Initial systems can be developed with a total recurring cost per spacecraft (launch, spacecraft bus, payload, and 1 year of operations) between $15 and $20 million. After the process is initiated, the potential exists to truly change the way business is done in space – in defense, science, education, and commercial applications. In addition, the process and system are inherently scalable, such that savings in both cost and schedule can be rapidly extended to larger systems at a small fraction of the non-recurring cost and time normally associated with traditional, large space systems. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-2002: Systems Engineering for Responsive Launch | |
| Thomas P. Bauer (Microcosm), Shyama Chakroborty (Microcosm), Robert Conger (Microcosm), James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: In the Microcosm Responsive Launch Systems model, a key requirement is that the launch vehicle be essentially a commodity, built to inventory, and ready to go whenever needed, much like cruise missiles or rental cars. This, in turn, implies the need for low vehicle cost and minimum ground infrastructure in order to hold down the capital cost of maintaining systems in inventory, as well as minimizing the actual launch operations time. Thus, one way to achieve responsive launch is to design a low-cost system which provides a ready inventory and necessitates a brief launch operation to keep operations cost low. This paper addresses 5 key system engineering trades in the implementation of low cost, responsive launch systems: • Propellant selection • Common technology in all stage • Pressure-fed system • All-weather launch • 3-stages to orbit Virtually all American launch vehicles use 3 stages to get to usable low earth orbits or they employ high performance features, e.g., hydrogen/oxygen engines, very high chamber pressure (RD-180), or exotic structures (balloon tanks). This is a direct result of the rocket equation. High performance features drive up life cycle cost because of both high developmental costs and high manufacturing and operating (recurring) costs. The Scorpius® design seeks to substantially lower the time and cost of payload delivery to usable low Earth orbits. The design strategy is to use technologies of moderate performance so as to keep developmental and recurring costs to a minimum. Minimizing cost using “conventional” propellants, e.g., LOX/kerosene, and structures and other systems that are easily manufactured and handled, i.e., of moderate weight, necessitates the use of 3 stages for the low Earth orbit mission. Since the Scorpius® design seeks to exploit pressure-fed systems because of their extremely low life cycle costs, which tend to be heavier than moderately performing pump-fed systems, three stages are required for cost efficacy. The third stage enables a substantially lower gross weight and higher margins in the quest for low cost, especially for the pressure-fed technology. The use of three stages has the added benefit of the design’s being less sensitive to growth in dry mass. The relatively short, squat design and pressure-fed system provides other features that drive down cost and directly impact responsiveness. Specifically, the use of 7 nearly identical pods per vehicle allows a significant cost reduction due to learning curve even when only a small number of vehicles are built per year. The short, robust mechanical configuration allows the system to be designed for all-weather launch, the lack of which is typically a major impediment to responsive launch. The net result of these trades is the Sprite Small Launch Vehicle, capable of putting 810 lbs into LEO for $4.2 million with a small number of launches per year. Launch can be within 8 hours from the storage condition (not on alert), within 2 hours from alert on the launch pad (indefinite hold period), and within 5 minutes when the system is on alert and fueled. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-5005: On-orbit Calibration and Focus of Responsive Space Remote Sensing Payloads | |
| Thomas Chrien (Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems), Stephen Schiller (Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Radiometric, spectral, and spatial response performance and calibration knowledge requirements have been traditional cost drivers for remote sensing payloads. Performance has a direct relationship to the usefulness of the information product, including (1) bore-sight calibration in order to achieve geolocation accuracy, (2) optimization of focus to maximize spatial resolution, and (3) absolute spectral and radiometric calibration for effective atmospheric compensation. Meeting strict requirements prior to launch is problematic. Careful (and costly) compensation must be made for gravity effects, and thermal vacuum test conditions can only approximate on-orbit thermal environments. Furthermore, the trauma of launch and subsequent space contamination can invalidate a “perfect” pre-launch calibration. An alternative approach is to fine tune focus and calibration after the payload is on orbit using vicarious calibration techniques. This reduces cost and schedule by relieving the accuracy requirements and complexity of pre-launch calibration measurements. Cost / benefit rationale as well as conceptual approaches to pre-launch testing and on-orbit focus and vicarious calibration will be presented. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-3001: The Case for Operationally Responsive Space: Cost and Utility | |
| Bryan J. Fram (Air Force Institute of Technology) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Operationally Responsive Space operations must be graded on two figures of merit: cost and utility. Neither measure can stand on its own; if the best integrated responsive launch and space operations system provides significant warfighter impact but costs significantly more than current systems, it won’t get built. The reverse is also true, even if a system is affordable, providing little to no warfighter impact will doom the program. The research presented here, as part of an Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) master’s thesis, seeks to answer the question: Can an integrated system of responsive launch and space operations compete with current systems, such as EELV, on a cost and utility basis? This paper uses cost estimating relationships developed at AFIT and the Aeronautical Systems Center to analyze a notional responsive launch vehicle utilizing a reusable first stage and expendable upper stage to answer the question of cost. Several architectures, strategic launch, partially responsive, and fully responsive launch, have been developed to analyze the utility of various satellite deployment schemes and how they can benefit the warfighter over a 20 year period involving multiple conflicts. | |
| |