|
|
Home RS2011 Conference (Details) Call for Papers Conference Program Registration Sponsor/Exhibit Prior Conferences ORS Reference Search Contact Info |
|
Past Conference Papers:
Need for…
| Paper Number RS1-2003-1003: The Strategy of Responsive Space: Assured Access to Space Revisited | |
| Lawrence Cooper (Kepler Research) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The paper revisits the concepts of satellite reconstitution and launch on demand first discussed by the author in 1992. The paper explores the utility of responsive space in the context of the principles of war as described by Corbett, Mahan, and John Boyd. Responsive space is important to applying military strategy to space for achieving space control by the US military and in protecting the space systems which are part of the U.S.’s critical infrastructure. It follows that if responsive space is important in achieving military strategic objectives and protecting the national critical infrastructure, implementing responsive space must also drive changes in satellite design and operational concepts. The paper discusses some of these possible changes resulting from an implementation of a doctrine of responsive space. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-2004: Operational Concepts and Payoffs for Responsive Space Systems | |
| John M. Borky (Tamarac Technologies), Robert E. Conger (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The ability to rapidly emplace space assets with tailored payloads and orbits or to deliver a variety of terrestrial systems globally and at orbital speeds, providing specific operational support to a variety of military missions, would lead to revolutionary operational concepts. Three complementary elements are needed for this operationally responsive military space capability (referred to in the paper as “Responsive Space”): truly responsive and affordable launchers, highly modular and standardized satellites, and tactical reentry systems. We first consider a set of operational concepts that explore the potential roles of such systems in various military scenarios. We make preliminary estimates of size, weight, performance and cost. We then examine the technologies that make these concepts feasible in the near- to mid-term, say 5 to 10 years from the start of properly funded development programs. We show that much of the enabling technology portfolio is in hand or well along toward demonstration. The inescapable conclusion is that a military capability of genuinely revolutionary impact is not only available but essential to the realization of the kind of information-enabled operations that are at the core of Joint Vision 2020 and, indeed of military transformation in general.* | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-4003: Implementing Standard Mircosatellites for Responsive Space | |
| Jeffrey L. Janicik (SpaceDev) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Today satellites tend to be large, expensive, power-hungry, slow to assemble test and integrate, and are generally unique to each payload. In addition they often take as much as 90 days to “commission” on-orbit. This traditional way of doing things can slow the testing, demonstration and fielding of newer, smaller, higher performance payloads. The approach, articulated here, is to use the “microcomputer” way of thinking and apply it to the space industry, which has tended to be bogged down for decades in the bigger is better “mainframe” way of thinking. Because of these problems and variables, the goal is to develop high performance modular microsatellites and a corresponding microsat operating system quickly and efficiently, not custom for each mission or payload. This can be simplified if functionality becomes a goal, where capabilities like radiation hardness, shock, vibrations, etc., are simply built into the microsatellite, with the system able to perform to a certain acceptable level, relieving the payload developer from such considerations. An appropriately modular system can utilize current and future subsystem and software technology, while naturally maintaining stateof- the-art performance. In turn this can dramatically reduce the size, mass and power requirements of subsystems and will result in on-demand launch and responsive, quick onorbit commissioning. Consequently, the most performance can be put into the smallest, lightest package for payloads, and ensure the shortest time to productivity on orbit. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-4004: University Collaborations: Jumpstarting Industry Responsiveness to Space | |
| Ray Haynes (NGST) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-6003: On-Demand Wavelength Tuning of Detector Responsivity for Multi-Mission Scenarios | |
| D.A. Cardimona (Kirtland Air Force Base), D. Huang (Kirtland Air Force Base), C. Morath (Kirtland Air Force Base), D. Le (Kirtland Air Force Base), B. Klemme (Kirtland Air Force Base) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The ability to reconfigure a sensor in order to enhance performance and/or perform multiple missions is a very desirable attribute for future sensor systems. If a sensor system could reconfigure itself to exploit signals in the wavelength ranges from the UV through the IR and into the millimeter-wave regimes, that system could support missions such as cold-body detection, target discrimination and identification, plume-to-hard-body handover, surveillance through clouds, chemical/biological weapons detection, etc. and would be assured of operation 24 hours/day, 7 days/week, in all weather conditions and at very long distances. If this reconfiguration could be done with a single detector, the savings in cost, weight, and power consumption would be substantial. In this paper we present some of the work we have been doing in the area of wavelength tunability of single detector structures. An applied bias field can tune the response of a semiconductor quantum well infrared photodetector via the quantum Stark effect, and an applied magnetic field can tune the response via the Landau levels that appear in such a structure. The magnetic field can also enhance the quantum efficiency of the quantum well detector. In addition, if the quantum well structure is composed of two or more coupled wells, the tuning effect is enhanced. Alternatively, a lateral transport scheme, in which photocurrent travels across a multiquantum-well pixel rather than top-to-bottom within the pixel, has been developed that shows great promise for it’s tuning characteristics. With the addition of quantum dots within each quantum well layer, the quantum efficiency of the device can be improved. . | |
| | |
| 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 RS2-2004-2003: Transforming the National Spacelift Architecture | |
| Jeremy Noel (Directorate of Development and Transformation), Raymond Escorpizo (Directorate of Development and Transformation), Edward Jones (Directorate of Development and Transformation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The idea of making space capability responsive to warfighters, commonly referred to as responsive space, has begun to receive considerable and growing interest within the Department of Defense (DoD). In this new transformational construct, critical space services are delivered to the warfighter in hours-to-days instead of weeks-to-months. With the hope of making space services available to both tactical and strategic users, the Air Force has recently initiated a number of responsive launch and responsive spacecraft studies and demonstrations to evaluate how best to provide spacebased capability quickly and affordably. Two of these efforts, the joint Air Force- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON) technology demonstration program and the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) Operationally Responsive Spacelift (ORS) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), seek to identify solutions for overcoming two of the largest stumbling blocks along the path towards providing responsive space capabilities: how to best provide responsive spacelift and how to make responsive spacelift affordable. The analyses conducted to date suggest that a modular, building block approach, starting with a small expendable launch vehicle followed by a larger payload class hybrid launch vehicle, consisting of a reusable first stage and expendable upper stages, holds particular promise. These two initial steps, based on the principles of evolutionary and spiral development, offer the potential to transform our nation’s spacelift capability and bring responsive space directly to the warfighter. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-4001: Responsive Space Operations Architecture Development for the National Security Space Community | |
| Patrick Frakes (NSSO), Paul Popejoy (The Aerospace Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The fundamental decision criteria for accepting the cost, risk, performance, and responsiveness of National Security Space (NSS) capabilities are still largely driven by the strategic imperatives of the late 1950s, even though the world has changed significantly since 1989. These decision criteria inform virtually every aspect of space acquisition and operations; risk mitigation strategies; and the NSS approach to the repair, maintenance, modernization, and replenishment of space capabilities. The National Security Space Architect (NSSA) will begin development in FY04 of a long-term Responsive Space Operations (RSO) Architecture. The RSO Architecture will identify approaches to achieve the longterm (adaptability), mid-term (flexibility), and short-term responsiveness (agility) that space capabilities will need to respond to dynamic world environments, national priorities, and operational requirements. For the Responsive Space Conference II, NSSA will outline the problem to be addressed, and the NSSA’s approach to reviewing, understanding, identifying and assessing alternative architectures, and possibly recommending fundamental changes in the overall national security space architecture. The objective is to achieve the right level of responsiveness for the nation’s 21st century space capabilities. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-4003: A Conformally-Mounted SatCom Antenna System To Support Stars Phase-2 Testing | |
| W.P. Cooke (EMS Technologies), M.G. Guler (EMS Technologies), L.A. Cintron (EMS Technologies), J.P. Montgomery (EMS Technologies), D.E. Whiteman (Dryden Space Flight Research Center), R.D. Sakahara (Dryden Space Flight Research Center), R.J. Franz (Dryden Space Flight Research Center) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Maintenance and staffing of down-range tracking and telemetry stations is a large component of the cost of current space launches. While the data gathered by such telemetry stations are vital to the technical assessment of the launcher’s performance and safety, more cost effective methods of gathering telemetry data must be developed in support of Responsive Space missions. This paper reports on the development of a telemetry subsystem that uplinks data from a launch vehicle directly to the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS), reducing the need for ground-based telemetry | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-4006: NASA's Wallops Flight Facility Rapid Responisve Range Operations Initiative | |
| Bruce E. Underwood (GSFC), Steven E. Kremer (GSFC), Wayne Woodhams (Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: While the dominant focus on short response missions has appropriately centered on the launch vehicle and spacecraft, often overlooked or afterthought phases of these missions have been launch site operations and the activities of launch range organizations. Throughout the history of organized space flight, launch ranges have been the bane of flight programs as the source of expense, schedule delays, and seemingly endless requirements. Launch ranges provide three basic functions: (1) provide an appropriate geographical location to meet orbital or other mission trajectory requirements, (2) provide project services such as processing facilities, launch complexes, tracking and data services, and expendable products, and (3) assure safety and property protection to participating personnel and third-parties. The challenge with which launch site authorities continuously struggle, is the inherent conflict arising from projects whose singular concern is execution of their mission, and the range’s need to support numerous simultaneous customers. So, while tasks carried out by a launch range committed to a single mission pale in comparison to efforts of a launch vehicle or spacecraft provider and could normally be carried out in a matter of weeks, major launch sites have dozens of active projects from separate sponsoring organizations. Accommodating the numerous tasks associated with each mission, when hardware failures, weather, maintenance requirements, and other factors constantly conspire against the range resource schedulers, make the launch range as significant an impediment to responsive missions as launch vehicles and their cargo. The obvious solution to the launch site challenge was implemented years ago when the Department of Defense simply established dedicated infrastructure and personnel to dedicated missions, namely an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile. This however proves to be prohibitively expensive for all but the most urgent of applications. It assumes a scenario of national emergency, under which the normal rules regarding human safety and property protection are not imposed, or at least, significantly relaxed. So the challenge becomes how can a launch site provide acceptably responsive mission services to a particular customer without dedicating extensive resources, continue to serve other projects and provide for public safety, and continue to be cost effective? This challenge has recently been posed to launch operators and launch ranges by DARPA and the Air Force, via the FALCON (Force Application and Launch from CONUS) Program. As a leader in flight test, demonstration and operation of low cost, small to mid sized launch vehicles, NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) is pursuing solutions to exactly this challenge through innovation in technology, process and partnerships. One such partnership exists with the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA). This unique arrangement is based on a Space Act Agreement between NASA and VCSFA that enables VCSFA to build and own facility improvements on NASA property and access NASA facilities and services through cost reimbursable subagreements. VCSFA has invested in complementary Spaceport infrastructure at Wallops that enables full service for small to mid-sized orbital launches. Through cooperative agreements and other contract vehicles, WFF and VCSFA have jointly pursued the common goal providing better service to its customers. Through this partnership, WFF and VCSFA have initiated the Rapid Response Range Operations Initiative (R3Ops) and associated efforts to enable responsive space access. R3Ops, which was initiated prior to the advent of FALCON, is a multi-phased effort to incrementally establish and demonstrate increasingly responsive launch operations, with an ultimate goal of providing ELV-class services in a maximum of 7-10 days from initial notification “routinely,” with shorter schedules attainable under the circumstances assumed for FALCON. This target is being pursued with the simultaneous objective of lowering the cost burden imposed by the launch site. WFF has recently completed Phase 1 of R3Ops, which addresses the process and cost issues of rapid response. Concurrently, WFF is undertaking technology development projects that will ultimately reduce the involvement and cost of range support to launch operations. On a third front, WFF and VCSFA are taking a systems approach to the complex problem set by incorporating all of the stakeholders into the process early enough to coordinate an optimal solution. This paper will describe in detail the philosophies behind WFF’s approach to R3Ops, and discuss in detail some technology and process developments that will reduce cost and improve response time, while still operating within the constraints of the legal and regulatory environment. The discussion will focus primarily on efforts | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-7001: Highly Operable Propulsion Technologies and Propulsion System Approaches for Operationally Responsive Space Systems | |
| Claude Russell Joyner II (Pratt & Whitney), Patrick McGinnis (Pratt & Whitney), Richar Hagger (Pratt & Whitney) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: In 2001-2002, the USAF developed an Operationally Responsive Spacelift Mission Needs Statement (ORS MNS) that defined the requirement for responsive, on-demand access to, through, and from space. This requirement not only encompassed the spacelift mission of delivering payloads rapidly to or from orbit, and their operation on orbit; it also states the systems will address operational issues related to launch on-demand, provide mission flexibility, and be cost effective. The ORS MNS indicates that future operational systems are needed that must be able to launch within hours of need, be low cost relative to today’s launch architectures, and provide greater onorbit mission flexibility. Previous Responsive Space workshops have also indicated that operationally responsive space systems must also provide a roadmap toward overcoming the business barriers that inhibit low cost operation. Propulsion technologies and the propulsion system have been shown to be one of the primary enablers of meeting the requirements that formulate Operationally Responsive Spacelift architectures. Pratt & Whitney has explored several promising individual and integrated propulsion technologies that exist today or are in development that would provide the USAF with the capability to launch with-in hours of a mission determined need. These propulsion technologies include use of modular or integrated air-breathing booster systems, employment of soft-cryogenic fuels and oxidizers, and hybrid motors. Part of the employment of the soft-cryogenic fuels (i.e. liquid methane) could include the use of an Integrated Thermal Management Unit (ITMU) that would provide a stable storage environment during pre-launch and during launch. This unit would also have synergy with the use of methane for on-orbit systems. The air-breathing propulsion would have synergy with current USAF systems and act to provide a capability to launch from CONUS bases to deploy assets on demand to any inclination. These booster systems would be derived from current hardware, thus reducing the cost to develop and operate them as part of a USAF evolutionary responsive launch system. The expendable, low cost hybrid boosters could be used as alternative booster or strap-on stages, as launch assist systems, much like the “JATO/RATO boosters” of the 1950’s or low cost expendable upper stages for in-space systems. The use of and advanced integrated engine health management system (EHMS) working with the vehicle management system (IVHM) creates a “system of systems”. It creates a more responsive system by increasing the overall reliability by integrating propulsion or engines systems health management with the overall vehicle health management system. Consequently, this paper will discuss the attributes and applicability of specific propulsion technologies and systems that could provide a robust performance capability as well as the capability meet a military aircraft-type operational responsiveness via horizontal take-off boosters. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-1002: Changing the Value Proposition of Operational Space Missions | |
| Wade Larson (MDA) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: MDA’s strategic ambition is to break the mould of long schedules and high costs, to build a small satellite capability and establish a track record that sets it on the path to the loftier goals of truly responsive space. Our initial objective is to reduce the cost of missions launching in the next three years to around 40-50% of the cost of a traditional approach, without giving up the customer’s core requirements. Our customers rely on a guaranteed supply of information when and where it’s needed. Thus, MDA’s approach is to make missions more economically viable whilst not compromising the customer’s reliable and timely access to essential information. The overall effect is to increase the value proposition to our customers. MDA is achieving its ambition to provide more responsive, lower-cost operational missions by taking non-traditional approaches to development and financing of these missions. The use of off-the-shelf components and components with spaceflight heritage reduces our development costs and time to launch. We are not beholden to internal capabilities, and we select suppliers based on performance, value and reliability. The roles of government and private industry on these missions are innovative and flexible, and depend on the blend of commercial enterprise and the public good. RapidEye, for example, is a commercial Earth observation mission financed by public and commercial partners as well as banks. System design decisions are based on meeting business plan requirements, and have resulted in a highly cost effective and very capable constellation of satellites. The system is capable of delivering the information service to customers reliably and in the timeframe they require. MDA is a vertically integrated information company developing missions with an eye to itself as the customer. For example, Cascade is an MDA company established to provide bulk delivery of data via space. A technology demonstrator will fly as part of the Canadian CASSIOPE mission. Production satellites will be low-cost, quick to build, and launched in response to commercial demand for the service. Increasing the value proposition relies on finding ways to dramatically reduce the cost of operational missions, across their entire lifecycle. On a proposed small satellite hyperspectral-imaging mission, MDA used a highly collaborative cost reduction process that resulted in a 25% reduction in mission cost and only 15% change in system performance. As these examples show, MDA is charting a course from traditional, large and complex missions to rapid, low-cost operational missions in a number of diverse application domains, including Earth observation and satellite communications. In all these domains, MDA has the same objective – to drive down the cost and time to launch of operational space missions. We are demonstrating with today’s programs the ability to halve the development cost with very little impact on operational performance, thereby increasing the value proposition of operational space missions. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-1003: On-Demand Science Missions | |
| John J. Webb, Jr. (Instarsat) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Over the last four decades, robotic space explorers have yielded a wealth of scientific discoveries about our solar system and its origins. However, the resources required to design, develop, launch, and operate such missions is enormous. The highly prohibitive nature of established design practices and long development cycles significantly precludes responsive science investigations. Historically, robotic science missions flown in the last forty years have been highly limited in scope and capability. This paper briefly reviews the current practices in use for developing science missions, including; mission design, spacecraft design, and cost estimating. In contrast, today’s science missions must be more responsive to changing circumstances. The advances in space related technologies make ondemand science missions even more relevant and desirable. The spacecraft capabilities, capacity, and cost effectiveness are essential deterministic factors enabling successful on-demand science missions. This paper will focus on defining these factors within the context of a responsive space system. This paper discusses the emergence of new space-related technologies that will accelerate the development of on-demand science missions. This discussion includes an overview of current advances in materials, communications, propulsion, and onboard autonomous systems that can play a critical role in the successful design, development, and operation of on-demand science missions. Finally, this paper discusses an on-demand science mission life cycle scenario. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-2002: Interim Results from NSSO Responsive Space Operations Architecture Development | |
| Patrick Frakes (NSSO) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Some measure of responsiveness is likely to emerge as a significant new requirement for our nation’s future space capabilities. The DoD Executive Agent for Space directed the National Security Space Office (NSSO) to develop a Responsive Space Operations (RSO) Architecture to give the senior Intelligence Community and Department of Defense leadership an integrated picture of missions, needs, required capabilities, and current shortfalls associated with responsive space capabilities. In FY04, the Architecture and Engineering Group of the NSSO began development of the RSO Architecture. The Terms of Reference (TOR) was approved and the architecture development team began the process to identify approaches to achieve the long-term (adaptability), mid-term (flexibility), and short-term responsiveness (agility) attributes that space capabilities will need in order to respond to dynamic world environments, national priorities, and operational requirements. NSSO expects the architecture development to be completed in late 2005, but presents an interim “work-in-progress” report, including a discussion of capability needs, applicable technologies, potential architecture concepts, and analytical approaches as the study proceeds into the concept development and analysis phases. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS4-2006-1003: National Security Space Office Responsive Space Operation Architecture - Final Report Presentation | |
| Ed Kneller (US Navy) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The National Security Space (NSS) Enterprise is facing a significant transformation as it moves from a Cold War posture to one capable of maintaining pre-eminence in a new environment of rapidly changing and unpredictable threats. Concurrent with this strategic transformation, the Partnership between the U.S. Government and the Industrial Base is increasingly challenged in its effort to deliver cost effective NSS systems. The NSSO Responsive Space Operations Architecture views Responsiveness as a critical attribute throughout the NSS Enterprise that must be greatly improved in order to surmount these challenges. The RSO Architecture Study assessed responsiveness across representative sectors of the enterprise and will recommend a set of capabilities for layered responsiveness as well as implementation vectors to effect the transformation. These capabilities can be broadly categorized into a First Response capability from pre-deployed systems; a Call-Up Response capability for the deployment of space, terrestrial and atmospheric systems; and a Government/Industrial Base Response to rapidly adapt to new strategic requirements and technological advances. | |
| | |
| 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 RS4-2006-2005: Responsive Range Operations | |
| David Seo (Lockheed Martin) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: While Operationally Responsive Space requires responsive launch vehicles and responsive payloads, it also requires responsive launch ranges. Several functions, including planning, scheduling, range safety (ground safety, flight safety analysis, flight safety), and range configuration must be accomplished quickly if a launch range is to be responsive. After taking a high-level look at each of these launch range functions and describing how they could be made more responsive, this paper addresses, in much greater detail, launch range configuration. It identifies the many elements of a range that must be configured and the timelines required to meet Operationally Responsive Space objectives. This paper then discusses techniques and processes for accomplishing range configuration within the required timelines. To provide additional support for the conclusions drawn in this paper, examples are provided where these techniques and processes have been used successfully in similar applications. This paper concludes with a look at the pros and cons of standing up a new, responsive launch range versus making an existing range more responsive. | |
| | |
| 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. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-1003: ORS Mission Utility and Measures of Effectiveness | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: One of the current elements of the ongoing Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) debate is whether and to what extent Responsive Space systems have sufficient utility to warrant the funding required to implement them. Traditionally, Measures of Effectives (MoEs) or Figures of Merit (FoMs) have been used to quantify the performance, which can then be compared to the cost of implementation. There have been some initial attempts to do this for ORS with both confusing and misleading results. This paper briefly summarizes the traditional space system mission utility analysis process in order to establish a framework for ORS utility analysis. We then define both general and specific ORS MoEs in the following broad categories: • Cost • Responsiveness • Performance • Risk • Flexibility • Mission Goals These are adjusted somewhat with respect to the traditional utility categories of performance, cost, risk, and schedule to reflect the fact that ORS missions are not duplicative of traditional missions, but complementary to them. For each category we define multiple ORS-relevant MoEs that measure performance in that area. We then use a representative ORS mission (responsive surveillance) to quantify the MoEs relevant to that mission. The goals of the paper are to provide a broad framework in which the utility of multiple ORS missions can be quantified, specific definitions of many of the relevant MoEs, and several specific examples of quantifying these MoEs to allow us to undertake a realistic, quantitative mission utility assessment of ORS cost vs. performance. ORS mission utility is particularly challenging in part because traditional missions have a constant, long-term purpose (e.g., provide 0.25-m resolution images of any point on the Earth’s surface within 48 hours), whereas ORS missions, by their very nature, are intended to respond to dynamic world events (e.g., provide appropriate coverage of hurricane Katrina or the recent flare-up in Kenya), and utility measures are inherently more challenging. Nonetheless, demonstrating and quantifying mission utility is key to funding ORS missions in an environment of severely constrained budgets and is critical to the future success of ORS. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-1004: Distinguishing Attributes for the Operationally Responsive Space Paradigm | |
| Lauren Viscito (MIT), Matthew G. Richards (MIT), Adam M. Ross (MIT), Daniel E. Hastings (MIT) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The value-centric perspective of responsive space places emphasis on meeting the needs of stakeholders in a timely and effective manner. While ongoing technology developments for spacecraft standardization and rapid launch as well as efforts to develop enabling concepts of operations, tactics, and procedures support the advancement of an operationally-responsive paradigm, little work has been completed to evaluate responsive architectures using value-based design methods. Attributes, decision maker-perceived metrics that measure how well a decision maker-defined objective is met, differ significantly between Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) and traditional “big space” paradigms. To address this gap and to draw explicit distinctions between ORS and “big space,” the attributes for both approaches are enumerated as a function of U.S. Air Force space mission areas. Five mission areas are evaluated in the analysis: (1) Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, (2) Position, Navigation, and Timing, (3) Communications, (4) Environmental Sensing, and (5) Missile Warning. The underlying methodology employed in this research is Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration (MATE), a conceptual design methodology that applies decision theory to model and simulation-based design. Decoupling the design from the need through tradespace exploration, MATE is both a solution-generating as well as a decision-making framework. The focus in this paper is on the front-end of the MATE process—eliciting preferences from system stakeholders, including decision makers that have significant influence over the allocation of resources in a development effort. These preferences are captured in multi-attribute utility functions. As a proxy for Air Force decision makers across mission areas, utility interviews were conducted with senior Air Force acquisition officers with decades of experience in national security space. In order to identify mission areas where a responsive architecture is more valuable, several steps are required. First, each of five Air Force mission areas is evaluated on the basis of several attributes, which vary between strategic and tactical applications. These attributes define the traditional measures of effectiveness for a given mission area. Second, ORS-specific attributes are elicited. The ORS paradigm has its own set of attributes, including timeliness, tactical control, and functional customization. These responsive attributes are proposed to be in a common set, existing across all of the mission areas. Third, comparison of traditional attributes sets are made to a joint set of traditional and responsive attributes, highlighting possible tensions and complements. Fourth, the impact of adding the responsive set to the overall design space is analyzed. Fifth, the paper discusses future work on using combined traditional and responsive attribute sets in dynamic tradespace analyses, enabling comparative evaluation of both ORS and “big space” architectures. The end goal of the research is to identify mission areas and operational contexts where either traditional space or ORS architectures are the most valuable to decision makers. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-2001: Rapidly Deployable Space Capabilities-Based Assessment — Approach and Status | |
| Maj. Ryan Pendleton (United States Air Force) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: At the request of the ORS Office and USSTRATCOM a capabilities-based assessment (CBA) is currently being conducted to define the requirements for Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) systems. This CBA, entitled the Rapidly Deployable Space CBA (RDS CBA), is being performed by a joint and interagency team led by AFSPC/A5V. It is designed to define key requirements for augmentation or reconstitution of "good enough to win" capabilities in the areas of space based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), space situational awareness (SSA), and satellite communications (SATCOM). In general, a CBA seeks to use the Dodd Joint Capabilities Integration Development System (JCIDS) to formally identify requirements and evaluation criteria for acquisition programs. The goal is to identify operational tasks, conditions and standards needed to accomplish objectives; assess the ability of current and programmed capabilities to accomplish the tasks identified (resulting in a list of capability gaps); and evaluate solutions from an operational perspective across the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities (DOTMLPF) spectrum. This paper will provide an update on the status of the scope and results of the RDS CBA. | |
| |