|
|
Home Author Templates Call for Papers Technical Program Registration Sponsor/Exhibit Committee Contact Search |
|
Reinventing Space: Design of Low-Cost Space Missions Course |
|
||||||||
Large.jpg){kind=logo}
Past Conference Papers:
Overview/General
| Paper Number RS1-2003-1004: Heritage Schmeritage or, How to Get to Responsive Space in the Near Term and Away from Heritage Based Systems | |
| Chris McCormick | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Old techniques, old regulations, and old designs – Heritage - cannot fundamentally change from a mostly art business (sometimes Responsive in capabilities, non-responsive to cost and schedule) to an assembly line business which is responsive in cost and schedule, and still be hopefully configurable for ‘responsive requirements’. We try to mold ourselves away from the art business, to creating new space missions systems out of the heritage components and spacecraft. This is not optimal, nor is it practical. | |
| | |
| 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 RS1-2003-3001: Microsatellite Deployment On Demand | |
| Michael Hurley (NRL), Joe Hauser (NRL), Timothy Duffey (NRL) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper discusses the technical, operational, and architectural issues that must be addressed to develop a tactical, launch on demand microsatellite capability. The new paradigm of threats to national security requires the U.S. to focus on a dispersed and often asymmetric threat. This portends military engagement in possibly many small unconventional conflicts around the globe. Meeting the space-based demand for sensors and communications for this new style of warfare requires an agile response, with launch on demand tactical satellites that can be matched to each conflict’s unique needs. Having small, robust payloads literally “off the shelf” and an agile, on demand launch capability would solve this problem. Today’s microsatellites, in the sub 100 kg class, are poised to perform useful tactical missions in the near future. Tactical microsatellites, “TacSats”, offer a best-of-both-worlds combination of characteristics: the low-cost, tailored payloads and on-demand responsiveness of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); along with global access to denied areas, broad coverage, non-vulnerability, and long duration characteristics of traditional satellites. To recognize these benefits, a TacSat system must also include an alternative launch vehicle/process, highly automated and capable satellites, and tasking and data distribution directly by/to the forces. Each of these system features is under development. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), U.S. Air Force, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Navy, and industry are actively working to lower launch costs and increase timeliness. Current microsatellite and payload technologies are being developed to provide the necessary automation and capability with a 100 kg target mass. Finally, the combination of direct downlink and the use of the government’s global classified network, SIPRNET, will allow tasking and data distribution directly to the forces. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-A002: NSSA Perspectives | |
| Stephen Ferrell (NSSO) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-A003: National Aerospace Initiative | |
| Paul F. Piscopo (National Aerospace Initiative) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-A004: A View of NASA's Needs For Operationally Responsive Space Capabilities | |
| Robert L. Sacheim (MSFC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS1-2003-A005: Welcome to the First Responsive Space Conference | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-2002: A Novel Approach to Responsive Space: Lessons Learned by the DoD Space Test Program | |
| Sabrina Herrin (The Aerospace Corporation), Eleni Sims (The Aerospace Corporation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper explores four Department of Defense (DoD) Space Test Program (STP) missions and identifies lessons learned in successfully achieving responsive space flight. Case studies included are NanoSat-2, Kodiak Star, MISSE 5, and SPHERES. In creating a responsive space mission, often the focus is on getting a space vehicle built and a launch vehicle procured as quickly as possible to get from a conceptual design to data from space in the least amount of time. As STP has found, there are effective responsive space techniques that may be better suited to a mission than merely building and buying components faster. The examination of the four case studies leads to several conclusions: 1) be open to a change in plans and to solutions that have never been attempted, 2) networking will create more opportunities, 3) if one wants to do something quickly, commit wholeheartedly and apply enough resources to make the project work, 4) risks and how to mitigate them should be identified in the beginning of a program, 5) prior to “starting from scratch,” investigate the utilization of existing resources and designs, 6) be prepared to take advantage of opportunities when they come along, and 7) making a project scalable, so that objectives can be accomplished piecemeal, will increase the number of manifest options. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-2001: Transforming National Security Space Payloads | |
| T. Ryan Space (Directorate of Development and Transformation), Vincent Deno (Directorate of Development and Transformation), Edward Jones (Directorate of Development and Transformation) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper describes the benefits of and rationale for the current transformational trend in the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide direct tactical support to warfighters through development, acquisition, and operation of responsive space payloads. Of special near-term significance are efforts focusing on smalland micro-satellites and their close collaboration with responsive launch development programs, such as the Responsive Access, Small Cargo, Affordable Launch (RASCAL) and Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON) programs. The Air Force has formalized a Tactical Satellite (TacSat) program, originally initiated by Vice Admiral (retired) Arthur Cebrowski of the Office of Force Transformation (OFT), to invigorate concept exploration of and experimentation with responsive, tactically focused systems. | |
| | |
| 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 RS2-2004-2006: EyasSAT™: Creating a Progressive Space Workforce - Today | |
| Obadiah NG Ritchey (USAFA), David J. Barnhart (USAFA), Jerry J. Sellers (USAFA), Jim W. White (USAFA), John B. Clark (USAFA) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Department of Astronautics at the United States Air Force Academy has transformed the way spacecraft systems engineering is taught, but more importantly, the way it is experienced by the students. The development is called EyasSAT™—a miniaturized, fully-functional satellite model that is “flown” in the classroom. EyasSAT literally means “baby FalconSAT”, where FalconSAT is the name of the flagship program at USAFA where students work as a team their senior year to design, build, launch, or operate a real satellite performing DoD science. To prepare for this interdisciplinary experience students take the prerequisite course titled “Spacecraft Systems Engineering”. Students in this course work in small teams to build up an EyasSAT unit, subsystem by subsystem, after the design issues are covered in the classroom. This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The premise is simple: EyasSAT is composed of intelligent, stand-alone hardware modules built with COTS components that are integrated through a flexible data and power bus. Instead of designing and building each subsystem in detail, EyasSAT allows students the opportunity to perform acceptance and verification testing on the hardware as they learn about each subsystem in the classroom. This matches the spirit of the course which is to broadly cover all spacecraft system and subsystem level issues and not to cover one subsystem in great detail. After each subsystem is characterized in the lab, it is stacked up in an integrated fashion, ultimately producing a picosatellite-sized fully-operational system by the end of the semester. Telemetry and data commands are accomplished through any telephony device that supports the terminal standard. EyasSAT also can be easily expanded through additional modules to support teaching or commercial objectives. AIAA 2nd Responsive Space Conference 2004 1 The EyasSAT concept exemplifies the idea of ‘progressive space’: education is the foundation for future space practice. By leveraging a new way of educating space professionals, a new breed of progressive thought is created—one that is open to new ideas, faster project turn-around, and betterversed, total-systems-based, engineering. This paper outlines the objectives and the requirements for the concept, as well as assembly, integration and testing requirements to quantify the system. System characterization is likewise covered. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-3002: Modular, Reconfigurable, and Rapid Responsive Space Systems: the Remote Sensing Advanced Technology Microsatellite | |
| Jamie Esper (GSFC), Jim Andary (GSFC), John Oberright (GSFC), Maria So (GSFC), Peter Wegener (AFRL), Alok Das (AFRL), Joe Hauser (NRL) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Modular, Reconfigurable, and Rapid-response (MR2) space systems represent a paradigm shift in the way space assets of all sizes are designed, manufactured, integrated, tested, and flown. This paper will describe the MR2 paradigm in detail, and will include guidelines for its implementation. The Remote Sensing Advanced Technology microsatellite (RSAT) is a proposed flight system test-bed used for developing and implementing principles and best practices for MR2 spacecraft, and their supporting infrastructure. The initial goal of this test-bed application is to produce a lightweight (~100 kg), production-minded, cost-effective, and scalable remote sensing micro-satellite capable of high performance and broad applicability. Such applications range from future distributed space systems, to sensor-webs, and rapid-response satellite systems. Architectures will be explored that strike a balance between modularity and integration while preserving the MR2 paradigm. Modularity versus integration has always been a point of contention when approaching a design: whereas one-of-a-kind missions may require close integration resulting in performance optimization, multiple and flexible application spacecraft benefit from modularity, resulting in maximum flexibility. The process of building spacecraft rapidly (< 7 days), requires a concerted and methodical look at system integration and test processes and pitfalls. Although the concept of modularity is not new and was first developed in the 1970s by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center (Multi-Mission Modular Spacecraft), it was never modernized and was eventually abandoned. Such concepts as the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) became the preferred method for acquiring satellites. Notwithstanding, over the past 30 years technology has advanced considerably, and the time is ripe to reconsider modularity in its own right, as enabler of R2, and as a key element of transformational systems. The MR2 architecture provides a competitive advantage over the old modular approach in its rapid response to market needs that are difficult to predict both from the perspectives of evolving technology, as well as mission and application requirements. | |
| | |
| 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 RS2-2004-5003: TacSat-1 and a Path to Tactical Space | |
| Jay Raymond (Office of Force Transformation), Greg Glaros (Office of Force Transformation), Joe Hauser (NRL), Mike Hurley (NRL) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: In May of 2003, the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Office of Force Transformation undertook an initiative to perform Operationally Responsive Space experimentation. One year later the first experiment, TacSat-1, is nearing launch readiness and a second experiment, TacSat-2, is well into the design phase. The Naval Research Lab is the program manager responsible for the implementation of the TacSat-1 experiment. This paper discusses the TacSat-1 experiment, rationale, and status. This paper further discusses a path toward realizing an operational tactical space system. For completeness, much of the 2003 paper’s discussion on the technical, operational, and architectural issues for a tactical space capability is included. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-5006: Lessons Learned From A Rapid Response Payload Development | |
| G. Murphy (Design_Net Engineering), T. Adams (Design_Net Engineering), K. Stewart (Design_Net Engineering) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Responsive Space requires Responsive Payloads! This paper tells the story of just such a payload and examines the lessons that were learned from that development. Starting with the Space Shuttle flight 4A (Nov. 30, 2000), the International Space Station (ISS) power system employed large, high voltage, solar arrays with the negative ground tied to chassis. An intense study by a NASA sponsored Tiger Team in the early ‘90s determined that this configuration leads to the structure being at a high negative potential relative to the local plasma (approximately 140V negative without any intervention) and, that at any potential greater than around 70V negative, the anodized aluminum structure and its components will undergo destructive arcing. A set of plasma contactor units (PCUs) were deployed to provide a conductive xenon plasma path for remitting electrons collected by the arrays and thus bring the potential closer to zero and mitigate the arcing danger. In late July 2000, the ISS program office at JSC issued an engineering change notice that directed the development of some means to independently assess the performance of the PCU’s, and to have hardware available for launch on STS-97 (ISS Flight 4A) the very mission scheduled to deliver and install the first set of large Station solar arrays on November 30th. This was needed to meet safety requirements for EVA. Such a schedule allowed only 4.5 months to design, build, test, manifest, complete EVA training, and deliver for launch. This set the stage for one of the most rapid payload developments since the early days of NASA. NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC), NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC), and Design_Net Engineering (DNet) formed a unique team to try to accomplish the directive. The subject of this paper is to describe the Floating Potential Probe (FPP) and the fast-track program approach used to quickly develop this autonomous system for measuring the electrical potential between the ISS and the surrounding space plasma. At the time, most people involved with the Floating Potential Probe (FPP) project believed that there was less than a 10% chance of successfully making it onboard Flight 4A and an even lesser chance that it would work. Although there are aspects of this program unique to ISS, many of the lessons learned are being applied by DNet to rapid response payloads for ELVs. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-6004: Department of Defense R&D Responsive Spaceflight | |
| Taylor Locker (SMC), Major Timothy Sumrall (SMC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper will discuss a new strategy for repeatable launching of Space Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) missions in 12-18 months versus 48 months using mechanisms that are in place today. DoD research and development (R&D) Responsive Space (RRS) is targeting a new way of doing business by creating a standard –service provider relationship. This new standard relationship will be forged through an alliance of government organizations. This alliance of government organizations must commit resources (manning and funding) to meet the timelines established for RRS. This paper will also discuss four RRS scenarios. These are dedicated launch vehicle (LV) (build spacecraft), dedicated LV (spacecraft bought), piggyback on host spacecraft or LV, and secondary satellite deployed form LV. These scenario’s will explore the technical envelope, barriers, considerations, and schedule realities of RRS. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A001: Future of Operationally Responsive Space | |
| Robert S. Dickman (Office of the Under Secretary of the Air Force) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A002: Responsive Space…? | |
| Martin Sweeting (Surrey Space Centre) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A003: Welcome to RS2 | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A004: RS2 Wrap-Up | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A005: Needs and Requirements Panel | |
| Alok Das (AFRL) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A006: NASA Requirements & Needs and their Relationship to Responsive Space | |
| Jaime Esper (GSFC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A009: Needs and Requirements Panel | |
| Todd Mosher (USU) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A010: Responsive Space Conference Space Needs Panel Session | |
| Tim Thompson (Space Command) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A011: Industry Perspective (from a Spacecraft Guy) | |
| Tom Wilson Sr. (Swales Aerospace) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A012: A New Vision for Operational Responsive Space | |
| Livingston Holder (Andrews Space) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A018: Falcon | |
| Shyama Chakroborty (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A019: Responsive Space Requires Responsive Manufacturing | |
| Todd Mosher (USU), Brent Stucker (USU) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A020: A Conformally-Mounted SatCom Antenna System To Support Stars Phase-2 Testing | |
| Cooke (EMS Technologies) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A024: Almost There: Responsive Space | |
| Grant Williams (SpaceDev) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS2-2004-A028: The Second Foundation: Responsive Space | |
| Brian A. Arnold (SMC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| 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 RS3-2005-2001: Coverage, Responsiveness, and Accessibility for Various "Responsive Orbits" | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: We have evaluated 5 potential Responsive Orbits with the following conclusions with respect to coverage, responsiveness, payload to orbit for a small launch vehicle, and missions that they would be best suited for: • Cobra Orbits provide up to 4 hours of continuous access per day, 10 hours mean response time, low payload mass to orbit, very poor optical resolution, and are best used for communications. • Magic Orbits provide up to 1 hour of continuous access per day, 12 hours mean response time, low to moderate payload mass to orbit, poor optical resolution, and are also best for communications. • LEO Sun Synchronous Orbits provide 5 minutes of coverage once or twice per day, 6 hour mean response time, moderate payload mass to orbit, excellent optical resolution, and are best suited for visual or radar observations. • LEO Fast Access Orbits provide 5 minutes of coverage once or twice per day, 45 minute mean response time, moderate to high payload mass to orbit, excellent optical resolution, and are best suited for highly responsive visual or radar observations. • LEO Repeat Coverage Orbits provide 5 minutes of coverage every 90 minutes for 4 or 5 times in a row, 9 hour mean response time, high payload mass to orbit, excellent optical resolution, and are best suited for repeated visual or radar observations. Responsive orbits have the potential to provide means for communications and high-resolution surveillance anywhere in the world within hours of an identified demand. Collectively, these orbits provide excellent opportunities for transforming space from a strategic to a tactical asset and for doing missions that cannot now be done. Coupled with the launch vehicles being developed under the AF/DARPA/NASA FALCON program and emerging smallsat technology, there is excellent potential for new, low-cost missions that can transform the way space is used. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-2004: Small-Satellite Surveillance Missions Providing Unique Military Capabilities | |
| Stuart Eves (SSTL) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Over the past few years, there has been a growing realisation that small satellite platforms can provide militarily useful levels of capability. But how much of the military requirement can currently be met by small satellites, and how much will be achievable in the future? As military planners weigh up the appropriate levels of investment in both small and large satellites, a robust examination of the requirements is required to identify those areas where small satellites provide unique capabilities that larger satellites cannot offer. For surveillance systems, factors that need to be addressed include metrics related to individual sensor performance, such as spatial resolution; spectral resolution; radiometric resolution; signal to noise ratio; bandwidth; and polarisation. A further set of relevant factors includes system level drivers, such as end-to-end timeliness; the frequency and duration of the coverage provided; the coverage area that must be surveyed; and the geo-location accuracy. Specifications for all of these parameters will depend to a significant extent on the nature of the surveillance targets, their relative importance or priority, and the overall frequency with which such targets might be encountered over the surveillance system lifetime. And then there are less quantifiable military drivers, including national control; robustness; availability; sensor synergy and stealth. This paper will discuss the extent to which small satellites can address the above design constraints today, (bearing in mind that large satellite systems already deliver a significant proportion of the required performance envelope). It will also describe those lines of technology development that will allow small satellites to satisfy more of the military requirement in the future, and thus predict where the future balance of investment choices will be made. The paper will conclude with a description of a military small-satellite constellation designed to address the principal military drivers of the near future – a specific solution that addresses the many competing drivers on the system design. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-2005: Operational Responsive, Persistent Space Systems | |
| Terrance A. Weisshaar (DARPA), Ivan Bekey (Bekey Designs) | |
| View/Download:Paper | |
| Abstract: A new paradigm for operationally responsive space system development is discussed, together with four examples of these types of systems. The current approach to responsive space systems and future systems with multiple roles operating in hostile environments is unlikely to meet future needs. In particular, small satellites with specialized missions and larger monolithic satellites are important, but very limited, means of achieving affordable responsiveness to unforeseen threats or desired flexibility. The new paradigm of reconfigurable/morphing systems includes modular techniques that exploit new technologies and can be developed quickly, taking advantage of spiral development processes, and also adapt semiautonomously to new requirements, saving serial development time and cost. Among the features that drive reconfigurable systems are greater degrees of self-awareness of the system and surrounding environment, together with autonomous features not seen today. Equally important is the ability to operate a multi-module system as a single connected unit or as a set of separated units that can exchange information, power and propellants when required to perform alternate missions. These systems will appear in the next decade if the special technologies required for their development and operation are matured beyond current embryonic stages. Some principal technologies required are identified and discussed. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-3002: KUTESAT-2, A Student Nanosatellite Mission for Testing Rapid-Response Small Satellite Technologies in Low Earth Orbit | |
| Trevor Sorenson (University of Kansas), Glenn Prescott (University of Kansas), Marco Villa (University of Kansas), Dewayne Brown (National Nuclear Security Administration), John Hicks (National Nuclear Security Administration), Arthur Edwards (AFRL), James Lyke (AFRL), Thomas George (JPL), Sohrab Mobasser (JPL), JPL (JPL), Scott Tyson (Space Microsystems) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) is interested in using nanosats to perform space experiments, demonstrate new technology, develop operational systems, and integrate advanced responsive space system technology. One potential operational application of nanosats is using clusters of microsatellites that operate cooperatively to perform the function of a larger, single satellite. Each smaller satellite communicates with the others and shares the processing, communications, and payload or mission functions. This type of a distributed system has several advantages: (1) systemlevel robustness and graceful degradation, and (2) distributed capabilities for surveillance and science measurements built into the system architecture. There are a number of technology advancements needed to operationalize and enable tactical missions. These advancements include modular ‘plug-n-play’ satellite architectures and components; high performance tactical downlinks; adaptable, agile propulsion systems, and lean manufacturing, assembly and test. The Kansas Universities’ Technology Evaluation Satellite (KUTESat) program originated at the University of Kansas (KU) in 2002. The technical objective of the program is the development and operation of miniature satellites that can demonstrate and test technologies and techniques necessary to accomplish various government missions. The first satellite, KUTESat-1 Pathfinder, was designed to perform imaging and measure radiation from orbit. The design and construction of this 1-kg satellite helped KU to develop the capability to produce and operate small research satellites. Pathfinder is due for launch in mid-2005. Nanosats are a rapid and low-cost technology platform for the space testing of a broad range of micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) and nanotechnologies as well as new mission architectures. The KUTESat program offers a low-cost solution to the problem of acquiring “space heritage” for new technologies and concepts. These programs can undertake higher risk missions that would be otherwise avoided by more conservative mission planners. Thus new MEMS and nanotechnologies related to avionics, guidance and control, communications, imaging, maneuvering, and instrumentation are offered a rapid and low-cost approach to space testing that will help realize a rapid response space force. The objective of the current program is to develop and fly a nanosatellite to test components, technologies, and concepts that are of use to the AFRL, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), while providing a valuable contribution to the education of students who will soon be entering the space workforce. KU is leading a team consisting of the NNSA Kansas City Plant, the AFRL, and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to design and execute the KUTESat-2 mission using a 16-kg nanosatellite based on the Pathfinder satellite with much commonality in the avionics and ground system. The major technologies to be tested include: a miniature distributed and adaptive S-band transceiver; a miniature maneuvering control system; standardized interface (“plug and play”) electronic modules; various MEMS technologies, including a single-axis MEMS gyroscope; a micro sun sensor; an array of miniature dosimeters; and a miniature imager. New capabilities to be tested include a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) communication demonstration with the Sband transceiver, and demonstration of target inspection capability using a deployed inflated target. The KUTESat-2 will be prepared for a launch in 2007. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-4007: Responsive Space Center of Excellence | |
| John E. Hicks (National Nuclear Security Administration) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The objective of a Responsive Space Center of Excellence is to provide a conduit to rapidly design, build, test and field an operationally relevant microsatellite system; reduce timeliness for development, test, launch, checkout; and provide a responsive capability to the Joint Force Commander within 7-days. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is well postured to develop and manage a Responsive Space Center of Excellence to deliver low cost satellite components and systems for Responsive Space through the application of lean manufacturing, Six Sigma tools and other business management process tools. The objective of this paper is to illustrate that the above mentioned business processes are a must for the success of Responsive Space to provide the Joint Force Commander microsatellite support in 7-days. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-1002: Clustered Architecture for Responsive Space | |
| Gregory A. Orndorff (Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory), Buruce F. Zink (Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory), John D. Cosby (Science Applications International) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: The tenets of operationally responsive space need to be addressed and implemented systematically, in a supportive and enabling framework. We discuss a proposed satellite architecture consisting of multiple clusters of satellites in geosynchronous orbit, providing standard communications and propulsion services to client satellites flying within the clusters. This allows the offloading of propellant and mission communications and the use of the cluster’s services as a utility, enabling smaller, lighter, cheaper mission satellites. We show how offloading mission communications from satellites in favor of a high-speed wireless local area network in space enables efficient use of both space and ground communications capabilities. We show how enabling operators to utilize communications and delta-V as commodities enables highly responsive operations, on the order of days for major satellite constellation reconfigurations, and how these services themselves form the foundation of truly responsive space operations. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A001: 2005 Responsive Space Conference | |
| (Team Air Launch) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A004: Revolutionizing Access to Space | |
| (SpaceX) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A007: Responsive | |
| Klock | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A012: Responsive Space: Applications and Implications for NASA | |
| (KSC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A014: Space Systems Company | |
| (Todd Swank), Lockheed Martin | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A017: Brief of the 2005 Responsive Space Conference | |
| Pete Rustan (Advanced Systems and Technology) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A018: The Road to Responsive Space | |
| Brian Arnold (SMC) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A019: Welcome to RS3 | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS3-2005-A020: RS3 Wrap-Up | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| 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 RS5-2007-A002: Operationally Responsive Space: Implementing the Way Ahead | |
| Joseph Rouge (National Security Space Office) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-A003: ORS Office Update | |
| Operationally Responsive Space Way Ahead Panel | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-A004: Welcome to RS5 | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS5-2007-A005: RS5 Wrap-up | |
| James R. Wertz (Microcosm) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | |
| | |
| 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 RS6-2008-2004: Rapid Deployment of Proof-of-Concept Missions | |
| Jeffrey S. Cain (COM DEV Ltd.), Franz Newland (COM DEV Ltd.), F. Pranajaya (University of Toronto), R. Zee (University of Toronto) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: COM DEV Ltd. has recently completed two programs that made use of highly responsive space solutions to provide proof-of-concept data for an on¬going project dealing with the reception of Automatic Identification of Ships (AIS) signals from space. The first program, QuickAIS, was designed to fly a simple payload – essentially equivalent to a commercial-grade AIS receiver – with the purpose of determining what signals could be collected using existing, standard technology: a relatively simple question. This mission was based on the Rubin platform, with the payload connected directly to the upper stage of a Dnepr launcher. The launcher had been augmented to provide power and space-ground communications through the Orbcomm network. The mission payload was developed within 60 days, was launched in November 2007 and is currently in operation. The second program, Nanosatellite Tracking of Ships (NTS) was developed to answer a number of precise questions regarding the AIS signal environment from space. This mission, based on the UTIAS CanX2 bus, has been designed, developed and readied for flight in less than 6 months. The two missions varied in complexity and involved rapid development of payloads that met the mission objectives. The QuickAIS program was accomplished using a combination of modifying existing COTS products for flight and the addition of limited new RF components. The payload development for the NTS program was more comprehensive and involved the development of a new design using some of the components developed during QuickAIS and an entirely new digital back-end. The experiences gained by the COM DEV team and its partners while implementing these missions are elaborated upon in this paper. These cover the whole project lifecycle, from mission concept definition through delivery for launch. Both programs showed that it is possible to develop very reactive mission solutions to answer precise questions. This nonethe¬less depends on a number of prerequisites, such as a solid understanding of the mission objectives and a real-time interpretation of how they will be impacted by design decisions taken during the procurement phase. It is also imperative to start from an existing platform and/or payload design that meet the majority of the mission requirements, and have key hardware available at kick-off. The COM DEV team, starting from a hard contractual date for launch delivery, performed a number of innovative design trades, including difficult compromises on system performance whilst still meet¬ing mission objectives. This included accepting higher levels of risk, for example by using processes and parts with no flight heritage, where part alternatives based on supply availability were chosen in order to meet de¬velopment schedules. Testing was also reduced to address elements needed for mission data interpretation, or that could be fixed in the time available. These and other key elements that led to the successful execution of these programs are presented and explored in this paper. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS6-2008-4005: Spacecraft Functional Sensitivity Study | |
| Tim Havard (Advatech Pacific, Inc.), Mark Sutton (Advatech, Inc.), Deganit Armon (Advatech, Inc.), Jerry Sellers (Rocket Science Solutions, Inc.) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: This paper describes the results of a spacecraft functionality study aimed at quantifying the effects of subsystem-by-subsystem mass and power reductions. To guide future investments in space vehicle research, Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. commissioned a study to analyze the impact, at the system-level, of breakthrough technology advances at the subsystem-level. The overall goal was to determine the best path for achieving an overall reduction size, weight and power of responsive-space class satellites over current state-of-the-art. To this end, engineers at Advatech Pacific, Inc. applied detailed spacecraft system modeling tools to assess the effects of reducing the mass and power of each subsystem and on the overall system mass and power. These effects were analyzed using real-world data on two current AFRL tactical satellites. Results indicate that most system mass/power reduction effects follow logically from the allocated percentage of mass/power for each subsystem. Furthermore, as payload is typically a large percentage of system mass and power, breakthroughs in payload technology could achieve large bus and overall spacecraft mass and power reductions. However, significant reduction in overall system SWAP could only be achieved by reducing the mass/power of more than one subsystem/payload simultaneously. However, to best leverage these potential technology advances, and guide the selection of new ones, rigorous systems engineering should focus on cross-subsystem functionality. | |
| | |
| Paper Number RS7-2009-2004: Implementation Challenges and Strategies for Responsive Space Architectures | |
| Matthew G. Richards (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Zoe Szajnfarber (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Annalisa L. Weigel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) | |
| View/Download:Presentation | Paper | |
| Abstract: Current space acquisition programs are characterized by long-development cycles, cost overruns, and changing requirements. In an effort to match the time constants associated with space system development to the needs of users, operationally responsive space (ORS) architectures have been proposed. ORS missions envision pursuing short-term space capabilities tailored for emergent needs of Joint Combatant Commanders. Although ORS solutions may sacrifice performance on traditional measures of effectiveness with employment of smaller satellites and commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, ORS offers large potential improvements in matching the pace of change in user requirements with the timeliness of obtaining new capability on-orbit. While the purported benefits of ORS are well-documented in the literature, and technology development programs are already underway, there are several non-technical challenges that must be addressed as well. These challenges include aligning the economic incentives of stakeholders, integrating ORS into the current acquisition process, overcoming political inertia associated with legacy approaches, and ensuring that ORS capabilities complement existing architectures. Therefore, it is imperative that ORS development efforts take into account the full-spectrum of challenges. Based upon this framework of technical, economic, managerial, political, and architectural challenges, implementation strategies for ORS are developed. These strategies are illustrated using an example of fractionated spacecraft, which represents one potential architecture for achieving operationally responsive space. | |
| |